Open mike 21/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 21st, 2025 - 47 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 …

47 comments on “Open mike 21/03/2025 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    21 March 2025 at 8:42 am

    Anyone seen anything solid and positive for New Zealand come out of the Prime Minister's negotiations with India?

    Same as the Infrastructure Summit.

    • Paul Huggett 1.1
      21 March 2025 at 9:21 am

      I'd be interested in Darien Fenton's opinion on this. I certainly saw nothing other than waffle. I'm not sure our 'officials' and Masters of the Universe (in Bizzniss and Gummint) actually understand the Indian psyche.

      • Ad 1.1.1
        21 March 2025 at 3:05 pm

        I'd be more interested in Parliament holding Luxon and Peters to account for a whole lot of expensive jetting around the world for zero taxpayer return.

        These guys earn pretty good coin off us, make big play of their executive-level credentials and dealmaking capacity, and we ought to get some results out of them by now.

        I'm getting to the point where I don't care what colour party is in power, I just expect someone to fucking deliver something real.

        • gsays 1.1.1.1
          21 March 2025 at 4:29 pm

          To play devil's advocate, maybe Peters has avoided, delayed or lessened a shit storm that may have been coming out way…

          • Paul Huggett 1.1.1.1.1
            21 March 2025 at 9:02 pm

            Possibly. Winston's worst mistake thus far is hitching His wagon to a team of lame horses called Jabba the Hutt Shane and His Ngati Ranana daughters.

            From curmudgeon to rabbit hole. I had hoped he'd have aimed for something better as His legacy. Oh dear, how sad, never mind

            • gsays 1.1.1.1.1.1
              21 March 2025 at 11:29 pm

              For me it's less Jones as a disappointment but the craven doing of the donor's wishes. While I'm aware this isn't new, but just far more blatant, revealing and tragic this time.

              Talleys, Phillip Morris and their ilk.

              Still, if we get roll on, roll off ferries…

        • Paul Huggett 1.1.1.2
          21 March 2025 at 8:16 pm

          I don't disagree.

          I could have told previous efforts at an FTA were tantamount to pissing in the wind

          It's not 'best practice' to piss on people and then expect them to fawn all over you.

          Not much has changed. Nothing in fek

    • bwaghorn 1.2
      21 March 2025 at 8:03 pm

      Yeah but he got a sound bite , I bet there's more than a few out there who think an fta is 60 days away, so lying national pms job is done as per usual.

  2. Psycho Milt 2
    21 March 2025 at 9:52 am

    A real "I never imagined leopards would eat my face" moment as a University of Southern California professor discovers that in fact freedom of speech is important and does need protecting:

    Trump has turbocharged the attacks on free speech at US universities. I have seen it first-hand

    Very refreshing after years of wading through screeds of "'Freeze peach' is just fascists wanting to say hateful things!" comments under Free Speech Union posts. "You have freedom of speech, just not freedom from consequences" may sound sensible and socially responsible when people who share your views are imposing "consequences" on people you despise, but it turns out not to be so great when you suddenly find that it's now people who despise you who are dishing out "consequences" – in this case, the removal of millions of dollars in federal funding.

    • tWig 2.1
      21 March 2025 at 10:44 am

      You've turned that around, constitutionally, Milt. The US First Amendment protects free speech in universities from Government intervention, except under specific conditions of Title VI.

      According to US constitutional law

      "Under Title VI, the government may not cut off funds until it has conducted a

      • program-by-program evaluation of the alleged violations;
      • provided recipients with notice and “an opportunity for hearing”;
      • limited any funding cutoff “to the particular program, or part thereof, in which… noncompliance has been…found”; and
      • submitted a report explaining its actions to the relevant committees in Congress at least thirty days before any funds can be stopped."

      None of which has happened under Trump, and this cutting off of funds is illegal, and no protection of Free Speech.

      Also, your choice of meme is incorrect. Leopard ate my face refers to a crying woman having her face eaten, after voting for the leopard ate my face party. Columbia University did not endorse Trump, or vote for Trump in any physical way.

      • weka 2.1.1
        21 March 2025 at 11:37 am

        we're past the point of what is legal. The administration will do whatever it can get away with, that's the point of breaking down conventions and overloading people. We had the practice run in 2016 – 2020, now they're doing it for real.

        Hopefully some of the legal actions will hold, especially where it's clear the presidents' actions are unpopular.

        But I think you have missed the point. Attacks on academic freedom have been going on for years and the liberal left was a key actor in that. Cancel culture and No Debate have been liberal strategies.

        The leopard is attacks on freedom of expression

        The woman having her face ripped off is academics who previously supported cancel culture and No Debate and don't like it now that it is being done to them. Many academics 'voted' for removal of rights to speak, protest, do research etc of the people they disagreed with.

        • lprent 2.1.1.1
          21 March 2025 at 2:42 pm

          we're past the point of what is legal. The administration will do whatever it can get away with, that's the point of breaking down conventions and overloading people. We had the practice run in 2016 – 2020, now they're doing it for real.

          Nope. The US administration is having to backtrack frequently at this early stage because they simply aren't following the legislation and the legal rules.

          It takes time for the cases to come to judgement, and like 2016-2020, the administration will probably lose many if not most cases taken to the courts. As it is, they're having to routinely retract their actions from injunctions with immediate effect. This morning I was reading about about 25,000 federal employees from about 5 federal institutions having to be be reinstated. This is within 2 months of the shock and awe program starting.

          Probability of embedding legislation to retroactively validate – pretty much zero. Apart from the legal issues of retroactive legislation, by the time it comes up for a vote across both houses, the mid-terms will have happened. I don't think that voters are going to be too impressed with the recession and increased cost of living.

          It is more of an issue for those of us who rely upon the US as a reliable ally in their external operations who will have the issues. There the executive does have actual control. NZ and Aussie and everyone else who relied on the US as a ally really need to dump that presumption. The US is electing instability into their monarchy.

          • Obtrectator 2.1.1.1.1
            21 March 2025 at 3:58 pm

            I don't altogether share this widespread faith in the mid-terms. If they're held at all (not the certainty so many seem to think), they're likely to be manipulated before, during and after to whatever extent the current gang reckon they can get away with to retain their hold on Congress.

        • alwyn 2.1.1.2
          21 March 2025 at 2:45 pm

          I think you are using a false meaning for the word "liberal" when you write "Cancel culture and No Debate have been liberal strategies".

          They are not liberal as the word was traditionally used. The definition in various dictionaries is "willing to understand and respect other people’s behaviour, opinions, etc., especially when they are different from your own; believing people should be able to choose how they behave" (OED) or "willing to understand and respect other people’s behaviour, opinions, etc., especially when they are different from your own; believing people should be able to choose how they behave" (Merriman-Webster).

          It may have been associated with left-wing views but, when there is a left wing wing that includes the Cancel Culture, it is certainly not able to be described as "Liberal".

          The Economist magazine proudly proclaims that it is a Liberal newspaper. Whether it is left wing is arguable.

          • weka 2.1.1.2.1
            3 April 2025 at 12:55 am

            see it in two frames: Liberal and liberal. The latter is socially liberal values such as we have in NZ (even on the right). The former is a political position,

            a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise: representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism.

            that's from my laptop's dictionary. They are related of course, personal freedom is both a liberal value and a Liberal one. But interpreted in different ways.

            When I said that liberals have used cancel culture and no debate, I mean socially liberal lefties who hold identity politics as a central tenet. As distinct from the classic left who have a class analysis. There are overlaps obviously.

      • Psycho Milt 2.1.2
        21 March 2025 at 11:49 am

        …this cutting off of funds is illegal, and no protection of Free Speech.

        I agree – it's an attack on free speech. But until recently, university academics were quite happy for political opponents to suffer 'consequences' for expressing views the academics don't like. Now, suddenly, 'consequences' for speech are recognisably a bad thing, now that the 'consequences' are happening to them.

        • AB 2.1.2.1
          21 March 2025 at 7:54 pm

          Legitimate 'consequences' for an act of free speech include vigorous disagreement, insults and ridicule, i.e. any act of free speech can be seen as an invitation of free speech in return – which is why equality of speech, and the distribution of the power to speak, matters so much in these debates, but it is mentioned so little.

          Beyond that, 'consequences' for free speech should be a tightly-defined legal matter and require demonstrable intent to incite material harm to the target of the speech.

          I think you are straw-manning somewhat in reference to 'academics' who have failed to consider what happens when the boot is on the other ideological foot, I doubt any serious thinker on the topic is unaware of that problem. It's also undeniable that right-wing champions of free speech show less commitment to it when they have the power to restrict or punish speech they don't like, calling into question the depth of their original commitment.

          • tWig 2.1.2.1.1
            22 March 2025 at 12:21 pm

            A rule for thee, but not for me, is very evident on the right, even here in NZ. The Free Speech Union, for example.

            Here's FSU opinion, framing sate-funded Blenheim College, who 'makes parents sign a Statement of Belief stating marriage only exists between a woman and a man. A staff member tells a transgender student “god doesn’t make mistakes” while refusing to use their preferred pronouns and threatening them with suspension for wearing a uniform that matches their gender' as free speech equivalent to Destiny Church's library invasion.

            And here's the rebuttal.

          • weka 2.1.2.1.2
            3 April 2025 at 1:09 am

            You might be interested to read about the record fine Sussex University just received for failing to uphold freedom of speech,

            Kathleen Stock’s former university has been fined £585,000 after it was found to have “failed to uphold” freedom of speech and academic freedom.

            In a landmark ruling, the Office for Students (OfS) found that “a chilling effect arose” from the University of Sussex’s transgender policy which left staff and students feeling “self-censored” and unable to express “lawful views”.

            The higher education regulator said an investigation found “significant and serious breaches” of free speech and governance issues at the institution.

            From the Telegraph, via https://archive.is/FXxu8#selection-3191.29-3221.150

            I can see parallels between the liberal mobs that went after Stock and the far right mobs that went after Benjamin Doyle this week. Neither hold freedom of expression as a core value by virtue of their behaviour. This is well beyond disagreement, insults and ridicule. In both cases it's active shutting down of a political opponent.

            The Stock case isn't isolated, similar dynamics in many universities have been discussed for some years.

      • mpledger 2.1.3
        21 March 2025 at 3:34 pm

        Trump threatened Columbia University with losing Federal funding if they didn't crack down on "anti-semitism". Columbia University cracked down on protests and Palestinian activists. Trump took their Federal funding anyway.

        When Trump wants to hurt someone or something, he makes up some bogus reason to make them dance on a string, so they dance on a string and he does the hurtful thing anyway. The hurt was the point, the dance was just the icing on the cake.

    • weka 2.2
      21 March 2025 at 11:31 am

      hate being that person, but I've been saying for years that if we use such tactics the right will use them against us when they have the power to do so. And it's not like academia wasn't warned. I just hope it's not too late, and that they actually want to value freedom of expression not just continue to value the expressions they approve of.

      • Psycho Milt 2.2.1
        21 March 2025 at 11:40 am

        Can't say I'm hopeful. In my experience, academics are no better than anyone else at accepting they were wrong about something and need to change their view of it.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 2.2.1.1
          21 March 2025 at 11:56 am

          Nor me – mental rigidity is a tricky/sticky trap, at least in my experience.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigidity_(psychology)

          Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it. Finally suppose he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong. What will happen? The individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed he may even show a new fervor for converting other people to his view. – Brooke Gladstone

          • Psycho Milt 2.2.1.1.1
            21 March 2025 at 7:09 pm

            Yes, the "taken irrevocable actions because of it" is a big one. That's very hard to pull back from.

          • Phillip ure 2.2.1.1.2
            22 March 2025 at 9:17 am

            Yeah…the whole carnivore thing is a classic example of rigid thinking…

            ..that is almost farcical in parts…

            ..it is a given that processed meat causes cancer…

            ..but carnivores insist that their bacon will be pulled from their dead/cold hands..

            (how is that for a stellar example of irrational/rigid thinking..?)

        • gsays 2.2.1.2
          21 March 2025 at 4:36 pm

          "academics are no better than anyone else at accepting they were wrong about something and need to change their view of it."

          I tutored Practical Philosophy for a few years.

          Part of the message was to break free of an ego through being present and the mind comes to rest.

          Highly educated folk struggled more than most to achieve this.

          Partly, because their acquisition of knowledge had served them so well, the idea of breaking free of that was too onerous.

          • Psycho Milt 2.2.1.2.1
            21 March 2025 at 7:12 pm

            Interesting – so, possibly also a kind of "sunk costs fallacy," in which you've invested hugely in getting to the beliefs you have now, so ditching all that investment and starting again is difficult?

            • gsays 2.2.1.2.1.1
              21 March 2025 at 11:22 pm

              It's not an unreasonable position.

              Knowledge and the desire to 'know' are strong in most of us. If yr working life consists of 'knowing', the propositon that "They who know, know not. They who know not, know" can be a hard truth to adhere to.

  3. tWig 3
    21 March 2025 at 10:32 am

    BHN interview Dr Gary Payinda over the attack on the public health service by Seymour.

    According to Gary, one third of NZ's health issues are the result of alcohol, smoking and bad food.

    • Descendant Of Smith 3.1
      21 March 2025 at 10:53 am

      There plenty of info that says that economic disparity plays a large part. The links to these reports seems to no longer work – presumably because the report has been removed.

      Methinks that could have been a little differently.

  4. Ad 4
    21 March 2025 at 11:55 am

    New Zealanders collectively say this is the worst-performing government since 2017.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360605837/stuff-politics-live-blog

    Honestly we haven't had a solid well performing government since 2008.

    But the collective conclusion stands.

  5. lprent 5
    21 March 2025 at 1:36 pm

    Back on line again. ~4x faster WAN, but you're unlikely to notice.

  6. SPC 6
    21 March 2025 at 2:56 pm

    The 5 days Seymour knew about the a food in schools provider going bankrupt before the media reported it, is a breach of Ministerial responsibility.

    The Education Minister only found out from news reports.

    The PM has to remove Seymour from this programme and warn him to keep ministerial colleagues informed.

    If I was PM, I would have doubts about his fitness to be deputy.

    • bwaghorn 6.1
      21 March 2025 at 8:07 pm

      Luxon knew 4 days before the minister, he ain't sacking sleeezmour, he's in on it.

      • SPC 6.1.1
        21 March 2025 at 8:24 pm

        Given even the public knew that the Minister of Education was known to be wanting to meet Seymour – to get this problem for schools sorted – this is all

        1a.inexplicable

        1b.explains the inability to appear competent

        2a.the PM is scared of the coalition failing and then losing his job with election defeat

        2b.is just scared of Seymour, because the people with the most money want him as PM, and like Trump he respects those who have more money than he does.

        • Incognito 6.1.1.1
          21 March 2025 at 8:49 pm

          The former airline manager can’t manage his own team, so it’s no wonder he cannot manage the economy either – this is not mis-management but dis-management.

  7. Stephen D 7
    21 March 2025 at 4:28 pm

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/545555/rnz-to-run-new-series-of-political-polls

    ”RNZ is launching a new political poll, building on the former Newshub-Reid Research Poll, which ran successfully from 2009 to 2023.

    RNZ chief news officer Mark Stevens said political polls were a way to gauge public sentiment within the election cycle.

    "They are a snapshot in time of what New Zealanders are thinking or worried about. Reporting on those insights will help people understand and engage with our democracy as informed citizens," he said.”

    Knowledge is power.

    • Anne 7.1
      21 March 2025 at 5:06 pm

      From the link:

      Political editor Jo Moir said this meant RNZ's coverage would focus on accurately reporting the results.

      "If we have a poll with no significant changes, that's what we will report.”

      That will make a refreshing change. I'm sick of headlines extolling supposed dramatic changes which turn out to be bullshit – in the name of clickbait or it's TV equivalent.

      • Incognito 7.1.1
        21 March 2025 at 6:09 pm

        What does she mean with “significant changes”? Does she mean statistically significant (compared to what, e.g., the previous poll by the same polling company)? All polls report the margin of error, but that’s not the same thing. Does she mean ‘important’ or something similar? Without being clear this is just boasting and virtue signalling.

        • Anne 7.1.1.1
          21 March 2025 at 11:23 pm

          I took it to mean significant changes in the actual figures – not the current tendency to claim a party is 'soaring' or 'plunging' when the difference is only 1 or 2% from their previous poll. In other words, well within the margin of error.

          • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1
            22 March 2025 at 10:21 am

            The point is that significance and accuracy (and precision) have a special meaning in statistics that differs from the ‘common language’. Jo Moir and RNZ could be clearer about their intentions but I guess time will tell; I have no high expectations in this sense.

      • Bearded Git 7.1.2
        21 March 2025 at 11:02 pm

        Jo Moir seems to consistently lean to the Right in her analysis.

        RNZ's deputy political editor is better.

    • gsays 7.2
      21 March 2025 at 11:47 pm

      "RNZ chief news officer Mark Stevens said political polls were a way to gauge public sentiment within the election cycle."

      Also gives the churnalists an lazy easy write up rather than delving deeper into the substance or drivers of an issue. Bonus points for keeping us all distracted and talking about (largely) irrelevancies.