Greg Dixon's Another Kind of Politics: Calls for nationwide lockdown as 'Seymour derangement syndrome' spreads
Greg Dixon is an award-winning news reporter, TV reviewer, feature writer and former magazine editor who has written for the NZ Listener since 2017.
Online only
Greg Dixon's Another Kind of Politics is a weekly satirical column on politics that appears on listener.co.nz.
Public health officials are warning New Zealanders to brace for a national lockdown as cases of the highly infectious 'David Seymour Derangement Syndrome' grow rapidly. Infectious diseases experts said an up-to-18-month lockdown might be the only way to save the country, and called for the government to act quickly. In the meantime, people were advised to socially distance themselves from Seymour, the maddening sound of his voice, his haunting image and his triggering name.
'The only way to prevent a lockdown for all New Zealanders is for Seymour to self-isolate at a remote silent retreat until the next election,' one official said. 'However, we don't believe Seymour is capable of making such a sacrifice for his country due to his own illnesses, which include the often fatal 'I'm the Only One Who's Right Disorder' and the incurable 'I Don't Care What You Have to Say Disease'. We also believe that Seymour, like US President Donald Trump, suffers from a chronic addiction to his own publicity.'
The health official warned that if Seymour refused to self-isolate, the sanity of millions of New Zealanders could be at risk. 'If he won't self-quarantine, a lockdown for the rest of us is the only way to avoid a mental health catastrophe. It's us or him.'
David Seymour Derangement Syndrome was first isolated and identified 42 years ago in Palmerston North. The only other recorded mass outbreak of the highly virulent disorder was during his appearance on season seven of Dancing with the Stars. Tens of thousands of people were infected then, many fatally. The disease is thought to be similar to 'Trump Derangement Syndrome', only less orange.
The latest outbreak is linked to Seymour being included in Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's so-called 'Send in the Clowns, There Ought To Be Clowns Coalition' following the 2023 election. However the speed of spread had increased more quickly since Seymour introduced the Treaty Principles Bill last year. Following the Act leader becoming deputy prime minister last month, and the introduction of his Regulatory Standards Bill, the disease's virulence has increased 10-fold. It is now 'spreading like wildfire' and has become a national pandemic, the health official said.
'This last week and a half have been the worst of all for the spread of this disease. With Luxon in China and Europe, many more New Zealanders were exposed to Seymour as he attempted a series of prime minister impersonations, including holding his first post-cabinet press conference,' the expert said. 'That was like throwing petrol on a dumpster fire. If Seymour is allowed to do further prime minister impressions, the country is likely doomed unless there is a nationwide lockdown.'
In related news, new research out this week shows that David Seymour Derangement Syndrome is now a leading cause of people moving to Australia. 'I'm not surprised,' the health official said. 'Getting the hell out of the country is the only guaranteed way to escape this pandemic.'
Luxon 'completely relaxed' about possible end of world
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told a NATO leaders meeting this week that they should be 'completely relaxed' about the possible end of the world this year. 'I know I am,' Luxon said. 'I've found that being completely relaxed about things like rising homelessness, rising poverty and the destruction of the environment for profit is a great, effective way to prepare yourself to be completely relaxed about the end of the world,' he told leaders. 'A spoonful of chillaxing really does help the medicine go down.'
With Russia's bloody war with Ukraine now in its fourth year, the horrifying 20-month Israel-Gaza conflict ongoing and fears that the Israeli and US attacks on Iran could lead, despite this week's ceasefire, to a broader Middle East conflict, many observers believe the world could be on the precipice of a world-ending war. However, Luxon said he was 'laser-focused' on pretending it wasn't happening.
'In my first 18 months as Prime Minister of New Zealand, I have learnt the best thing to do with bad news is to see it as an opportunity – an opportunity to change the subject,' Luxon told NATO leaders. 'So in the face of oblivion, the most important thing is to focus on what really matters to New Zealanders, and that's growth, growth, growth!'
Jesus calls for Brian Tamaki to 'go back to Sunday School'
Jesus of Nazareth has launched a scathing but holy attack on Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki about his knowledge of world religions. During a political march by Destiny members in Auckland involving anti-immigrant smears and flag burnings, Tamaki claimed New Zealand was a 'Christian country'. He went on to denounce the practising of 'foreign religions' here, statements implying that Christianity, like lacking a sense of irony, is native to New Zealand.
In a strongly worded but Holy statement, Jesus said Tamaki seemed to have only a slim grasp of the history of Christianity. 'Clearly Brian doesn't realise that I am Jewish and that I practiced the Jewish faith in a place called Israel about 2000 years ago. It was my followers who founded Christianity. They also did that in Israel, which is a place that was, and remains, situated many thousands of kilometres away from New Zealand, not to mention Brian's peculiar church. Christianity is in fact a 'foreign' religion in New Zealand just like Islam, Sikhism and all the rest. I really think Brian needs to go back to Sunday School to learn a bit more about his own faith.'
Jesus said that as far as he was aware the only non-foreign religion in New Zealand was the All Blacks.
Political quiz of the week
Photo / Facebook
What self-driving-but-stationary metaphor is Prime Minister Christopher Luxon standing in?
A/ His poor poll numbers.
B/ Economy growth.
C/ The high cost of living.
D/ The country's sense of hope for the future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
'It's A Matter Of When Not If' New Zealand Recognises A Palestinian State, David Seymour Says
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says recognising Palestine as a state is a complex decision that should not be rushed, but "it's a matter of when not if" New Zealand does so. Seymour said there would be some hope of starting a discussion about recognising a Palestinian state if Hamas released the Israeli hostages and demilitarised. "New Zealand's government position remains the same as it always has been, it's a matter of when not if we recognise a two state solution and we will be having discussions over the next fortnight or so over whether there should be any change on that position." France, the United Kingdom, Canada and now Australia, have all declared an intention to recognise a Palestinian state at a United Nations summit next month. Asked why New Zealand was delaying this decision, Seymour said "we shouldn't assume that other countries are right". It was a very complex situation and it was important to take time to come to a sound decision, he said. "It's not just a question of what are you actually recognising, what conditions do you place around that, it's also a question of okay so after you've done this what happens next?" It was easy to by horrified by the violence in the Palestinian territories shown on television and social media and to be driven to want to take action, he said. "It doesn't mean that any old solution is the correct one." Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Morning Report the government was not moving quickly enough on Palestine and recognising Palestine was the right thing to do. Hipkins said if he had been leading the government a statement recognising Palestine as a state would have come out at the same time as Australia's. "I think Anthony Albanese actually set out the case for recognising Palestine as a state very well and I think it's starting to look quite embarrassing for New Zealand that the rest of the world has shifted its views pretty rapidly here and we seem to be lagging well behind." Delay 'unfortunate' - Clark But former prime minister Helen Clark said New Zealand was in a humiliating position as it trailed behind other countries in recognising Palestine as a state. Helen Clark told Morning Report New Zealand was being seen "at the back of the crowd". "The recognition of a Palestinian state right now is a very strong statement of wanting that two state solution to proceed," she said. "The catastrophe in Gaza which The Elders of which I am a member is now calling an unfolding genocide has totally changed world opinion about this and the view is now that we have to make all efforts to stop the war, get a process going, get the two state solution and recognising now gives that momentum." New Zealand needed to add its voice to end the catastrophic situation in Gaza, she said. A foreign policy realignment in New Zealand in favour of the US had had a huge impact on its decisions around Gaza with New Zealand "cuddling right back up again to Washington DC and overly sensitive in everything it thinks", she said. "This is not the New Zealand I've known for the last 40 years or so where we made up our own mind, we stood on principle, we now really seem to stand for nothing except you know some how wanting to save our own skin in a tariff war." Recognition was a very strong statement and there was a responsibility to react, Clark said. It would be unlikely that Hamas would play any role in post-war governance of Gaza, she said. If a ceasefire was possible there would likely be a technocratic administration by the Palestinian Authority which would then move to elections, she said. "There may be an international stabilisation force which would go in at the request of the Palestinian Authority - there's elaborate plans that don't include Hamas. "So I think it's a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas, there are credible plans moving forward."
Newsroom
7 hours ago
- Newsroom
How to breathe easier with hidden carbon cost of asthma inhalers
Opinion: When floodwaters surged across the country (including West Auckland, where I live) during Auckland Anniversary weekend and Cyclone Gabrielle, the devastation prompted many to reflect on the climate crisis more broadly. For me, it sparked a deep dive into an often-overlooked contributor to global emissions: healthcare. As a pharmacist and life-long asthmatic, I was stunned to discover just how significant the environmental footprint of asthma inhalers can be. Globally, the healthcare sector contributes an estimated 4-5 percent of carbon emissions, and about a quarter of that is tied to pharmaceuticals. Inhalers have a surprisingly high carbon footprint. One study I came across estimated that switching from gas-propelled inhalers to dry powder alternatives could reduce an individual's carbon footprint by as much as switching to a plant-based diet. That comparison really hit home. Like many, I'd assumed the primary environmental concern with inhalers was the plastic casing, but the real impact lies in the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) propellants inside some inhalers – potent greenhouse gases that can stay in the atmosphere for many years. The pharmaceutical industry is developing new propellants with lower global warming potential, but as we saw with the change from chlorofluorocarbons in the 1990s, the roll out of these may take up to a decade. Dry powder inhalers (such as turbuhalers) contain no propellants and so they have a much lower carbon footprint. Better health, lower emissions This realisation came with a sense of guilt. Like many of us, I try my best to live sustainably – minimising waste, eating less meat, using cold washes, and switching to energy-efficient lighting. But I had never considered the environmental cost of a medication that is a lifeline for me, and nearly one in eight other New Zealanders who live with asthma. The good news is that the better control you have over your asthma, the lower the carbon footprint of your treatment. A large proportion of the emissions associated with poorly controlled asthma come from excess use of reliever (or rescue) inhalers or the extra carbon burden of visits to the doctor or hospital or both. Anything you can do to take control of your asthma will help to reduce your carbon footprint and improve your health. Simple steps can make a real difference, such as making sure you have a preventer inhaler, seeking healthcare advice when symptoms worsen, and getting your local pharmacist to check you are using your inhaler correctly; studies suggest about 80 percent of people don't, which reduces how much medication reaches the lungs. Old inhalers should also be taken to your pharmacy for disposal so that residual HFCs do not seep out into the atmosphere. What's more, climate change and asthma are interlinked. As my colleague Amy Chan has pointed out on these pages, rising temperatures, air pollution, and changing pollen patterns are making asthma and allergies more common and severe. From a big-picture perspective, reducing our environmental footprint doesn't just help the planet, it also helps protect people from worsening lung conditions in the long term. Getting the right balance Of course, the issue is complex. Inhalers save lives, and in emergency situations, reliability and familiarity are non-negotiable. Not everyone can use dry powder inhalers effectively – children, for instance, can struggle to get their technique right, and some patients may simply prefer to stick with what works for them if their asthma is well-controlled. Getting this balance right is at the heart of a new research project I'm leading (funded by the Vernon Tews Charitable Trust). Our aim is to investigate how asthma treatments in New Zealand contribute to global warming, and how we can empower people with asthma to make informed choices about their treatments alongside their healthcare provider without any climate guilt. Listening to young voices Stage one of our study involves estimating the carbon footprint of different treatments available in New Zealand and analysing national dispensing and hospitalisation data to explore the environmental impact of well versus poorly controlled asthma. Stage two will explore how to communicate this information in the right way. We're especially interested in hearing from young people, who are more likely to experience climate change related anxiety. This generation will live longest with the consequences of climate change and stand to benefit the most from long-term health and environmental improvements. We don't – and won't – pressure anyone. This is about enabling people to align their healthcare choices with their environmental values, wherever possible. Because sometimes, being green isn't about sweeping changes, but small, informed choices that add up over time – especially when those choices can help us breathe easier in every sense of the word.
The Spinoff
8 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Pretending the internet doesn't exist won't protect our young people from harm
As parliament's inquiry into the online harm encountered by young New Zealanders gets under way, there are concerns it will follow the same rushed process that resulted in Australia's social media ban for under-16s. New technologies that upend long-established ways of communicating often spark concern over how to ensure young people use these tools safely. We all want young people to be safe, and to grow up to be responsible citizens, but too often these concerns manifest in the form of punitive measures that seek to control young people, rather than teaching them the critical thinking and emotional skills they need to use new forms of media safely. From outlandish concerns that the Harry Potter books were bringing children into contact with drugs and the occult, to the (debunked) argument that video games make children violent, concerned adults, despite their best intentions, have historically been quick to blame new media and new trends for problems that almost always stem from an intersection of complicated social and economic factors. The most recent source of unease for parents and policy makers has been social media – a term vague enough so to allow policymakers to lump niche messaging applications like Telegram together with large gaming platforms like Steam, and other video platforms like YouTube and TikTok to create an all-encompassing monolith that poses a risk to young people. Driven by (thoroughly debunkable) claims that social media use is the direct cause for a generation of anxious youth, legislators across the globe have called for inquiries into the use of social media among society's 'most vulnerable' demographic. Aotearoa has recently followed this trend with the government's Education and Workforce Committee recently announcing an inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders (might) encounter online and how government, businesses and society should work to counteract these harms. The terms of reference for the inquiry solicited responses from people addressing 'the nature, severity, and prevalence of online harm experienced by young people in New Zealand, including but not limited to online bullying, exploitation, addictive use, mental health impacts, educational impacts, and exposure to harmful content', with a particular eye to develop practical, cost-effective solutions to counteract online harm. Written submissions closed on July 30, with the committee hearing invitation-only oral submissions this month. It plans to report its findings to parliament by the end of November. The concern with an inquiry of this nature is that it risks following the same rushed process to ban people under 16 from social media that the Australian government is set to implement at the end of 2025. The Australian approach was not only rushed, but was undertaken without seriously consulting the demographic that the bill claims to protect. Instead of teaching young people the skillset needed to be responsible, critically informed and safe digital citizens, the proposition to ban everyone under 16 from the vaguely defined monolith 'social media' instead takes the convenient route of simply pretending the internet does not exist. Out of sight, out of mind. But that approach is increasingly at odds with the reality of growing up in the 21st century for a range of reasons. Young people are taught using digital technologies, many of the skills they learn online will help them later in life to navigate increasingly digital economies and workplaces, culturally and linguistically diverse youths use social media to access and enhance their English, many of the civil services that they will need to grow up and navigate are offered online, and at a general level, the internet serves as a vital infrastructure for remote and disadvantaged youths to find solace with others in similar circumstances. Of course we all want to protect young people from harm – whether online, or in real life – but framing social media bans as a step taken to 'protect' young people from digital media actively works against the more realistic approach of working to protect them within the digital environment. This isn't just opinion, it's backed up by evidence. In the response that a group of colleagues and I submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee, we argued that Aotearoa would do well to take an evidence-based and potentially world-leading approach to the education of young people that will equip them with the tools they need to be responsible, sensible and ultimately safer within the context of the digital environment. In the response, we walked through some of the common charges brought against social media. Chief among these charges is the argument that social media is to blame for a generation of mentally ill youth. This is a claim that is easy – and often politically convenient – to agree with. But taking a closer look at the surrounding social and economic factors involved in youth mental health, the claim that social media is the root cause of mental illness in youth doesn't quite add up, especially in the New Zealand context. Instead, there are many competing issues at play in Aotearoa: a broken mental health system, the inability or unwillingness of politicians and large corporations to act to prevent the climate crisis, and a general feeling of malaise that is solidified through the erosion of democratic processes and expansion of the surveillance state. In some ways, social media actually provides young people with the infrastructure needed to begin countering these issues: there is evidence that engaging with political issues on social media translates into real-life civic engagements like showing up to protests, volunteering and contacting elected officials. But systematic issues remain firmly entrenched. For instance, in the case of Aotearoa's strained mental health system, a survey of 540 psychiatrists across Aotearoa revealed that 94% of respondents found that the mental health system was unfit for purpose, and that increased funding was needed to better understand the socio-economic drivers of mental health issues. This is not a unique finding: other studies have revealed similar dissatisfaction among practitioners and patients in the mental health systems in Aotearoa. Globally, young people face a set of crises. Climate change, declining socio-economic equality, an increasingly polarised political landscape premised on hate and homogeneity and the fact that it is increasingly unaffordable to be able to live are much more likely to be drivers of mental health issues among young people. A policy designed to keep young people off of the internet is not going to help solve any of them. Climate change, socio-economic inequality and the mental health crisis will not be solved by pretending the internet doesn't exist. It will actively harm young people and future generations. Many of the crises that we face today require policy that is not purely content with cost-effective, simple solutions that the Education and Workforce Committee is soliciting. Instead, policy can and should be designed to educate, empower and ultimately let young people have a say in decisions that directly impact them and their future.
