Open Mike 16/09/25
Open Mike 16/09/25
Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 16th, 2025 - 116 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 …
CommentsOpinions
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
God bless these troublesome priests
New Post up:
God bless these troublesome priests
More wise words on Charlie Kirk – and these ones I'm pretty sure are not AI generated!
Less than 4 mins long.
Be that as it may, I have found you are far better informed to listen to the horses mouth for context and a deeper understanding.
As an example, I had 2 friends tell me that Jordan Peterson wanted to have enforced monogamy.
When listening to the whole presentation, you find out it was in a context of an ideal. That males are better for society when they are focused inwards and working at a stable, loving relationship. That is pretty straight forward.
Nothing to do with oppressing women, which is the angle it was presented to me as.
This is a 10 minute clip demonstrating this.
https://youtu.be/v8v7ueICWuU?si=–8i9jjSzlOIsdGi
But if each chambers are your thing…
The problem here is basically one of logic. In logic if you manage to prove a known falsehood to be true then this demonstrates you have earlier made a mistake in your argument and should go back and look at how you reached this conclusion (to find your mistake).
For most people concluding that society should be implementing forced monogamy is by their understanding obviously beyond acceptable, its clearly an invalid conclusion to draw, you should go back and look at your premises because they are faulty (if you want to be taken seriously).
Peterson doesn't make serious arguments and has no interest in looking at his faulty premises (including that its simply irrelevant what is better for society, we want ideally a society which is better for its male and female constituents).
And yes, it is sexist to espouse a regressive to woman practice without considering how its implementation would work out for women. For most people writing off what he is saying with the response 'Peterson is a misogynist' is the appropriate level of engagement.
There's a lot of it about. Jordan Petersen supposedly said he wanted enforced monogamy. Charlie Kirk supposedly said gays should be stoned to death. Jacinda Ardern supposedly said hers would be the most open and transparent government ever. Jamie Whyte (ACT leader at one point) supposedly endorsed incest.
I believe people become convinced of this stuff because it's politically convenient for them, but there's definitely blame to attach to the liars who decided to peddle it in the first place.
Yep, Tribalism excuses some pretty poor othering.
I get politics is a big part of our identity but that doesn't excuse dehumanising others.
Eg, “corpse cuddling”
I think it's because of social media. Can't express how fucked off I am at all the liberals sharing memes on twitter that quote Kirk, using actual quotation marks, and no link but it turns out he didn't actually say that. Thing is, it might as well have because when you follow up and look at what he said, it's often (not always) just as bad. So the numpy liberals set an open goal by saying stupid memes instead of actual evidence and thus allow the right to say that's not true! But it probably is close to what Kirk intended.
Case in point is what he said about black women not being smart. Kirk is very good at the dog whistle, although in that case he did actually say point blank that four high profile African American women were too stupid to make it on their own merit and so got into their positions of power via DEI.
That's one reason I'm dubious about the conservatives' line that debate is noble and Kirk embodied that by offering open debate to liberals who just couldn't deal with the facts. If you're skilled at rhetoric and are debating people who aren't, you can make them look ridiculous in pretty short order. It doesn't mean you were right or that you won the debate through superior reasoning ability and better grasp of facts, just that you're a skilled rhetorician.
Tilly Middlehurst – an undergraduate at Cambridge (also a debate coach) took him on.
A feminist torching Peterson was similar.
Kirk's dog whistle was that stoning gay people was the 'perfect law'.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/charlie-kirk-did-stoning-gay-120003332.html
That's exactly the kind of thing I was referring to: "Charlie Kirk DID say stoning gay people was the 'perfect law'" bellows some activist, but when you watch the video it's just Kirk making a point very common within Christianity, which amounts to "Be careful about quoting the Old Testament at people to justify dismissing their view, because they'll be able to quote stuff back at you that you really won't like."
People peddle this stuff without thinking, because it's politically convenient for them, but the liars who edit the clips in the first place and publish the resulting disinformation have a lot to answer for.
There is another narrative as to what Kirk said.
It is all here.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
It's a narrative, yes. It's a disinformation narrative and I assume a malicious one due to the political agenda involved.
In the video, Kirk argues against cherry-picking bits of the Old Testament to try and one-up your opponents. Right before the video cuts off (suspicious in itself), he explicitly says Leviticus chapter 18 "affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters," and yes – chapter 18 is almost entirely about sexual matters. It's here, and most of us would find little to degree with in most of it: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018&version=KJV. However, @patriottakes presents Kirk's claim as only referring to verse 22 of the chapter, which it clearly doesn't. (Verse 22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." No mention of stoning, as it happens – Charlie wasn't quite the Bible scholar he liked to pretend.)
In the absence of any clear statements from him that gays should be stoned to death, there’s no basis for making that claim.
I reckon if you scour the Bible carefully enough, you can find verses to support just about any point of view you care to mention. Similarly, I believe, with the Holy Qu'ran and doubtless most other examples of sacred writings.
The Left edges it in the latest Reid Research poll:
Lab 34.3 Gre 10.9 TPM 4.1 =49.3
Nat 32.5 NZF 8.7 ACT 7.2 =48.4
If the 4.1% TPM voters tactically chose to party vote Labour or Green while voting for the TPM candidate (so that TPM again win all 6 Maori seats) the Left would have a solid working majority.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/573163/rnz-reid-research-political-poll-points-to-deadlocked-parliament
Deadlocked parliament on that result.
And honestly I would not want Labour to rely on the Maori Party for anything let alone try and govern New Zealand with them.
RNZ-Reid Research political poll points to deadlocked Parliament | RNZ News
Labour Green coalition government with a confidence and supply agreement with TPM.
Just Labour and the Greens. In a proper coalition.
I agree that would be ideal. However, it might not be possible. So the question becomes whether a coalition could be formed with confidence and supply, or whether national, ACT, NZ first form for government again.
So the question then becomes whether a coalition could be formed with confidence and supply, or whether national, ACT, NZ first vote for government again.
There’s a further issue here which is if polling close to the election shows TPM confidence and supply would be needed, will that shift some votes from labour to NZF.?
I think that TPM would not like being left out of any left wing coalition. However, if both TPM and the Greens were to offer C&S agreements and Labour governed alone, then TPM would not feel so left out.
Mind you, I don't know why people should feel concern about TPM being part of a coalition anyway.
Did…. did we just genuinely agree on something, mikesh!?
Good God, is that true?
The latest press meme is "Labour have a problem with the Maori Party"
Actually, to borrow from Key, the right have a problem with Te Parti Maori, and they have been trying to divide and conquer all the way, withdrawing funding, provoking reactions with cruel Bills.
Luxon met with the King, and the King assessed him astutely imo.
The reported comment, "He PM, will need help". Such a simple but accurate assessment of a shallow Leader, who has has little control over his two coalition partners, to the detriment of 90% of us.
To Maori the dying King said "Just be Maori" The new Queen strong in her culture and dignified is such a Leadership contrast.
As stated during the Election, the two tails would wag the National Dog, and so they have and the results are beyond bad, and those referenced green shoots are a hopeful mirage as jobs and businesses disappear.
If Reid counted the overhang and the likely special votes, it would be 61 to 59. Now that is a problem for National not Labour. imo
Ah, but will those specials be tilted quite so much in the left's favour, if that bill abolishing on-day registration (and imposing other restrictions) becomes law?
What confidence and supply means when there is a minority coalition government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_and_supply
To be installed, a government would need to win a confidence and supply vote.
Actually (to be pedantic) on those numbers, and ignoring any overhang, the Left gets 60.6 seats and the Right 59.4.
So it would be 61-59
The maximum overhang, on those figures, would be about two seats (if they won all seven electorates).
We may not have the luxury of many options. And if we’re prepared to entertain a coalition with a bunch of cookers and right-wing nuts, then we should at least be open to TPM.
The perceptions of their “extremism” strike me as massively overblown. Mostly because it gives others (National) something to point at while deflecting from their own issues with extremism *gestures vaguely at the coalition*.
It’s worth taking a breath and remembering that TPM isn’t pitching to the general electorate. Their messaging and style of politics are calibrated to a specifically Māori audience.
And at the end of the day, they’re a minor party. That means pursuing policies outside the mainstream is part of their role: whether to grab attention, shift their coalition partners, or generate political pressure to have their ideas adopted.
Yes, what Tākuta Ferris said was distasteful and bound to sound bad to Pākehā ears. But politicians miscommunicate, make stupid or inflammatory statements, or simply misjudge the public mood all the time.
Pearl-clutching aside, what’s actually changed? It’s not as if TPM are suddenly demanding we redefine “woman” and “man,” calling for citizens’ arrests of politicians, running mock trials under the Nuremberg conventions, or pushing to mine the conservation estate.
All of which NZF or their supporters have done.
You said it better than I could.
If we are serious about solving housing, inequality, health and climate then a Green/TPM give us what we should be aiming for.
Children and grandchildren will be looked after.
'Extremism' is a loaded word – it's simply a reflection of whose worldview is hegemonic in the present moment, and anything outside that dominant view becomes extreme by definition.
If hegemony is not secure, then it becomes a contested word. Which is the moment we are in now – so there should be no difficulty in describing ACT or even NZF as extremists if it is at all helpful to do so.
Therefore, why not ask Mr Luxon to rule out the extremists in ACT, e.g. " If Mr Luxon won't rule out the dangerous extremists in ACT, he has no right to tell me to rule out TPM. I won't take lectures from Mr Luxon on extremism "
That's actually a pretty good line for Chippie et al to take as it simultaneously disarms the attempt to tie Labour to TPM's extremism (which doesn't exist) to Nationals very real association with ACT.
Rimmer is deputy PM for the next 18 months, after all. And it's much easier to disown a completely separate political party that you're competing with than, you know, the guys keeping you in power.
Extremism looks like a word that's now a political weapon. I prefer radical, because that's about the kind of change someone is working for and can be applied to the left or right or wherever without being so loaded (still somewhat loaded but without the associations with terrorism, chaos etc).
“Radical” has some historical baggage too. The PRS in France? Not socialist, barely radical, and hardly a party.
Basically the Third Republics version of Labour. Except somehow, they contrived to be even more milquetoast and boring.
This isn't about any one TPM MP. Te Party Maori want the following as their key policies:
– A Maori parliament
– Transfer of all Crown land to iwi
– A right of first refusal for Iwi over all private land.
– A Maori justice authority
Now sure, New Zealand First are a motley lot, but at least you can follow what they have delivered through the Provincial Growth Fund, rail, and other funds that have delivered stuff.
Now granted I'm not going to vote for TPM, but TPM need their policies exposed to sunlight for all if anyone thinks they should be running the country.
And? Minor parties always have policies that look extreme on paper. Otherwise, they’d have no reason to exist, and we’d drift back to a two-party system.
TPM has no obligation to water down its platform just to make Labour comfortable. And if every policy position were treated as a bottom line, we’d never have a government at all.
they're not trying to run the country, they're here to represent Māori. What they do makes sense when understood in that context.
Comparing TPM to NZF is apples and oranges. TPM aren't a centrist party and so will never have the kind of leverage that NZF have had. NZF aren't here to represent Māori specifically.
No they aren't trying to run the country(yet) but their only path to parliament is with labour and the greens and vis versa, and those policies ad put up arnt about a unified nation that's for sure
that's the rub though. Pākekā notions of a unified nation run against Māori interests.
I'm less interested in unified than I am in political parties that are honest in their representation. I fully expect Labour and the Greens to advance policies for all New Zealanders, and I expect Te Pāti Māori to advance policies for their people. This is the Treaty made real. Māori are not an ethnic minority subset of NZ. There is a lot of fear about this, but I wish we could look more at what non-Māori have to gain from such a relationship between Iwi and the Crown.
Wrong. Their only path to government is with a coalition. They're perfectly capable of staying in Parliament without anyone's help or favour.
Fact of the matter, they're already doing so.
We get it.
You seem to be promoting the concept of a TPM running the country threat, if they were in a coalition government (or even a confidence and supply provider via a support agreement?).
Why?
Have you drunk the He Puapua Report kool-aid.
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2023/08/24/nz-first-plan-to-pull-aotearoa-out-of-undrip-comes-under-heavy-fire/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/14-12-2023/what-would-pulling-out-of-the-undrip-mean-for-new-zealand
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2025/07/17/nz-under-scrutiny-for-failing-to-engage-with-un-indigenous-rights-body/
finally got around to watching Ferris' video and thought it was pretty good. Don't have enough reo to understand his argument about language fully, but the korero look totally like it was aimed at Māori and didn't seem particularly extreme to me. But then I sit to the left of the Greens and many on the right and centre would call me extreme left. Or a deep green loonie. Whatever.
What I'm less clear on is whether Ferris is a bit of a loose cannon, and I've had a guts full of that because of the Greens. He seems to have some form eg calling MPs generally liars, but it's hard to know if that dismissal of parliamentary convention is naive or intentional.
shrug From what I understand, it’s really about whether non-Māori should be involved in campaigning in the Māori seats.
That’s a perfectly legitimate question — and yes, also a tidy way of throwing shade at Labour.
A bit of flouting convention is more or less part of the job description for a TPM MP. So if Ferris really is a loose cannon or a risk to the kaupapa, his electorate and party organisation will make that clear.
I generally think it's for parties to sort out, and particularly so for Māori parties. The left is going to naturally be interested because of the implications for the left being able to form government.
I agree that you are obviously left, but there is little in any of your posts that I find extreme and certainly nothing loonie. While our political/economic viewpoints may be quite different, I always find your arguments to be well reasoned, thought provoking and valuable reading. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Spa, feedback like that is always encouraging, appreciated
It's nice that you include the Green Party in the us, if only to diss TPM instead.
Chances are TPM win more than the 5 seats this artilce allocates. Thus more overhang in the lefts' favour.
agree…lets hope this happens. The key is for Maori to split their votes if the want to get rid of this anti-treaty mob.
Totally agree, regrettably. We also don't want Labour having to rely on NZ1 to form a government -and contrary to anything they say, they are more than happy to change their spots in order to retain power. Hopefully Labour will make their position on that perfectly clear.
So a Labour-Green win is what we need, with a better result for the Greens. But the propaganda machine seems to have been very effective in convincing normally intelligent people that the Greens are dangerous and will destroy the country (the planet being destroyed doesn't seem to be important.)
This would work if all the non-voters could be convinced to vote, but that's starting to feel like a lost cause.
Yep Hipkins should rule out NZF…they have moved way to the Right and Shane Jones is worse than any TPM member.
My understanding is that Ferris’s comments, obnoxious though they are, relate only to campaigning in the Maori seats and not to issues in the the wider NZ context.
Ferris' initial comments were around campaigning in the Maori seats (I think he's bonkers, but I'm not his target market)
However, he doubled down on open defiance of the TPM leadership – which may well indicate how shaky they would be, as a party, as a coalition partner – even in confidence and supply. Ferris, clearly regards himself as an independent MP – who may work with other Maori MPs over campaigning and administration, but doesn't see himself bound by their leadership.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360821333/takuta-ferris-breaks-silence-refuses-apologise-over-racist-posts
Rogue MPs can happen in any party. However, in a very small party, they have a greater impact.
It may be a storm in a teacup, or it may be an indication of wider issues within TPM.
Odd we’re not debating the Greens’ suitability for coalition, given that checks notes a third of their caucus has already turned over since 2023: resignations, expulsions, migrant exploitation, and criminal theft. Even a waka-jump.
I’ll grant that James Shaw’s time in politics had run its course (the poor guy was exhausted), and that Efeso Collins could well have been our first Pasifika PM if his life hadn’t been cut so cruelly short.
But surely their caucus discipline and stability is a bigger concern?
And let’s be honest: in Te Ao Māori, Labour right now is running really short on mana and trust. Maybe not the best place from which to lecture TPM on how to run their own party.
I think that you'll find that there has been a significant level of concern over the lack of stability in the Green caucus. Even long-term supporters have commented that they hope this era is behind them.
I didn't raise that issue, because the GP isn't relevant to the TPM issues.
If TPM want to be a part of a coalition government (and, I'd say that from the outside perspective, it's a toss up – they seem to be happier on the outside raising hell, rather than on the inside making change (and dealing with the inevitable compromises)) – then their ability, as a party, to deliver votes in Parliament, is an issue. Especially if we are in a very tight government (with potentially a one or two vote majority)
When other Maori are openly commenting that Ferris has been racist – it's not something that can just be brushed under the carpet.
But the bigger issue, from a potential government perspective, is that he very clearly feels no obligation to be bound by any agreement the party leaders might make.
Not until they tighten up their candidate selection and ranking processes, they won’t.
That’s a tricky, and valid, concern.
That said, coalition agreements can be written to accommodate such dynamics. We’ve had ministers bound to collective responsibility only for matters in their own portfolio (Winston Peters 2008–2011) before.
A future agreement could either exclude Ferris from ministerial office or allow TPM freedom to criticise while still being part of government. Then, if he kicks off, he's just another random backbench MP.
In other words, it only becomes Labour’s problem if they let it. There are tools available to insulate a future government from the fallout.
The Greens have also had the leeway for MPs with no ministerial position to speak outside of the coalition.
The bigger problem is how the right will play the 'scary Maorees in government' card during the election campaign.
They said they did (they did a review), so I guess it remains to be seen. Fingers crossed.
Ferris said in his video:
“In the Māori seats, it’s about the Māori people, Māori only … Māori have unique rights as opposed to everyone else.”
I want to know what he or the Maori Party want as unique rights. Do they have a list?
[I’ve now found the video and time stamp, and it looks to me like you have intentionally misled readers here. Ferris clearly explains what he is talking about in the sentence after your quote. 1 month ban, because we take politics seriously here and don’t allow that kind of disingenuous misdirection – weka]
Māori have the 'unique rights' of standing in, and voting for Māori electorates. That is his point and he feels that it's inappropriate to have non-Māori campaigning for these Māori-only seats, the Paati disagrees. Don’t be dense.
I believe that anybody can stand as candidate in a Māori electorate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_electorates
That said, his point was that if the Labour Party is campaigning for a Maori electorate seat, they should not do so using party members who are not Maori.
there's a copy of the video here, please provide a timestamp for your quote.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360819067/bizarre-midnight-video-takuta-ferris-doubles-down-his-criticism-non-maori-supporting-labour-election
the relevant piece starts at 6 mins 50, but I recommend the whole 7 minutes for context.
It is at 7.09 minutes in the video
mod note.
You appear to be ‘homogenising’ Māori, to use a term used by Tākuta Ferris. Some Māori will feel at home with Labour, some with the Greens, and some with TPM (and some even with the coalition parties, I guess). Arguably, the previous Labour government tried hard pushing the Treaty and te ao Māori.
The way I see it is that the coalition parties are inequality-increasers based on the economic model they’re [still] forcing] down our throats. TPM and the Greens are inequality-decreasers. Labour has to make a choice; old-Labour was a definite inequality-decreaser but contemporary-Labour is less unambiguous on its principles & values.
Demonstrably, some Maori are more at home with ACT and NZF (their leaders, for a start), and plenty with National as well.
I fail to see how pointing out that some Maori are describing Ferris' midnight rant as openly racist – is "homogenising Māori"
Surely, it's the reverse. It's illustrating the fact that there are (many) Maori viewpoints which are different to the one that Ferris espouses.
If your argument is that it's OK for a TPM MP to be racist (notably, not against colonizers, but against specific ethnic minorities in NZ) – then you and I are just going to have to differ.
Would you welcome Elon Musk's attention here (as per in the UK), offering financial support for a political party here and offering to finance campaigns useful to that party?
Would you portray opposition to that as racist, or nationalist or anti-foreigner?
Ferris is just saying in a Maori electorate the voters are all Maori. And those involved in campaigning for a candidate to be an electorate MP should respect that.
Exactly. Which made the other part of your comment non-sensical and you failed to see the inconsistency.
It seems to me that you are the one homogenising Maori. Interesting that you fail to see the inconsistency.
You’ve gone from non-sensical to absurd to cover up your inconsistency instead of confronting it or arguing & defending why it wasn’t inconsistent. You’re a coward commenter hiding behind a huge wall of misplaced confidence.
The leadership refused to back him because the accusations of racism that eventuated terrified them. However, I doubt if the Maori electorate would see his comments as racist, and that's what's important.
Maori Labour MPs like Willie Jackson should pull their bloody heads in before they start throwing accusations of racism at another Maori, even one from another party.
How about the fact that he seems to feel that the leaders have no right to direct him in any way…. Makes it very difficult for TPM to be taken seriously as a coalition partner.
How quickly political fortunes can turn. Leading up to the last election, NAct was initially gung ho about governing alone – fast forward two years, and on current polling even Winston First's support might not be enough to stop the CoC from becoming our first one-term govt in over half a century.
Difficult? Maybe. But maybe not as difficult as taking Winston First seriously.
Time to give the Nats a turn, imho.
Ferris is an electorate MP, speaking about a Maori electorate issue.
It was not about an issue in his electorate.
His own party leader said his statement was unacceptable.
If he wants to owe no allegiance to anyone – he should stand as an independent.
So what. It was about campaigning in Maori electorates.
Did they say how? Or were they pandering to right wing attack lines?
The involvement of Pakeha in Maori politics as some sort of moral guardian is risible and to quote some Maori celebrity as r a f.
So, according to you, no one who is not Maori has any business commenting on anything to do with Maori electorates; or, by extension, anything to do with TPM.
Given this – I won't bother responding to you. There is, literally, no point.
See my 4.1.1.4
Your perspective on allegiance, as one where an MP has to be in agreement with the position of the party leaders on every issue is plain wrong.
And ridiculous given what is going on in National.
There are members of the Cabinet saying different things at the moment.
Luxon whispering to the RBG OCR down property values up. Bishop wants property values held down. Willis saying no pressure from me on the RBG etc.
It is not just Luxon with two wings in his coalition, but in his own cabinet and caucus.
No comment on that, but on the TMP. Really?
So, according to you, no one who is not Maori has any business commenting on anything to do with Maori electorates; or, by extension, anything to do with TPM.
I would say that that is for the Maori voters to decide.
Choosing to say they were "commenting" would seem to be a poor word choice. It seems they were actually campaigning.
Politicians are supposed to "represent" the people that vote for them at the end of the day. Not a party.
If Ferris' constituents approve of his stance, he is doing his job.
We have too many politicians that forget they are representatives already, not dictators.
I don't think the party tried to direct him, they just said that what he said was not necessarily the view of the wider party.
We are a country that purports to value freedom of speech.
Whether he was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is the accusations of racism that were leveled at him.
By Willie Jackson – among others.
https://www.facebook.com/WillieJacksonLabour/photos/i-want-to-respond-to-t%C4%81kuta-ferris-and-the-hurtful-things-hes-saying-and-why-bei/1339371137864679/
It's not a niche group who are considering his remarks racist.
How about the fact that he seems to feel that the leaders have no right to direct him in any way
How do you know that this is how he feels: are you an ESP practitioner?
It's more likely the reason he didn't retract was because he believed he was right. The party may have the right to control his vote but the cannot control what he thinks.
See 4.1.1 (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16-09-25/#comment-2044432); no ESP required.
Your interpretation of that link is not the same as mine: "in open defiance of the party" seems an inappropriate interpolation. I don't see where Belladonna gets that notion from.
See Michael Scott’s comment below.
Pointing to a comment by another commenter that contains a link doesn’t make it my interpretation nor interpolation (?).
You can also stop deferring to Michael Scott’s comment (@ 4.1.1.2.2?), as it contains no substance; MS won’t be contributing to the kōrero for a month.
John Tamihere has come out and supported Takuta Ferris idea that only Maori are allowed to campaign for the Maori Party.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/te-pati-maori-president-john-tamihere-backs-substance-of-takuta-ferris-post-labours-chris-hipkins-sends-warning/AL7BPVWWFZGXZA4D4TDZOYQCQA/
His comments related only to Maori electorates (where only Maori can vote). Everyone can vote the party list.
And in reference to Labour's candidate receiving support from those unable to vote in the electorate.
The Labour Electorate Committee that I was part of some years ago had to put up Tamihere's billboards as well as our own. Partly because it was a big electorate and partly because he did not have the organisation to get it done. Remembering that he moved house and left 2 ginger cats behind, my use of the staple gun was quite creative.
Hope it's the former – time will tell. Some storms have a longer aftermath than others, e.g. the multi-cell storm that is NAct1 – govt by the sorted, for the sorted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_New_Zealand_general_election
The issue of Maori electorate campaigning and issue of Maori electorate MP's are two distinct issues.
But he made his comments on the former as a sitting Maori electorate MP and on that matter is claiming some independence from the Maori Party position.
The Maori Party sometimes includes MP's on the party list in its caucus and sometimes does not. At the moment all of their caucus are electorate MP's.
They campaign with a Maori Party policy on the party list. There non Maori vote.
Generally MP's of a caucus are whipped to vote the same way – and would do so on confidence and supply and in support of coalition government they were part of.
It is only where disagreements between members of caucus on an issue impact on this is there any suggestion of political consequence.
Finally Christine Fletcher the UltraBougie gets to face the music.
Auckland councillors powerless to block zoning for two million new homes at crucial meeting | Stuff
Thanks for the link, Ad.
Christine Fletcher's third option sounds good.
I can't see to many people (renters and homeowners) being happy with having a 3 story building going up next door and perhaps on both sides of them. Let alone 15 story buildings.
This is going to piss a lot of voters off.
Which, depending on where they stand on this, could be a big voter winner for Labour.
Do you happen to know what Labour's position is on this?
What is that option exactly and why does it sound good? Does she happen to be standing in the upcoming local election?
She believed councillors could vote to ditch PC78 and take time to consider a different replacement. But admits there would need to be a willingness by the majority of councillors.
IMO, political backing from the opposition would help with that pushback (if there is any)
The reason I think it is a good idea is because I don't support the 2 proposals, hence there needs to be time to come up with a better solution.
Additionally, I personally think both will fail to bring the majority along.
The Government wants Auckland to make room for two million more homes.
That's a whole new city in itself.
Therefore, I suggest they do just that and build a whole new city or two, three or four.
So, you applaud Christine Fletcher for not offering anything of substance, no solution, no policy, no proposal, just buying some time (is 18 months long enough?). Do you think voters will be souring on her?
Here they go again, gutting our environment.
The government wants conservation minister Potaka to have sole discretionary power to deal with the conservation estate: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/572884/conservation-minister-defends-centralising-decision-making-powers
Federated Farmers also wants an end to water conservation orders (reported in the Nelson Mail): https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/360817325/federated-farmers-lobbies-government-quash-water-conservation-orders.
A combination of greed and arrogance.
Do we need to prepare for an influx of Aussie climate refugees? With our open border immigration, I can imagine a near-future time when that will happen, as well as the return of all the Kiwis over there. And we're far from prepared for a sharp increase in population. Will our travel agreement with Australia need to be reviewed?
And of course, it's always the indigenous populations that pay the biggest price.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360824795/mad-max-movie-how-hot-it-will-really-get-unliveable-australia
If it gets that bad, then it's unlikely we will be given the autonomy to set our own immigration policy. I'd guess that others with bigger militaries will be controlling that.
In the interim, the Australian bolthole remains a way of disguising NZ's economic failure. The first sign that something important is up will be when Australia can longer operate as that bolthole for NZers, because its economy is struggling due to climate-induced problems.
If I were still in Oz I'd be hedging in Tasmania not here given nobody's immune.
Can't imagine any recent arrivals over there encouraging them to come here either but sure I agree some kiwi's will return.
For now it is, but also not looking very promising.
Tasmania is already experiencing the impacts of climate change:
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/changing-climate/state-climate-statements/tasmania/
I have family in Australia, Kiwi immigrants, who now have Australian grandchildren (from Kiwi/Australian couples). By the time the shit hits the fan, there will be Australian great grandchildren. Very difficult decisions to be made. I also know of people in the US in similar situations who are having to make those decisions now, because of rising fascism.
Not to mention that if they have heritage by 'descent' – they'll have no right to 'return' to NZ
There's just been a news story about John Ruddock – who found that his US-born kids have no automatic right to live in NZ.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360745892/maori-kids-great-grandad-all-black-who-are-nz-illegally
Which has been addressed at the Waitangi Tribunal (no decision, as yet)
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2025/09/16/tangata-whenua-not-tangata-tiriti-urgent-claim-tests-if-maori-born-offshore-have-a-right-to-citizenship/
yes, that's the issue. The grandkids are Australian now Kiwis, and so if the Kiwis wan't to come home they have to leave family behind.
no idea what to do about the issues for Māori in that.
I think it's not so much of an issue with Australian citizenship/residency – because if you're an Ozzie, you have a right to live in NZ long term (just as Kiwis have the reciprocal right to live in Australia). You just wouldn't have initial citizenship – but that would be easily gained through the normal process of living here (it's ridiculously easy to become a kiwi)
So, any Australian (whether Kiwi descended or not) can just opt to live in NZ. Unless they're a major criminal, we're unlikely to give them the boot and send them back to Oz.
The issue is with people who are born elsewhere – e.g. NZ-descended parents born in Australia, with their children born in yet a third country.
You get (I understand) to pass your citizenship on to one generation, but that's it – no further.
All "Australians" can live here. And after 2 years can become permanent residents (if they choose) and then vote. Citizenship takes 5 years residency (2 + 3).
receipts
/
https://mastodon.social/@mattsheffield/115204696054746378
Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975 (Table 1). Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for 391 murders and 11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
Left-wing terrorists murdered 65 people, or about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies. Those murders that are politically motivated by unknown or other ideologies are a vanishingly small percentage, which is unsurprising because terrorists typically want attention for their causes.
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states
Table 2 from the Cato piece is maybe more relevant because it excludes the distortionary effects of 9/11.
Is this the fastest de-industrialiation New Zealand has had since the early 1990s?
Nelson last week, Tokoroa today. Hundreds of NZ families damaged.
PM Luxon and Willis are in charge of this economy.
Kinleith pulp and paper, the supermarket and now the plywood factory (importing from Oz)* in Tokoroa.
Nelson a sawmill* and the fish fillet factory.
Both Carter Holt Harvey*. Privately owned by Rank Group
https://www.rankgroup.co.nz/
So contrary to what Ad suggests (at 9), does this mean that Luxon and Willis are not in charge of this economy? Rather, the owners and shareholders in companies like Rank Group are in charge of this economy – and all Luxon and Willis have is somewhat constrained economic policy instruments like interest rates and government spending with which they try to influence the behaviour of the people who are really in charge?
If so, what other policy instruments are Luxon and Willis choosing not to deploy?
Douglas, opening up the economy to imports late 1980's early 1990's had impact.
Here this government has
1.opened up the building sector to imported products.
2.recent decline in local building sector activity.
(if they produce for the local market and demand declines or they face more competition – as per imports their business model is at risk).
Not just de-industrialisation, but de-horticulturisation (ask any Hawke's Bay peach-grower).