The Free Speech Union released:
Twisted Frequency, a New Year music festival in Golden Bay, has cancelled Israeli DJ Dekel because he has not spoken out against Israel.
The festival says it was told Dekel had been a commander in the Israeli Defence Force and had performed in Israel in recent years. When it heard this, it contacted his management to cancel the booking.
It says it also tried to find evidence about his views, and found nothing “verified and substantial” about his personal beliefs. It went ahead with cancelling him anyway, saying “the fact he hasn’t spoken out against the genocide in Palestine and has continued to perform in Israel is all that is needed”.
The festival says a country of origin alone isn’t a reason to boycott a musician. But without a public statement from Dekel against the “ongoing occupation and genocide”, it would not host him.
The Festival of course has the right to invite or disinvite people, but let’s not pretend this isn’t about the country of origin.
There is a simple comparison one can do. The Government of China has also been accused of committing crimes against Muslims, in this case Uyghurs. Some have also labelled that a genocide.
Has any music or literary festival ever ever gone and told a Chinese artist that they are banned from performing unless they issue a public statement against the treatment of Muslim Uyghurs by the Chinese Government?
Of course not.
Which is how we can safely conclude it is not about what is happening to a group of Muslims. It is about being Jewish or Israeli.
It’s Election Day. Until the polls close at 7 pm don’t make any comments that could be seen as advocating for who people should vote.
I’ll be on the Herald Now broadcast from 7 pm with Ryan Bridge and other panelists, discussing the results at they come in.
The bean counters at the Taxpayers’ Union have done a final update on the extra spending that each party is promising.
So there are two fiscally responsible parties, two fiscally irresponsible parties and three fiscally insane parties. Vote wisely if you don’t want your kids paying off a generation of debt.
The Post reports:
Opportunity looks likely to enter Parliament – and potentially decide who governs.
This has led to questions over how exactly the untested party would actually make the call.
Any coalition deal would be negotiated by the party’s caucus of MPs, but would need to be signed off by its seven-member board.
Opportunity’s constitution says any coalition or confidence and supply deal its MPs negotiate must be approved by 75% of the party’s seven-member board, meaning any two board members effectively hold the power to block any coalition deal if the party acts as kingmaker.
So two people you have never heard of can determine who forms the Government of New Zealand, if Opportunity hold the balance of power.
One of their board members is also one of their largest donors. So they are campaigning against money in politics, yet are giving the guy who donated $220,000 to them a partial veto over who forms the Government of New Zealand, if they get in!
The track record of polls in New Zealand has generally been pretty good. 1993 and 2005 not so good, but most other years pretty reasonable.
If ever there is an election where the polls are more likely to diverge from the results, it has to be this one. And this is because there are so many competing tactical voting campaigns out there, and with significant interest in them. This means more people are confused about how to vote to get the outcome they want, and that polls even a week out from the election may differ quite a bit from the final result. That is on top of the normal issues from the sampling margins of error and non-sampling errors.
We currently have:
There has never been an election campaign where tactical issues has been so much to the fore. I think there will be people voting on Saturday who know what outcome they want, but will only decide at the booth how to vote to achieve that.
The size and time weighted average of the public polls has the following
Government
Opposition
Opportunity 6.2%, 8 seats
The seat projections are on party vote only. No assumptions are made on overhang.
I’ve been on a what’s app group for National Party volunteers in my local electorate. I’ve been insanely busy with scores of polls, parenting and speaking engagements so have only twice had time to do some pamphlet delivering.
But what has been refreshing and even inspiring to me is seeing these dozens of volunteers, who age from 20 to 70s, every day putting their hands up saying they can door knock here, deliver here, turn up for mobile hoardings etc etc. The candidate and his family are also spending all their time trying to get people to two tick National.
Now my local electorate is not a marginal seat. It is a very red seat, so short of divine intervention the candidate and the volunteers know they are not going to win the seat.
But that doesn’t deter them. Because they believe in their party, they believe in the political system, they have values and beliefs about what is good for New Zealand, and they are willing to give up hundreds of hours in trying to make New Zealand a better place.
This is not something unique to National. All parties have volunteers who put in numerous hours because they believe in their party. They do not have any expectations of being MPs, being on boards or in any way benefiting from their efforts.
We often think of politics as about MPs, candidates, donors, lobby groups, media etc. But for me I like to think it is about volunteers. The ones who day after day get up early because they believe in politics and believe in New Zealand.
Simeon Brown points out:
The Green Party has confirmed National’s warnings about its wealth tax, with Chloe Swarbrick accidentally admitting the party wants to lower the $10 million threshold once the tax is in place, National’s Campaign Chair Simeon Brown says.
“In an interview last night on The Kaka, Chloe Swarbrick said ‘winning the argument is critical’, explaining that the Greens had chosen a $10 million threshold to avoid ‘mass moral panic’ about the wealth tax hitting family homes.
“She then let the real plan slip – ‘if we implement it, and we demonstrate to people that it works then hopefully there is also the continuing arguments to obviously lower the threshold.’
“There you have it. Ten million dollars is where the Greens want to start, not where they intend to stop.
Chloe accidentally spoke the truth, and revealed their plan. They don’t just want to tax the assets of the very wealthy, they want to eventually come for anyone who manages to save well during their lifetime.
I received the following e-mail from Candace Owens:
I hope you will actually report on the dropping of my case and also correct your previous inaccurate info on what they sued me for (it was not for saying Brigette was a man)
https://youtube.com/post/UgkxsjkxGaLUCqG4QU-lnli7m5k-14Y6zeQT?si=O8xrLViWsxyhoTOz
I don’t agree with the framing of what was decided. Politico reports:
A Delaware state judge ruled Tuesday that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, may not sue far-right commentator Candace Owens personally for defamation — but they may continue their case against the podcaster’s businesses.
It certainly is a useful win for Owens that she is personally not liable, but the substantive case will proceed against her business.
The blue wave turned into a blue tsunami. It is one thing to lose a Texas Senate seat with a weak GOP candidate, but they also lost the Texas Governorship, and they had a popular incumbent. They also lost Kansas Senate seat for the first time since the 1930s.
In the House, the Democrats looked to have outpolled the GOP by 13%. They look to have 256 seats to 178. This means that they will hold the House in 2028, and probably be able to even withstand a bad year in 2030.
In the Senate they look likely to end up with 55 seats. This also means they should hold it until at least 2030 and possibly beyond. So don’t expect any Supreme Court retirements any time soon. In fact if Trump remains this unpopular it is not impossible the Democrats could get to 60 seats in 2028 meaning they can get past a filibuster.
So I imagine we are going to see a lot of bills get vetoed by Trump, and a lot of executive action. In the very short term, another attack on Iran is probably only days away.
The Democrats must be looking good for winning the presidency in 2028. Jon Ossoff especially looks good after winning by 18% in Georgia. AOC will be thinking about it seriously also.
On the GOP side, I think it is very possible that top tier candidates such as JD Vance and Marco Rubio don’t even stand in 2028, calculating it is an unwinnable election.
We should see the first candidacies announced before Christmas.
Roger Douglas released:
Muldoon Is Back — Only the Names Have Changed:
ACT’s proposed KiwiSaver tax exemption risks repeating the mistakes of New Zealand’s protected economic past
ACT’s proposal to make KiwiSaver investment earnings tax-free raises an important question: is this good economic policy, or is it an attempt to win votes by offering another special tax concession?
The proposal brings to mind the Muldoon era, when governments used tax incentives, protectionism and preferential treatment to steer private savings and investment towards favoured sectors of the economy. The names may have changed, but the underlying temptation remains the same: use the tax system to influence economic behaviour for political advantage.
New Zealand has been down this road before.
The lessons of 1970–1984
Between 1970 and 1984, New Zealand operated a highly protected economy characterised by extensive government intervention, import restrictions and policies that favoured selected industries. The financial services and insurance sectors benefited from tax concessions and other arrangements that influenced where household savings were invested.
One significant example was the tax treatment of life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions. Under the arrangements applying to particular products and periods, tax concessions encouraged households to direct savings into favoured financial products.
These incentives helped make certain products more attractive to investors, but they also raised a fundamental economic question: were savings being allocated to their most productive uses, or were tax advantages distorting investment decisions?
Other features of the era included extensive tariff protection, restrictions on competition in some markets and tax arrangements that favoured particular business activities.
The result was an economic environment in which government policy often influenced commercial decisions as much as genuine market opportunities did.
New Zealand’s sweeping economic reforms from 1984 onwards sought to dismantle many of these protections and reduce distortions in the economy.
The lesson: tax loopholes can reward inefficiency
The central lesson from this period is straightforward: when governments favour particular investments through the tax system, they risk rewarding tax advantages rather than economic performance.
In a competitive market, investors should be encouraged to put their money into businesses and assets that generate genuine economic value. When the tax system favours government selected investments, however, it can encourage people to invest for tax reasons rather than because those investments offer the best productive opportunities.
This can distort the allocation of capital, create unnecessary complexity, entrench established interests and leave other productive sectors at a disadvantage.
Tax concessions may benefit those who receive them, but that does not automatically mean they deliver a net benefit to the wider economy.
KiwiSaver deserves better than political tax incentives
KiwiSaver plays an important role in helping New Zealanders save for retirement. But that does not mean every tax concession aimed at KiwiSaver is necessarily sound policy.
Making KiwiSaver investment earnings tax-free would give the scheme a significant tax advantage over other forms of investment. Before introducing such a change, the public deserves clear answers to several questions:
These are questions of economic substance, not political marketing.
If the objective is to improve retirement outcomes, the policy should be assessed against credible evidence about its impact on savings, investment, retirement incomes and the wider economy. A tax exemption should not be accepted simply because it sounds attractive to voters.
The politics of a familiar mistake
The danger is that New Zealand could repeat an old mistake under a new name: using selective tax concessions to win political support while presenting them as economic reform.
The Muldoon era demonstrated the risks of an economy in which government intervention and preferential treatment shaped investment decisions. The reforms that followed reflected a recognition that economic performance improves when incentives are less distorted and capital can move towards its most productive uses.
ACT should explain why its proposed KiwiSaver exemption would produce a better result than the targeted tax incentives of the past. It should demonstrate that the policy would improve New Zealand’s economic performance, rather than simply provide a tax advantage to one category of investment.
New Zealand does not need to return to an era of politically driven economic incentives. It needs a tax system that is fair, transparent and focused on productive investment.
Muldoon may be gone, but the temptation to use tax policy for political advantage remains. Seymour and Prebble should take heed of the lessons of history before asking New Zealanders to pay for another round of special treatment.
Results will start showing shortly.
The final forecast from Nat Silver is:
House
Senate
Feel free to comment below as results come in.
RNZ reports:
Labour is promising to help public housing tenants buy their own homes, putting $100 a week towards their deposits under a new rent-to-buy scheme.
Under the election policy, working tenants in Kāinga Ora homes and participating community housing properties would be able to build up a deposit while paying rent.
They would receive a $100 weekly credit, adding up to $5200 a year, with the money held in a trust account.
I think helping state tenants become homeowners is a great idea in principle.
However I do recall that when National governments had policies to encourage tenants to buy their homes, Labour called it privatisation!!
This specific policy though is not going to achieve much, if anything. A reader has pointed out the following:
Financially it’s nuts and more expensive than just renting. But then there is rates, insurance, maintenance etc to pay.
As KO will guarantee the mortgage (few KO tenants would qualify for a mortgage) where does the tenant obtain a mortgage? Oh of course, KO will provide.
Therefore KO will blow out their debt ceiling once again because they have said they will build three more units for each one sold
Let’s say a KO unit is worth say:
KO Unit cost: $500,000
Deposit: $50,000
Mortgage $ 450,000
Interest say 6%
Term say 25 years
Monthly repayment P&I
Per month $2,900
Total interest over 25 years is $419,807
Let’s say the rent is $500 a week but a mortgage is $669 a week so the tenant is already $199 a week worse off and he has to pay rates and insurance plus maintenance which even conservatively would add a further $125 a week to the mortgage
Who in their right mind would buy a KO unit and pay an extra $324 a week more than the rent?
It’s another nut job Labour plan
When the election is over it would be good to begin to consider how to actually improve NZ society for all.
As a parent of three now-adult children, the main thing I would want every new parent to understand is this: you haven’t simply had a “baby”. You have brought a new human being into the world, and your life will be invested in theirs from that moment on. Imagine what children born today may see in their lifetimes: in all likelihood, they will spend the latter part of their lives in the 22nd century.
Before becoming a teacher, I was fortunate to encounter the writings of C. S. Lewis. I have not always lived up to the ideal, but one quotation stays with me every day as I work with students:
“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit.”
I recently read a remarkable book, The Brain, by Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman. Although this is not his explicit argument, his account of the brain and human capabilities suggests to me that much of our parenting, education and expectations for life remain rooted in the last century — if not the one before.
I have always told students that if they have learned to walk and talk, they can learn maths, develop their writing, read great literature and acquire remarkable skills in carpentry, art, dance or music. That does not mean learning is easy. Learning something well requires sustained, purposeful practice — but it is possible.
Eagleman highlights the importance of parents as first teachers:
“If developing brains are not given the proper “expected” environment – one in which the child is nurtured and looked after – the brain will struggle to develop normally. Without an environment with emotional care and cognitive stimulation the human brain cannot develop normally.”
For teachers and parents caring for children who have missed out on that nurture, he offers encouragement:
“The brain can often recover, to varying degrees, once the children are removed to a safe and loving environment. … We know that the process of building the human brain takes up to 25 years.”
I have often heard parents and teachers dismiss children’s potential or abilities. When we label students by perceived ability — whether aloud or in our own minds — we risk limiting them in profoundly damaging ways. As C. S. Lewis reminds us, “There are no ordinary people.” There are no “thick” kids, either. They are incredible human beings whose brains are capable of learning and change. They need love, encouragement, guidance, knowledge and challenge.
In the same way, we should not prescribe an “appropriate pathway” on the basis of a premature judgement about a student’s abilities — particularly one based on demographics. A former student once wrote to me:
“Bit of a different path to take and if you’d told me 20 years ago I would be living in Korea married with 3 kids I would have thought you were crazy. I have never ever forgotten my economics class with you back at TBC. Your teaching style and genuine interest in the students left a mark on me. A story you told about a rugby ball getting stuck between the posts because of the angle even today sticks in my mind.”
Had I tried to predict his future or define a pathway for him, I would have been putting up barriers. I had no right to limit him. A teacher’s role is to teach every child with an open mind about what they can become, rather than treating their past as a ceiling on their future.
There is good news for those of us over 25, too. As Eagleman puts it: “In adulthood our brain continues to change. Experience changes it. We can’t stop the process of aging, but by practicing all of the skills in our cognitive toolbox, we may be able to slow it down. We’re not fixed. From the cradle to the grave we are works in progress.”
By Lucy Rogers
National have just proposed abolishing the right to silence in cases of alleged child murder: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2026-national-proposes-exception-to-right-to-silence-in-child-murder-cases/CGMOXY5M6RBQFFYQDJDE5AFZIA/
Paul Goldsmith correctly identifies the right to silence as a “fundamental principle” of our legal system, and then turns around in the very next sentence and say that it shouldn’t apply in alleged child murder cases because they are so heinous.
There are plenty of other extremely heinous offences: arbitrarily carving out an exemption for alleged child murder cases renders the entire concept of the right to silence incoherent. The right to silence will be gone in a few years if we create arbitrary exceptions.
By the way, people should stop saying that National is proposing abolishing the right to silence in child murder cases: it is proposing abolishing the right to silence in cases where it is alleged that a child has been murdered. That means you’re forcing people to give evidence contrary to ancient liberties where there is in fact a legal presumption of innocence.
This policy is populist nonsense. It’s sad to live in an era where people don’t get the point of freedoms our ancestors died for. So much for conservatives who see the right wing as champions of civil liberties.
Federated Farmers have published this handy voter guide.
I blogged a few days on how Winston Peters endorsed Chris Bishop for Hutt South, saying he is “is a cut above the regular MP”.
Richard Prebble also wrote on Chris Bishop:
It is not often I agree with Winston Peters, but Chris Bishop is a remarkable MP.
New Zealand has wasted billions of taxpayers’ dollars as incoming governments cancel their predecessors’ infrastructure projects.
One of this government’s achievements is securing cross-party agreement that this waste must stop and that New Zealand needs a bipartisan, long-term infrastructure plan.
While all parties deserve credit, Chris Bishop was the driving force.
For over 30 years, Parliament has known the Resource Management Act was flawed. Successive governments failed to replace it.
Bishop succeeded.
Labour opposed aspects of the replacement legislation but is not campaigning to repeal it. That is a measure of Bishop’s remarkable ability to achieve difficult reform.
Both were remarkable achievements indeed.
But the support for Bishop is not just from Peters and Prebble, but also former Labour Leader Phil Goff:
Former Labour leader Phil Goff has delivered a surprise election endorsement of National minister Chris Bishop, warning it would be a “loss to Parliament” if the senior MP is knocked out of the House.
Goff, who spent decades on the opposite side of the political divide from Bishop, said the National MP deserved to remain in Parliament.
I agree with Phil Goff. And Labour voters can vote for Bishop, knowing Ginny Andersen is guaranteed to get in on the list.
But there is a fourth endorsement from Green voter and columnist Verity Johnson:
I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I think you should vote for Chris Bishop …
Here’s me. A two-ticks-Green voter, endorsing a National candidate next week in the battleground electorate of Hutt South.
For one, he rewrote the RMA. And secondly, because I know you don’t care about that, he’s trying to fix the housing crisis. Yep, he’s a National MP who actually wants to bring house prices down. Wild, right? …
So look, Hutt South, help us out here. Get him back in.
I mean, sure, I’m a lefty, but I still want high-quality opponents. And, if we have to have conservatives in there, I want good ones. Smart ones. Ones who take the future seriously.
That is an incredibly diverse array of people saying that Parliament will be worse off if Chris Bishop isn’t there. A former Labour leader, a Green voting columnist, a former ACT Leader and the NZ First Leader.
Hutt South voters – it is up to you.
If I lived in the US I’d be very depressed about a choice between the corrupt and the crazy. The Democrats seem to be sliding more to the extreme left, and the Republicans are so terrified of Trump they acquiesce and ignore stuff that they would be outraged about normally.
Trump is hugely unpopular. He is -21% approval overall. On the economy he is -32% and on inflation -43%. He is even -11% on immigration which before the election was a huge strength for him. On Iran he is at -31%. Inflation is the No 1 issue and he is at -43% where 70% of voters disapprove of his record.
And they are right to disapprove. His tariff obsessions has not just been terrible for the world economy, but also terrible for US consumers. A recent Fed estimate is that 2.9 percentage points of US inflation is due to the tariffs.
And the war with Iran has been a debacle. In the early stages there was definitely an optimistic scenario where you could get regime change, or at least the nuclear threat gone and their offensive capacity wiped out. But his lack of strategy and over reliance on bluster has led to global oil and diesel prices skyrocketing.
So what do I want to happen? Well the House is going to fall to the Democrats beyond reasonable doubt, and this is a good thing. House Republicans have shown no interest in standing up for traditional Republican values like free trade, NATO, rule of law, democratic values. I want them to lose so badly that they learn a lesson (yeah I know they won’t). I hope that in 2030, if the GOP is in a post Trump era, they can come back.
In the Senate, I’m more mixed on what I want as an outcome. In Trump’s first term I loved most of his judicial appointments, as they were good principled originalists. Trump basically rubber stamped nominees from the Federalist Society, and we got three excellent Supreme Court Justices and many excellent lower court judges.
This term, Trump has taken a far far keener interest in judicial nominations. While there are still many fine appointments, a significant proportion are just hacks whose only criteria is personal loyalty to Trump and a high probability they would always rule for him. I would like vacant judicial roles to be filled, which a GOP held Senate would allow. Would also allow Alito or Thomas to be replaced by someone younger, but I am concerned that Trump’s nominee would be a Judge Aileen Cannon, not a Brett Cavanagh.
Losing the Senate also means Trump can’t get any cabinet and sub cabinet appointments ratified. But as he is basically ignoring them anyway and relying on Acting appointments, that isn’t a big factor.
Trump has personally endorsed challengers to sitting Senators that he say as no sycophantic enough, and their successors are looking likely to lose those seats. So losing the Senate will be down to Trump personally, if it happens. A year ago it was almost unthinkable as it was such a favourable map.
So in the Senate I’m sort of agnostic on overall control. But I do have preferences based on candidate quality in individual races. Here are the marginal Senate seats with the probability from Nate Silver.
We find out on Wednesday!
Republican Senator Daniel (Scott) Sullivan is standing for re-election against Democrat Mary Peltola. Alaska rules allow up to four people on the ballot and one of the other two candidates is a Daniel J Sullivan, who is also listed as a Republican.
It has been obvious for some time he is there to try and confuse people into voting for the wrong Daniel Sullivan. But the assumption was he just decided to stand himself.
The NY Times has run a story showing that Democratic operatives actually searched the entire state to try and find people called Daniel Sullivan to run:
In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can. …
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.
This should be denounced. You should win based on more people actually wanted you than your opponent, not based on trying to get people to accidentally not vote for your opponent. I hope Peltola loses.
Dr David Smylie writes for the FSU:
I’ve practised medicine in Britain, Australia, the US and New Zealand, including two years providing care to Aboriginal Australians in the Outback. In 2022, I was a senior partner at Cambridge Medical Centre in the Waikato. I had a blemish-free record.
That November, a sales rep from a nutrition company emailed me and other health professionals an invitation to a sponsored education evening. Her email opened “Ate Marie Everyone“. She meant “ata mārie,” meaning “good morning.”
I’m a Scot with a dry sense of humour, and I couldn’t resist the typo. I replied the moment I read it:
He joked that he hoped she hasn’t really eaten Marie, and that it would be good to communicate in a language not understood by 98.5% of the population. He also expressed relief she had not included her preferred pronouns.
Dr Smylie notes:
Was it wise? No, and I wish I hadn’t sent it. It was a hasty, knee-jerk reaction to the language in her email, not a calculated attack on her. It was also private: it went to her alone, and none of the other invitees were copied in. And she was a sales rep, not a patient or a colleague. I didn’t think it was a big deal, and it never crossed my mind that I might hear from the Medical Council over it.
Alas this is not the Medical Council of old that was concerned about clinical competence. Now their criteria is woke compliance.
In September 2023, the Committee delivered its verdict. My comments were “objectively racist, offensive, and insensitive“. Whether I’d meant any harm was “of little consequence“. My four sentences even had “the potential to contribute to current health inequities“. The three courses I’d done unprompted were only “the beginning of your journey“, and I lacked “insight“.
This reminds me of the old Soviet Union trials for being insufficiently committed to Marxism.
The committee’s remedy was “counselling“. In practice, that meant what I’d call twelve months of reprogramming. The Council called it an “Educational Programme“. I had to see a Council-approved supervisor every month, and the supervisor reported on me to the Council every month.
I suspect if you totally stuff up a diagnosis, you don’t need to have a monthly report on you. But if you have the wrong view on te reo or pronouns, you must be supervised.
At the end I was to write two essays: 500 words reflecting on my email, and 1,000 on structural racism in New Zealand health care.
George Orwell could turn this into a novel!
So, I left. I’m now practising overseas. I’m told I might be allowed to work in New Zealand again if I write them. Clearly, that is not going to happen.
Those two years were a living nightmare. I lost more than 10kg and a great many nights’ sleep, over something a sensible regulator would have settled with a quiet word.
Exactly. Any sane regulator would just say “Hey it’s silly to wind someone up like that”. But the Medical Council wasted God knows how much money on treating it like a hanging offence.
At a time when Health NZ are reporting severe staffing shortages, and are looking to bring in staff from overseas, I have to be blunt: based on my experience, I would not advise any health professional to work in New Zealand until the regulators get back to their core purposes.
I know so many professionals who say Australia looks attractive because the regulators there are not as insane as in NZ.