Written By:
- Date published:
9:39 am, October 16th, 2025 - 35 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 …
I never crossed paths with Jim Bolger personally, and according to all the tributes this morning, it seems he was a pretty decent bloke,
Unfortunately:
Bolger shepherded the country through the dramatic austerity of Ruth Richardson’s Mother Of All Budgets and severe cuts to the welfare state. Decades on, the period is remembered by some as the establishment of a deeply stratified society with entrenched poverty.
But at least he (belatedly) came to his senses.
In the RNZ interview in 2017, Bolger said neoliberal policies had failed.
Not speaking specifically of the arch-neoliberalism that characterised the 1991 budget, Bolger said: “They have failed to produce economic growth and what growth there has been has gone to the few at the top.”
Bolger said “that model needs to change”. Bolger said neoliberalism had failed and suggested unions should have a stronger voice.
YouTube episode of The 9th Floor
Regrettably, for all the good he did do, his legacy for many will be the fact he was running the show when his colleagues deliberately caused so much harm to so many people.
Bolgers from a different era, you'll not get empathy or regret from any of todays politicians.
The selection process and vested interests (Atlas, fed farmers etc) give us todays collection of unique individuals.
Yes Kay, He was a decent bloke and he had integrity. One needs to go back to the politics of the time to understand what happened. Neoliberalism, as it came to be known, was new and untried. On the surface it seemed in some people's eyes to show promise. People by and large were willing to give it a go.
I think Bolger was initially one of them. To his credit, he saw the negative aspects and pulled the plug as far as he was able. Bear in mind the market-place rollercoaster was in full swing by then – thanks to Roger Douglas – and it wasn't easy to change course. Helen Clark had the same problem when she became PM.
I was one of those caught in the mass layoff of public servants. Many of us had to go on benefits of one sort or another. It was during Christine Rankin's reign of terror and we were treated like scum. It was indeed an awful time but I think it had more to do with little frogs finding themselves in big pools and throwing their weight around.
Bear in mind the market-place rollercoaster was in full swing by then – thanks to Roger Douglas – and it wasn't easy to change course. Helen Clark had the same problem when she became PM.
I admit to being a tad too young and politically naive in the early 90s to fully understand the ideology of it all. Do you think my Clark's time the neoliberal system was too ingrained? My main recollection was their refusal to reverse the benefit cuts, and actually cutting them more in real terms, essentially aligning themselves with the Nats. I still believe there was ample opportunity by the 2000s to reverse the worst of it, but there was clearly no political will to do so. And it's been obvious ever since that they seem to be perfectly happy with the status quo (or too young to remember anything different).
Ugh, Rankin. That’s a name I haven’t heard for a while now. An awful time to need to be on a benefit.
Kua hinga te rangatira, te toa nui i tēnei rā. Moe mai, okioki mai i te rangimārie
RIP Jim
Same issue as with David Lange, I think: Bolger was no fan of neoliberalism but ended up as a front man for it by virtue of having won the party leadership. Both of them would have been better off with fewer neoliberal ideologues in their caucuses.
Agree PM.
The Douglas/Prebble team were running the show. Anyone inside that Lange Labour caucus who held out against them was on a hiding to nothing. I think Bolger's situation was much the same. Interesting to note they both rebelled against the neoliberal idealogues in their respective caucuses and it marked the beginning of the end of their political careers.
I wonder sometimes if Helen Clark noted their demise and determined she was not going to end up the same way. Hence her reluctance to unwind the damage done too quickly. I note she planned to make big reversals in her fourth term but was pipped at the post by John Key, which saw neoliberalism even further embedded.
I once sat round a table with the late Mr Bolger (the Boag-y woman was there as well) during initial planning for Parliament's first computer network in the late 80s. He seemed to me a decent sensible kind of guy, able to think beyond party-political concerns (unlike one cabinet minister, whose first query at another such session was "is this going to benefit the Opposition?").
Early in his administration, I think he was, to some extent, a hostage to that enormous caucus. How to keep everyone happy in a body that size – "enough pasture to feed all the beasts"? Some were doubtless already anticipating the inevitable swing-back of the pendulum, and wanted to feather their little nests while they could.
Whether or not he genuinely ever was a neolib is beside the point. "By their fruits ye shall know them" – he unquestionably gave dear Ruthie far too much rope with the 1991 budget. And, to many folks' everlasting rage, reneged (or allowed her to renege) on the promise to remove the superannuation surcharge.
But let's conclude on some positive notes. His government gave NZ the chance to reform its voting system, a chance it took with both hands. That's been a lasting benefit, one he can certainly be assigned credit for.
And he stayed true to his republican convictions by not taking the knighthood which has become the customary "reward" for former Nat PMs. Chapeau for that.
Some interesting comments there, especially re the caucus size. It makes a lot more sense now. Thanks
From Minister of Labour late 70's/80's to the PM launching the ECA era to head of the sixth Labour government’s Fair Pay Agreements Working Group.
Helmsman, a wheel that turns.
From castigating the black mirror glass building (BNZ in Wellington) era – banks charging high interest rates on farm debt and lending to companies that would crash and leave them with large debts (BNZ was handed over NAB) to managing National's version of government budget austerity alongside a market led neo-liberalism in the 1990's and then onto his 2017 comments (which may influenced Peters in his coalition choice, but were probably designed to influence his own party under Bill English).
Helmsman, a wheel that turns.
For those of us calling for a two state solution in Palestine, it ain’t going to be easy.
https://theconversation.com/hamas-is-battling-powerful-clans-for-control-in-gaza-who-are-these-groups-and-what-threat-do-they-pose-267446
I don't think that anyone has ever, for a moment, thought that a two State solution in Israel/Palestine will be easy.
Hamas ate out executing people in the street, Israel is demanding dead hostages bodies after 2 years of flattening Gaza, it ain't happening
“I don’t think that anyone has ever, for a moment, thought that a two State solution in Israel/Palestine will be easy.”
Not quite – a majority of nations in the UN voted for the partition of UN Mandate Palestine in 1947, which would have created a two-state solution if it had actually been observed in the years that followed. They must have thought it was easy enough or else would not have voted that way. It's a shame you cannot project your excellent advice back in time 78 years.
If they thought it was easy enough, they had no excuse for thinking that. Leaders of the Arabs of mandate Palestine and various Arab countries had told everyone involved repeatedly that they wouldn't accept the creation of a Jewish state, and as promised they flatly rejected the UN partition plan, same as they had the various British plans. That can't have come as a surprise to any country that voted for partition.
Yes- the partition of British Mandate Palestine and its attempt to create a two-state 'solution' was a bad idea from the start. And doubly so, when the problem that the 'solution' was trying to solve, was a problem that had just occurred somewhere else, outside of Mandate Palestine itself.
Then as now, the better approach was to think carefully about the constitutional, legal and political architecture of a single, democratic, secular state. There is no problem for which the long-term solution can be the creation of two adjacent ethnostates.
Objected about being occupied and giving away the land they tilled for generations.
Surprise!
Meh. The British and French created plenty of Arab countries in the area and reserved only a small part of it for Jewish self-determination. It wasn't a big ask in relative terms. Plenty of other people suffered far worse displacement in the late 1940s, but you don't see them still whinging about it nearly 80 years later.
And that self-determination area was allocated in 1947 and revised in 1949.
The India-Pakistan one had only one area of border conflict (Kashmir).
You seem to mistake the UN for a world government. It isn't.
The sovereign individual cult now writ large into the "sovereign" actor on the international stage is it?
There is no international law; the line of the might is right brigade is the last resort in a debate.
The thing about the French and British ME carve up is that it required international acceptance – both as to the borders of nations and the League Mandate for Palestine.
Israel was only accepted into the UN on the terms of their being 2 states (on the 1949 revision of the 1947 border agreement).
It seems that the only defence for Israel that is now offered, is rejection of international law. So that Israel being outside of it, is normalised.
Thus the veto within the UN and US threat to international organisations from the most lawless POTUS in American history.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/16/icc-prosecutor-warned-to-drop-netanyahu-case-or-be-destroyed-report
You don't see it still happening, "in most cases" 80 years later.
Zionists went back centuries.
Then. There is the Irish.
Not to mention Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians.
Someone marches in, Takes over or destroys your farm, houses and land by force. Kills your family and relatives when you resist. You would be pissed off also!
You're describing how that region came to belong to the Arabs, not how the Jews came to rebuild a homeland there.
Really??
Māori.
Yes, funnily enough NZ is a more accurate example of the colonisation the PLO scarf-wearers claim to be keen to see overthrown via murderous force, but they never seem so keen to see it applied to themselves.
Oh, I don't think it would have mattered whether they thought it was 'easy' or not – it was a principled decision – in the wake of the Holocaust. You may argue over the principles, but you can't deny they existed.
Does anyone have the latest Talbot Mills Poll?
Henry Cooke on X has a graph of it.
Here's the news report (you never get to see the official poll, as it's always 'leaked')
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360855811/national-dips-below-30-second-poll
National down 2%
Labour no change
Greens no change
TPM no change
ACT up 1%
NZF up 2%
Young nats/act would fit right in.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4lx6nur5wstwoc4wtgj56kyu/post/3m376dk3hdk2p
William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n–ga” and “n–guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146
There was brief, minimal coverage of the latest poll published in the Post yesterday, showing increased support for Labour and for Chris Hipkins across various issues.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360853311/big-names-risk-labour-pulls-ahead-and-christopher-luxon-loses-ground
"Andrea Vance October 15, 2025
Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Speaker Gerry Brownlee would both be ousted from Parliament if an election were held today, as National’s support slides and Christopher Luxon’s personal ratings hit new lows.
In the latest The Post/Freshwater Strategy poll with Infrastructure New Zealand, Labour has climbed seven points since the 2023 election to 34%, overtaking National, which has fallen seven points to 31%.
NZ First continues its resurgence, rising to 11%, while ACT is on 9%, the Greens 9%, and Te Pāti Māori 3%…
The figures underline the growing pressure on Luxon’s leadership as economic anxiety and cost-of-living pressures dominate the political mood…".
Surely Nicola Willis is in large part culpable for NZ's dire economic state, refusing to take advice from economists and analysts about the unaffordability of her economic strategy and decisions.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/573531/nicola-willis-rejects-accusations-she-is-doing-nothing-for-a-tanking-economy
While reporting on TV3 last night, Andrea Vance spoke about the level of support for each party, Luxon's slide in popularity, and who could replace him – namely Chris Bishop. Strangely nothing was mentioned about the considerable levels of support Hipkins has in a range of areas. From Vance's Post article:
"Voters prefer Hipkins on results and empathy
Hipkins leads Luxon across nearly all measures of competence, relatability, and policy trust.
On core decision-making metrics, Hipkins slightly outpaces Luxon on “making the right decisions for New Zealand, even when unpopular” (37% vs 36%).
He pulls further ahead on “ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent wisely” (37% vs 35%) and “responding best to a national crisis or natural disaster” (42% vs 34%).
Hipkins also leads on “making decisions most likely to improve my life” (42% vs 31%)…
Hipkins’ advantage is even stronger on personal connection. He outperforms Luxon on relatability (39% vs 27%) and understanding what families are going through (45% vs 23%).
On environmental leadership, Hipkins enjoys a commanding lead (44% vs 20%) as the figure most likely to reduce carbon emissions and improve New Zealand’s natural environment.
Overall, Hipkins now enjoys both competence and empathy advantages with voters, while Luxon faces challenges on decision-making, connection, and climate credibility".
Neither was Hipkins' increasing popularity discussed on RNZ's political panel later last night. Yet presenters and reporters often comment that Hipkins is failing to gain traction, which appears to factually incorrect.
Chris Bishop dodgy online messaging to teens a few years back yech https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/101325073/national-mp-confronted-about-his-social-media-messages-to-teenagers
& very funny Mr Wayne Brown caalling ACT "Te Pati Pakeha".
Also, who is Benedict Ong? A lot of talk around town (Dunedin) about our new councillor https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360854509/tinker-ai-councillor-spy-who-benedict-ong amazing he got in.
National is in its first real coalition since 1996.
(Key's government was so dominant in relationship with the 3 small scale partners it was as almost as close to a one party government as that of Labour 2020-2023. Albeit Key also used it to manage the right of his own party).
And it's leader is struggling.
Good.
And there is talk of the chance of a replacement.
Also good.
But given there is no chance of a new leader taking MP's from the ACT caucus or NZ First caucus (again), what would be achieved?
National is used to dominant leaders, coalition obstructs this and so its leaders then struggle to retain support.
When engaged in neo-liberal extremism and class war the government does not deserve to be popular.
The problem for Luxon and the coalition is obvious.
But leave office and it will go away.
Then think again.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360855018/nationals-luxon-problem-now-impossible-ignore
That poll result doesn't provide much to celebrate. On those figures, the RW bloc would still have a wafer-thin majority.