Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 3rd, 2026 - 83 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 …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361013639/promised-planned-postponed-pulled-stop-start-politics-wasted-176b
The massive cost of democracy on large infrastructure.
It has to stop.
All plans over half a billion should require a super majority of 75% support in government, make the barstards work together
Ferries, the cost of not doing 3 waters, obliterating public housing, fubaring other in flight work infrastructure is 100% on the coalition.
National did it, ACT/NZF tacitly approved their actions. Smudging it as a both sides issue is typical MSM spin.
Best way to fix a dysfunctional entrenched binary stand-off is 3rd party leverage. An advisory upper house using public input along the lines of citizens assembly is still the way to go. That strategy empowers bodies of public opinion constructively. That's why I recommended it to govt when they asked for public input.
The constraint upon design likely to be most effective is a requirement for consensus decision-making. A crowd has historically used dyadic optionality: wisdom or madness. The Greens have used consensus long enough to prove the point. Madness comes when the system entrenches opposition. We need cut-through.
Well, that's a flat out guarantee that major infrastructure will never get approved.
There appears to be remarkably little appetite for the two blocs in government to work together over anything.
It's effectively asking for entrenchment – and we all saw where that went with Mahuta, over trying to entrench public ownership of water utilities.
So it turns out that Israel's fabled "Iron Dome" that supposedly has been intercepting Iran's drones, rockets and ballistic missiles is not as effective as claimed. Without US help Israel would be vulnerable.
"US naval destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean have long been part of Israel's defense strategy. They are equipped with radar systems and missile interceptors capable of countering Iranian ballistic missiles and drones….Pentagon assessments conducted earlier in the war showed that US forces have "shouldered the brunt of defending Israel from Iranian ballistic missiles.""
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/defend-israel-or-homeland-top-us-general-issues-stark-warning-pentagon-brass
The problem now is that the USA is running out of missile interceptors, which are difficult to replace quickly.
This is probably why Trump has just called off attacks on Iran and is looking for a peace deal.
Gotta be a good reason why he hasn't hit Pickaxe Mountain yet. Iran's defacto rulers likely to call his bluff though. We still have meagre evidence that the youngish Ayatollah is calling the shots but I read him as way smarter and more human than his dad, so any intervention from him is worth examining closely. Still looks like a cowboy play from Trump + a misread by the experts of Iran's resilience capacity.
Pentagon assessments that US forces do most of the work are nothing new – they have budgets to argue for. Actions speak louder than words, so take a look at who Iran hasn't been attacking lately. Despite the fact that the loons running Iran still chant 'Death to Israel' constantly, it's the Gulf Arab states that are copping it. Israel's being left alone, exactly because it's really hard to do any damage to but is willing and able to do a lot of damage in response.
Trump's legacy.
"Trump has inflicted his most enduring damage on an intangible yet critical national asset: the ability of American diplomats to productively engage counterparts all over the world. From using negotiations as a ploy for surprise attacks to murdering heads of state and casually reneging on American commitments — including his own — Trump’s damage to US diplomacy will be evident for years.,,,Trump’s collaboration with Israel to launch an unprovoked war on Iran is manifestly among the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of the American republic."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/mcglinchey-trumps-damage-us-diplomacy-could-last-generation
Here is the thing about NZ First's cash for babies policy. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work and has been shown everywhere it has been tried it doesn't work. it is pure politics.
It is the quintessential policy equivalent of kissing babies. I mean, who doesn't love the idea of a bonny baby happily gurgling on the nations knee? Especially if you add a stinger that makes sure the baby is reassuringly white, or at worst a comfortingly caramel blend of beguiling dusky island maiden and the best sons of Empire. Toal mum and bacon and egg pie at the company Xmas picnic stuff.
Which is why I almost cried at the tone deaf idiocy of Jan Tinetti's response, sitting there on the telly channeling her best inner Christine Rankin look, and blurting out some sort of ridiculous word salad that didn't seem to mean anything beyond saying the citizenship requirement makes Winston a racist. Honestly, does the Labour parliamentary elite have any theory of power at all? The whole shadow front bench resembles the sort of green and brown washed senior leadership team you’d expect in a large NGO. You know, one where the managers all wear zany jackets, gigantic hei-tiki and thick framed red spectacles but all the employees know their bosses are actually lethally self righteous members of the self serving lanyard class.
The people who Winston is reaching out to used to be Labour's base. Labour's front bench looking and sounding like culturally aware HR managers telling us all about the next restructure's "consultation" process just isn't going to cut it in winning their votes.
Made me laugh out loud thankyou Sanct.
does the Labour parliamentary elite have any theory of power at all?
Behaviourism is all about determining human nature from how humans behave. If we examine Labour's political strategy, we get the impression that their priority is to present as small a target as possible. Best way to do that is minimal policy.
Based on that, I guess their theory of power is that the system provides for them to rule by default, so when the right screws up the left form the govt as per tradition. As long as enough people remain alive who were indoctrinated long ago to believe that Labour is leftist, this theory does actually work well. No surprise that several onsite here support it, so I have abated my critique of Labour accordingly. Their rationale had merit on the basis of a match with reality that most observers would likely concede.
Otoh my prior stance that Labour ought to provide a positive alternative is widely shared too. They may yet surprise us with that – McAnulty may prevail over Hipkins & the general Labour mediocrity. If so, and that succeeds, the Labour brand would revive. So you can call this option ambush perhaps, contingent upon timing…
I suspect you're being overly cynical.
I don't think Labour's strategy rests on a belief that they'll automatically inherit government when National becomes unpopular. I think it reflects an assessment of the comparative advantages and disadvantages they face in the current political environment, and a decision to play to those strengths rather than fight on unfavourable ground.
Right now, almost every political headline is about the coalition's own decisions and controversies. Releasing a large suite of policies would inevitably shift some of that attention back onto Labour, giving the government fresh targets to attack and changing the subject.
From that perspective, keeping policy in reserve isn't necessarily a sign of intellectual emptiness or complacency. It can simply be a calculation that, while the government is dominating the news for the wrong reasons, the smartest political move is not to interrupt them.
Whether that's the right strategy, based on the right assumptions, is another question entirely. But I think it's a more plausible explanation than assuming Labour believes power will simply fall into its lap.
I suspect you're being overly cynical
Comes with age & experience, unfortunately.
Your advocacy for Labour is reasonable & I will try to be more dispassionate. Too bad that impressions form naturally however, and their behaviour may induce more of same…
I'm not necessarily advocating for Labour, or for their choice of strategy. I'd personally prefer a more assertive and confident approach that tries to take the fight to National.
But I can also see the political and electoral logic that got them to where they are.
Whether that logic is sound is a separate question. I could be wrong, or Labour could be wrong in its read of the electorate. I just don't think it's fair to assume the strategy is simply the product of mediocrity or complacency.
Good reasoning ResP. But from above – I don't think Labour's strategy rests on a belief that they'll automatically inherit government when National becomes unpopular.
I think it was that belief that brought Labour into the neolib-freemarket net, with the help of Antony Giddens' side-game ploy. They wanted to beat National at their own game, look after a reasonable social welfare system, and show up as the wonders of the western world through Roger D. 'With Labour your have it all' was to be their approach, so why would anyone except diehards vote any other way.
Since then having proved to have strayed far away from Mum and Dad's ideas, they can never come home again; they drift uncertainly on the outskirts of society doing their best to stay afloat, while flatulent, swollen capitalists sail off with our goodies like unattractive pirates. What we want is d'Artagnan style storming back but if we break treaties we might get more than a slap on the hand But still what a way to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwU_psQGEJ8 | Pirates – Ahoy or Avast me hearties! What will it be?
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiR-5swzlvE | German – but they refuse to sing in English, them furriners!
I think it would be more accurate to describe the Third Way as a strategic response to the electoral and ideological defeats the left suffered during the 1980s and 1990s.
It was essentially an attempt to accept the forces unleashed by neoliberalism, co-opt them, and bend them ever so slightly towards social justice.
Whether that's still a valid choice is a legitimate debate, especially when Labour's core programme and values appear, at least on the face of it, more salient than ever.
Yes – how short are the historical memories of people who respond like Tinetti? It's only 80 years ago that NZ introduced the Universal Family Benefit. Something like Winston's scheme is part of our own past.
It's clever politics from NZF. There are a couple of real issues the policy is responding to – first that having children is way too expensive for many young people to consider on top of affording over-priced houses, and so they are deferring it; and second that declining birth rates and the economic bolt hole of Australia makes us over-dependent on immigrants to provide the skilled labour we need to do anything more productive than just about keep the lights on, and skilled immigrants have options to go to other, wealthier places instead.
Added to that, it plays nicely to Winston's anti-immigrant base and to the more extreme corners of that base who may have bought into the 'great replacement theory' and see the policy as a way to increase births of white babies and to protect 'western values'.
This is all so damned obvious that one might have hoped the Tinetti's reply would have acknowledged the real problems and then elaborated on Labour's superior response to them (if it exists).
Yeah, Tinetti really missed an open goal from five yards there.
The oddity is that she didn't need to announce a policy in response. She only needed to demonstrate that Labour understood the problem NZ First was exploiting.
Instead, she reached for a far too clever argument about citizenship and racism, rather than acknowledging the genuine pressures facing young families before explaining why NZ First's solution was the wrong one.
I agree with the broader criticism that Labour's communications are too often framed in moral rather than material terms. That's an odd choice for a left-wing party, especially when the material case is usually stronger and resonates better.
Labour already instituted Best Start which wasn't that far off.
NZ First voted for that, then, as part of the current government, voted for the first year to be means-tested, and are now stating that, effectively, they would like to remove all means-testing, increase the value, but limit it to citizens and the first 3 children for each parent/couple (however that gets tracked/defined…).
There are no winners in this story. I feel for all concerned, the whanau and the staff. This is what underfunding and understaffing looks like. I'm aware this was in 2019.
Ever since the health system was corporatised, the tendency has been, like all lazy corporate managers do, is cut staffing.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wife-of-patient-who-collapsed-and-died-at-waikato-hospital-says-staffing-levels-and-experience-remain-a-concern/SV5XBGVFWZBMPCLMVT622TA4OY/
We've been losing badly since rogernomics/ruthenasia in Health which given our small size is always going to be cheaper delivered to the country publicly.
This Coalition have smashed an already ailing system and doubled down on the privatisation, no surprises there. Profiting from yet another essential service.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361014787/winston-peters-calls-arrests-over-mock-guillotine-protest-targeting-him
Didn’t Winnie walk among the protesters outside parliament who wanted to hang Ardern.
What’s s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Winnie has ideas above his station in life, which probably is Okaihau in Northland which is closed. (Ōkaihau became New Zealand's northernmost railway terminus – Wikipedia). And the nearest to the Maori sacred land point where Maori spirits depart on their journey onward :
Cape Reinga / Te Rerenga Wairua in Northland, New Zealand, is the point where Māori spirits are believed to leap off the headland to begin their journey to the afterlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirits_Bay
Only Winnie has grown old and gone far from his Maori heritage and connections in the whenua and is filled with western hyperbole; he is lost and confused thinking he is the Messiah but… Thinks along Bible verse style:
Leviticus 26:12 I will walk among you and be your God, and … – Bible Hub Leviticus 26:12 unfolds a three-fold covenant heartbeat: God walks among His people, pledges Himself as their God, and claims them as His own.
We used to burn effigies of Guy Fawkes, but at least he was honest in his rebellion.
Winston is destroying the country from within, profiting from antivax lies and hate
Dame Anne Salmond gets it: "Democratic reform is necessary, and urgent." System failure, red light on, siren blaring. Why? Political parties aren't calling for it.
Democracy has forced them into that state. Voting maintains it. Hoping for a better world while voting for continuance is irrational, but typically human…
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/03/anne-salmond-a-tale-of-two-leaders/
Anne Salmond is hardly calling for a major re-structure and reform of the democratic system.
Nor is she at all clear over how any of her suggestions would improve outcomes. Does anyone really believe that citizens assemblies would be less prone to right-wing takeover than any other community grouping? Or that devolution of resources and power to local communities is necessarily going to result in better outcomes? And controls on lobbying and political donations have little to do with democratic structure.
Not to mention that the system that she is favourably contrasting – is a tribal monarchy.
None of this is "System failure, red light on, siren blaring."
What solution (since you evidently feel that democracy is a total failure) – do you advocate?
Leading-edge thinkers have been converging on a formula: status quo + shift. Apply that, you get to keep the system as it is (so sheeple don't stampede) as operating constraint, but you also provide a positive alternative to enable collaboration along with competition. The formula applies moderation via intelligent design, reassures those paranoid about radicals and empowers folk into consensus decisions.
Nudge theory was first cab off this rank 20 years ago. Think it was the first term of Ardern the govt called for public submissions on parliamentary reform so I told them to use the upper chamber as an advisory forum input to governance, allowing public input via representation, with rules binding them to consensus deciding output. That way the govt & parliament continue as usual, yet acquire a method of political upskilling in the public interest. Design can always be tweaked for improvement.
So, stripped of the unnecessary verbiage, you advocate for an upper house.
You don't mention whether it should be an elected or a hereditary body – or some other appointment methodology, altogether.
Note, that current upper houses in democracies are not notable for consensus, nor for operating in anything other than a partisan manner (reference the Senate in the US, Australia or Canada).
You also advocate for some kind of consensus methodology. But don't say how this should work, or what happens if consensus can't be reached. Do we just shut down the government if/when that happens?
Is there any government operating along these lines? Or is it entirely the province of "leading-edge thinkers" [aka people in questionable touch with reality]
The point is to learn from the collective resilience of the GP, correlate that with their methods of deciding collectively, and deduce the key principles of political collaboration. Likewise from citizens assembly working models and history.
In my experience of leading the process for the Greens, I never had a failure amongst the dozens of decisions over those early years. Consequently I don't share your defeatism. Both houses would not be compelled shut down automatically if decisions got difficult, unless some bunch of morons passed a law to make them fail in such manner to discredit parliament…
Belladonna can you actually discuss ideas brought forward here rather than drop acid on them? You seem to take the idea as a finite proposal for policy, but this is not the value of this blog. Tossing ideas around that could work in certain conditions are met can lead to showing new or forgotten ways useful to politicians and advisors who haven't dismissed everyone else as irrelevant.
Happy to discuss ideas which are clearly stated, without reams of camouflaging pseudo-intellectual waffle.
Tell me, did you clearly understand Dennis Frank's initial point? And, if so, why didn't you (or indeed, anyone else) respond?
Uncritically accepting positions put forward by self-proclaimed "leading edge thinkers" is not the point of this blog, either.
This is a comedian who has studied how to get the magic back after failure. Barry's Economics talks about performance and how to get popular on your own magic. He sounds like the sort of thinker that will bring us back in NZAO from zombieland.
https://www.youtube.com/@barryseconomics, and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE7B8sJTKj8 | The Psychological Trick that kills every wealth tax.
@ tc above, akin to what wags is saying at 1, there should be staffing levels linked to population and health needs not budget needs. There is always enough money.
Funny thing is, the minimum staffing levels is always the main sticking point for the Ministry in wage negotiations.
This letter writer in today's The Press got it right, titled Chinese response. "I feel I must come out of the closet as a communist shill who ingeniously manages to clutch pearls while lying like a flatfish and blowing my nose because of my snivelling wokery".
And then next letter, titled Past calling. "Hey Winnie, the 50s called and they want their racist insults back".
Vaccination with the needle of humour is one good antidote.
Cynicism also evident amongst youngsters: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/868515/things-are-screwed-anyway-why-try-youth-voter-enrolment-rate-plummets
A good angle to use, eh? I suggest a course for kids around 16: politics as team sport. The design must combine fun with learning how tribes form and persist. The academic world could become more enterprising around teaching group psychodynamics, hone in on the essential survival skills necessitated by life in this century (not the effing 20th).
Are you actually acquainted with any teenagers?
I can't imagine anything more likely to alienate them further.
Two pragmatic options to engage young NZers in democracy:
Lower voting age to 16, to vote for either
I realised as a 14 yo that 4th formers (then) were the most revolutionary members of society. Tear it all down!
Yes, indeed interesting.
Although, I note, that the lack of party-affiliation is more aspirational, than real.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/impartial-scottish-youth-parliament-labelled-28337136
Which aligns with other, technically, unaffiliated political groupings in local government politics in NZ (anyone who thinks Citizens & Ratepayers/ Communities & Residents isn't National, is dreaming)
The issue there is the Social Media pile-ons, which are not healthy, not the YP in-person debate, which is fair political process.
Therefore, manage the SM messaging properly, ie no personal attacks, or silenced comments.
For the first option, the 2 Youth MPs to have a big electorate role across the country, visiting schools, etc, but not have confidence and supply voting power.
These public service reforms can sound sensible on the surface: cut waste, merge similar agencies, move to digital tools, and get better “value for money”. But there’s a deeper concern about what the reforms are really trying to achieve—and who ends up taking the hit when things don’t go smoothly.
First, the reforms focus on the size and structure of government, not the real results people experience. “Productivity” and “value for money” can mean improving health, education, and services—or it can simply mean spending less and reducing headcount. If the main driver is cost and staffing, the system can end up looking “efficient” while day-to-day service still feels slower, harder to access, or less reliable.
Second, digitising services isn’t neutral. It changes who controls decisions and how errors get handled. When services are moved online and pushed through systems and software, people often lose flexibility and human judgement. If the system breaks or a person is wrongly assessed, frontline workers and members of the public usually deal with the fallout. Meanwhile, the people and organisations that designed and delivered the changes may not face the same consequences.
Third, mergers and reorganising agencies can be “reform” in name only. Restructuring can create disruption: new processes, new reporting lines, and lost know-how during transitions. That disruption can reduce service quality at exactly the time when demand is already high. You don’t fix public service delivery just by changing the internal filing system.
Fourth, the “savings will be reinvested” story may not hold up in practice. Even if money is saved on paper, transition costs (IT changes, severance, training) can be large, and service demand often keeps rising. So the reform can end up creating a two-stage problem: a stressful change period, followed by tighter budgets that make it harder to meet rising needs.
Fifth, there’s a wider pattern this fits: keeping government from growing and pushing more of the complexity onto the public. People become “users” who are expected to navigate systems instead of getting guaranteed, dependable support. Digital channels can reduce costs, but if access, usability, and backup options aren’t strong, the burden shifts onto people who can least afford it.
Finally, the way success is measured matters. Reforms often report progress like project rollouts and organisational changes, not whether outcomes actually improve. If the measures reward meeting targets on timelines and budgets, it’s easier to look like things are working even when the real experience for people is getting worse.
A fair way to judge these reforms would be to start with what people need—timely, reliable services—and then design the structure and tools to deliver that. If digitising and streamlining truly improve services, people should see faster decisions, fewer errors, better access, and less hassle. If they don’t, then the reforms look less like public service improvement and more like cost-cutting and risk-shifting dressed up as modernisation.
For those enthusiastic proponents of LLMs, oops.
'A trove of chat logs and projects created with… Claude — some including sensitive personal and company information — have been left exposed to Google, making them them searchable to anyone on the web. Many… appear to have been made public when Claude users opted to distribute a given chat or project [to collegues]…using the chatbot’s “share” feature.'
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/claude-chats-publicly-accessible
The leader of the Opportunity party shows herself to be much smarter than the leader of the National party (a very low bar, admittedly):
She has ruled out supporting Winston Peters as Foreign Minister. Note: not ruling out "working with" NZF, or supporting National in government. Door left open.
So she gets the headline and takes the moral high ground, while Luxon is still holding to the absurd and untenable position that Winston is Racist But In, while Opportunity are Worse And Out.
Midday Report Essentials for Monday 3 August | RNZ
Meanwhile, Peters can still sail on through the open door as Deputy PM (assuming that TOP actually have any influence in the formation of the next government)
And, use his leverage to keep TOP out of government (as he did the Greens in 2017).
Wong is showing her lack of political chops by pissing off Peters (who notoriously has the memory of an elephant for insults), without gaining any long-term advantage.
That doesn't stack up.
If the current coalition can retain a majority in Parliament, then Opportunity's view of Peters won't make any difference.
If they don't have a majority, then they will need Opportunity. (Realistically, there's nobody else). Then it won't be NZF with the leverage.
In any case, Wong's move is to keep increasing the public perception of Opportunity being credible. And because of moves like this, they will be over the 5% within a month.
We can assess her "chops" if and when that happens. (To be continued …)
That didn't work so well for the GP, who were frozen out of government in 2017 by Peters.
Assuming that NZF/Peters won't have leverage in any negotiation is a sucker bet.
I doubt that TOP will break the 5% threshold. Minor parties often flirt with the 5% limit several months out, only to fall by the wayside, as voters decide not to risk their actual vote on a party which may not make the cut.
The TOP vote is a very fluid one. And those voters may easily decide to switch to Labour, as new policy becomes evident.
The only poll which has TOP over the 5% threshold is the Roy Morgan one, which seems to over-estimate smaller parties, to the detriment of larger ones. The same poll which had TOP at 6%, had ACT at nearly 10%, and had dropped Labour down to 25%. Frankly, I just don't believe them.
You're suggesting she made a wrong move?
I think she's timed and weighted her comments perfectly!
Hasn't put a foot …
It is getting worse for Luxon, now the Nazis are involved.
It's getting hitlarious!
Winnie first may have a problem.
Paparoa
@paparoa.bsky.social
A senior figure in New Zealand First’s youth wing has been linked to a neo-Nazi group and online accounts that praised Adolf Hitler.
Great work from @comingupcharlie.bsky.social
http://www.thepress.co.nz/politics/361...
https://bsky.app/profile/paparoa.bsky.social/post/3ms5e5tiqic27
(reading mode in chrome works for me)
https://www.thepress.co.nz/politics/361052500/senior-nz-first-youth-figure-linked-neo-nazi-group
Party deliberately appeals to racists and therefore attracts racists … who could possibly have predicted that?
Looks like the dopey drop kick has made some fairly clumsy attempts to erase his digital past, you'd think he'd have got someone professional to do it before entering politics. Our lad is clearly no Jason Bourne in the online identity erasing stakes.
Meanwhile, Winnie is frothing about journalists again. Lay down with fascist dogs, wake up with pesky media fleas Winston.
Ron Mark @ 3:25 –
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/the-weekend-collective/politics-central/ron-mark-former-defence-minister-on-his-return-to-nz-first/
https://web.archive.org/web/20260803020215/https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361052500/senior-nz-first-youth-figure-linked-neo-nazi-group
Great shot of Posie amongst the Nazis.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260803020215/https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361052500/senior-nz-first-youth-figure-linked-neo-nazi-group
Summary of this person's creds:
'executive member of a governing coalition party's youth wing who marched masked at the Posie Parker counter-protest in RAM and Boogaloo insignia, was at the Hamilton library action where staff locked a pregnant woman and children in a bathroom, ran accounts hitlerposting, planned to train with an organisation Australia has proscribed, and then changed his name and kept going for two years.
'https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1vdzgvg/comment/p1d6req/
'… Winston Peters has responded publicly with a social media statement alleging The Press was preparing a “pathetic lowball hit job” on the party to “drag a young member of our party through the mud”', from The Press article.
More like NZF picked him out of the cess-pool. To be in the executive of NZF Youth, or whatever it’s called. Nazi Zealot Force Youth.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions_local-democracy-reporting/849272/ludicrous-game-hunters-plan-to-restrict-hunting-male-animals
The only thing the act party are interested in harvesting is the gun nuts amoung us ,
Data Centers.
As Data center water use becomes more into focus as developers fudge around the volumes of water consented as opposed to what they say they will use.
On a wet cold day down south I think I've just spent a useful 36 minutes watching this video. I think his maths and physics is correct. Anyone with a background in these fields might be interested in watching, as he discusses the physical limits of water cooling.
https://youtu.be/8bbe-Ev-Yns
State clampdown on the left, Bomber in court tomorrow: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/breaking-free-speech-issue-the-daily-blog-has-secretly-been-taken-to-court-and-im-facing-6months-in-prison-we-cant-tell-you-who-how-why-or-what/
Says he will go to prison for free speech. Trotter will curse his luck in not having played the Che Guevara martyrdom card first…
BHN talked with Bomber about this tonight.
In the UK, in so-called SLAPP defamation suits it is the defendent who must prove they did not harm the reputation of the litigant. That makes it incredibly expensive for defendents, especially where there is financial disparity.
Organisations which have folded, rather than deal with the horror and cost of proving themselves right, include AmnestyUK the other day.
'The legislation is understood to be shonky even by the UK legal profession. '[SLAPP] is commonly used to describe a misuse of the legal system, by bringing or threatening proceedings, to intimidate or harass another to discourage or shut down lawful scrutiny of matters in the public interest or to distort the accurate public record. The key aim of a SLAPP is to prevent publication of information that relates to a matter of public interest, such as academic research, whistleblowing or campaigning or journalism, by preventing the publication of public interest information or by removing information from the public domain.'
Review of the UK legislation is in the pipeline somewhere.
Bomber also claimed this was a 'flying a kite case' (my words), that the relevant legislation hasn't been taken to this place before. We'll find out more tomorrow, the press has access to the hearing.
Bomber had to take the posts down ex parte, ie they had to be removed before he had any hearing.
His star chamber reference is historical, but he did mention a possible contempt of court finding. They reached the grey zone @ 16 mins which is good going.
Watching 3 guys with even more facial hair than me was a change, so maybe there's hope for that younger generation yet! Getting someone illiterate to write subtitles was a notable lack of professionalism but otherwise their amateur media worked well. Their reference to Bomber being unlikely to be imprisoned because he isn't Maori was transformed into moldy onscreen. Perhaps AI did that??
FSU is made to look like a bunch of weasels. Perhaps Trotter will assay a feeble excuse on their behalf. So it ain't defamation. The plot thickens!
[Cough, cough] The subtitles are auto-generated by Youtube…
Pat was a talkback radio host for years. While Chewie has a day job, he was one of five people who ran an alt-music radio station in Dunedin for five years.
This is no amateur set-up. This is Pat's fulltime job. Across all social media platforms the BHN show claims 5 mi views since starting. BHN claims to outperform The Platform, without its early $100k pa funding by the Wright Family. The credits at the show end list its monthly Patreon supporters.
It’s also set up the BHN network as an umbrella site for other lw political interests, with Craig Rennie, Gary Pindar and others spinning off specialist shows after being regular guests on BHN.
Dork PM walks it all back with apology after insulting Rotorua:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/08/03/i-got-that-wrong-luxon-apologises-for-remarks-about-small-businesses/
Coz, votes.
How daft to have said it in the first place.
Mind you, he thinks everyone who’s not sorted by now is lazy.
He’s an egg-head with a facial soufflé.
A noggin filled with scroggin.
A brawn without a brain.
A knob without a job (soon).
Humpty will be dumpty (not soon enough).
For whom the bell(end) tolls.
He’ll be paying [for] the ferryman.
I'll miss Chris, come December.
Yeah, but I’m sure there will be re-runs on YouTube of Highlights of Luxon’s Verbal Encounters of the Third Kind. It’ll be relaxing.
Plus, the doll.
Nah, hoggin. It's denser, and unlike scroggin isn't any use as food.
And suits Luxon, given his love of the limelight.
(I'd never heard of hoggin, Obtrectator – thanks!)
The underlying story here is … what the hell is going on in his inner circle, his team of advisers?
He made the comments on Friday. It would have taken about 5 minutes (at most) for anyone awake to reach the obvious conclusion: "Sir, this is going to look bad, better kill the story immediately with a quick apology".
Then Luxon the stroppy teenager said "No! Not sorry, it's the fault of … the media, the opposition, the business people, the … somebody else. I'm gonna double down!".
Saturday, Sunday, Monday morning ,.. down he duly doubles.
And then, 3 days late, he does what everyone knew he was going to do.
Sure, we all know that he's useless at this, we've known for years, but why do his sycophants keep letting him do it? And why?
Remember how Nicola Willis used to shield & rescue him in the early stages? She’s too busy now finding more cuts in the public service to hold his hands and wipe his mouth and Chris feels all grown up now – look Mummy, I can walk & talk without using my hands – only to trip over the tiniest of potholes and walk into towering turds that don’t need a flag or signpost for those who want to hear and take instructions.
Stuff asked for the transcript and it was supplied rather promptly ….. by his inner team I wonder?
I think it's telling that the Nats released the transcript – without some form of damage control straight away. Means they didn't grasp the stupidity of what he's said. Simeon Brown, wouldn't be surprised . . .
*snap – Observer 🙂
Interesting, isn't it, to see how the real insult to Chinese people from Winston Peters, "they lie like flatfish" has been scrubbed from the reporting. Telling Xu-Nan to "go back to where he came from" is one thing, but calling all Chinese People liars seems to be too much to bear and must be disappeared, it seems to me. Anyone have thoughts about this?
Magicians make things disappear – are the media magicians?
This is a comedian who has studied how to get the magic back after failure. Barry's Economics talks about performance and how to get popular on your own magic. He sounds like the sort of thinker that will bring us back in NZAO from zombieland.
https://www.youtube.com/@barryseconomics, and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE7B8sJTKj8 | The Psychological Trick that kills every wealth tax.