Don’t Leftists have anything to say? Of course not, for them racism is fine provided darker skinned people are responsible for it. WW’s view is that race based laws, no matter who they affect, are wrong.

by Andrew Korybko

The strategic stakes are simply too high as NATO encroaches on Russia’s entire southern periphery via TRIPP and Turkiye just revived talk of the Trans-Caspian Pipeline that’s anathema to Russia’s interests.

The Turkish Energy Minister revived talk of the long-discussed Trans-Caspian Pipeline in early April in a live interview with local media where he spoke about his country’s regional pipeline plans, which the Middle East Eye drew attention to here. Their report about this followed New Rules Geopolitics, the X account of the podcast by Sputnik’s Dimitri Simes Jr., presenting his proposals as their own. In any case, these reports drew attention to the Trans-Caspian Pipeline, which is anathema to Russia’s interests.

It was warned here in early August after the announcement of the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) that this US-controlled corridor across southern Armenia might embolden Azerbaijan and Armenia to defy Russia and Iran by building this pipeline. Last month, it was also assessed that “Israel’s Strikes Against Iran’s Caspian Fleet Might Be Driven By Post-War Energy Geopolitics”, namely neutralizing Iran’s ability to impede this project that could later supply Israel among others.

About that, Israel already receives around 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan through a pipeline that transits Georgia and Turkiye, so gas exports along this route or TRIPP (which is shorter) are possible. Even though this would increase Israel’s strategic dependence on Turkiye, whose Foreign Minister recently warned that Israel might recast his country as its new regional adversary after Iran amidst their escalating rivalry, it’s difficult to imagine either party passing up this opportunity to advance their respective interests.

As for the US’ interests, the expansion of Western influence across the South Caucasus, Caspian Sea, and Central Asia via TRIPP would come at Russia’s expense since this area encompasses its entire southern periphery, with political and military influence following economic influence. After all, Russia is expected to oppose the Trans-Caspian Pipeline since it‘ll lead to Turkmenistan’s currently Chinese-centric gas exports challenging its own on the global market, ergo the need for NATO member Turkiye to deter it.

To that end, TRIPP is expected to serve the dual purpose of a military logistics corridor, and the US’ planned dispatch of an undisclosed number of patrol boats to Azerbaijan that was announced during Vance’s visit in February represents the implementation of this strategy. Even though Turkmenistan is a constitutionally neutral country, it too is expected to expand its “quiet U.S. military ties” as is Kazakhstan, which dramatically announced its plans last December to produce NATO-standard shells.

The Russian government is aware of TRIPP’s abovementioned military purpose as suggested by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Overchuk condemning this project that’s hitherto been conspicuously ignored by his country’s expert community. Putin also very strongly implied that the moment of truth in Russian-Armenian relations is arriving during his latest meeting with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The Turkish Energy Minister’s Trans-Caspian Pipeline plans are therefore expected to meet fierce Russian resistance.

It’s unclear what form this will take, and no one can say for sure whether Russia would launch another special operation to stop this project, but that scenario can’t be ruled out either. The strategic stakes are simply too high as NATO encroaches on Russia’s entire southern periphery via TRIPP and Turkiye just revived talk of the Trans-Caspian Pipeline. Russia is therefore either forced to accept these plans with all that entails for its security or somehow stop them since the West won’t voluntarily abandon them.

by Mathew Horncastle

I do not support race based policies.

Let’s play it out: pretend the Maori Party worldview is correct.

Maori were the first people to New Zealand. The Maori Party speaks for all Maori people, somehow. Maori should govern the country. They receive the money. They set the laws. They favour their own people.

Where does that road actually lead?

We DNA test everyone.

Does the person with the purest DNA get the most power and the most privilege? How do we decide what counts as the benchmark? Do we pick an archaeological site and a body found in it and call that the standard? Which site? On what basis? Who decides? The oldest one we have found so far? The most untouched? The one most politically convenient at the time? And what happens when a new site is dug up next year that pushes the benchmark somewhere else?

Does someone with 20% Maori DNA get half the rights of someone with 40%? What is the gap in power between the most Maori, half that, and none at all?

Then it gets worse.

Does a person from Taiwan or Polynesia, who shares the same ancestral DNA but whose family never came to New Zealand, get the same rights here? If the answer is yes, this was never about New Zealand. If the answer is no, this was never really about DNA either.

Does someone with Maori DNA who has never set foot in this country have greater rights than someone with no Maori DNA whose family has lived here for six generations, paid taxes here, raised children here?

You can see how grotesque this gets very quickly. We are not used to talking about human beings this way.

This is how people were sorted before the Enlightenment. Rank by blood. Power rationed by ancestry. Rights handed out by category. Worth measured by who your great grandfather was.

The Western world broke that system. It said something radical for its time, and still radical today. You are an individual. Your dignity does not flow from your tribe, your bloodline, or your race. It flows from being a human being.

That is the foundation everything else stands on. You give it up the moment you start measuring people by their DNA.

I will not.

More on Facebook

This follows an Horizon poll which found only 13% of people support the Left bloc using racial comments to get votes.

from Daily Telegraph NZ

RMA Reform and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said the current system—made up of 78 councils—was overly complex, inefficient and difficult for communities to navigate. He said duplication, inconsistent decision-making and rising costs were undermining the effectiveness of local governance.

Under a new “Head Start” pathway, councils are being invited to work together and submit proposals to reorganise their structures, with a focus on forming larger unitary authorities that combine regional and local functions. The aim is to streamline services, improve accountability and support the rollout of a new national planning system expected to become law this year.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts said proposals must demonstrate clear benefits, including improved efficiency, reduced duplication and strong community representation. Plans will also be assessed on deliverability and their ability to support infrastructure development and planning reforms.

More than 1,100 submissions were received during earlier consultation, with feedback showing broad support for change but a desire for flexibility at a regional level, according to a state press release.

Cabinet will decide later this year which proposals progress to detailed design, with final decisions expected in 2027 and implementation targeted before the 2028 local elections.

The Government has made clear that councils must take the lead or risk losing control of the process.

“Our message to councils is simple: lead your own reform, or we will do it for you,” Bishop said.

Original

As we well know in Kapiti, councils are run by the Elite Executive Class who measure their success by the size of their budgets and fiercely resist anything that will reduce their budgets; they are also in the driver’s seat for all decisions — known as top-down management. —Eds

by Tony Orman

Orange roughy live up to 250 years and do not breed until they are 25–30 years old, meaning they cannot recover quickly from over-harvesting.

Dangers of over-fishing

The country’s largest orange roughy fishery is again on the verge of collapse. A new stock assessment in 2025 has confirmed that the fishery’s stock is close to collapse (8-18% biomass) with one of four models showing it may have already collapsed. 

It’s not the first time.

Back in the 1980s the orange roughy fishery collapsed.

One of the orange roughy fisheries — there are several — the Challenger Plateau (ORH7A) fishery, for example, was closed in 2001 after being over-fished to just 3% of its spawning stock biomass. Others were over-fished also and reduced to something like 15% and 17%.

About 1979 I was then president of the New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and when in the late 1970s the orange roughy fishery was discovered, I made a press release, reported in the NZ Herald that extreme caution was needed as management must be dictated by full knowledge of the population dynamics of the species, i.e. when and where the species spawned, longevity and other characteristics. 

Golden Egg in danger

My statement drew criticism from the government’s Duncan McIntyre who was fisheries minister from 1979 to 1984 who said there was nothing wrong with catching spawning fish. 

I replied stating that was nonsensical as it was “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.”

I’m no scientist but then nor was minister Duncan McIntyre. He and his ministry were to proved to be so wrong. I was correct – sad to say. 

The species cannot recover quickly

Orange roughy live up to 250 years and do not breed until they are 25–30 years old, meaning they cannot recover quickly from over-harvesting. In line with the age (250 years) they are very slow growing and thus extremely vulnerable to over-fishing. 

Even an intelligent 3rd former could see that.  

Minister Duncan McIntyre and the ministry couldn’t. They needed to go back to school and in the “slow learner” class.

Consequently due to the fish’s slow growth and late maturity and likely fishing during spawning, the “orange roughy gold rush” of the 1980s led to the rapid population crashes by the early 1990s.

Now it’s happened again. 

A 2025 scientific report released by the Ministry of Primary Industries has put the population of orange roughy on the East and South Chatham Rise at 8-18 percent of its original biomass.

The fishery has a “soft limit” of 20 percent of the original biomass and a “hard floor limit” of 10 percent.

Fish stocks below the soft limit are deemed to be overfished and depleted, and fish stocks below the hard limit are deemed to be collapsed. Deep Sea Conservation Coalition campaign coordinator Karli Thomas says it’s due to a “perfect storm of poor fishery management”.

“A stock driven to the brink of collapse by overfishing, the loss of key spawning grounds through heavy trawling on seamounts, and the wholesale destruction of ancient coral ecosystems.” 

The answer is NO.  But that’s what KCDC has been telling us over the past few years. 

by Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti

You need to tell KCDC the level of this year’s planned 6.5% rates increase is not OK at their “feedback session” on the planned rates increase on 26 May (details at the end of this article).

One of KCDC’s favourite reasons why your rates have gone up by 35% since the current Council leadership took power, while general inflation has only been 11.2%, is that local government costs go up faster than general household costs.  It’s apparently a “fact” that has been constantly repeated by the Mayor and Councillors.  We’ve heard it confidently stated by some of the newly elected Councillors, clearly being well-inducted into the Council’s rhetoric.

It’s a key part of the story that KCDC has used over the past few years to justify high rate levels.  The story goes: “we’d love to have lower rates increases than we’ve got, but local government costs increase at a faster rate than general inflation, so there is nothing we can do”.   In KCDC’s story, the Council is a hapless victim of economic forces outside of its control, and you’ll just have to live with the resulting rates increases.

In the past we’ve tried several times to point out to Councillors that this story is simply untrue, but they’ve been having none of it.  Our analysis has been written off because, it seems, we use the wrong figures and we can’t do maths.

But a recent report from Infometrics makes it clear that the Council’s story isn’t true.

It’s a report to Wellington City Council entitled “Wellington City Rates Affordability Research”.  It includes an analysis of how local government operating costs (rates pay for operating costs) compared to general inflation (the Consumers’ Price Index or CPI).

There was a time that local government operating costs (measured by the “Local Government Cost Index”, or the “LGCI”) were above CPI.  But that stopped in 2021.  Since the time the current Council leadership was elected, the LGCI and the CPI have tracked each other very closely.  It’s shown in the graph from the report, shown below:

Infometric’s analysis shows that sometimes the CPI is slightly above the LGCI, and sometimes it’s slightly below.  What’s remarkable is how closely they have tracked each other since 2021 – and how closely they are forecast to track each other for the next 10 years.  What is very clear is that local government operating costs have not risen three times faster than the rate of general inflation.

So one of the key justifications that the Council has used for on-going high rates increases in Kapiti has just been blown out of the water by an agency (Infometrics) that the Council relies heavily upon for much of its economic analysis work.  And it seems that, at Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti, we do use the right figures and we can do maths after all.

So, why are your rates going up by so much then?

We know that some Councillors want to deliver lower rates increases for you.  But, to date, not enough of them are really working to achieve that.  So far, too many Councillors have been comfortable with high rates increases – if they weren’t, they wouldn’t keep voting for them.  Some Councillors want to spend your money on securing their personal legacy by pushing through their pet projects.  So far, not enough Councillors are challenging the cost-plus budgeting model that the Council staff like to use, and not enough Councillors are challenging how your money is being spent.  Too many Councillors have bought into the story that high rates increases are inevitable, and that there is nothing that they can do.

In last year’s election, over half of the previous Council were tossed out.  We don’t think that this happened because we wanted the new Council to carry on down the rates path that the old Council set out.  But with an indicative rates increase of 6.5% (according to the Council’s website) from 1 July, that seems to be what is happening.  More of the same.

We can be somewhat charitable to new Councillors as they have just  stepped into a big job – and we suspect a much bigger job than many of them anticipated.  But we think the Councillors that were re-elected could have steered the Council to a lower rates path this year – if they wanted to. 

The Council is holding a feedback session on the proposed rates increase on 26 May – but unfortunately this will not affect this year’s decision as the rates increase for 2026/27 is essentially a done deal.  No matter what you say on 26 May, your rates will go up by approximately 6.5% as the Council is signalling.   

So the attention needs to start moving towards the new Long Term Plan that will be developed later this year.  This new Long Term Plan matters, as it will set the rates path for the next 10 years.  And we have seen that once the Long Term Plan is set, this Council stops talking to the community about annual rates increases.  So the new Long Term Plan really matters.

For this new Long Term Plan, we think the “honeymoon period” for Councillors – both new and old – is over.  Now that it has been shown by the Council’s own economics advisor that local government operating costs do not inevitably increase faster than general inflation, will Councillors keep on agreeing to high rates increases in the upcoming Long Term Plan?  Will they keep on supporting a cost-plus budgeting system, and high spending on non-core, pet projects?  Or will they stand up and say: “Enough is enough”?

We are calling upon Councillors – both new and old – to do what they were elected to do, to stop the cost-plus approach and to get rates increases back to no more than the general rate of inflation. Because – if nothing else – Infometrics has shown us that that is how much KCDC’s costs are expected to go up by.

YOU CAN HELP

• Contact your local Councillor and tell them in clear terms what is your expectation for future rates increases.  Tell them that they will be monitoring how they vote.
• Go to the “feedback session” hosted by KCDC on 26 May – and tell the Councillors in person.  Tell them that you don’t accept the 6.5% planned rates increase, and about the lack of meaningful public engagement about it. 

Because if you don’t, Councillors will come to the view that you are happy with what’s going on, and will carry on as they have been.

We will carry on the fight, and will let you know whether your Councillor is doing what you expect of them.  But our voice is stronger if you are actively part of it too.

Details of the Council’s “feedback session” on the 2026/27 Annual plan – and the indicative rates increase of 6.5% – is as follows (taken from the KCDC website):

“We’re holding two public sessions to provide an opportunity for you to talk directly to elected members about the decisions we’ve made when forming this Annual Plan.”

Tuesday, 26 May
10–12 noon and 5–6 pm
In the foyer of the Council building on Rimu Road, Paraparaumu.

You can also share your views at any time by e-mailing annualplan@kapiticoast.govt.nz.” 


Concerned Ratepayers Kapiti
www.concernedratepayerskapiti.org 

In fact it was ‘Woolworths’ 20 years ago, the change to ‘Countdown’ happened about 2011. Quite why is unclear, but recently it was changed back to Woolworths as it is in Australia. Those who want to see how Oz prices compare with NZ can check here