April 30, 2026 • 12 mins
FIRST WITH YESTERDAY'S NEWS (highlights from Thursday on Newstalk ZB) Aren't You On the Same Side?/Has Anyone Seen Labour's Policies?/Cancer Is Still a Thing/Why Aren't Kettles Faster By Now?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk said be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio,
Used Talk sid be you Talk.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Follow my be Little Beanies, and welcome to the bean
for Friday Verse with yesterday's news. I am Glen Hart,
and we're looking back at the Thursday. Has laver got
any policies at all? But why are they being so
stum about this? They do know that there's election this year, right, cancer?
Why haven't we cured cancer yet? And why haven't we
(00:45):
got a faster kettle? I think the questions get more
and more important and more pertinent.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
As the podcast goes on as usual.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
But before any of that, Luxe and versus Peters, Peters
versus Luxelon, I thought that they were supposed to be
on kind of the same side. Oh, yes, that's right,
there's an election, Chris Hopkins, have you heard that there's
an election?
Speaker 4 (01:06):
So a spokesman for once Peters has said that Luxon's
support for the war was imprudent and would have run
counter to our national interests. They said experience matters in
foreign policy. Now, after that statement was given last night,
we had talks between the PM and the Foreign Minister
at the beehive, we're told bit of a crisis meeting.
(01:27):
Luxon is heading back. He's saying the emails mischaracterize his position.
He's saying the release of the emails puts politics ahead
of the national interest. So as you can see, quite
the mess. The problem here is for Luxen, not for Peter's.
In my view, Luxon is the one who has struggled
to articulate himself on the war. Peters has not. Luxon
(01:50):
is the one whose support, whose support in the polls
has been falling. Peters is the opposite. Luxon is the
one who's been there five minutes. Peters is not, I reckon.
If you were to poll Kiwi's and ask who do
you trust more on matters of foreign affairs in war,
I imagine after forty years in Parliament, in a few
runs at the Foreign Affairs job, Peters would probably come
(02:11):
out on top. Trying to put Peter's in his place
is hard enough to do it the best of times.
Trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back,
the crowd sharing for your opponent on a stage of
which you are unfamiliar with probably not going to end well.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to deal with
Peter's at all with you, I mean, because you know
exactly what's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
We'll have this election.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And then there'll be week to agony while we wait
for Winston to make up his mind about what he
wants to happen and what job he wants and whether
he wants to be the prime minister or not, and
and it'll be groundhog day.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
How many times do we have to do this news talk?
Ze Ben?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Anyway, it's a bad luck and all we can do
it surely, all can really do is cost the right votes. Right,
who's an expert on us here that she's an expert,
She'll tell it like it is.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
This is out and out bad behaved from him by
releasing those emails yesterday that show that Chris Luckxen wanted
to support the US strikes on Iran in a more
full throated way than Winston Peters did. He knew what
he was doing by releasing that. Winston's been around long
enough to know that that would embarrass Luxon because he
wanted to support strikes that the vast majority of this
country do not support, according to opinion polls, it would
(03:29):
also embarrass him to have it revealed that he was
overruled by his foreign minister. Also, releasing those emails without
asking Luxeon's office first is a no no. And then
also redacting not redacting what Luckson said is extremely unusual
and for undermining his prime minister like that. Winston deserved
the telling off that he got after Chris Luxon marched
down to his office last night. But do I think
(03:50):
that this is the start of the end of the coalition?
Not at all, at least not yet. I mean I
say not yet because it's Winston and frankly anything can happen.
But up to now this just and including this, it
just looks like trademark Winston politics. He has been poking
National all term. He knows it gets some votes. If
he makes it look like he's the one calling the shop,
he might be. I suspect getting a little bit annoyed
(04:11):
that National has started attacking him and has done so
repeatedly in the last week, as recently as yesterday with
Nikola Willis publicly telling off Shane Jones for the butt
of chicken remarks. Now I suspect a little bit of
what happened yesterday with the release of these emails, was
a warning shot to National to pull its head in.
But I think that's really all it is, because I
think Winston also knows instability loses votes. He can only
(04:34):
push it so far. And if he's true to his
word that he's sticking with the coalition government after November
at the election, then he also knows he has to
stick with them right now and make it look like
it's a stable thing. So I think this is not
a crisis. It's just a game.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
You're weird sort of a game, though, isn't it. I mean,
you've got the guy who's the Foreign Minister criticizing the
Prime Minister for his foreign policy. I don't I honestly,
I'm so sick of Peter's and this point scoring, dog
whistle politic. I hate it so much. All right, all right,
(05:11):
it's only it's any politics. It's not real life. When
when are labor going to have some policy other than.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
That the whole capital games thing?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
You know, why would you would you even vote for them,
even if you have voted for the labor in the past.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
My papa in Scotland always vodied labor. My mother only
would have avoided conservative.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
So that's how I was brought up.
Speaker 7 (05:34):
I didn't have a lot of focus outside of that.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
If you meet, if you meet Chippy, if you meet.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
I tell you what.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
I wouldn't even give him.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The time to day, Right, you're not going to give
him a chance. If he was very charming in person.
He's got a nice smile.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
He's not he's not sorry, And my mother said, never
come home with somebody shorter than you. I'm not asking sorry,
he won't make the grade.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
Sorry about that, not here anymore, but she'll be having
a good laugh.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Yeah, as you call it a girl. But I wasn't
suggesting that you cup with me.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
How many dead people listen to the news? Doalks the media?
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Agon You never see those You never see those stats
in the survey results.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Unfortunately, they are.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Difficult to survey the dead people. I think it's because
of a lack of mediums.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So the Cancer Society has come out and said that
cancer hasn't been fixed yet, particularly skin cancer. That seems
to be an issue. The message doesn't seem to be
getting through about that, which is weird, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (06:44):
It all makes sense if you can spend a dollar
to save eleven. Why would you not And you can say, well,
the money is not there, but it is. It is
there within the health budget. Imagine, imagine if you didn't
have to go through that whole grueling process of trying
(07:05):
to treat a cancer which could have been detected early,
which could have been prevented in the first place. When
you look at the HPV immunization, cancer does not have
to be a death sentence anymore. Breast cancer used to be.
Once you got the news about that, it was you know,
(07:28):
basically set your affairs in order. But as a result
of new treatments, as a result of detection programs, you
no longer see it as a death sentence. Eighty six
percent of people who are diagnosed with breast cancer survived
ten years or longer. Now with skin cancers, if they're
(07:50):
detected early bowel cancer, if you have the screening program
and can pick up the polyps that can turn into
something threatening, there is no reason for us to go
through the agony of seeing somebody sicken and die. There
(08:11):
will still be some that you know, are just the
anomalies of cancer cells being in your body, and it's
just your DNA and your bad luck and hopefully next
life around you have a better run of it. But
for many people it's detectable, and if you have the
early screening you find it. The treatments are less severe,
(08:36):
less harsh, less grueling, less expensive. No brainer. I'd absolutely
back the Cancer Society's election manifesto on that.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I got texted from my skin guy. I don't think
he personally sent the text out. I think it's probably
just automated. Do back back in. Got a thing on
my head. I'm just wondering if the more here I lose,
(09:06):
the more weird things appear. I think they've fixed hair
loss as well, and I haven't done anything about that either.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Used talk has it been?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Technology is amazing, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But you do have to wonder why they jug takes
so long to boil what you do with your marcus.
Speaker 7 (09:23):
My current disappointment is kettles.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
Why are they so slow?
Speaker 7 (09:29):
I really and some of you will say, oh, well,
we've got taps that do boil water. Well I'm not
that person and I don't work in that office. But
why is hot water not instant? Why aren't there kettles
that can make water bomb like that?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
How hard could it be?
Speaker 7 (09:48):
Why a toaster is so slow? Why a kettle so slow?
The kettle hasn't got quicker since, in fact, I think
it's got slower, and there can't be a reason for that.
There can't be a reason that they thought quick kettles
was dangerous or it was going to use as a
weapon or anything anyway. So what bit of technology are
(10:09):
you disappointed? What bit of technology did you think we'd
be further along with by now? For me, it's kettles
and toasters. Don't like either of them. Thought the kettle
would be quicker. I thought the toast would be quicker.
I thought the toast would also be smart and know
when the toaster's done, and know when you're cooking vogels done.
What did someone say they're putting the toast the other day?
(10:29):
Yorkshire pudding. It's just disgusting. So what did you think
we'd be further along the line with people? For me,
it's the kettle. I mean sometimes during a commercial break,
I try to make myself a hot drink, but you
know I can't do it. I've got three minutes, I
can't do it. I've got to go at one commercial break,
turn the kettle on and then go at the next
(10:50):
commercial break and turn the kettle on again to bring
it up to boiling point.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
What I need is are.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Remote I think you can get smart ones that you
can literally fire off, you know, with an at. I'm
sure that's a thing. I do wonder sometimes whether people
put too much water and the jug. Well, if you're
making a cup, you don't need to fill the jug up.
Just put a up over the minimum line. That'll be plenty.
(11:23):
And I just don't understand why people don't do that
more often. I'm always surprised when I come in and
the JUG's being put onto oil and it's fulled.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
How many cups of tea are people making for themselves?
How many?
Speaker 2 (11:34):
You can only drink one at once, can't you. Anyway,
that's it's my tech advice for the day.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Don't overfill the jug. Also, why do people call it
a kettle? It's a jug. Nobody's using a kettle anymore,
are they? I have green hat. That was kettle talk
for the week.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
We'll see you back here on Monday. Who knows what
tech we'll be talking about.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
The use talking talk, said Bean. For more from used Talk,
said b, listen live on air or online and keep
our shows with you where you Go with our podcasts
on iHeartRadio,
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk said be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio,
Used Talk sid be you Talk.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Follow my be Little Beanies, and welcome to the bean
for Friday Verse with yesterday's news. I am Glen Hart,
and we're looking back at the Thursday. Has laver got
any policies at all? But why are they being so
stum about this? They do know that there's election this year, right, cancer?
Why haven't we cured cancer yet? And why haven't we
(00:45):
got a faster kettle? I think the questions get more
and more important and more pertinent.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
As the podcast goes on as usual.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
But before any of that, Luxe and versus Peters, Peters
versus Luxelon, I thought that they were supposed to be
on kind of the same side. Oh, yes, that's right,
there's an election, Chris Hopkins, have you heard that there's
an election?
Speaker 4 (01:06):
So a spokesman for once Peters has said that Luxon's
support for the war was imprudent and would have run
counter to our national interests. They said experience matters in
foreign policy. Now, after that statement was given last night,
we had talks between the PM and the Foreign Minister
at the beehive, we're told bit of a crisis meeting.
(01:27):
Luxon is heading back. He's saying the emails mischaracterize his position.
He's saying the release of the emails puts politics ahead
of the national interest. So as you can see, quite
the mess. The problem here is for Luxen, not for Peter's.
In my view, Luxon is the one who has struggled
to articulate himself on the war. Peters has not. Luxon
(01:50):
is the one whose support, whose support in the polls
has been falling. Peters is the opposite. Luxon is the
one who's been there five minutes. Peters is not, I reckon.
If you were to poll Kiwi's and ask who do
you trust more on matters of foreign affairs in war,
I imagine after forty years in Parliament, in a few
runs at the Foreign Affairs job, Peters would probably come
(02:11):
out on top. Trying to put Peter's in his place
is hard enough to do it the best of times.
Trying to do it with one hand tied behind your back,
the crowd sharing for your opponent on a stage of
which you are unfamiliar with probably not going to end well.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to deal with
Peter's at all with you, I mean, because you know
exactly what's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
We'll have this election.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
And then there'll be week to agony while we wait
for Winston to make up his mind about what he
wants to happen and what job he wants and whether
he wants to be the prime minister or not, and
and it'll be groundhog day.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
How many times do we have to do this news talk?
Ze Ben?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
Anyway, it's a bad luck and all we can do
it surely, all can really do is cost the right votes. Right,
who's an expert on us here that she's an expert,
She'll tell it like it is.
Speaker 5 (03:07):
This is out and out bad behaved from him by
releasing those emails yesterday that show that Chris Luckxen wanted
to support the US strikes on Iran in a more
full throated way than Winston Peters did. He knew what
he was doing by releasing that. Winston's been around long
enough to know that that would embarrass Luxon because he
wanted to support strikes that the vast majority of this
country do not support, according to opinion polls, it would
(03:29):
also embarrass him to have it revealed that he was
overruled by his foreign minister. Also, releasing those emails without
asking Luxeon's office first is a no no. And then
also redacting not redacting what Luckson said is extremely unusual
and for undermining his prime minister like that. Winston deserved
the telling off that he got after Chris Luxon marched
down to his office last night. But do I think
(03:50):
that this is the start of the end of the coalition?
Not at all, at least not yet. I mean I
say not yet because it's Winston and frankly anything can happen.
But up to now this just and including this, it
just looks like trademark Winston politics. He has been poking
National all term. He knows it gets some votes. If
he makes it look like he's the one calling the shop,
he might be. I suspect getting a little bit annoyed
(04:11):
that National has started attacking him and has done so
repeatedly in the last week, as recently as yesterday with
Nikola Willis publicly telling off Shane Jones for the butt
of chicken remarks. Now I suspect a little bit of
what happened yesterday with the release of these emails, was
a warning shot to National to pull its head in.
But I think that's really all it is, because I
think Winston also knows instability loses votes. He can only
(04:34):
push it so far. And if he's true to his
word that he's sticking with the coalition government after November
at the election, then he also knows he has to
stick with them right now and make it look like
it's a stable thing. So I think this is not
a crisis. It's just a game.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
You're weird sort of a game, though, isn't it. I mean,
you've got the guy who's the Foreign Minister criticizing the
Prime Minister for his foreign policy. I don't I honestly,
I'm so sick of Peter's and this point scoring, dog
whistle politic. I hate it so much. All right, all right,
(05:11):
it's only it's any politics. It's not real life. When
when are labor going to have some policy other than.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
That the whole capital games thing?
Speaker 2 (05:20):
You know, why would you would you even vote for them,
even if you have voted for the labor in the past.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
My papa in Scotland always vodied labor. My mother only
would have avoided conservative.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
So that's how I was brought up.
Speaker 7 (05:34):
I didn't have a lot of focus outside of that.
Speaker 4 (05:38):
If you meet, if you meet Chippy, if you meet.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
I tell you what.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
I wouldn't even give him.
Speaker 4 (05:44):
The time to day, Right, you're not going to give
him a chance. If he was very charming in person.
He's got a nice smile.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
He's not he's not sorry, And my mother said, never
come home with somebody shorter than you. I'm not asking sorry,
he won't make the grade.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
Sorry about that, not here anymore, but she'll be having
a good laugh.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Yeah, as you call it a girl. But I wasn't
suggesting that you cup with me.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
How many dead people listen to the news? Doalks the media?
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Agon You never see those You never see those stats
in the survey results.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Unfortunately, they are.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
Difficult to survey the dead people. I think it's because
of a lack of mediums.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
So the Cancer Society has come out and said that
cancer hasn't been fixed yet, particularly skin cancer. That seems
to be an issue. The message doesn't seem to be
getting through about that, which is weird, isn't it.
Speaker 6 (06:44):
It all makes sense if you can spend a dollar
to save eleven. Why would you not And you can say, well,
the money is not there, but it is. It is
there within the health budget. Imagine, imagine if you didn't
have to go through that whole grueling process of trying
(07:05):
to treat a cancer which could have been detected early,
which could have been prevented in the first place. When
you look at the HPV immunization, cancer does not have
to be a death sentence anymore. Breast cancer used to be.
Once you got the news about that, it was you know,
(07:28):
basically set your affairs in order. But as a result
of new treatments, as a result of detection programs, you
no longer see it as a death sentence. Eighty six
percent of people who are diagnosed with breast cancer survived
ten years or longer. Now with skin cancers, if they're
(07:50):
detected early bowel cancer, if you have the screening program
and can pick up the polyps that can turn into
something threatening, there is no reason for us to go
through the agony of seeing somebody sicken and die. There
(08:11):
will still be some that you know, are just the
anomalies of cancer cells being in your body, and it's
just your DNA and your bad luck and hopefully next
life around you have a better run of it. But
for many people it's detectable, and if you have the
early screening you find it. The treatments are less severe,
(08:36):
less harsh, less grueling, less expensive. No brainer. I'd absolutely
back the Cancer Society's election manifesto on that.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
I got texted from my skin guy. I don't think
he personally sent the text out. I think it's probably
just automated. Do back back in. Got a thing on
my head. I'm just wondering if the more here I lose,
(09:06):
the more weird things appear. I think they've fixed hair
loss as well, and I haven't done anything about that either.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Used talk has it been?
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Technology is amazing, isn't it?
Speaker 2 (09:18):
But you do have to wonder why they jug takes
so long to boil what you do with your marcus.
Speaker 7 (09:23):
My current disappointment is kettles.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
Why are they so slow?
Speaker 7 (09:29):
I really and some of you will say, oh, well,
we've got taps that do boil water. Well I'm not
that person and I don't work in that office. But
why is hot water not instant? Why aren't there kettles
that can make water bomb like that?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
How hard could it be?
Speaker 7 (09:48):
Why a toaster is so slow? Why a kettle so slow?
The kettle hasn't got quicker since, in fact, I think
it's got slower, and there can't be a reason for that.
There can't be a reason that they thought quick kettles
was dangerous or it was going to use as a
weapon or anything anyway. So what bit of technology are
(10:09):
you disappointed? What bit of technology did you think we'd
be further along with by now? For me, it's kettles
and toasters. Don't like either of them. Thought the kettle
would be quicker. I thought the toast would be quicker.
I thought the toast would also be smart and know
when the toaster's done, and know when you're cooking vogels done.
What did someone say they're putting the toast the other day?
(10:29):
Yorkshire pudding. It's just disgusting. So what did you think
we'd be further along the line with people? For me,
it's the kettle. I mean sometimes during a commercial break,
I try to make myself a hot drink, but you
know I can't do it. I've got three minutes, I
can't do it. I've got to go at one commercial break,
turn the kettle on and then go at the next
(10:50):
commercial break and turn the kettle on again to bring
it up to boiling point.
Speaker 4 (10:58):
What I need is are.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Remote I think you can get smart ones that you
can literally fire off, you know, with an at. I'm
sure that's a thing. I do wonder sometimes whether people
put too much water and the jug. Well, if you're
making a cup, you don't need to fill the jug up.
Just put a up over the minimum line. That'll be plenty.
(11:23):
And I just don't understand why people don't do that
more often. I'm always surprised when I come in and
the JUG's being put onto oil and it's fulled.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
How many cups of tea are people making for themselves?
How many?
Speaker 2 (11:34):
You can only drink one at once, can't you. Anyway,
that's it's my tech advice for the day.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Don't overfill the jug. Also, why do people call it
a kettle? It's a jug. Nobody's using a kettle anymore,
are they? I have green hat. That was kettle talk
for the week.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
We'll see you back here on Monday. Who knows what
tech we'll be talking about.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
The use talking talk, said Bean. For more from used Talk,
said b, listen live on air or online and keep
our shows with you where you Go with our podcasts
on iHeartRadio,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.