Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, November 18th, 2025 - 46 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 …
Just a couple of dipsticks?
All part of the schmoozing ?
Who are "we" schmoozing? A grifting conspiracist….
What is Judith trying to sign "us" up with?
My cynical take is that demonstrating that NZ 'authorities' can ignore the rules and the evidence/scientific advice to an appointee of Trump will put us on side with the Americans as being fellow-travellers on the slippery road to authoritarianism.
Aye Mac, nothing cynical there. And IMO, NACT1 are indeed the fellow travellers, fully willing and seemingly able to go down that road….
To be fair to the government, you can only schmooze the officials who actually exist, not the ones we wish we were dealing with.
As hopeless and sycophantic as Patel is, he is still, on paper, the Director of the FBI. That means he occupies a role New Zealand can’t simply ignore. Foreign policy isn’t a fantasy league: you don’t get to pick your preferred counterpart. You engage with whoever the US administration chooses to put in the chair, no matter how unserious or conspiratorial they happen to be.
So the issue isn’t that the meeting happened. It’s that the current US administration has left us no alternative but to humour a grifting conspiracist in order to maintain the diplomatic relationship.
That’s the real concern. Not the act of schmoozing, but what we’re being forced to stomach because Washington has handed us this particular envoy.
Never said it was. Anyway..so I'm kinda right…and kinda wrong about the shmooze fest of the grifting conspiracist ?…
IMO rather than thinking situational TINA "has left us no alternative" see things differently. As to the approach of Collins,et al, which IMO was, and is, wrong.
Or we could stop pretending that everything Collins touches is automatically immoral, and actually talk about how New Zealand is supposed to run a credible foreign policy in a world that’s becoming less credible by the day.
Oh, with the pretending now?
Or not. And I did put Collins,et al,….
Anyway, Instead of pander/schmoozing conspiracist grifters in support of a criminal fascist Pres.Trump..I'll go with Helen Clark and this very credible policy…
Curious to know if the mobile setting here is on the back burner or gone for good?
I get there is a lot of work behind the scenes to maintain and keep bad operators out. (Honestly that's lip service, I haven't the foggiest how much work is involved, but I'm picking it is shedloads.)
As I can't reply, this is @ Thinker on the '76% Kiwi…
In regards a UBI, Guaranteed minimum income, Opportunities have put that front and centre of their tax manifesto.
https://www.top.org.nz/policy
better to reply in that thread.
TOP's UBI policy has long been problematic. Good on them for keeping the issue in the political debate, but their model is designed by economists and it shows. The original Gareth Morgan version was anti-welfare, and some people would have been worse off than on a benefit. Later versions they tried to fix that but they still came across as relatively clueless as to why we have social security in the first place. They've toned down the anti-welfare position, but I can't help but feel it still underpins what they want to do.
https://www.top.org.nz/universal-basic-income-policy
Compare that to the Greens' Guaranteed Minimum Income, which is designed by wellbeing experts. And it shows. It addresses many of the deep rooted problems in our current welfare system, it targets the people who need support and doesn't give money to those who don't need it*
https://www.greens.org.nz/green_party_s_new_income_guarantee_for_every_new_zealander
*tbf, I can't remember if TOP's UBI claws back the UBI from higher earners.
TOP's stated policy doesn't claw back the UBI (Citizen's Income is the latest term – check under that heading) and didn't in the past either, but looks like will only be for "almost all adults" (children not mentioned) and also says "Detailed policy released in 2026".
don't think it's been scrapped, but the shift to the new servers has taken a fair amount of time.
can you use the Desktop version on your device?
Hard case, now I can reply.
I think it's desktop by default.
the Desktop version as a long standing issue wth people not being able to reply. I prefer it because it has the Replies list, and the reply threading makes better sense. But I mostly can't reply to a comment on my phone, which sucks.
I hate the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) and am glad Hipkins has promised to repeal it.
But for the record the Bill only that requires legislation to be assessed for consistency with its principles, and for any inconsistencies to be transparently reported, it does not require new legislation to be fully consistent with the principles and does not stop it from progressing even if inconsistent.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like a toothless tiger. In legal terms it has to be “taken into account” but is not binding. A complete waste of time?
The key worry I have with it is the principle that, should a person(s) wish to carry out a subdivision on their land and this was denied by a Council decision because it conflicted with District Plan provisions, would the Council have to pay compensation to the landowner for loss of profit or would the Council be able to say that it assessed its decision against the RSB but had decided not to pay compensation because it was not bound by it.
The appropriate time for scrutiny of a bill is at First Reading with a Regulatory Impact Statement, not after Parliamentary scrutiny is completed. The RIS is where all the relevant regulatory experts in Departmental and Agency teams have come to a settled and workable view about the intent of the regulation and have set out a regulatory framework for state agencies to actually make it work.
With good reason, sometimes this takes years.
This new agency has no expertise in any part of public law pertaining to regulation. And it should not exist.
My fundamental objection to this law is that it is utterly unanswerable to anyone. Not Police, not judges, not Cabinet, not the Governor General, not Parliament, nothing.
They are not lawmakers that my vote helped elect, nor are they sworn members of the Crown with a Crown warrant such as judges whose job it is to interpret and make judgements about this law. These "assessors" have no place in our democracy and no place in our entire regulatory enforcement.
More concerningly, the real risk isn’t in what the RSB currently requires, but in how it can be weaponised in the future.
All it would take is a single line in a future Act requiring it to “give effect to the principles of the RSB.” Overnight, those supposedly non-binding principles become legally operative. What is currently framed as a harmless transparency exercise would transform into a sprawling judicial minefield.
Once “give effect to” is in play, courts can no longer treat the RSB principles as optional context. They become mandatory considerations with real legal force. That invites litigation, creates uncertainty for councils and regulators, and enables well-resourced private parties to challenge decisions on the grounds that they didn’t adequately “give effect” to those vague, ideology-laden principles.
In other words, the RSB may look like a toothless tiger, but it has all the structural features of a Trojan horse.
It embeds a neoliberal conception of regulation into the law in a way that can be easily switched on later without ever needing to pass overtly deregulatory legislation
That’s the bit that worries me the most.
Yes – that would be an attempt to give legal force to political ideology in an abstract form. Normally, a political ideology makes its way into law in a particular form, such as a specific policy goal that is expressed through defined policy instruments and settings. In that way, the ideology sits in the background and the policy instantiates it. This would become very clear if Hipkins threatened to retain the RSB but amend it to replace the notion 'property rights' in the bill with a notion of the 'common good'. Maybe he should do that in order to make clear how egregious this legislation is – with the added bonus of apoplexy on the Right.
Add in 'principles of Te Tiriti" or similar for added outrage…
Rules for thee but not me, eh Bish.
/
Senior minister Chris Bishop used housing money earmarked for a stormwater project to fund a walking and cycling bridge in his electorate – against the advice of his officials.
The $27m in funding from state housing agency Kāinga Ora was needed because the Government’s new transport policy had slashed any funding for non-car infrastructure, documents exclusively obtained by The Post reveal.
Labour says Bishop is dipping into housing funds to “save face” in his electorate and should have recused himself from the decision – but Bishop says it was simply a “pragmatic” response to a complex situation.
It seemingly goes against a Cabinet Manual directive that ministers should not make major decisions about projects within their electorate, but Bishop says making the decision with Finance Minister Nicola Willis was an adequate safeguard.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360886396/chris-bishop-used-kainga-ora-money-fund-bridge-his-electorate
https://archive.li/PDeuT
Bishop says making the decision with Finance Minister Nicola Willis was an adequate safeguard.
That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.
So it turns out that Bishop supports walking and cycle tracks in his own electorate because he knows the majority of his electorate favours them and he doesn't want to lose votes. Because of this he will fiddle the books to make it happen.
But the rest of NZ can go to hell. Brilliant.
More a case of working around Brown’s (2024 decision) animus to funding cycle ways.
But the better solution involved funding for a rebuild of the Melling Station and replacing funding lost for storm drains to enable more housing.
Unofficial fast track via being Housing and Transport Minister?
Reminds one of the time of a PM who was Minister of Finance . Now it is who one knows/talks to to make it pretty legal.
Maintaining relationships for the post government/Luxon era?
…tulips…
/
Peter Thiel dumps top AI stock, stirring bubble fears
A quiet selloff raises fresh questions about AI’s surge.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/peter-thiel-dumps-top-ai-stock-stirring-bubble-fears
US hedge funds trim stakes in 'Magnificent Seven' stocks in third quarter
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-hedge-funds-trim-stakes-magnificent-seven-stocks-third-quarter-2025-11-15/
Interesting, though you have to remember Thiel invested in Facebook at the start and sold out presumably thinking it wasn't a winner.
The Nasdaq has only gone down 5.5% since its peak in October. But there are a lot of people saying the current tech P/E ratios are unsustainable. Watch this space.
Here is a politically-relevant joke I saw online that I thought you might appreciate. Sorry if anyone has already seen this:
A politician dies and goes to heaven. He is met at the gate by St Peter. The politician says "I didn't expect to end up here." St Peter replies "Not so fast. You need to decide whether you will spend the rest of eternity in heaven or hell. So you can make this decision, you will have to spend a day in each. So, first you are going to spend a day in hell".
St Peter then directed the politician into an elevator which went down, down, down until it stopped. The politician stepped out of the elevator and saw a lush green golf course in front of him. He went into a luxurious club house where he saw all his friends partying and having a great time. The devil was there also, who was a really funny, friendly guy mingling and having a great time with the people there.
The politician stayed there enjoying the company, and was sorry when his day came to an end and he had to step into the elevator and ascended back to heaven.
He stepped out of the elevator and was directed into heaven for his day there. He spent his day doing all sorts of heavenly things; singing in the choir; playing harps on clouds; flying around with wings; and all sorts of heavenly stuff. His day came to an end and he met up with St Peter to make his decision.
The politician said the St Peter that he had enjoyed heaven, but he thought he enjoyed hell most and wanted to be there. So, the politician stepped back into the elevator and went down, down, down to hell again.
When he stepped out of the elevator he saw a parched land in front of him with a scorching sun over head. His friends were all hunched over picking up endless amounts of rubbish from the ground and appeared absolutely miserable. The devil was a terrible tyrant whipping his friends to force them to work continually harder to the point of exhaustion.
The politician asked the devil "What has happened?? This was such a wonderful place when I was here last"'.
The devil replied: "Back then we were campaigning. But now you have voted."
Good one!
The gap between what the politicians promise and what they deliver is as wide as the Grand Canyon. They always fall back on standard excuses:
If all else fails, they blame Winston Peters.
All governments pretend they are in control when in fact they are not.
Indeed. If they were actually fully in control, they would be labelled (probably rightly) as authoritarian.
In some good news, it looks like tireless advocate Dr. Gary Payinda is getting the nod for Labour to run against Shane Reti in Whangarei next year. Exactly the sort of excellent candidate Labour needs.
I have heard Payinda interviewed on RNZ several times including yesterday. He is SO eloquent and he knows what is happening in the public health service having worked there many years.
His views of the current state of the public health service are damning.
The Little Napoleon will be having kittens-Moscow all over again.
As noted yesterday, here is the link and some of Dr Payinda's comments about standing for Labour, for those who want to read the article:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/579103/labour-selects-dr-gary-payinda-to-take-on-former-health-minister-dr-shane-reti
…"I've been working in the public health sector 18 years, and understaffing and infrastructure problems come and go – but an assault on a broader array of public services is a new thing.
"We've got a government that's bent on tearing up the social structure."…
I like Brandon.
.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
"Coming next year to the White House’s South Lawn: a mixed martial arts throwdown to be watched by thousands of spectators. Lasers and fireworks will light up the sky, with the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s Octagon cage flanked by the White House and Washington Monument, as combatants punch, kick and grapple each other. Many more people could watch on jumbo screens set up on the Ellipse, a park south of the White House, or other areas nearby."
[…]
So, UFC fighter Brandon Royval went on the In the Arena MMA podcast and explained why he would not be partaking if asked.
https://sports.yahoo.com/article/ufc-fighter-gave-eye-opening-183804026.html
Half the electorate is so stupid.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5o6k7jvowuyaquloafzn3cfw/post/3m5tfgeugn22n
@weka @2.2
Re. GMI/UBI I included Opportunities option for those that like the idea but would struggle to vote Green.
More of an option away from NZ1st.
Why would I vote pretend green (that has definite shades of blue) when I can vote for the real thing without the slightest struggle?
Steve Abel was impressive yesterday in relation to repealing the fast-track consents.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/579099/greens-pledge-to-revoke-fast-track-consents-for-coal-hard-rock-gold-seabed-mining-projects
Of all current MPs, Steve Abel would be my choice for Minister of Conservation.
The problem with "Opportunity"
1.UI to all and a flat tax regime is not progressive.
2.UI and the ability to afford the add-ons that beneficiaries need (child poverty might rise).
3.UI and land taxation as an extra cost of home ownership (Morgan developed the concept to reduce the numbers owning homes and instead have people saving into KS to afford renting in retirement).
One iteration of their UBI gave it to young people who were working, but not people on the dole, they were supposed to still live in poverty.
people who can't vote Green would be better off voting Labour. TOP are modern NZF, centrally positioned, and could support NACT into government.
+100 Weka
Javier Milei's rent control reversal boosted the Argentine economy
So, real world example where reducing control improves outcomes – not just for landlords but renters as well.
Really?
The problem was not just rent controls, but that any tenancy agreement was difficult with inflation that high.
Another was the currency one paid rent with – no one trusted the peso (given the inflation).
Milei ran for President with a policy to use the US dollar.
Instead he ran down the countries reserves to manage a dirty float (peso linked to dollar to reassure landlords).
Then required an American bail out ($20B to continue the dirty float).
Rightly so.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/579181/penny-simmonds-concerned-less-than-50-percent-of-trainees-completing-apprenticeships
Not mentioned is the likely provision of future work and the jobs being over the Tasman.
@ Bearded Git @ 9.1.
Any number of reasons that others might prefer pretend Green.
Competence, solidarity with women's sex based rights, discomfort with identity politics…
From Opportunities policy, they have something else in common with The Greens: “eliminate the current fast-track consenting process and reform the RMA to speed up consents while properly protecting the environment”
The Greens are happy with the RMA by and large. (There is no perfect system.)
I am highly familiar with the way it works-it works well. It is not pro-development-at-at-any-cost legislation which is what the COC is introducing.
Willis Luxon Seymour Jones etc are talking rubbish when they say the RMA slows down growth. I have lived in the Queenstown Lakes District the entire period during which the RMA has been operative (1990-2025) and growth in this District has gone literally bananas.
So the fact that TOP have bought into the "dump the RMA" meme is a major negative.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360890364/willis-blasts-greens-mining-intervention-doolally-economic-vandalism
Hypocrisy of the highest level, willis has left reality if she thinks she did anything other than a version of what the greens propose, without actually trying to provide replacement jobs like the greens, ( btw I'm anti coal mining, pro gold mining, and perched on the fence with seabed mining)