Great article Ani, although confirmation bias is probably fairly strong in my case. It would be great to remind the virtue signalling Left that, apart from microbes, their lot have killed more people than anyone. Mao,Stalin, Pol Pot, made Hitler seem like amateur when it came killing his own people. God knows how many North Koreans have staved to death in the name of communism. Even the historical tally that the Catholic Church has amassed with various inquisitions would be a rounding error compared to the 100 million or more souls that socialist- communist states have sent to the great proletariat party in the sky. And that's only the recorded atrocities. The left have always had a tendency towards violence as a means of getting their ideas across.
Just one teeny point though.. free prescriptions are a very good move, as recent research shows that prescription charges lead to more people not taking their medicines, and ending up in hospital at great cost to taxpayer.
I agree for people in financial need, but I am a high-needs patient and I know that my prescriptions are capped at $100 per year. So even if I pay $5 per prescription, once I hit $100 they stop charging me.
Wow that is an interesting read. Thanks, Doug. I would support scrapping it for high-deprivation cohorts as Professor Norris suggests. I would like those of us who can afford the $100 to continue paying though. Leaves more money in the kitty. Means testing is always difficult though!
I don’t think the Greens expect anyone to take their budget seriously. By glossing over negatives and emphasizing ‘positives,’ they’re prioritizing narrative over substance to see what resonates. This budget is a long-term strategy to shape their 2026 election approach. Labour is likely watching closely. Short-term: avoid giving them airtime or treating their proposal as serious. Long-term: monitor Labour closely, especially as the 2026 election nears
Venezuela has oil at least but what does New Zealand have? Also, Venezuelans can escape from the maddness by foot to their closest neighbour, but New Zealanders where could possibly go? In that sense, but a more unfashionable complementary option for your article's title would be "... path to Cuba". God protect us and future generations from such a sinister destiny in case greens get near to power.
I can’t say I’ve forensically deconstructed The Green’s budget at this point. There does appear to be some elements that might be, let’s see now…mmmm…I’ll use a ‘Luxism’ here: perhaps they might be called stretch targets, but hey, I’m sure Chlöe will chunk it all down for us. Importantly, what The Green’s have done very successfully here is shine a light on some big rocks.
Your narrative trips over a big rock too. You suggest the system has insufficient capacity to deliver The Green’s budget and that’s hard to argue with unless you dig a bit deeper and get stuck into some monetary theory.
Personally, I see the biggest problem with The Green’s budget being the fact that consecutive governments have utterly failed to address the lack of capacity in the system. Why is that? I’m mean come on, the government’s here have had nearly half a century to sort shit out.
I see Tadhg has provided some insight into the fiscal potential of sovereignty, so I’ll skip the common sense potential of leveraging that incredible set of four aces and half a dozen jokers.
The point is The Greens have bravely begun a process of challenging a system of government (Neoliberalism, aka vulture capitalism) that has failed to meet its quarterly targets since its inception. It has also failed to meet nearly every KPI that has ever been set by it.
Notice I said governments, both red and blue. And here we are, debating over a 30% debt ratio while kiwis leave in droves to my home country. When will the government’s here wake up? Oh well, welcome to country.
Thanks Chlöe and Marama for challenging the status quo, thinking outside the box, and offering an alternative point of view. It’s refreshing, and your vision paints a world I would love to live in wearing my Che Guevara hat and Karl Marx T-shirt.
Viva La Revolución.
cc Grace Blakeley, George Monbiot and fellow comrades.
I have no comment on the credibility or otherwise of the Greens budget (I gave up taking the Greens seriously years ago) but the irony of someone going on about ideology trumping evidence using a picture of the Gulag….lets repeat that THE GULAG to illustrate an alternative budget in NZ.
I realise you see yourself as trying to present thoughtful analysis, but seriously hyperbole like this is just outrage porn for the narrowly partisan.
Also, if you’re going to repeatedly use the term ‘Marxist’ you could at least explain how any of it is actually Marxist. Marxism being a real set of definable ideas (and no, I’m not a Marxist). At least Winston doesn’t really pretend as with his rants about woke’ that his definition goes much beyond ‘the bad thing I don’t like, that will play well with my base’.
Marxists subscribe to the ideas of Karl Marx and believe that society is fundamentally defined by class struggle—specifically between the capitalist class (the wealthy owners) and the working class (everyone else). Marxists see capitalism as inherently unjust and exploitative, claiming it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few while leaving the majority disenfranchised. Their solution is a revolutionary overhaul of the system to create a classless, stateless society where resources are shared equally. In theory.
But critics, like myself, argue that Marxism, while highlighting real issues like inequality, often replaces one form of control with another. In practice, Marxist-inspired revolutions have frequently led to authoritarian regimes, economic collapse, the suppression of individual freedoms, and violence. The theory tends to treat people as members of abstract classes rather than as individuals with diverse motivations and values. It also underestimates the complexity of modern economies and the benefits that market systems can offer, such as innovation, choice, and rising living standards. While Marxism presents itself as a path to fairness, history shows that its implementation often leads to new forms of injustice.
Hope that helps. I am not a news website. This is a personal Substack and I write about many things. Sometimes I use humour and sarcasm. Sometimes I use metaphors. If you don't like it I suggest you just give my writing a miss.
I didn’t need a cut & paste from Wikipedia definition to understand what Marxism is, but there’s still literally nothing on how the Greens budget is ‘Marxist’ in any intellectually rigorous sense.
I suspect the reality is it’s just an emotive pejorative that easy to chuck out & most people will just nod along.
The fact you approving cite Peters who isn’t even trying to say something intellectually credible is revealing.
Also, which is it. You actually think the Greens idea are Marxist or it hyperbole for the sake of humour?
If you can’t see how equating it, even if for the purposes of humour with Gulag makes your argument seem like shrill partisan propaganda, I can’t really help.
Yes, I could just ignore you but you clearly see yourself as a serious commentator, so you can’t have it both ways.
The green budget can fairly be described as “Marxist lite". It ain't full-blown revolutionary socialism sure, but certainly inspired by core Marxist ideas about wealth inequality and class dynamics. It is an aggressive push for wealth taxes, higher income and corporate taxes, and expanded welfare programs. It reflects a deep skepticism of capitalist wealth accumulation. While it doesn’t go as far as advocating for the abolition of private property or the means of production it does propose using state power to significantly reshape the economic landscape. This softer, reformist approach echoes Marxist principles in tone and intention, if not in revolutionary scale. Class rebalancing made more palatable, but unmistakably rooted in leftist economic theory.
Haha when have I ever said anything about being a serious commentator. I just write and it is up to others if they want to read. Im eternally surprised that so many people are interested in my perspectives on X and TikTok. I haven't been using Substack long but it is coming along. Perhaps if you wrote more frequently you would accumulate more subscribers.
I often cite politicians in my writing - whether I agree with them or not - I do find it funny that you are so aghast that I would quote the Deputy Prime Minister.
I did not copy and paste from Wikipedia. Which should be fairly obvious.
Well, good for you not quoting from Wikipedia so we’ll go with Marxism 101 then.
No idea what ‘Marxism lite’ is even supposed to mean or indeed how a focus on ‘wealth inequality’ & class is inherently Marxist as opposed to long history of non Marxist social democracy or say. the origins of the Labour movement.
The reality is you picked Marxism because like ‘woke’ it’s a partisan boo word for ‘the bad thing’.
You say you don’t claim to be a serious commentator, I think that might be news to a lot of people given you’ve been published in national news papers & been a spokesperson for organisations with a national profile 🤷🏼♂️.
In a “true” MMP style democracy even the nutcases get to have their representatives in parliament. I sometimes think a return to FPP would be a great stabiliser - a somewhat less pure form of democracy with a whole lot more economic and social stability and benefit for all.
Here’s a synthetic response to the greens budget and your first critique
Nb. Important point; you say ‘free’, no. The correct word is ‘funded’.
Until you understand the role - and responsibility - of credit creation / currency issue - you are engaged in misinformation at best, and propaganda for cartels at worst. Dont you want to do better than that?
⸻
Frame 1: We are not debating policy. We are debating sovereignty.
Both the Green Budget and O’Brien’s critique dance around the central truth: New Zealand does not exercise full economic sovereignty. It operates under a neoliberal regime of consent, in which tax, debt, and welfare are bounded by myths about fiscal prudence and market discipline — myths crafted by Treasury, enforced by commercial banks, and upheld by politicians who either don’t know or won’t say that sovereign currency issuers cannot “run out of money.”
Greens’ failure: They propose radical redistribution within the neoliberal frame. Their wealth tax, inheritance tax, and income guarantees are filtered through assumptions of balanced books, foreign investor appeasement, and ‘credible’ debt ceilings. But why chase rich people’s money before asserting the public’s right to issue credit for national development?
O’Brien’s deception: Her critique assumes economic realism while denying the reality that money is created through government or bank credit. She pretends to protect the economy from ideological excess, but she’s defending a system where profit is privatized and risk is socialized — a rigged game.
⸻
Frame 2: Realpolitik of Class War Disguised as Budget Talk
Ani O’Brien isn’t just critiquing policy. She’s shoring up the moral legitimacy of extractive elites. Her arguments are textbook Atlas Network messaging:
• Frame redistribution as envy.
• Equate taxation with tyranny.
• Paint investment in the poor as reckless.
This is ideological warfare dressed in technocratic clothing.
Meanwhile, the Greens talk about justice but avoid naming the enemy: the corporate capture of land, housing, energy, and banking. Their budget avoids strategic confrontation with the oligopoly economy. No plan for public banking. No call to nationalize land underutilized for speculation. No MMT-informed issuance of credit for regen infrastructure. Just better charity.
Third-order critique: When your politics is framed as redistributing crumbs, you’ve already accepted the theft of the bakery.
⸻
Frame 3: What Both Miss – The Capacity for Regenerative Wealth Creation
True phronesis asks not just “what is good?” but “what is possible, here, now, given our means and constraints?” Neither O’Brien nor the Greens articulate what New Zealand could be if it:
• Reclaimed public credit issuance (a la Social Credit or postwar Japan).
• Used land and resource rents to fund public wealth.
• Treated national health as an asset, not a cost.
That’s not left or right. It’s post-neoliberal nation-building. Neither camp is offering it.
⸻
Frame 4: The Green Budget is a Truce. O’Brien Wants a Surrender.
The Green proposal, for all its moral impulse, is still a truce within Empire — please sir, may we tax the rich? O’Brien wants a full surrender — no taxation, no redistribution, just suffer quietly and be grateful for crumbs.
But the people of this country deserve a rebellion, not a negotiation. The question is not whether we can afford dental care or income guarantees. It’s whether we will continue subsidizing the fortunes of those who own our debt, our land, and our future — or whether we will take it back.
⸻
Summary: What Phronesis Demands
From the Greens:
• Ditch the wealth tax dependency and adopt sovereign credit as your funding source.
• Name the power structures — the cartels, monopolies, and regulatory capture that keep us poor.
• Offer a credible, regenerative industrial and monetary strategy.
From O’Brien and her ilk:
• Nothing more is owed. You are the PR wing of a class war.
• Your “realism” is selective amnesia.
• Your “concern” is for markets, not people.
⸻
Final line:
We’re not debating budget lines.
We’re debating who owns the future.
And if neither of these visions claim it for the people,
Tadhg, take a breath. You don't need to snipe at me everytime. We can disagree and it is not the end of the world. I don't think you are bad for thinking differently, but I do judge you for how rude and snarky you are in spaces that could be places of discussion.
So, have the greens explained the increases in taxes to fund their big ideas? Welfare was always designed as a safety net not a lifestyle. Fully funded student education will come at an extravagant cost back in the day when it was free to study, we didn’t have all the degrees and PG that are available and we certainly don’t have all the PTE that also provide tertiary courses. We don’t have the working population to fund this, or are they thinking of taxing the top tier wage earners. We are a low wage economy with bellowing debt thanks to mismanagement as a result of Covid. Or are the Greens and TPM preparing to take salary cuts to fund their big ideas?
Great article Ani, although confirmation bias is probably fairly strong in my case. It would be great to remind the virtue signalling Left that, apart from microbes, their lot have killed more people than anyone. Mao,Stalin, Pol Pot, made Hitler seem like amateur when it came killing his own people. God knows how many North Koreans have staved to death in the name of communism. Even the historical tally that the Catholic Church has amassed with various inquisitions would be a rounding error compared to the 100 million or more souls that socialist- communist states have sent to the great proletariat party in the sky. And that's only the recorded atrocities. The left have always had a tendency towards violence as a means of getting their ideas across.
Keep up the good work.
A McKenna
Excellent article, Ani. You have got it right.
Just one teeny point though.. free prescriptions are a very good move, as recent research shows that prescription charges lead to more people not taking their medicines, and ending up in hospital at great cost to taxpayer.
I agree for people in financial need, but I am a high-needs patient and I know that my prescriptions are capped at $100 per year. So even if I pay $5 per prescription, once I hit $100 they stop charging me.
Yes, I understand, Ani.
I am a recently retired pharmacist so I'm familiar with how this works in practice.
But this study illustrates the actual impact in NZ. https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/news/otago-study-quantifies-harm-caused-5-prescription-fee
Wow that is an interesting read. Thanks, Doug. I would support scrapping it for high-deprivation cohorts as Professor Norris suggests. I would like those of us who can afford the $100 to continue paying though. Leaves more money in the kitty. Means testing is always difficult though!
Superb Ani!
Funding = taxing the so called 'middle' heavily yet again. yeah-nah
Interesting:
https://betterwellington.org.nz/green-party-behind-move-to-silence-discredit-councillors/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chl%C3%B6e_Swarbrick
I don’t think the Greens expect anyone to take their budget seriously. By glossing over negatives and emphasizing ‘positives,’ they’re prioritizing narrative over substance to see what resonates. This budget is a long-term strategy to shape their 2026 election approach. Labour is likely watching closely. Short-term: avoid giving them airtime or treating their proposal as serious. Long-term: monitor Labour closely, especially as the 2026 election nears
Thanks for reminding me I’m not alone in thinking we have halfwits on very high salaries obsessed with career politics.
Nothing but themselves appears important!
Venezuela has oil at least but what does New Zealand have? Also, Venezuelans can escape from the maddness by foot to their closest neighbour, but New Zealanders where could possibly go? In that sense, but a more unfashionable complementary option for your article's title would be "... path to Cuba". God protect us and future generations from such a sinister destiny in case greens get near to power.
I can’t say I’ve forensically deconstructed The Green’s budget at this point. There does appear to be some elements that might be, let’s see now…mmmm…I’ll use a ‘Luxism’ here: perhaps they might be called stretch targets, but hey, I’m sure Chlöe will chunk it all down for us. Importantly, what The Green’s have done very successfully here is shine a light on some big rocks.
Your narrative trips over a big rock too. You suggest the system has insufficient capacity to deliver The Green’s budget and that’s hard to argue with unless you dig a bit deeper and get stuck into some monetary theory.
Personally, I see the biggest problem with The Green’s budget being the fact that consecutive governments have utterly failed to address the lack of capacity in the system. Why is that? I’m mean come on, the government’s here have had nearly half a century to sort shit out.
I see Tadhg has provided some insight into the fiscal potential of sovereignty, so I’ll skip the common sense potential of leveraging that incredible set of four aces and half a dozen jokers.
The point is The Greens have bravely begun a process of challenging a system of government (Neoliberalism, aka vulture capitalism) that has failed to meet its quarterly targets since its inception. It has also failed to meet nearly every KPI that has ever been set by it.
Notice I said governments, both red and blue. And here we are, debating over a 30% debt ratio while kiwis leave in droves to my home country. When will the government’s here wake up? Oh well, welcome to country.
Thanks Chlöe and Marama for challenging the status quo, thinking outside the box, and offering an alternative point of view. It’s refreshing, and your vision paints a world I would love to live in wearing my Che Guevara hat and Karl Marx T-shirt.
Viva La Revolución.
cc Grace Blakeley, George Monbiot and fellow comrades.
Who’s the Pinot winemaker? 🙂
I have no comment on the credibility or otherwise of the Greens budget (I gave up taking the Greens seriously years ago) but the irony of someone going on about ideology trumping evidence using a picture of the Gulag….lets repeat that THE GULAG to illustrate an alternative budget in NZ.
I realise you see yourself as trying to present thoughtful analysis, but seriously hyperbole like this is just outrage porn for the narrowly partisan.
Also, if you’re going to repeatedly use the term ‘Marxist’ you could at least explain how any of it is actually Marxist. Marxism being a real set of definable ideas (and no, I’m not a Marxist). At least Winston doesn’t really pretend as with his rants about woke’ that his definition goes much beyond ‘the bad thing I don’t like, that will play well with my base’.
It’s pretty funny that you can’t see that.
Marxists subscribe to the ideas of Karl Marx and believe that society is fundamentally defined by class struggle—specifically between the capitalist class (the wealthy owners) and the working class (everyone else). Marxists see capitalism as inherently unjust and exploitative, claiming it concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few while leaving the majority disenfranchised. Their solution is a revolutionary overhaul of the system to create a classless, stateless society where resources are shared equally. In theory.
But critics, like myself, argue that Marxism, while highlighting real issues like inequality, often replaces one form of control with another. In practice, Marxist-inspired revolutions have frequently led to authoritarian regimes, economic collapse, the suppression of individual freedoms, and violence. The theory tends to treat people as members of abstract classes rather than as individuals with diverse motivations and values. It also underestimates the complexity of modern economies and the benefits that market systems can offer, such as innovation, choice, and rising living standards. While Marxism presents itself as a path to fairness, history shows that its implementation often leads to new forms of injustice.
Hope that helps. I am not a news website. This is a personal Substack and I write about many things. Sometimes I use humour and sarcasm. Sometimes I use metaphors. If you don't like it I suggest you just give my writing a miss.
I didn’t need a cut & paste from Wikipedia definition to understand what Marxism is, but there’s still literally nothing on how the Greens budget is ‘Marxist’ in any intellectually rigorous sense.
I suspect the reality is it’s just an emotive pejorative that easy to chuck out & most people will just nod along.
The fact you approving cite Peters who isn’t even trying to say something intellectually credible is revealing.
Also, which is it. You actually think the Greens idea are Marxist or it hyperbole for the sake of humour?
If you can’t see how equating it, even if for the purposes of humour with Gulag makes your argument seem like shrill partisan propaganda, I can’t really help.
Yes, I could just ignore you but you clearly see yourself as a serious commentator, so you can’t have it both ways.
The green budget can fairly be described as “Marxist lite". It ain't full-blown revolutionary socialism sure, but certainly inspired by core Marxist ideas about wealth inequality and class dynamics. It is an aggressive push for wealth taxes, higher income and corporate taxes, and expanded welfare programs. It reflects a deep skepticism of capitalist wealth accumulation. While it doesn’t go as far as advocating for the abolition of private property or the means of production it does propose using state power to significantly reshape the economic landscape. This softer, reformist approach echoes Marxist principles in tone and intention, if not in revolutionary scale. Class rebalancing made more palatable, but unmistakably rooted in leftist economic theory.
Haha when have I ever said anything about being a serious commentator. I just write and it is up to others if they want to read. Im eternally surprised that so many people are interested in my perspectives on X and TikTok. I haven't been using Substack long but it is coming along. Perhaps if you wrote more frequently you would accumulate more subscribers.
I often cite politicians in my writing - whether I agree with them or not - I do find it funny that you are so aghast that I would quote the Deputy Prime Minister.
I did not copy and paste from Wikipedia. Which should be fairly obvious.
Well, good for you not quoting from Wikipedia so we’ll go with Marxism 101 then.
No idea what ‘Marxism lite’ is even supposed to mean or indeed how a focus on ‘wealth inequality’ & class is inherently Marxist as opposed to long history of non Marxist social democracy or say. the origins of the Labour movement.
The reality is you picked Marxism because like ‘woke’ it’s a partisan boo word for ‘the bad thing’.
You say you don’t claim to be a serious commentator, I think that might be news to a lot of people given you’ve been published in national news papers & been a spokesperson for organisations with a national profile 🤷🏼♂️.
I guess you’re calling me a serious commentator then.
Well, by the standards of NZ public discourse ‘serious commentator’ & ‘partisan hack’ are synonyms, so sure.
In a “true” MMP style democracy even the nutcases get to have their representatives in parliament. I sometimes think a return to FPP would be a great stabiliser - a somewhat less pure form of democracy with a whole lot more economic and social stability and benefit for all.
Hi Ani, congrats on rehashing false frames.
Here’s a synthetic response to the greens budget and your first critique
Nb. Important point; you say ‘free’, no. The correct word is ‘funded’.
Until you understand the role - and responsibility - of credit creation / currency issue - you are engaged in misinformation at best, and propaganda for cartels at worst. Dont you want to do better than that?
⸻
Frame 1: We are not debating policy. We are debating sovereignty.
Both the Green Budget and O’Brien’s critique dance around the central truth: New Zealand does not exercise full economic sovereignty. It operates under a neoliberal regime of consent, in which tax, debt, and welfare are bounded by myths about fiscal prudence and market discipline — myths crafted by Treasury, enforced by commercial banks, and upheld by politicians who either don’t know or won’t say that sovereign currency issuers cannot “run out of money.”
Greens’ failure: They propose radical redistribution within the neoliberal frame. Their wealth tax, inheritance tax, and income guarantees are filtered through assumptions of balanced books, foreign investor appeasement, and ‘credible’ debt ceilings. But why chase rich people’s money before asserting the public’s right to issue credit for national development?
O’Brien’s deception: Her critique assumes economic realism while denying the reality that money is created through government or bank credit. She pretends to protect the economy from ideological excess, but she’s defending a system where profit is privatized and risk is socialized — a rigged game.
⸻
Frame 2: Realpolitik of Class War Disguised as Budget Talk
Ani O’Brien isn’t just critiquing policy. She’s shoring up the moral legitimacy of extractive elites. Her arguments are textbook Atlas Network messaging:
• Frame redistribution as envy.
• Equate taxation with tyranny.
• Paint investment in the poor as reckless.
This is ideological warfare dressed in technocratic clothing.
Meanwhile, the Greens talk about justice but avoid naming the enemy: the corporate capture of land, housing, energy, and banking. Their budget avoids strategic confrontation with the oligopoly economy. No plan for public banking. No call to nationalize land underutilized for speculation. No MMT-informed issuance of credit for regen infrastructure. Just better charity.
Third-order critique: When your politics is framed as redistributing crumbs, you’ve already accepted the theft of the bakery.
⸻
Frame 3: What Both Miss – The Capacity for Regenerative Wealth Creation
True phronesis asks not just “what is good?” but “what is possible, here, now, given our means and constraints?” Neither O’Brien nor the Greens articulate what New Zealand could be if it:
• Reclaimed public credit issuance (a la Social Credit or postwar Japan).
• Used land and resource rents to fund public wealth.
• Targeted zero-interest investment at regenerative infrastructure: geothermal, seaweed, housing, food.
• Treated national health as an asset, not a cost.
That’s not left or right. It’s post-neoliberal nation-building. Neither camp is offering it.
⸻
Frame 4: The Green Budget is a Truce. O’Brien Wants a Surrender.
The Green proposal, for all its moral impulse, is still a truce within Empire — please sir, may we tax the rich? O’Brien wants a full surrender — no taxation, no redistribution, just suffer quietly and be grateful for crumbs.
But the people of this country deserve a rebellion, not a negotiation. The question is not whether we can afford dental care or income guarantees. It’s whether we will continue subsidizing the fortunes of those who own our debt, our land, and our future — or whether we will take it back.
⸻
Summary: What Phronesis Demands
From the Greens:
• Ditch the wealth tax dependency and adopt sovereign credit as your funding source.
• Name the power structures — the cartels, monopolies, and regulatory capture that keep us poor.
• Offer a credible, regenerative industrial and monetary strategy.
From O’Brien and her ilk:
• Nothing more is owed. You are the PR wing of a class war.
• Your “realism” is selective amnesia.
• Your “concern” is for markets, not people.
⸻
Final line:
We’re not debating budget lines.
We’re debating who owns the future.
And if neither of these visions claim it for the people,
then we must.
Bro...it ain't that deep. I blogged my thoughts on the Greens' budget. It is my opinion.
Ok. No wonder you work for people like that then
Tadhg, take a breath. You don't need to snipe at me everytime. We can disagree and it is not the end of the world. I don't think you are bad for thinking differently, but I do judge you for how rude and snarky you are in spaces that could be places of discussion.
Bless. I’m probably not as snarky as I come across Ani, and I hope that you evolve your position.
Have you read Bruce Jesson or Brian Easton? Good locals. John A Lee, or WB Sutch?
I saw you worked for the national party. I think it died when Shipley knifed Bolger. It’s a greed zombie now
So, have the greens explained the increases in taxes to fund their big ideas? Welfare was always designed as a safety net not a lifestyle. Fully funded student education will come at an extravagant cost back in the day when it was free to study, we didn’t have all the degrees and PG that are available and we certainly don’t have all the PTE that also provide tertiary courses. We don’t have the working population to fund this, or are they thinking of taxing the top tier wage earners. We are a low wage economy with bellowing debt thanks to mismanagement as a result of Covid. Or are the Greens and TPM preparing to take salary cuts to fund their big ideas?
I believe you are fundamentally mistaken bud
https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/the-great-betrayal-1984?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Yes, those were the days of milk and honey.
Who is the "we" of your last line?
We, the people. But I’m working on my own things to help us get there
"The people" is a very amorphous construct so I'll be interested to see what you come up with!
Bless. Knowledge is power. The solution is always education