web analytics

Open mike 22/05/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 22nd, 2025 - 17 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 …

17 comments on “Open mike 22/05/2025 ”

  2. thinker 2
    22 May 2025 at 7:34 am

    Budget Day: Government looks to make its promises add up https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/561732/budget-day-government-looks-to-make-its-promises-add-up

    "I've had it with opposition politicians who keep promising they can 'do it all', that somehow they're gonna stick to the debt levels, they're not gonna have deficits but also they're not gonna make savings and they're gonna spend on everything – that doesn't add up," said Willis

    …but isn't that exactly what Luxon and Co. have done with their campaign promises, the guarantees made since getting in?

    At least one thing is clear to me. This lot were Machiavellian when they hoodwinked the country into thinking the last lot were bad afterwards of the public purse, or such rank amateurs they believed their own hype.

    In Luxon s case, I suspect the latter, but not across the board.

    Reply
  3. William 3
    22 May 2025 at 8:51 am

    A reminder about today's protest at parliament.

    From the PSA:

    ———-

    If you're in Wellington, join us on Budget Day to show the Government we don’t accept their Budget coming at the cost of fair pay for health, education, and community workers.

    When: 1-2pm, Thursday 22 May

    Where: Parliament Lawn, Wellington

    ———-

    There are walking buses from several points around town detailed on that page.

    And from the CTU, future events around the country can be found here.

    Reply
  4. Incognito 4
    22 May 2025 at 10:51 am

    A well-argued article on the need for investment in science in NZ and the contradictory refusal of the Coalition to put its money where its mouth is. I expect that there will be SfA in Budget 2025 for science (and tertiary education).

    https://theconversation.com/nz-budget-2025-science-investment-must-increase-as-a-proportion-of-gdp-for-nz-to-innovate-and-compete-255591

    Edit: republished on The Spinoff today [from TS Media feed]

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/22-05-2025/how-can-research-contribute-to-economic-growth-if-its-not-funded-properly

    Reply
  5. Anne 5
    22 May 2025 at 11:47 am

    So, a bystander at a stand-up with Winston Peters and Chris Bishop became angry over something Peters said and called out "bollocks". A bit later on he described Peter's as a "f****** idiot". Unpleasant language to be sure, but NOT a sackable offence. Peters wants him hung, drawn and quartered.

    The bystander has since apologised for his behaviour.

    What sticks in my craw: Peter's is the worst offender in parliament – and has been for decades – when it comes to eviscerating other people’s characters but he can’t take it in return. Admittedly he doesn’t use outlawed words such as the f and c words, but what he does say is equally as deprecating.

    Time he b****y well retired and took himself off to some exclusive beach where he could fish all day to his heart’s content.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tonkin-taylor-wellington-train-station-heckler-apologetic-after-swearing-at-winston-peters/YL6YF5RZ5JGTPKYAP77AOE224I/

    Reply
    • Res Publica 5.1
      22 May 2025 at 12:12 pm

      Time he b****y well retired and took himself off to some exclusive beach where he could fish all day to his heart’s content.

      Or,to borrow a phrase, "naff off"?

      Reply
      • Anne 5.1.1
        22 May 2025 at 4:57 pm

        Don't know what was with the Peter's quotes instead of Peters. Always happens when in a hurry. My apologies.

        Reply
    • David 5.2
      22 May 2025 at 2:28 pm

      It is up to the employer to determine if the incident is serious misconduct, misconduct, or no concern to the employer.

      Most employees will have a code of conduct, or similar. An employees actions outside of the workplace can be covered by the code of conduct, depending on the circumstances, and if it brings unwanted attention to the employer, and/or affects other employees.

      This has little to do with Winston Peters, he was asked a question about the person involved facing possible disciplinary action, Winston said it is up to the employer. He is not demanding that this person be fired.

      Quite clearly the person concerned is a dick, the behaviour isn’t acceptable, it doesn’t matter who he was directing his comments to.

      Reply
      • Res Publica 5.2.1
        22 May 2025 at 3:17 pm

        An employer’s right to police an employee’s speech begins and ends with whether that employee is acting in their professional capacity.

        In this case, the protestor wasn’t giving a press interview, representing company views, or speaking in any official capacity. He just happened to be wearing a work lanyard. That’s hardly a credible basis to claim he was acting as a spokesperson for his employer.

        If calling a politician a rude name in a personal capacity is grounds for disciplinary action, then we’re in real trouble as a democracy.

        Employers don’t, and should never, have the right to police the political views of their staff. T+T’s willingness to throw their employee under the bus to appease Winston Peters isn’t professionalism. It’s cowardice. A rank failure of their duty of care.

        It also sets an absolutely chilling precedent.

        Reply
        • David 5.2.1.1
          22 May 2025 at 4:31 pm

          Yeah I understand what you’re saying, and agree with you. Employers have no say with an employees political opinions.

          However we all know that some employees have faced disciplinary action for expressing their opinions outside of the workplace. I wouldn’t publicly suggest that a transgender woman, is not an actual woman. If I did, my employer would come under pressure to do something…

          Reply
        • Belladonna 5.2.1.2
          22 May 2025 at 4:46 pm

          I suspect, in this case, this issue is that the employee was wearing identifiable employer badging when they engaged in the heckling.
          Otherwise, it would have been difficult (if not impossible) to identify the workplace.

          The employer (if the employee is a senior one) may well have contractual agreements about not bringing the employer into disrepute. A filmed stoush with a politician is probably going to fall into that category.

          You don’t have to be speaking for your employer, or acting in an official capacity, in order to breach the provisions. Just engaging in conduct which damages the perception of the firm with clients – is sufficient.

          So, it's probably going to depend on how senior the employee is, and whether or not there are contractual provisions in place.

          Bottom line. You (as an individual) are welcome to engage in all of the political argy bargy you want. Just don't do so wearing gear which identifies your employer.

          Reply
      • Anne 5.2.2
        22 May 2025 at 5:18 pm

        Oh yeah David? You've never called anyone – to be polite – an effing dick or an effing arsehole or told anyone to eff off'? After all, 'naff off' is a derivation of the f-word, albeit more acceptable. Peters' faux rage is so hypocritical because you just know he would be using those words all the time in a private capacity.

        That is the mistake the bystander made of course but he was clearly very angry at whatever Peters said. I note the media present have stayed quiet on that one. Yes, it was a 'dick' thing to do, but it doesn't mean he is a dick per se. And it certainly does not reach the thresh-hold of a sacking despite what some smart-arse lawyer has apparently publicly ordained.

        Reply
        • David 5.2.2.1
          22 May 2025 at 7:24 pm

          Yeah certainly I’ve been rude to others from time to time, but it’s still unacceptable behaviour.

          I guess the “smart ass lawyer” you are referring to is Winston Peters? He by the way, has not called for the guy concerned to face disciplinary action. The only people talking about firing this guy is the media, and people such as yourself.

          Reply
          • Anne 5.2.2.1.1
            22 May 2025 at 9:33 pm

            I guess the “smart ass lawyer” you are referring to is Winston Peters.

            No. Another one I saw online. Didn't note the name or which outlet I saw it.

            Reply
  6. gsays 6
    22 May 2025 at 12:08 pm

    We may have to be careful what we wish for.

    The $600 million investment in rail has Peters fingerprints all over it.

    Reply
    • Belladonna 6.1
      22 May 2025 at 4:50 pm

      I agree. This is definitely a NZF/Peters policy. And continues his history of support for rail and for the provinces.

      Reply
  7. alwyn 7
    22 May 2025 at 7:14 pm

    Why on earth do the Universities have to increase their fees by 6%, which is much more than the general inflation rate? Is it to pay people like the Vice-Chancellor at Otago about two thirds of a million dollars a year?

    How many other people do they have to employ to actually do the job? I can't see that he is actually up to the task without a great deal of support.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    Reply

Leave a Comment