Some supporters downplayed the shift to maintain their loyalty to the US president
Stephen Bannon sounded uncertain as he absorbed United States President Donald Trump's strike on Iran and his national address explaining it.
'An interesting talk,' Bannon said warily on his 'War Room' podcast, adding that he was not quite sure that it was what 'a lot of Maga wanted to hear'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ urged to push for UN reform amid Iran-Israel tensions
An academic has called for New Zealand to do more to push for UN Security Council reform after 'extremely worrying' escalations in Iran. The United States has entered the Israel-Iran conflict via Operation Midnight Hammer, which bombed several key Iranian nuclear facilities. The attack cut short President Donald Trump's
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
What US strikes on Iran mean for KiwiSaver, petrol prices
Escalation of the conflict in the Middle East poses a major threat to New Zealand's economy, commentators say — as well as households' KiwiSaver balances and petrol prices. There were earlier warnings that the conflict was having a noticeable but contained effect on oil prices, but that there could be a much more significant economic impact if the conflict broadened. Infometrics chief executive Brad Olsen said the US attacks at the weekend were that scenario. "It does obviously ratchet up tensions enormously. But the question now is how the Iranian side respond and if they respond as some of their advisers have been talking about and how they've responded sometimes in the past." He said if there were attacks on US shipping or attempts to limit access through the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices could spike. ADVERTISEMENT "There's a question come Monday, as the markets open, how everyone will digest this. I don't think anyone is thinking that there's an easy ability to de-escalate, but I think it will hinge on the Iranian response. US President Donald Trump speaks from the East Room of the White House in Washington after the US military struck three Iranian nuclear and military sites. (Source: Pool via AP) "If they do ratchet up the tension further, if this starts to broaden out into shipping attacks, I think market expectations and worries about oil supply will increase substantially. "The question is, just to what degree do you price this, and how do markets look at that?" He said shares in companies in defence-based industries could increase in value. "Everyone will think the war's on and certainly so far there's nothing that would stop you thinking the same." People might also shift to defensive assets, he said, such as utilities. ADVERTISEMENT The fact that New Zealand was sending a defence force aircraft and foreign affairs personnel into the region proved how concerned the government was, he said. Shamubeel Eaqub, chief economist at KiwiSaver provider Simplicity, said there could be bumpiness ahead for households. "So far, market pricing is unexpectedly calm. Oil prices haven't increased very much, equity prices haven't changed much, even though we had already seen the beginning of that escalation before the weekend started. "But with the US involvement now, the uncertainty is even higher than before." He said the experience of the Gulf War in the 1990s showed the potential impacts. "The channels were two-fold... the first was around the price of oil and the second was really around the uncertainty in financial markets in general. "Now, compared to the Iraq wars, the world is a lot less dependent on oil than it used to be, which is also true for New Zealand, so the oil intensity of the economy is less. It doesn't mean we are immune, it just means we are less exposed." ADVERTISEMENT He said it was not yet clear how sensitive financial markets would be but the bigger issue was the fear and uncertainty that would be created. "That's what we tend to see when there is a risk-off, equity markets tend to fall … the New Zealand dollar tends to get more volatile. Quite often it weakens when people are more risk averse, which means it's generally speaking a net positive for exporters but a net negative for the rest of us because we tend to consume a lot of imported products." He said it could take 12 to 18 months for the full effects of big geopolitical events to flow through. "But the initial effect quite often tends to be very much fear-driven, financial markets-driven, commodity price-driven things." He said for most New Zealanders, the message was to "hang in there". "The oil price - you have no control over it. We are price takers, so whatever you can do in your own control to be able to manage your transport [might help]." He said when it came to financial markets, that was also generally out of an investor's hands. But if they were worried about their KiwiSaver accounts, they should remember that it was time in the market that would make the difference over the long term rather than short-term movements. ADVERTISEMENT Koura KiwiSaver founder Rupert Carlyon said the biggest risk was to inflation. "If it does turn into a broader Middle East war and potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, they we are likely to see higher oil prices, which will flow through to everything and shipping delays, making it harder and more expensive to import things here in New Zealand. "The Reserve Bank will be watching this very carefully, as anything that has the potential to skew inflation to the upside will mean a halt to further interest rate cuts. "I suspect markets will open down in anticipation of the conflict, though as we have seen over the past few years, markets fear more about the prospect of conflict rather than the reality of it. We have already seen this playbook with Ukraine and Russia and Gaza and Israel. Definitely no need to worry or panic."
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
