Written By:
- Date published:
5:30 pm, August 25th, 2026 - 17 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
Daily review is also your post.
This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Don’t forget to be kind to each other …
Orcs.
"The government’s decision to delay Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 until 2032 has been slammed by Waikato-Tainui chair Tukoroirangi Morgan, who said it puts politics ahead of freshwater health and undermines Treaty settlement commitments.
It is extraordinary that the government would press pause now, when the process has reached its conclusion, he said."
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/politics/pc1-delay-puts-waikato-river-restoration-at-risk-critics-say/
From the Category ‘WTF, Simeon Brown’:
https://www.nzno.org.nz/Portals/0/Files/2026/Nurses%20v%20Health%20NZ_%20Our%20data%20interactiv…pdf
That’s what happens with you put Simeon Brown in charge.
https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-185-000-understaffed-shifts-expose-health-failure/
Simeon Brown cannot be trusted and National’s campaign, for which he’s responsible too, is brazenly spreading blatant lies.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1115344/labour-s-chris-hipkins-says-national-is-literally-telling-lies-in-its-adverts
And let’s not mention Simeon’s cynical & lazy attack website that’s so bad that it makes Nigerian scams look good.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/11/national-uses-nonsensical-ai-website-to-attack-labours-tax-policy/
Simeon Brown is one of the least trustworthy politicians roaming Parliament buildings.
Agree 100%.
It's from the USA Republican playbook: lie without scruple, and rely on the media not to call you out.
And it works, as that RNZ link demonstrates. The story by RNZ's reporter is not "Simeon Brown lies", it is "Hipkins says Brown lies". Even though there is objective data about what the parties' policies are, very easy to access and report. The reporter knows it is not true. But won't say so.
There is also data about National's coalition partners' policies, like buying back BNZ. Why don't RNZ report that as National's policy? Because it isn't. There's a fact.
So sometimes they do facts. Sometimes they don't bother. Simeon Brown knows this all too well.
Lyndon LaRouche's lunacy lives.
Jason Selvig: “What’s Donald Trump’s greatest accomplishment in his first year and a half?”
Trump supporter: “Trump’s done a lot of things. Number one, a lot of people don’t realize, he got our country back because we’ve been under the reign of Great Britain the last 125 years, they destroyed the evidence”
JS: “Wait, we’ve been under the reign of Great Britain?”
TS: “That’s why King Charles come here, he thought he was going to manipulate Donald Trump. And Trump went along with him cause that’s who he is. But that’s what the 250 years was really about was we got our country back. You just gon have to research just like I did. It’s true”
https://www.prometheanaction.com/the-saturday-wrap-up-america-at-250-the-system-britain-stole-and-trump-is-taking-back-july-4-2026/
Why has not the minister of Lawrence bashing called in the yank's representative to explain the US behavior towards Canada?
Kick them out.
This is ridiculous beyond measure. The support of Genocide in Gaza, the illegal war of aggression on Iran, the treatment of their own navy personal, and now an effective economic war with Canada.
If no one stands up to madness, madness has a tendency to roll on and on. on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on and on on and on on and on on and on
That would be because no one has appointed NZ to be the world's policeman in enforcing our view on economic policy on the rest of the world.
The tariff policy between the US and Canada is none of our business. Just as the tariff policy between India and Pakistan is none of our business, either.
We can have a view on it. As likely to result in poor economic outcomes on both sides – but no one has appointed us as arbitrator.
Following through on your view of international relations, would result in total diplomatic isolation – as every country in the world has some policy with which we disagree.
Splendid isolation is not an effective political strategy for a nation entirely dependent on trade.
World police, worst strawman in years. How about people with some moral fiber.
Tariffs as they are, are being used by the current admin are a weapon, why can't you see that? You know a triggered for Japan to start their attack on the US in 1941 – this little tariff the US imposed on fuel…
Tariffs are not benign.
You seem to think my position is based on one incident from the US, it's not, it's the pattern of behaviour. The pattern of a bully.
As for isolation, the rules based order has been torn up. If we want to work together again, then some moral and positive patterns of behaviour need to be adhered too.
Calling out a bully, and condemning the politics “of might is right” will win us more friends than enemies.
The only isolation I see, is the west slowly isolating itself because it to damn scared to make a moral and just stand.
That's not how diplomacy actually works. Yes, US tariffs on anyone, let alone Canada, are stupid, corrosive, and ultimately terrible for the US and the rest of the global trading system.
However, at the end of the day New Zealand must pursue the foreign policy that best serves our interests. That's not an argument for moral cowardice; it's a recognition that we literally cannot afford to go it alone.
Canada and Carney are causes absolutely worth supporting. We should support them, defend the international rules we depend on, oppose coercive economic behaviour, and work with countries that share those interests. But there is a difference between standing for those principles and indulging in unilateral diplomatic gestures against the United States that would cost us far more than they would cost the Americans.
Foreign policy also has to ask what actually advances those principles and protects New Zealanders.
We can’t lift our economy, arrest the decline of our public services, or protect people from poverty on moral victories alone. There is no virtue in impoverishing ourselves to make a point the United States can simply ignore.
Principle matters. But principle without strategy is just self-sacrifice.
SO taking out a forgnie leader, crippling sanctions against Cuba, supplying weapons to the IDF, attacking Iran, dropping bombs in Africa, extrajudicial killing of fishermen in Caribbean and Pacific and using tariffs as weapons. These are the things we know, which are not a conspiracy. And all those actions are what has brought about the collapse of the world order.
So I disagree with you because the strategy I see at this point – is hide and hope they don't notice we exist. Or at best weak as platitudes.
A Hopeful and positive Strategy, would be to engage with the global south who agree the world order has been broken. Make a moral stance, take a bit of a hit and get working with the people closes to us Australia, Indonesia, the rest of South East Asia and the Pacific.
There are kiwis all around the globe, and one state acting like a two bit thug does nothing for their safety, not the future safety of us all.
I'd argue – it is worse than moral cowardice to bow down to the economy imposed on us by the USA military and live in fear the damage wrought upon us all – if we even dear, at the very least, question it's actions.
What you describe as “hide and hope they don’t notice us” is not remotely what I’m proposing.
In fact, most of your positive programme is close to what I think New Zealand should be doing: deepen our relationships with Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and the wider global south; diversify our trade; reduce our exposure to American political risk; and work with countries that still want a predictable international order.
That is a strategy.
Where we disagree is the idea that deliberately imposing costs on ourselves is evidence of moral seriousness.
If expelling the US representative materially constrained American behaviour, strengthened Canada, made New Zealand safer, or helped build an alternative international order, then make that case.
But if it simply damages us while Washington shrugs, then it is a gesture, not strategy. And we can’t build a new international order on gestures.
America has plainly become a less reliable partner. Making ourselves less reliant on it is therefore a pragmatic and reasonable response.
So yes: work with Canada. Work with Australia, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and the global south.
But let’s actually build something, rather than confuse the performance of principle with the exercise of it.
This is why Liberalism is a fubar ideology.
Can't or won't take a moral stand, without bowing down to economics first.
So which countries meet your purity test to be included in your moral world order?
It's going to be pretty isolated on your moral highground.
Continuing to talk to people you disagree with is the whole point of diplomacy.
And New Zealand's foreign policy has to advance the interests of our country – not pointlessly piss-off those we need to work with.
Nothing we can do (not will, can) will change the US.
We see that from our moral position on nuclear weapons – which has not shifted US policy one iota over the last 40 years.
Unceremoniously tossing out the US ambassador – as you suggest – would simply open NZ up to economic retaliation- wrecking our economy. And achive nothing apart from victim status – and a great deal of poverty.
I take a moral positions and that makes me pure. Thanks for that Belladonna. Pretty sure my friends would disagree with you.
That said, I'd rather have morals, than have none at all. Or liberalism's set of morals, which as we have seen in the last couple of years, are truly lacking.
I did not say kick out the Ambassador, another straw man – that's getting a bit to common – I may not respond to you if you carry on like this. We could end up in a flame war and that would piss in-cog-nea-too off.
I said, The US representative needs to be brought in and talked to. And told we do not accept this behaviour.
This moral weakness to do the absolute basic's – this is basic diplomatic stuff – if staggering. What are you afraid of – the economy we are stuck with being enforced on us by the US military can be wreaked by even a question. I think we need to ask ourselves do we want an economy like this – or is there something better?
I'm in the it's a better school by the way. Even the middle ground of social democracy would do it better, at this point.
.
Trust the Welsh to introduce good ideas.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asc/2026/9/contents
The legislation seems very similar to that here in NZ.
A MP loses their seat on criminal conviction of a serious offense. Although they’ve mostly resigned by the time the case is tried. I think Hone Harawira is the only sitting MP I recall being convicted.
Or they can be booted out by their own party for egregious conduct (Darlene Tana).
What do you see the difference is?
I thought the main difference was not being able to lie in parliament. That, than a person who voted for the MP could start the process for their retraction as an MP.
Putin's clearly chancing a last throw of the dice. He's introduced legislation in the Duma to nationalise Russian businesses for his Small Military Operation, now with an expected finish date of 2030.
Now this could topple him, as those around him are his old cronies, some brought out of retirement. I imagine a throng of younger, leaner and highly ambitious army operators in the tier below having some long chats with each other about brightening their prospects; while oligarchs plot to keep control of their assets.
Not the end of Russia, but we may be watching the last days of Putin.
https://bsky.app/profile/militaryanalyst.bsky.social/post/3mtv4o23gqk2d