Open mike 03/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 3rd, 2025 - 46 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

46 comments on “Open mike 03/03/2025 ”

  1. PsyclingLeft.Always 1
    3 March 2025 at 8:17 am

    Did they actually need any "new" powers? Were there not already enough powers within existing laws? IMO if actually applied,yes.

    Firearms crackdown gives police and courts given new powers

    The government is expanding powers for the police and courts in hopes of keeping firearms from gangs and high-risk offenders.

    I note ACT's Nicole McKee..

    "This is part of our commitment to reduce violent crime, restore law and order, and keep communities safe."

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/543432/firearms-crackdown-gives-police-and-courts-given-new-powers

    The "fit and proper person" test

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_licence_(New_Zealand)#The_%22fit_and_proper_person%22_test

    ACT party and gun control….

    The ACT party oppose the ban on semi-automatics, oppose calls for an arms register and also oppose magazine restrictions for firearms.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_New_Zealand

    Reply
  2. Bearded Git 2
    3 March 2025 at 9:22 am

    I have to eat some humble pie here.

    While Starmer was slow to support Zelensky after the Trump Vance shitshow he has played his cards brilliantly since.

    Not only has he got a European phalanx of leaders onside for Zelensky….(The images of him and Trudeau and Macron back slapping Zelensky are priceless) he has also stuck it up Trump without seeming to.

    Priceless.

    Reply
    • gsays 2.1
      3 March 2025 at 9:36 am

      I'm not sure any parents of soldiers will be keen to tuck in with you.

      If Starmer and co plan is to keep tipping more humans and armaments into the theatre it's hardly a step forward.

      Us witnesses from very afar, should be cautious about the schadenfreude we display because of Trump.

      Reply
      • Macro 2.1.1
        3 March 2025 at 9:41 am

        So what is your plan?

        Hand over Ukraine to Putin, allowing his boys to continue to rape and pillage?

        Reply
        • Res Publica 2.1.1.1
          3 March 2025 at 9:58 am

          Appeasers gotta appease..

          Reply
          • weka 2.1.1.1.1
            3 March 2025 at 10:01 am

            my guess is that gsays is being pacifcist rather than appeaser.

            Reply
            • bwaghorn 2.1.1.1.1.1
              3 March 2025 at 11:40 am

              Unfortunately pacifism is like communism, great in theory only

              Reply
              • mikesh …
                4 March 2025 at 12:08 am

                We don't realy know whether or not communism would be great in theory only. It has never been tried. The Russian republic was socialist only, and the label "communist" was applied to them in fact by the ignorent west.

                Reply
            • Macro 2.1.1.1.1.2
              3 March 2025 at 11:55 am

              Aah yes! "Peace in our time". When have we heard those words before?

              You cannot negotiate appeasement with tyrant dictators, and in this case the world is now witnessing a tyrant and a would be tyrant cosying up, and deciding how they are going to divvy up the world.

              Bonhoeffer’s “theory of stupidity" Now springs very much to mind.

              It isn't the Ukrainian President who is gambling on WW3, it is Trump. In 10 minutes with his bully boy behaviour in the oval office, he and his lap dog Vance have brought the world to the brink. All over a bit more real-estate and rare minerals. Greedy bastards.

              Reply
              • weka …
                3 March 2025 at 12:10 pm

                ok, but just so we are clear, you don't need to lecture me on that (I'm not arguing for pacifism), and seeing as how gsays hasn't actually said what they think yet, maybe that's jumping the gun.

                In my mind, pacifism and conscientious objection (should we end up in war) have value in reminding society to not be out and out warmongers. As I said below, we have some both/and options here.

                Reply
            • Populuxe 2.1.1.1.1.3
              3 March 2025 at 12:43 pm

              Same thing in a war

              Reply
              • Populuxe …
                3 March 2025 at 12:55 pm

                Or rather, it's all well and good for the individual to be a pacifist and seek a non-combat role, but it's quite another to espouse it as the only right position in the middle of a war, especially one as brutal as this one.

                Reply
        • weka 2.1.1.2
          3 March 2025 at 10:01 am

          I think there's a fine line of doing the peace work, and being willing to back up with power when needed. Lots of people calling for (re)armament, which I understand, but we need as many voices calling for peace as well. It's not an either/or, it's a both/and/and.

          Reply
          • Res Publica 2.1.1.2.1
            3 March 2025 at 10:10 am

            Peace is infinitely preferable to war.

            But, as the old saying goes: Si vis pacem, para bellum

            Reply
            • weka 2.1.1.2.1.1
              3 March 2025 at 12:13 pm

              you probably have a better classics education than I do, but this from wiki,

              The phrase presents the insight that the conditions of peace are often preserved by a readiness to make war to defend said peace when the need arises.[5]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum

              suggests that this applies to peacetime, not war. We already have war, and my point was that we need to talk about peace alongside arms.

              I'm curious if you would apply Si vis pacem, para bellum to nuclear armament.

              Reply
              • Res Publica …
                3 March 2025 at 2:29 pm

                I'm curious if you would apply Si vis pacem, para bellum to nuclear armament.

                That is an interesting question.

                I mean, at first glance, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction appears to have worked at avoiding a global thermonuclear war. But we have exactly n=1 worlds to experiment with and I'm not sure if we want to test it again.

                I think it's one thing to have enough armed force to preserve peace. And another entirely to doom us all in nuclear fire.

                Maybe too much preparation is a bad thing?

                Reply
                • weka …
                  3 March 2025 at 3:12 pm

                  that's my feeling. Or at least it might be good to revisit where the line is and have a public discussion. Seeing a lot of people saying that the fiasco with Zelensky in the Oval Office the other means we all have to rearm made me nervous.

                  We definitely need to adapt our security, I'd just like to see a more nuanced discussion. Which I see you are doing re NZ under the Clark post, but I find the general rushing to a position of arm now! also alarming not least because of the implications for nuclear proliferation.

                  Reply
                  • Res Publica …
                    3 March 2025 at 3:51 pm

                    Unfortunately, my gut feeling is that proliferation is a genie that's already out of its bottle.

                    Of course, we can (and should!) maintain our stance on nuclear weapons. While encouraging anyone that's willing to listen to do the same. It's a fight worth fighting. And has the bonus of being a reasonably safe way of asserting independence in our foreign policy without risking too much.

                    But other states are facing a different set of choices, and the fact that Ukraine has been treated so shabbily after voluntarily giving up its own nuclear capacity is probably not lost on them.

                    Reply
        • mikesh 2.1.1.3
          4 March 2025 at 12:03 am

          Why would you wantg to allow "rfape and pillage". Surely a ceasefifre would be enough.

          Reply
      • weka 2.1.2
        3 March 2025 at 9:59 am

        I'm also curious what you think should happen instead. If the UK/Europe present a peace plan and Putin doesn't accept it, what next?

        Reply
        • gsays 2.1.2.1
          3 March 2025 at 12:10 pm

          A couple of things.

          Roll with Trumps plan.

          Europe/NATO step up and offer the security that's needed because if their actions/inactions.

          But … My comment was about the really unsavoury nature of commenting on this subject.

          From self identifying lefties.

          Signalling yr greater distaste of Trump doesn't make you more of a lefty.

          BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

          PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

          REG: Stumm.

          JUDITH: Are you sure?

          BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

          REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

          BRIAN: I do!

          REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

          BRIAN: A lot!

          REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front

          Reply
          • weka 2.1.2.1.1
            3 March 2025 at 12:24 pm

            Roll with Trumps plan.

            Can you please be more specific? Because I thought this plan relied on trusting Russia, even though Russia are not trustworthy.

            You imply that lefties are hating on Trump just because he's Trump. I can tell you that I consider him extremely dangerous not because I don't like him, but because he's a misogynistic rapist in the process of destroying the conventions that keep us safe, and who wants to remove democracy (destroying the planet in the process, bonus!).

            I don't feel schadenfreude, I feel relief that the Western sphere appears to be getting its shit together, and that people are standing up to the US, not because the US are baddies, but because they are very dangerous at this point in time.

            You appear to have just run a Trump's Not So Bad line 🙁

            Reply
            • Macro 2.1.2.1.1.1
              3 March 2025 at 1:19 pm

              My thoughts entirely.

              PS I'm sorry if you thought I was lecturing I was stating the position as I see it.

              To my mind on the one hand Trump is an absolute idiot who is meddling in things on which he has no understanding, on the other hand Putin is an evil manipulator – hence my reference to Bonhoeffer above. The really dangerous one is Trump because he is stupid, and is being manipulated by Putin.

              Reply
            • gsays 2.1.2.1.1.2
              3 March 2025 at 3:08 pm

              "..more specific ."

              Trump's plan was a mineral deal with Ukraine as a subset of rebuilding a relationship with Russia.

              US tailing back from it's military obligations in Europe. NATO and Europe stepping up their support of Ukraine.

              Again the gist was for lefties to think about what that means. What motivated schadenfreude was

              "…he has also stuck it up Trump without seeming to.

              Priceless."

              An all too common vibe.

              I try not to spend too much energy or attention on this stuff. I'm powerless to change it. Therefore it may appear

              " to have just run a Trump's Not So Bad line 🙁"

              Definitely not my intent.

              As per usual, more focussed on the left getting an identity back and looking for something for us to congregate around.

              Having a Hate Trump Circle jerk doesn't cut it.

              Reply
              • Belladonna …
                3 March 2025 at 6:31 pm

                However, from the Ukrainian side, the 'Trump' proposal appears to rely entirely on Trump's ability to reign in Putin from any further territorial aggression. Ukraine has reason to believe that Putin/Russia will attack again (they're repeatedly broken other deals). Trump isn't going to be around forever. Any 'deal' which depends on his presence in the White House (even assuming that Putin would keep it – which I would regard as dubious), has a natural time limit.
                The real guarantee would be American boots on the ground (ratified by Congress, not the President), if Putin/Russia attacked again. There is zero chance that Trump would offer this. And close to zero chance that Ukraine/Zelensky will accept anything less.
                ATM, the deal from the Ukrainian side looks like a pause for Russia to re-arm, before attacking again.

                Reply
      • Populuxe 2.1.3
        3 March 2025 at 12:49 pm

        Us witnesses from very afar, should probably acknowledge that the whole of Europe is terrified of Putin and what might happen if Trump kneecaps NATO.

        Reply
        • Morrissey 2.1.3.1
          3 March 2025 at 6:56 pm

          By "the whole of Europe" you mean the political class, which from the comfort of London, Brussels, Paris and Berlin, has been loudly urging Ukrainians to die for the last three years.

          For all his flaws, Trump is going to put a stop to that. It could of course have been stopped a few weeks after it started, if Zelenskyy had had the courage to stand up to the saboteur of peace, Boris Johnson.

          Reply
          • aj 2.1.3.1.1
            3 March 2025 at 8:04 pm

            Détente is a forbidden word. Reading Anne Jacobsen's book 'Nuclear War, a Scenario' should make any sane person want the powerful states of world talk to each other.

            One can understand why those financially and/or professionally invested in the for-profit Hate, Fear and War Industry, with its existential need for enemies and threats, would view a world at peace as unthinkable, but why should anyone else do so?

            In my youth, the era of “détente” between the United States and the Soviet Union was widely welcomed as an excellent development.

            https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/27/has-the-world-gone-mad/

            Reply
          • Populuxe 2.1.3.1.2
            4 March 2025 at 10:59 am

            Um, no, I mean the countries bound together by Article 5 of NATO and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe who still have very raw memories of Russian occupation.
            The Ukrainians don't need much urging. I expect an illegal invasion and the various atrocities do that.
            There's pacifism, and there's ignorance. I really have no idea what your problem is, but for the most part it's not worth engaging with.

            Reply
        • mikesh 2.1.3.2
          4 March 2025 at 12:45 am

          They're a paranoid lot, them Europeans. But hopefully they will come to their senses eventually and tone down all this rearmament stuff

          Reply
      • Bearded Git 2.1.4
        3 March 2025 at 11:38 pm

        Agree gsays. Didn't actually say I supported sending troops or continuing the war. I doubt this will happen.

        I just think that, unlike Trump, Starmer has built a coalition that shows Europe will not be a pushover

        He is playing the diplomatic game much much better than Trump.

        I think a lasting peace deal along the current war frontier with a commitment to strong forces to ensure this from Europe and the USA is the best we can hope for.

        Reply
    • Populuxe 2.2
      3 March 2025 at 12:52 pm

      Macron, rather surprisingly, seems to have stood up as the rallying point for Europe's independent defence in the event of the US pulling out troops and withdrawing from NATO. On the one hand that's good, as the US can no longer be relied upon. On the other, the French moving parts of their nuclear arsenal into German bases is worrying, and I doubt the British would be far behind with Trident.

      Reply
  3. Jilly Bee 3
    3 March 2025 at 10:05 am

    Whooooosh – brilliant stuff Sir Ian. I'm warming to you. https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360599193/sir-ian-taylor-dear-david-seymour

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 3.1
      3 March 2025 at 11:47 pm

      Yes that was rather good. The beauty of that article is that some of the people who read it and who voted for Seymour will not vote for him next time….though almost all will swap to the Nats.

      Reply
  5. georgecom 5
    3 March 2025 at 4:08 pm

    some random right wing mistruths for monday
    -read my lips, no new taxes
    -no ifs, not buts, no maybes, the surcharge will go
    -we are rock solid on our tax cut costings
    -we will build as many houses as labour has committed to
    -china will pay the tariffs
    -kids will love the new school lunches

    Reply
  6. lprent 6
    3 March 2025 at 4:09 pm

    Added The Strategist to the feed.
    Might help with some of the discussion.

    Reply
  7. tWig 7
    3 March 2025 at 4:45 pm

    Newsroom on the Fast Track projects.

    'Schedule 2 of the fast-track is a list of projects baked into the legislation. In that section of the legislation, 149 projects were listed when the bill passed into law. Because these projects are listed in the act, they cannot be challenged – judicial review is available for any approved projects in the future, where an expert panel has the final say.

    'The only potential way to have prevented these projects from gaining the shield of Parliamentary sovereignty was to remove them from Schedule 2 before it passed. But when the bill was presented to the select committee and to the public, this section was blank.' (my bold)'

    '350 Aotearoa campaigner Adam Currie told Newsroom: “Government agencies are fast becoming black boxes of secrecy.” '

    Of the six advisors on the fast Track committee:

    'Only two of the 14 nominees brought forward by government agencies were retained, and the rest were rejected and replaced by individuals chosen by the same parties who built the fast-track.

    'Not a single member of the group had a background in hard science, and Lan Pham – environmental spokesperson for the Greens – later said she could not find evidence that any of them had ever worked for an environmental or conservationist group.'

    Good reporting from Newsroom.

    Reply

Leave a Comment