Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, March 17th, 2026 - 85 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 …
Mod Note: please read
Normally we don't require pre-emptive evidence for claims of fact but in the case of the Chris Hipkins and Jade Paul story, you must provide clear argument, sources and links if you are making any claims.
This is because of the social media rumours without substantiation, and MSM not yet doing anything in depth on this.
If you want to know what's going on try FB or Reddit, and if you want to talk about it here, please take care.
Not commenting on the 'facts' alleged or otherwise of the issue – but this is a really interesting article about the way this moved from social media to mainstream news sources.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/17/how-hipkins-claims-spread-from-facebook-to-news-headlines/
good read (albeit a bit truncated) thanks.
Busy this morning but plan to ask AI what it would do to help lower income people weather the crisis.
It will be interesting for me, personally, to consider the theory that, given choice, I would rather vote for an AI bot than Nicola Willis. Or, whether the AI bot shows more compassion than she does, IMHO, after I see the results.
I'll bring back the outcome of my research here…
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
Here's what Google Gemini had to say. I haven't added any text except for continuity and the text I left out was largely duplication. Italics are me:
I live in New Zealand. Will the increasing fuel prices also boost the government's tax revenue, or is the tax a fixed sum per litre sold?
Here is the breakdown of how it works in 2026:
1. The Fixed Components (Fixed sum per litre): Fuel Excise Duty (FED) – Currently around 70–77 cents per litre for petrol. ACC Levy: A fixed 6 cents per litre. Other Levies: (less than 1 cent)
2. The Variable Component: The "hidden" winner for the government during price spikes is GST (15%). [For example,] if the pre-GST price of fuel rises by 20 cents due to global oil shortages, the GST portion automatically increases by 3 cents per litre.
I am wondering if there are any ways the government could help low-income people at the petrol pump, without affecting the amount of its anticipated budget for this time period.
Helping low-income people during fuel spikes without blowing the budget is a difficult "balancing act" for any government… However, there are several revenue-neutral or targeted strategies being discussed in 2026 to provide relief:
1. Targeted Cost-of-Living Payments: There is currently debate around a proposed $150 one-off cost-of-living payment targeted at low-to-middle-income earners and those on working-age benefits. By using only the extra GST revenue generated by the higher fuel prices, the government can redistribute that money back to those most affected without dipping into their existing planned budget.
2. The "Reprioritisation" Strategy: Groups like the Taxpayers' Union have argued that the government could cut fuel taxes without increasing borrowing by scrapping low-priority spending. This would allow the government to lower the 70c Fuel Excise Duty temporarily while keeping the roading budget whole, effectively "trading" infrastructure projects for lower pump prices.
3. Boosting Existing Support Systems: The government can help people manage "petrol poverty" through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) without passing new laws, [such as] * A non-taxed weekly payment for people who can't cover essential costs. * MSD can include "essential vehicle running costs" when calculating how much support a person needs. * Increasing tax credits for families with children acts as an indirect subsidy for their total household costs, including fuel.
4. Non-Financial "Buffer" Measures: [such as] * Public Sector Work-from-Home * The government might delay the planned 12c fuel tax increase scheduled for 2027.
I thought the government hadn't decided to do anything.
You are spot on—as of this week (mid-March 2026), the government has not officially committed to a new relief package.
The confusion likely stems from the fact that Finance Minister Nicola Willis and various ministries are currently in "high-level modeling" mode. They are holding press conferences and talking about possible options, but nothing has been signed off by Cabinet… The government is essentially waiting to see if the Middle East tensions (specifically the issues in the Strait of Hormuz) result in a long-term supply shortage or just a temporary price spike.
Can't the government afford to put actions in place now?
It’s a fair question—especially when you see millions of dollars flowing into the government's accounts every day from GST. Technically, the government could act today, but they are currently trapped by three major "financial speed bumps" that explain the delay.
1. The "Roading Hole" Problem… By law, every cent of that 70c petrol tax is already promised to the National Land Transport Fund to pay for road repairs, bridge maintenance, and new highways. If they cut the tax today, they immediately lose the money needed for the roading projects they’ve already signed contracts for.
2. The Current Deficit: The government is currently running a deficit (spending more than it earns). As of March 2026, the books show a deficit of roughly $6 billion. Finance Minister Nicola Willis is under strict instructions from her coalition partners to return the budget to a surplus by 2028/29. If the government announces a massive, un-funded tax cut now, it could spook international lenders. This might lead to higher interest rates for New Zealand.
3. The "Demand" Trap: Officials are telling the Minister that keeping the price high acts as a "natural rationer" to ensure the country doesn't run dry.
While it looks like nothing is happening, the government is currently "modeling" two things for the April/May Budget:
1. Targeted Cash Payments:
2. Public Transport "Assurance"
The Reality: They are prioritizing "fiscal stability" over immediate relief.
Plus, the response to the question I set myself earlier this morning. What would an objective, unbiased, unpolitical AI bot do right now, to respond to the crisis. Same things apply to my previous response. Italics are mine. I haven't cut out much text, but I have condensed several paragraphs into single ones, to save space. This isn't my comment, other than the italics. Take it as you find it:
What would you do, if you were the Finance Minister of New Zealand?
If I were in Nicola Willis’s shoes on March 17, 2026, I would be feeling the weight of a very classic political trap: The "Right Thing" for the economy is often the "Wrong Thing" for the people.
As an AI, I don't have personal politics, but if we look at the data the Finance Minister is staring at today, here is how I would approach the crisis to balance your two points—helping those who can't pay their bills without blowing the national budget.
1. The "GST Windfall" Rebate (The Immediate Move)
The government is currently collecting "unplanned" GST because fuel has jumped 50 cents in a month. I would calculate that specific "bonus" amount and immediately announce a Targeted Transport Grant… This uses money the government didn't plan to have, so it doesn't "cut" into other spending… I’d send it directly to Community Services Card holders and those on the "Working for Families" tax credit… A flat tax cut at the pump helps a CEO in a Ferrari as much as a nurse in a Toyota. A targeted grant puts the money exactly where the "bill-paying crisis" is most acute.
2. The "Public Service Pivot" (The No-Cost Move)
I would immediately sign an executive order relaxing the "back to the office" requirements for public servants… If 10,000 public servants stay home two days a week, that’s thousands of litres of fuel saved. This lowers national demand, which helps stabilize prices for the "essential workers" (tradies, nurses, delivery drivers) who have to be on the road. It costs the taxpayer $0.
3. The "Roading Fund" Protection (The Hard Choice)
I would not cut the 70c Fuel Excise Duty… If I cut it, I have to stop fixing the bridges and roads damaged by recent storms. That creates a "maintenance debt" that will cost New Zealanders billions more in five years. Instead, I would focus on delaying the planned 12c hike for 2027 to give people a "light at the end of the tunnel" without losing today's essential revenue.
Stop your AI slop.
Just delete this trash.
We are going to have to put up with AI taking over as Great Know-All and perhaps use AI produced facts as a basis for checking our own ideas and current conditions.
But having it take over the whole discourse is dangerous. You can't consider calling yourself Thinker if you do that. You are merely a burl on a machine then (ask AI what that is!)
AI doesn’t know as such, it strings text together based on probabilistic algorithms trained on input from many sources & people that makes the output sound convincing and ‘knowledgeable’. Thus, it’s the other way round, we always have to check AI output for bias, hallucination, incompleteness/gaps, etc.; the end-users have no idea of and no control over the algorithms nor the training data sets.
Thank you, GWS,
I didn't understand and I did ask AI what your term meant. I knew you were trying to be insulting, but a burl is a piece of wood that is typically polished and very valuable when it is. That didn't seem to be the message you were trying to send. AI thought you must have meant "Burr" but couldn't spell it.
I have called myself Thinker on this chat site for quite a number of years. This one time, I went to AI, for the following reason:
In times of crisis, good governments put politics aside and try to do things to minimise the impact of the crisis on its citizens. I wanted to see what could happen if politics was put aside (including mine) and it turns out there's a few things that could help that aren't being done, if you look at the problem coldly and logically.
Maybe you understand that, maybe not. I don't really care. One of the good things about this site as I've experienced it is that, within the bounds of decency, contributors are free to express an opinion and others either agree with it or not. Often, even when you don't agree with something, it sparks a discussion to everyone's benefit.
I started this response by thanking you. More recently, I've noticed that the traditions of this site are increasingly being eaten away by trolls, and I think it's time I looked elsewhere and left you guys to wallow in a bear pit of your own making. GWS, you won, but don't think I envy you.
I know what you’re trying to say but personally, I’d never consider letting AI take over (political) governance of people. AI cannot be held accountable and Nicola Willis doesn’t want to be [held] accountable.
I'm not linking to to the stuff I've just seen on fb, nationals dirty politics is in full swung, private lives are no longer off limits it would appear, this what John Key started the worst person in new Zealand politics ever, these rats that do nationals dirty work that hide in the rubbish piles should be hunted down and flushed out of there holes and be stomped on.
Unfortunately this sort of politics goes back a lot further than Key's tenure, Moyle and Sutch are just two earlier victims.
A lot of National, Act and NZF people will be having a sharp intake of breath right now.
Also note that a lot of right leaning social media seemed to have a heads up and amplification ready to go. Then it all disappeared.
Oh yes Graeme. And there were other victims too. Some really nasty stuff took place in the 1970s and 1980s and I had the misfortune to have been once associated with one of the principle perpetrators. The truth has never been made public.
As for the current attempt to bring down Chris Hipkins, Newsroom has provided some of the answers:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/17/how-hipkins-claims-spread-from-facebook-to-news-headlines/
Further to the above:
I recall some months ago claiming on this site that "dirty politics' would rear its ugly head again this coming election year. It has happened.
[unlinked copypasta deleted]
I'm sure it can be easily confirmed from sources I don't have the knowledge or technical ability to access.
It does not necessarily follow that Casey Costello is involved, but it looks very much like Jade Paul is being used by unscrupulous individuals in election year. Shades of Colin Moyle indeed!
Anyone can link to substack posts. It works just the same way as providing any other link (copy/paste)
it's this. Nick Rockel quoting AI.
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/maligning-mr-hipkins
My patience is running out.
I recall Chris Hipkins himself isn't adverse to smearing people when it suits him. [deleted]
Live by the sword etc
[my patience just ran out. You of all people (because of you mod history) know better than to run casual smear lines like this. We’re not FB. If you want to make an argument, make the god damn argument. Take 2 days off – weka]
I deleted a paragraph.
1. you can link to the substack (even if it's paywalled)
2. If you can't link, then don't quote.
3. Rockel's source was AI, which isn't really a source at all.
I linked in this thread to the FYI document that shows Paul's history of working as a ministerial advisor.
I've not seen anything other than conjecture and rumour to suggest that this was Dirty Politics. It might be, and it might not be.
Also, even if the timing is (arguably) dirty politics, it doesn't mean that the substance isn't true.
Hipkins saying "I reject the allegations" is not the same thing as saying this set of allegations is entirely and completely untrue.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/03/16/i-reject-the-allegations-labour-leader-hipkins-on-ex-wifes-claims/
I don't know whether there is any substance in all of this, or not.
[lprent: The legal basis for making allegations (whatever they are) is to provide substantiation. This may be to police or another legal body. It may be to provide it in a legal format in a civil matter. But it does require up-front substantiation. That allegations are true or not – they are simply useless without substantiation.
The substantiation comes from the person making allegations. Not from the person(s) they are directed to
That is isn’t relevant both in law and on this site. It is up to the person making allegations and for anyone repeating or amplifying those allegations to substantiate it. Neither Hipkins, nor this site need to try to disprove the allegations.
You haven’t provided any substantiation. So I assume you are either defaming someone without substantiation, or repeating that defamation when you say “it doesn't mean that the substance isn't true.”
That puts both me and the site in bad legal position. Since I don’t want that and because you know the damn rules, you are Banned for 8 weeks.
Come back with a clearer appreciation of the law about defamation. ]
Unless she can get the MSM to do the story properly, I don't see the point. I'm sure that some of it is true, but SM posts aren't reliable for establishing fact. She vented, fair enough.
Whether it was driven by Dirty Politics is a different matter. Also can't see how this can be established at the moment.
sysop note
I can see that this won't be published.
But, I think this response is utterly childish.
I have not linked to or reported *anything* which is not in the MSM. I have been *very* careful not to do so.
There is no *possible* way that I am defaming anyone. Anymore than the OP – who put up a waffly statement that they didn't believe the allegations – leaving everyone to infer or try to interpret what they were referring to.
If you don't want this discussed on TS – then put up an outright ban.
You do what you want (of course) on your site – but don't pretend any impartiality, or to treat all posters with equal dignity.
As I said – you clearly don’t understand the laws on defamation.
That isn’t a defence in the courts. They may have made mistake (and often do).
I’m still liable if you link to it, quote, or even potentially opine on the basis of the false or unsubstantiated information. Even if I am successful in a defence, I’d have to spend time and effort defending your statements and our operations.
And let me make this utterly clear to you. It is only my assessment of risk that counts because we make a commitment to try not to reveal the identities of commenters who publish on our site. I don’t give a rats arse what you think the risk is, because you’re trying to make a risky decision on my behalf – and clearly you know absolutely nothing about the risks – and you clearly don’t care that I carry the risk.
OP? Whoever it was, their waffling did exactly the correct thing on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions of fact and a straight denial. Give a general opinion without starting anything as if it is a fact, just saying what you feel about it without bothering to try to weight a judgement. In effect the discussion should be about yopu and why you are leaning one way or another. In your case bias, bile, and bigotry would be my opinion of your motives.
But you weren’t %**%%*%!!, in my opinion, trying to discuss it. I read down the comments and it is my opinion that your frequent comments in that post were solely just trying to amplify – not discuss anything substantive. FFS: there really isn’t anything to discuss because there are literally no facts to frame an opinion around. But all the way through it you were operating as if teh allegations were true – without giving any reason why you thought they were.
What you were doing was blowing hot air into a political balloon on the basis of innuendo on social media and your own personal bile.
Of course I’m not impartial – I am the system operator. Only a complete fuckwit would think I am impartial when it comes legal matters on this site.
I carry the legal can on here when you screw up – you do not. Your lack of respect for that fact, and the moderators trying to limit you doing it (and thereby drawing my attention) is what got you banned.
It can be discussed. On the basis that it is from unsubstantiated claims by someone on social media that have been outright and directly refuted by the recipient. That immediately makes it a probable legal matter.
People who actually know the two people concerned may have opinions on the veracity of either. But unless they also can substantiate actual facts rather than simple hearsay or feelings, they’d better confine their opinions to what they can prove. Virtually no-one else can really do much in the current situation, and certainly not someone writing comments under a psuedonym – who can’t even claim personal knowledge.
Belladonna, look at this way. People forget that The Standard is not Facebook and has to act responsibly as a publisher.
Hipkins in his press conference just now said he hasn't taken legal advice about his ex-wife's FB posts, but did take legal advice about "the potential publication of allegations against me that untrue"
Statement is at 3 minutes in
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/589838/watch-labour-leader-chris-hipkins-holds-media-conference-over-ex-wife-s-allegations
It's not hard to see why the owners of The Standard would want to be careful.
While I entirely support not linking to the copies of the original FB post, which are in wide circulation; linking to the mainstream news articles covering the issue is helpful to decide exactly what you are talking about.
Politicians private lives have never (or at least not in the last 40 years) been 'off limits'.
We generally don't block making links to articles from mainstream media – they are quite aware about legal implications.
We will block such links if they repeat instantiated allegations in any detail. It simply isn't the media's role to act as either police nor the legal system that polices defamation.
So this link is really borderline. It repeats some of the allegations, but does it in the context while talking on another topic. It also makes it clear that the allegations are unsubstantiated, and denied by the target of those allegations.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/03/17/how-hipkins-claims-spread-from-facebook-to-news-headlines/
Personally I find that article to be getting very close to the bounds of what I'd tolerate from my legal perspective on this site.
On the bright side, even his ex wife prefers Labour's jobs, housing and health policies.
“Powerful” men being accountable to women, is more about this government’s priorities as per pay equity and not paying the IRD rate for employees car use etc.
Looks like one of the exs in question works for Costello of the nzf party. ?
AFIAK, there is only one 'ex' in this scenario (unless you're referring to something other than the Hipkins issue). It's a bit difficult to decode exactly what you're referring to…..
If you want to make a statement about someone's employment, as a factor relevant to the issue, you really do need to back that up.
yep.
here's the only confirmation I've seen that Paul has worked for Costello at some point
https://fyi.org.nz/request/29032/response/113741/attach/4/OIA%20277%20Response.pdf
scroll down to the email from Paul.
Thanks, Weka.
I wasn't arguing that it was untrue. I just had no evidence where the info came from (man in the pub, or reputable source).
I know, I was agreeing with you. I put a mod note at the top of the page 👍
I can't see that page?
Looks like FYI have taken it down.
It’s up again – see 6 Sept 2024 email from Paul, on p14 of OIA-277 response PDF.
Interesting timing for “the original FB post” – when does the next poll come out?
that’s a hot mess of formatting. please be more careful.
Next (today’s) poll here.
So dumb seeing Trump make Chinese assistance to opening the Strait of Hormuz a condition for a US state visit and mitigation of US trade sanctions.
He's not very good at this.
The Saudi perspective on oil supply constraints, and their response. Looks like China will be looked after via Red Sea, India not so much. Japan and Korea allocation down 20%. Piece is an interesting read for the geopolitical and business subtexts in this.
https://houseofsaud.com/yanbu-bottleneck-saudi-oil-allocation-hormuz-bypass/
How we and Australia fare out of this I'm not sure, but as of as last Friday ABC weren't hopeful
And who created the mess in the first place?
So now the Ugly American in the White House wants everyone else to clean up the crap! Typical infantile behaviour from someone who shirks all responsibility.
He's like a three year old who breaks his tricycle by doing something his parents told him not to do, then blames his parents for the broken tricycle and demands they fix it for him instantly.
How in God's name did we end up with a toddler running the most powerful country in the world.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/392061989531
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n7ahBDAuNCw
It might be a way of pulling other countries closer to the fire (and possibly into it), by putting them over a barrel [pun]: either you protect your tankers or you won’t have your oil. Then, it’ll get twisted to buy-in and support for this war from the outset because people/public tend to pay much less to chronological details and/or don’t give a toss, i.e., to save face and claim some tortuous moral victory.
Decisions by panels operating under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 continue to give some interesting results. I expected the panels to be ministerial stooges, rubber stamping development in all cases just to draw a salary, but that has not happened – at least not so far.
A wind farm near Gore failed to get consent, while Trans-Tasman Resources lost out on a bid to mine the seabed off Taranaki.
However, a film hub with 200 accommodation units proposed for a site near Arrowtown has provisional approval, (see ODT, 17 March) even though the panel chairman said there was considerable uncertainty over the extent of national benefits from the proposal and effects on the landscape would be more than minor.
A hydro scheme on the Waitaha river has also got a green light.
I would hope that a new government would repeal the fast-track law, but you never know; some ministers would find it very attractive.
Hunter-this is NOT a film hub. This is 200 hugely lucrative so-called accommodation units that will be sold off, with a film hub as a fig-leaf.
The neighbours are livid, ropeable, and who can blame them. Under the atrocious fast track legislation District Plan provisions are ignored, and they have no right of appeal.
The fast track legislation must go; McAnulty, sorry Hipkins, take note.
Removing a right of appeal from the citizenry is a huge retrograde step.
The Natz have a history of destroying democracy. In the Key years they cancelled democratic local government at ECan in order to foster yet more intensive dairying in Canterbury.
Excessive nitrate levels in water supplies are one consequence,
Belladonna the only stiff thing I've read was doubling down on the hipkins story, by some mindless tool. There is another labour man have his private life used against him I'm not saying who because it only helps the scum bags,
It would help the conversation if you would link to what you are reading. Other people could link too.
I've just put a note up top saying we need sources and links for claims of fact re this story. Please do this going forward.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-17-03-2026/#comment-2057673
If you mean the Hipkins allegations – which you've now confirmed, that you do.
It's been widely covered in mainstream media – so not sure what you mean by "the only stiff thing I've read was doubling down on the hipkins story, by some mindless tool."
All examples from yesterday afternoon/evening.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/jade-paul-chris-hipkins-ex-wife-on-her-decision-to-post-allegations-to-facebook/ELL3CHYCYRHCFH26NZOSXCGPHM/
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/03/16/i-reject-the-allegations-labour-leader-hipkins-on-ex-wifes-claims/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/589732/chris-hipkins-ex-wife-makes-series-of-unsubstantiated-claims-about-him
The story has continued to build today.
Stewart Island power runs on diesel and Gull who supplies tge generator just ran out. Lots of rushing around.
Watch this cascade.
The government still sitting on its hands?
Can generators run on biodiesel?
Solar is always the answer.
probably only part of the answer on Stewart Island, but it's not going to help them this week.
I'm living in Invercargill at present.
Just started checking the insolation here with a small solar panel and a meter, as there exists a reasonable probility we may settle here, and I start a solar + wind system to break out of the power grid for when I need to live within a fixed budget.
The solar power levels look pretty damn good even when there is overcast weather. There is a lot of energetic UV though which will eventually degrade solar panels.
Eying up some more extensive testing gear.. https://www.pbtech.co.nz/category/smart-home-security/smart-home-appliances/weather-stations
not too many places in NZ where solar wouldn't improve things (parts of the West Coast?).
I had thought Stewart Island had less sunshine hours than Invercargill, but a quick google suggests it's the other way around.
Oban is about 47º south, in the Europe that would be the middle of France, and south of all of Germany. So not that high a latitude.
I was thinking more of cloud cover/rain.
Not that different to Dunedin or Christchurch, and better on the Island. In Invercargill it's the wind, that's character building, but doesn't affect solar, unless it rips the panels off the roof
Oban has better weather than Bluff/Invercargill.
Similar weather patterns and relationship to a strait, to Wellington and Nelson.
SW side of Stewart Island has ample wind, of course.
forgot about the shelter from the southerlies.
But will The Standard still run at night? 🙂
Wind works well for islands also.
The Islanders had to turn down a government grant to build two wind turbines because they couldn't get landowner approval to site / build them in 2022
But a government loan for a solar farm has been approved and they think they can find a site, so that'll reduce diesel consumption.
Wind would be ideal there, very rare day when there's no wind.
Much prefer solar to wind.
Moving parts. Here in the 'Tu there is such a thing as too much wind. Te Apiti and the other wind farms are located in the 7th windiest inhabited place on earth. Gearboxes get replaced annually.
Also bi-facial pnels allow for a bigger harvest. Can be mounted vertically and get direct sun except for high noon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifacial_solar_cells
I thought of possibility of tidal power for Stewart Island. This excerpt:
Michael Howland, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT, studies the physics of Earth’s atmosphere and renewable energy generation systems. He says that tidal power has one advantage over other renewable energy resources like wind and solar: predictability.
“Variations in wind patterns, weather, and turbulence make it inherently challenging to predict [wind farms’ electricity generation] across different time scales,” he says. Tidal patterns, however, are well-known and well-understood, reducing the need for backup energy sources. “That's a clear incentive for using tidal power,” he adds.
Another benefit of tidal power is its relatively high power output. Because water is roughly 830 times denser than air, tidal or ocean currents can generate more energy per unit area than winds. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-use-tidal-power-more
Stewart Island would be a great experiment in steady state, as it has a relatively stable population. The main issues with renewables is the difficult of using them in a perpetual growth economy. On Stewart Island there might be appropriate tide or wind power sites and they would be sufficient without the pressures of big population increases that exist on the mainland.
Interesting possibilities for Stewart Island. Good to see some thoughts.
Belladonna there was an article I read this am that I m sure has disappeared, but the fact that stuff is covering this at all is a disgrace , politicians private lives are off limits unless they break the law,
There was another trash fb post from the ex of a high ranking current labour mp this morning, I'm not saying who.
I also don't link to fb because it left my back door open the one time I tried
If you read the article – then you should link it.
TBH – it was impossible to work out if you were referring to Hipkins, or to someone else. I made the guess of Hipkins – but then you made a reference to someone else… so still in the dark, here.
If you don't want to provide any fuel to the fire – then not making a post on TS – would probably be optimal.
Evidently David Trump ACT our Acting PM wants to send a Frigate to the Middle East.
If we're sending Defence Force assets to the ME, they should be going to the Red Sea, not the Gulf. We've got experience there and it's more related to our trade. Also we'd get favour from Saudi for what oil is getting out, rather than getting shot at for what might.
Best case however is to try and keep as far away as possible, if we can.
The Big Chief Luxon story in Samoa is a textbook example of how not to turn trivia into a headline.
The original claim ("Luxon asked for it") was effectively rebutted by MFAT, and (IMO) the denial was credible enough to make it a non-story. Everyone moves on.
Then, in his usual ham-fisted fashion, Luxon manages to make it worse by refusing to answer questions.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon refuses to say if he tried to call off Samoa matai ceremony | RNZ News
A non-issue turns into Prickly PM vs Media, yet again (see "fricking targets", etc).
(And this was meant to be an easy week off … out of the country, no post-Cab, no Qs in House).
He is hopeless.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the history of the current PM of Samoa.
He seems to have a habit of making untrue claims.
https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/editorial/118938
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what I actually said.
Charge. Hormuz. Afghanistan. Iraq.
Maybe the Pentagon only attacks targets with a Scrabble score of 12 or higher.
Been watching the Daily show by chance 😉
Sure did! He was great interviewing 4 versions of Trump.
Certainly more fun than watching Kiwisaver at the moment.
I presume there's a betting market for which country with v high $US dollar-denominated debt can no longer pay for its oil imports. Egypt. Pakistan. Vanuatu.
Then we find out which bank is looking the weakest, 2008-style.
Ask AI
Jon Stewart's original surname is
Leibowitz (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz).
The Scrabble value for the name LEIBOWITZ is 17, calculated as follows:
Total: 1+1+1+3+1+4+1+1+10 = 17.
He legally changed his name to "Stewart" in 2001.
I’ll just note he fails to spell Jonathon or Stuart properly.
Finally! Clarity around National’s Fuel Plan.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-03-2026/live-nicola-willis-gives-the-fuel-crisis-the-full-1pm-briefing-treatment
Rumours that Iran ate all our pies and drove up the price for mince in the supermarket are untrue.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/589430/beef-lamb-onions-and-wine-kiwi-dinner-time-staples-in-huge-demand-offshore
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/589814/mince-records-biggest-annual-increase-since-data-began
Minimum wage increases: 2020-2026
Guess which years it was above the inflation rate.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360968196/minister-brooke-van-velden-considered-0-minimum-wage-increase-documents-reveal
Fast track approved for mega development on a flood plain (and good horticultural land)
Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Watercare opposed it.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360968332/auckland-council-considering-options-after-housing-mega-development-flood-plain-fast-tracked-despite
https://archive.li/tq0IX