Open mike 25/02/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 25th, 2025 - 142 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 …

142 comments on “Open mike 25/02/2025 ”

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    25 February 2025 at 6:14 am

    Words matter!

    Richard Murphy on Trump’s lies.

    However, while I agree with what he says, I think he’s misread Trump’s true purpose – which is to establish a Trump christo-fascist dictatorship in the US (Project 2025), and perhaps even a Trump dynasty.

    And that presupposes Trump is not acting honestly, and he’s deliberately using words for nefarious purposes. 10.40 mins long.

    I’ve recommended this book before on The Standard, but will do so again: “It Can’t Happen Here,” by Sinclair Lewis, published in 1935. It’s the story of a small town newspaper owner and editor, Doremus Jessup, grappling with the rising fascist dictatorship of Buzz Windrip, and is eerily similar in so many ways to what is now happening in the USA.

    Windrip’s Minute Men and Corpos are not a great distance from Trump’s Proud Boys and January 6th rioters; both are inclined to violence, both have their loyalty centred in one man.

    And now we learn that Trump has sacked not only senior military leaders, but also the Attorney-Generals who advised those leaders on what it was legal to do, So when Trump wanted the military to shoot protestors in the legs during his first term, it was military leaders with integrity, backed by their service AGs who told him he couldn’t do so,

    Do such restraints exist now?

    Reply
    • weston 1.1
      25 February 2025 at 12:53 pm

      Sounds similar to joe 90,s ravings last night on daily review where he tried to make a connection between elons bodyguard of today and hitlers of 75 years ago and joe made this sound very ominous

      it expanded from 8 to 2500000 overnite in natzi germany suggesting this could happen again soon !!!! only in his crazed brain i would suggest !!

      Mazes me how many crackpotted conspiricy theories have hitched their wagons togeather and like lemmings seemingly all preparing to drive off a cliff somewhere …must be all that eeg on their faces blinding them i guess !!!!

      Reply
    • Morrissey 1.2
      25 February 2025 at 4:10 pm

      When have there ever been constraints on U.S. presidents lying?

      Trump still has a long way to go to match his predecessor for flagrant, malicious dishonesty.

      https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/white-house-walks-back-bidens-claim-he-saw-children-beheaded-by-hamas

      Reply
  2. Stephen D 2
    25 February 2025 at 7:24 am

    I’m fascinated how the libertarian, let the market take what it wants, ACT Party loves giving orders to businesses.
    The latest being Seymour lecturing James Cameron on how to be a film producer.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/culture/360592283/david-seymour-wants-decringe-avatar-and-force-socialist-director-james-cameron-use-kiwi-actors-top

    ”Seymour believes the Government must impose conditions on Cameron to get more value for money from the more than $200 million in taxpayer subsidies given to the series.”

    Isn’t that behaviour anathema to all good libertarians?

    Reply
    • Kay 2.1
      25 February 2025 at 7:38 am

      Is there such a thing as a "good" libertarian?

      Reply
      • Leaps 2.1.1
        25 February 2025 at 9:31 am

        It is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it!

        I think many of the "lawyer" jokes work for libertarians too.

        Reply
      • Ed1 2.1.2
        25 February 2025 at 9:48 am

        Yes I think there is. The Green Party go to considerable lengths to respect different opinions; they reach major decisions through consensus, consultation and consideration of a range of views. Compare that to the ACT party which must be the most authoritarian political party in insisting that all policies must align to the Atlas Network vision – albeit that methods of achieving such goals may result in bizarre rationalisations, such as the policy changes to deliver profit to Philip Morris . . .

        Reply
        • Mike the Lefty 2.1.2.1
          25 February 2025 at 10:22 am

          So the people who live and breathe free market policies actually impose more conditions than those who are not free market?

          Oh the glorious irony of it all!

          Reply
      • weka 2.1.3
        25 February 2025 at 10:04 am

        I know a lot of people who are small L libertarians, socially progressive, historically often voted left, generally good people. Not that that's what the thread was about, but thought I'd point it out 😉

        Reply
        • Mike the Lefty 2.1.3.1
          25 February 2025 at 1:05 pm

          A lot of my contemporaries were once part of the liberated hippy movement, they hated capitalism, war and inequality.

          Now most of them are greedy old men with immense financial portfolios griping about how children shouldn't get free school lunches whilst they use their Supergold cards to get cheaper food.

          Reply
          • weka 2.1.3.1.1
            25 February 2025 at 1:32 pm

            oh, the ex-old hippies are another thing altogether. Kids grow up and out of their rebellion. Maybe it's more obvious with teh hippies because of what they grew out of compared to what they grew into.

            Reply
      • Incognito 2.1.4
        25 February 2025 at 10:26 am

        Sure, live and let live (aka each to their own). A genuine libertarian would shun a job as political representative trying to lord their power over others and turn them into serfs.

        Reply
      • Corey 2.1.5
        25 February 2025 at 11:37 am

        Act aren't libertarians they are neoliberals.

        The left has a long proud history of libertarianism.

        I used to love the Greens when they were libertarian and had their own identity.

        Being pro speech, sustainable immigration, anti corporate, anti globalization (but pro internationalism), anti centralization of government and pro local, community based solutions and leadership by people who understand their communities needs rather than bureaucrats in Wellington.

        The Greens used to get loads of male voters when they were somewhat libertarian and based.

        I really wish their was a party for lefty's who are not on board with centralization, bureaucracy, censorship, idpol and unsustainable immigration and want greater investment in healthcare, climate policy, public transport that wasn't afraid to be edgy.

        But there isn't.

        The closest to it is TOP which gets a lot of the younger males who used to vote green but it's a wasted vote and too centrist

        Reply
        • weka 2.1.5.1
          25 February 2025 at 11:44 am

          this is such an important analysis. It's quite a different libertarianism to what ACT and co do. The left seem to have lost track of the diversity of leftist philosophy and approach.

          Reply
        • Incognito 2.1.5.2
          25 February 2025 at 11:51 am

          Can I ask what you mean by “centralisation” and why you’re so opposed to it?

          Also, if by Left parties you mean those with socialist roots in the Labour movement, then why would they be opposed, in principle, to unionising and centralising resources?

          Reply
          • weka 2.1.5.2.1
            25 February 2025 at 12:22 pm

            it's a philosophical position that sees localism as the central (haha) way that societies function best. This is very easy to see in something like food production and climate change (we grow most food close to where people need it, with some obvious exceptions due to climate or poverty or poor soils).

            But it was part of why there were those of us unhappy about 3 Waters. I don't want some bod in Wellington making decisions about my local communities needs. National water standards as guides yes, but implementation is a local matter.

            3 water is a bad example because of the history of poor local governance and the neoliberalisation of everything, and in the end it was about who pays. But the philosophy remains sound. For me it's about resilient and sustainable design always needing to be based in the local, but for the libertarians, it's also a very high emphasis on community organising that is undermined by centralisation.

            I have my own limits on local vs central. I've seen anarchists says that everything should be devolved to local, but that's not functional. Not only do you end up with areas that say won't let women have abortions, but not every area can have a base hospital and surgeons need to be trained to an international standard.

            The libertarians also want their freedom. The ones I know want to be able to sell produce at the local market without jumping through massive and prohibitive regulatory hoops. MPI often look like they're making rules for big manufacturers and either don't know about or don't care about the little guys.

            There's a balance to be had, obviously we need some regulations. But centralisation is one of the dynamics pushing people away from the mainstream and the left.

            Reply
            • weka 2.1.5.2.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 12:24 pm

              personally I think the solution is to devolve as much to local governance as is practical, but only if we shift to participatory democracy. And keep centralised the things that matter.

              How much of centralisation is a demand of neoliberalism?

              Reply
        • arkie 2.1.5.3
          25 February 2025 at 11:58 am

          The party you wish for is the Greens; localism, sustainable migration, health care investment (free dental), all the climate and public transport policy… See here

          Voting is like catching a bus not hailing a taxi; Greens get you further on all those issues than any other party (Te Pāti Māori is close).

          Reply
        • Psycho Milt 2.1.5.4
          25 February 2025 at 12:46 pm

          I really wish their was a party for lefty's who are not on board with centralization, bureaucracy, censorship, idpol and unsustainable immigration and want greater investment in healthcare, climate policy, public transport that wasn't afraid to be edgy.

          Preach! (Disclaimer: I'm actually quite fond of centralisation.)

          Reply
          • tWig 2.1.5.4.1
            25 February 2025 at 3:14 pm

            Yup, the pluses of centralisation, as I remember from Public Service days. Economies of scale, cross-country initiatives that shift attitudes, resource planning at state scale. I’m a bit of centralist too at heart.

            There were two aspects that the push for Māori initiatives that were poorly communicated by Labour (and were possibly deliberately hidden, where they should have been explained to the electorate).

            The first was devolvement of central funding to grass-roots organisations that support a NZ Māori underclass. This is to override the rw story of the undeserving poor. Under the last Nat-led government, we saw a push to micro-manage 'problem' families, often Māori. This is just the classist Victorian tory idea of the 'undeserving poor', where only those who are pure of heart deserve to be treated with respect.

            The second was Three Waters, I saw it as helping to build in localism, via local Māori representation in water management. We have had people commenting here at TS on their own positive experiences of Māori involvement before 3 Waters on local water boards. I thought that this a form of environmental protectionism, plus built-in consensus decision-making.

            Reply
            • Psycho Milt 2.1.5.4.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 5:24 pm

              I was a bit dubious about the centralisation in Three Waters, mostly because my brother works for Tasman District Council, which has managed its water pretty well, and none of them fancied having to become a single unit with Wellington, an absolute basket case.

              Reply
        • SPC 2.1.5.5
          25 February 2025 at 11:38 pm

          Just about everything in the above is untrue.

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

          1.the Greens have never been seen as libertarian (except on social policy).

          It was part of Alliance 1991-1997. Alliance believed in a centralisation state, left of Labour.

          A resistance to globalisation.

          Some of Values Party formed the Green Party in 1990.

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

          When did you see them as libertarian and independent?

          Since 1997 they have had only one association, support for a Labour-NZF coalition government 2017-2020 and an understanding with the 2020 Labour government

          The Labour Party and the Green Party will have a Cooperation Agreement that will see the Green Party Co-leaders hold ministerial portfolios outside of Cabinet, and areas of cooperation on climate, environment and child and community wellbeing issues.

          https://www.labour.org.nz/release-labour-and-greens-to-have-cooperation-agreement

          2.you claimed once they were

          Being pro speech, sustainable immigration, anti corporate, anti globalization (but pro internationalism), anti centralization of government and pro local, community based solutions and leadership by people who understand their communities needs rather than bureaucrats in Wellington.

          They did and do indicate a need for regulation of corporations and globalisation.

          They focus on sustainability in general (zero population and economic growth was Values era) Were they ever anti-centralisation of government (or anti the public state or public provision)?

          3.now

          I really wish their was a party for lefty's who are not on board with centralization, bureaucracy, censorship, idpol and unsustainable immigration and want greater investment in healthcare, climate policy, public transport that wasn't afraid to be edgy.

          The Green Party manifesto literally says they want greater investment in healthcare, climate policy, public transport.

          You want a party for free speech (before hate* speech).

          You oppose "unsustainable" immigration (so does everyone, the differences being over the meaning of sustainable).

          You oppose centralization, bureaucracy (was ACT territory before centralising school food supply to reduce cost and quality).

          You oppose ID* politics (ACT territory – the extreme is the Treaty Principles Bill and the Trump administration).

          Well there is the intersection of feminism, race and class in modern politics and of course a social conservative cultural order heritage of a time when only males with property could vote represented today by global capitalism rules OK (now being fragmented by nationalist strongman patronage of an oligarchy elite).

          Reply
          • weka 2.1.5.5.1
            26 February 2025 at 12:37 am

            current GP policy isn't strong in sustainability and immigration. They talk about a review of immigration policy at the end. Important concepts but there is no detail. This document is from April 2023.

            7. Immigration Policy Review

            Issues

            It is important to ensure that immigration policy is regularly reviewed and fit-for-purpose.

            Actions

            7.1. Take an evidence-based approach to regularly reviewing the Government’s immigration policy, and its implementation, to ensure it is meeting the needs of immigrants, tangata whenua, and communities and giving consideration to sustainable population levels.

            7.2. Actively manage and plan for the effects of immigration policy on overall population levels and therefore on the environment, the economy and infrastructure.

            7.3. Conduct ongoing research into sustainable population levels for Aotearoa New

            Zealand and how this would vary with, for example, changing ecological footprints and the projected impacts of climate change, to support the above review, alongside other evidence, such as Mātauranga Māori.

            7.4. Raise awareness about the means by which a growing population can be made

            sustainable. This could include ways to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand's per capita and combined ecological footprint.

            https://www.greens.org.nz/immigration_policy

            Reply
            • arkie 2.1.5.5.1.1
              26 February 2025 at 8:48 am

              Every single point from that policy document you have quoted mentions sustainable immigration. What other Party does?

              Seeing that they've never been in the position to set government immigration policy I think lack of 'detail' isn't a concern over which it is worth writing them off. With more votes they will have more say. Bus not Taxi etc etc.

              I'm also not sure how it could be made more 'strong' without moving away from the Greens kaupapa of evidence-based decision-making. Any ideas?

              Reply
              • weka …
                26 February 2025 at 10:12 am

                I was hoping the Greens might do some policy development on it. They do this with other policy, but obviously not with all because of resource constraints.

                They could for instance develop the Immigration Policy review as per the bit I quoted. I think they won't because it's a difficult policy to work with constructively in the current political environment. Much of the left suppresses debate about immigration and frame it as 'pro-immigration vs the racists'.

                I'll have think about putting a post up, because we have enough green thinkers here to talk about it meaningfully. But it could also be too difficult for TS.

                What would a green immigration policy look like? For me it would need to start with two things: care of people and care of the land. The former the Greens have sorted. The latter is grounding the policy in concepts of ecological footprints and carrying capacity. And that directly confronts the neoliberal growth economy paradigm.

                No political party is doing the work on that in the public eye, but like many things it probably needs to be led from outside of parliament. Gareth Hughes' outfit might be doing some work on it.

                Reply
                • arkie …
                  26 February 2025 at 11:01 am

                  care of the land

                  uh….

                  ….manage and plan for the effects of immigration policy on overall population levels and therefore on the environment

                  …ways to reduce Aotearoa New Zealand's per capita and combined ecological footprint

                  …research into sustainable population levels for Aotearoa New Zealand and how this would vary with, for example, changing ecological footprints and the projected impacts of climate change

                  Am I reading a different policy document quote than you?

                  The Greens are the only party offering an alternative to the 'neoliberal growth economy paradigm.'

                  The Green Party’s strategic goals include:

                  “Aotearoa will be in transition, creating green work and broad prosperity while moving Aotearoa away from carbon-dependent, extractive and resource-intensive industries.”

                  https://www.greens.org.nz/sustainable_business_policy

                  Reply
                  • weka …
                    26 February 2025 at 11:39 am

                    you're not reading a different document, you appear to not be hearing what I am saying. So let me try one more time.

                    I already support the GP, I'm a lifetime GP voter (every election they've been standing), I was raised by a Values Party voter.

                    The Greens have got good policy on Immigration. Like some other policies, it's not fully developed nor being promoted. There are real politik and resources reasons for that.

                    The left has an opportunity and imo responsibility to lead NZ immigration policy by framing it in green terms (in part because parliamentary greens are constrained by real politiks.

                    We could do some of that work here. Are you interested in having that discussion?

                    Reply
                    • arkie …
                      26 February 2025 at 12:05 pm

                      What is fully developed?

                      Honestly, this discussion here isn't productive to develop policy. If we want to develop Greens policy then as Green members we can contribute to the relevant Policy Area Sub-Committee. That is the method by which the party develops its policy.

                      I am commenting here to counter the continued misrepresentation of Greens policies and kaupapa that is being described as 'important analysis'. I am promoting what their actual policies and strategies say while also countering the purity-politics meme that the Greens aren't green enough when there is no greener alternative.

                    • weka []
                      26 February 2025 at 12:21 pm

                      fair enough. But you are also intent on misunderstanding my points.

                      My original comment, to which you appear to have taken umbrage,

                      current GP policy isn’t strong in sustainability and immigration. They talk about a review of immigration policy at the end. Important concepts but there is no detail. This document is from April 2023.

                      I think we have established that the Greens have good general policy on the sustainability side, but it’s obvious that it isn’t as well developed as the people care side.

                      Our political activism obviously differs. I don’t believe that political parties are the only place to develop policy, and I think it would be incredibly harmful if that were so. Māori politics is an obvious example of how thought and policy can be developed in a range of ways, that then feed into mainstream politics.

                      Climate is another area. A huge amount of political work on climate happens outside of government. Climate activists lead, government follow.

                      Most people on TS aren’t Green Party members and don’t have access to or interest in internal policy development process. But useful to know that you think policy discussions on TS aren’t productive, I will continue the conversation with others.

                    • weka []
                      26 February 2025 at 12:23 pm

                      I am commenting here to counter the continued misrepresentation of Greens policies and kaupapa that is being described as ‘important analysis’. I am promoting what their actual policies and strategies say while also countering the purity-politics meme that the Greens aren’t green enough when there is no greener alternative.

                      Just so we are clear, because you seem to be conflating Corey’s comment with mine, I don’t believe that the Greens aren’t green enough. I also haven’t seen you rebut Corey’s analysis, although I did enjoy and agree with this:

                      “Voting is like catching a bus not hailing a taxi; Greens get you further on all those issues than any other party (Te Pāti Māori is close).”

                    • arkie …
                      26 February 2025 at 12:37 pm

                      That you don’t think any of what I posted is rebuttal of Coreys ‘analysis’ is disappointing.

                      Words mean things. Policies are taken by Parties to the electorate to secure Power to enact said Policies. That is explicitly Parliamentary. A policy developed outside of a parliamentary party will not become law without being taken up by a parliamentary party.

                      You are intent on misrepresenting my points as well:

                      "useful to know that you think policy discussions on TS aren’t productive"

                      I think policy development doesn't happen here, discussion does happens here, and it is important, but what is being discussed needs to not be a misrepresentation of reality. That is what concerns me and my activism.

                    • weka []
                      26 February 2025 at 12:42 pm

                      ok, again fair enough. You use the term policy development to mean what political parties do, I use it differently. So let me rephrase. I think people outside of the GP need to discuss green immigration ideas, specifically in the NZ context and explore what that might look like as party policy (not just for the Greens).

                      Saying someone has misrepresented something doesn’t make it true. Critiquing Corey’s comment might have been more useful than a semantic argument with over something we are basically on the same side as.

                    • arkie …
                      26 February 2025 at 12:51 pm

                      I pointed Corey (and TS readers) to the actual Greens policy documents so that all could see that they conflicted with what was claimed. For a more explicit critique see SPC at 2.1.5.5

                    • gsays []
                      27 February 2025 at 12:47 pm

                      Great korero folks.

                      In regards to immigration policy, it is difficult to have it stand alone as it ties in to other areas- workers wages, conditions and training.

                      Infrastructure requirements-schools, hospitals, PT, etc

                      Having immigration tied into some things like the infrastructure deficit, migrant workers have their union subs paid by their employer…

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.2
      25 February 2025 at 8:01 am

      This from the crown prince of cringe hisself? Maybe a movie about a doofus that tries to drive a landrover up some steps?

      Also the obtuse fkwit praises up Taika Waititi ?! Mind boggling….you got to wonder at his level of purblind…..and his followers.

      Taika truly a NZ Icon. I wonder what he thinks of racist Rimmer Seymour?

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/102931758/taika-waititi-says-new-zealand-is-racist-as-f

      Reply
    • gsays 2.3
      25 February 2025 at 8:55 am

      In a similar vein, Gordon Brittas demonstrates great enthusiasm for Nanny State politics.

      Schools and their communities aren't capable of organising food for hungry youth, it must be centralised.

      Usually an anathema to the right…

      Reply
    • alwyn 2.4
      25 February 2025 at 9:08 am

      To be fair I would have thought that a true Libertarian, whatever that might be would have refused to give Cameron any subsidies at all. Why should the taxpayer be forced to cough up their hard earned money to subsidise other people's interests if those people weren't willing to pay the cost of their fetishes themselves. It isn't really any different from the taxpayer funding the Concert Program on the radio, or the NZ Ballet, or the fetish for National Parks and cycleways that hardly anyone ever uses. The yearning to subsidise EVs for rich people is another insanity that a Libertarian would probably oppose.

      About all you can say for what you report as Seymour's views is that if we can't get out of paying the money we might as well get some employment for the people of New Zealand out of the affair.

      Who did decide to subsidise Cameron anyway? What was their excuse at the time? Are they still around to make the same mistake again?

      Reply
      • Kay 2.4.1
        25 February 2025 at 9:25 am

        Why shouldn't the Concert programme etc be state funded? For the same reason you'd like to see RNZ go commercial, as most of your ilk do?

        Is culture somehow less worthy than tax breaks for people who don't need them? Oh right, culture is a part of society, that dirty word RWers don't like.

        Reply
        • AB 2.4.1.1
          25 February 2025 at 9:56 am

          Libertarians and neolibs have a perverted conception of what value actually is. For them, value is discovered only through price, i.e. the value of something is simply what people are prepared to pay for it. To a libertarian/neolib there is no innate value in the 500 years of western musical history presented by the Concert programme, its value is determined only by the price it can command in a market. Similarly, the high income that someone like John Key commanded due to his skills in currency trading, shows that currency trading is a high value activity, despite no useful goods or services being created in the process.

          This is an extremely radical and historically unusual conception of value. The fact that it has gained any sort of popularity in the last 40 years needs some explaining.

          Reply
          • gsays 2.4.1.1.1
            25 February 2025 at 10:52 am

            You touch on something important there.

            How to have society pivot to value that which is valuable?

            Namely caring. Our young and elderly are the most tragic offerings to the market.

            One would have thought a global pandemic would have shifted the axis a little but no.

            Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.1.1.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 11:16 am

              I am only to happy that we should as taxpayers, provide for the both our young and our elderly. Providing for people who want to have us compete in events like the America's Cup is not high on my list of important things though.

              Reply
          • alwyn 2.4.1.1.2
            25 February 2025 at 11:14 am

            "500 years of western musical history presented"

            If you want to listen to it I am only to happy to let you do so. Just don't expect me to pay for your hobby.

            The NZSO gets, IIRC, about $18 million/year from the taxpayer. They say they perform to a total audience of 70,000 per year at their ticketed concerts. Those concerts represent the bulk of their work. The taxpayer subsidy for one person attending one concert is therefor about $260 per seat! Why should it be the case that elderly, well-educated, high income people in our population (and that is what the people I know who regularly attend the NZSO are) should be subsidised, but people who want to hear Taylor Swift aren't?

            See pages 10 and 11 of chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nzso.sgp1.digitaloceanspaces.com/publications/nzso-spe-2024-2025.pdf

            Reply
            • Incognito 2.4.1.1.2.1
              25 February 2025 at 11:28 am

              The taxpayer subsidy for one person attending one concert is therefor about $260 per seat! [sic]

              By Golly! The NZ government is paying people to attend NZSO concerts and they make a huge profit on going! Sign me up now for as many tickets as I can get – this is get-rich-quick scheme and all pretty legal.

              BTW, you couldn’t pay me enough to go to a Swiftie concert.

              PS, your linked is fucked, so fix it.

              Reply
            • David 2.4.1.1.2.2
              25 February 2025 at 12:41 pm

              You've just reminded me of an episode of Yes Minister. A horrified Sir Humphrey is tasked with educating his minister, Hacker, on the need for the state subsidies for the opera…

              Reply
            • mikesh 2.4.1.1.2.3
              25 February 2025 at 12:43 pm

              If you want to listen to it I am only to happy to let you do so. Just don't expect me to pay for your hobby.

              You don't actually pay for it. It's broadcast free to air. Radio services may be paid for from taxes, but in that case it is only fair that they cater to all tastes.

              Reply
              • alwyn …
                25 February 2025 at 2:12 pm

                "You don't actually pay for it. It's broadcast free to air".

                Oh yes I do. It comes out of the taxes I am forced to pay. As Robert Heinlein put it so succinctly – TANSTAAFL

                It is stations like Newstalk ZB which I don't have to pay for. At least I think so. Please don't tell me that they get a taxpayer grant.

                Reply
                • Incognito …
                  25 February 2025 at 2:35 pm

                  Please don't tell me that they get a taxpayer grant.

                  They, or their owner NZME, certainly did receive government assistance during Covid.

                  It is stations like Newstalk ZB which I don't have to pay for.

                  Notwithstanding who pays for all the infrastructure to run a radio station, you may have heard [of] the advertising, which is how you pay for it.

                  There’s no free lunch under the neoliberal system and cheap ones are often crap.

                  Reply
                  • alwyn …
                    25 February 2025 at 3:03 pm

                    "the advertising".

                    Yes of course. I don't have to listen to the station though so I can avoid that. I can't avoid taxes though even if I don't listen to the Concert Program.

                    Can you justify the taxpayer paying all the costs of the Concert Program so their listeners can here their type of music without having to listen to ads but that we plebs are required to listen to ads because we aren't listening to taxpayer paid for fare?

                    Reply
                    • Morrissey …
                      25 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

                      I don't listen to the Concert Program.

                      That comes as no surprise. no

                    • Incognito []
                      25 February 2025 at 9:37 pm

                      You missed “even if” but then you wouldn’t be able to use your disapproval emoji, which is very cultured of you.

                    • Incognito …
                      25 February 2025 at 9:33 pm

                      You want to avoid taxes paying for the Concert Program [or for attending NZSO concerts in person?] by culling NZSO, I assume. Yet, you’re happy to pay a small fee for visiting a park that doesn’t cover the whole cost of maintaining the park!?

                      Can you justify the taxpayer paying all the costs of the Concert Program […] [my italics]

                      Why do you now argue for full cost-recovery?? Do you want concert goers and/or listeners to pay nothing at all?

                      Der Spiegel, for example, has an ad-free subscription fee or a free option with tracking and advertising. Do you think this optional choice should be removed? And do you argue the same regarding taxpayer funds going towards NZSO?

                      Where does T. Swift fit into all this? Would she survive, financially, if the NZ government doesn’t subsidise her visit to NZ or would she cancel her tour to NZ?

                      You’re all over the place again.

                • Kay …
                  25 February 2025 at 3:03 pm

                  "It comes out of the taxes I am forced to pay."

                  Yes it does. And so does MPs salaries, the military, elite-level sport, landlord tax breaks and numerous other things that many of us would rather our taxes didn't have to pay for. But we can't pick and choose what goods and services we personally contribute to.

                  Reply
                  • alwyn …
                    25 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

                    I think that Abraham Lincoln, in my view the greatest President of the USA, got it about right. He gave his opinion in 1854, six years befoore he was elected President.

                    ""The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves- in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."

                    Thus a Government should provide Defense, Police, Courts, Public Roads and so on. They should not provide support for top level professional sport or entertainment events. They don't need to make cars or TVs either. The people can individually provide what they want themselves.

                    Reply
                    • Incognito …
                      25 February 2025 at 10:05 pm

                      The people can individually provide what they want themselves.

                      You can afford to pay for the construction of a concert hall, the cost of NZSO giving a concert there, and operational cost of having NZSO?

                    • alwyn …
                      26 February 2025 at 9:16 am

                      Why do you ignore the words "what they want themselves." that Lincoln wrote? I might be able to provide a concert hall, and the cost of the NZSO. However if I don't want to I shouldn't be made to.

                    • Incognito []
                      27 February 2025 at 9:54 am

                      You’re approaching your troll limit again here.

                      Your conditional “if” statements are conflicting and merely disingenuous tricks to avoid ‘losing’ points/face and to ensure that this is anything but a genuine debate.

                      For example, you state “The people can individually provide what they want themselves.” and then when I show you the absurdity and natural limits of such statement you counter with “However if I don’t want to I shouldn’t be made to.”

                      On their own, those statements are what they are, but in this farcical ‘debate’ with you they’re tricks of a troll who clearly doesn’t want to engage in good faith.

                      Others and I have tried so many times to get a decent argument from you but you keep beating around the bush, deflecting, diverting, and hiding behind bad puns [yes, that’s a subjective statement].

                      Comments like this reinforce my views:

                      Why don’t you take your daily quota of pills and have a lie down?

                      Lift your game or get on your bike!

                • tWig …
                  25 February 2025 at 3:30 pm

                  Heinlein, that bastion of fair-mindedness who wrote a dystopian novel about black citizens of a future US farming white babies for table meat.

                  Reply
        • Mike the Lefty 2.4.1.2
          25 February 2025 at 10:46 am

          "Nine to noon brought to you by your local Novus branch".

          Show us your Crack!

          Doesn't seem right.

          Reply
      • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.4.2
        25 February 2025 at 9:33 am

        National Parks and cycleways that hardly anyone ever uses.

        Yet more BS reckons from alwyn. Reality is that cycling is increasingly used, and will be even more, as the price of fuel (if not also cycles ease of use, Environment positive ,fitness and feelgood ) heads skyward.

        A total of 3.28 million cycle movements were recorded from February 2023 to January 2024, marking a 14.6% increase compared to the previous 12 months.

        https://at.govt.nz/cycling-walking/research-monitoring/monthly-cycle-monitoring

        Cycle counters are in place to track the use of the cycleways across Ōtautahi Christchurch. Currently, 31 cycle counters across Christchurch’s cycle network are included in our tracking programme.

        https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/improving-our-transport-and-roads/traffic-count-data/cycle-counters

        Christchurch cycling numbers wheelie strong

        The number of people jumping on their bikes in Christchurch is growing with data showing a 30% increase over the last seven years.

        “Biking is good for a variety of reasons. It’s great for the environment, reduces congestion for people driving or taking the bus, it can be quicker than taking your car and also has community as well as health benefits.”

        https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/christchurch-cycling-numbers-wheelie-strong

        Reply
        • alwyn 2.4.2.1
          25 February 2025 at 10:26 am

          "A total of 3.28 million cycle".

          That sounds a very large number doesn't it? Well it is about 1 movement per resident every 6 months. In practice it is more likely to be 2 movements per day for each cyclist who actually does ride a bike. It implies, on that assumption, that one Auckland resident in every 360 rides a bike. ie "Hardly anyone ever uses them"

          Reply
          • Incognito 2.4.2.1.1
            25 February 2025 at 10:35 am

            […] marking a 14.6% increase compared to the previous 12 months.

            Stop trolling and try again.

            Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.2.1.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 11:19 am

              OK. The approximate number of regular cyclists in the population rose for about 1 in 400 to 1 in 360 during the year. Is that what you had in mind?

              Reply
              • Incognito …
                25 February 2025 at 11:33 am

                No, and you know it.

                You continue here with disingenuous BS comments & replies, marginalising, ridiculing, and denying other people’s comments with cherry picking and sarcastic mockery.

                That’s what I have in mind, FYI.

                HTH

                Reply
                • alwyn …
                  25 February 2025 at 11:44 am

                  Is this comment, with the following link, an example of "sarcastic mockery"?

                  https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25-02-2025/#comment-2026054

                  Reply
                  • Incognito …
                    25 February 2025 at 1:32 pm

                    Your pathetic attempt at whataboutery and implied hypocrisy shows again that you’re not a genuine commenter here but more of a troll-ish one. It certainly evokes whiffs of The Gosman (hypocrisy) ruling.

                    Now, let’s see if you can re-frame your comments from government subsidy to “elderly, well-educated, high income people in our population (and that is what the people I know who regularly attend the NZSO are)” and “people who want to hear Taylor Swift aren't”. You may want to include the concert venues and how they’re operated.

                    You may want to start reading this, from your own link, the correct one that I provided:

                    Funding from the Crown (Government Funding)

                    The NZSO is significantly funded from the Crown. This funding is restricted in its use for the purpose of the NZSO meeting the objectives specified in its founding legislation (the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 2004) and the scope of the relevant appropriations of the funder. [pg. 16]

                    Reply
                    • alwyn …
                      25 February 2025 at 4:00 pm

                      I don't really care whether they are doing what legislation says they should do or not. Should that legislation exist is much more to the point. I don't believe it should.

                      The law in NZ used to say that people should, or at least could, be hanged for a variety of crimes. I don't care that that the system was only obeying the legislation. The legislation was WRONG.

                      I am entitled to argue, I would suggest, that if you are proposing that they are right to provide state funding for the orchestra, because because they are only doing what the legislation says, then you should, if consistent, no longer allow people commenting on this site to complain about taxes being cut for landlords. The legislation says the taxes should be reduced and therefore any debate on the matter would be precluded.

                    • Incognito []
                      25 February 2025 at 9:59 pm

                      A RW who doesn’t care about what the Law says!? You sound like David Seymour.

                      The point is not that there’s legislation specific to NZSO but why the NZSO Act exists at all. And why do we have a Ministry for Arts, Culture and Heritage that funds NZSO via Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage – Performing Arts Services, as appropriated in the Budget.

                      But it’s moot because according to you the legislation is “WRONG”, apparently because it conflicts with some kind of neoliberal notion of market value and user-pays and full cost recovery even though you deny that.

                      The rest is blah blah diversion, as usual, that’s utterly irrelevant and misplaced in this discussion.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    25 February 2025 at 4:57 pm

                    Should that legislation exist is much more to the point. I don't believe it should.

                    Since that legislation doesn't align with you beliefs, why not lobby the six parliamentary parties to get the NZSO Act repealed or amended? And, if that fails, there’s always a citizens-initiated referendum.
                    Take some democratic initiative – the Kashaka is in your court wink

                    Reply
          • tWig 2.4.2.1.2
            25 February 2025 at 3:25 pm

            Unfortunately, road speed, bilingual signs, and anti-cyclist propaganda are all 'culture wars' issues. For example, the rw UK press is happy to print disinformation about cyclists, which amplifyies growing aggression against local cyclists.

            After a fake news article appeared excoriating cyclists in the Daily Mail in the UK:

            ' “Six different British Cycling members in different parts of the country told us they had a copy of that Daily Mail held out of a window at them that day, as they were abused,” says Chamberlin. “They were sworn at and in one case a lady was spat at, and there was various incomprehensible abuse of the ‘we’re going to get you’ type, and they had that paper waved at them.” He says members have reported an increase in “punishment passes”, where drivers deliberately pass them closely to give them a scare. '

            That's what a culture war looks like, biased targetting in the media against a sub-group of society. And Alwyn’s choice of reply in this shows excellent rw priming of their pump on this issue.

            Reply
        • Descendant Of Smith 2.4.2.2
          25 February 2025 at 1:18 pm

          Well as someone who doesn't drive I really appreciate cycleways and use them all the time.

          Those off road are great as it lowers the risk of being hit by an idiot driver to almost nil, those on the road are much safer than previously because they are visible and physically move traffic further away from the left meaning it is much easier to avoid silly people opening their car doors without looking.

          And of course most days I only use them twice a day – once biking to work and once biking to home. Same as my work colleagues who drive cars. What do you expect – that cyclists are all so wealthy that they don't need to work like other people and can bike around on them continuously.

          On the weekends the cycleways are full of people using them – would be even more so if the capitalist fuckers didn't make people work on weekends.

          At the same time I happily support those that use parks, holiday camps, public transport, NZ Ballet, arts grants, libraries, museums, swimming pools and lots of things that make up our communities that I do not necessarily use myself.

          User-pays is a neoliberal curse and I'd rather pay more tax for collective public amenities than each having to make a profit.

          Capitalists only know costs and not value, hate collectivism with a passion and are just selfish in the extreme. They know not everyone can become a millionaire (as if everyone wants to anyway) and user pays is just another way of keeping poor people poor.

          Property values is just a form of user pays to keep white people areas for white people.

          And I see the capitalists are taking my money I pay for power once again to line their own pockets.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/360592870/mercurys-payout-shareholders-rising-so-are-its-power-prices

          This after quadrupling the profit the year before.

          https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/350389783/meridians-profit-more-quadruples

          Genesis no better

          https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360588435/genesis-sees-84-profit-increase-extraordinary-half-year

          Reply
          • weka 2.4.2.2.1
            25 February 2025 at 1:36 pm

            anyone objecting to public funding of cycle ways doesn't take climate or wellbeing seriously. I have a family member who manages their depression by biking. For others it's a fitness thing, or being outdoors. And as you say, finances. Lots of compelling reasons.

            Reply
          • Psycho Milt 2.4.2.2.2
            25 February 2025 at 5:30 pm

            At the same time I happily support those that use parks, holiday camps, public transport, NZ Ballet, arts grants, libraries, museums, swimming pools and lots of things that make up our communities that I do not necessarily use myself.

            Totally this. It comes down to whether you're happy with contributing towards a functioning society or whether your ambition in life is to be a consumer in one big shopping mall.

            Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.2.2.2.1
              26 February 2025 at 9:32 am

              Would you support the State providing the young with something I'm sure a large percentage of them would like?

              Let the Crown pay $20 million, or $50 million, or $100 million or whatever it costs to get Taylor Swift to come to New Zealand and to put on 10 concerts for teenagers in New Zealand. Entry for teenagers will be free. My grandchildren say it would be wonderful. Give it to them.

              Well do you support that? Or do you only support taxpayer subsidies for your interests, or at least the things you approve of?

              Reply
              • Descendant Of Smith …
                26 February 2025 at 10:58 pm

                Ahh the person who thinks people puts words in her mouth puts words in mine.

                We live in a representative democracy. It doesn't matter what I individually approve of or not.

                The principle is that we elect people, preferably with some expertise in those particular fields to make those decisions for us. You are asking the wrong question by miles.

                The right question is do I support tax payer funds supporting things that ensures that there is a level of enjoyment in the community that helps communities function, with a prioritisation to some extent on minority interests – especially where economies of scale mean that they may not be able to be self funding. Arts generally is one of those things.

                You typically for a right winger can only frame things in the context of my (or your) selfish personal approval. That is fundamentally what is wrong with your ilk and your thinking.

                I'm more than happy for others to make those calls. If I really object to something I can protest or vote against them next election cycle. I don't think I have to be an expert on everything. It isn't about me.

                Let the Crown pay $20 million, or $50 million, or $100 million or whatever it costs to get Taylor Swift to come to New Zealand and to put on 10 concerts for teenagers in New Zealand. Entry for teenagers will be free. My grandchildren say it would be wonderful. Give it to them.

                Talk about pull shit out of your arse.

                Your grandchildren clearly have bad taste. Can't believe you have to lower yourself to slippery slope arguing. You're so disingenuous in your comments on this site. You act like you are some protector of the moral high ground of taxpayer thought when you're just another neo-liberal shill.

                Your made up numbers do fully outline why we let people with knowledge and expertise make most of these decisions rather than keyboard warriors.

                Reply
          • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.4.2.2.3
            25 February 2025 at 8:33 pm

            Yea for sure. What NZ could (and should) be. Cycling, cycleways, Environment, Health and Wellbeing are interconnected. And as you say; those things of Value. Which are not valued at all by the philistine/ curmudgeons of the world.

            Re Cycling, an article I read a while back by Pat Baskett lays out how and why we need to change.

            Cyclists, show us the way

            It’s common knowledge that building more roads brings more traffic – numerous studies show that 10 percent more roads will bring an equivalent increase in traffic. This is called “induced traffic”.

            Less familiar is the term “traffic evaporation” which describes the effect of reducing the car-carrying capacity of roads. Its effects are a mirror image of building roads. The result is that people find other ways of travelling and traffic is reduced.

            Electric vehicles will make a tiny dent in our emissions but do nothing for congestion. Will there be enough to go around? Will public transport meet the demand? We should be practising now for a different way of moving around. As individuals, most of us non-cyclists have changed nothing, or very little of significance, in our daily lives. Council action to limit where we drive would be a nudge that surely few would resent. Is the climate crisis an emergency or not?

            https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/06/02/cyclists-show-us-the-way/

            Reply
      • Kay 2.4.3
        25 February 2025 at 11:13 am

        National parks no one uses

        Only nearly 50% of Kiwis, plus all the international visitors.

        https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/managing-conservation/recreation-management/visitor-research/#:~:text=In%20the%20year%20ending%20June,from%2037%25%20to%2043%25.

        Pre-covid, but it's bounced back to:

        https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/about-doc/role/visitor-research/visitor-insights-report-2022-2023.pdf (start at p.7)

        It's very sad if you don't visit our amazing national parks, Alwyn.

        Reply
        • alwyn 2.4.3.1
          25 February 2025 at 11:39 am

          I do, nowadays rather irregularly because of health problems, visit our National Parks. I don't think that paying for them buy having a rather arbitrary group of foreign visitors pay a levy to provide them is fair though.

          I like the system used in some of the Australian states. You pay a fee to do so. It can cover the whole state or a portion of it. It covers the period you choose. "Day Pass paid on entry, a 5-day pass, a 2-week pass, a 4-week pass or an Annual Pass. The passes will cover entry to as many National Parks as you wish to visit" You can get a pass if you want to. It isn't compulsory.

          In the WA system a day pass is $17. An annual pass for every park in the state is $130. When we go there we get a visitor pass for 14 days or a month.

          I think we should have something like that in New Zealand. That is a good system of User Pays.

          Reply
          • weka 2.4.3.1.1
            25 February 2025 at 11:47 am

            it's a shit, classist system of users pays.

            btw, nature is 'using' the National Parks. That's the primary purpose of the conservation estate, to conserve native ecosytems.

            Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.3.1.1.1
              25 February 2025 at 12:17 pm

              "it's a shit, classist system of users pays."

              On this I think we will have to agree to disagree. In WA you can get, if you are a resident or rate payer in the area, an annual local area pass which offers unlimited entries to all the parks in quite a large area. There is one which covers Perth and a large area around it such that it might be equivalent to everywhere from Whangarei down to Hamilton and the Coromandel. They are $30 each.

              In other parts of the State the area could be enormous There are probably some, up in the north of what is a gigantic state that might be as big as the South Island.

              The passes don't pay all the costs of the park. They are only to help pay for the facilities that visitors use such as carparks, toilet blocks and so on. I think they a good idea and I would be quite happy to see the scheme brought in here

              Reply
              • weka …
                25 February 2025 at 12:26 pm

                $30 per person? What about children?

                Reply
                • alwyn …
                  25 February 2025 at 2:38 pm

                  It is $30 for the annual pass to take a "small" vehicle into the park. It isn't per person. The quote marks is because they define small as having less that 12 seats. They obviously have big utes in WA.

                  They also cater for the greener members of society in that "Entry fees do not apply if you walk or cycle into a park." Some of the parks are pretty large, and isolated, so getting to them would be a long way and the entry road might be 50km long. Karlamilyi National Park is 1.3 million hectares. That is about one-tenth the size of the South Island.

                  They have been talking, although I'm not sure how far it has got of creating one in the Kimberleys that would be a third the size of the South Island. WA is a big, big bit of land.

                  There is a summary of the scheme here

                  https://exploreparks.dbca.wa.gov.au/park-entry-fees

                  My wife and I go to WA every few years. We pay for our month's pass quite happily and then visit them. We think it is a very good approach to take and, if you are a local $30/year for a lot of parks within a couple of hundred km isn't really onerous.

                  Reply
          • Kay 2.4.3.1.2
            25 February 2025 at 11:48 am

            I agree that some sort of charge should be applied to international visitors, which is a discussion for another day.

            But no points for attempting to avoid the issue of your statement that no one uses our national parks.

            Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.3.1.2.1
              25 February 2025 at 12:30 pm

              Don't put words into my mouth. If you do I will start to give you sarcastic replies. I have never said "no one uses our national parks". I said that there is a fetish for National Parks and, and also that we build cycleways that hardly anyone uses.

              The full statement was "It isn't really any different from the taxpayer funding the Concert Program on the radio, or the NZ Ballet, or the fetish for National Parks and cycleways that hardly anyone ever uses".

              I will accept that you could read it as saying about National Parks that "hardly anyone uses" them but you are not entitled to say I claim that "no one uses them"

              Reply
          • Incognito 2.4.3.1.3
            25 February 2025 at 12:24 pm

            Why don’t you discuss the natural limits and constraints of user-pays?

            For example, would you require 100% cost recovery?

            For example, if (almost) no one visits national parks should the cost of preservation (and ownership in general) drop to zero?

            You can then extend your discussion to things such as arts, literature, film, music, Humanities and Social Sciences, history, languages, indigenous culture and knowledge systems and associated traditions, et cetera.

            For example, if no one reads TS and comments here – we could turn off commenting permanently – is it still worth writing blogs about things that we feel are important enough to publicise? The main cost is our time and the site is free (no ads) and not subsidised by taxpayers, so is this the model you and libertarians favour? Would you miss TS – you keep coming back – or would you like to contribute to the kaupapa and also make a regular donation?

            Reply
            • weka 2.4.3.1.3.1
              25 February 2025 at 12:28 pm

              maybe we have a discretional fine system for moderators to use as well 😈

              Reply
              • Incognito …
                25 February 2025 at 1:48 pm

                In line with the user-pays idea and charging people more who can afford it, let’s introduce a progressive tithe system based on a commenter’s wealth and income, like a ‘voluntary’ tax or toll.

                And let’s do an experiment and divide it into two streams: one for self-confessed Lefties and one for practising RWs and see where we collect most.

                Reply
            • alwyn 2.4.3.1.3.2
              25 February 2025 at 2:55 pm

              I shall answer bits of this.

              Full cost recovery? No I am suggesting we follow the Aussie system where it is for the costs of driving in the park and having entry roads, parking, toilets and so on. It isn't to pay for the whole shebang. As I noted above you don't have to pay anything if you walk or cycle there.

              If no one visits? Well you wouldn't need the fees as no provision would have to be made for the non-existent visitors would there?

              Fees for reading TS? It would probably have to get a bit better to attract me to pay anything much. If you were to go that way would you pay commenters, like me?

              What would it be worth? I currently have subscriptions to, among other papers The New York Times. It gives me full access for a subscription of $20 for a year. That is US dollars so that is about $34 New Zealand. How do you think The Standard compares to the NYT?

              Reply
              • Incognito …
                25 February 2025 at 9:16 pm

                I shall answer bits of this.

                Meaning you will divert and deflect, as per usual.

                If not full cost-recovery for parks then why not apply the same principles and reasoning to NZSO? You’re a master at missing the point.

                Is a national park worth preservation if nobody visits? That was the question, which you seem to have misunderstood, somehow!?

                Anyway, TS would get a bit better if you lift your game a little bit – a win-win.

                How does TS compare to Der Spiegel or The Guardian, for example? Do you comment there as often as you do here? Why not ditch TS altogether?

                Reply
          • SPC 2.4.3.1.4
            25 February 2025 at 10:25 pm

            That is sad, that you cannot realise your own personal fetish for our National Parks as much as when in better health.

            Reply
        • weka 2.4.3.2
          25 February 2025 at 11:47 am

          in my experience there are too many people using the National Parks 😉 Tourism ruins a lot of things.

          Reply
      • Psycho Milt 2.4.4
        25 February 2025 at 12:52 pm

        See the post from Corey above. There's 'libertarian' in the sense of 'Let people do what they want if they're not hurting anyone/anything,' then there's 'libertarian' in the sense of "Why should my taxes be spent on things I don't endorse?" The latter category can go and find themselves uninhabited islands to live on, if living in a society bothers them that much.

        Reply
      • PsyclingLeft.Always 2.4.5
        25 February 2025 at 7:41 pm

        alwyn. You poor sad person. So many actually nice things..you give as your examples, that you personally disdain, possibly actively. A philistine with quite a curmudgeon streak.

        Seen on sunny days, shaking fist angrily at clouds?

        Mayhap thats your way of achieving some measure of fulfilment ?

        Not too late to change. Try riding a bike…it might be a life changer. : )

        Reply
        • alwyn 2.4.5.1
          25 February 2025 at 8:51 pm

          My my. You really are unhappy today.

          As Helen Clark once said, and I admit I haven't bothered to check the exact wording.

          "There, there diddums".

          Why don't you take your daily quota of pills and have a lie down?

          Reply
      • SPC 2.4.6
        25 February 2025 at 10:20 pm

        You've determined on identifying the interests of people as their fetish.

        Including

        the fetish for National Parks

        https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fetish

        (search recommended for adults only).

        Reply
    • Barfly 2.5
      25 February 2025 at 2:31 pm

      Seymours actions are simple performance art utterly, devoid of meaning and simply trying to ensure that Kiwi Trump/Musk fans remember that ACT is who they vote for.

      Reply
  3. PsyclingLeft.Always 3
    25 February 2025 at 8:59 am

    The corruption ranking that could affect your mortgage

    Sad…but true. Most are unaware/dont care. Hard to take for those of us who do care.

    It is another one of those world rankings that would not mean a lot to most New Zealanders.

    The misuse of data, scamming, fraud, tax evasion and lax rules around lobbying are all contributing to New Zealand's drift down the global corruption index rankings.

    "Nothing to see here". The go-to for all kinds of authoritarians, neolibs, assorted and associated creeps, crims and cronies. NAct1?

    "I'm afraid now we're starting to see the pressures that are on New Zealand, internally and externally… really put pressure on what we've been somewhat complacent about. We've sort of thought 'we're fine', you know, 'nothing to see here'.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thedetail/542855/the-corruption-ranking-that-could-affect-your-mortgage

    Oh well and Casinos. I have posted before (incl sir Key and cronies promotion of same)…about the oft dodgy dealings of such..

    Foreign criminals laundering funds through NZ casinos – DIA

    The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) anti-money laundering group director, Mike Stone, said casinos were flagged as a high risk.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/396064/foreign-criminals-laundering-funds-through-nz-casinos-dia

    But from a who knew aspect…Mainly Australia, but some NZ connection, that saved future Amerika Pres trump..

    The untold story of 'dangerous' Australian casino connections that saved Donald Trump from financial ruin

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/526705/the-untold-story-of-dangerous-australian-casino-connections-that-saved-donald-trump-from-financial-ruin

    Corruption.

    Reply
  4. PsyclingLeft.Always 4
    25 February 2025 at 10:01 am

    Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda…but Didna. Loser Leader on other Loser.

    Christopher Luxon says he would have fired Andrew Bayly had he not resigned

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/542861/christopher-luxon-says-he-would-have-fired-andrew-bayly-had-he-not-resigned

    Where is our country going? No good place….

    Reply
    • Barfly 4.1
      25 February 2025 at 10:31 am

      Luxon's words are simply performance art

      Reply
    • Mike the Lefty 4.2
      25 February 2025 at 1:14 pm

      Bayly should have been sacked last year. IMO this latest incident is actually less serious than the first (although admittedly we don't know the full details because they are not saying).

      Bayly wouldn't be the first or the last minister to push people around. There were stories about how Muldoon used to rage at his staff and push them around when he was angry (which seemed to be quite often) but in those days people didn't complain unless it got to fisticuffs level.

      Once again it shows Luxon's poor judgement on matters of leadership. How many more such incidents will it take for National MPs to decide enough is enough and roll him? They must be getting sick of looking for holes to creep into.

      Reply
      • tWig 4.2.1
        25 February 2025 at 2:41 pm

        Apparently both Brownlee and Mallard have yelling/fisticuffs in their pasts that have not hindered their progression to Speaker.

        Let him who casts the first stone…

        This was one reason for the review of Parliament behaviour, published in 2019.

        The firing is done when someone is seen as a mud-sticks person, drawing fire in the future for the Nats.

        And the hypocrisy of the media column cms wasted on property crimes committed by women MPs under considerable stress that the rw want to bring down, vs the veil drawn recently across Seymour’s multiple transgressions.

        Reply
  5. Incognito 5
    25 February 2025 at 11:09 am

    Macron is French toast.

    That is when Macron reached over to grab Trump's arm to interject.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/542884/macron-interrupts-trump-to-correct-him-on-european-assistance-to-ukraine

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 6.1
      25 February 2025 at 3:34 pm

      Would be good to see the twerp seriously tested, but “Statesman” has not been evident in his skill set so far.

      Just imagine a natural disaster here or a Pacific neighbour–he would be shipping in Compass cook/chill school meals…

      Reply
  7. tWig 7
    25 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

    Legal Threats Made to Gender-Affirming Health Professionals in NZ

    The letter puts recipients “on notice” that they may one day face “legal action” in relation to prescribing puberty blockers and other gender affirming care.

    The threat is from anti-trans organisation Inflexion point.

    Reply
    • weka 7.1
      25 February 2025 at 4:55 pm

      All sides in that are numpties. Publish the letter so that the public can be informed.

      For context, the Cass Review in the UK,

      The report states that the existing evidence for both endocrine (puberty blockers and hormone therapy) and non-endocrine treatments (psychosocial interventions) in children and adolescents with gender incongruence is weak.[i]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review#Findings

      The Cass Review was commissioned by the NHS England, as a consequence of both staff whistleblowing and ex-patient concerns from the Tavistock gender clinic.

      Prior to the Cass Review, the MoH in NZ removed the wording 'safe and reversible' on its webpage about puberty blockers. There are multiple reviews internationally raising concerns about PBs and/or medical transition of young people.

      There are multiple legal cases worldwide, where ex patients are taking clinicians to court.

      I think the biggest protection for NZ clinicians is the fact that we have ACC, that prevents medical people from being sued.

      My own view is that any clinician providing medical transition services and not providing medical detransition services should be prevented from practicing medicine in this area. Detrans people have been abandoned, sometimes with horrific and distressing lifelong disabilities. Having to provide detransition services might sharpen the minds of clinicians, and it would weed out the ones who are ideologically blind.

      Reply
      • Psycho Milt 7.1.1
        25 February 2025 at 5:34 pm

        My own view is that any clinician providing medical transition services and not providing medical detransition services should be prevented from practicing medicine in this area.

        Absolutely, and it's not just providing medical detransition services, it should also involve thinking about how the need for detransition services can inform their approach to transition services.

        Reply
      • tWig 7.1.2
        25 February 2025 at 8:54 pm

        The Cass review has had plenty of criticism.examples here.

        Reply
        • weka 7.1.2.1
          25 February 2025 at 10:02 pm

          For context, Ruth Pearce is a sociologist and trans rights activist. Looking at their first example, they basically just say a bunch of people don't like the review. In this case, it was presumably a majority of the 69 doctors who make up the council of a doctors' union (BMA). Their main critique,

          Members of the BMA’s Council recently voted in favour of a motion which asked the Association to ‘publicly critique the Cass Review’, after doctors and academics in several countries, including the UK, voiced concern about weaknesses in the methodologies used in the Review and problems arising from the implementation of some of the recommendations1.

          https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-to-undertake-an-evaluation-of-the-cass-review-on-gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people

          Alongside that criticism the BMA council decided to do an evaluation of the Cass Review, which prompted mass resignations from the organisation, including senior clinicians, and an open letter,

          More than 1,400 doctors, 900 of whom are BMA members, have signed an open letter calling for the BMA to drop its opposition to Cass. The letter criticises the union’s leaders for “going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and against ethical practice”. The letter has been signed by high-profile figures, including nearly 70 professors and 23 former or current presidents of medical royal colleges.

          The Times (archived version) https://archive.ph/h14RC#selection-2419.0-2419.412

          Cass herself addressed the criticisms,

          Cass told Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4: “I found the BMA position puzzling because they haven’t actually said what it is they object to about my recommendations … Do they object to better training? Do they object to better research?”

          Cass said the BMA’s critique was based on “online sources mainly from the US”, adding: “When thinking about evidence-based care, they haven’t produced any evidence that the review should be stopped.”

          She said the leaders of the BMA who opposed the review were “in a relatively small minority within the medical profession”.

          She added: “There will always be a spectrum of opinion in medicine: that’s the way of the world. But I think the difference between the BMA’s position and mine is that I’ve spoken to hundreds of doctors as well as other clinical staff, both during the course of the review and since the review.

          “The vast majority of those people in national meetings and in one-to-ones and in work groups are really supportive of the approach. So I feel that those who take issue with it are in a relatively small minority within the medical profession.”

          The Times https://archive.is/F1Qug

          Reply
  8. Ad 8
    25 February 2025 at 4:09 pm

    With Port of Tauranga preparing to take majority control of Northport, we may finally get some proper upgrade investment into it and some motivation to compete against Port of Auckland.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/542913/consortium-looks-to-take-control-of-northport

    It has taken decades to break this split shareholding arrangement that has meant no-one did anything.

    I'm also hoping out of this there starts to be better reason to invest in rail straight to Marsden Point, and take a good share of those logging trucks off the weary Far North state highway network.

    We live and dream anyway.

    Reply
  9. Stephen D 9
    25 February 2025 at 4:56 pm

    My glass is always half full, and the first half was delicious.

    ISTM that Trump is an out and out bully. The thing with bully’s is that they deflate when stood up to. Sooner or later someone will, and he will explode like a ballon. (Sorry about all the dreadful mixed metaphors, but you get my drift.)

    Reply
    • alwyn 9.1
      25 February 2025 at 9:06 pm

      "he will explode like a balloon".

      Oh please, please be correct. My glass is, I fear, half empty when I think about Trump. I first said on this site about 9 years ago that I would, if an American, vote for anyone other than Trump. I thought that people like Sanders would merely be failures. I thought that Trump was insane and I fear that I was, and am right.

      Reply
    • Belladonna 9.2
      25 February 2025 at 9:17 pm

      Just wondering who you think is going to stand up to him?

      Reply

Leave a Comment