{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicfqz6seupvlzkkmrscj67ppx636urle7htmgm54srwj2b4qjbzhq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mobrf7uwknr2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigtu4teufpt4gc6hsz425nzdehlfqv3l7m4rfuiq3lijdvoolqabu"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1975915
  },
  "description": "10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You",
  "path": "/your-daily-ten-10-2026-105/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-14T22:00:22.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Read More",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "**This is edition 2026/105 of the _Ten@10_ newsletter.**\n\nHi all,\n\nThis is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.\n\nEnjoy!\n\n* * *\n\n## 1. Public transport fallacies and middle class welfare\n\n _Ani O'Brien_\n\n  * 💸 Labour’s public transport fare cap is framed as “cost of living relief,” but is argued to be more of a political strategy than a response to a major problem\n  * 🎯 The policy is positioned as progressive, yet criticism of it is often dismissed as anti-environment or “far right”\n  * 🧾 Public transport is already heavily subsidised, with taxpayers and ratepayers covering about **87% of fares** , leaving users paying only ~13%\n  * 🚍 Each trip is significantly subsidised (around $17.65 per ride), meaning “cheap” or “free” transport is largely already paid for by the public\n  * 🏙️ Only about **6% of New Zealanders regularly use public transport** , with nearly 90% of trips concentrated in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch\n  * 🌏 Most taxpayers fund a service they rarely or never use, raising concerns about fairness and national benefit\n  * 🚗 Lower-income and rural workers often **cannot use public transport** , as their jobs and lifestyles require driving, yet they still subsidise others\n  * ⚖️ The policy is criticised as **middle-class welfare** , benefiting urban professionals, students, and office workers more than those in real need\n  * 💰 Labour’s estimated cost of **$65 million annually** is disputed, with independent analysis suggesting it could be **$141.7–$182.5 million** for main centres alone\n  * ❓ Lack of transparency and detail from Labour raises doubts about how the policy is costed and who truly benefits\n  * 📉 The proposal is linked to broader concerns about Labour’s past spending, including a large increase in government debt\n  * 💵 New Zealand now spends about **$9 billion annually on debt interest** , more than on the entire justice system\n  * 🔄 Critics argue further subsidies today will increase future financial burdens, limiting funding for essential services like health and education\n  * 📊 The policy reinforces concerns about government treating taxpayer money and debt as “free”\n  * 🧠 Labour is urged to rebuild trust by providing clearer, more credible financial details\n  * 🔥 The debate is intensified by more extreme proposals on the left, such as fully free public transport, making Labour appear moderate by comparison\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Your Daily Ten@10 - 2026/105",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-14T22:00:22.114Z"
}