Josie Pagani replies

Written By: - Date published: 2:20 pm, January 3rd, 2014 - 127 comments
Categories: blogs, labour - Tags: ,

lprent: Josie Pagani objected to mickysavage’s post objecting to her post at Pundit, and wanted me to publish this as a right of reply. That is something that doesn’t exist on this or any blog. After all there is always another site to put content up on. However the ongoing debate going on here at present about how the left and the labour movement should operate and communicate (from many different angles) makes it worth posting here.

This post will be fully moderated so stick to the topic. Comment in OpenMike if you think I may think your comment is going to be too far off-topic. I’ll discuss the errors of fact in this post in the first comment.

In the response to my post calling on progressive people to stand up to vilification and exclusion in sections of the left, many commenters on the Standard took the opportunity to vilify me and call for my exclusion.

David Cunliffe’s electorate chair, Greg Presland, posting under the pseudonym ‘Micky Savage’, wrote a post because I said comments at the Standard are an example of the intolerable abuse I’ve had enough of.

I’m tempted to point to the comments beneath that post as yet more proof. ‘Cringe-making airhead’ being one of the nicer things people say.

But I want to respond to some specific claims Mr Presland makes because, speaking as the Leader of the Labour Party’s senior electorate official, they presumably reflect the views of the Labour Party and therefore need to be examined carefully.

What Greg Presland tries to do is make everything a litmus test – he only has to find one or two statements that his baying readers may disagree with, and the proof of heresy is complete. This is the behaviour of an exclusive cult, not a broad-based political party which needs the support of half of New Zealanders to form a government.

He says I have “been vilified in the past in part” for my husband views. The sexism of this is breathtaking. Think about it: I’m not capable of developing my own thoughts, and can’t be judged on my own merits. He can’t contemplate a woman might not always agree with her partner. I am disappointed, to say the least, that women on The Standard haven’t called him and others on this bigotry.

Anyway, let me loyally be a good wife and point out he is wrong in his statement about my husband. He claims my husband wrote David Shearer’s comments about a ‘beneficiary on the roof.’ I know for a fact this is totally untrue. It was an allegation made by The Standard at the time, which John could not have responded to because you banned him from the Standard for life when he pointed out another false claim you made about him.

Not only did he not write the comments, but even if he had, politicians who give speeches take responsibility for their content. That’s why you vote for them, not for advisers.

He states I previously ‘though that John Tamihere would be a welcome addition as a Labour MP.

A year before JT made his thoughtless and misguided comments to a Roastbusters talkback caller, I said I was uncomfortable about a Labour party where working class Maori men weren’t welcome, even though that many would have conservative views I personally don’t like. This is actually a similar point to the one in my most recent post – that the left needs to be inclusive and stop vilifying.

One feature of the controversy about Willie and JT’s comments was that much of the discussion was aimed at their wider fitness as people – missing the opportunity to discuss the prevalence of misogynist and rape-enabling views across male society. The vilification of the individual undermined the politics of the substantive statement.

Yes it’s true, I opposed an in-work tax credit being extended to those not in work.

Well I pointed out that the announcement of this policy during the election campaign was greeted by low paid workers who thought we were taking the proverbial. That doesn’t mean I don’t support an increase in benefit levels. Using an in-tax work credit is the wrong tool.

How horrible does this observation make me? Helen Clark, Sir Michael Cullen, and the entire Cabinet of the previous government also believed WFF should not be extended to beneficiaries. Some time this year I am confident that David Cunliffe will announce a new policy in which – wait for it – WFF won’t be extended to beneficiaries.

In fact, just after I wrote the Herald column Greg Presland links to, I got a very nice comment about it from … David Cunliffe.

Greg says I opposed having a ‘proper proportion of women’ in parliament.

No I didn’t. I opposed a quota system and reserving seats only for women. I opposed that tactic not the value, and conflating the two is downright naughty.

But hang on a minute – it’s laughable to be lectured about sexism by someone who, a couple of sentences earlier stated I don’t have my own views, I am indivisible from my husband.

He says I supported casualisation on the waterfront.

No I didn’t. I said that casualisation is a fact of working life and we need to find ways to protect casualised workers. I am well aware this is a controversial statement, and that there is a solid body of opinion that says the only way to protect against casualisation is to join a union. This is an important debate and one the labour movement has to have. But Greg Presland distorts what I said.

He said I was probably the only Labour Party feminist that voted for Shane Jones.

How revealing is this statement – that those of us who supported an alternative contender in the leadership election are not welcome, that we don’t have a valid Labour voice, and that therefore, logically, we should be excluded.

So that puts the lie to David Cunliffe’s public claims during and after the contest that there would not be reprisals.

I reject the divisiveness and vilification that says you must be banished for voting the wrong way in a now-finished contest. It’s ugly. It’s self-defeating. Labour cannot win government by hunting heretics to demean and banish them.

Overall, Greg Presland’s outburst is summarised by his view that I represent a ‘right wing spin’ on Labour’s values.

I have written this elsewhere in self-defence, but let me repeat:

I believe in using progressive taxation and a strong interventionist state to achieve an equal and just community in which anyone, from any background, has opportunity and security. For example, I support state funding of free health care and free education. I believe in incomes that allow everyone to participate and belong to their community at all ages, both through wages and through fair provision for those in need. I believe the state has an obligation to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live. I believe that the interests of labour must not be made subservient to the interests of capital. I am a social liberal.

If you think that means I have noting in common with Labour, then others who have nothing to contribute to the Labour movement would also include Ed Milliband, Julia Gillard, Neil Kinnock…and Helen Clark and Jim Anderton. In fact, most of those leaders are to the right of me on several of those issues.

You accuse me of saying Labour values are unpopular and need to be jettisoned. Actually I believe the opposite. I think Labour values are popular – and therefore when Labour is unpopular it must be because it’s is not being faithful to its own principles. This is a much more nuanced analysis than you give me credit for.

No one has a monopoly on defining Labour values. I don’t claim mine are the only valid ones, but I strongly claim they are in the mainstream of the Labour and social democrat tradition in New Zealand and in like democracies.

Updated: Josie Pagani is on holiday at present. Her only contact with the world is a cellphone that she has to climb a hill to get on the net. Don’t demand replies because I will treat those as being off topic.

127 comments on “Josie Pagani replies ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    3 January 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I have a few comments to make on facts in this post…

    • Talking about The Standard as if it is some kind of cohesive entity is daft. The site operates in all respects as a cooperative. Authors and commenters write in their own right and for themselves, this is made quite clear in the about.

      We write here in our personal capacities and the opinions that are expressed on the blog are individual unless expressly stated otherwise (see the policy). We do not write on behalf of any organization.

      Josie should read the about and policy so she gets a better idea about what this site does in reality rather than inventing her own myths about it.

    • One reason she should read them is because she’d find that site is interested in the broad labour movement, of which the Labour Party in NZ is just small part. She’d also find that the site was set up to foster “robust debate”, that while we discourage “pointless abuse” simple pointed abuse is not limited as it is part of robust debate, and that the authors on the site set the policies and rules governing the site.

      This is a point that she could have found out reading the responses on her own post. Frank Macskasy and Pete George (who got banned from here for trying to say how we should run our site) in particular. Our rule about people who’d like us to change is expressed in the About..

      No – you must….
      Have you read this page? We must do nothing. The posters post on the topics they want to (with a few limitations from the sysop). If you really absolutely want your ideas to be heard, then start a blog and start learning to write. You can probably find a more compatible blog on our blogroll. Or you can comment on the posts that our posters write and follow our rather lenient rules.

    • Similarly volunteering to work for a political party and/or a politician doesn’t mean that you are speaking for them – which is what Josie spent a large chunk of this post suggesting about mickysavage/Greg was doing for David Cunliffe. Complete bollocks and transparent politicking. It isn’t like Greg gets paid for working for David, or for that matter for writing on here.

      I spent a couple of decades doing volunteer work for the Mt Albert Labour party and Helen Clark. So by Josie’s foolish argument should everything I say reflects Helen’s viewpoint – hardly. Reality is that I disagreed with most of the ideas that Helen had over all of the time I have known her. However I also respect political competence whereever I find it and I’m prepared to spend effort supporting it if it is heading vaguely in a direction I can support.

      But respecting Josie’s incompetent politicking about a active volunteer isn’t particularly likely.

    • I (not some mythical being called The Standard) banned John Pagani from the site, not for his views, but because he said this about an author.

      Actually you’re a liar and a coward. Neither of us have ever said something that approximates I “don’t see any harm in casualisation because [I] imagine it being just like [my] contracting roles which give them flexibility [I] value and the focus of [my] politics is winning back Waitakere Man.”

      Eddie had never actually said anything of the sort. He’d been talking about a growing acceptance of casualisation by a number of people, like Gordon Campbell and Josie. However attacking personally authors on this site and trying to put words in their mouths is something that we ban anyone for. In John’s case he’d been ignoring moderators which was why he got a permanent ban because it was obviously pointless leaving him notes that he would ignore.

    Trying to tell someone else anywhere on the blogs how they should run their own site is simply complete bollocks. While it is probably preferable that sites should post their general moderation and privacy rules, it is pretty strictly a case of commenter beware. People writing comments on a site like Red Alert with no policy about privacy, or Whaleoil take a known risk (Cameron’s rules are below)

    1. The host is always right
    2. In the unlikely event the host is wrong then refer to rule number 1
    3. Stick to the topic
    4. Don’t tell lies about the host
    5. Whatever I feel like at any given moment.

    With the exception of a few tiresome busybodies like Pete George, the Mrs Grundy view of telling other people how they should run their parts of the net is something that has been debated on the net and amongst legislators in democracies for decades and resoundingly rejected. After all if these are the things that people are allowed to say to each other, then how can you prevent them saying it across a network without diminishing their freedom to speak?

  2. karol 2
    3 January 2014 at 2:32 pm

    One point, before I digest the entire post.

    Josie, you claim this:

    He [micky/greg] says I have “been vilified in the past in part” for my husband views. The sexism of this is breathtaking. Think about it: I’m not capable of developing my own thoughts, and can’t be judged on my own merits. He can’t contemplate a woman might not always agree with her partner. I am disappointed, to say the least, that women on The Standard haven’t called him and others on this bigotry.

    I most certainly would have been critical, if that is actually what micky was saying/implying. But you have taken his comment out of context.

    But this is what micky actually wrote:

    She has been vilified in the past in part for her partner John Pagani’s rather bizarre campaign ideas. His beneficiary on a roof speech written for David Shearer was justifiably ridiculed for its ham fisted beneficiary bashing tone. And of course Josie should not be criticised for her partner’s actions.

    And I entirely agree with the last sentence.

    • weka 2.1
      3 January 2014 at 3:58 pm

      Thanks karol, that one stood out for me too. I didn’t jump on micky at the time because he clearly thought that Pagani being criticised for her husband’s actions was wrong (which I agreed with). Which begs the question of whether Pagani didn’t bother to read micky’s post properly, or whether she has an agenda in misrepresenting what he said. Not the only example of that in her post either.

      • newsense 2.1.1
        3 January 2014 at 5:18 pm

        Well it is interesting.

        I struggle to recall another ex- Labour candidate who got an article dedicated to them by Audrey Young in the same manner.

        I do recall time and time again she has chided the Left. It seemed odd that in an article by Martyn Bradbury on the Daily Blog behaving like Bradbury- a bombastic ex-Craccum editor and radio host- she decided to make it about The Standard.

        With Pete George as the main one giving her strident support on Pundit, this surely should give her pause.

        I’ve always found her writing vague and not to the point. I struggle to understand why she get so much air time. SHE has had a huge profile, but the question has to be what actual solutions has she advocated?

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10778301

        This article is an example:

        I met a truck driver in Marton. He owned his own truck and worked on contract for different companies. He told me he’d voted Labour all his life and so had his dad, who would turn in his grave if he knew his son wasn’t voting Labour in 2011.

        He looked troubled. “What am I meant to do? National’s there for the rich. Labour’s there for the poor. No one is there for people like me.”

        We lost because people like him weren’t voting for us. We were seen as looking backwards, not forwards. We didn’t sound aspirational, we sounded miserable. We were turning up on people’s doorsteps telling them their lives were gloomy. And anyone who has ever been poor knows the last thing you want is someone telling you your life is crap.

        The hardest week to door-knock was when we were telling people – who had just come home from a day’s work earning the minimum wage – that it was a great idea to extend their Working for Families tax credit to beneficiaries. “So what’s the point of working my guts out all week while someone sitting at home on the dole gets the same tax credit as me?”

        This is a clear example of what Danyl is talking about of repeating and re-inforcing the right’s stereotypes about Labour.

        IE- Labour is supporting bludgers, Labour is for poor people, not for hard-working kiwis, Labour is the party of no, Labour has become irrelevant in the ‘dynamic’ (read casualised and disempowered) environment, supporting the idea of turning the poor against the poorer, not against those whose policies have seen the median income in the country drop in real terms…

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10847238

        In this indepth profile of he career the main things it seems that she wants to say are about welfare reform and how the party shouldn’t resist allowing John Tamihere to rejoin.

        “He’s got to say stuff that neither Phil Goff nor Helen Clark would have said. We’re waiting for David Shearer to give us the Labour narrative. What does it mean to be a New Zealander in the future? Where’s he headed? What is the direction?

        “Take our values, our gut instincts and turn them into something that means something to people, that’s a Labour vision.

        What on earth does this mean? Apart from this vague statements we were kept waiting and waiting and waiting and never really heard a confident voice from the leader or his supporters, until he spoke about foreign affairs after he had given up the leadership.

        http://thestandard.org.nz/its-2014-and-we-have-a-job-to-do/

        If you had to chose betwen these two vision statements- one is viseral, specific and passionate about change, the other is vague and a touch defensive.

        That is in a nutshell why she gets criticism. No doubt she has done a lot of good work, but if we had to chose a champion to fight for our lives we would chose her, yet :

        She happily debates right-wing opponents such as Matthew Hooton, Deborah Coddington, David Farrar and Cameron Slater. There is no personal invective; they are often complimentary about her.

        If your opponents are not critical of you, you have to wonder why. We want to hear our opponents getting irritated and flustered by our successes and refusal to accept their framing and half-truths.

        • newsense 2.1.1.1
          3 January 2014 at 5:27 pm

          * wouldn’t

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2
          3 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

          I’ve always found her writing vague and not to the point. I struggle to understand why she get so much air time.

          Have you considered that it may be because she’s vague and not to the point?

      • Lanthanide 2.1.2
        3 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

        Yes, this stuck out to me like a sore thumb, so much that I stopped reading the post. When someone makes such a basic and obvious error, I assume the rest of what they wrote is equally full of errors and don’t waste my time.

      • felix 2.1.3
        4 January 2014 at 12:20 am

        “Which begs the question of whether Pagani didn’t bother to read micky’s post properly, or whether she has an agenda in misrepresenting what he said.”

        Hmm, I think even a cursory skim of the rest of the mis-representative bullshit in her post ought to clear up that question.

    • Murray Olsen 2.2
      4 January 2014 at 2:31 am

      That was the first thing that stood out for me. Given the demonstrated inability to understand English of a not particularly high level, I struggled to take the rest of the post seriously.

  3. karol 3
    3 January 2014 at 2:39 pm

    This:

    I believe in using progressive taxation and a strong interventionist state to achieve an equal and just community in which anyone, from any background, has opportunity and security. For example, I support state funding of free health care and free education. I believe in incomes that allow everyone to participate and belong to their community at all ages, both through wages and through fair provision for those in need. I believe the state has an obligation to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live. I believe that the interests of labour must not be made subservient to the interests of capital. I am a social liberal.

    Yes, such beliefs are that of a social democrat.

    • weka 3.1
      3 January 2014 at 4:21 pm

      Beliefs are all well and good, but I would assume that many Labour supporters sees themselves broadly similarly. I’d like to see some specifics, especially clarification of this:

      “Yes it’s true, I opposed an in-work tax credit being extended to those not in work.

      Well I pointed out that the announcement of this policy during the election campaign was greeted by low paid workers who thought we were taking the proverbial. That doesn’t mean I don’t support an increase in benefit levels. Using an in-tax work credit is the wrong tool.

      How horrible does this observation make me? Helen Clark, Sir Michael Cullen, and the entire Cabinet of the previous government also believed WFF should not be extended to beneficiaries. Some time this year I am confident that David Cunliffe will announce a new policy in which – wait for it – WFF won’t be extended to beneficiaries.”

      Josie, what policies do you promote that would increase benefit levels? I’d like to hear some specifics. When would you support those policies being introduced?

    • greywarbler 3.2
      3 January 2014 at 4:46 pm

      I like Josie’s solid statement of beliefs for the left in NZ. It’s good to read something definite out of the large amount of justification and accusation in the answer. Some of us read Josie and some of us have heard Josie on Jim Mora’s panel and I guess the discourse has been too equivocating for these serious times.

      It may be a handy continuing job Josie for you to be a commenter which will go on at one venue or another at the end of 2014 But people here are extremely anxious about NZ direction (downward) and there is little happening that shows positive, intelligent, precautionary movement here and not much in the world against more financial meltdowns, climate meltdowns, social welfare meltdowns, etc. We aren’t centred on being nice, though I think we try to be considerate of people when they are struggling with problems, and can also be kindly and friendly.

      I am interested in the David Shearer ‘beneficiary on a roof’ comment by David Shearer. Did Mr Pagani advise this was an appropriate comment indicating Mr Shearer’s attitudes to state beneficiaries? Here is what I have seen in this blog :

      From your content:
      He claims my husband wrote David Shearer’s comments about a ‘beneficiary on the roof.’ I know for a fact this is totally untrue. It was an allegation made by The Standard at the time, which John could not have responded to because you banned him from the Standard for life when he pointed out another false claim you made about him.

      And about this matter – quote from mickysavage (via Karol)
      She has been vilified in the past in part for her partner John Pagani’s rather bizarre campaign ideas. His beneficiary on a roof speech written for David Shearer was justifiably ridiculed for its ham fisted beneficiary bashing tone. And of course Josie should not be criticised for her partner’s actions.

  4. QoT 4
    3 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

    But I want to respond to some specific claims Mr Presland makes because, speaking as the Leader of the Labour Party’s senior electorate official, they presumably reflect the views of the Labour Party and therefore need to be examined carefully.

    I’m saving this little nugget for the next time someone complains about people using pseudonyms online.

    Seriously, what is with some people and trying to silence fellow Labour Party members by threatening to use their personal affiliations against them?

  5. One Anonymous Knucklehead 5
    3 January 2014 at 4:31 pm

    casualisation is a fact of working life

    Casualisation (or not) of work is an employment law issue, not a “fact of life”.

    To put it another way: casual workers are defined by law. So are their employers’ obligations.

    • The Stepper 5.1
      3 January 2014 at 5:01 pm

      Not to nitpick, but (being an employment lawyer) I have to point out that ‘casual’ work is in fact not defined by law. That’s a large part of why ‘casual’ employment is so open to abuse. Strictly casual employees are permanent employees, but with variable hours of work and no guarantee of work. Accordingly they are due all rights of permanent employees – though granted this is often observed only in the breach.

      • karol 5.1.1
        3 January 2014 at 5:31 pm

        I didn’t think casual employees had the right to things like sick leave?

        • The Stepper 5.1.1.1
          4 January 2014 at 11:13 am

          Hi Karol,

          Any employee is entitled to sick leave if they have completed six months continuous service with their employer. Alternatively an employee is entitled to sick leave if they have worked an average of 10 hours per week for six months (needing to have worked at least 1 hour in each week, or 40 hours in each month). The difficulty with casual employees is meeting those criteria, given the relative consistency of employment required.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.2
        3 January 2014 at 5:42 pm

        Thanks The Stepper.

        Since casual employment is open to abuse, it follows that abusers Tories will pursue policies that increase the casualised workforce, but also, since casual work is by its very nature more flexible, it has benefits as well as pitfalls.

        Whatever improvements to the law the next government chooses, how can they be best enforced?

    • thechangeling 5.2
      3 January 2014 at 5:10 pm

      That comment ticked me off too. Josie makes so many spurious claims and then also doesn’t back them up with anything substantial either. She just goes around in endless, meaningless circles speaking for the sake of speaking without getting close to any kind of resolution. Drives me nuts listening/reading from her.

  6. Tracey 6
    3 January 2014 at 4:34 pm

    Josie

    If you are not banned from this site, and I dont know who is or isnt banned,why didnt you post this in the thread by mickey savage?

    Why would you think someone using the pseudonym mickey savage would be reflecting mr cunliffes views when clearly not posting in his capacity as electorate chair?

    Thanks in advance.

    [lprent: She isn’t banned (never has been). For that matter neither is John Pagani since the amnesty early last year. ]

    • xtasy 6.1
      4 January 2014 at 2:02 am

      Certain persons that were or are aspiring MPs, or even sitting MPs, appear to be considering themselves “above” the rest of us, hence they cannot bother jumping into the “boxing ring” to spar and discuss. So this more formal “request” to be heard shows exactly that.

      Do not “soil” my name and reputation, or else.

      But I say fair enough, for Josie being given her “space” here, and others being able to comment on it. I would agree with Tracey and others, that those that want to be heard, and that want to be taken serious by commenters, they should show a bit of courage and humility at the same time, to discuss matters here, and face the music, where it deserves to be played.

      How much damned silence was there from certain ones I asked to comment and respond, to stuff I presented on WINZ and welfare issues. It was hauntingly silent, whether it was David Shearer, Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe, Helen Kelly and certain other ones.

      So what am I to think of it all, what am I to think of Josie Pagani. What I read here again, what others, including Mickey Savage, have to say, only confirms to me, that I cannot and will not trust Josie.

      Best of luck to her, whatever.

  7. Ennui 7
    3 January 2014 at 4:48 pm

    Congratulations to lprent for allowing the TS to give a right of reply to Josie. Well done, in the spirit of diversity of opinions, and right of reply I applaud it.

    Having said that Josie is very much too close to the centre for my tastes, however that does not discount all she has to say. For example try this I reject the divisiveness and vilification that says you must be banished for voting the wrong way in a now-finished contest. It’s ugly. It’s self-defeating. Labour cannot win government by hunting heretics to demean and banish them.

    I concur fully, try thinking about this principle with regard to the “debates” (or should I say witch hunts) on TS in the last few days.

    [lprent: It isn’t a “right of reply” – there is no such beast on this site or any other. It is however another viewpoint on the debate that has been emerging on TS over the last month or so about how people in the labour movement engage with each other. I don’t think that it is a particularly good or effective contribution myself (and I hope I made clear why in my comment). But it is a viewpoint worth discussing. ]

  8. Pete 8
    3 January 2014 at 4:52 pm

    I am not sure why you are surprised. I read Red Alert and The Standard regularly (as well as some of the right wing blogs), and have noted that some of the opinion pieces and the comments contained a heavy thread of personal abuse.
    Personally, I find this very distasteful. I would far rather have a a robust exchange of views and leave the personality driven stuff out of it. If you read the comments then you will see that it is many of the regular contributors/commenters who engage in this stuff.
    I am strongly of the view that this ‘vilification’ of people is a turn off for many left of centre voters, and definitely for those in the middle. When Clare Curran had a go at Peter Leitch on Red Alert some time ago the response was a dramatic illustration of how people feel about denigration in general. I feel that the contributors of left and right wing blogs (but mainly left) frequently, just can’t help revealing their nasty side, and that this continual diet of attacks on people from all ‘sides’ creates an unfavourable impression of left wing politics. It definitely does not speak to values such as inclusion.
    My view is that it might be a coop but it is a bit rich to allow contributors free reign and then hide behind site policies. But then, it is their blog, so that is what you get.

    [lprent: You may very well feel that and even express it. However you cannot demand it nor expect it by the rules of this site. Indeed you will find that demanding how any site runs its affairs usually gets a sharp response from the people who make the effort of providing it to the lazy twerp like yourself making it.

    It was a choice that the original authors made. That decision to go for robust debate came directly from the cloying “niceness” and simple lack of depth that the political debate had on sites like Public Address. The original intent was to have no moderation at all and to let the community to develop naturally. That idealist concept died with some truly nasty right wing arseholes piling in on synchronised comment attacks in late 2007 and 2008 from Whaleoil and Kiwiblog doing post diversions.

    The only person who truly goes for full-blown nasty vilification and abuse on this site is me. Having dealt with similar dickheads for the last 30 years over many kinds of online forums, I have observed that the only way to make such fools aware of what they are doing to others is to do exactly the same back to them. Except do it nastier – a lot nastier. I’ve found that it causes anyone to pause and consider what they do on a site if they have to consider what awakening the site ogre is going to do to them.

    Have a look at my note to John Pagani banning him for an example. ]

    • Pete 8.1
      3 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

      Actually, I don’t demand anything- that is the meaning of my last sentence when I more or less said that it is your blog. My point stands about personal vilification, but I am sure we have both got better things to do than continue a dialogue that will get you pissed off and me banned. I believe what I said and did not disparage anyone in saying it. It is not just your site I was referring to. I find some of the commenters on Whaleoil for example to be quite distasteful. But, there you go that is just how I see it.
      I am happy to leave it here.

    • Frank Macskasy 8.2
      3 January 2014 at 10:45 pm

      As a blogger myself, I made it fairly clear to Pete George after Josie’s piece on The Pundit (http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-left-must-stand-up-to-abuse) that, in my ‘umble opinion, a blog is like someone’s lounge in their home – you’re a guest and you behave accordingly. If the rules state you must do ‘XYZ’ (or not do ‘XYZ’) on a blog that your choice is clear; observe the rules or contribute elsewhere. Or set up your own blog. There are enough pixels to go round for everyone.

      I gave Pete an example that, soon after the US invasion of Iraq and with no WMDs found; I posted a comment on the rightwing Free Republic website offering my views that this proved that the invasion was based on securing oil reserves and not in search of mythical WMDs.

      My post on Free Republic was non-confrontational and polite, since I was a ‘newbie’ on that blog.

      It was removed within ten minutes.

      Did I scream, wave my arms around, froth at the mouth and chuck an almighty spazz?

      Nah. I moved on.

      It’s their website. They can do what they like. (I just smiled at the contradiction of rightwingers who believe in freedom of expression – and then censored my post!! *snort!*)

      I’m glad that Lyn made it 100% crystal clear that no such beastie as a “right of reply” exists on any blog – anyone expecting such from me will be duly ignored.

      (PS: Apologies if this is off-topic by the way, Lyn.)

      • Sosoo 8.2.1
        4 January 2014 at 11:53 am

        That’s the very same view that right wingers use to shut down protests and debate.

        Good work, bro.

  9. Tracey 9
    3 January 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Josie

    Do you fully support David Cunliffe as leader of the Labour Party?

    Can you clarify what it is about Mr Tamihere that leads you to describe him as working class or representative of anyone (including women) who fit your definition of working class?

    [lprent: Perhaps I should clarify. Josie is a on holiday at present. Her only contact with the world is a cellphone that she has to climb a hill to get on the net. I will add that to the post. ]

  10. chris73 10
    3 January 2014 at 4:59 pm

    A well thought out piece and she raised some points in a way that someone on the right (me) would actually listen to which is something a lot of commentators and those on the left could take notes on

  11. Morrissey 11
    3 January 2014 at 5:05 pm

    On December 31st I asked Josie Pagani on her Pundit blog to provide some evidence to support her outburst at Martyn Bradbury. This is what I wrote:

    You claim, without providing any evidence at all, that “Martyn Bradbury’s unreasonable aggression has produced a truckload of ugly incidents lately”. Could you back up that claim with specific examples please?
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-left-must-stand-up-to-abuse

    She has so far failed to come up with any evidence as requested. Perhaps she might like to post the evidence on this site. Although, seeing that she has not responded to any of the posts on this thread, I’m not expecting much from her.

    [lprent: Perhaps I should clarify. Josie is a on holiday at present. Her only contact with the world is a cellphone that she has to climb a hill to get on the net. I will add that to the post. ]

  12. Tracey 12
    3 January 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Josie

    What does your notion of protection of casual labour look like in practice?

    What place do you see for unions in your vision for the workingclass of nz?

    When you submitted your post, as opposed to posting it like tge rest of us, did you intend to engage in a discussion of it or want to be “heard”?

    [lprent: Perhaps I should clarify. Josie is a on holiday at present. Her only contact with the world is a cellphone that she has to climb a hill to get on the net. I will add that to the post. ]

  13. Tracey 13
    3 January 2014 at 5:22 pm

    Chris

    I am not surprised it appeals to you. Her foundation principles could also come from the mouths of national strategist. I suspect josie, like you, doesnt mind that the emperor has no clothes as long as it is the emperor from her team.

    It is of some interest that despite being on holiday she climbed a hill to get her view posted as its own thread and then will struggle to engage in discussion of it. She didnt post it in the thread she wants to respond to.

    The danger is it can come across as being about josie and not the nzers who she purports to want to help raise up. I am minded of ennuis link to an interview on national radio. Prod considine?

  14. Tracey 14
    3 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Chris

    A well thought out piece and she raised some points in a way that someone on the right (me) would actually listen to which is something a lot of commentators and those on the left could take notes on”

    Except it is wasted on you because even when in surplus.. lower debt by some margin than today, economic growth, you didnt vote for labour because you didnt “trust helen clark”

    the fact that ms pagani appeals to you is possibly what is annoying some here about her. If she had posted this on kiwiblog it would probably be reasonably well received.

    my impression of many who visit here is they dont want a labour tgat is merely national lite. Thats what labour has been since 1984. It has not served the 50% of kiwis earning under 30k per year.

    • Tim 14.1
      3 January 2014 at 8:20 pm

      I think C73 just HAS to be that guy we used to refer to as the ‘nodder’ in the days of 7’s Backbenchers (as opposed to Prime’s) Anxious to get in the pic whenever some Natzi came out with some outrageous BS ‘nodding’ in agreement.
      You can spot them oft times on Parliament TV doing the nod nod nod thing.
      Says a lot about the Neshnool party to my mind

  15. Descendant Of Sssmith 15
    3 January 2014 at 5:44 pm

    “I believe in using progressive taxation and a strong interventionist state to achieve an equal and just community in which anyone, from any background, has opportunity and security. For example, I support state funding of free health care and free education. I believe in incomes that allow everyone to participate and belong to their community at all ages, both through wages and through fair provision for those in need. I believe the state has an obligation to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live. I believe that the interests of labour must not be made subservient to the interests of capital. I am a social liberal.”

    And what I don’t see is any Labour policy that supports a real increase in taxation in a progressive way, any commitment to roll back student loans, any willingness to increase benefit rates, any increase in state housing and a return to housing security (house for life), the removal of judgmental benefit policy that acts as though it’s charity, any sense at all of a 8 hour working day, 40 hour working week nor significantly increased union rights.

    My, and many others disillusionment with Labour comes from the absence of any real significant moves to any of those things.

    These were things that Labour was once proud of – condemned to the history books by the very party that introduced them.

    Extreme left growing up in the 70’s was communism not this sort of simple socialist egalitarian stuff.

    I’d ask you the same question (if you weren’t incommunicado) I asked Mike Smith over a year ago – do you actually believe in an 8 hour working day, 40 hour working week?” – you know that thing that is proudly held up as an achievement on the Labour Party website.

  16. Pascal's bookie 16
    3 January 2014 at 6:20 pm

    But Greg Presland distorts what I said.

    He said I was probably the only Labour Party feminist that voted for Shane Jones.

    How revealing is this statement – that those of us who supported an alternative contender in the leadership election are not welcome, that we don’t have a valid Labour voice, and that therefore, logically, we should be excluded.

    emph mine. As a beginner’s class in logic, keeping your shit together, proof reading with a critical mind, and writing with a view to discuss vs flame bait.

  17. mickysavage 17
    3 January 2014 at 6:22 pm

    Thanks for your response Josie.

    A few comments:

    1. I am not David Cunliffe’s LEC chair and have not been so for many years. I am obviously a supporter but do so in a completely voluntary basis.

    2. I also write under my own steam and do not take direction from anyone. To suggest that David somehow has a role in this is as disrespectful as suggesting that I implied that you are somehow responsible for John Pagani’s speech writing which I clearly distanced you from. I agree your views are your own and you should grant me the same courtesy.

    3. I am concerned at your continued use as a media spokesperson for the left because I and many others often disagree with your views and we are worried that progressive left ideas are not being enunciated in the media. Of the examples that I cited I gather the response from you is:

    (a) John Tamihere – you agree that you have supported him although not since the roast busters incident.
    (b) WFF – you agree you oppose it being extended to beneficiaries but cite the views of others in support.
    (c) Proportion of women in Parliament – I am pleased that we can agree on the principle but I was concerned that you had bought into the “man ban” spin and this had reinforced the right’s attack on the proposal.
    (d) Casualisation of Auckland Wharf’s workforce – I do agree that I was worried about my interpretation of your views and I did say that this was what I thought you were saying. You did say “[t]alking about the ports. ‘Casualisation’ scares us because it sounds like short hand for bad hours, low pay and no annual leave. It sounds like life in the early industrial revolution pre-unions. In some jobs it is. The only reason we have a 40 hr week and weekends is because unions fought for us. But I’ve spent my political life as a working mum, calling for more flexibility. And flexibility has to work both ways.” Apologies if I was wrong but I read this as support for casualisation of the workforce, at least of working hours.
    (e) Supporting Shane Jones – This is your prerogative. Although at one level I like Shane and admire his abilities I did not think that he would ever qualify for feminist support and I was surprised that you came out publicly to announce your decision.

    A couple of further comments:

    You accuse me of saying Labour values are unpopular and need to be jettisoned

    I am sure that I did not.

    Finally Danyl McLaughlan said what I was trying to say very well. He commented on pundit:

    Your ‘left-wing values’ don’t seem very left-wing at all, but rather a clumsy attempt to redefine the National Party’s values on, say, welfare as left-wing because you think they’re more palatable to the electorate and you think it would be easier for you personally to achieve your political ambitions by aping popular National Party rhetoric than articulating an alternative left-wing vision.

    Maybe I’m wrong and have misjudged you horribly! But that’s the impression a number of people also seem to have arrived at independently about you.

    I apologise if I hurt your feelings. But when you said that Martyn Bradbury and commenters on the Standard had engaged in “reprehensible abuse and aggression” I thought that the allegation needed to be responded to as there were a number of people feeling similarly insulted.

    As for criticism of your views I agree normally that they would not be warranted. But it is your rather unique role in commenting in the media essentially on behalf of lefty activists that means that a spirited debate about your views is warranted.

    • Anne 17.1
      3 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

      Thanks for replying mickysavage. I’ve just read Josie Pagani’s response to your post and have been pacing the floor trying to calm down before leaping into the fray…

      Suffice to say Josie Pagani has indeed a lot to learn… not the least how to write a cogent and intelligent – and grammatically correct – letter.

      Example:

      David Cunliffe’s electorate chair, Greg Presland, posting under the pseudonym ‘Micky Savage’, wrote a post because I said comments at the Standard are an example of the intolerable abuse I’ve had enough of.

      Josie Pagani, apart from the fact he has not been the LEC Chairperson for at least eight years…
      anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the English language knows that you never end a sentence with a preposition.Here is how you write it:

      … wrote a post because I said comments at the Standard are an example of the intolerable abuse of which I have had enough.

      We’ll forget what’s wrong with rest of the sentence.

      Here endeth the grammar lesson.

      And what about the “abuse’ you claim to have experienced at the hands of mickysavage and a handful of commenters here? Let’s start with mickysavage. I re-read his post and there is not a hint of abuse. Criticism yes, but no abuse. Indeed anyone who knows mickysavage would tell you he is one of life’s gentleman. I have never read anything he has written anywhere that has contained the slightest hint of abusive language. And yet his detractors – including you it would seem – love to paint him as some sort of nasty, devious bastard. It is a compliment to him that his ability to be concise and coherent in his writings apparently has certain people feeling sufficiently threatened by him that they need to try and discredit him.

      He has no reason to apologise to you because he’s well within his rights to criticise anyone he perceives (correctly in this case) as being deserving of it, and it is up to you to take it on board and learn from the criticism.

      As for the “abuse” from commenters here… get yourself a thicker skin and shrug it off! If you put yourself out there in the public arena, then you have to expect that not everybody is going to like what you say – and say so!

      • Tim 17.1.1
        3 January 2014 at 8:39 pm

        @Anne
        Uphill Shit Push!
        You’re correct about her unfounded claim of abuse at the hands of Mickey/
        I’m probably sailing bloody close to the wind – it’s just that Pagani – and her MSM media ‘friends’ to my mind represent EVERYTHING that’s wrong with the ‘broad church’ (ooo oooh – “I’m inclined to agree with you Mathew”)
        Despite the broad church – it’s ALL about Josie, and how dare any of us question her motives and sense of entitlement.
        It’s pretty bloody magnanimous of the site ‘owners’ to allow this utter flake a right of reply …. and YES …. probably even MORE magnanimous of them to allow a comment such as this!
        I’m not sure why we/Labour/ its principles/ etc even consider these people relevant any more to the extent that they’re given a rather lopsided and inequitable voice on the airwaves.

      • mickysavage 17.1.2
        3 January 2014 at 8:40 pm

        Aw thanks Anne 😳

      • greywarbler 17.1.3
        3 January 2014 at 9:12 pm

        That’s well put mickey. Seems to cover the points very clearly and courteously. What was needed as enough brouhaha to go already.

        BTW what branch of law do you specialise in?

      • karol 17.1.4
        3 January 2014 at 9:31 pm

        Good comment, Anne.

        As for the “abuse” from commenters here… get yourself a thicker skin and shrug it off! If you put yourself out there in the public arena, then you have to expect that not everybody is going to like what you say – and say so!

        Indeed.

      • greywarbler 17.1.5
        4 January 2014 at 8:58 pm

        That bit at the end Anne you have to expect that not everybody is going to like what you say – and say so! could have finished – And you could consider taking the reasoned criticism seriously and make changes.

        • karol 17.1.5.1
          4 January 2014 at 9:17 pm

          Or at least think carefully about whether you need to make changes – sometimes people can get contradictory criticisms – in the end each person needs to reflecct and consider what needs changing and what doesn’t.

          Joise doesn’t actually seem to look very carefully at what the criticisms are, and gets them all wrong – not a good basis for making changes – the taking seriously and reflecting on the criticisms is important.

        • Anne 17.1.5.2
          4 January 2014 at 9:46 pm

          @ greywarbler
          I wrote that just after having read Josie Pagani’s letter, and was pretty angry over the alleged abuse by mickysavage in particular. It wasn’t true. I guess I was in the mood to give her a bollocking. 🙁

          Maybe the last sentence was a bit unfair, but perhaps she will think twice about misrepresenting what people say in the future. It isn’t the first time it has happened by a long shot.

          • greywarbler 17.1.5.2.1
            4 January 2014 at 10:24 pm

            Nah Anne. Wasn’t finding fault with anything you said. I was just thinking you could have made a stronger point and asked her to take our comments to heart. Something that may not happen I fear. Of course their point/s have to be understood first.

            Karol you seem to feel similarly.

            • Anne 17.1.5.2.1.1
              4 January 2014 at 10:54 pm

              I think she might take some notice greywarbler. Time will tell. If she does I will be the first to give her a verbal bouquet…

    • karol 17.2
      3 January 2014 at 9:35 pm

      micky, I think many of the individual crticisms of some things Josie has written, need to be seen in context: i.e. the context in which she produced them, and the kind of media coverage and poltical statements that were forefront at the time. She has tended to take individual criticisms out of such context – eg as you indicate with the quotas issue.

    • swordfish 17.3
      3 January 2014 at 11:06 pm

      Josie Pagani (about Micky) “You accuse me of saying Labour values are unpopular and need to be jettisoned……..”

      Mickey (in reply) “I am sure that I did not.”

      Yep, I can’t see you making any such suggestion in your post, Mickey.

      Looks to me like Josie has just repeated a word-for-word criticism she made of Danyl (Pundit comments), lazily (and pointlessly) applying it to you too:

      On Pundit (Comment January 1 2014), she tells Danyl: “Danyl,…….You seem to be accusing me of saying Labour values are unpopular and need to be jettisoned. Actually I believe the exact opposite. I think Labour values are popular – and therefore when Labour is unpopular it must be because it’s is (sic) not being faithful to its own principles. This is a much more nuanced analysis than you give me credit for.”

      Give or take one or two extra words, this is (entirely verbatim) her criticism of you in the second-to-last paragraph of her Post above. She even includes the same “it’s is” mistake. (sic) !!!!!!

      Obviously, it’s a line she’s been working on and is keen to try out .http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/the-left-must-stand-up-to-abuse#comments

      • Anne 17.3.1
        4 January 2014 at 9:56 pm

        Spot on swordfish.

        Some people are very good at coming up with fine sounding epistles. The problem arises when they don’t practice what they preach.

    • Saarbo 17.4
      3 January 2014 at 11:46 pm

      “As for criticism of your views I agree normally that they would not be warranted. But it is your rather unique role in commenting in the media essentially on behalf of lefty activists that means that a spirited debate about your views is warranted.

      Yes, +1.

    • swordfish 17.5
      3 January 2014 at 11:47 pm

      I appear to have a comment in moderation – a comment that suggests at least one of Pagani’s criticisms of Mickey is more than just a little bit disingenuous.

      [lprent: Read my comment at the top of the post. The post is under full moderation. This means that all comments made to it have to be released by a moderator. We commonly do this for guest posts from active politicians. For instance both Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe in the recent Labour party leadership debates. But also for some posts where we suspect that the content is going to cause excessive or concerted reactions. For instance the Blomfield guest post regarding the defamation case against Cameron Slater. ]

  18. Ad 18
    3 January 2014 at 6:33 pm

    Couple of points.

    1. Greg Pesland is not the Chair of the New Lynn LEC. And he speaks, as one would expect, for himself. And he’s good at it.

    2. Stop conflating divisiveness for the contest of ideas. John Tamihere represented a set of ideas and is proud and unrepentant of it. When you step into the arena of ideas, expect that you could lose and that losing will hurt. Politics is not tiddlywinks pal.

    3. Re Shane Jones, why not do yourself a favour and admit that the best leadership candidate won? The great majority found your opinion to be wrong, so open your ears to why.

    4. With regard to your statement of beliefs, if you were half as clear as that in your columns or on National Radio you wouldn’t be in such constant hot water with the activist base here.

    5. The people that have a monopoly on defining Labour values are those who vote at the Labour Annual Conference and form remits to alter or support the Labour constitution, and the (now binding) Labour Policy Platform. As we did less than 3 months ago.
    Broader progressive values may well be contested, but Labour ones aren’t outside the AGM.

    6. Please improve your game – both on National Radio and here. Spell correctly. Get your facts correct. Write without cheap shots. Bring your best stuff to this game. You need to represent Labour better than you are.

  19. Tim 19
    3 January 2014 at 6:37 pm

    God strewth … the temptation is almost too much! But just as I did with : “It’s 2014, and we have a job to do”, I’ll refrain from ANY comment and just watch the id, the egos and the super egos play themselves out.
    That divine right Josie has – having paid her dues , of course! – convinced her expertise provides her with an understanding of the real people is just too much for me to handle.
    Ew!
    And apolgies Lprent and others if the above is worthy of a ban – it probably is

  20. just saying 20
    3 January 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Very clever of Josie to publish at a time she is not free to engage with those responding.

    • Lanthanide 20.2
      3 January 2014 at 9:59 pm

      Apparently she sent this to Lynn several days ago and he’s posted it now. I presume at the time she sent it to him, she would have been available to reply to comments.

      So if you’re going to blame anyone, blame Lynn. On that point though, if he’d held off posting until after she got back from holiday, then it could potentially be weeks after Micky’s post.

      • just saying 20.2.1
        3 January 2014 at 10:15 pm

        Was she on holiday when she sent it to you Lynn?

        • lprent 20.2.1.1
          3 January 2014 at 10:33 pm

          Beats me. Seems kind of long for a phone. But I have a new laptop wityhan inadequete setup, a requirement to “not spend Lyns holiday buried in a computer” and being given a selection of ham, port and single malt scotch.

      • lprent 20.2.2
        3 January 2014 at 10:18 pm

        Sort of. She sent it on the first. I sent back in the afternoon on the first after I got up with a hangover in the afternoon checking on the lack of links. She emailed back on the second. But I didn’t see that – either because of her phone and/or the hill or my trip to deepest southland. I saw her second email at lunch today after another late start and after talking to local bodies. Put up in a ham and port state after lunch. I am on holiday. She is on holiday. Why aren’t you?

  21. JK 21
    3 January 2014 at 9:19 pm

    Thanks Mickey, Anne, Tim, JS, and others – as a relatively newcomer to The Standard I’ve been trying to think of a reply to Josie Pagani that wasn’t “abusive” or “nasty” or “poisonous” but I have often wondered WHY she is regarded by the mainstream media as a commentator for the left – so many things she says just don’t sound like the real left – so often she sounds like the Labour-lite from the old guards in the Labour caucus, that the Labour Party itself has tried to overcome with the change in leadership and its draft policy platform. I found Mickey’s comments quite reasonable and as Anne has put it “gentlemanly”. I hope she (Josie) gets an understanding from these comments about where she’s coming from, and where she might end up.

  22. Pascal's bookie 22
    3 January 2014 at 9:55 pm

    Please improve your game – both on National Radio and here. Spell correctly. Get your facts correct. Write without cheap shots. Bring your best stuff to this game. You need to represent Labour better than you are.

    I’m gonna expand a bit on this from Ad, because fisking that damn post would be an even longer comment..

    A partisan* pundit’s job is to move the conversation towards their view, and away from their opponents. By doing that they shift the centre. A political party has to capture the centre when in opposition. It’s harder to do that when the pundits who are their supposed allies are calling them and their supporters ‘radicals’ or ‘loons’ or otherwise framing their own side as weird.

    This is basic, basic, stuff. If you are a left wing pundit, then every time the right wing pundits are agreeing with you about the ‘nasty left’ and saying ‘there there’ you are getting your butt kicked at your one fucking job.

    Over at Farrar’s blog, commenters get net upticks for, (for example), saying that Breivik was justified in doing what he did. Basic oppo research should have facts like that firmly lodged in your brain so that when a pundit starts going on the nasty left on the blogs, you don’t agree with them and martyr yourself, you stay something like:

    ‘Steady on, national party pollster David Farrar tolerates terrorist supporters on his blog; the Kiwiblog community approves of commenters who compare the Greens to nazis, and spout weird conspiracy theories about the education system being taken over by a cabal of marxists with a decades long plan to destroy the nuclear family. That’s what the National party’s base thinks of your average primary school teacher does in their day job. We on the left have our differences, but if you want to talk about nasty, I’ll go quote for quote for you”

    ..and have two or three quotes at hand. Quotes supporting Breivek that had net upticks showing “the clear support of rightwing commenters for this sort of talk”. Quotes attacking Key for being a traitor. Quotes about the maori party having desires for an apartheid state in NZ. Or that 95%+ of climate scientists world wide are all lying to get money and to set up New World Order.

    You don’t see right wing pundits discussing what goes in the KB or WO threads do you? Why do you think that is? It’s not rocket science. They don’t do it because they know what their bloody job is. And that’s to spin. Their side look good, and the other side look bad. That’s why shows have left and right guests. You are supposed to fight your damn corner in the left right battle.

    Don’t write columns talking about what the left, (by which you mean blog commenters and activists) ought to be saying. Most voters will never ever see these threads. All they know about them is what pundits say. So if all you say about them is negative, then what are they going to think about the left?

    In the media, you are the left. Don’t tell activists or blog commenters what we ought to be bloody saying to make your job easier. Your job, is making activists jobs easier. Our job is just being citizens. If you can’t convince us to vote for you, then you have no bloody show of changing swing voters minds

    You are not, (if you are a pundit), an academic analysing the left. You are the bloody left as far as the average punter sees things. So you should be attacking the right by highlighting the ways in which the right is out of step with the centre. One fucking job.
    .

    • karol 22.1
      3 January 2014 at 10:15 pm

      uptick.

    • Lanthanide 22.2
      3 January 2014 at 10:19 pm

      +100.

      PB, I think you should become a pundit for the left. I think you’d be very good at it – you’re one of the few commenters on TS who I *always* stop to read when I’m scrolling down the page.

    • QoT 22.3
      4 January 2014 at 12:45 am

      *thunderous applause*

    • just saying 22.4
      4 January 2014 at 6:43 am

      Brilliant.

      Could you CC that to Mike Williams too PB?

      Maybe after all these years they need an actual job description. Maybe point one could be “espouse left-wing ideas”. (course they may need a description of this as wel…)

      • QoT 22.4.1
        4 January 2014 at 11:13 am

        Your duties as a political commentator should include:

        a) espousing leftwing ideas [See Appendix 1: Leftwing Ideas and Appendix 2: Things which are NOT leftwing ideas]

        b) challenging rightwingers [See Appendix 3: How to Stop Saying You Agree With Matthew Hooton on Everything]

        c) understand that the “challenges” in point (b) do not include riding bikes with Cameron fucking Slater

    • Saarbo 22.5
      4 January 2014 at 8:48 am

      Perfect.

      Matthew Hooten (and a couple of others) do this well for the right, but frustratingly we don’t seem to have too many Lefties capable.

    • RedLogix 22.6
      4 January 2014 at 11:42 am

      Have to join the round of applause. PB doesn’t often say much, but when they do …

      It’s worth reflecting though that Josie may be doing the ‘left-wing pundit’ job she has been selected for – just fine thank you.

    • The Outrider 22.7
      4 January 2014 at 11:44 am

      Like a hot knife through butter. You get to the nub of the matter with some finesse and edge Pascal’s bookie.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 22.8
      4 January 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Very well put PB. Like Lanthanide, I always stop to read what you have to say.

      • gobsmacked 22.8.1
        4 January 2014 at 10:06 pm

        I’ll break a New Year’s resolution (already!) and interrupt a happily blog-free holiday, to add my support to Pascal Bookie’s excellent point.

        I don’t think there’s much else to say about Josie’s contributions, here or anywhere else in the media, except to restate the obvious: she just isn’t very good at this. I don’t *want* to disagree with – or criticise – a Labour supporter in the media, I don’t look for reasons to have a go, and I loathe bone-headed sexism. But nine times out of ten Josie makes me roll my eyes, when I’d really much rather applaud … if only she could say something worth applauding.

  23. Tanz 23
    3 January 2014 at 9:58 pm

    progressive ideas, yikes.

  24. The Outrider 24
    3 January 2014 at 9:58 pm

    It is worth noting that Mr. Key and his cronies are not and will not be the slightest bit interested in semantics when it comes to the GE dust up that is looming rapidly on the horizon. Steely resolve and a measure of unity would be very helpful in getting the correct result in November. I would far rather be raising a glass to toast a new government than licking bitter wounds and pondering on what could have been.

  25. Tanz 25
    3 January 2014 at 10:00 pm

    moderaton. lol. what sin did I commit?

    [lprent: Moderated post. Interferes with holiday. Being social. Etc. Thanks. ]

  26. max 26
    3 January 2014 at 10:22 pm

    Y’all don’t want to win this year do you?

  27. Tanz 27
    3 January 2014 at 10:38 pm

    Key will be voted out, I hope. He is far left, anyway.

  28. Redbaiter 28
    3 January 2014 at 10:52 pm

    For example, I support state funding of free health care and free education.

    Unbelievable that a mature adult aspiring to represent other adults could write a statement so irrational and delusional. If politicians Labour or Ntional or any party expect to win votes from thinking electors with this kind of infantile drivel they really deserve to go the way of the dodo.

    Health care and education supplied by the government is not “free”. It is funded by the taxpayer. Calling it “free” is something that would only come from someone who is (a) a slick talking used car salesman or (b) somebody who as an adult still believes in the tooth fairy.

    I think voters today are way past this kind of nonsense. Apparently Labour Party politicians are not.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 28.1
      4 January 2014 at 8:48 am

      They are free to those who receive them. Children, for example.

      Oh, and we already tried “private” healthcare and education. Medieval is the usual word.

    • greywarbler 28.2
      4 January 2014 at 8:55 am

      Redbaiter
      Your faux outrage on behalf of the sainted ‘taxpayer’, as opposed in your mind to the suckey beneficiaries and welfare recipients of all kinds, no longer holds water. Not since GST was introduced. Everybody now is a taxpayer, and those at the bottom end of the income strata pay a larger proportion of their small income than the more wealthy.

    • Frank Macskasy 28.3
      5 January 2014 at 10:21 am

      @ Redbaiter –

      Health care and education supplied by the government is not “free”.

      Hence why Josie said,

      For example, I support state funding of free health care and free education.

      Note the reference to state funding.

      As for suggesting that voters will not support “this drivel” – evidently you either weren’t around in the late 1980s or are suffering a Key-like brain fade/memory loss. At the time, the Rogergnomes in Labour attempted to implement a $50 per day, maximum ten days, charge for patients staying in hospitals.

      New Zealanders gave that policy the finger and ignored hospital invoices. People simply refused to pay, en masse.

      The policy was ditched shortly after.

      So despite New Zealanders generally buying into the Cult of Individualism (especially if it gives them the “inalienable” right to get pissed out of their brains at 5am in the morning and spew/urinate/defaecate in shop doorways), this was a step too far.

      Unlike creeping user-pays in education (school fees/donations, tertiary fees/debt, reduced early childhood education funding), Kiwis simply weren’t prepared to go down the route our American cuzzies have taken with their privatised healthcare system – which is an utter shambles by all accounts.

      Happy to have set you straight on this. 🙂

      • Redbaiter 28.3.1
        7 January 2014 at 10:35 am

        Frank, I could try and challenge your assumptions with mathematical arguments that prove socialised medicine and education systems cost more and are less effective, or I could use moral arguments that demonstrate that submitting to govt health care and education is anathema to anyone who values individuality and liberty.

        I know this. You might even know it. The trouble is the voters don’t know it and they never will while education and media are so firmly in the grip of progressives who view any argument that “gives ammunition to rednecks” as unworthy of an outing in the public sphere.

        Change won’t come and reason will not return to public debate until the left’s death grip on education and media is dislodged. It will be. Then we’ll be able to have a two sided public and real discussion on the matters you raise.

        Y’know, Cubans might not vote for Fidel Castro if one day they suddenly knew there was an alternative and better choice.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 28.3.1.1
          7 January 2014 at 10:51 am

          Yeah, when there’s so many real world examples to the contrary I’m not surprised “arguments” are all you can muster, but the reality check was never your strong point, was it?

        • Colonial Viper 28.3.1.2
          7 January 2014 at 10:52 am

          🙂 I’m glad you brought up Cuba. Using fully socialised medicine they spend 20 times less per capita on healthcare than the USA does, and get far better results in terms of health and life expectancy.

          No money gets wasted on supporting Big Pharma and private insurance shareholder profits, which is a bit sad for the capitalist privateers, however.

          • Redbaiter 28.3.1.2.1
            7 January 2014 at 6:18 pm

            “and get far better results in terms of health and life expectancy.”

            Utter garbage.

            Not just completely dodgy stats but pro-Castro propaganda produced by govt depts that are just stooges for the regime.

            There’s a ton of real stuff out there telling the truth about the Cuban health system. What sort of idiot would believe and propagate figures put out by Castro’s govt stooges??? FFS.

  29. adam 29
    4 January 2014 at 12:13 am

    On casualisation of the work force, I wonder if Josie would be so fatalistic if we just skipped a step, and went back to the good old days on the wharf, were you put people in cages at the start of the day – then let the managers get to pick who they want to work that day. Or if she was a refugee in this country working for the job agencies – who some times pay there staff, and never really pay there tax properly, then leave them to struggle in the face of bills from acc and ird – would she be so fatalistic? I wonder if the protection we need from casualisation is for the police to politely never get involved in a labour dispute again. Don’t see why they should really – might make life as a cop, easer, if working stiffs could get there pay packets back to a more manageable level.

    Talking taxes, Josie does seem to be happy for the middle class to carry the tax burden whilst the top earners in society get richer. I mean – the people you say are to the right of you are indeed to the right of you – but do you get, that does not make you left by default? Indeed being on the left is a question of economics, and support of Women, Maori, Pacific, Disabled and the underclass. It does seem you get the later – on the former, you sound like a neo-liberal apologist.

    I’ve said it before, there are some people in labour who’s real home is national – and why? If you think the IKE era was a golden age, then national is the party for you – it is full of liberals – many of them classical.

  30. felix 30
    4 January 2014 at 4:34 am

    “Her only contact with the world is a cellphone that she has to climb a hill to get on the net.”

    I had always kinda assumed this was her normal state of affairs, although I am surprised to learn about the cellphone.

    • greywarbler 30.1
      4 January 2014 at 2:10 pm

      Happy New Year felix. Were you at the top of a hill at 4.34 a.m. gazing down on a pristine world unencumbered by other humans?

      • felix 30.1.1
        7 January 2014 at 8:33 pm

        Nah, in bed shivering with fever.

        • greywarbler 30.1.1.1
          7 January 2014 at 9:37 pm

          Oh dear – still Christmas wasn’t much for weather and you didn’t miss much jollity probably. Were your eyes sore – if not chance to catch up on books and I hope you gathered in some looking-after- the-bedridden points.

  31. Tracey 31
    4 January 2014 at 8:32 am

    The number of folks asking about being in moderation really makes me wonder how many people read the whole comment to which they then respond?

    • enjoy every sandwich 31.1
      4 January 2014 at 12:04 pm

      I think this is becase people have varying levels of reading speed, comprehension and attention span and interest and it becomes more obvious with long articles. I think a tldr(too long didnt read) at the top of a long article could be helpful

      • swordfish 31.1.1
        4 January 2014 at 3:04 pm

        No. In terms of my 3 January 11:47 pm comment, it’s largely because I’m a bit of a dullard. Simple as that. Not as quick on the uptake as you might have hoped for.

        But, if I have one core philosophy, it’s precisely the same as yours, ees – I believe passionately that people should enjoy every sandwich. Not just 70% or 80% of them, EVERY SINGLE ONE ! * It’s what life’s all about, if only people would realise.

        * Lettuce and marmite ones in particular, mind.

        • enjoy every sandwich 31.1.1.1
          4 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

          Well I’ve had the odd shitty sandwich, difficult to enjoy those ones. Even the good ones ones are tricky to enjoy under difficult circumstances.
          I guess ‘Enjoy every sandwich’ is catchier than ‘Try to enjoy every sandwich’.
          I do like sandwiches though.

  32. RedBaronCV 32
    4 January 2014 at 8:57 am

    I’m still not sure exactly what is bothering Josie. She says:
    “commenters on the Standard….vilify me and call for my exclusion.” which is obviously what concerns her.

    Dealing with the second bit first. What are we “excluding” her from – we have no power to remove her membership of a political party, intefere with her writing on the Pundit or remove her media output. There is a possibility that if she is seen as not ‘left wing enough’ then the media may pay others for more left wing commentary and there could be income loss. Still a right wing media might be more than happy to have commentary labeled “left wing” from someone who lands closer to the middle – if only because this feeds an image of division. The Herald could label whaleoil “left wing”, imagine that.

    Then there is the “vilify me”. Reading the above comments I cannot see that there has been any significant long term misinterpretation of her point of view as she expresses it.

    There is disagreement with some of her expressed views and opinions, as voiced, as to whether they are left enough (although no one person has the job of defining that).Most of us are to the left of some and the right of others.
    For instance, I could see a robust debate about the idea that “flexibility” for a workforce also requires it to be “casualised”. To me they are different concepts.

    So, is she bothered by income loss, or that her ideas/opinions, as expressed, are being questioned or debated against other left wing ideas? And that these ideas are possible vote losers, as opposed to the existing ideas which have been tested at the ballot box as definite losers.

  33. captain hook 33
    4 January 2014 at 11:34 am

    well Josie Pagani.
    Tell us all one good thing you have done then.

  34. rich the other 34
    4 January 2014 at 12:34 pm

    Wake up Josie,
    The first point , the response to some of your opinions highlights the divisions in labour, a lack of tolerance unless you’re gay or knocking on the communist party’s door , no room for the middle of the road .
    Labour doesn’t want to recognise how pathetic and insignificant they have become , even the not so well off struggle to associate them selves with labour , just look at the last election result , the same fate awaits them later in the year.

    The obvious solution for you , join National and become relevant .
    National has plenty of proven ”near” leftish history and through the latest five year period of international economic turmoil have maintained social services and are on track for bright future .

    Josie,
    Take a little time , do a little research and then when you are convinced, join the party that caters for most NZers , NATIONAL.

  35. tricledrown 35
    4 January 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Manipulative Hoodwinker
    Mathew Hooten
    Is all over you like a rash Mrs Pagani .
    We wouldn’t be complaining if it were not so
    Its election year and you need to show some spine.
    Come up with some spin that negates the Masterful Hoodwinking of Hooten.
    You can find some good spin to attack MS with half truths but fail to do your job on the Nactuf govt.

  36. trcey 36
    4 January 2014 at 1:09 pm

    RTO

    50% of nzers who r on under 30k per yer hve no benefit from this government… which which letter hs gone from my keybord.

  37. Redbaiter 37
    4 January 2014 at 1:10 pm

    THE big winners from six years of Labor government were white-collar, inner-city Greens, while the big losers were blue-collar traditional ALP voters and young mums in the outer suburbs, an analysis of job trends shows. Report author John Black – head of demographic profiling company Australian Development Strategies and a former Labor senator and national executive member – said yesterday it showed Labor had failed its much trumpeted promise to advance “working families”.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/labors-policies-hurt-working-families/story-fn59noo3-1226794662671#

    Who doesn’t know nowadays that the Labour movement has been transformed into the urban liberal/ watermelon movement? Apparently everyone knows other than the people who should, and who should be doing something about it.

  38. tricledrown 38
    4 January 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Redbaiter
    So true,urbanization is the culprit.
    Community cooperation has dissapeared in urbanization so that has been replaced by individualism.
    Instead of cooperation we get competition.
    dog eat dog
    So how do we get people to be more cooperative in urban NZ

  39. Philj 39
    4 January 2014 at 4:00 pm

    Xox
    Josie is not faring too well on TS. Can’t Jim Mora find some real left wing common tators? Or doesn’t he /RNZ know any? Or is he just tooo niiice…? Or clueless.

  40. One Anonymous Knucklehead 40
    4 January 2014 at 4:13 pm

    The premise of Josie’s argument is that division – argument, differences of opinion, etc – is weakness.

    In fact it is strength. Democracy relies on debate, brings together competing values in compromise.
    The authoritarians are welcome to agreement. It’s more-or-less useless.

    Those who rail against “identity” politics might consider this.

  41. Sacha 41
    9 January 2014 at 7:05 am

    Photo of ex-candidate used to illustrate story about internal selection processes:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11183231

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.