Common People

Winners and Losers in Christopher Luxon's New Zealand.

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why

Songwriters: Jarvis Cocker, Russell Senior, Steve Mackey, Nick Banks, Candida Doyle.

---

Under every government, there are winners and losers, those who are supported and others who feel abandoned.

Under a left-wing philosophy, we take a bit more from those who can afford it and assist those who’re struggling. It isn’t about punishing the wealthy, it’s about people doing their part, according to their ability, for a fairer society, where all matter.

The attitude of our coalition is that success should be rewarded, and those who are struggling need to work harder to achieve it. Yes, there's a safety net, but its use is heavily discouraged, and if a few folks fall through, well, that’s on them.

Welcome to Christopher Luxon’s Aotearoa, where the leader says, “Isn’t it great?”, and if it isn’t, it’s not worth talking about.

I thought about the people whom this government has been great for and those who are outside of its focus—the winners and losers, in Luxon’s New Zealand.

Farmers vs underpaid women.

Yesterday morning, I heard a radio advert imploring people to come in and get 20% off their tax bill when purchasing new equipment.

It still blows my mind that this government canned fair pay for women so that people like farmers, at a time when butter is up to $18 a pop, could get 20% off new tractors.

Before the election, National loved saying “Labour hates farmers”, I guess with these priorities, it’s only fair to say “National hates women.”

Which is quite a large constituency, although as Annette pointed out, in addition to women, you can “add Maori, the environment, bottom feeders, and everything or everyone else not aligned with their non-evidence-based 'belief' system.”

Claire shared this image, which seems about right, although I’d argue it needs a bit of yellow…

Consumers vs Supermarket profits.

On Thursday, Luxon said his government would focus this quarter on the “cost of food, housing, banking or energy”

So that’s nice, right?

After more than half a term in government, the party that came to power promising to address the cost of living is finally turning its attention to the matter. Although I’ve got to say I’d feel a lot better if he’d said ‘and’ rather than ‘or’, then it might have sounded like a comprehensive plan rather than a list of things they might get to.

Luxon continued, “That includes the Government’s next steps to promote supermarket competition, ensuring more families have a shot at lower food prices and more choice.”

I was confused by that. If he’s talking “next steps”, what were the first ones?

As far as I’m aware, nothing has changed. What initial steps were taken to ensure families pay lower prices and have more choice? Was it Nicola Willis glaring at them and telling them to do better? The same approach they use with the unemployed?

Nicola Willis. Image: RNZ.

This week, social media has been full of photos of butter for more than $18 a block, and Kiwis have gone “WTF?”.

While it may be a boom time for farmers, much of that cost is added beyond the farm gate by Fonterra and supermarkets, which lack competition.

“Global commodity prices”, they cry, but when I checked Coles over the Tasman this morning, I found:

Converting, that’s about $8 NZ, still exorbitant but cheaper than half a kilo of butter from my local supermarket, and about half the price of some brands.

The same deal applies in the UK, where 500g of butter costs £3.94, which translates to $8.87 NZ.

I’d like to see a breakdown of costs, specifically how much went to the producer, the corporation, and the supermarkets. Let’s see where the problem is, who is being greedy and who is being unfairly maligned.

In my view, it would be unacceptable for a supermarket to add more than, say, $1 for a block of butter. But do you think this government has any intention of taking action against excessive profits?

Yeah right. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

The Working Homeless vs Landlords.

Once upon a time, we had the unemployed, and for them, life was a struggle.

Then we got the “Working Poor”, those in full-time employment, perhaps with multiple people working in a household, who struggled to afford anything much beyond subsistence.

Last night on 1 News, they covered the Working Homeless, those who are working but cannot afford housing.

To do so would require the majority of their income, leaving them with little for anything else and going backwards. It was pretty grim to think of families with young children sleeping in cars or tents in mid-winter without basic amenities. I posted:

The “working homeless”, people in employment for whom housing is unaffordable.

And the government gave $3b to landlords.

Think about that. At a time when housing remains unaffordable to many, our government decided to give landlords a $3 billion tax cut. Imagine what else they could’ve spent the money on.

For example, if they had decided something had to be done, they could have built 10,000 small homes fully connected to amenities, insulated, with heating, all on public land. We don’t want to see trailer parks, but it’s better than people being homeless.

Image: BeFunky.

So, how does the government respond? Mark Mitchell says, “A lot of rough sleepers have got somewhere they can go and sleep, but that's a lifestyle choice they choose to come out onto the street.”

I don’t know, Mark. The people I saw on the news didn’t look like they were camping because they wanted to be, and I think it’s pretty far-fetched to look at a few examples and then make a sweeping generalisation about those sleeping rough.

Baby Safety vs Childcare Profits.

That was all pretty awful, but the story that stuck with me was about David Seymour's proposal to reduce safety standards for babies in childcare. I posted:

“If you thought it was bad enough when David Seymour replaced nutritious meals in schools with garbage, wait until you hear about him being happy to risk the lives of babies to maximise childcare profits. An obvious sociopath should not be involved in regulations for our wee ones.”

Image: NZHerald.

The article notes, “Two weeks ago, the Herald reported that a baby boy had died in his sleep at an Auckland ECE centre, despite being checked every 10 minutes.”

Under Seymour’s proposed rules, sleeping infants would be checked every 15 minutes, rather than the current 10-minute interval. The deputy PM says the current rules are “excessive and confusing” and he wants to reduce “regulatory burdens on centres”, which is simply a euphemism for prioritising profits over safety.

Of babies.

From the article, “Chief adviser of the Office of Early Childhood Education, Dr Sarah Alexander said she is shocked at the proposal and leaving a sleeping infant or a group of sleeping children unattended for 15 minutes is too long.”

I was disgusted when we saw ACT’s attitude towards worker safety despite our appalling record of workplace deaths and injuries. Saddened by their attitude towards our children, with horrible, low-quality food replacing good kai made with love by local businesses. But the safety of babies? I just can’t.

Fortunately, a few other folks managed to articulate their disgust.

Debbie: “When I worked in the world of daycare, someone was rostered on to sit in the room with the children while they slept.

I cannot believe that this guy or his 'experts' think this is in any way, shape, or form ok?

Disgraceful the way they are treating our kids when they bleat on about how important our children are...Continuing to prove that they don't give a shit.”

Irene: “He is appeasing his mates and donors from the Wright Foundation, who own 260 childcare facilities here in New Zealand, Wright sold them to his Foundation, now run as a charity, so this double dipper is a big player, does not like the living wage, and does not want staff joining the union.”

Last year, it was reported that “Giant childcare charity Best Start made a tax-free operating profit of $32 million last year, while also increasing payments to its rich-list founders to $37m.”

That’s quite a lot paid to the owners for a charity, don’t you think?

They have then used some of that money to back Sean Plunket’s “anti-woke”, or more accurately “anti-truth”, internet radio station, The Platform, with a 75% stake.

Think about that, parents pay large amounts for childcare, and the owners want to reduce child safety and use the profits to fund far-right hate radio. What a country.

Christopher Luxon and David Seymour have shown they’re not interested in “common people”, those who work in the public sector, those doing it tough, underpaid women, Māori, or even parents who would prefer that their baby is still alive at pick-up time.

People often ask me if I think we can make this a one-term government.

The thing about common people, with all the groups that National and ACT have shown no interest in and made life harder for, is that there are an awful lot of us who fall into those categories or who care about those who do.

So, yes, we definitely can, and if we value our country, we absolutely must.

Have a good weekend, all of you lovely people.

If you’re enjoying Nick’s Kōrero and can afford to support my work, please subscribe at the original price ($8 per month or $80 for a year). Or the gold card discount ($7 per month or $70 for a year) below. 🙂

Ngā mihi,
Nick.

To end today, here’s Pulp with Common People at Glastonbury last weekend.