Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 6th, 2025 - 68 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 …
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
Power Companies Collude to Require New Zealand Coal-Fired Electricity
NZ sleepwalking towards bastardised hybrid health model
New Post up:
NZ sleepwalking towards bastardised hybrid health model
So public perception of where Labour is at is the hinge. Hipkins just stands there, issuing sporadic comments which media folk try to interpret. Some Labour supporters believe its a clever stance, and their rationale that it works so long as Lux underwhelms everyone sufficiently seems sensible. I envisage a helpful tech version…
Like a traffic light. You could set up a website called Labour Support. Punters could log in to tell Labour to keep copying National, keep suggesting an alternative to National, and keep on doing both simultaneously. So the onsite counter would have 3 digital readouts to display the sum total of public opinion at any time. The trick of algorithm design would be that the traffic light wouldn't flicker too fast (folks aren't quite ready for quantum computing). Simulation of public opinion has been too boring too long.
A traffic light is the likely coalition, if orange was a bit more brown.
The confusion is no-one knows who is Stop and who is Go and who is Just Run It.
The traffic light metaphor is painfully accurate.
Labour feels more like a polling aggregator than a political party with an actual direction. Caught between copying National, vaguely suggesting alternatives, and doing both at once. The classic strategy-by-focus-group scenario.
Honestly, I’d love nothing more than for Labour to step up with some vision and push back against the slow, steady crawl of neoliberalism. But I’ve made peace with the fact that we’re probably not getting that. Or, at least, not this election.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the left often struggles with the need to be right all the time: every issue, every MP, every message has to be just so. It’s not always a helpful instinct.
You can’t build a political strategy around moral precision alone. At some point, we have to decide what’s good enough to move forward with. And accept that, despite what we may think, our fellow citizens don’t always see the world the same way we do.
Does Labour need to actually stand for something? Absolutely. And honestly, that might be the biggest point of difference it could offer from the current coalition. Just standing for something, even if it’s not perfect, would be a sharp contrast to the short-term, unpopular, and incoherent policy we’re getting from the government right now.
If we want to transform Labour, we won’t do it by calling Chris Hipkins a neoliberal shill. We’ll do it by building a movement, doing the mahi to convince the electorate, and working both inside and outside of Parliament.
And we’d do well to learn from the failures of similar movements abroad. Yes, Momentum was popular. Yes, Corbynism energised a generation. But ultimately — like many post-Trump left movements — it failed. Not because the ideas were wrong, but because it didn’t fully address the very real, often messy concerns of the broader electorate.
Moral clarity has to be allied to pragmatic policy, ruthless message discipline, and a realistic understanding of where the public is actually at. Without that, you're not building a pathway to power . You're building a manifesto for a movement that stays on the margins.
So bear in mind: the pursuit of moral perfection often comes at the cost of political coherence. The question is, how big a gamble are we willing to take, with the future of the country at stake?
Moral precision is all the left has. It is their primary competitive advantage.
They could at least look like they are trying for coherence.
"Not because the ideas were wrong, but because it didn’t fully address the very real, often messy concerns of the broader electorate."
I thought Corbin was spot on with the broader electorate. He was white anted because of that other flaw of the left-despising those perceived as further left.
With the BBC and Guardian leading the charge on the anti semitism bulldust.
This was my understanding too. That Corbyn failed because his own party attacked him, as as well as the mainstream media. He might have survived the latter, but why would voters put in a government that had an internal war going on? Voters without a political commitment to a particular party vote in part on perceptions of competency.
My point exactly.
Voters are quick to punish any sign of internal disunity. So, any noise about Hipkins being a sellout only causes damage by chipping away at the electorate's perceptions about Labour's competence and ability to govern.
Absent a major crisis or seismic political shift, the only way to build a new strategy is slowly, carefully, and with unity.
Do you mean Labour or the wider left?
Realistically, both. Any broad left strategy here in Aotearoa will require Labour + Greens + TPM.
We got Ardern because Little was unpopular and she was waiting in the wings. The question isn’t whether criticising Hipkins is useful, it’s whether Labour have a better replacement? People who want Hipkins gone very rarely say who he should be replaced with and why, beyond superficial ‘I like this MP’
I agree with you about the necessity of longer term political strategy from the left in terms of building an alternative, absolutely. So that’s the other question, why is this not happening?
"So that’s the other question, why is this not happening?"
Part of the answer is in Res's 2nd paragraph. Labour appearing more like a polling aggregator than a political party.
At the risk of being accused of loving authoritarianism, I want a party to lead not follow.
Unfortunately we appear to be too selfish to move in a direction that is needed. Eg lower carbon density lifestyle, meaningful change around inequality/ housing, union membership etc.
Isn’t that all the more reason for the left to be building change over time?
You raise a crucial point: leadership critiques are often surface-level unless paired with a clear alternative and a theory of why a particular replacement would lead to different political outcomes.
The elevation of Jacinda Ardern in 2017 was effective not simply because Andrew Little was unpopular, but because her leadership symbolised a shift in narrative and tone: one that aligned, albeit temporarily, with a broader political moment.
However, since then, Labour has largely reverted to a reactive, risk-averse posture. This connects directly to the deeper issue you mentioned: the lack of long-term political strategy on the left. In my view, this absence is not coincidental. It’s structurally embedded.
My working theory is that the Labour Party has developed a kind of institutional memory that treats strategic experimentation, particularly efforts to expand or reconfigure the electoral base, as inherently dangerous. David Cunliffe’s 2014 campaign, centred on mobilising the so-called “Missing Million”, is often viewed internally as a cautionary tale, rather than a failed but necessary attempt to engage the politically disengaged.
The lesson absorbed was not that the execution faltered, but that the premise itself was flawed.
This creates a kind of strategic paralysis. Isomorphism, the tendency of organisations to mimic what appears successful in their environment, reinforces centrist orthodoxy.
Instead of developing new strategies, Labour frequently adopts narratives and campaign models that have worked elsewhere (or in the past), regardless of whether the underlying social and economic conditions remain comparable.
The cumulative effect is that genuine long-term political innovation becomes incredibly difficult. There are few incentives within the party to invest in a transformative project — whether that involves reconceptualising its voter coalition, reimagining the role of the state, or meaningfully shifting the policy discourse. Without a broader movement to either demand or support such a reorientation, leadership change becomes a cosmetic exercise, not a strategic one.
So to return to your question. Why isn’t long-term strategy happening on the left? I’d argue it's because:
Unless that dynamic is disrupted: by leadership with a coherent, future-oriented strategy, or by a political context that demands a break from orthodoxy, Labour will likely continue to oscillate between managerial centrism and short-term tactical shifts, rather than engage in the kind of structural renewal the broader left needs.
Yes, and also critically, she was very good at what she did.
Are you saying that we don't have a broader political movement that a new leader could align with?
agree with your final assessment of Labour, although I can't express it so eloquently (it looks to me like they can't do the kind of change required, and your explanation makes sense of that).
Which leads us to what the left's choices are. Resignation to a centre left Labour led government, potentially with NZF will erode movement building.
Short term? Pretty much.
It sucks, I know—but it still beats the alternative.
Longer term, we’ve got two real options: either reform Labour from within, or shift public opinion far enough to create the political and electoral pressure needed for meaningful change.
Both paths take time, energy, and discipline.
Alternatively, you could try the David Seymour approach: back a minor party and hope to use coalition leverage to push through your policy agenda. But I’d argue the current coalition is an aberration. more a product of historically weak and chaotic leadership on the part of National than a sustainable model where the tail reliably wags the dog.
I have been pleading for the Green Party to do this for years. If nothing else Seymour has shown us what can be achieved by a minor party that the major party relies on to stay in power.
If Labour needs Green votes in the future, then as a very minimum the Greens must demand cabinet seats (even if NZF is in the mix). But more so they need to demand radical left wing reform (in the same way Seymour has, albeit from the other side of the political spectrum)
let's play that out.
Say Labour can form government but needs the Greens (let's say NZF aren't an option for whatever reason). Should be straight forward getting some Ministerial posts, but how do they force Labour to let them inside Cabinet? Their only leverage is to say they will not form a coalition and then National gets to form government or there has to be a new election.
Likewise a L/NZF/G government.
The reasons for not doing that are the idea that voters punish parties that force a second election. So either National get to form government or there is a second election that would probably see the Green vote drop (and possibly the Labour vote).
If they don't go with Labour and NACT form government, what would happen to the GP internally? That would be a crisis.
I cannot see the Greens doing any of that unless there was a very compelling reason eg Labour tracked right hard and were doing to do something like gut NZ's climate response. In which case a principled stand might work in the Greens' favour but we'd get a RW government.
I'd like to know if ACT have ever been in that position. My guess is that National are quite happy to adopt ACT policy and MPs because it means they can go right without taking the electoral risk of doing that honestly and overtly.
Ok, so no chance of meaningful change in the forseeable future. Which pretty much means further entrenchment of poverty, more ecological destruction, and a useless climate approach not even managing good adaptation.
Why would people vote for the left in that case, or vote at all?
Thank you for a well thought out response. It is painful when so called supporters diss their own and paint them with their own prejudice.
Personally I want a parliament which is concerned for people rule of law and fairness as major planks to underpin full employment public housing public education and public health provision with room for genuine discussion and differences to build consensus..
This government puts money first ideology 2nd and is authoritarian "top down" Progress and growth don't happen when whole sections of the community are excluded from the decisions and the public money.
Case in point, the Maori Economy is doing well while Luxon and Willis stumble from one ideoogical failure to another.
People who want perfection tend to prevaricate and stall any decisions.
To shift the dial, student debt, first home buyers and children need targeted assistance.
Top Nat criticises Nats:
Moving goal-posts is fun, keeps everyone guessing. Once every 15 years seems a reasonable pace of switching, consistent with usual Nat/Lab practice, but impatient folk will prefer it happens more often than that. Democracy, you know…
Dennis, could you be less flippant about ignoring the court system?
What has happened is not anything to do with democratic decisions, just petulance by CoC, and the only part that rings true is Finlayson's real concern, and the possibility of the sell off of prime beach land to overseas owners.
The failure by this government to honour Treaty issues Contracts and advice by experts, choosing to bring in their ideology instead is causing huge problems for any future government.
The social fabric and rule of law are both threatened.
+100 Patricia
Building on Dennis’ post above, Chris Finlayson, the former National Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, completely destroys the government's proposed amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area Act in an interview on RadioNZ’s Morning Report today. A must listen.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018998728/govt-to-push-ahead-with-plans-to-amend-marine-and-coastal-area-act
Earlier on the programme Carmel Sepuloni had much the better of Nicola Willis…also well worth a listen.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018998727/political-panel-with-national-and-labour
New Roy Morgan:
Lab 31.0 Gre 11.5 TPM 3.5 =46.0
Nat 31.0 ACT 10.5 NZF 9.5 =51.0
Still not great but the gap is down from 7.0 to 5.0 compared with the last RM.
https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/9984-nz-national-voting-intention-july-2025
If that’s a true reflection of voter intention, given how bad NACTF are, the left should be worried.
That is my concern.
This government keeps delivering disastrous results on every front. I can't think of one thing they are doing well or improving. I am not sure that even the people who have received handouts from them (like landlords) could honestly say things are better for them now then they were 2 years ago.
Yet they are still a chance to win the election next year. Probably even more than a chance and more like a probability.
better to look at the trend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
Labour are increasing in support, Greens are decreasing.
Left/right blocs combined don't look good for the left. We really should stop relying on people hating NACTF and voting left instead.
The Winston NZF tracking towards 10% is pretty remarkable for NZF mid-term. Unusual and really shows up the weakness of Luxon.
Do the Greens still run that "matching donation" scheme?
That is so correct Weka. Right now, despite a chaotic and unpopular government, the right is still in front. That’s the real concern. If the public isn’t decisively shifting after the year NACTF have had, then we can’t just hope things will turn.
Anything can, and does happen though which makes trends largely irrelevant:
I am anxious, firstly that everything is terrible, and secondly a huge number of us don't seem to care.
exactly this.
However I think the situation is made to feel worse because of MSM, social media and political circus. Chaos serves the right. I now from writing on TS that posts about how terrible things are way more popular with commenters than posts about what is working or ways out of the mess. Apparently humans are hardwired to pay attention to the negative, and it takes effort and intention to shift our attention. Many in the transitions movements, who do know the way out of mess, have given up on politics and are now working outside of that, which leaves politics even worse off.
It doesn’t help that NZ is one of a handful of countries (shared only with tinpot basket cases) that allow non-citizens to vote in central government elections.
I’m fine with permanent residents voting in local council elections, but allowing PRs who have lived in NZ for a minimum of 1 year to vote in central govt elections is just all kinds of wrong.
also a very real treaty issue, vis a vis, colonisation by residency.
My assumption is that the high levels of support for the right wing is lifted by the high levels of permanent residents, usually from “conservative” countries that automatically support the right wing.
can you get residency after only one year?
Certain groups get residency straight away
Some get residency after 1 year
Australians can vote in NZ after 1 year of living here. Conversely, NZers cannot vote if they live in Australia unless they are also citizens (dual or otherwise) of Australia.
what sort of numbers are we talking about?
In 2021 I made a request of Elections NZ as to the number of permanent residents that voted. Elections don’t hold that information and referred me to DIA.
DIA came back and confirmed the number of permanent residents in NZ, that had been there for more than 1 year, was 450,000.
That is a 5 seat difference between winning or losing.
only citizens should vote for central government.
This was in 2021. Labour’s “residency grant” they gave to those impacted by covid shutdowns means that number will have substantially increased.
Its a treaty issue. Colonisation via residency to drown out the maori voice
James: "Its a treaty issue. Colonisation via residency to drown out the maori voice"
There is that. However, that is the result of large and some selected immigration, however long it takes for them to get the vote. It's also a problem if selective immigration prioritises those most likely to support neoliberal capitalism.
I was able to vote in the UK very soon after I started living there. I thought that was good because I was living, working and paying taxes there.
I stopped voting in NZ elections, even though I could, because I wasn't living here, was not going to be much impacted by the government policies, and was not experiencing the result of govt policies ( It was before the world wide web connected us more immediately wherever we were).
When living and working in Aussie, I thought it was wrong I couldn't vote there. I had stopped voting in the UK when I left.
I think it’s fine to restrict central govt (federal) to citizens only given central govt role is really about taxation, immigration and national security.
I am against residents not being able to vote for their local or state government though. The state govt is what makes the state attractive for new residents. Queensland recently voted in a National (LNP) govt that are as bad as usual. Ironic considering the last 15 years of a Labor govt is why QLD is so attractive to new residents. Why wouldn’t you want more of the same?
LNP scrapped all the Labor govts state house building on day 1, literally. They’re still trying to find privateers to finish them off and nobody’s touching them as the CBR is not there to make a profit from.
I think that residents, particularly long-term residents, should be given privilege to vote in general and local elections.
For a nuanced discussion that considers diverse views, see sections 7.87-7.116 and R21-R23 in here: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Independent-Electoral-Review-Final-Report-November-2023.pdf
Thanks. Good link. There's a lot of consideration given to voting encouraging a connection to the country and ability to settle well here.
There's a strong argument for waiting til the immigrant has been here for an election cycle (3 or 4 years depending on the length og the cycle.
Winston will read it as a personal victory, but the more interesting angle is that there is no evidence of him pulling support from any of the other options.
Perhaps it is God's will. You know how he moves in mysterious ways. "Heh, just thought of a cool way to confound political scientists. Check out this game board, Jesus. I can boost one right-wing nutter without disempowering the other two!"
Jesus rolls his eyes and wonders if his dad will ever out-grow gaming. "Better to focus your attention on the Middle East, dad. Is it your will really to lunge for total control of Gaza? It makes me feel you still haven't gotten over the Philistines."
Democracy being a system, players must learn how to game it. The latest strategy is known as redistricting…
Gav has his game up & running already. In Texas the Dems have been running so fast they already got across the state line:
So players must learn to be democratic by running their game, so they can run rings around the other team. A T-shirt with the slogan Ace Dem Gamer would help.
Wants to know why many people consider gender identity ideology to be regressive sexist bullshit, here is a classic example. Sal Grover is defending her women only social media app business in court for excluding a trans woman on the basis of a photo.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/05/transgender-woman-roxanne-tickle-treated-as-hostile-invader-when-joining-women-only-app-giggle-for-girls-court-hears-ntwnfb
it’s not the only thing involved that led to Tickle’s human rights Discrimination complaint, but the the core of it is that the app used an uploaded photo to approve membership and Tickle was manually rejected as being male.
You can Google tickle to see whether that was reasonable on the basis of a photo. But in what world does being female equate to having long hair and cleavage?
Humans intuitively recognise biological sex other humans. There is some evidence showing that women are better at this than men, for obvious reasons. It’s harder to do in photos than in real life, but mostly we can still tell. Being female isn’t about how one looks. To suggest that being female equates to stereotypical ideas of how women look is sexist and discriminatory against gender non-conforming women, e.g. butch lesbians
Unsurprisingly, a lesbian group is one of the intervenors in this court case.
Here's a thread by Emma Hilton (developmental biologist) on X in 2022, in which she summarises the findings of research into human perceptions of sex differences.
She says that there are loads of cues that indicate sex differences that have been found so far, and there's probably more.
females are better at sex perceptions than males, because of evolutionary pressure to be wary of potential male threats to them.
As an older Lesbian I am not "gender non conforming". I am "sexist stereotype non conforming". I am "misgendered" quite often – usually by people behind tills etc who have microseconds to make that distinction. And I don't care. I am not living a lie, I laugh and move on.
And I have never, in many decades, ever been challenged or had any concern expressed about me using the women's toilets.
I've been called ‘sir’ on occasions. I've never been bothered by it. I'm also sex-stereotype non-conforming.
Part of the evidence given in court by Tickle's team for him being female/woman was that he had long hair & wore some 'women's cloths – plus identifying as a woman, which is subjective and not verifiable.
i have short hair, cut in a male style by a barber who is also a hairdresser. Quite a lot of my clothes are from men's wear departments. I do not identify as a male, and the analysis of a simple cheek swap would verify that, as, I suspect, the result of such a test would verify that Mr Tickle is male.
Weka:
"But in what world does being female equate to having long hair and cleavage?"
Look at these double standards! The same group of people who say that "you can't tell a person's gender by their appearance", and that things like clothing, haircuts and behaviours aren't inherently gendered (and that gender is an internal thing), are now saying that a hair cut and a shirt can be gendered!
These double standards are pulled out when it suits their ideology, and political/legal standing.
In what world does:
Eddie Wyat on x: "That's right ladies…"
" The Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner is arguing in Australian Federal Court that a woman recognising a man in a change room, while both parties are naked, is not working with “perfect knowledge” to judge that man’s sex. Abolish the Commission. #GiggleVTickle"
https://x.com/msediewyatt/status/1952867266611261534
Apparently Grover's (Giggle's) counsel has today argued that Tickle's team do not have a coherent definition of 'gender identity'.
As reported on X,
More on the contradictions and incoherence as argued by the counsel for Grover's Giggle in the tweet at the above link.
there's been some bloody good coverage on twitter. This one from today's court as well, from the Giggle lawyer,
https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1952970383428051279
Boswelltoday is very good on GI vs women's rights court proceedings.
This also on the thread weka links to:
Have you seen any coverage by NZ MSM?
No.
Say hello to RNZNs future frigate…
https://www.twz.com/sea/japans-futuristic-mogami-frigate-will-be-australias-next-warship
Less than $1B AUD per unit for a modern, VLS-capable frigate like the Mogami is a very good deal.
It’s exactly the kind of platform the RNZN should be considering.
With a crew of around 90 (vs 160 on an ANZAC-class), we could potentially even field a third frigate without increasing personnel.
Pair that with the P-8s and some long-range, loitering reconnaissance UAVs, and you’ve got a credible, flexible force: well-suited not only to defending our EEZ, but also to contributing meaningfully to an ANZAC, RN, or other allied battlegroup.
Actually that article says you can get away with 60 crew, three watches of 20. Have my doubts about damage control with that few of crew TBH.
The delivery timeline is lightspeed compared to the schlerotic US and European yards. Maybe the Aussies could order a half dozen Taigei class subs as an interim while they wait for their AUKUS nuclear boats, they could be built, commissioned, serve and be retired before the first nuclear boats show up in fifty years or so…
Yeah, that may be a stretch too far. Even for the RNZN, who have really struggled with recruitment and retention over the last 10 years.
And they're cheap too. Without sacrificing too much capability.
They have a silent mode (as per nuclear subs), the issue is range.
Definitely an upgrade from their existing ones.
It might raise questions about AUKUS, as these secure Oz well enough at far less cost … just not as useful in hunting
1.Chinese subs with nukes in the deep areas of the South China Sea
2.a Chinese blockade on Taiwan.
3.an invasion fleet on Taiwan.
https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/japans-new-taigei-class-big-whale-submarines-have-just-1-mission/
That makes the increase to 3 affordable.
And consistent with the "ANZAC" precedent.
320 crew (2 * 160) to 3 with 90 crew (with 3 shifts of 30, rather than the 20 specified, + a reserve).
Is the range OK?
The 30 would provide the operational reserve, but there might be other tasks/capacity of a mission that would require more onboard.
Witless Willis Witters….(It wuz Labour?)
And this comment….is she channelling Don Brash? I hope lining up outside the Post Office isnt next….or worse. Get Real, Nicola !
And re Labour (Greens have a Plan…and its all costed
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy_complete_party
Please could we have something to look forward to? Even hints?
So Treasury did not pick the numbers moving to Oz. And these numbers were greater than the cuts in public service numbers made by National and the lack of job growth resulting from poor policy design.
This claim from Willis has to be wrong. Treasury don't and didn't predict National's fiscal policy which has generated most of the unemployment,
I've turned the feeds section off until I have time to work on the display for it.
NCEA does need improvement. But if National does it you can be sure 1.It won't work. 2. It will not be based on evidence. 3. It will be a rehash of past mistakes. 4. Someone associated with the Coalition of Cockups will be making a lot of money.
KJT
"4. Someone associated with the Coalition of Cockups will be making a lot of money."
And better, the coalition of Cockups calls it creating jobs