Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | ... | 315

9433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10896

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3509000 6-Jul-2026 15:19

MikeAqua:

You don't know what the GHG is or isn't going to do and what the threshold is. I would guess it would have to be 'vital organs' stuff. Like the suspension of democracy scenario that you alluded to. I also think you're fundamentally incorrect about that anyway, because the law requiring elections is entrenched.

I mentioned Whitlam as example of a GG exercising their powers. Not because of the specific circumstances. Point is GGs have powers.

The whole argument about suspension of democracy is moot because any government that would vote to suspend democracy wouldn't care if the GG declared them dissolved. Apart from the very narrow Whitlam type situation, the GG is a pointless figurehead. The evidence of several hundred years of Westminster systems around the world says they are not going to intervene just because a law is bad.

But a court whose constitutional job it is to call out and block Parliament on unconstitutional laws absolutely will do so. Also, if your argument is that appointed positions cannot be trusted to wield any sort of power over an elected Parliament then I have some grave news for you about how one becomes Governor General.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
81348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 42712

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3509001 6-Jul-2026 15:22

MikeAqua:

freitasm:

A group of people relying on facts naturally tend to have a liberal bias.

The research says not at all. Academics given the same data sets tend to form conclusions skewed toward their own political biases.

For example (research published in January), you could give 158 teams of sociologists the same data. The anti-immigration teams will tend to conclude it shows immigration is harmful. The pro-immigration teams will tend to find that the data shows immigration is beneficial. Professional researchers (should be immune to bias). Pure facts. Biased conclusions.

Setting that aside ... Your fundamental supposition is wrong: Setting electoral boundaries shouldn't result in liberal or conservative outcomes. It should result in electorates that contain the correct number of people, having zero regard to voting patterns.

I am not disputing optimal electoral boundaries outcomes. I did not even mention these, so not sure where you got that from. Therefore, you cannot assume it's my fundamental supposition one way or another

My final result wish is the same as yours: "electorates that contain the correct number of people, having zero regard to voting patterns."

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

LEGAL video, movies and TV download and streaming options in New Zealand

MikeAqua

8734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4340

#3509005 6-Jul-2026 15:31

freitasm:

My final result wish is the same as yours: "electorates that contain the correct number of people, having zero regard to voting patterns."

That's not a liberal outcome. It's a politically neutral outcome.

Mike

MikeAqua

8734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4340

#3509006 6-Jul-2026 15:33

freitasm:

I am not disputing optimal electoral boundaries outcomes. I did not even mention these, so not sure where you got that from. Therefore, you cannot assume it's my fundamental supposition one way or another

You were responding to a discussion on Gerrymandering. Hence my assumption that you were referring to electoral boundary setting.

Mike

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
81348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 42712

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3509008 6-Jul-2026 15:38

MikeAqua:

freitasm:

I am not disputing optimal electoral boundaries outcomes. I did not even mention these, so not sure where you got that from. Therefore, you cannot assume it's my fundamental supposition one way or another

You were responding to a discussion on Gerrymandering. Hence my assumption that you were referring to electoral boundary setting.

I was responding to a single line you wrote: "You'd see no change at all because academics have political biases too, and they wouldn't be able to agree. Maybe no change would be a good thing."

My point was that naturally occurring facts tend to favour a liberal bias due to evolving opinions. Scientific academia tends to favour facts and provable statements rather than beliefs.

That's to say, conservatives tend to think about how to keep things the way they are, how to preserve more of the status quo and how to favour their friends instead of a broader community.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

LEGAL video, movies and TV download and streaming options in New Zealand

SaltyNZ

9433 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10896

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3509010 6-Jul-2026 15:54

Handle9:

Section 17 of the constitution act is entrenched. It requires a 75% majority in parliament or a referendum to change that so there is something stopping that happen. It's a very good example of parliament making a law to be interpreted by the courts.

However, section 268 of the Electoral Act on which it relies is not entrenched, and therefore section 17 of the Constitution Act can be undone with two simple majority votes.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4340

#3509148 7-Jul-2026 13:13

freitasm:

I was responding to a single line you wrote: "You'd see no change at all because academics have political biases too, and they wouldn't be able to agree. Maybe no change would be a good thing."

My point was that naturally occurring facts tend to favour a liberal bias due to evolving opinions. Scientific academia tends to favour facts and provable statements rather than beliefs.

That's to say, conservatives tend to think about how to keep things the way they are, how to preserve more of the status quo and how to favour their friends instead of a broader community.

Science as a process favours falsifiable theories and facts. Scientists/academics are human, have axes to grind and are just as prone to bias and parochialism as other humans. Consensus usually emerges via the scientific process eventually, but it can take decades. In the social sciences, which are sometimes called soft sciences, consensus seems to be limited and rare because good data sets and clear results are hard to come by.

Liberals sometimes want change for changes sake, and are as biased as conservatives, they just want to favour a different set of people. It's the same thing, in different packaging. I don't think there is much ethical difference between conservatives and liberals.

I can't follow what you mean by naturally occurring facts, sorry.

Mike

gzt

19639 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8749

Lifetime subscriber

#3509151 7-Jul-2026 13:19

Prisoner release process has never been great. I'd guess housing difficulties in recent years will have been driving rapid reoffending in some cases.

Labour says prisoner releases with conditions and without a stable address have doubled under National:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/people-leaving-prison-with-specific-post-release-conditions-without-a-known-or-stable-house-nearly-doubles-under-coalition/premium/M3UY7RR47BH53BWDHMTO5GATLM/

gzt

19639 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8749

Lifetime subscriber

#3509156 7-Jul-2026 13:36

MikeAqua: The research says not at all. Academics given the same data sets tend to form conclusions skewed toward their own political biases. For example (research published in January), you could give 158 teams of sociologists the same data. The anti-immigration teams will tend to conclude it shows immigration is harmful. The pro-immigration teams will tend to find that the data shows immigration is beneficial. Professional researchers (should be immune to bias). Pure facts. Biased conclusions.

Apparently not. Examination of the paper shows some issues:

Metaarxiv: Although we were able to reproduce B&B's numerical results, our reanalysis shows that the reported association is not robust. Specifically, the association hinges on a coding error. Data from four teams that contradict the ideology hypothesis were excluded from the analysis due to idiosyncratic variable coding. Correcting this error renders the ideology effect no longer statistically significant. Also, B&B employed a different outcome variable and weighting scheme to that used in a previous paper based on the same data. These two analytical decisions further contribute to the observed ideology effect. Correcting the coding error or using the same specification as in the previous paper renders the ideology effect indistinguishable from zero. Therefore, we conclude that B&B do not provide robust evidence of ideological bias in this context. Instead, the reported association appears to be a statistical artefact resulting from questionable modelling decisions.

MikeAqua

8734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4340

#3509167 7-Jul-2026 14:36

gzt:
Apparently not. Examination of the paper shows some issues:

Metaarxiv: Although we were able to reproduce B&B's numerical results, our reanalysis shows that the reported association is not robust. Specifically, the association hinges on a coding error. Data from four teams that contradict the ideology hypothesis were excluded from the analysis due to idiosyncratic variable coding. Correcting this error renders the ideology effect no longer statistically significant. Also, B&B employed a different outcome variable and weighting scheme to that used in a previous paper based on the same data. These two analytical decisions further contribute to the observed ideology effect. Correcting the coding error or using the same specification as in the previous paper renders the ideology effect indistinguishable from zero. Therefore, we conclude that B&B do not provide robust evidence of ideological bias in this context. Instead, the reported association appears to be a statistical artefact resulting from questionable modelling decisions.

Interesting thanks, I hadn't seen that. One of the challenges with social science is that it isn't truly empirical. Parameters ofteh aren't directly measured. Often things are ranked, scored etc. So, there is always room for contention of this kind.

Again, researchers are human and humans are vulnerable to bias. There is nothing about researchers that makes them inherently less biased. It's the process that is supposed to deliver consensus. But ... the process takes time and there are problems with behaviour of people within it, as in any field of human endeavour. Academics also tend to be quite independent minded people, and not inherently prone to agreement in groups. Then idea that a group of academics would reach consensus on electoral boundaries ... 🤣. There would be contention and disagreement as in a room full of politicians, and there would still be biases.

Mike

quickymart

15406 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15020

ID Verified

#3510514 12-Jul-2026 09:07

https://accessiblenews.xyz/article/www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/poll-of-polls-coalition-slump-continues-but-labours-path-to-power-lies-with-opportunity/premium/UOUGFJHFZNA2JOTKGGKVJR4HT4

Interesting to see The Opportunity Party described as being a "disruptor" already; in this poll they would impact the chances of Labour becoming government in coalition with the Greens, etc.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ezbee

2788 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3339

#3510716 12-Jul-2026 15:16

Labour did not build as many houses as it promised but it did build more at an increasing rate.
New social housing as well to replace rotting infrastructure.
Building companies could get some economies of scale, and even project for factory construction.
That money spread through the economy as builders/trades spend localy in communities take on apprentices and hammer hands.
Then...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/703932/inside-new-zealand-s-shrinking-building-and-construction-industry

""
Still, there were 551 fewer building and construction companies in business at the end of 2025. About half of them were involved in the construction of flats and other types of multi-family dwellings.
""
""
"We had projects that the previous government had the industry design, in many cases consented, ready to go to construction, and those projects were halted.

"What we need is bipartisan agreement for infrastructure projects," he said, adding that a number of those projects were axed after the last election, resulting in about 15,000 job losses.
""

I expect its also put a chill on apprenticeships, plus potential for qualified to just go where work is in Australia.
When we need them next, too late.

MikeAqua

8734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4340

#3510876 13-Jul-2026 09:50

ezbee:

Labour did not build as many houses as it promised but it did build more at an increasing rate.
New social housing as well to replace rotting infrastructure.
Building companies could get some economies of scale, and even project for factory construction.
That money spread through the economy as builders/trades spend localy in communities take on apprentices and hammer hands.
Then...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/703932/inside-new-zealand-s-shrinking-building-and-construction-industry

""
Still, there were 551 fewer building and construction companies in business at the end of 2025. About half of them were involved in the construction of flats and other types of multi-family dwellings.
""
""
"We had projects that the previous government had the industry design, in many cases consented, ready to go to construction, and those projects were halted.

"What we need is bipartisan agreement for infrastructure projects," he said, adding that a number of those projects were axed after the last election, resulting in about 15,000 job losses.
""

I expect its also put a chill on apprenticeships, plus potential for qualified to just go where work is in Australia.
When we need them next, too late.

This pops up every few years, when the building sector is in decline. Should the govt have pipeline of infrastructure projects to keep builders busy? And what happens when private sector demand for builders picks up?

Noting that in the article, construction job advertising and building consents data are up. Some caution is needed looking at company liquidations. Companies can be set up for specific projects and then liquidated after.

Mike

gzt

19639 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8749

Lifetime subscriber

#3511145 13-Jul-2026 22:39

Luxon and Seymour's talk about joining a new military defence pact with Australia is concerning.

Australia's behaviour under the Morrison government was erratic. That could occur again.

New Zealand should look at expanding the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to include test bans for nuclear weapons delivery systems if that is really a concern. It would be a worthwhile effort.

quickymart

15406 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15020

ID Verified

#3511159 14-Jul-2026 07:04

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713431/rnz-poll-national-hits-new-low-under-luxon-opportunity-nears-parliament

Another poll showing National losing support under Luxon, and the Opportunity Party looks to be steadily gaining.

1 | ... | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | ... | 315