07 Jul 2025
by Jim Rose
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economics of regulation, law and economics, politics - New Zealand, property rights, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics
Tags: constitutional law
Karl du Fresne writes – Who remembers the Citizens for Rowling campaign? It was a concerted attempt by the Great and the Good to derail National Party leader Robert Muldoon’s election campaign in 1975. The campaign’s backers didn’t like Muldoon’s combative, divisive brand of politics and argued that Labour’s gentlemanly Bill Rowling, who had assumed […]
Echoes of Citizens for Rowling
05 Jun 2025
by Jim Rose
in discrimination, politics - New Zealand
Tags: constitutional law, political correctness, racial discrimination, regressive left
Chris Trotter writes – “Your mission, Mr Hipkins, should you choose to accept it, is to lead Labour to victory in 2026.” Except, as always, the drama of a Mission Impossible movie lies not in the what, but in the how. Of course Chris Hipkins is willing to lead Labour to a win. The real question is […]
Labour’s first and most urgent mission is to knock Te Pāti Māori out of the race
01 Jun 2025
by Jim Rose
in applied price theory, discrimination, gender, human capital, income redistribution, labour economics, labour supply, occupational choice, politics - New Zealand, poverty and inequality, Public Choice, rentseeking
Tags: constitutional law, gender wage gap, sex discrimination
For all the gravitas which Dame Marilyn’s involvement has conferred upon PSCPE, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it represents a deliberate attempt to morally overpower what is now the law of the land. Chris Trotter writes – The People’s Select Committee on Pay Equity (PSCPE) is looking for evidence. […]
Counting the Cost
30 May 2025
by Jim Rose
in politics - New Zealand
Tags: constitutional law
Richard Prebble writes: Claims standards of parliamentary behaviour have fallen are nonsense. Except for Te Pāti Māori, this is a well-behaved House. The Speaker’s referral of the floor protest to the Privileges Committee was not discretionary. It was required by Standing Orders. The Speaker was lenient. He could have ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to end the Māori Party […]
Prebble on Labour and TPM
Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries
Recent Comments