An amazing disappointment

Jacinda Ardern's shock resignation announcement today has left a lot of us with a lot of complicated feelings. In my case, while I've been highly critical of Ardern's government, I'm still sorry to see her go. We've had far too many terrible things happen during her term as Prime Minister - Christchurch, Covid - and on each occasion she rose to the challenge and tried to bring out the best in us. What damns her is her broken promises and lack of ambition, on climate change - which she promised to treat as "my generation's nuclear free moment" - and on equality. Her unpardonable strategic silence on cannabis legalisation. The way she has simply squandered the absolute majority she won with technocratic tinkering, rather than bedding in real change. And of course her great betrayal on covid, where (having caught it herself) she just... gave up, and let it sweep the country (and is still letting it sweep the country). As a Prime Minister she has been amazing, and an amazing disappointment, promising change, and delivering so little of it.

And on the gripping hand: I cannot blame or fault anyone for recognising that they don't have it in them anymore, that there are things more important than politics, and for getting out of the job before it ruins them.

If anyone is looking for a positive side, there's this: Ardern ruled out a capital gains tax "under my leadership". Well, she's gone, and so a capital gains tax is back on the table. The question is, will Labour seize the opportunity, and take the popular step of taxing the rich on their unearned wealth? Or will they chickenshit out again to protect their own house-hoards? And if they do the latter, why should anybody bother voting for them?

All noise and no policy

Over the weekend Labour had a very bad poll - basicly, the chickens coming home to roost on their fuck around and do nothing policy. But on Monday, price-gouging Aussie bank Westpac offered them a golden opportunity, in the form of a billion dollar profit. Everyone hates the banks, they're gouging more and more money from us, and there's growing pressure for a windfall tax to rein them in and make them pay their fair share - so it was a perfect opportunity for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to stand up for equality, actually do something about these sucking financial parasites, and gain some popularity in the process. And indeed, at Monday's post-Cabinet press conference, she strongly denounced the banks' profiteering:

The Prime Minister took aim at huge profits banks have been making during the cost of living crisis – saying it was wrong as many New Zealanders face financial strain.

She said questions needed to be asked whether those making huge profits were serving New Zealanders well, however, the condemnation did not extend to implementing any changes from the Government beyond suggesting self-reflection from the banks.

"Self-reflection". Apparently, we're not even getting a market study from the Commerce Commission to determine whether it is reasonable for an industry to make 50% of its revenue in profit, year after year, at a cost to the rest of us of billions of dollars. That might be too much like action. As for a windfall or excessive profits tax, of course not.

And this is why Labour deserves to end up in opposition after the next election: they're all noise and no policy. They're offering us literally nothing, just the same tired, unjust status quo. So why should anyone who wants change vote for them?

Labour's morally indefensible choices

Labour held its party conference over the weekend, and the government announced a minor expansion of its free ECE policy - actually a subsidy to ECE providers - to try and shore up middle-class support. And in the Herald today, Jacinda Ardern said she'd go further if money was no object:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the one big idea she would have if money was not a factor would be to make early childhood education completely free.

[...]

“One of the things I know makes a difference to kids’ lives in the long term is their access to early childhood education.

“It is the most important part of our education system and yet in some ways for many, it is the most inaccessible.

“I’d make it completely free. Completely free. And when I say completely free, I’d also give choice to families about at what point and stage their child accesses it. Because for some we know it provides stability to kids that they might not have in their home life.”

She's right, and its worth doing: investing in children is one of the best things our society can do. But she's not doing it, because supposedly, the government can't afford it. And at the same time, she's shovelling $3.3 billion every year at subsidising agricultural emissions by farmers - which is more than enough to cover the expansion she wants (and then some). So, its not that the government can't afford it. Instead, it has made a choice, that the profits of a tiny rural elite are more important than a good start in life for every kiwi kid. And coming from a Labour government, that choice looks morally indefensible.

The "endorsement" you give when you want someone to lose

Voting in the local body elections closes at noon on Saturday, and today was the last day to post your votes to be sure they got there in time. So naturally, today was the day Jacinda Ardern chose to finally "endorse" Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern​ has thrown her weight behind Auckland mayoral candidate Efeso Collins​ as a tightly contested race comes to a close.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon, Ardern endorsed Collins, saying he was a candidate who could “bring together Auckland”.

“In our minds he’s a candidate that can really continue the significant investment that’s been going on into regional economic development [and] public transport,” she said.

As with her "support" for cannabis decriminalisation - which was expressed only after the votes had been counted - you really have to ask: shouldn't she have said it sooner? This is the "endorsement" of someone who feels they have to, for appearances' sake, but doesn't want it to actually help at all. The "endorsement" of someone who actually wants the candidate to lose, but is too afraid to say so. This sort of spineless chickenshittery is everything that is wrong with the Labour Party, and if it continues, they'll deserve to lose.

The most divisive government in history?

Today National party leader Christopher Luxon followed the lead of ACT's David Seymour, and started pandering to the shit-flinging nazi-sympathisers who have annexed Wellington. Along the way, he claimed that the current government is the "most divisive government in history".

I can only conclude from this that Luxon is entirely unfamiliar with even recent New Zealand history. To point out the obvious, the revolutionary NeoLiberal governments of the 1980's and 1990's were so divisive that we changed the electoral system to get more representative government (and as an act of revenge against them). Or maybe Luxon could look at one of his National Party predecessors, Syd Holland, whose government literally made it illegal to feed starving children if their parents belonged to the wrong union. Or Bill Massey, who sent his rural militia into our cities to beat striking workers, in what was virtually a civil war. Or the succession of early Prime Ministers, who started and or presided over an actual civil war in Aoteraoa due to their efforts to steal Māori land.

But all of these government were looking after the interests of the big business community, the people who Luxon represents. Whereas Ardern in a crisis has put people first and business second. And that, really, is why they hate her and regard her as "divisive".

Update: How did I not mention Muldoon, who is basicly the byword for nasty, divisive, oppressive arseholery in Aotearoa? The man who gave us this and this and this? But maybe Luxon doesn't think he was "divisive" either...

The "most open and transparent government ever" again

According to the Prime Minister and other Ministers, the decision to open up Auckland and allow Covid to spread was made on the basis of "eroding social licence". The phrase repeatedly appears in Cabinet Papers on the subject, particularly in the 4 October review of alert level settings which caused the whole shitshow. But while this phrase is apparently crucial to government decision-making, the Prime Minister and a bunch of other senior Ministers claim not to know what it means.

If taken seriously, this should cast serious doubt on their decision-making on such matters. But its clearly not meant to be taken seriously. Instead, it's a casual "fuck you" response from the self-proclaimed "most open and transparent government ever", and an example of their obsession with secrecy and reluctance to release anything if they can possibly contrive an excuse not to.

I mean really, would it have killed them to just point at a dictionary? And would it really have taken them 16 working days to do so?

Surrendering to the virus

So, having saved us from Covid for 18 months, our government has just surrendered to the virus, announcing a "transition plan" to loosen restrictions while Covid is still spreading in the community. This is exactly the sort of insanity which has led to outbreaks and mass death in the UK and NSW, and there's no reason to think it will end any differently here.

I'm just glad I don't live in Auckland (and glad that there will still be a hard border to slow the coming shitshow's spread to the rest of Aotearoa). But I'm also sorry for everyone who lives there. You deserved better than this. And you deserve a government which will keep you safe, rather than sacrificing your lives for a pack of greedy whiners.

I'm also personally fucked off, because when the PM told people to go out and get vaccinated 3 weeks ago, like thousands of people I did what was asked, moved up my appointment, and got jabbed with the six week spacing for maximum effectiveness. My second booking isn't for three weeks, and I won't be safe until two weeks after that, and the government has just said they'll let the virus rampage before then. Obviously, I'll be looking at moving that up. But it feels like a personal betrayal to have the government change its mind on something so vital like that.

(And there's a whole cohort in this situation, and under 12s who still can't be vaxxed at all, plus minorities with low uptake and high vulnerability. But waiting a bit longer to solve those problems was apparently too hard for the government, so it's "let her rip")

Meanwhile, I guess Aotearoa's days of being a "model Covid response" are over. The government has just decided to surrender to the virus, because they were sick of the whining from the Auckland business class. They've basicly become quislings for the virus, just like Boris Johnson and Gladys Berejiklian. And we'll be paying the price for their cowardice in deaths and long Covid.

Climate Change: Some "emergency"

Jacinda Ardern: 'Climate change is my generation's nuclear-free moment', Newshub, 20 August 2017:

In her campaign launch speech in Auckland on Sunday, Ms Ardern called climate change "my generation's nuclear free moment".

[...]

"There will always be those who say it's too difficult. There will be those who say we are too small, and that pollution and climate change are the price of progress," Ms Ardern said.

"They are wrong."

She says New Zealand has an opportunity to shape its identity by making the transition to reduced emissions.

"This is my generation's nuclear-free moment, and I am determined that we will tackle it head on."

Climate emergency declaration by New Zealand government includes commitment to 2025 targets, RNZ, 2 December 2020:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has committed the government and the public sector to going carbon-neutral by 2025, as she declared a climate emergency.

Ardern has moved a motion in Parliament this afternoon which would see New Zealand join 32 other nations in formally acknowledging the global crisis.

The motion was passed shortly before 4pm, with Labour, the Greens and te Pāti Māori all voting in support, and National and ACT opposed.

Climate emergency declaration will be matched with long-term action, James Shaw, 2 December 2020:

Today’s climate emergency declaration will be backed with ambitious plans to reduce emissions, the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw today.

“Our Government has put New Zealand at the forefront of climate action over the last three years. Declaring a climate emergency and backing this with long-term action to reduce emissions shows that we intend to stay there,” James Shaw said.

Next year, the Government will agree the first three emissions budgets required under the Zero Carbon Act, publish an emissions reduction plan to meet these budgets, consider updating New Zealand’s target under the Paris Agreement, and adopt a plan to meet our international obligations for the period 2021-2030.

Work on each of these is already underway.

Government’s climate plan delayed five months, Newsroom, 15 September 2021:

The Government's plan to tackle the climate crisis has been pushed back five months due to the Covid-19 pandemic and to align it with next year's budget, Climate Change Minister James Shaw announced on Wednesday.

The Zero Carbon Act currently requires the Government to release its Emissions Reduction Plan by the end of the year, but Shaw said the Government would move the deadline back to May 2022.

Urgent? Ambitious? An emergency? A nuclear-free moment? You be the judge. Meanwhile, you might want to throw some money at Extinction Rebellion, 350, Greenpeace, Generation Zero, Lawyers for Climate Action, or any of the other groups who are campaigning on this, to help them oppose it.

Climate Change: We need more than excuses on methane

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. While its lifetime in the atmosphere is limited - its half-life is 9.1 years, so any given amount is almost entirely gone after a hundred years - it is far better at trapping heat. Averaged over a century it has a global warming potential of 28, meaning it is 28 times worse than carbon dioxide. But averaged over 20 years, its GWP is 84. Cutting methane therefore has an immediate and disproportionate impact on heating, and therefore on the storms, droughts, and fires which are killing us.

The US and EU have recognised this, and are planning to push an agreement to cut methane emissions by 30% (from 2020 levels) by 2030 at the next climate change meeting in Glasgow. This is exactly what we need to do to get us through the next few decades and buy time for more general decarbonisation, and it will literally save lives. New Zealand - a disproportionate methane emitter - is one of the countries they want to sign up for this pledge. So what does Jacinda "my generation's nuclear free moment" Ardern say to this? Yeah, nah:

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday in response to New Zealand being included in the list, the Prime Minister said her Government is working hard to address the climate crisis.

She said the Government's targets are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.

"We've tried to really lean into the international science in this space because it's important to us and it's important that we do our bit," Ardern said.

"The second point I'd make is of course, we do that in the context of those emissions derived from food production being the most significant proportion of our overall emissions profile.

"My view is that actually, by developing initiatives that substantially reduce those emissions, we will have something that the rest of the world will be very grateful for.

"We are working very hard to actually reduce those emissions in real terms. We are the only country in the world that I know of that has made a commitment to how we will price emissions that are produced through our food production. You're just not seeing that in other countries."

If this sounds like hot air, its because it is. Talk of "food production" - bulk milk powder for luxury foods like confectionery - is simply more special pleading. As for "developing initiatives", thirty years of doing that has seen our methane emissions increase by 1.8 million tons. But then, they were never meant to actually reduce emissions. Like so much of climate change policy, they are simply there to give the illusion of action - "look, we're doing research" - while changing nothing. Meanwhile, the thing we can do right now to cut emissions - cut cow numbers - is ignored, because it is incompatible with the dairy industry's plans for infinite growth (which is itself incompatible with a safe climate or clean water).

We deserve better than this. The crisis is now so bad and so immediate that the government has to step up and act. The US-EU initiative is an appropriate way of doing that, of playing our part. We should join it, and implement its targets. And if we don't, the US and EU should treat us as a climate criminal, and apply sanctions to our methane-producing, climate-destroying dairy exports.

Political dishonesty

Politicians frequently ask why voters think they're all dishonest liars. Perhaps its because they act like it:

The government offered to pay millions of dollars to Rio Tinto just months after promising in the election campaign it would not give a direct subsidy.

[...]

While campaigning in Southland ahead of the 2020 election Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: "We have said we do not believe we should be giving a direct government subsidy to Rio Tinto, so that's not what we will be doing."

Three months later, the government wrote to Rio Tinto, which owns 80 percent of New Zealand Aluminium Smelters (NZAS), with an offer of a payment to begin the very next month, in January this year.

"To achieve a managed exit for the smelter and in consideration of our respective interests, the New Zealand government will provide a Transmission Transition payment to NZAS of [blanked out]," it said.

"This payment would start from January 2021 until December 2024."

Ardern made a commitment to voters. Her government then proceeded to violate that commitment. And quibbling over the definition of a "subsidy" just makes them look even more dishonest. This behaviour corrodes political trust, and (probably of more interest to politicians) political support. Why believe the "promises" of a politician who has already been shown to have lied to you? Why be the sucker in their political scam? You can only fool people for so long before they get sick of it, and vote for someone else (or not vote at all) just as a "fuck you".

Politicians are the only people with the power to change this dynamic. And they change it by being honest. Not just in keeping their commitments, but also telling us when the circumstances change and they can't (or don't want to). That's hard work, and politicians think explaining is losing. But not explaining is losing too, just in a different way.

When the government says "can't", they really mean "we chose not to"

Nurses are going on strike next month for better pay. And honestly, they deserve it, after how hard they worked to keep us all safe during the pandemic. But "Labour" Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is pleading poverty and says the government can't afford to reward them:

Tensions are continuing to escalate as ongoing pay negotiations with the nursing workforce fail to reach a resolution, with the Prime Minister arguing she isn't in a position to reward everyone who rolled up their sleeves during the pandemic.

[...]

"This is the difficulty of having this job. I also have to have an eye to whether or not everything we do is sustainable, and I have to have an eye to issues like inequality and poverty - and there's only so much capacity we have right now," Ardern said.

"COVID has cost this country a lot. As much as I would wish to be in a position to be able to reward everyone who has worked so hard, I have to keep that in mind as well - I can't."

But how much money the government has is determined by tax rates, and is basicly a political choice. Our government has chosen to starve itself of revenue so they "can't" pay public servants properly; they have chosen to underpay these people. And when the people making that decision are all paid more than quarter of a million a year, it looks more than a little self-interested. To say it nakedly, Cabinet Ministers choose to underpay public servants so they don't have to pay more in tax (or capital gains on their investment properties, or whatever). Even under Labour, its a government of the rich, by the rich, which seems to be for the rich as well.

Government of kindness?

Remember John Campbell's "Feed the kids" campaign? Free school lunches are one of the most effective education policy interventions we can make, boosting attendance and improving learning outcomes. Currently the government funds them for the 25% of children living in the poorest areas of New Zealand. But poor kids whose schools aren't in South Auckland or Aranui or Highbury miss out. Newshub is pushing again for the programme to be expanded so that everyone gets fed. Jacinda Ardern's answer? No:

But despite overwhelming evidence free lunches work to keep students in school and learning, the Government won't commit to making it universal.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show although she, in principle, supports universal free school lunches, it's "a matter of prioritisation".

"I don't have a problem with unlimited lunches. I think that would be great... But I have to prioritise, and it is quite costly to roll out and I have to ask the question 'is that the next step for us?'"

The Government hasn't costed what it would take to provide free lunches across Aotearoa, but Ardern says the current program costs "hundreds of millions".

The current cost is $220 million to feed 200,000 children. According to Wikipedia there are around 760,000 schoolkids in New Zealand. So, quadruple it, and we're talking around $850 million. This is serious government money, but to put it in context, its less than the cost of a single road in Auckland - or just one of the gold-plated anti-submarine warfare aircraft the government is buying to prop up the American weapons industry.

Decisions on spending at this level are fundamentally about priorities. And Jacinda Ardern, who promised to "bring kindness back", would rather have pollution-boosting roads and war-toys for the generals than well-fed, well-educated kids. I guess she just has a different definition of "kindness" to the rest of us.

Climate Change: Letting the world burn

US President Joe Biden is holding a virtual climate change summit today, during which he has pledged to cut America's emissions by 50% (from 2005 levels) by the end of the decade. Its an ambitious pledge, and other countries were expected to follow suit. So what did New Zealand offer? Nothing:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced no new climate initiatives while speaking at a global climate summit early this morning – a move that will disappoint local activists.

It was hoped Ardern might lift the ambition of the country’s Paris Agreement pledge. She said work was underway to adjust this target, also known as a Nationally Determined Contribution.

“We will lift our ambition because we must,” she told the meeting. But unlike other nations, she did not make a firm commitment during the event.

So much for "my generation's nuclear-free moment". So much for rising to the challenge and using ambitious commitments to drive ambitious policy. So much even for doing our bit. Instead, the New Zealand government seems to be perfectly happy if the world burns. I expected that attitude from Donald Trump, but it is simply unacceptable from our government.

This is on Ardern

So, corporate pillager Ron Brierley has plead guilty to possession of child pornography, and there are obvious calls for him to be stripped of his feudal honour (awarded in the 80's for services to his own banak balance). When faced with such calls in the past, the government has hidden behind the foreign monarch, saying that they're her honours, so its up to her whether people keep them. But this is, quite frankly, bullshit.

New Zealand honours may be awarded by the foreign monarch, but they're awarded on the advice of our government right here in New Zealand. There's a special unit in DPMC which considers nominations, makes shortlists, and sends them to Cabinet for confirmation (and of course for the politicians to shoehorn their donors and cronies in). And they're quite explicit that honours can be removed "on the advice of the Prime Minister and with the approval of the Sovereign". There are guidelines for when this should happen, one of which is when it would bring the honours system into disrepute. Which you'd think possession of child pornography certainly would (as well as a whole lot of other things, like defrauding investors and severe corporate malfeasance; that's certainly the standard which the UK applies).

So, the obvious question is "when is Ardern going to give that advice"? Or does she think a self-confessed child pornographer is a fit recipient for a New Zealand honour?

(And, for the curious: New Zealand has stripped a knighthood in the past, from Cook Islands Prime Minister Albert Henry, for electoral fraud. Here's the New Zealand Gazette notice for it. Muldoon was able to do the right thing then, Ardern should be able to do the right thing now).

Update: Well, that was quick. I'd barely finished writing this when news broke that Ardern was doing her job, and moving to strip Brierly of his feudal honour. Good. And now do the others please? (Better yet, abolish the lot, because feudalism belongs in fantasy novels, not democracies like New Zealand).

A really shitty reason

Two years ago today, a white supremacist murdered 51 people at two Christchurch mosques. In addition to the deaths and injuries, survivors were left traumatised by what they had seen. Jacinda Ardern, who has built her political brand on kindness, is refusing to help them. Why not? Because then she might have to be kind to others too:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says she can’t expand access to cover all those traumatised at the March 15 terror attacks without expanding access more widely.

Currently ACC covers those with direct physical injuries but not those with mental health injuries that are not work-related or the result of sexual abuse.

That means those who were traumatised at either of the Christchurch mosques two years ago where a terrorist killed 51 Muslim worshippers, are not eligible for direct payments for mental health trauma.

As reasons go, this is a really, really shitty one. What would be so bad about helping other victims of trauma? Does she think its not real? Does she think that it doesn't fuck up people's lives every bit as much as a physical injury? Or is she just looking for ways to Keep Taxes Low, the rich sweet, and the status quo intact, so she doesn't have to actually do anything with the power we gave her?

Blaming anyone but themselves

Labour is increasingly under pressure over its refusal to implement a wealth tax or similar solution to end house hoarding. Their answer? Blame the public:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is putting some onus on the public for the housing crisis, saying the Government had tried taxation to ease the soaring market three times without public support.

[...]

However, Ardern this morning told TVNZ1's Breakfast that "the appetite for some of these policies also needs to come from the public".

"We've tried three times now to do things that specifically sit in that taxation category and there hasn't been wide support for that," she said.

Oh really? In 2019, the public supported a capital gains tax by 44 to 35 percent. And just before the election, 48.7 percent of kiwis thought Labour should be taxing the wealthy more versus 43 percent who disagreed. While neither of these is majority support, its the majority of those who care enough to have an opinion, which is as good as you get. And they're both numbers the government could easily have worked with. Instead, they chose not to, out of chickenshittedness and a desire to grovel to the rich. And rather than own that decision, they're now seeking to blame anyone but themselves. And isn't that so very, very Labour?

But snark about Labour cowardice aside, the other way of looking at this is that Ardern is telling the public "make me". And so we should. The question is how many Labour MPs we have to threaten to turn into democratic roadkill along the way.

Reading the room

It looks like the government has finally read the room on the housing crisis, with Finance Minister grant Robertson writing to the Reserve Bank to tell them to start looking at controlling house prices:

Finance Minister Grant Robertson has told Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr that it’s time to think about out of control house prices.

Robertson has written to Orr telling him that “housing price instability is harmful to our aims of reduced inequality and poverty, and is also likely to negatively impact the Government’s aim of creating a more productive and inclusive economy”.

He wants the bank to think about the ways it and the Government can work together to achieve “sustained moderation in house prices that we have both sought”.

His letter suggests this could include asking the governor to consider stability of house prices when it makes monetary policy decisions, including decisions about interest rates.

This is something that Ardern was ruling out just last week, despite it being the way the Reserve Bank Act is meant to operate. But I guess she's finally picked up on the public anger over this. The prospect of people without wealthy parents being locked out of home ownership forever and the creation of an English-style landed gentry is deeply at odds with most kiwis' perception of how our country should be, and we expect the government to fix it. Ardern's staunch refusal to do so and her successive ruling out of any effective policy measure was making people angrier and angrier. But while this is a start, the government needs to go further, from "trying not to make the problem any worse" to actually solving it with mass house-building and wealth taxes. And if they don't, they'll be out on their arses next election.

Ardern's crocodile tears won't fix the housing crisis

People are getting very grumpy at the government's refusal to act on the housing crisis. Jacinda Ardern's response? To tell everyone she cares:

Jacinda Ardern says one of the things that sets her Government apart from the National Party is Labour's concern over skyrocketing house prices.

The median house price in Aotearoa recently hit $750,000, and in Auckland it's soared past $1 million.

In an interview with The AM Show on Monday, Ardern said she "has concerns" about New Zealand's housing market.

"I don't want to see this ongoing escalation that is making it increasingly difficult to get first home buyers into houses, and that is something we're concerned about - and that's a different view to the previous Government."

That's nice. But as long as Ardern is ruling out any effective policy to address the problem - wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, mass house-building to flood the market - then its just crocodile tears. And coming from someone with a $2 million house, its simply insulting.

This is not a solution

Anger over the housing crisis and the betrayal of the kiwi dream has reached high enough levels that the Prime Minister feels she has to (be seen to) do something about it. Her solution? Subsidising property sellers:

While facing questions this morning, Ardern revealed the Government was looking into adjusting the thresholds around the home-start grants to make it easier for first-time buyers to get into the market.

The home-start grant enables first-time buyers access to $5000, or $10,000 as a couple, towards their first property.

There are a number of restrictions at the moment – including an earning limit of $85,000 per person, or $130,000 for a couple.

Ardern wouldn't say which areas of the eligibility requirements might be shifted, but she was clear that the Government was exploring making some changes.

But like the accommodation supplement, which sees the government effectively subsidising landlords, this subsidy is one that flows straight into the pockets of people on the other end of the transaction - in this case, the seller. So effectively Ardern's solution is to subsidise property speculators. And its hard to see how this won't simply lead to prices rising even further. And then rise further, as that price rise gives property owners more paper wealth, which they can then leverage for further speculation, and on and on it goes. But I guess it looks like a good solution if you already own a $2 million house.

Any real solution to the housing crisis means attacking wealth - either directly, by taxing it, or indirectly, by devaluing it (which is what mass house-building would do). Anything which doesn't attack wealth is not a solution. If Ardern is unwilling to attack wealth, she should resign and make space for someone who is.

Even the banks can see which way the wind is blowing

Jacinda Ardern has famously ruled out taxing wealth in any way, saying "not as long as I'm Prime Minister". Meanwhile, Westpac is saying that its inevitable:

Rising public anger about growing inequality is likely to force the imposition of a capital gains or wealth tax in the next few years, according to the chief economist of Westpac.

[...]

"By mid-2021 we expect house price inflation will be 15 percent, roughly the same as 2016," Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens said.

"The political and social fallout will be just as intense as it was back then."

[...]

"My pick is that some form of tax on wealth, land or capital gains will get over the line in the mid-2020s, when societal dissatisfaction with rising wealth inequality reaches boiling point," Stephens said.

The government really would be pushing on an open door here. But Labour is now constitutionally incapable of taking such opportunities, and by making it a personal promise, Ardern can't back down without losing face and admitting she was wrong (something politicians are highly averse to doing). Which means the only effective way forward is to get a new Prime Minister - something which will take another couple of elections and a lot more suffering and misery. And all of that suffering and misery will be able to be laid at the feet of Jacinda Ardern, who is kind only to the rich.