Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 2nd, 2026 - 37 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 …
No point making plans for Nigel – he's in freefall: https://unherd.com/newsroom/reform-uk-has-no-plan-after-nigel-farage/
It's a honeymoon effect for Burnham, so may not last. Disaffected folk only adhere to a flawed leader if the alternative seems worse. Starmer did seem 24% worse than Farage in the public mind according to the above comparison (reasons for that remain opaque).
Burnham is "drill a baby drill" man. He may face a revolt on this. Honeymoon over.
He is opposed to keeping carbon in the ground despite wildfires ravaging many parts of the world, especially Europe.
Because of this he will lose votes to the Greens who are rampant. This may well split the Left vote in the next election under the useless FPP system, which could let Reform and the Conservatives in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/31/andy-burnham-risks-labour-revolt-north-sea-drilling-rosebank-jackdaw-climate
Yeah, definitely a space to watch, considering this significant dimension:
Atlas takeover of US msm? BBC complicit: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/us-media-freakout-nicaragua
Having posted a contrary view the other day, I acknowledge merit in this other side to the story. US media seem clueless when it comes to geopolitical reality, remaining captive to historical delusions. Giving Trump a free ride. Ortega must be authentic though.
Even when facing a friendly audience of business owners, Luxon can’t help but sound like a patronising plonker with daddy issues. Whilst he’s full of himself, he lacks self-awareness and humility, and would re-write history (and his
successesachievements) to fit his inner monologue, except that he doesn’t go back further than 2020.https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/01-08-2026/sometimes-its-worse-when-our-prime-minister-does-actually-make-himself-clear
Luxon is simply showing how little he knows about his own country, his own society, and the realities of small-medium business in provincial NZ. Many of these businesses depend on the existence of buoyant demand in their domestic regions. His government has throttled that demand through government spending cuts to fund tax giveaways to the wrong people, i.e. people who are using that tax cut to either pay down debt or buy assets, rather than spend into the local economy. He has consequently deepened a recession that was initially produced by external supply-side price inflation.
It is therefore absolutely obvious why some of his audience in Rotorua were focused on what the government is doing. Luxon reminds me of a series of remote American-based managers that passed through a business that had been sold to an offshore buyer. Each arrived with their own favourite 'ground-breaking' business book that unlocked essential truths that we were urged to read, they had read long and deeply in the self-improvement 'literature', everything had to be done in some multiple of 30 days irrespective of what the task entailed. They talked a big game, were gone within a year each, and the business books were still lined up on the shelf to provoke occasional outbursts of hilarity and derision. In my opinion, we are deep in turkey town with this guy.
Luxon isn't strong on history either. He reportedly told his Rotorua audience that "international conflict had been around since World War I".
The human capacity for conflict across borders is a bit older than that. Hasn't he heard of the Trojan war, the Peloponnesian War and all the rest?
Luxon only needs to look on Google to learn about the frequency of wars and the solvable reasons that could prevent them.
Luxon is like this neolib wave that repeats Ayn Rand type hyperbole. She rejected Russian ways because the USA seemed so good. I am a magpie for books and have one by a Russian on the differences of education between the two countries. He thought that Russians had a far better education and that the USA despite all its advantages, had a sloppy education system. Can't put my hand on it to give further detail at present.
Probably all our education systems have failed in their different ways or we wouldn't be how we are. And tertiary ed has now dropped studying and understanding the flesh,bone and brain behind our actions now and pre-1984, and are concentrating on STEM, systems and money-making; high-flying projects of the 21st century prepared to sacrifice any number of people to reach for a successful outcome which is unlikely.
Years ago I met a USA progressive feminist, who after a while here, realised that our early advances were spent! Now we even leave the old hopeful human way of trying; forget that – 'every man and wiman' for themselves. Why would Luxon know anything else – he's sorted.
Labour finance and economy spokesperson Barbara Edmonds didn’t mince words either – Luxon is just blowing bubbles with rainbow colours that smell of roses.
https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-luxon-insults-struggling-businesses-instead-of-fixing-the-economy/
State sheeple struggler sampling seems shifty: https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/08/01/i-dont-really-like-them-but-i-plan-to-vote-for-them/
You can see their rationale: typical kiwi struggler, sample of 1 typifies the whole. Random representation is not only cool, it's real easy to do.
Govt spends to make things better for citizens like you, mate. Oh, you mean cut all the flab Labour put on? Then say so.
Nah, endemic don't mean total. Good managers can probably be found therein, but the system stops them getting public credit for performing well, so we never hear of them.
Hey, rich folk got plenty. Just cos they hide it don't mean it doesn't exist.
You mean they're just pretending? They issued a typical Labour policy a few days back so could be they're copying Labour's simulation strategy too.
Data centres are forecast to use 20% of the power in the USA in 9 years time. In a power hungry country like the USA that is a hell of a lot of power.
NZ desperately needs the Greens' one year moratorium on data centres to become law so that rules can be put in place that force DC's to finance 100% of their (hopefully renewable) power source and all costs of connecting to the grid. This could be by means of a condition attached to the consent, worded to prevent the DC from operating until this condition had been met.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/bnef-nearly-doubles-its-us-data-center-power-forecast-to-194gw
The Greens' moratorium won't do anything to bring down our household power prices, nor encourage new large scale generation over what’s in the pipeline already.
Even with the collapse of our sawmilling industry nationwide, line charges are up $5 a month and unit charges (of course in winter) are way high.
There are also very big regional differences. Queenstown and Cromwell around 42c to 49c/kWh, Wellington sitting cheaper at about 34.61c/kWh
The Greens would need to pass a law targeted at the generators, because the Energy Authority doesn't have those powers:
Decisions regarding the timing, type, and location of new generation plants rest entirely with commercial market participants based on financial viability and risk Generation investment pipeline.
And no, to forestall your usual answer, household solar won't bring prices down in a hurry because a solar rollout on a scale to make a measurable NZ unit price difference would take years to roll out.
The Greens need to focus on the actual price of power and do the regulator homework for people paying the bills, rather than just go find another club to kill something off.
So, Ad, the Greens call for a moratorium is pointless?
You think?
the moratorium is designed to stop AI data centres in NZ being yet another environmental and social cluster fuck. Imagine if this had happened at the start of big dairy. We might still have rivers that don't make kids sick when they swim in them.
Power pricing is in the GP power policy.
I am well aware of the Green Party policy on pricing, and it is entirely reliant on solar uptake and does not deal with the failure to regulate power prices.
All they have to offer is loans. They don''t even have a mechanism for delivering these loans, nor does it address the failure of NZGIF or the collapse of Solar Zero which were the delivery mechanisms for the previous policy when they were in coalition.
It is piss weak.
pfft. It's up to Labour to lead on this, they will control cabinet. The Greens' role is top keep the discussion on the things that matter: cost of living crisis, climate mitigation and adaptation, environmental protections. The Greens are a small party who lift above their weight.
They also don't get to control the mainstream's insistence on neoliberal solutions that won't actually work to address the mess we are in.
If you want different policy then write some.
Seriously no apology for either NZGIF or Solar Zero's customers.
Well thank goodness the Greens can continue to just mean well.
Not having the capacity to write policy for the 90% of people that won't have solar panels is pathetic and weak.
And yes, as usual Labour will do the heavy lifting on this for the Greens.
It's climate transition you doofus. Your argument is like saying don't do clean car rebates because most people can't afford new cars. The point is we all need to be doing these things, because we have to transition, and the Greens have produced policy that starts the solar ball rolling.
Fuck me, the number of people who still think the climate crisis is negotiable or climate action is a nice to have. Climate collapse gives no fucks about the cost of living crisis. The Greens and Labour have an opportunity to step change the transition.
thing is, I know the systems thinking side of it very well, but you're the infrastructure bod. You know how to translate some of the climate issues into pragmatic transition options. Holding onto BAU just won't work and we actually need people like you to do some major aspects of transition.
Regulation/de-regulation are the preferred tools of the neo-authoritarian Coalition but there are other ways to achieve downward movement of prices.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/74612/attachments/original/1784510079/The_Greens'_Full_Power_Policy.pdf [pg. 7]
+100 Weka.
Price is merely a symptom of the problem which originated in famous "reforms". Seems like a carefully-masked cartel operation:
Voters are sick of it. It is due to a closet Nat/Lab United Front which has perpetuated it continuously since those reforms. Their purpose? To enrich shareholders.
So what's the guts?? Try this analysis for accuracy: https://annie354654.substack.com/p/inside-the-gentailer-cartel-why-your
No one is interested in the problem when it's been around for this long.
People as customers who are on the grid and serviced by the Big 4 – 3 of which are 51% owned by the taxpayer – need regulatory protection and that is the gaping policy hole, not what to do with datacentres.
As I have said many times, the power costs for sawmilling are about 10% of total costs. So a 20% increase in power prices adds only 2% to costs. If they couldn't handle this they were doomed anyway. Power prices were not the problem.
BTW I disagree with most other things you said in that post. For instance if DC’s are allowed to suck up masses of power in NZ power prices WILL go up for consumers and industry. NZ would probably have to build an even larger LNG import facility.
But if the DC’s had to supply and fund their own power through renewables none of this would be true. Labour should get in behind the moratorium.
the moratorium is so good. It basically says if you want to do this thing, you have to demonstrate up front you can do it in a way that doesn't harm the environment or society.
It's how everything should be done.
"you have to demonstrate up front you can do it in a way that doesn't harm the environment"
I wonder if that applies to egg production? Hens in cages of any form are to be banned from the end of next year. I believe there is a push to only allow free-range hens thereafter but I can't find the exact details on the matter.
Doing this will double the CO2 production per egg, according to research from the UK. Is this doubling of the CO2 acceptable to parties that otherwise are demanding a reduction of the gas from other farming activities?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jul/29/organic-eggs-climate-caged-chickens-carbon-emissions-environment
It isn't just the CO2 that goes up. The study also says that "Organic free-range production also scored worst in its potential for water eutrophication, acidification and land use. Chicken mortality was also highest in organic free range farming, the researchers said."
I saw that yesterday. It's a complex piece of research, link below.
To answer your question, yes commercial egg production should centre climate transition (of course, unless we don't want to transition, and that's a different conversation).
This is one of the reasons some of us bang on about regenerative agriculture and relocalisation. If it's not regenerative, it's degenerative. Organic is better for the obvious reasons (less pollution, better soil), but conventional organic isn't necessarily going to not have impacts. That's the problem with the industrial food supply chain, and it's also why the vegans are wrong (eating plants instead of animals doesn't change the industrial nature of production).
The research is based on egg production for profit. It's not egg production for feeding humans within the planetary boundaries. The problem isn't organic eggs, it's that the driver is capitalism.
The paper says that much of the GHG emissions with all egg production comes from feed, but it doesn't say why. I did a quick google.
25% of emissions are related to fossil fuels for machinery, process and transport of grains.
I will guess that organics is higher because the grain has to be grown organically, which is less common and thus travels further. Hence growing grains on farm or close by reduces emissions. Diversifying feed, and doing that on farm likewise.
Elsewhere I am reading feed production accounts for 70% of emissions. Some of that will be the type to farming used to produce the grain. Hence regenag instead (low fertiliser use, less ploughing, more carbon sequestration).
Free range eggs use more land than battery or barn eggs. Regenag would be bringing multiple benefits from the same area of land (not just egg production).
And so on.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/7/rsos251830/482508/The-environmental-cost-of-welfare-driven-policy
“There are a lot of little shits in classrooms…" – Paul Henry.
"There are a lot of little shits in ACT" – Mercurio
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361014606/teachers-could-get-new-powers-remove-disruptive-students-act-proposal
remove disruptive kids and put them into forest schools. Everyone is happy that way except for most of the kids left in mainstream schools.
Where the Wild Things are!
Henry should know
Article about Beira’s Place, the Scottish rape crisis centre that Amnesty UK called anti rights and anti women. Article describes what BP does, the abuse it gets from trans activists, and the impact of the AUK reports.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ac7991a19c717f29
https://archive.is/urjVK
The indomitable Ian Powell on the omni-shambles of the [public] health system.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2608/S00002/a-microscopic-view-that-highlights-worsening-crisis-in-public-hospitals.htm
Only replacement of this leadership will enable (but not guarantee) any improvement. Until then, the denials & rejections will continue in various forms. So, let’s start by changing the political guard and turf out the Coalition of Cutters on 7 Nov.
I realise how wise it is not to listen to the public announcements in the news. I have just heard about ACT trying to increase the powers of teachers when handling disturbed or violent children. Teachers say they have adequate measures open to them already.
This is followed by NZ First saying they want more babies and offering $5000 to those having them.
I hesitate to pass on my opinions, though well-founded, as to what slithery thinking from these two swamp monsters, is at the back of such ideas and pronouncements.
Paul Henry's beating up on the electorate, in this case, students at school. ACT's education policy includes a 'tough on crime' approach to poor student behaviour, including the right to physical removal, and fines up to $3000. According to the Herald:
'Asked if Act should rather focus on funding support for at-risk students – given behavioural issues could be partly attributed to things like family dysfunction, emotional instability and neurodivergence – Henry said the policy was more focused on “changing the dynamics in the classroom”.
He then claimed, while some poor behaviour could be due to those reasons, allowances had gone too far.
“I mean, let’s be honest, there are a lot of little s***s in classrooms, and we need to address that if we’re going to lift education standards.”
Yes, let's create an underclass who never get taught or tested. That'll bring the scores up.
Henry fits in well with Luxon's 'bottom feeders' /undeserving poor, and Winston's racism.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/act-to-allow-teachers-to-use-reasonable-force-to-remove-disruptive-students-fine-parents-up-to-3000/2KLD73S34JAYLM4LNVYDNW5VPI/
“I mean, let’s be honest, there are a lot of little s***s in classrooms, and we need to address that if we’re going to lift education standards.”
Replace the word classrooms with politics and the sentence equally applies. How poor our education system has been that the result is such limited understanding in people who not only have the front to stand as MPs but find themselves elected, twice, by a mass of people who obviously don't know how a well functioning humane country must be nurtured and thought about, not left to jerks and jerkesses and those who don't know whether they are Arthur or Martha, rejecting both probably.
'there are a lot of little s***s in classrooms".
I taught for forty years. That was not a term I often used, except in intense frustration and that was my issue, not the student's. I did meet one or two big s***s in classrooms, though they tended to stand at the front of the classroom.
If I went into a classroom about to confront 'little s***s' each day, I would invite problems for myself, I would not deal with the class equally, I'd be looking for trouble, I would easily over-react; I instead would present an authoritarian, unsympathetic persona.
If I went into a classroom knowing that some of my students had various issues, that I knew what they were, that I had support to help with those who I did not have the skills or the time/opportunity to deal with myself, and most of all that I was dealing with immature children or adolescents- then I was on the right path.
As my training college tutor in 1970 said, "First know yourself, secondly know your students and then know your subject." Knowing our students means the ability to diagnose errant behaviour and the ability to direct the right resources and enough of them to help that student.
The Chinese commenter on Winston Peters also got it right- "sometimes, a statement says more about the person that makes it than anything or anybody else." That comment would apply to what Paul Henry and ACT are proposing here.
What this Coalition government is showing is an authoritarian, illiberal mentality where punishment, insult and retribution are first responses, cloaked in weasel words and appeals to the immature adolescent within us.
Like the immature young adolescents that I dealt with, they too resort to blaming others, refusal to accept responsibility, deflection, playing the victim, 'they did it to' justification, minimisation, wide-eyed innocence and if all else fails 'charm'.