Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many will disagree honourably because of concern that the international order, represented by sovereign states with recognised borders respecting each others territorial integrity, is fundamental to international peace and security. They believe that this order protects peace and supports negotiation and diplomacy as the path to dispute resolution. However, it is a defensible position that the Islamic Republic of Iran (distinct from Iran the nation) is not deserving of that protection or recognition, because it does not afford that to some other sovereign states.
It is a regime that has spent its entire history calling for death to the USA and Israel, and used terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Israel and Yemen to spread its evil poisonous misanthropic ideology of ultra-conservative Islamist theocracy. Besides calling for "death to Israel" it has actively spread anti-semitism globally, including hosting conferences questioning the Holocaust. It has the world's highest per capita rate of executions, killing over 972 in 2024 alone, and most recently reportedly slaughtering tens of thousands of protestors across the country. Its theocracy includes a morality police dedicated to policing what women wear and how people interact in public, and it uses rape as a punishment of dissident women.
Given its long standing global sponsorship of terrorism (which included the IRA back in the Troubles), its pursuit of uranium enrichment and lack of transparency, it is easy to justify military action to stop it obtaining nuclear weapons.
Whether or not it was tactically correct for the US and Israel to take on Iran only history will tell. As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. The very last thing anyone who supports liberal democracy, rule of law, individual freedom, human rights and civilisation should want is for the Islamic Republic of Iran to defeat the US, Israel and by proxy, the Gulf states as well.
Overthrowing the regime would be a success, weakening it so it fails due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success, but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be seen as a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.
For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond, endangering Americans, Jews (don't even think Iran separates Zionists from Jews). This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all.
If the Islamic Republic survives, it will embolden Putin and Xi to give it succour, money, arms and to push on. Putin already knows Trump wont stop him in Ukraine, Xi already knows the US will do little in the South China Sea, and wonders if he can attack Taiwan with little more than sanctions.
At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a "deal". There is no "deal" with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead. As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran (they think it isn't legal), that horse has bolted.
While it's entirely possible (and probable) the Iranian regime could be replaced by one that is far from ideal (see Iraq, Libya and Syria), it is also likely it could be better. Better is not wanting to destroy other countries, better is not wanting to fund, train and arm multiple terrorist proxies across the Middle East, and across the world to "globalise the intifada" against the infidels.
Better is not expounding an ideology that is a fundamentalist misanthropic dark-ages view of humanity, as serving a supreme religious leader who sends people to their deaths for the sake of Allah, who restricts music, literature, art, apparel, human relationships and human expression, for the sake of blasphemy. Humanity, and in particular Europe and the Western world have been spending centuries unshackling themselves from the tyranny of theology.
The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran wont remove this, as there are plenty of others expounding such a view, including some it is attacking, but it will remove the most toxic, virulent and violent example embodied in a outwardly aggressive state. For it to "win", survive and double down on militarising itself and securing weapons of mass destruction would be dangerous to us all.
Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians.
The challenge is Trump’s character, his willingness to accept short-term economic and electoral pain, not America or Israel’s exceptional military capacities. Does the US president, a hawk on Iran for 47 years, have it in him to finish the job, going down in history as the saviour of civilisation from nuclear Islamism, or is he merely the unidimensional man child his critics believe him to be?..
The great danger is that Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. A loss would involve the Iranians shutting the Strait for an extended period, the Americans panicking at elevated oil prices and the US president walking away with a premature declaration of victory. Iran would be bloodied, but unbowed.
This would be a calamity from which neither Trump nor the West would recover. It would be interpreted by our enemies, chiefly China, North Korea and Islamists, as proof that their stereotype of the average Westerner is correct, that we are coddled, narcissistic consumers who cannot handle even the smallest discomfort.
It would also embolden the West’s defeatist class. Their “analysis” relentlessly asserts that the US cannot possibly win, and dismisses any contrary evidence. Everything to them is a miscalculation; killing Ali Khamenei will backfire, we are told, but not killing him would have been criticised just as harshly.
There is nothing wrong with caution, but some of these people sound as if they want Iran to win. These same experts rightly loathe Putin, correctly seeing him as a fascist monster, who is willing to kidnap children and ethnically cleanse civilians. They rightly support Ukraine, emphasise its victories and urge it not to give up when Russia strikes a blow.
Yet they are not as passionately opposed to the Iranian regime, even though it is just as fascistic as Putin’s. They loathe Trump and Israel. They were willing to suffer high energy prices to help defeat Putin, but cannot tolerate dearer petrol to take out the Iranian regime. Their double standards and hypocrisy are vile.
This is a civilisational struggle, a battle between good and evil. The West must win, or all bets are off...
It's hardly news to most people, other than some members of the National Party caucus, that Christopher Luxon is not doing well as Prime Minister in convincing even a plurality of voters that he is the right person for the job. He defeated Chris Hipkins in 2023, and now more people think Hipkins would be a better Prime Minister than him, although I suspect a significant plurality think neither of them are any good (and a smaller number dream of minor party leaders, especially Winston Peters).
Luxon was clearly a competent CEO, and his best characteristic is that he is a good delegator. He has largely left most portfolios to their Ministers, and it shows. The Ministers that are most highly rated are those that have shown results, or at the very least, show competence in dealing with difficult issues. Regardless of what I think of any of them personally or even some of their policies, it is fairly clear that Erica Stanford, Chris Bishop, Simeon Brown and Mark Mitchell (of the National Ministers, as there is competence in NZ First and ACT as well), have all shown themselves to be able to "get things done".
I would be one of the first to criticise Stanford in many ways, in particular I think she is just another wet who is almost wholly submissive to the teaching unions, but she has shown both a willingness to effect change and a passion for what she does. Her efforts for curriculum reform, pushing structured literacy and passion for lifting standards is clear. She projects confidence and communicates clearly and competently, even if I think the government is incredibly weak in opening up the education sector to more choice, this isn't about libertarians, it's about the general public believing in competence and leadership.
Chris Bishop on infrastructure has also demonstrated a commitment to results. You can criticise the replacement of the RMA on multiple grounds (as Nick Clark from the NZ Initiative competently did), but you can't criticise his passionate commitment to a long-term fix of the housing crisis, and his efforts to hold Kainga Ora to account, and take interim steps making it easier to build some homes and infrastructure. Furthermore, I've never encountered a Transport Minister in New Zealand or anywhere in the world who both believes in road pricing and sees it as a tool to improve conditions for drivers, and to make better investments in road improvements. Whether it is housing, transport or social infrastructure, he doesn't just talk in carefully curated soundbites, he speaks off the cuff and shows a passion for change and results. It helps that he has twice won the usually safe Labour seat of Hutt South (Luxon, Stanford, Brown and Mitchell all have safe seats), which takes considerable effort and shows a cut-through to much more than the party base.
Simeon Brown, despite childish and cheap jibes directed at him on social media, has demonstrated calm, capable competence in delivery. In health, traditionally an albatross around the neck of politicians almost anywhere, he quickly got across the issue of Dunedin Hospital, and made a decision about its future. This matched developing a five-year health infrastructure plan and setting five key health targets. As Transport Minister his great achievements were in turning around the spending plans of NZTA to meet those of the government, and to reverse the widespread speed limit reductions. He has a financial and economic competence as a "dry" member of Cabinet, which reflects his education and previous career in banking.
Finally Mark Mitchell has been the face of National's commitment to law and order, cracking down on criminal gangs and delivering a demonstrated reduction in violent crime, following increases in Police numbers and corrections staff. Although this was undoubtedly supported by policies from both ACT and NZ First, Mitchell is convincing as a Minister against crime.
All of this contrasts with Luxon. He is unconvincing, he seems unable to show a serious passionate spirit that chimes with much of the population. As much as delegating is good, people want a Prime Minister to be across it all. Not necessarily like Helen Clark was (as she was a control freak Prime Minister, micromanaging most policies and not trusting most Ministers on major issues), but at least as well as John Key and Bill English could. PMs need to be able to ad-lib, to respond spontaneously without briefing notes, based on a philosophical and policy grounding about the direction of government and principles. Some might say it is a bit too much to ask a Prime Minister, especially a National Party one to base thinking and what he says on principles, but principles and passion are where authenticity comes from, and authenticity helps win elections.
People want political leaders to believe in something and to express it, showing their passionate commitment to not just results that people want, but the basis for getting there. Luxon hasn't got it, he didn't have it before the last election, but the public were so fed up with the failed performance of the Ardern/Hipkins years, post-Covid, that they were willing to give him a go. That willingness has been eroded considerably. There is a chance he can pull together enough support at the election to defeat Chris Hipkins, in part because Winston Peters has clearly positioned himself on the conservative right, and David Seymour continues to have a decent base of support for those who think the National Party is too wet, but that chance is far from a safe bet.
Much more importantly, New Zealanders deserve a Prime Minister who they have confidence in, who can take a clear, principled stand on issues, without fluffing his lines. I'm not fussed really if Luxon wants to support the US and Israel over Iran, or oppose it because he thinks it may be against international law, or claim that NZ is watching, not involved and does not want to take a stance out of respect of our allies. Just believe in something.
So he needs to go. Stanford or Bishop look like the leading contenders to replace him. Mitchell hasn't the breadth and depth for the role, and Brown is too young and too conservative to attract the non-politically engaged middle voters National needs. However, Brown would be an excellent Finance Minister.
Stanford is Auckland based, and socially liberal, with the undoubted advantage of being a woman, with a clear, pleasant voice. She would need a deputy who is more conservative and able to moderate concerns she is too wet and centrist. Some may think she could look a little like a National Jacinda, but that is under rating Stanford. It seems unlikely she would characterise herself by emotions and over-ambitious targets. To address concerns about being wet, Brown would be an ideal deputy to Stanford, although two Auckland leaders is not ideal, it is not as problematic as two Wellington ones.
Bishop, notwithstanding the alleged failed plot late last year, is equally as compelling. Being Wellington based is no asset, but the Hutt is a bit different, and he is much more of an "everyman" able to reach across to a broader group of voters. He would need a deputy who is not Wellington based, and although he isn't a "wet" at all, he is socially liberal, so a more conservative deputy who is either Auckland or regionally/rural based would be ideal. Brown again would deliver this, although the push for a woman would suggest Stanford could be a choice, two social liberals might grate against part of the caucus.
I've not mentioned Willis although some would suggest she is the automatic choice, as the current Deputy. There is a clear couple of reasons for that. Firstly, she has anchored herself as a Luxon loyalist, it's difficult to see his weaknesses as not reflecting on her. Secondly, and far more importantly, she has not delivered on substance, particularly on the cost of living, but also notably in turning around the economy. Rather she has pushed relatively insignificant policy measures and issues with little real result. You can predict exactly what the Opposition is going to say, because so much of what she has pushed has delivered little.
I doubt more than 10% of voters could name Family Boost as one of her signature policies, because it's achieved little despite her efforts to publicise the handout. The Opposition has portrayed her as a harsh austerity Finance Minister, which if it were true, would have demonstrated results, with a path to surplus being sooner (and commensurate impacts on inflation and interest rates). She would have upset public sector unions, recipients of government largesse and leftwing academics, but at least would have some respect from the public for taking difficult decisions that were unpopular with some, for the sake of better long term outcomes. She didn't need to be Ruth Richardson to just take spending down to the levels (as a proportion of GDP) when Labour got elected in 2017. In reality she has stemmed the growth in government spending, but wears the banner of "cuts" and hasn't been able to repudiate it. What's much worse than her weakness on spending is the populist hobby horses she has chased to no avail. The utterly fake dressing down of the head of Fonterra for the high price of butter, when no one credible thought anything could be done about it (bear in mind she used to work for Fonterra as a lobbyist), was cringeworthy. Furthermore, she cried wolf so much about supermarkets so when it was clear that the main solution - RMA reform - was actually out of her hands, and given the price of groceries in New Zealand (when GST is taken into account) is not disproportionate to Australia, she couldn't communicate reality and back down after fuelling hype that delivered nothing. Finally, while she has claimed credit over lowered interest rates, that all about to reverse, thanks to a lowering dollar and now the war in the Middle East. She couldn't even get the Reserve Bank's profligacy under control. The public want action on the cost of living, but few believe she can do anything.
She might think she is entitled to be the next Prime Minister, but it's not clear what she has to offer. Most recently, her speech in Parliament about Iran demonstrated a patronising tone that focused not on the events in the Middle East, but what it means for New Zealanders. In foreign affairs, the public wants someone to talk convincingly about what is happening in defence and humanitarian terms, balancing the death and destruction of war, with the optimism of potentially ending a brutal tyranny, and concern about the end-game and what it means for the people involved. New Zealanders know they are far away, and they are not just concerned about inflation and trade, they do not just think of foreign relations as transactional, but as a matter of what is right and its global impacts.
So no, Willis is not the answer. She should not be the next Prime Minister and if Luxon is replaced, she should go too and be replaced, with a Finance Minister who understands what it takes to raise productivity and make New Zealand more attractive for starting and sustaining businesses. It isn't tax breaks for movies.
Of course nothing might happen. Maybe some National MPs want to retire early (!), maybe some think Luxon is misunderstood and the media is to blame, or the polls are missing those who are undecided and will be drawn to him for stability on voting day. They are all wrong. Luxon has been a disaster.
Labour has twice had one-term governments, and twice had two-term governments. National has never had a one-term government, or even a two-term government, but it nearly had a one-term government in 1993. It was saved not just by the voting system, but because voters rejected Mike Moore's second attempt to be Prime Minister as Bolger, just, convinced voters that tough decisions were made for later gain, which proved to be true.
There is a risk in rolling Luxon (and Willis) that it makes the government look like a mistake from the start, that it draws into question the whole period since the last election. However that risk is smaller than just fumbling along and hoping Labour will look less credible, and people will be frightened by the Greens and Te Pati Maori.
With a passionate principled Prime Minister, and a competent, economically literate and sharp minded Finance Minister, a blend of time and courage can convince voters than the National Party has listened and wants to give the public confidence in a new Prime Minister and refreshed impetus to focus on what matters the most to them. It needs to purge the mediocrity, the man who forever says "you know" (when you know he is trying to convince himself as much as you) and give New Zealanders passionate, competent and principled leadership. The time for change is now.
I understand those who think initiating military action against Iran is wrong because it risks lives and money with uncertain results. I also understand those who think intervention either to maintain international peace and security, or to relieve a humanitarian catastrophe (such as an oppressive murderous regime), should have multilateral endorsement.
However, if you are in a secular liberal democracy, and you mourn the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, then you're contemptible.
Of course you should be free to do it. As much as you are free to memorialise the death of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao etc.
Don't expect not to be ridiculed or despised for it though.
Ali Alsamail and Julie Karaki, directors at the Shia Muslim Council of Australia, a peak body, said Khamenei's death was a "religious and communal loss".
"Reducing his death to celebration alone erases the reality that millions are grieving," they said.
"At a time when the Muslim community is already carrying profound anguish over the humanitarian catastrophe and documented human rights violations in Gaza and elsewhere in the region, this moment compounds an already heavy burden."
Oh please.
If your beliefs, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, embrace anguish over someone who presided over a state that ran an oppressive theocracy, which would imprison, torture and execute opponents, including abusing women who didn't follow a misogynistic stone-age view of their rights, then you should bear the burden of others celebrating his death, and disdain from those who are concerned that you endorse such a political and philosophical perspective being applied more universally.
It's one thing to be concerned and upset about Gaza. I get that.
To be mourning and moreover to be demanding there be respect for that mourning is utterly anti-human.
Indeed the ABC continues:
Deakin University chair in global Islamic politics Greg Barton emphasised it was only five out of some 80 Shia mosques and centres in Australia that held commemorative events.
And he suggested the Iranian embassy could be pressuring Iranian religious groups in Australia to do the vigils.
"The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps runs not just a police state in Iran but to the best of their abilities, operates out of embassies and consulates to surveil the diaspora population," Professor Barton said.
Strength be to Iranians. They deserve freedom from the tyranny and oppression of a dark ages regime that treats them all as subservient subjects to a death cult version of Shia Islam.
If you're sad at the Ayatollah's death. Sure, you are free to be, and you are free to mourn, but don't expect any public displays of sadness to not be subject to judgment or criticism.
In particular, consider if you want anyone who is an acolyte of the Ayatollah to be working for you, serving you, working in a hospital, teaching children or, in particular, working in defence or law enforcement. Replace the word Ayatollah with "the Fuehrer" and all that goes with that, and you may be clearer on this.
Unless you're an Islamist, a tankie or a Jew hater, all of whom loathe individual freedom, secular liberal democracy and capitalism, you'll be elated at the sight of thousands of Iranians worldwide cheering on the attacks by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Of course international relations lecturers, the UN and international law advocates will all claim that the attacks are "illegal", which may be true. They cite the inviolability of state sovereignty - the concept that all states are entitled to have inviolable borders and to be free from aggression.
The point of this is that people should be free from war, but the single biggest philosophical question in the context of the attack on Iran, is how legitimate is that principle when it protects a regime that wages war on its own people.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a tyranny, a misogynistic theocratic autocracy that does not hesitate to imprison, torture and execute dissidents. From its oppressive ultra-conservative treatment of women, to its global sponsorship of terror and promotion of its bigoted intolerant brand of theocratic totalitarianism, it is wilful blindness for anyone to claim that this regime was in any way peaceful, or had any remote sense of moral authority.
The celebration of Iranians in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere for the killing of the Supreme Leader is a message of the illegitimacy of a regime that does not tolerate challenge, does not allow for peaceful transitions of power, and suppresses freedom of speech and the media egregiously.
The Iranian Islamist regime has funded, trained and armed terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Israel, and has provided arms for Russia's aggressive revanchist war against Ukraine.
There are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the attacks on Iran:
Will the Islamic Regime actually be overthrown? Or could it remain in power through sheer brutal force against Iranians who seek to overthrow it?
What sort of government will replace it, and could it be worse (more radical)?
How will its proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas respond, spreading conflict further?
After all the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime saw the power gap replaced by an Iranian backed regime following the disaster of ISIS. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi was followed by civil war and bifurcation of the country. The US couldn't sustain the overthrow of the Taliban. So there is good reason to be sceptical about the US being willing to do what is necessary.
However, it is not a reason to cite the belief that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to protection under "state sovereignty" because it doesn't respect the sovereignty of multiple sovereign states, nor does it respect the autonomy of its people.
Those granting the Iranian regime moral equivalency to Israel, the United States, to any liberal democracy, are either completely banal, or morally bankrupt.
When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, there was much domestic opposition in Iran to the regime of the Shah, which was itself autocratic and intolerant. Some liberals and many Marxist activists backed the Islamic Revolution, and were promptly arrested and had their political movements suppressed.
Anyone who supports individual freedom and peace will want the end of this regime, let's just hope it happens, and Iranians, the Middle East and the world will be freer and more peaceful after this action against one of modern history's most brutal, terror promoting and fascist regimes.
The UK is having one of its regular by-elections, this time in Gorton and Denton, a constituency in Manchester. The constituency was new at the 2024 election, and at the time was won by Labour's Andrew Gwynne with 50.8% of the vote, with Reform a distant second on 14.1%. Gwynne had been an MP for a previous constituency since 2005. He was suspended from the Labour Party for a series of Whatsapp messages ranging from joking about hoping a constituent dies, retweeting "sexualised comments" about deputy Angela Rayner, and claiming an American psychologist's name was "too militaristic and too Jewish", he subsequently resigned from Parliament due to ill health.
Gorton and Denton has a relatively low income nationally, with a significant (27%) Asian ethnic minority population, mostly Pakistani, but 57% are white Europeans. A slight majority voted for leaving the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
The campaign has been dominated by the Greens and Reform. The Greens claiming to be the party of the poor and for the Pakistani and Bengali population. Its campaign video depicts Keir Starmer and Narendra Modi, explicitly designed to stir up anti-Indian bigotry, as well as depicting Foreign Secretary David Lammy alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, designed to stir up anti-Israel bigotry. Reform's reaction to this is to call for a hardline against illegal immigration. Labour looks well behind, and the Conservatives are nearly irrelevant. The Greens say they are fighting the hate of Reform and racism, but Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph sees the Greens as pandering to racist hate even moreso and calls for this all to stop.
We should start by calling out the Greens for what they have become: a hateful, despicable, extremist party that has identified an entrepreneurial opportunity in weaponising tribalism, division, stagnant living standards, misinformation and envy. Their behaviour in Gorton and Denton has been abominable.
Following a playbook pioneered by far-Left parties worldwide, the Greens, now led by Zack Polanski, are targeting a red-green coalition of white, woke “progressives” and the reactionary subset of the Muslim electorate. These two groups may appear culturally incompatible, but they can be united not just by their support for socialism but also their often virulent Israelophobia, an atavistic prejudice that the Greens unashamedly pander to....
The Green candidate in Gorton and Denton was photographed wearing a keffiyeh, symbol of Palestinianism, has accused Reform of Islamophobia and racism, and has fronted a video in Urdu featuring Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi meeting Labour politicians, as if these were self-evident provocations and proof of a grand betrayal....
It’s a scandal. Extreme tribalism of the sort promoted by the Greens is incompatible with a democratic culture that requires a strong sense of commonality, a belief in a peoplehood that transcends differences of ideology, race, religion or class. It requires a neutral, single-tier rule of law, where citizens are treated as individuals, not as members of a group. Democracy isn’t just about tallying votes, and handing power to the winner. It is about debate, trying to change people’s minds, feedback mechanisms and punishing or rewarding politicians who fail or succeed.
None of this is possible in a world in which voters vote along religious or ethnic lines, and where the best that can be hoped for is peaceful coexistence and Northern Ireland-style or Lebanese confessionalist power-sharing. Under that scenario, democracy becomes a mere game of arithmetic, of demographic superiority. Outcomes are pre-determined, governed by community leaders.
This may not trouble the Greens: they have reinvented themselves as a vehicle for a new Left that combines Marxism-Leninism, Third Worldism, critical theory, and other radical anti-Western and anti-bourgeois philosophies. They detest private property and family values.
They support quasi-open borders and are soft on crime. They are infected by every Left-wing pathology of the past 200 years, every intellectual error. They have imbued the poison of “anti-colonial” Soviet propaganda, of woke writers such as Derrida, of fanatics such as Edward Said.
Britain used to be a beacon among nations, a country uniquely hostile to extremist parties. The British Union of Fascists never won a single council seat. The Communist Party of Great Britain only seized a couple of parliamentary seats in the 1930s and 1940s. The National Front never made it to Westminster. Militant grabbed Liverpool City Council but was kicked out of Labour by Neil Kinnock. The British National Party won councillors and MEPs, but just 1.9pc of the vote in 2010.
Our record mixes world-class success with catastrophic failure. Some groups have integrated extraordinarily well, and children of immigrants often do better at school and in the labour and housing market than the white British. There has been a surge in mixed-marriages.
At the same time, we have suffered the rise of Islamism, separatism and intra-minority tensions, fuelled by race-obsessed woke policies that denigrate Britishness. We use incorrect metrics: materialistic markers of achievement, rather than ideology. Numerous Islamists are well educated; doctors have been stuck off for anti-Semitism. Many British Jews, whose synagogues offer prayers to the Royal Family weekly, are having to reconsider their future in Britain.
The Panglossians, who believe that tensions will diminish spontaneously; that sectarian voting will wane as it did in England and Scotland by the 1970s; that secularism will dissolve all differences; that Islamism is overblown; that today’s minorities will rapidly become latter-day Huguenots or Irish immigrants, indistinguishable from the rest of the population in all but surname, are delusional.
In addition to slashing immigration, we will need to be more muscular. We will need to crack down pitilessly on extremism, including in some mosques or in local areas where prejudice is rife. We will need to learn from Singapore and other well-managed multicultural states. We cannot allow our country to fragment. Regardless of race or religion, we must all be British.
And understandably: this is not just a struggle for Ukraine, but for the West itself. Aside from Beijing, which is not yet engaged in open warfare against us, the Kremlin has become a focal point for every authoritarian and sadist who would have us subjugated or dead.
The deformed child of 20th-century communism loves Putin. Neo-Nazis love Putin. The Chinese love Putin. The Venezuelan regime, or what’s left of it, loves Putin.
The North Koreans fight in his orc army. Even sponsors of jihadists are his bedfellows; on our first night in Ukraine, of the 297 drones and loitering munitions that were launched into the country, about 200 were Shahed drones made by Iran.
In his book The Fourth Political Theory, the nationalist Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, nicknamed “Putin’s Rasputin”, lavished praise upon the “conservative revolutionist” Osama Bin Laden. The terror mastermind offered hope that “those values that were gathered into a heap and taken to the junkyard can still arise”, Dugin enthused.
Clearly, the overlap between Moscow and jihadism runs more than skin deep. Just as the Western far-Right conjures Putin as an anti-woke strongman rather than the murderous tyrant he is, Dugin absurdly projects onto jihadism a kind of orthodox cultural conservatism.
But what these repulsive groups really have in common is that they all loathe the free West. In recent years, three peoples have found themselves facing this omni-enemy on the civilisational frontlines: the Iranians, the Israelis and the Ukrainians. They know they stand together and they know they stand for us.
If Isaac Herzog were not Jewish and certainly were not Israeli, an objective assessment of him would see him ticking most mainstream liberal boxes on political views. He was a member of the Israeli Labor Party before it merged with Meretz to be the new secular centre-left party of Israel. Herzog believes in a two-state solution and “land for peace”, which is the mainstream view of virtually all liberal democracies across the world on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He is socially liberal. He was a strident critic of Netanyahu and was Leader of the Opposition for four and half years.
President of Israel is not the same as President of the United States. It is not an executive function, but a constitutional head of state. It is elected by the Knesset for a single seven-year term, and is largely a ceremonial and administrative function, not political. The President doesn’t declare war or decide on the budget or pass laws.
He’s currently visiting Australia in response to the worst terrorist attack in Australia’s history, which targeted Jews for being Jews, on the holiest of days, in Bondi on 14 December 2025. This is understandable, as Israel exists as the national homeland of Jews. He has travelled to Australia to offer condolences, sympathy and comfort to the families and friends of the 15 who were murdered, and the entire Australian Jewish community who feel vulnerable, threatened and frightened.
None of this matters to the psychopathic hate mobs who have been protesting in Australian cities about his visit, calling him a “war criminal” (even though he has literally no role whatsoever in declaring, waging or ending war) and choosing to disrupt solemn occasions created by the Jewish community to support themselves, and to mourn the dead.
Plenty of them are well meaning but ignorant people, who are riled up by anger about what happened in Gaza, which is nothing to do with Australian Jews and little to do with President Herzog, and of course which they don’t give any agency to Hamas which started the war by a sadistic massacre of Jews at a music festival, and abduction of hostages, many of which it killed. A mix of understandable distress and anger about the suffering of some, blends with hyperbolic propaganda, and the deep buckets of Jew hatred spread by Hamas and its backers in Tehran and elsewhere, to a venal expression of hate. Hate not just for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but a hatred of Israel itself, demands that it be eradicated (and who imagines what happens to Jews and Arabs who are happily Israeli citizens during and after this process), and of course anyone who opposes them is a fair target. Given most Jews support the existence of the State of Israel (even if many oppose the Netanyahu Government), it’s a very short jump to want to wipe Israel off the map and want to wipe Jews off the map or rather eject them from their homeland. You know the land that, if it were in Australia would “always is and always will be” their land?
Some are not well-meaning people of course. Those are the ones flying the flags of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solidarity of the ones who claim that there is a Zionist conspiracy running the media, governments and the world. Those are the ones who think the Bondi massacre was a false flag, or Israel’s fault. Those are the ones who want Jews to be scared, because they are probably pro-Israel. Those are the neo-Nazis, Hamas supporters and utterly evil.
Yet they all march, protest and shout together. They say nothing about the 30,000 murdered for protesting the brutal authoritarian Iranian Islamist regime. Like they say nothing about mass murders in Sudan, Syria, Ukraine or Burma. For they aren’t human rights activists, they don’t care about peace, let alone freedom of individuals. Nor do they care about the deaths of Muslims (for the ones in Iran don’t count, because they are rejecting an Islamist theocracy), or Arabs (see Syria’s civil war which saw no protests of Russia backing barrel bombing/chemical weapon dropping Assad).
It matters not to them that Herzog wants a Palestinian state, opposes settlements in the West Bank, wants peaceful co-existence and is simply in Sydney to give support, sympathy and courage to a Jewish community as shattered by its terror attack as Muslims in Christchurch were by the attack on them. They couldn’t just spend some days being quiet, letting Jews have space and time to be themselves, with a head of state that is there for them. No, they couldn’t.
The moronic can change, because almost everyone was once young, naïve and stupid. It doesn’t take much to learn something about the topic you protest about, to stop following your readily packaged social group going on protests you think are righteous because people you like think that way (and how could they be wrong). The malignant are another story. They deserve all of the contempt and disgust that polite company treats Nazis.
"A Labour MP was prevented from visiting a school in his constituency because the teaching unions and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign do not like the fact that he believes Israel should have a right to exist. The MP in question is Damien Egan, who represents Bristol North East" ...
We know of this story only because Steve Reed, the Communities
Secretary, who describes himself as a Zionist, mentioned it during an
address to the Jewish Labour Movement, without naming Egan. Reed said of
the people who had scuppered Egan’s visit: ‘They will be called in, and
they will be held to account for doing that, because you cannot have
people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our children.
Well, Steve, there’s people with those kinds of attitudes teaching our
children in pretty much every school in the country, save for a few free
schools and some of those in the private sector
"In fact I cannot think of a single occupation more likely to be stocked
with these pig-ignorant dunderheads than teaching, a calling which they
gravitate towards because they are useless at everything else and also
to acquire a soupçon of power which is otherwise wholly absent from
their wretched, impotent lives"
It's a bit late. I thought of writing about the fact it is election year in New Zealand, but that seems almost inconsequential when the entire international order is being turned upside down, primarily because the President of the United States does not value individual freedom, liberal democracy, free market capitalism or alliances at all.
It's easy to cheer the overthrow of Nicholas Maduro, but perplexing to see the anointment of his Vice-President as someone Trump can "do business with" while snubbing the actual Opposition leader, who actually won the last election and has broad based support, because presumably she hasn't shown enough obeisance to him. Venezuela is better off, but not by as much as it could be.
It's also easy to be hopeful that Iranians will shrug off the evil, totalitarian Islamic Republic, and starve the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah from waging terror on the people they govern and hate, but note that for all of the bluster, it's far from clear what anyone else is doing to help Iranians remove their racist, misogynistic masters.
It's not so easy to be optimistic about Ukraine, even though it has largely held off the Russian military from total victory, because on the one hand Europe has been pathetic in providing support it needs, and President Trump has decided that Russia taking over its immediate neighbours is none of his business. On the other hand it is hard not to see Russia flailing about as a failing empire, with an economy largely fuelled by moral relativist allies buying its oil and gas, while producing 1980s era military hardware, as its population tumbles and it looks to Beijing to give it some assurance.
It's also not so easy to be optimistic about Taiwan, again although most of its citizens are willing to fight for their free, liberal democratic "Republic of China", because nobody really knows if Trump will help it, or not. Japan looks like it might help it, which would be a significant step. However, we know the leadership in both Canberra and Wellington are far more interested in selling goods to the aggressive PRC than in showing any moral leadership. Meanwhile, the PRC itself faces multiple challenges, ranging from a spiralling property investment debt bubble, declining population (especially among working age adults), 30 million more men than women and a population increasingly fed up with the distractions of the CCP.
It's difficult to not be pessimistic about the divide between the US and Denmark, Greenland and the rest of Europe. The US has almost unfettered access to Greenland for military purposes under NATO. The mineral resources of Greenland are far too costly to extract given the thickness of the Arctic tundra. The idea that the US, rather than Denmark or the people of Greenland themselves should govern the world's largest island because of an "imminent threat" is just absurd. There is no threat from the PRC through Greenland, and the threat from Russia seems specious when there us little effort to kneecap Russia's revanchism over Ukraine (and elsewhere). Turning all of Europe against the US is not something many would have forecast, but it makes Moscow and Beijing grin.
On the other hand, there is mild optimism that Israel remains capable of inflicting a bloody nose against Hamas when it seeks to wipe out Jews, although there is less optimism that an enduring peace settlement can come from Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Maybe the overthrow of Iran could help that, but so would US pressure on Israel.
There is some optimism that the self-sabotaging policies of many Western countries, in regulating and taxing industries for the sake of mitigating climate change, only to see those industries shift to China, India and elsewhere that do not care one bit about mitigating climate change, is coming to an end. However, there is little optimism that it will be matched by liberalising economies and freeing them from the constraints that mean Europe, in particular, generates little new business innovation on a global scale.
There is also optimism that the trend towards the post-modernist critical constructivism that ranks people like Marxist-Leninists, according to fictional hierarchies of oppression and domination, is losing traction. More and more people are resisting the confected idea that merely because of your race, sex, gender and sexuality you're either an enlightened downtrodden oppressed victim who needs to be "listened to" and "empowered" (even if you're already a high-profile politician or celebrity with a large personal fortune) or an obsolete oppressive white supremacist (you don't even have to be white) misogynist who should be "shut down" and "know your place" (even if you're an unknown nobody who owns little). This whilst those claiming it are living in the economic and social system that has allowed the greatest level of prosperity, freedom of self-expression and diversity of viewpoints and lifestyles in human history.
However, the pessimism is that part of the reaction to this is to embrace post-modernist conspiratorialism that is xenophobic, ultra-nationalist and anti-capitalist, that doesn't just want to leave peaceful people alone, treats outsiders as the enemy rather than people who can embrace free-market capitalist high-trust liberal democratic society, and sees criticism of itself as being as binary as the far-left critical constructivists.
Nevermind, I have something else on my mind this year.
I’m not going to pretend that I would protest for any movement that has the support of Hamas or Fatah, but of course anyone in a liberal democracy has the right to express their views on what happens in Gaza. The consequences of some of those views are to stir up not just hatred of Israel, but hatred of Israelis and of course of Jews, despite the claims of best efforts of many protesting that they oppose all forms of “anti-semitism” (and curiously then say also “Islamophobia” et al, because you can’t just criticise Jew hatred without relativising it with hatred of the people of the religion that seems to have a disproportionate number of promoters of Jew hatred).
People can protest for an independent Palestinian state (the idea it would be “free” is fanciful, but the far-left, which dominates these protests, regarded leaders from Robert Mugabe to Macias Nguema to be “liberating” their people), but perhaps some of the following might be less likely to encourage and promote Jew hatred:
•Exclude anyone calling to “globalise the intifada”: Don’t kid yourself. If you read about what the Palestinians intifadas involved, it was targeting Israeli civilians in terror attacks. Intifada is violent resistance. If you want to undertake it globally, who do you want to target? Who will get targeted? It’s Jews (nobody undertaking such attacks.
•Exclude anyone supportive of Hamas or the 7th October attack or justifying them: Justifying most murderous pogrom of Jews since the Holocaust, at a music festival is justifying violence against civilians. It wasn’t an attack on a military target, but much worse than that, it took men, women and children as hostages. It saw the gleeful slaughter of young people because they were Jews. If you want to justify the sadistic slaughter and taking of civilian hostages because of who they are, then you’ll justify it happening anywhere.
•Exclude anyone using symbols that place the Star of David into a rubbish bin or depict it with a swastika: Equating any regime with Nazi Germany is a tall order. Russia’s actions in Ukraine could justify it, given the use of the Z slogan, the abduction of children, the direct targeting of civilians and the desire to destroy Ukrainian culture, but the Gaza protestors are uninterested in that. North Korea has many shades of Nazism, given its totalitarian system that tolerates zero dissent and promotes racial superiority. However, to link Jews to the regime that sought to eliminate them is promoting Jew hatred. That’s not a call for a Palestinian state it’s a call to wipe them out wherever they may be.
•Promote peace talks and a two-state solution, not the extinction of Israel: Most governments agree that this is the only solution for a lasting peace, but so many protestors call for Israel to be destroyed. If you are chanting for the destruction of the Jewish homeland (where Jews have lived for thousands of years), then you’ll justify destruction of those who want to retain it and to keep Jews as a global diaspora always at the mercy of others.
•Call for the overthrow of Hamas and for Gaza (and the West Bank) to be a secular liberal democracy: If you just think Gazans should live under the jackboot of Hamas, with its explicit Jew hatred and support for eliminating Jews, then you’re hardly damning attacks on Jews are you?
•Demand an end to foreign support for Hamas: Iran and Qatar both fund and support Hamas, and Iran in particular constantly expounds Jew hatred, including Holocaust denial and tropes about Jews running the world. Maybe, just once, protest against the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Of course you can criticise Netanyahu, any Israeli political party, you can call for the occupation to end, you can call for a Palestinian state, but if you are silent on Hamas, silent on the Jew hatred that drips from Palestinian political movements and welcome explicitly anti-semitic individuals and their rhetoric into your protests, you’re part of the problem.
Some activists say that if you have one Nazi at your protest, you’re at a Nazi protest. Well, there is no lack of people that are part of the pro-Palestine movement who expound Jew hatred. Whether it is the trope that the Jews run the world, or that Mossad was responsible for 9/11, the Holocaust was exaggerated (or there was a good reason for it), there is plenty of evidence that that movement attracts Jew hatred.
Maybe, just maybe, treat these like you claim to treat people who are racist…
Oh and calling "despicable" the act of lighting a museum in the colours of the Israeli flag days after it had suffered an explicitly anti-semitic attack of Jew murder, isn't caring about Jews, is it MP for Auckland Central?
Sadly I wont be holding my breath while you pretend all your colleagues, friends and fellow travellers are all good people who are “anti-violence”.
When the leftie kids go on marches shouting "globalise the intifada" alongside the geriatric tankies and the blood-thirsty Salafist and Wahhabist Islamists (who know what it mean), they probably think it means protest marches, blog posts and "deplatforming" Jews Israelis.
Well Bondi is what it means. A group of murderers out to target Jews in a place far away from the Middle East, living lives of peace. It's not just the 15 murdered by the fascist Islamists, it's the pipe bombs found and the car containing explosives. The intifada perpetrators wanted a bloodbath - in Bondi - because they hated Jews.
Whether it's about Gaza or Palestine, or the age old belief that Jews control the world, or whatever it is, doesn't matter so much. When you call for a global holy war for your cause, then this is the result. This, when Gaza is under a ceasefire.
Jews are frightened in Tel Aviv, London, Paris and Sydney, and everywhere, because politicians enable a small bunch of radicals to let fascist ideology take over marches and protests that started almost instantly after the 7th October pogrom was launched.
Jews are always afraid of Nazis, so are Muslims, so are the many others Nazis hate, but they aren't the main cause of their fear. They fear the (Iranian supported) Islamists who want to wage war against them globally, and the far-left academics and students who cheer them on, or apologise for them, or now... say this is a false flag that Mossad set up.
The problem is mainstream politicians, not just the far-left, have appeased it as well.
If you don't think there is a direct line from the ghouls who were "elated" on Sydney streets after 7th October, or stood outside the Sydney Opera House shouting "where's the Jews" or "gas the Jews" (it hardly matters), then you're kidding yourself.
It's time for those politicians to come out, to make it explicitly clear that there shall be no intifada, that Jew hatred must be expunged from the public space AND from mosques that expound it, and that Australia is no place for anyone who justifies terrorism, or wants to make any peaceful citizens fear for their existence.
Apologies, I've been following this whole segment of road for far too long, from growing up being driven through Mt Victoria Tunnel, to some work on the Inner City Bypass 20 odd years ago to living near the tunnel today.
....
The Government’s proposal for a 2nd Mt Victoria Tunnel, 2nd Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of the roads around the Basin Reserve and widening of Vivian St is the latest set of proposals to fix the unfinished business of the Wellington Urban Motorway. We will see whether all, some or any of it proceeds, but for the sake of Wellington at least some of it should (specifically the tunnels), because the status quo, notwithstanding the largely evidence free claims of Green Party politicians, is an absurd waste of time and energy in a city of this size.
History
It wouldn’t be hard to write a book about the history behind all of this, which started with then US consultancy firm De Leuw Cather, preparing a “transportation master plan” for Wellington. It considered the option of a waterfront motorway (see Seattle and San Francisco for now demolished versions of this), but preferred what was known as the Foothills Motorway. It follows the existing motorway, with two instead of one Terrace Tunnel (3 lanes each way), with 2 lanes continuing on a motorway going under and over various streets and, initially, demolishing the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange, before finishing up at a second Mt Victoria Tunnel (2 lanes each way using the existing tunnel). De Leuw Cather also proposed placing the Wellington commuter rail service underground to Courtenay Place, through the reclamation land. Of course that latter proposal wasn’t going anywhere, but the motorway started from Ngauranga (not connected to Ngauranga Gorge, but rather as just an extension of the Hutt Road from the Hutt). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the motorway cut a swathe through Thorndon and Kelburn, with much of a cemetery dug up and interred in a mass grave (don’t think that this was an era of much consecration to Christian religious values). However, the 1974 oil crisis (entirely stemming from the Yom Kippur War) saw a slowing down of the project, with the Muldoon Government ultimately deciding that it (and multiple other road projects) would be terminated at Willis Street, with the segment from Bowen Street south halved in scope. One Terrace Tunnel, one lane southbound, two lanes northbound.
At the time, with the motorway only being SH2 (SH1 still being the Hutt Road from Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, and continuing along the waterfront to the termination point of Jervois Quay and Taranaki Street), this made some sense. It was never congested, and the scale of traffic through Te Aro was easily handled by the Vivian St/Ghuznee Street one way pair.
In 1983 the Ngauranga Interchange changed all that, by around doubling traffic on the motorway, the end of the motorway became a bottleneck, exacerbated by the single lane in the tunnel. Further bottlenecks existed with Ghuznee Street and Buckle Street, with the dog leg route from the Basin Reserve to the motorway being utterly unsuitable for the traffic volumes going through it. This situation persisted for 12 years.
Meanwhile, a scaled back proposal to ease the traffic pressure came from the then National Roads Board. A motorway extension designed as an arterial highway with 70km/h speed standards. The original plan to destroy the Basin Reserve for a motorway interchange (which had been shelved some years previously) was replaced with a highway bridge across the northern boundary of the park. The Terrace and Mt Victoria Tunnels would be linked by a fully grade separated highway going under Willis and Victoria Streets, severing Cuba Street (except for a pedestrian bridge), passing over Taranaki Street before darting under Tory and Sussex Streets. One lane would extend from Mt Victoria Tunnel under Sussex Street to join a second lane from the south. Whereas one lane would exit at the Basin to Cambridge Terrace and Dufferin St, with one lane extending to Mt Victoria Tunnel.
1980 scaled down motorway extension proposal before it got dropped in a trench in 1991
Fully trenched but not covered in this brutalist image that looks like it was designed to kill it
The next decade or so would see the project rise up the regional priority rating, as other projects were built: Upper Hutt Bypass, Mungavin Interchange, Silverstream-Manor Park 4-laning etc, but then the funding system for roads was reformed. The Ministry of Works was abolished, and shortly thereafter, Ruth Richardson slashed funding for roads. At the time, funding was mostly allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis, with 25 year return periods. For around two years funding was not even sufficient to keep up with maintenance, and as the 90s progressed, the Wellington Urban Motorway arterial extension went up in cost and was always borderline for funding. However, it always had a BCR of over 2 when the threshold for funding was 5 or 4.
At the same time the nascent Green Party campaigned vehemently against it. To try to address concerns the project was first redesigned to be trenched the whole way across Te Aro, then put in a cut-and-cover tunnel to the bridge on the north of Basin (called Tunnellink). However, it was clear by the mid 1990s that funding wasn’t likely for over a decade. So a three stage project was advanced. First a simple one-way pairing of Buckle and Vivian Street, followed by what is now known as Karo Drive. Karo Drive literally took around 12 years from its inception to opening, largely because of the opposition to it by the Green Party spreading vast amounts of misinformation. Then Green MP Sue Kedgley always called it a “motorway extension”, and eventually when it got funded by Transfund, and all legal avenues under the RMA to stop it were exhausted, it got built. It was only meant to be a ten year stopgap until the Tunnellink could be built.
However, by then Transit NZ (later to be merged with Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority) had largely given up on the idea of a cut and cover tunnel. So the next step was to fix the Basin Reserve, and plus ça change it was stopped by an organised campaign of the Greens and Mt Victoria NIMBYs. This was for a two-lane 50km/h one lane bridge clear of the Basin Reserve, westbound.
2001 - preferred Basin grade separation without Tunnellink
2008 - one of the options for the Basin Bridge
At the tail end of the Key/English Government there was a commitment to a second Mt Victoria Tunnel, but of course that all was stopped under the Ardern Government, as the Greens made sure that the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project would prioritise emission reductions, and put little value on reducing general traffic congestion.
The Ardern/Hipkins Government did support a second tunnel, but it was to close the existing tunnel to motor vehicle traffic, and build a new one with four-lanes, two for buses. In short, no relief for general traffic.
What’s been proposed?
So here we are today with essentially five main elements to upgrading SH1 through Wellington. Once again the Greens are talking about “building a motorway through Wellington” which it absolutely does not do. It doesn’t build one metre more of motorway, but it does widen one section along an existing motorway corridor. The five elements are:
-Second Terrace Tunnel
-Upgrading SH1’s one-way pair through Te Aro
-Basin Reserve reconfiguration
-Second Mt Victoria Tunnel
-Widening eastern approach roads to Mt Victoria Tunnels.
Second Terrace Tunnel: This is sensible, because it will the single biggest measure to remove 20% of traffic from the waterfront route. It is on a smaller scale than the original proposal (will be two-lanes not three southbound and the existing tunnel will only be two-lanes northbound), but should not be controversial. What will constrain it is…
Upgrading SH1 through Te Aro: Reversing forty years of planning, Te Aro will still be blighted by heavy highway traffic pushing through it, by widening Vivian Street (which has been designated on the Wellington District Plan for many years) to three lanes one way. As a stopgap this is satisfactory from a traffic flow point of view. but is hardly a long-term solution. It should have a cut-and-cover tunnel along the line of Karo Drive, which would be expensive and disruptive, but would be transformational for Te Aro. A proper bypass would make a huge difference, but for now with the two tunnels being the major bottlenecks, that idea isn’t progressing. In short, this will be the new bottleneck, exposing the greatest number of pedestrians (and traffic) to delays and emissions. It’s the cheap part of the package, and it will need to be addressed at a later date.
What’s disconcerting is that there is little future proofing to enable a solution to his, especially with this proposal…
Basin Reserve reconfiguration: There is no shortage of options designed to fix this problem, which is essentially the need to separate east-west traffic from north-south traffic, while also allowing it to interchange. The latest proposal partially separates traffic, but it means the same number of traffic light controlled intersections westbound and eastbound on SH1. See below:
No doubt clearing Mt Victoria Tunnel congestion will improve eastbound flows, but it is far from clear that retaining a network of pedestrian controlled traffic lights and keeping SH1 at ground level in front of the Basin Reserve will not create new bottlenecks, and worsen the concentration of traffic/emissions across the northern side of the Basin. The Rugby/Dufferin Street sections outside the schools will be quieter, but be a ratrun for traffic from the city to SH1 west, and from Newtown to SH1 east. The big winner is north-south traffic to and from Newtown towards the city.
No doubt there will be a net improvement, but it is clear from the proportion of benefits of the total package that this is where not much will be gained. What’s particularly concerning is that it doesn’t look like it provides for future proofing building a parallel eastbound pair of lanes to take traffic from Vivian Street and over to the second Mt Victoria Tunnel. I understand the reluctance to elevate SH1 near the Basin, but it could be done by elevating Sussex Street over SH1 and building an artificial hill to carry the road with significant mitigation of the visual and noise impacts of a bridge. This is a mess. The new Green Link looks like it is preserving an option, or maybe it is preventing it.
Second Mt Victoria Tunnel: This is like past proposals and is entirely suitable as a solution to this problem. It is a shame that westbound its capacity will be constrained by unnecessary intersections at the Basin.
Widening eastern approach roads: Four-laning Ruahine St and Wellington Rd (six lanes at points) has long been the right approach, but the design of intersections seems bizarre indeed. Grade separating at Hataitai Park (to a new road where houses currently exist) seems over the top. The removal of Taurima St access to Mt Victoria Tunnel needs a solution, as does access to Hataitai Park, but why is this intersection getting such lavish treatment, but Wellington Rd/Ruahine St (which enables access from Newtown to the airport, from Hataitai to Newtown, and for access to southern Newtown to and from SH1 bypassing the bottleneck in front of the Hospital) is curtailed to simple slip lanes in one direction only? The latter should be a full scale intersection. Previous plans simply had an elaborate intersection at Goa Street, although there is some merit in having grade separation, it seems odd that a low traffic intersection gets it, but not the much heavier traffic ones at Kilbirnie Crescent and Evans Bay Parade (although imagine the outcry if that were proposed).
There are lots of minor details in this section which make access between Kilbirnie, SH1 and Hataitai worse, presumably to save money from more comprehensive wider intersections. Much of this looks worse for residents. In particular, anyone driving from Newtown to the airport will weirdly have to drive through Kilbirnie’s CBD (but not in the other direction). Anyone driving from Hataitai to Newtown will either have to go through Mt Victoria Tunnel to ratrun past the stands at the Basin Reserve, or go into Kilbirnie and ratrun up Duncan Tce. (a narrow street with poor visibility at the top).
This is all details though in intersection design, which I expect locals to have their views on. The Greens are claiming a big increase in traffic in Moxham Avenue will occur, but that’s mostly a shift from Taurima Street and the existing intersection on Ruahine Street.
Thinking more widely
There is talk of tolling the route, although no details have been presented, it is difficult to envisage it not simply being at the tunnels. On its own this would have merit if the whole proposal enabled free flow traffic all the way. It doesn’t. Paying a toll to drive through the Terrace Tunnel to end up at Vivian Street isn’t a compelling proposition, and would divert local traffic from the tunnel to The Terrace. Likewise paying to use Mt Victoria Tunnel to reach a pair of traffic light controlled junctions by the Basin Reserve. A full scale freeflow bypass would be another proposition, offering a high value fast trip, but that isn’t what is proposed.
On the other hand, a central Wellington congestion pricing scheme within the boundaries of SH1, which helps pay for this, would have much more merit as it would reduce traffic towards the city at peak times, and enable better flow of traffic around it. An AM peak inbound, PM peak outbound price for driving in and out of Wellington on weekdays would have some merit.
Much has been raised about the BCRs of the project, but although I put some value on economic analysis, when it comes to tunnels, the return period for them is much longer than any conventional highway or bridge. Tunnels last almost forever once dug, and only need moderate upgrades throughout their existence. So I treat the two tunnels as very long term investments in addressing the resilience of the city’s transport network, and enabling a future full scale bypass of the city.
Claims from the likes of the Greens that “car tunnels” (a deliberate misinformation campaign to diminish the role of freight and buses) will just induce more traffic are largely nonsense, especially if congestion pricing is introduced in parallel. There is no more capacity that will be build north of Ngauranga Interchange, so more traffic cannot be attracted from that direction, and with much of the traffic on the route bypassing the city, little of that is going to be attracted from public transport to driving. Modern cities have good bypasses, Wellington has lacked it for decades.
So I’m in favour of the tunnels, in favour of the widening east of Mt Victoria Tunnel (with some caveats), but the upgrade through Te Aro is cheap and nasty, and needs to make provision for something better once the two tunnels are built. It will be obvious the city needs a proper bypass. The Basin Reserve proposal is messy and poor value. It’s unclear why north-south traffic going in a four-lane trench is better than being on a four-lane bridge over the east-west traffic, and why so many light controlled intersections should be kept. It should be reconsidered.
And for the opponents...
"A City for People" is, of course, a Green Party oriented activist site (they always claim to be non-partisan, even though the members are largely not) ideologically and philosophically aligned to the other Green oriented activist ginger groups (which have a lot of interchangeable members) like Generation Zero, Parents for Climate Aotearoa, Cycle Wellington, Women in Urbanism, Renters United and the Sustainability Trust.
The propaganda inference is that if you don't support their policies, you don't want a "city for people". It's a shade of the People's Republics, which imply if you oppose them, you're opposed to The People. While I have some support for their campaign to enable more intensification, this isn't a group in favour of more freedom and less government. It is not in favour of people who want to drive, or people who ship goods or deliver goods.
It claims "A whole generation of people are being forced out from the city spending hours every day in traffic jams". While I have lot of sympathy about housing prices, the idea that people in Wellington are spending "hours every day in traffic jams" is nonsense.
It states:
The cost of this project is truly bananas. Per kilometre it’s the most expensive roading project in the entire country. It’s $2.9-3.8 billion (with a B - looks like this).
And it’s all about a relatively small aspect of Wellington’s transport problems: private-car congestion at selected times.
It makes no attempt to fix what will make the most difference to people (and LGWM’s origin story): the bus-network that’s already at capacity and hamstrung by being stuck in general traffic.
Even just for general traffic congestion, this project is jumping to a platinum-plated mega project solution before we’ve tried all the other things first.
It could do irreparable harm to Wellington, just as we’re starting the transition to being a real city.
It IS expensive, but tunnels are. I'd note that the Let's Get Wellington Moving project to build a single tram line to Island Bay and a second Mt Victoria Tunnel that added no new road capacity (but freed up the existing tunnel entirely for cycling and walking, and added lanes for buses) was $7.4 billion. That would have delivered a tram to Island Bay that would have been no faster than current bus services, and only modest relief to traffic congestion at the Basin Reserve.
The claim that the proposal is just about addressing "private car congestion" is misinformation, and minimises a situation that exists most of the day during weekdays and much of the weekends. It also affects bus congestion from the eastern and southern suburbs at the Basin and Kilbirnie Crescent. It isn't just cars, it's also trucks (the Greens pretend freight doesn't matter), taxis and rideshare services, besides the majority of trips undertaken in Wellington are by car, either as drivers or passengers.
It WILL fix bus network capacity issues, especially at the Basin Reserve, Kent Terrace and from the Eastern Suburbs, as traffic will flow much more freely, and take 20% of traffic off of the waterfront route. It's wilful blindness to pretend otherwise (because these people think any new road capacity is malign).
The claim it is a "platinum plated mega project solution" before "we've tried all the other things first" is pejorative nonsense, especially from people who were happy to spend double that, mostly on a tunnel and tram line. The only option that might help somewhat is road pricing, but the advocacy for that is muted. There is no realistic chance of significant modal shift for trips that bypass the city, because they have a diverse range of origins and destinations. Likewise, without an additional tunnel to the eastern suburbs, there will not be modal shift from there as buses cannot flow freely. It's fair to object to spending a lot on transport infrastructure, but not when you're solutions are more expensive and require significantly more taxpayer cost over time to subsidise their operations.
The claim it could do "irreparable harm" to Wellington is pejorative hyperbole. The land for the second tunnels is hardly significant, part of it is within the motorway corridor in any case.
Finally, their claims about the proposals are weak:
It aims to “fix” traffic congestion by building a bigger road in the centre. Never, not ever, has this worked.
If you look at the numbers for how LGWM’s package was going to “fix traffic”, it wasn’t the very expensive road-building that was going to do the heavy lifting: it was congestion charging (digital infrastructure and some gantries) and the second spine for public transport (paint, signage, timetabling). And the costs for civil construction (which this expansion project is all about) have rocketed since then.
There are lots of flaws with the logic: smooth, faster-flowing traffic through the city centre while also somehow not worsening severance in Te Aro, and while also allowing lots of cars to turn on and off it…
Its Cost-Benefit Ratio is already low (even with the extra-low discount rate now allowed to be used) and the Inner City Bypass was found to have been probably not worth the money spent on it (we lose more than we gain from having it) so it’s highly likely this will be worse given its far greater costs. The opportunity cost of this public money is dismaying.
First bullet is wrong. It is not a bigger road in the centre at all, and yes building new roads has fixed congestion in many cases, especially in smaller cities. Many cities have inner bypasses that work, such as Oslo, Berne and Bergen, and they DO relieve congestion. The first motorway in New Zealand, the Johnsonville-Tawa segment, remains adequate for traffic at most times and there is NO proposal to widen it. It's time that the oft-claimed "every new road induces traffic until it fills up" is tempered by reality that this is only true in some cases.
Yes, congestion charging will have a big impact on traffic, which is also being enabled by this government. The second spine for public transport wont work effectively without a better bypass to take through traffic off the waterfront (and any good congestion charging scheme enables traffic to bypass it because public transport does not do well serving most demand that does not start or terminate in the central city). Furthermore, just converting lanes on the waterfront to bus lanes will make congestion worse, which backs up to buses elsewhere in the network.
The third bullet has a point. Not building a proper bypass under Te Aro will worsen the severance due to SH1, but the Greens spent years campaigning against a cut and cover tunnel under Te Aro to fix this. Nothing will magically fix this problem, short of kneecapping the economy and demand for travel.
Yes it is a low value project, but it underestimates the real lifecycle benefits of tunnels (which last for much longer than any appraisal period). It is fair to argue about the opportunity cost of the money, but then I don't think the people pushing this want people to pay lower taxes and spend the money themselves! The Greens opposed the project when it had BCRs of 2-5 in the 1990s, with a much higher discount rate and 25 year appraisal period. It is difficult to believe that if it had a BCR of 5 or 10 the opposition would change, it is a blanket opposition to any new road capacity regardless of whether it is priced or not.
The whole wording of the opposition is childish and sneering towards people's choices. The language that sneers at ""popping down to Moore Wilsons” and “going to pick the kids up cos it’s raining”" is misanthropic. So what if people want to do that, as long as they pay at peak times. Most people can't live within walking or cycling distances of where they want to go.
These groups stopped Wellington getting a proper bypass in the 1990s and beyond, and the blight of having at at-grade SH1 through Te Aro is because of this philosophy.
Could it be better? Yes. Should there be pricing? Yes. Should it mean the tunnels shouldn't proceed? No.
When Jews get targeted in what should be safe liberal democracies, it doesn't quite see the same response as when Muslims or targeted or even the general populace. We all recall that, by and large, the Christchurch mosque attack saw universal outrage and condemnation. Muslims targeted for who they are. Utterly innocent, and nobody would utter that they had some fault because they hadn't condemned say the Taliban, ISIS, Iran or any of the multitude of Islamofascist terror or totalitarian regimes. Certainly had anyone wanted to protest against the actions of any such groups the very next day, it would have been frowned upon and scorned. However, when it comes to Jews, targeted by association with Israel and therefore the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza, there is no thought around taste and sensitivity. The "pro-Palestinian" protestors (who range from people expressing concern over humanitarian conditions, to those wanting to wipe out Israel and "globalise the Intifada" (!) don't give a damn, after all it wasn't THEM doing it. Besides, "genocide". If you think that there is a deliberate campaign to wipe out an entire people, then a few Jews being killed by a jihadist are a mere detail.
Jews, you see, have a tryptych of groups who hate them. Traditionally their chief enemies were the (self-styled) Christian-aligned far-right, which of course inspired the Nazis, and are seen today in the actual far-right (you know, the Holocaust denying, "wrong side won the war", white power, big state type - not the current trend to call free-market liberal or traditionalist conservatives fascists). Their attacks on Jews are rare, thankfully.
The bigger problems are Islamists, often motivated by wanting to wipe out Israel, but also buying into pretty much the whole panoply of neo-Nazi conspiratorial Jew hate, and the far-left. The far-left, who also tout the anti-concept "whiteness" see Jews as "ultra-white". Jews are rich, successful in many industries and in politics, and of course are seen as "colonists" wherever they go. In the far-left's endless desire to categorise people under critical theory as "oppressed" vs. "oppressors", Jews get placed in the latter, so they don't count... again. They don't count.
If they were from any other minority, no one on the left would have the slightest trouble denouncing the deaths of 53-year-old Adrian Daulby and 66-year-old Melvin Cravitz as the result of a lethal racist attack. A terrorist with the resonant name of Jihad Al-Shamie – talk about nominative determinism – went for them because they were Jews.
He continues:
Last night pro-Palestinian demonstrators couldn’t give it a rest – not even for 24 hours. They were outside Downing Street and Manchester’s Piccadilly station, chanting all the old slogans and ducking all the hard questions. ‘Globalise the intifada,’ they cried – does that mean killing Jews in Manchester? ‘Palestine will be free from the river to the sea’ – does that mean driving out all the Jews living between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan?
It should be the easiest thing in the world for pro-Palestinian demonstrators to reject accusations of Jew hate and dismiss these questions as smears. It’s not anti-Semitic to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli far right. Nor is it in any way racist to deplore the reduction of Gaza to a charnel house of rubble and bones.
Yet much of the British left cannot defend itself against charges of bigotry because many leftists (not all, but many) refuse to define anti-Jewish racism and declare it unacceptable. They can’t and won’t because any condemnation of anti-Semitism would imply a condemnation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocrats. Rather than take a stand against the very people who have led the Palestinian cause to disaster, they prefer to say nothing at all.
Excitement is the often overlooked element when it comes to anti-Semitism – an excitement that is almost sexual. There is a sadistic feeding frenzy to this anti-Jewish crusade, as though the rape rampage of Hamas made the cause of anti-Semites more, not less, worth rallying around. The ‘Paraglider Girls’ convicted this week appeared like overgrown Girl Guides, their grim insignia a twist on badges for Kayaking or being an Emergency Helper – only evil.
The fact that the pro-Palestinian marches started before Israel actually retaliated was a big tell; these people weren’t marching against Israel defending itself, but in favour of Israel being attacked. Unless they all had access to a big old time-travel machine, of course.
Nazis did this, the far-right does this, Maoists do this, and the Islamists do it.
It is, of course, entirely possible to protest against the Israeli Government, to call for peace and negotiations for a two-state solution. Remember though that many of the protestors for Palestinians don't want this. John Minto's Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa explicitly says:
PSNA aims to change public opinion and bring pressure on the New Zealand government to join the majority of the international community in requiring Israel to recognize and support the following principles:
A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognizing that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two-State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
Acceptance of the primacy of international law and United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.
The international community's responsibility for upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the urgent need for the state of Israel to be called to account for its gross abuses of Palestinian human rights.
Justice requires the establishment of a single state in Palestine, bi-national, secular and democratic, with full and equal citizenship for all with ethnic and religious rights protected in a democratic constitution.
So it wants Israel to recognize (sic.) that it should be destroyed, it rejects the "so-called Two-State Solution" and wants a single state that is secular and democratic. This is the policy of Hamas, it isn't even the policy of Fatah and the Government of the Palestinian Authority.
The entire mainstream left, including academia and much of the media refuses to call out the extremists in the pro-Palestinian movement, who celebrated October 7th and call for destruction of Israel, chant "from the river to the sea" as part of that, and then call to "globalise the intifada".
Murdering Jews at synagogues is what globalising the intifada looks like. For all of the mealy mouthed nonsense, it's a movement of violence and harassment, and it co-opts far-left Jew haters and far-right ones to join in on their embrace of the world's oldest hatred.
Unless those wanting justice for Palestinians can purge themselves of their Jew haters, can purge themselves of those who are the Islamist far-right (a tautology I know) as much as the Zionist ultra-nationalists who want to declare Judea and Samaria as Israeli land and purge it of Arabs, are the equivalent, then they are accomplices to Jew hatred.
Here’s what happened next, as their friendly faces turned to, well, something else. “Go away,” one said. “Go away. You are a bad faith actor. We don’t want to talk to you. Just f*** off. It’s a really boring old line. You are disgusting.” “I am disgusting?” “Yes, you are disgusting. You are not a journalist. It’s very clear what your position is here.” Now, their voices were getting louder: “Piss off.” “Thanks for your time, I appreciate it,” I said retreating, but they were not finished. “What are you doing here anyway? You are prejudiced. Hopefully nobody will ever buy a book you write. You are a charlatan. You are a fucking racist.”
So they couldn't even accept Hamas bore some responsibility. Couldn't even say "sure, but Israel has overreacted".
It got worse:
I wish I could tell you that this was a one-off but I spoke to at least two dozen people and, with two exceptions (including a lovely black guy from north London who conversed intelligently and politely), the motivation for being here was obvious, potent and implacable. The hatred of Jews. I heard conspiracy theories (October 7 was a false flag operation), blood libels, and the pervasive view that the Manchester atrocity was not a heinous attack but righteous comeuppance for an evil people. My sense is that many felt liberated to say what they really thought by the proximity of like-minded others; the classic symptom of mob mentality.
We all know criticising Israel isn't anti-semitic. It's entirely reasonable to oppose Israel's actions in Gaza and not regards Jews as being to blame, wherever they may live (bearing in mind even around half of adult Israelis oppose the Netanyahu government).
However, we also know Hamas is explicitly dripping in Jew hatred. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has many times expressed Jewish conspiracy theories and questioned the Holocaust. Jew hatred is central to Palestinian politics, although it need not be so. Those who participate in pro-Palestinian protests that welcome Jew haters on marches - people who cheer on murdering innocent Jews a part of "globalising the Intifada" - are part of a movement of Jew hatred.
Think again, if there were protest marches that welcomed people who thought the Christchurch mosque attack was a false flag, or even justified, then we all know what those protests would be called.
It's time for the "pro-Palestine" movement to either exclude Jew haters, or be branded terror-backing hate groups, and for the far-left politicians who back them to deserve to be as ostracised as Nazis.
Who was it again who said that if you go on a protest and Nazi's attend, you're at a pro-Nazi rally?
