Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, July 14th, 2026 - 42 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 …
Latest Reid Research poll today:
Lab 34.0 Gre 10.3 TPM 2.3=46.6
Nat 28.7 NZF 11.5 ACT 7.8=48.0
CoC just ahead but really too close to call. At this stage in the electoral cycle this first term governing coalition really should have numbers showing them being returned for a second term. The Nats are in real trouble.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713431/rnz-poll-national-hits-new-low-under-luxon-opportunity-nears-parliament
"Wong said Opportunity would enter into a period of exclusive negotiations with the largest party, about forming the next government. Only if those negotiations look to fail or stall would she then start talking to the other side.
“That’s the right thing to do, to give that first negotiation the genuine space that it requires to see whether some good common ground can be reached,” she said."
Surely that's … Wrong.
It makes more sense to negotiate with this parties likely to form a government through forming a coalition – why would a king-maker talk with a small proportion of the total vote exclusively?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361005760/there-risk-labour-warns-left-leaning-voters-over-party-nearing-5
I can think of far worse coalition partners for Labour than the Opportunity Party. Their rhetoric suggests they're centrist and can go either way but their policies suggest they'd be far more at home with Labour. This seems a very different party to when Gareth Morgan was around.
Hipkins makes the well-worn point that if the Op-vote falls just short of 5%, lots of potentially-Lefty votes will be wasted. He also notes that Op could choose National as its partner, so any one voting for them must consider the very real possibility. No great up-side to supporting them, in that light, imo.
Yes, all completely valid, but it cuts both ways, depending on a whole bunch of variables.
“Surely that's … Wrong.”
Not necessarily, not of your party is truly centrist. But if your party leaned towards one particular party or group of parties, you would want to speak to them as well.
One of the largest two parties, Labour or National, will act as gatekeeper of coalition talks. However, there’s no rule whatsoever, AFAIK, stopping minor parties holding their own conversations although it could create a certain negative perception with the public.
Oppos @ 4.7 confirms the proximal to threshold impression of recent polls. Prospect of a hung parliament with the non-aligned in control. Pragmatist heaven!
Trump's so-called non-aligning posture seems to have confounded pointy-heads: https://www.cfr.org/articles/how-trump-brought-non-alignment-back-from-the-dead-2
Hey, we got there in '84. Yanks pretending not to notice that give credit to Afro-Asian axis instead. Winston, if he was on the ball, would call in their ambassador to issure a reprimand: "Tell your boss to get his facts right!" Anyway, hegemon non-alignment is merely an hallucinatory state of mind, seems to me. Non-ideological. Better to call it operational autonomy. Lion in arena, circus to global audience…
On the inevitability of Andy:
If he leans too far to the left he will fall over, so we ought to expect self-restraint. Since UK Labour has spent recent years demonstrating gross incompetence when it comes to getting the balance right between Israel & Palestine, we get a posture:
The Labour brand seems to crash on the impact of reality nowadays (non-delivery), so his shift from posture to pressure application will be the thing to watch. If posture be tool, usage is the crucial test. Action matches rhetoric & gets desired result to impress folks. Can he do it? A proven formula through the ages, yet so hard for the left…
I feel for these folk.
Solar Zero's scheme appeared to be win win. Then… Blackrock got involved and it all went pear shaped.
“In a statement, Labour’s energy resources spokesperson Megan Woods said the Solar Zero experience was partly why Labour’s SolarSaver was designed to let households own their systems outright.”
I trust Hipkins and the wider Labour leadership heed this painful lesson and undo any arrangements they have with these Wall St parasites.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/712834/angry-customers-complain-about-solarzero-contracts
Wasn't it the previous Labour-led government that backed Solar Zero's expansion through the government's Green Investment Fund?
Moreover, wasn't it Labour that formed a flagship partnership with BlackRock to accelerate the country's transition to 100% renewable electricity?
Oh no that was entirely led by James Shaw the leader of the Green Party and instigator of Green Investment Fund, who was neck deep with the private fund managers, and went straight on after leaving the Greens to join and lead a private fund manager.
Obviously nothing to do with Labour. 🙂
James Shaw was never a good fit, IMO.
Not a good fit for what?
Arguably, he was quite effectual as Minister.
Other than getting the Greens to their most successful Parliamentary result to date, more policy responsibility than ever, and more actual stuff done.
Sure apart from that.
If there’s a point to your pointless leading questions, then make it.
If that is the case, then shouldn't they take some responsibility in helping put this right?
Woods was quick to say the Solar Zero experience was partly why Labour's SolarSaver was designed but failed to say what they have done (or what they are going to do) to help those now stuck with this poor deal
If what’s the case?
Who fucked it up?
What’s “this poor deal”?
Can’t you just spit it out instead of asking leading questions?
You’re already on record here as anti-SolarSaver and that seems to be your angle.
I'm certainly not against Solar Sver, if anything it doesn't go far enough.
The power companies need to be renationalised and have electricty recognised as an essential service. Energy supply needs to seen akin to the military or police and not as something to be privatsised and serve rentier shareholders.
Blackrock's actions, once they acquired Solar Zero, stink to high heaven and confirm all my attitudes towards big business. Now the folk that signed up are at the whims of 'the market' without the support for their systems.
""Given that context for the company a couple of months later quietly on a Tuesday night to say 'oh actually we're not making any money, we're pulling the pin, 170 staff lose their jobs a couple of weeks before Christmas' – it came out of nowhere.""
For Labour's leadership to be enthused enough to invite Blackrock to fund a green investment fund, is naive. It leaves me wondering how much of that was because of Hipkins visit to Starmer.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/536163/behind-solarzero-s-collapse
Apparently, it’s not straightforward going further/larger and Labour quickly would lose credibility with another version of KiwiBuild – National has no credibility to start with.
For example:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/09/big-developers-the-unspoken-beneficiaries-of-promised-solar-loans-scheme/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/715545/major-shortfall-of-electrical-apprentices-entering-the-system
I think that setting up & funding a green investment fund largely was James Shaw’s initiative & responsibility and had very little or nothing to do with Hipkins. What visit to Starmer are you referring to?
Concerning Hipkins and Starmer. You can you only read the first couple of paragraphs. I recall it being talked about here on TS. Underwhelming as only around 1 in 5 voters voted Labour in the UK.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350423312/can-chris-hipkins-learn-how-talk-about-tax-keir-starmer
Labour and Blackrock:
"In August 2023, the then-Labour government trumpeted BlackRock’s involvement in a “first of its kind” climate infrastructure fund,…"
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/01/16/blackrock-bails-on-2b-nz-climate-fund/
Thanks, but it can’t have been that visit in 2024 because by then Hipkins had already lost the election. In any case, BlackRock’s involvement in renewable energy in NZ pre-dated Hipkins’ PM-ship.
Paul Henry standing for ACT is not a surprise.
But a pleasant surprise would be reporters now doing their job and reminding voters of his previous statements. Especially as ACT try to appeal to Indian-New Zealanders, who Henry has insulted repeatedly (without really apologising). Seymour's response would be interesting.
What an anti-climax to Seymour's "major announcement" promise.
Poor Paul Henry, a narrow minded far right boomer who has spent three decades marred by the knowledge he was first conservative candidate anywhere in the world to lose to a openly transgender opponent. Now he want to try and put the record straight, in every meaning of the word.
Does Paul still have hair?
Does he rinse it blue?
Bet he has a cat named, "Georgina".
Blue balls?
Most obscure comment ever, Incognito!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361005937/paul-henry-acts-newest-candidate
An array of soulless ,mindless dead things that will turn anyone they catch into them
Seventh-day adventists?
Young Nats?
🙂
Yep, ACT has been forced to go for the celebrity option, hoping marketing prevails over substance.
He infects rooms with something, that's for sure, the putrid stench of ego and intolerance.
If he makes it to the election and doesn't make parliament he'll quit immediately, and if he does make parliament in opposition he'll last six months, and if he makes parliament in government he last 12 months.
That’s because he's an untrustworthy, easily distracted dilettante. Did two seasons of Traitors then quit weeks before filming began on S3 to become a TVNZ board member and host of The Chase, and he's lasted barely a year in those roles. On joining TVNZ:
Like some retarded* cocker spaniel, a year later he got tired of that and is now focused on something else. See the pattern?
Also:
Heather Duplicity-Allen will be giddy about this news.
Henry also baked his mother's ashes into the glass of his 80ft boat, and then tried to sell it. Couldn't even follow through on that idea. Weirdo.
What you're getting with Paul Henry is a w*nker with no honour, integrity, guidance, consistency, conviction, or compassion. ACT to a tee.
Zombiefication? A plausible thesis, yet there may be an upside. From your link…
So if you're a pro landlord with properties that need doing up and a paucity of funds available for the up-grade, he'd be your go-to guy. Just park him in each empty room long enough for him to infect it with enthusiasm. Tenants will become so enthusiastic that they will compete for it. Seymour may not be smart enough to figure this out.
Using politicians to drive market forces is a bit of a turn-about, but his clown ought to be up for it. Gallivanting place to place, what fun! Best to extract the dude before any auction though lest they get so much contagion they end up voting for him…
Old TV presenters etc never die they just fantasise away turning their mirrors to the wall and weltering in a social media blog-bog.
Don't call it a health crisis for the same reasons 'Environment' Southland chose not to declare a climate emergency, and Wairoa mayor Craig Little refused to declare a 'woke' state of emergency – might cause panic. Better to stay 'laser-focused' on 'getting ahead'?
"We need a change of direction…", as our relatable Lotto lady Nicola Willis opined in 2023. And 'we' got it 🙁 A(t)las, the nACTf CoC is 'govt' by and for the sorted – wrecking NZ to provide investment opportunities for insatiable private capital is a Key platform.
https://www.greens.org.nz/tax_system_for_all – – – https://vote.nz/
@ Drowsy M. Kram
Yes, we need a change of direction but who is going to deliver it?
The Greens, Alliance and TPM don't have the numbers. And Labour won't change the direction far enough. So what are we to do?
There are few guarantees in life, but my intention is to party vote Green. Sometimes that helps to deliver a left-leaning govt for Aotearoa NZ, as it kindly did during the pandemic.
https://www.greens.org.nz/tax_system_for_all – – – https://vote.nz/
Keep showing Kiwis the results that the nACTf CoC & similar self-serving ‘govts’ deliver.
With you on that, Drowsy. It's tempting to lose sight of the wood for the trees but you've kept a clear view, imo.
Chairman – what are we to do? As best we can, even to put a spanner in the works and turn out like Charlie Chaplin! Make some sacrifice perhaps to avoid bigger ones later.
4.10m Chaplin's Modern Times 1936
"He doesn't just communicate ideas; he infects rooms…"
Seymour on Henry.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361005937/paul-henry-acts-newest-candidate
Sounds more toxic than meth contamination by cookers.
TOP leader outlines election scenario: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713437/opportunity-voters-lean-labour-but-party-says-it-doesn-t-drive-our-decision-making
Bottom lines seems a tad negative as an operating stance. I'd prefer key levers of progress, which users can liken to gears of a vehicle insofar as they are functionally prioritised most of the time. I get that negatives have a natural place as operating constraints but suspect positives are more motivational, proactive.