Does Labour really think Facebook and all the other social media platforms are going to be paying any attention to its threat to crack down on them?

Yesterday, the party’s social media spokesperson Reuben Davidson warned “they will pay the price” if they don’t make the kinds of changes Labour will demand if it forms the next Government.

Which, essentially, is letting people decide whether they want to be bombarded with content or just see posts from people they know and accounts they follow.

Some social media platforms already allow this. Labour wants them all to do it.

The party says it will also bring in a social media ban for under-16s.

I think the ban would be a complete waste of time. But I do like what Labour is talking about with the social media companies being required to give people some sort of algorithm control, so they can decide whether they want to see random rubbish or just content from people they know and accounts they follow.

I know that would rely on the companies making the choice available and people making a conscious decision to switch off the random stuff.

But I think that would do way more to protect young people, especially, than any age limit. And I’ll tell you why. I’ll give you a couple of examples.

I was reading about two young people who really suffered because of random stuff turning up on their phones.

Varsha is the first one. When she was 13, she started getting workout videos in her social media feed and encouragement from girls she’d never met to start doing all sorts of dangerous calorie challenges.

Some of these anonymous girls bragged about how much weight they’d lost and how many times they’d ended up in hospital.

That started 11 years ago. She’s now 24 and still recovering from anorexia.

The other person I was reading about is a young chap in Melbourne. His name’s Flynn, and he was frustrated with his life and struggling with his mental health. Then those misogynistic videos from that awful Andrew Tate guy started appearing in his social media feed.

You guessed it. He was sucked into it and thought the only way he was going to improve his life was to become some sort of alpha male, putting women in their place, and all of that.

He eventually gave it all away after ending up in hospital.

These are just two examples. But they show the real danger of social media and why giving people the option of turning off the random crap would do us way more favours than a social media age limit.

It wouldn’t be easy. But we should, at the very least, give it a go.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t been appalled by the cases here in New Zealand where a child has been killed and the people who know full well what has happened have kept their mouths shut.

They’re able to do that because of the right to remain silent, which National has announced it wants to get rid of in cases where a child under the age of 12 has been killed.

I’m one of those people appalled by those examples we’ve seen where it’s obvious someone knows something, but they haven’t said anything to protect themselves and/or those responsible.

The most well-known case would probably be the Kahui twins. But there have been others too.

But even though I’ve been appalled by these cases, I’m opposed to National’s plan, because however much we might not like it, the right to remain silent is fundamental.

Defence lawyer and former Crown prosecutor John Munro doesn’t like National’s plan either. He says the policy would have to go through the Attorney-General, Crown Law, the select committee and other parliamentary processes.

Then outfits such as the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association would want to be involved and, most likely, they’d be opposed to it.

Not that that would necessarily stop National, if it forms the next Government, from doing what it wants to do. Because we’ve seen Governments before ignore concerns raised by the likes of the Attorney-General.

But I think what National’s proposing would be a step too far.

Not just because of the potential for innocent people to say stuff or be forced to say stuff that could work against them.

But, once you start taking away the right to silence in some situations, where do you stop?

If you take away the right to silence for people who might know stuff when a child is killed, what’s to stop more exemptions being added to the list?

Because, when it comes to the law, precedent is everything.

What’s more, forcing someone to speak doesn’t mean they’re going to tell the truth.

Also, the Bill of Rights isn’t a nice-to-have, or something you stick with only when it suits.

Ironically, perhaps, National has announced this policy three years since the killing of Lower Hutt toddler Baby Ru.

I mentioned the Kahui twins before. This is another case where people have used their right to remain silent and, three years on, no one’s been held accountable.

He would have been turning five this week if he was still alive. But he’s not, because of the blunt force trauma he suffered that was so severe it fractured his skull.

It’s useful to remind ourselves of that shocking case when we consider National’s plan, which would take away the right to silence for the likes of the three people who were on the scene when Ru was injured.

But even that’s not enough to make me think this idea of National’s is a good one.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ahead of his Christchurch Town Hall show, Live Aid co-founder and former Ultravox frontman Midge Ure sat down with John MacDonald to look back on more than 50 years in the music industry.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing the latest election campaign ad from the Taxpayers’ Union.

It’s the latest in a series of attack ads from this outfit. Alongside all the other negative advertising out there from some of the actual political parties.

But this one takes it to the next level.

What they’ve done, is they’ve used AI to create a video which shows Labour leader Chris Hipkins kicking down the doors at people's homes, rushing in and helping himself to their wallets and cash.

The objective is to show how much of a money grab Labour’s capital gains tax would be.

The part that I find most disturbing, is where the Chris Hipkins character kicks in the door of an elderly woman’s home while she’s sitting on the couch.

The Hipkins character then grabs money sitting on the TV cabinet and takes off, leaving the woman sitting there like a stunned mullet.

That’s why I’m saying that anyone who’s ever been the victim of a home invasion needs to avoid seeing this thing. Because I’m in no doubt that it will be triggering for some people.

Which is why I think it is the most bad taste election campaign ad I’ve ever seen.

I’m not the only one who feels that way.

David Cormack owns Cormack PR and he’s told the NZ Herald that the ad is “revolting”. He uses some other words too. But I’m not going to repeat them.

He’s saying today: “The Taxpayers Union is putting Hipkins at the scene of a robbery. There’s a difference between saying someone will cost you money and depicting them stealing from your wallet.”

He says: “They’ve turned a tax argument into a home invasion.”

And that is what makes this ad so appalling. Say what you like about Chris Hipkins, but don’t use something so terrifying, like a home invasion, to make a political point.

But, as I said earlier, the Taxpayers’ Union will accuse me of overreacting.

I know that, because Jordan Williams from the Union called me this morning to say it was just satire.

After telling the NZ Herald: “AI is so good now we have to artistically make it so over the top to make it clear that it is done in humour rather than for someone to take it seriously.”

He said: “I got advice on this ad and the lawyer’s advice was that no one’s going to look at this and think it’s genuinely Chris Hipkins because it’s so over the top.”

But I’m sorry Jordan. Negative political ads have had their day. And appalling ads like this one should never see the light of day.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's Politics Friday Election Special focused on the Banks Peninsula electorate.

The candidates, Vanessa Weenink from National, and Tracey McLellan from Labour, made their pitch about why they want to become the next local MP.

They discussed the tight 2023 election result, which was decided by just 396 votes, and the key issues facing the electorate, including coastal erosion, un-swimmable beaches, and how they feel about the potential for the Tāwhaki National Aerospace Centre to attract aerospace and defence-related investment and contracts.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let me say from the get-go that I despise gang culture and everything it stands for and represents.

I despise gangs for the misery they inflict on people with their drug dealing and the way they treat the people desperate for the poison they peddle.

I despise gangs for the other heinous crimes they are associated with. Their appalling “initiation” processes. All of that. I have zero time for it.

Let me also say from the get-go that the three MPs and a candidate from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori who visited a Mongrel Mob pad, south of Auckland, picked the worst possible time to do it.

It’s the worst possible time because we’re in the middle of an election campaign and any claim that they were there to, you know, “discuss the issues” is just nonsense.

They were there to get votes. Plain and simple.

So I hate gangs, and I think these four from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have cocked up big time.

But…

Despite what you or I might think about gangs, isn’t it better that politicians engage with them in some way, shape or form?

I’m talking about politicians engaging genuinely with gang members. Not with the objective of getting elected, but with the objective of trying to show gang members that there is an alternative way to live.

It’s been done before. The most obvious example is National Prime Minister Sir Rob Muldoon. You never hear people slagging him off for spending time with gang members. But that’s what he did. In particular, Black Power.

Doing things like helping gang members find accommodation and setting up subsidised work schemes for them.

His thinking was that finding gang members work cutting firewood or getting painting contracts would put them on the straight and narrow. And they loved him for that.

And these gang members didn’t just come to him. He went to them, as well. Drinking with them at gang pads and everything.

There’s even a story about him throwing the dregs of his whiskey at a gang member who had been flicking beer at him.

And then, when he died, about 100 Black Power guys turned up at his state funeral at the Auckland Town Hall in August 1992 and honoured him with a haka.

The following month, after a memorial service in Wellington, his wife, Dame Thea, even spent time with Black Power gang members.

The doubters will point to the fact that, despite Sir Rob’s efforts, gangs have continued to grow. And they’d be right.

But this is where Merepeka Raukawa-Tait comes into it. She used to run Women’s Refuge. These days she chairs Whānau Ora and is an advocate for women and children.

Before the last election, when National was touting its crackdown on gangs, she wrote a piece in the NZ Herald about Muldoon.

She said his relationship with gangs did work. For a while. Until the work contracts dried up and the gang members, as she put it, “turned back to doing what they do best: surviving on the proceeds of crime.”

But she also said this in her article: “I think Sir Robert Muldoon had the right idea: engage with the gangs and understand that whānau is whānau - whether gang whānau or otherwise.”

What she was getting at there is that whether you and I can get our heads around it or not, gangs provide a sense of belonging. A sense of whānau.

And we can choose to reject that or cover our ears and ignore it. Because you, like me, probably don’t have any time for gangs. But that’s reality.

We go on all the time about politicians not being in touch with reality.

So what’s so bad about politicians getting more in tune with the realities of gang life?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Qiulae Wong’s night couldn’t have gone better last night.

Just before the Opportunity leader joined the other leaders for the minor parties TV debate, a new poll came out putting her party well and truly in the position of kingmaker.

According to the 1News-Verian poll, Opportunity is sitting on 8 percent - which equates to 10 MPs in Parliament.

And, not just that, the parties on the left and the right would need it to form a coalition government. A great start to the night for her.

But it was just the start. Because, an hour later, she lined up with the leaders of ACT, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and the Greens. And, right from the get-go, she owned it. And Opportunity is pretty much on its way to Parliament.

Because, if people are happy to assume that ACT and NZ First will be there on the basis of their current polling, then the same for Opportunity.

In last night’s poll, ACT and NZ First were both on 10 percent. Opportunity was sneaking-up behind them on 8 percent.

A result that I think will seal-in those voters who might have been thinking about voting for Opportunity, but were a bit spooked that their vote might have been wasted if they didn’t reach the 5 percent mark.

That poll result and Qiulae Wong’s performance last night sealed the deal.

I thought she was a brilliant contrast to the Greens’ Chloe Swarbrick and demonstrated exactly why someone who might have previously voted for the Greens could or would vote for Opportunity.

Chloe declared that the Greens are out to change the Government because of the “massive attacks” it has inflicted on people over the past three years. The Opportunity leader said: “Imagine how many of those egregious things the Greens could have stopped if they were willing to work with National.”

Boom!

I thought she stood her ground brilliantly with Winston Peters, too.

Saying again that there’s no way she will serve in a government with him as Foreign Minister. Because of his racist comments to Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan.

My hunch is that, even though Christopher Luxon has ruled out working with them, Opportunity’s preference would be to form a government with National.

Because, if it went with Labour, that would confirm to the doubters that it’s a left-wing party and not as open-minded as it says it is.

And, let’s face it, on those poll numbers last night, we know that Christopher Luxon won’t be ruling out working with Opportunity come election night.

He, like the rest of us, needs to take Opportunity seriously. Because its time has come.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I thought the tax cuts we got after the last election were a complete waste of time.

And I suspect that, by now, most people feel the same.

Which is why I am in no way excited about this talk from National about possibly further cuts. At some stage.

When the party released its fiscal plan for the election yesterday, finance spokesperson Nicola Willis opened the door a little bit. Hinting at further tax cuts once the books are back in surplus.

Saying: “National is the party of low tax”. Adding that the tax changes after the last election were the first in 14 years.

But she said first priority is getting the Government books back into the black so future generations aren’t lumbered with more debt.

The thing is, though, what would you rather?

Would you rather get another miserly tax cut? Or would you like to see the money spent differently or, even, more wisely?

I’m in the “spend the money more wisely” camp. So I don’t give two hoots about tax cuts. But I do give two hoots about some of the way my tax dollars are spent.

I’ve got five examples. In no particular order.

Money blown on infrastructure projects that go nowhere. Labour excelled on that front with the $50 million it poured into the Auckland Harbour Bridge bike lane project. All that money and nothing to show for it.

Untargetted government subsidies. Example: the fuel subsidies. We know they’re going to people who don’t actually need them.

MP perks. I think we can agree that they’re way too generous. For example, being paid $1,000-a-week to stay in Wellington at a property they own themselves.

How much of our money goes into paying off government debt. We have no choice on that front - we have to pay it off, with interest. The interest alone is $27 million-a-day.

And, this is small-fry compared to the others, but it still shows how Wellington throws taxpayer money around. It’s the $150,000 blown on the Government’s farcical road cone hotline. It achieved nothing. Money down the drain.

So, for me, less of the wasteful spending is far more important than giving me a tax cut.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.