Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, April 30th, 2026 - 53 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 …
Patrick Morgan, from Cycle Action Network, was excellent on Morning Report this morning. He said the only thing the government had in the face of the oil price crisis was to roll out bigger trucks, which was "gobsmacking".
He advocated (among other things) was for free public transport and for safe and separate pop-up cycle lanes. Well worth a listen. Seymour, Peters and Bishop will be frothing at the mouth.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019032980/calls-for-urgent-rollout-of-safe-cycling-infrastructure
Patrick Morgan, apart from being a fantastic Cycling Advocate, is also a very erudite speaker on Sustainability incl, of course Public Transport, et al, (which incl Transport in general…)
I have Linked to Prof Robert McLachlan before, but here again. IMO he is very much on point here. And oh, if we had committed to this..in 2021? (Its a read…but well worth it !)
McLachlan excellent.
I said last week on TS that I feel a sea change in attitudes has taken place. The NZ people have realised that they have elected an incompetent and Trumpian government that only looks after its rich mates.
People like Morgan, McLachlan, and the Greens with their "Electrify New Zealand" policy, are starting to be listened to, where two and a half years ago nobody would have taken notice.
Aye BG, Comes the time, comes the realisation. The sad part for those of us who knew…is its going to take a shit load of hard work to reverse the terrible things NACT1 have implemented. Still, personally, (and I'm sure all those who care…many, many thousands ) will say, Challenge accepted : )
Nov 7th : Ditch the pricks '26 !
+100
Bishop said "they"were looking to see whether road-user charges for trucks would cover the cost of increased damage to roads.
He didn't say he was asking the public whether they were prepared to accept more road-works as a result of larger trucks.
Bishop doesn’t need to look into that unless he’s looking for an answer that suits him and National.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wroegkdxfkrE4hkhu5XfU_rwg_Qbw8sy/
Yea, for a party that campaigned on pot holes, it's a surprising move. /s
I'm genuinely surprised the issue of Maiki hasn't been explored here. There will be a series of such hits ahead and letting them slip by seems careless. Are we accepting face value? It'll be death by a thousand cuts if we're not alert.
It isn't being covered because of how cowed and incestuous the client journalism of the MSM is. But I agree – what we are seeing is truly extraordinary. You've got far-right bad faith online actors conniving with the government to undermine a broadcaster who isn't, in the view of Simeon Brown, sufficiently obsequious. So far so Slater/Farrar redux; the extraordinary thing – the Orban/Fidesz level of oligarchic abuse of power – is the way NZME is seemingly working with the likes of Ani O'Brien and Simeon Brown to launder and amplify the assault. NZME is a powerful multi platform media organisation that is increasingly persuing an editorial policy of disinformation/misformation that is becoming a genuine threat to liberal democracy in NZ.
Absolutely incredible that NZ is so far down the road to the consolidation of control of the MSM in the hands of far-right Oligarchs like Jim Grennon and no one seems to have noticed.
Thank you, Sanctuary, you've said that very well.
If this is something we are going to be increasingly subject to between recently and the election, it's going to be very ugly indeed. Mountain Tui has weighed-in with comments along the line of those you've offered, as has Paul-the other one.
It concerns me that it has made so little a splash on the Left.
Just a thought:
It could be TVNZ is planning a defamation case against Ani O'Brien. If Sherman did use the word claimed – or something similar – then you can bet your bottom dollar she was provoked into it. Is that why the recipient was reluctant to take the matter further at the time?
Fair thought, Anne.
The invisibility of whatever Lloyd Burr said is … curious, as is the timing of the "outing", along with a number of other details.
It's quite stinky.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360972324/tvnz-reporters-face-possible-ban-parliament
Badge of honour…
That was for the door-banging and badgering, so hei aha, I'm not going to lose sleep over that. Brownlee's ruling there seems legit.
Sure, but who is it saying there was "banging on the door"? More faux outrage Trumpian style I'd say.
Polite knocking then.
whispers
"Excuse me Minister, may I have a moment of your precious time?"
You got it.
I think TVNZ are more concerned with trying to bury the item, thus the legal letter they sent to Newstalk ZB trying to kill it. If they feel they have a case against this Ani O'Brien for false claims or something, they should go for it.
Yes that is an example of something sinister from that side!
Just to be silly for a moment, lobbying reforms.
This regime is so transparently beholden to lobbyists and donors, surely it is time for meaningful change. Buy that I mean if a group is lobbying parliament and MPS, then their budget, funders and funding should be transparent.
Yes, on one side of the ledger it is commercially sensitive but on the other, far more important side, they are public officials who represent people.
I would like to know the size of the trucking lobby because the likes of the supermarkets, Fonterra and other transport bodies have a keen interest in keeping at least the status quo.
This has been made manifest by the brain dead suggestion of bigger loads on trucks to save fuel. You just can't write this stuff.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Increase loads by 10% so only 10 trucks are required to carry the load of 11. One truck less.
Heavier loads means increased fuel consumption for those 10 trucks. Physics: energy is required to move mass, higher mass = greater energy. (10% higher fuel consumption may not be an unreasonable estimate)
10% more fuel for each of the 10 trucks = 100%, the amount of fuel 'saving' by not needing the 11th truck.
In the case of 10 vs 11 trucks you're not moving the weight of the 11th truck itself, so there will be a marginal fuel saving.
On the other hand, overall, whatever shipping the company is doing could probably be made more efficient with greater savings. This would reduce shipping costs with a reduction of business to the transport companies involved.
It won't save much on fuel but will reduce delivery cost, need to factor in the saving in RUC's with one truck less.
The biggest saving is drivers pay.
But even if there are small fuel savings it makes no sense as the damage trucks do to roads goes up almost exponentially as you add weight, so the long term road repair costs will be massive.
BG. It just doesnt seem to get through to some. Its the Fourth Power law.
I have followed this for many years. And…always the Nats pushing the trucker cause. From 44 tonnes to…53 tonnes. Thanks Steven pretty legal Joyce you egg.
And do they pay their fair share? As if…
Great info Psych.
Lobbying. I seem to remember from the early days of neolib one admin head of Education saying she had to wait till 11pm at night before she could get access to the Minister when all the lobbyists had tripped of (but not from high enough points to damage their little butts.) She may have been exaggerating the time, but the image was telling.
Well this is Interesting. He said, He said? Or confirmation of what some of us already knew..(and I dont just mean the internal rot of the NACT1 coalition..)
"explicit public support"
And, "clearly articulate" ? Surprise me not…
Luxon’s office said this:
Casting aside this astonishing position, claiming ‘explicit public support’ for the US starting the war with Iran would be a fantastic projection of the PM’s views onto NZ. It would also be a lie, based on the views of Kiwis a few weeks later.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2026-04/attitudes-to-the-iran-conflict-ipsos-global-advisor-april-2026.pdf
Luxon has never been one of us, he cannot speak of ‘we’, and he cannot speak for us.
Summed. I would add that IMO, he is a CEO completely out of his depth here, seemingly of which a puddle might have been too much.
I think we are holding onto vestiges of 20th century. The twisty pollies have worked their ideas of democracy around to assuming the PM role as similar to a King and so 'that' voice proclaims. Elections are just a triennial fete to give us the impression we can decide our fate!
And since we have not been able to stop this relentless monetarism and gross accumulation of money and assets, and have allowed our citizens' legal system to admit corporations as 'people' in legal disputes (so assymmetrical) it is no wonder that pollies and others think the law's an ass and our wishes just a lot of braying; and no use praying. Kings don't acknowledge religion except when it is to their advantage. Sorry to be so negative but all this is from observed, read and lived experience.
The Spinoff has done a good piece on the pros & cons of heavier trucks on NZ roads.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-04-2026/is-lifting-heavy-vehicle-restrictions-worth-potholes-and-noise
OK weirdness politics question:
Should Labour pull Helen White from Mt Albert and do the deal to let Quelae Wong of Opportunities Party win a seat?
This would mean, like Act when it was low-polling, that Opportunities Party would not have to get to 5% to get into Parliament. This in turn would create a viable coalition partner for Labour that may not need NZF, or indeed TPM.
Sure, Labour probably won't do this, but National have had a real luxury coalition partner for 4 terms with their electoral arrangement.
Not sure if TOP could be trusted not to go with National.
I really like that idea but is there a better seat to do it in. Mt Albert is a bit risky isn't it? The majority was only 18 votes.
National's electoral arrangement was sinical but other that 2008 it only really delivered them 1 extra seat when ACT was under 5%.
can someone run that through the MMP calculator to see how viable it is? Esp re the overhangs from TPM.
Stitching up pre-election deals is a very bad idea, in my opinion. It breeds cynicism and distrust, it reduces/removes genuine choice for voters, and it’s patronising & arrogant towards voters. It also encourages binary bloc thinking and could pre-emptively influence post-election coalition talks. To avoid situations when/where such shady deals might be tempting, we should lower the electoral threshold.
Not by much though – having a low threshold in Israel seemed to muddy the waters and not a good thing though done with the best of intentions for the citizens. But France, one election when Le Pen was strong on an anti-immigration wave I think, had sixteen approx. splinter (mostly left?) parties which nearly resulted in a Le Pen win. Though I think that name is long-lasting like Farage. Politics is certainly far-out, and worthy of attention from The Far Side!
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/06/05/electoral-review-recommends-35-threshold-voting-age-of-16/
Personally, I’d completely abolish the electoral threshold but NZ isn’t ready for that by a long shot.
It's about 0.8% for a seat. An electorate seat to qualify for this.
One seat, 1.6% party list thus 2 seats.
Scaling
without an electorate seat or 5% of the vote
Half rate access
1.6% one seat
3.2% two seeats
4.8% three seats.
That's idealist surely. Not pragmatic, not practical as everyone who has a brainfart that they know how to run the country and can raise a dust (now easier for you on Facebook, join the in-throng), can't be let loose. We are the oddballs giving Sir Roger a high position for his Very Good Idea.
Had that in 1984 under FPP.
The "brainfart" I mean.
FOMO? If Labour doesn't do a TOP deal, maybe the Nats will -they're the experts.
The NAct partnership is a lock – LaTOP not so much, so no, not a fan of such a deal.
Still wondering if TOP is not a straw man party to split the left vote.
Some of the people fronting it appear genuine, but, look at the funders.
I think people are getting a bit sidetracked by coalition handwringing here.
The cleanest path is still Labour and the Greens winning enough party vote to form a government, with TPM there if needed on confidence and supply. Everything else is secondary.
Yes, TPM overhangs could affect the arithmetic. Yes, NZF could end up relevant. Yes, an electorate deal with TOP is theoretically interesting.
But none of that replaces the actual task, which is persuading more people to vote for a Labour-led government. If Labour can’t do that, clever coalition engineering won’t save it. If it can, most of these problems become much less important.
Beyond the confabulations of a dementia patient, the man is deranged.
.
On Sunday April 26 President Donald J. Trump sat down with Norah O’Donnell for a CBS “60 Minutes” interview the day after a shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner.
That evening a 13-minute edit of the interview aired on CBS. The network also published the full 40-minute version on “60 Minutes Overtime.”
I went through both and made a transcript of exactly what was included and what was cut from the shorter version that aired on network television.
https://decodingfoxnews.substack.com/p/trumps-cbs-60-minutes-interview-what?r=1nd17&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Before lowering threshold for parties to Parliament, is the urgent need to have a bar on long lengths of time as politician, and separately having no-one over 59 with no exceptions even if a by-election or such is required to replace. We need to stop the rot. And also that applies to workers in Parliament – the admins and so on. What we lost in wise experience that was good would be matched by cutting out some of the bad. They would still be able to manipulate the youngers, but let's spread the advantage, better distribution amongst us peeps.
You might like to take a moment to check all the 59 year olds in recent history that would have been forced out of Parliament.
Interesting to know. I dread the current wave of youngers thinking to flood Parliament and knowing less than the incumbents but carried forth on a wave of ideology. Damn ideology, most is just reckons that should be the subject of worthy and lengthy discussions set against possible scenarios to assess their verity.
I've had an idea, based on the ideology that it is good to let off steam from a well-cooked dish. Can we have a few rants written with more thoughts than scurrilous terms? So much of discussion is mechanical, which is necessary. But concerns about people and the loss of values we thought we had, and abandonment to high tech needs to find an outlet.
We care for more than just the machine, the process don't we, and the systems which are important in managing our world. Or are we now the ghosts in the machine? Hah. What about it mods, can the fervent spirits come out a bit and then settle down to be practical?
By the by my view of NZ fervent and practical is dominated by Frank Worsley 1872-1943, he captained Shackleton's ship Endurance on the south polar expedition 1914-17. Then WW1 and adventures. When sailing far north near the Arctic at 81o15'N Worsley ensured the New Zealand flag was flown at the spot. We need spirit and determination and ability now to navigate through the tech currents of the modern monetised mindfield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Worsley#Later_life
Frank Worsley, a greatly underated New Zealander.
This man has his hands on the nuclear button.
/
Had President Trump, we wondered, possibly been reading or at least thumbing through— just maybe —the works of … Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel?
Impossible. And yet. Hegel’s theory of “world-historical individuals,” men who redirected the course of humanity, focused on three figures: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon Bonaparte. Hegel described them as unlikely “heroes of an Epoch” for upending established orders that had previously seemed fixed. They were “practical, political men” who were each condemned in their age for smashing norms and for other conduct “obnoxious to moral reprehension”—as Trump has been accused of, centuries later.
And though Trump has long compared himself to America’s two greatest presidents, we were recently told by two people who are in a position to know such things—a senior administration official and a longtime Trump confidant—that the president had, in private conversations, begun thinking about himself less as a peer of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and more as an addition to Hegel’s immortal trifecta.
“He’s been talking recently about how he is the most powerful person to ever live,” the confidant told us. “He wants to be remembered as the one who did things that other people couldn’t do, because of his sheer power and force of will.”
https://smry.ai/www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/donald-trump-legacy-history/686817