Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 27th, 2026 - 47 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 …
David Seymour ACT/Atlas Group is a dangerous man here in NZ going down the road of Racial Separation and wanting to rewrite the Laws here in NZ, National and NZF going along with the ride with their heads in the sand, the COC Government has done more harm to Race Relations in this country than any other previous Government in my humble opinion.
Sir Ian Taylor writes a very good article in Stuff News this morning.
Any sane, open minded New Zealander should read this article. Questioning why ACT with 8.64% weilds so much power and influence wasting millions of $$$'s, on racially divisive policies. Also wanting to have the power to rewrite Laws here in NZ ???
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361025010/david-seymour-got-864-vote-he-shouldnt-be-rewriting-rules-our-courts
It's luxons that's the main problem, can't even be bothered to read seymours proposal, just a figure head, for the real theives running national
Today's piece by Sir Ian Taylor will injure ACT significantly, imo and an unpleasant response from Seymour is sure to surface during the day; his boil's been lanced.
Agree the sooner we see the demise of Seymore and ACT/ATLAS the better off NZ and all New Zealanders.
But will ian still vote national?
It feels as though he wants to…
Surely he's not that foolish??
Imagining that Luxon might behave differently if "given another chance" is delusional.
I remember him righting an article not long after the election having serious buyers regret
Sir Ian Taylor, yeah? nah.
'I ticked National twice, I didn't vote for ACT?/Seymour'.
I'm not buying it Sir Ian. You clearly are an intelligent man. You can't vote National and not vote ACT. He thens waxes lyrically aginst Treaty Principals Bill and now the attacks on judges.
Not a whisper on van Velden's attacks on workers safety. Mute on her stealing money from the pay packets of the poorest in the guise of the Pay Parity just to balance the budget. No worries there, none of them would be spending with his business interests.
He did vote for an out of her depth Finance Minister preaching austerity but with her English qualifications uses different phrasing. Sensationally shrunk the economy by shrinking the public service and cost us 100s of millions of dollars by cancelling the ferry contract. Amateurishly. You really have to try hard to offend a trading partner more than she did.
He did vote for those that worship at the altar of the economy. He voted for the continued deliberate underfunding of the Health System. No problems there though, private health insurance alleviates that concern. I can't see him sitting in a crowded, disease ridden ED for hour upon hour.
Not that it is any of my business, anyone with a property portfolio will be happy with the Nats performance.
I would be less scathing if he stated that he would not vote for them next time.
Hollow words from Tory scum.
Totally!
I might put it more mildly but the overall point is spot on.
"I didn't know what I was voting for" is the worst take from people complaining about this government.
I prefer "they're terrible and I don't care, I'm sorted". At least that's honest.
(And FWIW, I know that in voting for the opposition, which I will, I'm voting for various problems to follow if they do win, as their disagreements are in plain sight. I won't be pretending that the predictable couldn't be predicted, as Taylor does).
"I was blindsided once. I don’t want to be blindsided again."
No you weren't.
Oh – (Sir) Ian Taylor frothing with excitement at suddenly realising something that anyone with half a brain saw instantly years ago. Specifically, that when Seymour states that the basis of Maori rights under the Treaty is 'race' rather than indigeneity, he is deliberately muddying the waters so that he can appear to be a great champion of racial equality.
But Taylor doesn't get the second part. That Seymour is doing this because, in reality, he's fronting a campaign to shut down the notion of indigenous rights to natural resources, because such rights are a complication, a mode of resistance to their privatisation and extraction by global and domestic capital. And that National is in agreement with that objective, but just a bit uncomfortable with the electoral implications of Seymour's approach to doing it.
So not seeing the second part will probably mean the Taylor keeps voting National and joins some stupid campaign to get rid of MMP, thereby drawing the totally wrong conclusions from the phenomenon he has just pointed out.
God help us that Taylor is so wantonly awarded these undeserved column inches by NZ media.
The long and the short of Seymore/ACT/ATLAS modus operandi is the TOW and the Waitangi Tribunal problems it creates, the fact that it is a Road Block to Corporate Development and Land Aggregation here in NZ.
One of ACT's main backers is founder Alan Gibbs who was involved with the Kinloch Land Block Purchase in Taupo, which has a number of question marks, the purchase with Sir Keith Holyoak’s Family, National Party PM, in the 1950-1960's, I believe has still not been resolved under a TOW Claim by Iwi/Hapu in Taupo I believe ???
Someone on this site may be able to clarify if the Kinloch Land Purchase Issue was resolved by the Waitangi Tribunal ?
Refer Public Office, Private Gain ? Werewolf Site on Sir Keith Holyoak's Kinloch Purchase and the Tihoi Block.
Thank God that he is!!
There are leaders and there are followers.
Sir Ian Taylor is a man respected by many conservative people and they will take notice of his opinion that he got shafted by how he voted in the last election.
Many will follow him this time.
He is well respected and is also Environmentally and Culturally Conscious.
Well reasoned and expressed, AB.
One key policy Labour has right is its commitment to remove of the so-called "regulatory relief" provisions in the new RMA.
These provisions will force Councils who decline subdivision applications, usually because they have significant adverse effects on landscape values, to pay massive amounts to landowners as compensation.
In the Queenstown Lakes District (where I live) this will mean the Council would be faced with bills into hundreds of millions of dollars. In reality the legislation means Councils will be powerless to avoid subdivisions being rammed through in completely inappropriate locations wrecking views of landscapes.
Brooking says her party [Labour] will “100 percent” repeal the regulatory relief provisions if elected…….these would see councils pay to offset environmental protections enforced on private property…. “
Regulatory relief, aka, regulatory taking is evil and issued forth from Seymour as you expect it might.
It is very good to read Brooking's pledge.
It's vital that this Government is extinguished at this election.
Totally agree, I'd be a bit blunter and describe it as a legislatively enshrined blackmail scam.
Can see some of the wide boys down here rubbing their hands together waiting to give this a run.
Seymour and Bishop must have rocks in their heads if they can't see the consequences of this provision.
Even better if Labour decided to repeal the government's two Bills that will (if passed) replace the Resource Management Act.
A few days ago Greenpeace and other NGOs called for the whole process to be halted because it basically means the environment must be plundered to prop up the economy: https://eds.org.nz/resources/documents/media-releases/2026/environment-ngos-call-for-dumping-of-the-governments-rma-replacement-bills/
"These two Bills will cause deep and lasting damage to New Zealand if they are passed in the last weeks of the Parliamentary term and allowed to stand.
They put at risk the natural environment that makes our country such a magical place to live. The very foundation of these Bills is wrong – it is premised on the idea that nature should be sacrificed to development at all costs. This is against the fundamental values of New Zealanders and the long-term interests of an economy heavily reliant on natural capital."
I see Bomber on TDB is slagging off the Greens for weakening their Wealth Tax by replacing it with a Super-Rich Tax. He really is an idiot sometimes (though often he gets it right).
The Green's SRT will raise roughly $4 Billion a year from the super-rich. It is cleverly targeted at the super-rich rather than pensioners who happen to still be living in a house that has gone up massively in value. IMO it is much better than the previous WT. Other tax changes are excellent too.
See them here:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/beachheroes/pages/71965/attachments/original/1782084525/GreensTaxPolicy2026.pdf?1782084525
Calculator here:
ARE YOU SUPER RICH?
https://www.greens.org.nz/areyousuperrich
And the answer for me from the calculator is no.
Bomber doesn't need to do the National scaremongering task for them.
Bomber is often daft when it comes to the Greens.
Bomber describes himself as a Marxist & therefore comes across as an annoying (rich white) university sociology student ..kinda like Rick on Young Ones. That being said a TOP vote will probably get better environmental outcomes than Chloe-river-to-the-sea.
An impressive result for the 28 US states that took Meta to court. Bet the 23 states that didn't bother to stand with California and others are ruing the day they didn't have the courage to stand.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/26/meta-social-media-addiction-trial-settlement
In the absence of a proper regulator for tech giants, this is a good start.
See your Ian Taylor (above) and raise you Wayne Brown …
Wayne Brown has given up on the government | The Spinoff
One voted for this government, the other signed a deal with them (since torn up by Luxon).
Truly browned off, he is.
The Government is a sham.
I think Brown really has the shits with this Government and I honestly don’t blame him, they are rudderless with no sense of direction. They are waiting for their handlers and sponsors to advise them what to do.
More on the political damage of datacentres, in case we needed it:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/26/data-centers-midterms-politicians-voters-sour-01050143
… for NZ it means stronger pressure to put them here in the South Island with cool climate, plenty of water, and lots of renewable energy, because the industrial demand for them is going through the roof.
Only two years ago I was thinking our primary energy generation policy need was regulations for offshore wind farms. And yet here we are.
To me, the critical aspect of hyper data centres is they cannot be shut down temporarily, no matter what the circumstance. If they won't "give" at all, something else has to; the network, the co-users of that network, the environment.
The aluminium smelter can at least reduce its production and thereby its electricity consumption. Not so the hyper data centre.
Well if data centers are so necessary and in demand . The market will surely dictate a hefty fee for renewable power and cool water. Hence a government worth having will seriously clip the ticket and pour those funds into making nz great.
A billionaire who lives in California and is worth NZ$15 billion is not happy about the state's proposed one-off Wealth Tax on people who have more than US$1 billion saying:
“I think it’s deeply un-American to seize people’s assets. It might be unconstitutional,”
My heart bleeds for him.
So sick of this entitled narrative.
They're billionaires as a result of a functioning society providing them customers. Time to cough up and keep it ticking over and maybe also face some consequences about how you got there.
Maybe our billionaire friend should find what is deeply American, Something like what is written on the Statue of Liberty- a sonnet, no less, which ends
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
A bit of lamp lifting and shedding of light is in order…..
Highlights how entrenched the concept of property rights is, so much so that when remedial provisions that in fact help keep the whole unlevel playing field going are needed, these too are criticised as theft.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361025284/horrible-toxic-place-why-stanford-and-luxon-still-use-platforms-they-hope-ban
Leader of a political party that uses social media to spread lies in misinformation, call it a toxic place.
Fast-track is now officially a disaster for the National Party. Labour has a chance to jump in here with a vote winning policy to exclude all green field residential development from fast-track.
Hipkins should do this NOW.
“Making a mockery of local democracy.” That is how a group of five mayors, including Selwyn's Lydia Gliddon, have described the current fast-track housing applications in a letter to Housing and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop.
The mayors have called on the Government to pause existing greenfield housing fast-track applications and are asking all political parties to support legislation to remove residential developments in rural areas from the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024.
“By doing so, we will return the system to the main purpose it was originally intended to serve, cutting through red tape to get nationally and regionally consented infrastructure,” the letter stated."
Floods in Nepal, fires in Nevada, severe drought in Western Europe. Is Nature trying to tell us something?
If so, the current government is deaf as a post.
Wilfully deaf – at least a post has no choice – these monkeys do.
Australian Court ruling on appropriate and reasonable speech v free speech.
Fagan’s Damning Verdict: Vandalism And Antisemitism Down Under
Wednesday, 26 August 2026, 1:12 pm
Opinion: Binoy Kampmark
The term “antisemitism” is now so commonly used as an accusation as to be placed beyond questioning. This is particularly so in countries claiming some protections for free speech or lawful assembly. Use that term to your heart’s content and stifle discussion. Carry a placard accusing Israeli policy of genocidal propensities – antisemitic. Raising the issue of dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israeli authorities – antisemitic. Mention specific slogans, some used with full throated approval by Israeli Zionists themselves – antisemitic. But an interesting New South Wales Supreme Court decision, delivered by Justice Desmond Fagan, restores much needed and merciful balance. Put it simply, not all acts directed at Israel or unflattering views held about that country, however crudely framed, carry the antisemitic streak….
Fagan reasoned that such phrases as “Fuk Israel” could only be considered antisemitic as “dictated […] according to established common usage in Australia”. He found that Farhat had not intended to “express hatred of Jews”. Slogans such as “Fuk Israel”, construed objectively, were “crude expressions of political hostility to the state of Israel”, a “curse against a foreign state”. They were “not antisemitic according to the ordinary understanding of that concept in the Australian community”. It also did not matter that the graffitied slogans had been made in a locality with a high proportion of Jewish residents: this did “imbue the curse with an antisemitic character.”
The judgment also gave the definition of antisemitism so treasured by the Australian government, most state governments and their agencies, and the Special Envoy for Antisemitism Jillian Segal, a frightful dressing down. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition deems antisemitism to be “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorically and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities...
After restricting the effectiveness of a CGT by making it extremely narrow then refusing to emtertain possible coalition partners costed tax plans, and then unnecessarily adopting the rights framing of government debt and the books, the Labour Party also then rejected reinstating the fees free scheme and now they promise not to increase the fuel levy:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1152768/labour-promises-not-to-increase-fuel-excise-for-a-full-term
What use is a red-coloured National party? Party vote Green and force them left.
I'll have a look at Labour's list vs the Greens before choosing, because I know Labour have some excellent new candidates. It's Labour's policies that are so anaemic.
Labour’s so dumb. Don’t fight’em on the ground they choose. Labourshould be setting the narrative: government enshittification since 23.
A party vote for Labour tells the party that there is support for these policies. Any new candidates are required follow the party line and we are Left waiting (excuse the pun) for another three years. There isn't time to tiptoe, if we want better politics we have to choose it.
Again I totally agree. Fortunately, there is a strong Green candidate in the electorate I vote in and she will absolutely get my electorate vote (the first time I haven't voted Labour in a long lifetime) plus my party vote.
If this results in National sneaking into this electorate because of a split left vote – so be it.
Labour will only get the message if we sent it so emphatically that they can't ignore it.
Neoliberalism with a smile is no longer acceptable for me!
If this results in National sneaking into this electorate because of a split left vote – so be it.
In fact, we want National candidates sneaking into electorates!
That's how we get rid of Nicola Willis …
Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is. Francis Bacon
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/francis_bacon_161730