Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, June 16th, 2026 - 51 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 …
Been thinking:
If SpaceX has similar reliability issues as Tesla, David Bowies Space Oddity is going to seem very prophetic.
You can't just pull over and wait for the AA on the way to or from the moon or mars..
I hope SpaceX doesn't turn out to be another Titan submersible.
Based on Musks history of ‘engineering’ that’s a very real possibility.
Self driving Tesla’s, his AI, the sewer X has become etc. Dispruption doesn’t equate to competence.
Backing Trump swept away all the investigations got some nice new govt contracts also so tally ho Elon.
There is some dispute about the costings for Labour's excellent policy capping public transport costs. Labour says it will cost $65 million….economists say around $100 million. But Willis' effort to cost the policy is a joke/blatant lie:
[Economist Sam] Warburton cautioned against over-reacting and said National's separate claim that the policy could cost as much as $1.6 billion was "utter nonsense"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/598268/material-miscalculation-economists-identify-apparent-errors-in-labour-s-transport-policy
Sam Warburton discussed the costing differences on Morning Report today showing considerable sympathy with Labour because costing the policy is extremely complicated, the difference is only $35 million and this appears to be due to the fact that that Labour may not have factored in the need for additional buses/trains due to extra passengers. He says that the difference is very small compared to National's cock-up on their policy at the last election permitting foreigners to purchase houses in NZ at the last election.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019039431/economist-discusses-costings-of-labour-s-transport-policy
Horizons Regional Council have been running a weekly fare cap under $20 pw for a while. They also cannily invested in electrification of the PN fleet, plus upgraded the open-air terminal , and upped the frequency of local buses to so that there is a bus every 30 min.
You wouldn't believe the amount of rw moaning in the Manawatu Standard about this excellent move by readers. You’d think b8us users, often the elderly, don’t deserve to be sheltered from the rain. I’m pretty sure the NZ Initiative salts this crap using paid influencers.
There hasn’t been any pushback on the cap, which is kept pretty quiet. It allows users to enjoy the buses in the weekends, even if their budget doesn’t stretch to it.
Hey that's really cool to hear tWIG.
No coincidence that Labour transport lead Tangi Utikere was the Deputy Mayor of Palmerston Council.
Does that mean National's costing of this policy is "a sign of incompetence or an effort to mislead voters" – "utter nonsense" even – because it seems that way to me.
The nACTf CoC is 'govt' by and for the sorted – they cry poor, but will always help their rich mates, and have no compunction punching down on Kiwis doing it tough in this cost-of-living crisis. Don’t mind us, we’re just selling off NZ for parts – Move-On!
These things work like those pictures that you move about. Look at it one way, it's an ugly hag; turn it over and it's a beautiful young lady.
Auckland has a fare cap of $50pp so let's start with that. Reduce the cap to $20 and it costs the public sector $30 (the difference). Help! Worse, if two new travellers are attracted by the lower fare cap, that's 3 times $30 which is $90!! How can the country ever afford it!!
Now, turn the picture over…
Auckland has a fare cap of $50pp. Driving the bus from A to B costs $50. But it's running with a lot of spare seats. On Day 1, The bus runs with one passenger and two empty seats. Reduce the cap to $20 and our two new travellers are attracted by the lower fare cap. On Day 2, the bus still costs $50 for the trip and the cumulative fare box revenue is $60. So, not only has the reduced cap cost us nothing, we are $10 better off!!
OK- that's very oversimplified and public transport in any country rarely makes a profit from the farebox, but it shows how one political party could justify its media announcements one way and another party could justify it another way.
In addition to the above, new people attracted to the bus gets them out of their cars and, again in a simplified example, the savings from not having to widen the roads can be attributed to the cost of running the bus or train.
Hope that helps.
There is a much more sympathetic treatment of the policy here:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2026/06/15/labours-fare-cap-election-policy/
I have to say that this site is doing a better job of selling the policy, than the Labour party is…..
Tangi Utikere needed to be much better prepared to address the talking points in his interview with Jack Tame – when Labour should have known that there would be a resolute attempt to find a fiscal hole.
He did not come across as convincing or well briefed on this policy
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/06/14/25-a-week-labour-grilled-on-public-transport-savings-claim/
When you claim that the average saving will be $25/week and that hundreds of thousands of people will benefit it is very hard to justify a claim that it will only cost $65 million.
After all hundreds of thousands must mean at least 200,000.
You are claiming therefor that the amount commuters will no longer pay is at least 200,000 times $25 times 52 (weeks/year) which is $260 million/year.
That means $260 million/year that will no longer be spent on fares and that looks like the annual cost of the policy. If that isn't what you mean then don't say it.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/06/14/25-a-week-labour-grilled-on-public-transport-savings-claim/
Bollocks Alwyn stop your lies.
As I said above two independent economists said it would cost around $100m today.
They aren't lies. What I reported is what the Labour spokesman said.
If the statements he made were false then he is the liar, not me. If they are correct then my conclusions are valid. If people are going to receive the benefiits he stated then there are going to be that much less paid in fares and it is perfectly reasonable to describe that as being the cost of the policy.
Alwyn what is the net cost? Which organisation gets the most savings/advantage also? It may not be just one outfit that gets benefit from having less pressure forcing it into expense that could be avoided.
Your Maths is shit.
The key here is what public transport costs to run, not magical thinking about magical fairy fares.
So the question I have to ask, are you a thicky thicky dumb dumb, or did you honestly not get what was going on? Or is just more dirty politics as usual from Tory trolls?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EzX43x0hBqQ
But but but alwyn comments here only to "bring enlightenment to the ignorant" – he said so, therefore his maths must be right, because he's at least as trustworthy as the nACTf CoC 'leaders' Luxon, Willis, Peters, Jones, Seymour and van Velden.
Your comment is not worth a response. That is what the Labour spokesman said and the conclusions I have drawn from it are valid. If the benefits are what he claims then my conclusion is valid. If the benefits aren't what he said then that might not be the cost but that would be due to the fact that his statements were false.
I'm not sure who is being replied to, though you know adam. Why not refer to the number of the comment or the name? Then the line of reason can be traced more surely.
I assume that the GWS comment 3.1.2.3 is a reply to Adam's comment at 3.1.2 – is this correct?
Yes. I think he was especially weak on Tame's question of why public transport (ferries) should be subsidised for the wealthy citizens of Eastbourne. It seems to me that there are a few points Utikere might have made in response:
That would have been a most impressive response. I can't imagine it coming from most of our MPs unfortunately. I think they would forget where they were up to before they got all the way through.
Just imagining how alwyn would go in a high-pressure interview…
Stupid Labour MPs – can't have every answer at every moment!
You are such a nag, alwyn; finding an inconsistency then demanding that commenters here explain themselves!!!
Inflexible pedant.
"A nag"
– alwyn is all-whinge; "Anybody can use public transport, darling!"
No insight, and nary a bouquet in sight, imho.
So the shitty as fuck tech bro billionars want a race war, they not even being subtle about.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EzX43x0hBqQ
When Palestine Action was proscibed in the UK as a terrorist group, the UK government and police 'thought it would be a "significant deterrent" against support'.
Instead, 'The average terror suspect in England and Wales is now a white woman in her 50s', with 2033 arrests for supporting PA in 6 months.
https://bsky.app/profile/flyingrodent.bsky.social/post/3modxd7fm2s2d
Yes, Starmer can't leave fast enough. Good riddance.
You might just want to wait until the by-eleciton before proposing yet another Labour leadership selection process.
Remember, Jeremy Corbyn was your last guy, and he lost a fully winnable election and was last seen waving some other country's flag as an obscure rebel.
Labour ate itself. Better dead than red, the Labour conservatives couldn't stand the idea of socialism. Which is why Labour cut benefits to disabled people and is now trying to introduce the biggest handover of privacy to big tech thus far, something set to unite left and right voters against them.
Seriously, what kind of workers' party cuts benefits to workers who have become disabled.
None of the decrease in Labor UK support comes from that when you see the growth of Reform. If there was such a pro-left shift you'd have seen the Greens pick up a whole bunch more than 1 seat last month.
Reform's support is specifically anti-immigration, anti-European Union and pro-BREXIT, anti-regulation. It ain't pro-disability issues.
None of those Reform issues are dealbreakers until you match the growth of social media onto the growth of the hard right both in the UK, Europe, and USA. That's the political magicsauce.
I was talking about during the Corbyn years and the Labour conservatives who preferred losing an election than letting Labour go left.
I was talking about Labor now.
you also referenced Corbyn, blaming him for losing an election that UK Labour conservatives apparently were ok losing. This is relevant to UK Labour now, because Starmer and his apology for a labour party, is the direct result.
Surely when it comes to the cost of the fair cap for public transport, it it costs nothing extra if bus/trains that were running away just get more usage?
It only cost once more capacity is added.
But that's the trouble – bus trains running away, [anyway] just when you need them. As you say it will hardly cost any more by having a cap if the transport can just get out and do its transporting – and we'll be in transports of delight. (Strained humour there, hold onto it like used tea leaves! It might be needed as backstop in future events.)
Not sure what to make of this 'breaking story':
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/598316/immigration-officials-deliberately-withheld-information-on-failed-technology-upgrade
It comes at a time when National's polling numbers are not looking good. Is it as serious as Stanford is making out? Or is it an attempt to demonise the Public Service for political gain? Or is it a mix of both?
She has intimated the problem may go beyond the ministry in question – MBIE
Immigration is such a slippery and fraught portfolio to get for any Minsister, with a huge amount of regulatory discretion held by specific public servants, and Stamford is showing she is in command of it.
Getting the formal apology to camera from the CE of Immigration is the first step to a management clearout, again giving the Minister further ambit to stamp her authority.
IMHO this is just good portfolio management.
I assume those officials will be the first to be cut from the public service as part of the reduction.
Will A.I. help with 'regulation' of ACT's new "reliable, year-round pipeline of workers"?
Everything’s on tap, if you know who. We don't know how lucky we are, and were.
I would think they have all long gone. It smells of a cover-up by MBIE management after a massive muck-up. Be assured it isn't the first time it has happened but it is not grounds for reducing the role of the Public Service. The vast bulk of Public Servants act with honesty and integrity. I think that is why a certain right wing political party which I will not name wishes to destroy them.
The timing of this is interesting indeed – it appears the report was completed early April.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32155-review-of-the-biometric-projects-biometric-capability-update-bccu-and-ipe-projects
So, Erica Stanford has been sitting on her hands for nigh on two months being "absolutely furious" before she chooses to share her fury with the public?
Could it perchance have been scheduled to be a side-show at a time when Labour's election policies were being rolled out? Surely not.
(sarc)
She hasn't actually.
The Department sat on the report for the two months and only passed it along to her last Friday.
I think you owe her an apology.
If that was the case then I certainly apologise for my comment.
It was natural to assume that the date the review was released would have included a copy to the appropriate minister. The fact it did not happen, then it is reasonable to assume a cover-up was pursued by MBIE staff members. They deserve an immediate sacking.
Your apology is most gracious.
The fuss from Stanford seems to have been triggered by the Department sitting on this report for a couple of months without giving it to her. I wonder if there have been any sudden unexpected resignations during those two months?
@ AB @ 3.2
Spot on. As to why these things haven't been sung from the rooftops by now, I wonder if pollies are overly prepped with talking points. To the extent that their principles aren't allowed to shine through.
Roof-top singing is heard by few people. Try putting that through the Blue-influenced media and see how far the sound carries.
It's not about the media. We have to acknowledge because of the digital changes of the last decade, MSM is loosing it's grip on our thinking.
It's about us at our smoko rooms, at quiz night, at the dinner table and here at TS. Helping to negate the lies of our finance minister and change a narrative. One on one, personal exchanges are more effective in these polarised times.
Meanwhile its business as usual under this government:
In Porirua, Uncle Bills and Pete's Emporium are closing, In Palmerston North Uncle Bill's is closing, and in Upper Hutt, Lincraft is closing all stores to go online only.
And stealing copper has moved from electricity recharging stations to train tunnels . . .
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions_wellington/598300/trains-cancelled-between-wellington-and-porirua-as-person-runs-onto-tracks
Lookee here says the Listener. Luxon and Wont'it are on the cover with a question as to how a country smaller than Lake Taupo can do 5 times as well as NZ? I think we are going to hear about productivity again; lack of initiative, lack of zeal, which explains why we're New Nolanders!
Not like Singapore that has zing and perhaps Jianbing (pancake) or Feng, a spicy Portuegese stew. And Singapore is about as far from NZ culture as you can be. I don't think they would put up with our political clowns; they I believe use shadow theatre for entertainment not real-life political grifting.
This is interesting about Singapore history and cuisine: https://roadsandkingdoms.com/2019/a-history-of-singapore-in-10-dishes/
I hear that the USA has presented a plan to end the Iran war. Surprised to hear that it is a copy of the Obama Agreement, which Trump had cancelled arguing that it had been a terrible disgraceful plan. Surely not?
They'll be very lucky if they managed to persuade Iran to go back to the Obama agreement. I don't think they will get anything like it.
Trump of course will announce he has done a wonderful job and anyway "Where's my Nobel Prize?"
It'll be biggly! Probably the biggliest! His supporters will biggle-out over his biggliest-ness! He's the biggliest bigglier I've ever, never seen!
Obama and Newsom and the Democrats are going to have a lot of fun with this.
Bernie will not hold back. Looking forward to it.