Open mike 02/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, April 2nd, 2014 - 297 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

297 comments on “Open mike 02/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony P 1
    2 April 2014 at 6:52 am

    I know Chris Hipkins gets little change around here but he’s certainly making the right noises about education.

    http://howmelulaterseesit.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/what-i-saw-and-heard-sue-moroney-and.html

    • Tracey 1.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:48 am

      hes been mentioned a few times here including his recent parliamentary questions in education and to tony ryall (?)

  2. tc 2
    2 April 2014 at 7:41 am

    Hipkins needs to keep at it consistently and get noticed by the msm which is a tough task.

    There are rewards for those who want it and now is the time to step up as others should like whoever is on social welfare, health, justice and ministerial standards to name a few.

    Collins, banks, adams, smith etc there is plenty of material.

  3. Pete George 3
    2 April 2014 at 7:56 am

    Political polls have been and still are covered poorly by news organisations. This seems to be based on ignorance and headline mongering.

    There are some promising changes that at least give relevant information if you did for it. Roy Morgan have been good and now Colmar Brunton supply excellent information. If particular note:

    The data does not take into account the effects of non-voting and therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome of an election. Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support.

    The results are therefore only indicative of trends in party support, and it would be misleading to report otherwise.

    All political journalists should have to learn this and other polling basics. Polling 101 and kudos for Colmar Brunton.

    • Zorr 3.1
      2 April 2014 at 8:11 am

      So… which capacity are you posting in today? Your role as the voice of Dunne complete with utter idiocy… or your role as RWNJ fact checker who can’t even check his own facts?

      • bad12 3.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 8:54 am

        i think PG has given up on United Future as a vehicle to further His political ambitions,(delusions of grandeur???),

        i did suggest ages ago that He mount a palace coup against the ‘Hairdo’ as being the only possible logical means of furthering such ambitions…

        • Rosie 3.1.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 9:31 am

          Yes, I believe so. He said as much in a post on his YourNZ site some months ago, and that his membership lapsed and he wouldn’t be renewing it. I can’t be bothered going and looking for the quote though.

          Maybe seeing as Pete is back in town he can clarify his UF stance here on TS

          (Let’s hope the voters of Ohariu can take a leaf out of Petey’s book and give Dunne up)

          • Pete George 3.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:30 am

            I’ll clarify my whole political stance.

            In the last four elections I’ve voted for (in reverse order) UF, National, Labour, Greens.

            When I decided to get involved in politics after the 2008 election I first approached Labour as I thought they might want fresh ideas and input in order to rebuild. Response from two MPs wasn’t encouraging, they only wanted political labourers, not people with ideas. So I got involved in various things on my own.

            In early 2011 I floated a new party idea. That got a bit of interest but not enough and I realised the odds were ovewhelmingly stacked against success unless you attracted a Craig or Dotcom to bankroll it. So I publicly announced I’d stand as an independent in Dunedin North, intending to network and gain experience. In July UF asked if I would stand for them and I decided to do that, it proved useful for what I was doing.

            Since then I’ve dabbled in a range of political activities on my own account. I’ve never been fed any information from UF, anything I have got from Dunne I have asked for with specific questions. I’ve also interacted with other MPs, any that are willing. All my blogging has been my own work unless specifically quoting a source.

            Last year I stood as an independent in the Dunedin mayoral and council elections with a main plank of better transparency and greater public interaction with local body politics. A number of other candidates were positive on this and if I had time I’d be working on building on that.

            While I think there’s a big opening for a moderate centre party I reached the conclusion that UF didn’t have the people to achieve it. I’m too similar to Dunne (in some ways) to offer enough difference, like any party they need a new generation. So I decided to become independent again and go back to my earlier goals – better democracy and stronger parties.

            Unlike the win and defeat attitude of politically aligned activists I want all parties to be better and stronger to give voters better choices. I think this will strengthen Parliament, Government and the country.

            I think the MMP threshold should be minimal if at all, giving any party an opportunity to represent voters – and this will give the larger parties more options and will make Government by the majority more effective.

            The influence of the media without being accountable is a major issue I think needs addressing.

            While I get drawn into the political fray (it’s been very useful experience) I keep coming back to looking at ways of doing politics more transparently, honestly and positively, and that’s where I want to put most focus and effort.

            If more people put petty politics aside and recognise the benefits of all parties being stronger and all MPs behaving to the standards they should then I think we will be better off. Then the important issues facing us will be dealt with more cooperatively and effectively.

            Robust debate and contesting of ideas are essential in a good democracy, but so are decent behaviour and working for the common good. Accepting different ideas and approaches are things to be worked with rather than fought against.

            I understand that many political activists have an entrenched warfare attitude where anyone not always agreeing must be treated as an enemy to be trashed, but I think a significant proportion of MPs and voters are turned off by negative and nasty politics. Confronting crap is necessary but care has to be taken not to just become a part of the shitstorm.

            If politicians and parties want more people to vote for them they have to behave better, look better and look capable of cooperative positive change.

            So I want to do what I can to assist and encourage better politics – with all parties and politicians.

            • Rosie 3.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 1:01 pm

              Thanks Peter.

              Um. With respect, I did read your comment twice and the main thing I garnered, apart from your personal political history was that you want “parties being (or to be better and stronger)stronger” and you suggest this can be done through MP’s behaving better and listening to one another.

              I’m all for “decent behaviour and working for the common good” but I don’t see how this “strengthens” a Party. Also if we want to point to the finger at badly behaving MP’s then we need not look any further than our current lot of Ministers and the P.M himself. If anyone needs lessons in how to Behave Like An Adult it’s that lot.

              And speaking of fingers, I would rather those on the Left pull theirs. Less of the naval gazing, more of the finger pulling!

            • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1.2
              2 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

              Thanks for this Pete

            • karol 3.1.1.1.1.3
              2 April 2014 at 4:01 pm

              For some of us, it’s not about which party we support and then participating in warfare on their behalf. For me it’s about values and the kind of society I want to live in. Each electoral term I choose to vote for the party that is closest to achieving those values. National and ACT, and UF, are so far from those values, they rarely do anything that gets my support. Labour gets my support some of the time.

              I dislike the whole politics as game approach.

              And I definitely want a more accountable media.

            • Clemgeopin 3.1.1.1.1.4
              2 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

              Pete George

              I am interested to know your views/answers to these ten questions :

              [1] Was the policy of selling 49% of our valuable power company assets which primarily went to the wealthy and big corporates a good policy?
              [2] When a large majority of people voted in the referendum against these asset sales, should this government have continued with the sales in spite of this verdict?
              [3] Do you think that the non National MPs, Banks and Dunne, are just leeches and parasites to have supported National’s asset sales?
              [4] Do you think that Dunne deserves to be re elected again?
              [5] Do you think that Dunne leaked confidential cabinet papers?
              [6] Who do you trust more, Key or Cunliffe?
              [7] Do you agree that this National government kept many of the last Labour government’s social policies such as WFF, Kiwi Saver, Kiwi Bank, Interest Free Student Loans, Paid Parental Leave etc for political expediency rather than for ideological reasons?
              [8] If UF or Dunne get back into parliament, who should they support, the Left block or the right block?
              [9] Do you support the idea of having the Internet Party?
              [10] Should the MPs and the public support the TPPA without knowing any of the details as of now?

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:23 pm

                That’s a a bit of a challenge. I’ll do them one at a time (entirely my opinion).

                [1] Was the policy of selling 49% of our valuable power company assets which primarily went to the wealthy and big corporates a good policy?

                I question your assertion that the shares went “primarily went to the wealthy and big corporates” – it’s not possible to say that. Some went to small shareholders. Quite a few will have gone to funds like Kiwisaver funds that could be spread over many people.

                There were pros and cons to the overall policy. Mixed ownership was proven to work with Air New Zealand being a successful example.

                I think as by far the biggest party in Parliament National had a right to progress their flagship policy. However there were two things in particular that I didn’t agree with:
                – trying to fit a specific sales program into one election cycle rather than timing things to best suit market conditions.
                – selling too much of the same type of energy sector stocks to close together.

                I thought that limiting the sales to 49% was an important principle and (with the help of R0b post here) I helped ensure that National did not sneak in a cabinet amendment that would have allowed more than 49% sales.

                I think they should have pulled the plug perhaps on Genesis in the meantime.

                I thought that the Green/Labour action that probably adversely affected the sales returns was cynical and costly for the country.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 8:53 pm

                  not possible to say that, I tell you!

                  What an asshole

                • Clemgeopin …
                  3 April 2014 at 12:30 am

                  With so many misgivings why do you think that Dunne still voted for the asset sales? With so many misgivings about the GCSB why do you think Dunne stll voted for the spy bill?

                  Is he a coward, greedy for office or just an unprincipled kind of ‘political prostitute’?

                  I hope you will answer the questions above and the question below honestly and truthfully.

                  Are you actually Peter Dunne with the handle, Pete George here?
                  If not, how are you connected with Dunne?

                  • Pete George …
                    3 April 2014 at 6:42 am

                    My misgivings are not Dunne’s misgivings. Dunne still voted for the asset sales because he made a confidence & supply commitment to do so. He also forced National to discard an attempt to work around the 49% sale limit.

                    Dunne got what he obviously thought were adequate improvements to the GCSB bill.

                    He’s a pragmatic politician. He understands that with just one vote he has limited influence. Politics is mostly a numbers game.

                    My identity is well known, I’m not Peter Dunne. I’m not connected to him in any way, except that occasionally I ask him questions and he responds, the same as with other MPs. I’ve always acted independently of any politician or party.

                    • miravox …
                      3 April 2014 at 7:47 am

                      “I’ve always acted independently of any politician or party”

                      a-hem. Except as a UF candidate last election. I think that’s pretty majorly not independent however you might like to frame it.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2014 at 8:06 am

                      Fair call, I did represent UF. But I was virtually independent, just about everything I did then was my choice and done on my own. Party support was negligible.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:33 pm

                [2] When a large majority of people voted in the referendum against these asset sales, should this government have continued with the sales in spite of this verdict?

                If it halted legislation progress it would have set an awful precedent.

                They had every right to continue. And it may have made it harder politically for National to admit they should back off with their policy a bit.

                A single question petition and referendum is not a sound basis for deciding all but simple policy, that’s why Parliament has more extensive processes.

                If any major policy initiatives could be forced to be put on hold pending the possible success of a petition and then the results of a referendum Parliament couldn’t function effectively.

                I’m fairly sure that if a Labour+Green Government comes in in September/October and wants to increase the minimum wage they would not be happy to put it on hold simply because National cranked up opposition and started a petition.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 8:55 pm

                  Awful, simply awful.

                  What an asshole.

                • miravox …
                  2 April 2014 at 11:46 pm

                  “A single question petition and referendum is not a sound basis for deciding all but simple policy, that’s why Parliament has more extensive processes.”

                  Makes me wonder why National legislated for citizens initiated referenda.

                  • Pete George …
                    3 April 2014 at 6:49 am

                    My guess is it was a sop to the public to give an appearance of direct democracy but designed to be ineffective in practice. It’s a very flawed and useless system.

                    It would be easy to set up a far better way of measuring public opinion on pending legislation but there seems to be no interest in this from any of the major parties.

                    • miravox …
                      3 April 2014 at 7:45 am

                      Oops forgot the /sarc tag
                      There’s no way any major party could easily undo the referenda legislation. On this there would be a cross-party consensus.

                • freedom …
                  4 April 2014 at 10:58 am

                  “If it halted legislation progress it would have set an awful precedent.”

                  yeah how awful would that be… imagine the horror of living in a democratic country where the government does radical shit like deciding to halt the juggernaut of ram-raid legislation simply to listen to the clearly stated desires of the very people that elected it.

                  You are, and always will be, nothing but an apologist for authority Pete .

                  • Pete George …
                    4 April 2014 at 11:04 am

                    Nope. I think there’s far more effective ways of challenging Parliament than the toothless tools we’ve been deliberately dumped with. The incumbent parties aren’t likely to give up any of their power, so we have to take some people power. It can be done if there’s a will and co-operation.

                    • freedom …
                      4 April 2014 at 11:09 am

                      so the best way you have to do that is to allow the governments to continue to do whatever they like despite the obvious widespread aversion to the policy?

                      “You are, and always will be, nothing but an apologist for authority Pete .”

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:36 pm

                [3] Do you think that the non National MPs, Banks and Dunne, are just leeches and parasites to have supported National’s asset sales?

                No. It was normal pragmatic politics that is an essential part of our system of MMP, the same as it was under the Clark government.

                I’ve seen supporters of both main parties call small party MPs things like leeches and parasites but I think it’s just pissiness at not being able to rule on their own.

                If a Labour+Green+NZFirst+Mana+Maori Party+Internet Party coalition forms the next government I don’t think any of them will be leeches or parasites, they will all be trying to do their jobs as MPs.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 8:56 pm

                  Credit where credit is due, even an asshole is right two times per day.

                • Penny Bright …
                  2 April 2014 at 9:53 pm

                  Have you forgotten this Pete George?

                  ” UF (United Future) did not specifically campaign for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’ because it was not UF (United Future) policy”

                  [ Pete George – [United Future Dunedin North 2011 candidate[ (16,292) Says: February 15th, 2013 at 10:28 pm]
                  http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/a_lie.html/comment-page-1#comment-1097573

                  SO WHY DID PETER DUNNE / UNITED FUTURE VOTE FOR the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012????

                  3 September 2013

                  Press Release: Penny Bright Auckland Mayoral candidate:

                  “There is STILL no mandate for asset sales! No majority – no mandate!”

                  “Back on 2 March 2013, I put out the following Press Release:

                  “There is NO mandate for asset sales – Peter Dunne and United Future never campaigned for asset sales,” says anti-privatisation campaigner, Auckland Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright.

                  “What has changed? NOTHING.”

                  “Please be reminded of the FACTS?”

                  2 March 2013

                  “”There is NO mandate for asset sales – Peter Dunne and United Future never campaigned for asset sales,” Penny Bright 2013 Auckland Mayoral Candidate.”

                  WHERE IS THE ‘MANDATE’ FOR ASSET SALES????

                  Yes – National did campaign for asset sales – albeit in a a not very ‘open and transparent’ way?

                  You will note that their 2011 pre-election policy did NOT say – “National supports asset sales”, or “National supports the Mixed Ownership Model for key state assets”.

                  http://www.national.org.nz/mixed-ownership.aspx

                  THIS is the arguably rather sly way that National wiggled in their stated asset sale policy – prior to the 2011 election:

                  http://www.national.org.nz/PDF_General/Future_Investment_Fund_policy.pdf

                  “Building savings and investment

                  National is increasing savings and creating jobs built on exports and productive investment.
                  We’re getting on top of debt, and returning to surplus sooner.
                  We will extend the successful mixed-ownership model – where the Government owns most of acompany, but offers a minority stake to investors – to four state-owned energy companies, and reduce the government’s stake in Air New Zealand.
                  This will give Kiwis a chance to invest in large New Zealand companies.”

                  The 2011 election results?

                  National got 59 out of 121 MPs.

                  The final vote on the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012, was 61 – 60

                  http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/e/8/e/50HansD_20120626_00000012-State-Owned-Enterprises-Amendment-Bill-Public.htm

                  A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

                  Ayes 61
                  New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

                  Noes 60
                  New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1.

                  HOWEVER:

                  ” UF (United Future) did not specifically campaign for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’ because it was not UF (United Future)policy”

                  [ Pete George – [United Future Dunedin North 2011 candidate[ (16,292) Says: February 15th, 2013 at 10:28 pm]
                  http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/02/a_lie.html/comment-page-1#comment-1097573

                  In my considered opinion – the voting public of Ohariu were thus effectively misled by United Future and Peter Dunne on the issue of support for the ‘Mixed Ownership Model’ for State-Owned electricity assets and Air New Zealand.

                  In my considered opinion, United Future and Peter Dunne SOLD OUT the voting public of Ohariu by voting in support of the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership) Amendment Act 2012.

                  Had Peter Dunne kept faith with the voting public of Ohariu – the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill should have BEEN DEFEATED 60 – 61.

                  I thus believe that I am absolutely correct in my statement that THERE IS NO MANDATE FOR ASSET SALES – given that this minority National Government (which DID campaign on asset sales) has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

                  Do the maths folks!

                  It ISN’T complicated?

                  NO MAJORITY – NO MANDATE.

                  Penny Bright

                  ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
                  A Spokesperson for the ‘Switch Off Mercury Energy’ community group.
                  http://www.facebook.com/SwitchOffMercuryEnergy?fref=ts

                  2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    2 April 2014 at 10:41 pm

                    opens popcorn

                    • miravox …
                      3 April 2014 at 8:29 pm

                      No point in the popcorn. Pete’s more recent tactic is to mostly only discuss the stuff he he leads/gets given the lead on. He ignores the stuff he doesn’t like even when it is a direct question.

                      Haven’t you noticed?

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    2 April 2014 at 10:47 pm

                    Penny Bright, You impress me a lot as a caring, dedicated and hard working politically astute person. Have you put forth your name as a candidate for any political party for the coming elections? You should. It is concerned people like you that are essential for politics and our parliament.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  2 April 2014 at 9:57 pm

                  I refer to Banks and Dunne as parasites, leeches and political whores because they could not win their seats on their own but for Key/National manipulating the system to get them in as pathetic coat-tailers.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:42 pm

                [4] Do you think that Dunne deserves to be re elected again?

                That’s not my call, it’s up to the voters of Ohariu.

                Any MP who’s been around as long as Dunne has accumulated many critics, but he also gets praise for work done in his electorate and as a usually competent and reliable Minister (both Helen Clark and John Key have thought so).

                He deserves credit for the Psychotic Substances Bill at least.

                It looks easier for him this year with rookie low profile candidates for each of National, Labour and Greens, but it depends on whether he has damaged himself too much last year or not as well.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 8:57 pm

                  What I think isn’t my call either.

                  No, this just in, I’m an asshole.

                • freedom …
                  4 April 2014 at 11:01 am

                  “That’s not my call,”
                  Dude, it’s your brain! You can do whatever you like with it 🙄

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:47 pm

                [5] Do you think that Dunne leaked confidential cabinet papers?

                I’m not certain one way or the other about the Kitteridge report leak. There’s nowhere near compelling proof that he did. The inquiry was severely flawed and ignored significant possibilities, for example that the leaker might have communicated with Vance outside the parliamentary communications systems.

                He has denied it publicly. I have heard him deny it twice in person, once with his wife present and the other time with UF board members present, so if he was lying he was also either lying to them or they were in on a lie.

                I remain prepared to believe Dunne unless there’s evidence produced or an admission that says otherwise.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 8:57 pm

                [6] Who do you trust more, Key or Cunliffe?

                Neither more or less. Generally I trust them both, I think they both genuinely want to do what they think is best for the country.

                All politicians get caught out embellishing the truth, fibbing and exaggerating – as every human being would if we are put under anywhere near the scrutiny they are.

                Politicians are pretty much forced to fib. For example any MP who is asked “do you fully support your leader” has pretty much no option but to say they are fully behind their leader. Especially if they are not they would get politically crucified.

                If an MP says something wrong and are challenged on it enormous pressure can be put on them to turn it into an ongoing lie because the consequences of the alternative can end their career, whether deserved or not.

                If I ever had to deal with either Key or Cunliffe one on one I’m confident I could trust them. I’ve heard numerous reports that in person they are both genuinely good blokes.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 9:05 pm

                [7] Do you agree that this National government kept many of the last Labour government’s social policies such as WFF, Kiwi Saver, Kiwi Bank, Interest Free Student Loans, Paid Parental Leave etc for political expediency rather than for ideological reasons?

                Mostly pragmatic reasons. Undoing things like WFF or interest free student loans at the onset of a major financial crisis would have had major negative effects. It’s widely believed that we needed some sort of encouragement to boost retirement savings.

                The reality of modern day politics is that ideologies, especially extreme ideologies, are pretty much obsolete. Most policies involve practical rather than ideological considerations and often require a prudent balance of socialist and capitalist considerations.

                I think it’s unlikely that a Labour led government would put any priority on winding back the asset sales – which happen to be a balance between socialism and capitalism.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 10:28 pm

                  Asshole pretends to know what Socialism and Capitalism are having previously demonstrated understanding of neither.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 9:09 pm

                [8] If UF or Dunne get back into parliament, who should they support, the Left block or the right block?

                That’s up to them, nothing to do with me. I don’t care.

                Dunne is on record as saying he could work with National again, and Key has indicated he could work with Dunne again.

                Dunne has also indicated he that while he could work with Labour they would have to move from some of their current positions. He is dead against a CGT for example.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 9:20 pm

                [9] Do you support the idea of having the Internet Party?

                Interesting question. I support the right of the Internet Party to form and stand in the election, as I support the right of any party, for example the Focus New Zealand Party that registered in January.

                I support most of their ten point Action Agenda to varying degrees.

                When I floated the idea of a new party in 2011 some of the concepts were quite similar to those of the Internet Party, being pragmatic and issued base rather than ideological or left or right.

                I have some reservations about their democratic processes, and in particular with the potential influence of once person who is financing everything.

                But it’s up to members and candidates to support it, and then it’s up to them to try and get voter support. I’m just an interested observer.

                In general I support the idea of having multiple parties and would like a smaller or no threshold so more had a chance of succeeding. That would give us a more representative Parliament and give the main parties more flexibility and options ensuring majority decisions on legislation.

              • Pete George …
                2 April 2014 at 9:28 pm

                [10] Should the MPs and the public support the TPPA without knowing any of the details as of now?

                They don’t have to. It’s healthy for them to remain skeptical until they know details, but outright support or outright opposition can look like petty politicking.

                It’s common for international agreements to be negotiated without details being made public. It’s often essential to do the groundwork in private.

                Despite their token protestations I think senior Labour MPs know this, they’ve done deals with other countries themselves successfully.

                If the inter-country negotiations conclude successfully then Parliament should have all the details necessary to make an informed decision on whether we accept the agreement or not.

                • karol …
                  2 April 2014 at 9:37 pm

                  PG, you’re kidding yourself about not having an “ideology”. Your answers, especially on asset sales, the TPPA and “pragmatism” situate you as being for the “neoliberal consensus” and TINA that has been in play since the 80s. You are supporting the status quo, when the world and NZers, especially those struggling most, need an alternative.

                  • Pete George …
                    2 April 2014 at 9:57 pm

                    That’s very simplistic assumptions. I’m not a status quo person, I’m very willing to consider viable alternatives.

                    I think we need to look at radically overhauling and simplifying our overly convoluted tax and welfare systems. I think serious consideration should be given to something like a Universal Basic Income. I think we should seriously reconsider our drug laws in relation to cannabis.

                    What I would like to have seen with the energy company part sales was to put all the proceeds into first, energy conservation, and second, alternative energy options, so re-investing in future proofing our energy.

                    I’d like to see an effective fast reaction system of public input into our Parliamentary system and have ideas on how this would work. CIR are too slow and flawed.

                    I’ll leave it at that for now.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 April 2014 at 10:37 pm

                      I’m not a status quo person, I’m very willing to consider viable alternatives.

                      Yes you are and no your not.

                      Everything you’ve ever said on this board shows that you’re fully inline with National’s ideology.

                      What I would like to have seen with the energy company part sales was to put all the proceeds into first, energy conservation, and second, alternative energy options, so re-investing in future proofing our energy.

                      Like that BS. We could easily have put money into all of those things without selling our nation out as National, Act and UF did.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2014 at 6:58 am

                      I’m not fully in line with National’s or any party’s ideology.

                      What is National’s ideology? What is Labour’s ideology? Greens? NZ First? Political ideologies are some quaint historical theories. Apart from a small number of Socialists involved with Mana I don’t see any significant ideologies in any of the parties. Greens talk semi-socialism but their policies are hybrids.

                      Modern politics is far more complex than simplistic ideologies.

                    • karol …
                      3 April 2014 at 8:14 am

                      Oh dear, pg @6.58am

                      You have a very muddled notion of the meaning of “ideology”. You equate it with party policies and historical theories. There are more “ideologies” than socialism or capitalism. And there you show where you are aiming for some idea of pragmatic “balance” between the two. However, a (so-called) “hybrid” is also an “ideology”.

                      Actually, I’m not keen on the word, “ideology”. In Marxism terms its a set of beliefs or values that distort the underlying reality, in the interests of the ruling classes.

                      In common everyday language it just means a set of ideas and ideals that underpin “economic or political theory or policy.”

                      I have been using it in the everyday sense. I also use it to refer to the values that underpin any political policies or ideas.

                      You claim not to work on the basis of “ideology” – yet you first and foremost espouse a managerialist approach – your main aim to make politics more open, honest and transparent, etc – is to improve politcs – but to do that, you have already accepted the status quo re-underlying values (short hand term for this is “neoliberal consensus”).

                      Your claim that modern politics is more complex than “simplistic ideologies” is a way of disavowing your underlying political perspective – which, going by your answer to the above questions, is centre right.

                  • Ergo Robertina …
                    2 April 2014 at 10:05 pm

                    +100 karol.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 April 2014 at 10:32 pm

                  Petty asshole.

                • freedom …
                  4 April 2014 at 11:08 am

                  “It’s common for international agreements to be negotiated without details being made public”

                  hey Pete, your braincell is misfiring or you are being deliberately misleading.
                  – which is so unlike you

                  This is not about the public being informed it is about those people in the negotiating room being allowed to read the entire text of the agreement that they are negotiating.

                  Q11: Is it difficult writing stuff that you know is complete horsepuckey?

          • bad12 3.1.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 11:26 am

            Lolz Rosie, you asked for it, i had grand visions on Pete’s behalf of Him first storming the UF presidency and soon after rearranging the candidates selection process so as to install Himself over the ‘hairdo’ as the candidate for Ohariu,

            Just wouldn’t listen tho would He despite the fact that the promise was there that he ‘might’ have doubled His vote from the Dunedin experience,(a huge victory),

            Pete’s ‘high’ on transparency and a more unkind person,(snigger), than me might suggest that such a noble aim has been fully achieved by Him and that the people have ‘seen right through Him’…

            • Rosie 3.1.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

              well bad, the topic of “transparency” as a high would be a different take on the other highs that yourself and your plaything have explored in recent weeks.

              I see your plaything will be absent for a week. I hope you don’t feel this loss too keenly. Others of us may be glad of the respite……………….

              • bad12 …
                2 April 2014 at 4:25 pm

                Lolz Rosie, i think i was lucky to escape a ‘spanking’ myself after the other day’s exchange of pleasantries,

                Naughty of me to take offense at the piss weak comment directed my way because i refuse to even think about giving up my little tobacco addiction, especially coming from that one,

                Will have to self-moderate my further exchanges with that one and meanwhile i can enjoy a phill-free week,(nah i don’t miss Him i havn’t an inbred need to engage in peeing up the wall contests although with that one it is hard to resist)…

                • Rosie …
                  2 April 2014 at 5:33 pm

                  I found Phil’s judgement and intolerance in what he perceived as “weaknesses” in those with an addiction(s), no matter what it is/was, really offensive but wasn’t prepared to take it up with him, given the exhausting round about of discussion him and I had about his militant veganism and subsequent alienation of thoughtful people who were already taking steps to eat more humanely.

                  Its all or nothing with folks like him. Kind of a shame as his good humour and knowledge is tarnished by his ego and his fanaticism.

                  • Belladonna …
                    2 April 2014 at 6:18 pm

                    If thoughtful people can be alienated from veganism by what is perceived as militant views then they are not that thoughtful in my opinion.

                    • Rosie …
                      2 April 2014 at 6:46 pm

                      Belladonna, you have often been supportive of Phillip’s stance but don’t you see that if he wants to encourage folks to eat more humanely then insulting them isn’t really the way to go about it?

                      He alienated with his words, not the concept of veganism, which has enough merit on it’s own to sell itself to a willing audience. Shouting at people isn’t going to get them on side. I had been vegetarian for 30 years until I started up with fish again and included it in my vegan and vegetarian meal schedule, but 30 years of no meat wasn’t good enough for him. That’s militancy. And see how blind he was with bad12, below? Everyone who reads TS knows bad was making some changes, but not Phillip. It was like he was on a perma rant and nothing could stop him.

                      “My way or the high way” isn’t a very mature way of approaching change.

                    • bad12 …
                      2 April 2014 at 6:59 pm

                      Very hard to get the Omega’s 3 and 6 out of just a fruit and vege diet too Rosie, just finished a yummy bowl of raw fish for tea…

                  • bad12 …
                    2 April 2014 at 6:27 pm

                    The food one was hilarious, tossing the insipid rhetoric at me about cows blah blah blah, when all the time i have been on the fish/vege/fruit diet since Christmas, it was more fun to let him keep tossing the slurs…

                    • Belladonna …
                      2 April 2014 at 7:00 pm

                      I dont always agree with Phillip but like him I am passionate about veganism.
                      Rosie – you included fish in your vegan diet, sorry but if you eat fish you are not a vegetarian or vegan. Why did you stop eating meat, must be for health reasons I suspect not because of animal cruelty issues. Bad12 I think you goaded Phillip a lot of the time, he probably would have been better to ignore you but I do think you have a cruel streak in you which would bring out antagonism in a lot of people. It is frustrating as a vegan to understand why such terrible cruelty can be ignored by good and intelligent people but then again I was vegetarian for many years before I stopped eating dairy and eggs. Just sorry it took so long for me to ‘get it’.

                    • bad12 …
                      2 April 2014 at 7:27 pm

                      Belladonna, me too as far as health reasons being the spur to turn the diet upside down,

                      Me goad Phillip, perlease never, well actually yes, when some addict calls me piss weak for smoking tobacco while admitting that he is in fact a poly addict of various drugs then to me, and what you think about this is immaterial, that is an open invitation, a demand if you will for me to have a wee tinker with His mind,

                      A cruel streak i wont deny, see the handle i comment under, you now need not wonder why it was chosen,

                      i happily climbed inside the mind of someone that was happy to engage in the tossing of infantile insults in my direction, until that is, i seen that dark black writing under one of my comments,

                      The last line above is the actual difference between the two of us…

                    • Chooky …
                      2 April 2014 at 7:53 pm

                      you are very naughty bad12 …you lured poor Phil into a spanking from BIG Daddy….i have seen kids do this …lure another into trouble…however i do enjoy both Phil’s and your comments …so hope they will continue

                      ….i dont mind that Phil is fanatical about Veganism….wish i could be a vegan …but obviously not so hard that i do become one…so being somewhat of a fanatic myself at times i do enjoy his diatribes about the SINS of meat eaters…it is all TRUE!…and he is very funny at times …..and if i had to kill critters to eat them i wouldnt do it….but as others do the killing and it is a fait accompli and as i had nothing to do with it …i will sup ( with the devil) and accept i am a Vegan’s sinner

                    • bad12 …
                      2 April 2014 at 8:23 pm

                      Actually No Chooky, i was more worried about getting the cane myself than luring Phillip into such a trap,very machiavellian of you to think this tho i might add, which is why when the Dark Notes began to play i found something that needed doing elsewhere and my sandpit playmate became even more strident,

                      That’s my story anyway, plausible don’t you think, believe me tho doing the dance with Phill, to see who could crack who first was all pleasure here, i havn’t laughed so much for ages,

                      Lolz i am happy to kill it as well as munch on it, although these days with the lack of mobility the choices are pretty slim in that department,(the neighbors i am sure would become a little more then irate if i begin sauteing the local cat population,

                      The diet change for me was purely health driven, threw out the Statins the doc gave me and turned the diet upside down, a weeek of thinking/reading about it and a week to change it,(can’t see why all these vegans get all puffed up about doing this as if they deserve a medal),

                      Lolz even the Butter on the toast has been replaced by Guacamole, i don’t miss the stuff…

                    • Rosie …
                      2 April 2014 at 9:03 pm

                      Run out of reply buttons but I do hope this comes out as a reply to Belladonna @7pm.

                      I said “vegan and vegetarian meal schedule”. Since I took up fish I have not referred to myself as either vegetarian or vegan. I eat those kind of meals still of course, and that’s why I said “schedule”, as in recipe schedule for the week for purchased and prepared meals.

                      You ask why I stopped eating meat and assumed it was for health reasons. It wasn’t. At age 14, back in 1984 I couldn’t care less about my health. I’ve lived around animals all my life( and still do) and I had a sudden freak out one day after a steak dinner that I had just ate a critter that under normal circumstances I would strike up a bit of communication with and have respect for, as its own self.

                      And so it began and remains, apart from the fishies. (which as well as animal welfare concerns there are many environmental considerations)

                      As for the fishies, I have taken them up for health reasons – now I’m middle aged and have a long family history, on both sides, of heart disease and looked at the fish consuming populations of the planet (Indian ocean countries, Nordic, Celtic and Pacific) and their traditional health trends, in my consideration of fish consumption.

                      I’ve mentioned this all before with Phillip and don;’t really think its appropriate to rehash a discussion of personal food choices, I’m not really into justifications, I’m just answering your questions.

                    • Chooky …
                      2 April 2014 at 9:55 pm

                      lol bad12….well i accept you didnt deliberately try to get Phil banned…just more street wise

                      on home help health issues …Allicin garlic is supposed to be good for the arteries and heart …check it out

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allicin

                      but if you are on heavy blood thinner meds you should check it out with your doctor first…(personally i steer clear of doctors except when absolutely necessary…smirk …so take my suggestions at your own risk)

                    • Chooky …
                      2 April 2014 at 10:01 pm

                      @ bad12 Lecithin is also good for combating chloresterol

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecithin

                      You can get both Lecithin and Allicin from health shops

                    • karol …
                      2 April 2014 at 10:01 pm

                      Why was Phil banned & for how long?

                      [lprent: pointless abuse after being warned, and just for a week. ]

                    • bad12 …
                      2 April 2014 at 11:45 pm

                      Lolz Chooky, befor i take up any of your suggestions i will need a signed declaration that you aint an assassin hired by you know who to end my miserable little life,(joking of course),

                      Oh believe me i view everything the doctors say with a ample amount of scepticism, the reasoning behind the throwing of the Statins is two-fold, first one of the big Phama Co’s had to withdraw theirs from the market as they were implicated in the deaths of, i think it was 30 people,

                      Second, one side effect that they don’t tell anyone about, because it aint paifull and you don’t notice the effect is that the Statins make the body expel Magnesium,

                      Magnesium along with Calcium are vitally important in managing the blood sugar levels,SO, if you have both, high cholesterol and high blood sugar they give you drugs for both BUT, if what i have read is correct, you are then on the merry-go-round of the Magnesium being stripped from the body putting the Magnesium/Calcium balance out of kilter which makes the blood sugar level go haywire,

                      i will see if i can hunt out the story and post a link tomorrow, but, i will probably not go looking for too much of the homeopathic stuff as it is diet that is all important and i don’t want to start trying to do a fast strip of cholesterol from the body as there are good fats and there are bad fats and i don’t want to be stripping out the good with the bad,

                      What i have done is basically gone to a diet that only has fish oils, vege oils in it, the reasoning behind this is from what i read so far, is that rather than go completely ‘fat free’ it is better to replace the ‘bad fats’ in the body with ‘good fats’ which the body actually has a use for…

                    • bad12 …
                      3 April 2014 at 12:08 am

                      Karol, yesterdays ‘Open Mike’ is pretty much an explanation, the caning is only for a week and from memory for ‘abuse’,(although being a willing participant you wont hear me complaining about how Phillip chose to structure His side of the conversation),

                      Once i read the first Dark Letters i knew it was time to halt the proceedings and it seems that Phillip also did for a while, i have the sneaking suspicion tho that He hatched a cunning plan to sneak back later when Lprent wasn’t looking to get in that all important last words as happens in such little ego games,

                      Unfortunately for Phill He was, looking that is,

                      The funny of it all is that someone earlier in the day had a little whine which i assumed by its wording was directed at what i had been writing in the exchanges with Phillip asking the Mods to step in(perhaps all that psychological stuff cut way to close to something going on in that ones head),

                      Pity if the complaint was directed at my writing only as it seemed to be because if Lprent decided to put a stop to proceedings based on that plea then i should imagine She/he who complained wont be too thrilled with the outcome…

                      [lprent: You just got either lucky or cunning (from this comment it sounds like cunning/wisdom). I didn’t see a pointless abuse comment from you after I’d issued some “dark letters” ]

                    • Chooky …
                      3 April 2014 at 8:44 am

                      @ bad12..(…ha ha..i wouldnt try and do you in …you and phil are too amusing and besides which i agree with most of what you say)

                      …those arent homeopathics i suggested …but extracts found in ordinary food

                      …yes always take anything very carefully and based on your own research…and try to go natural if at all possible

                      …statins can have very bad side effects…so dont blame you for giving them the biff

                      http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/09/statin-cholesterol-lowering-drugs.aspx

        • CnrJoe 3.1.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

          on a related theme – re: hairdo – watching this Sunday i/v

          http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/climate-report-jamie-whyte-do-nothing-video-5879217

          what struck me was if you put the hairdo on Whyte he’s a dead ringer for ‘highest bidder’ Dunne.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      2 April 2014 at 8:15 am

      What I would like to know Pete is the script used in the latest Herald Digipoll and the latest Three News Reid Research poll. Having seen what was polled the order of questions could have had a significant result.

      Also 3news apparently asked should Judith Collins be sacked. Why wasn’t the results of this reported?

      • Pete George 3.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 8:54 am

        I haven’t found details on the Reid Research poll questions. Reid Research have a page on 3 News polls but there is scant information and the last result is Jan-14. 3 News als has stuff all (and make poor presumptions that NZ First miss the cut and Conservatives get two seats). The lack of details is very poor.

        I can’t find anything on the Collins sacking apart from a comment at Public Address by Andrew Geddis:

        I was polled in this poll. On the basis of the questions asked me, he doesn’t.

        There should, however, be a story along the lines of One News’ “should Collins resign over Oravida?” Because I was asked that!

        http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-poll-day-2-queasy/?p=309259#post309259

        Russell Brown has been trying to ask Gower about this but he was MIA yesterday, perhaps it was his day off.

        • Tracey 3.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:12 am

          Andrew geddis ought to go to TVone and Nat Radio about it…. they may be interested to paint a rival network as unreliable?

        • Pete George 3.2.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 10:35 am

          @publicaddress

          Ah. @patrickgowernz had the day off yesterday. He’s back and has given me an excellent response to my questions. Forthcoming on the blog.

          • Anne 3.2.1.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 2:09 pm

            Of course he had the day off yesterday. Was it pre-arranged? Certainly. Suggests to me his blatant, biased set ups of David Cunliffe in particular has his bosses’ approval!

            Time for Labour to go onto the attack…

          • Pete George 3.2.1.2.2
            2 April 2014 at 5:15 pm

            @publicaddress

            Just published: a frank and fascinating interview with @patrickgowernz about polls, politics and reporting: http://publicaddress.net/9179

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2
        2 April 2014 at 9:36 am

        What I would like to know Pete is the script used in the latest Herald Digipoll and the latest Three News Reid Research poll. Having seen what was polled the order of questions could have had a significant result.

        I’ve come to the conclusion that published polls need to have the questions published as well. That way they could be properly analysed.

        • Rosie 3.2.2.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:02 am

          +1 Drax. Great idea.

        • MaxFletcher 3.2.2.2
          2 April 2014 at 10:10 am

          Agree

        • Tracey 3.2.2.3
          2 April 2014 at 10:13 am

          which is why the poll questions arent published.

          • Pete George 3.2.2.3.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:32 am

            Roy Morgan and Colmar Brunton publish their questions. The others need to be encouraged to do likewise.

            • MaxFletcher 3.2.2.3.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

              ^Good to know

            • Lanthanide 3.2.2.3.1.2
              2 April 2014 at 12:31 pm

              Can you link to these please?

                • David H …
                  2 April 2014 at 2:54 pm

                  Colmar Brunton only ring landlines.

                  “Eligible New Zealand voters who live in New Zealand households that have a landline telephone.

                  SAMPLE SELECTION: Nationwide random digit dialling of landline telephones using stratified probability
                  sampling to ensure the sample includes the correct proportion of people in urban
                  and rural areas. Interviewers ask to speak to the person in each household aged 18
                  years or over with the next birthday. When required, multiple calls are made to
                  reach that person. Voting eligibility is determined at the first question.”

                  • Pete George …
                    2 April 2014 at 3:26 pm

                    Grumpollie on polling and cellphones:

                    3. Our decision about not randomly dialing cell phones (yet) has very little to do with the cost of calling cell phones (in fact the cost is not that substantial). It’s due more to a) the degree to which the additional sample frame will reduce bias versus increase variance (produce less stable results), and b) the structure of the New Zealand cell phone system.

                    5. At present my view is that, in New Zealand, non-response is a far far bigger source of error than non-coverage. If non-coverage of cell only households is such a big issue, how come most polls seem to over-state support for the Green party? And why don’t they under-state support for the Labour Party?

                    6. In New Zealand, does calling cell phones decrease non-response or increase it? Don’t underestimate the importance of this.

                    Calling cells is not, and will never be, the magic bullet for opinion polling.

                    http://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/rob-salmonds-post-on-cell-phone-polling/

                    Roy Morgan polls cellphones. While their last polling period was earlier than Colmar Brunton and Reid Research the main party results for the last three polls were quite close:

                    National – RM 45.5, CB 47, RR 45.9
                    Labour – RM 31.5, CB 31, RR 31.2
                    Greens – RM 14, CB 11, RR 11.3

                    Does polling cellphones overestimate Green support or was the earlier polling period a factor?

                    • rhinocrates …
                      2 April 2014 at 3:49 pm

                      You’re the “fact checker” as you advertise yourself. How about answering that yourself instead of looking like a disingenuously partisan amateur?

                      One thing you’ve go to realise is that is you advertise yourself as a United Figleaf candidate or “Fact Checker”, then you’ve got to actually do some work.

                      Putting on a beige cardigan and wagging your finger rather selectively doesn’t qualify. I already know that you’re a tedious dick and frankly I would welcome your insults, but if you pretend to professional competence, you have to show it at all times, not – as you do, whenever it suits you – pretend that you have some special exception in those rather frequent exceptions.

                      You really should have taken up stamp collecting on your retirement – it would have been so much less irritating to people who have to wade through your self-promotion to find comments worth reading.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      2 April 2014 at 4:52 pm

                      All together now.

                      Petey’s such an asshole.

                    • weka …
                      2 April 2014 at 9:49 pm

                      For a minute there I thought you had started a blog OAB ;-p

    • Tracey 3.3
      2 April 2014 at 10:10 am

      Pete

      I think journalists understand that, and their editors. They are deliberately presenting polls as they wiosh to. I dont believe it is from any kind of ignorance of polling basics.

      • newsense 3.3.1
        2 April 2014 at 10:32 pm

        Wow Pete George is on here much much more than some of the usual suspects. Especially now he’s draped in a cloak of pseudo-semi-respectability.

  4. fambo 4
    2 April 2014 at 8:57 am

    It’s interesting to see what Chris Trotter has to say about last Saturday’s TPPA protests at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/
    While he argues that such marches are ineffective because of more profound reasons, I think the oppositions’ very limited time, money and resources are a core issue. I think the left should not automatically turn to protest marches to make its points unless they are certain they are going to have a sizeable impact. When the turnout is small, it only encourages the government and encourages the public view through the media that those against such things like the TPPA are in the minority. Those who are fighting the government tend for the most part to have extremely limited money, time and energy, partly because they are often on low wage jobs and so on. I would have loved to have gone to the march to support it even though I wasn’t convinced it would be effective but couldn’t afford the travel costs, or loss of income from an extra part time job. This government knows that by attacking the opposition on all fronts eg environment, employment, education it makes their protests weak in comparison to its own virtually unlimited resources which it channels from private funding along with eight years of shaping government departments to do its bidding. The opposition has to start thinking of more creative ways of protesting that work within the limitations of its supporters, rather than yet another march. In other words, a more strategic approach is needed. People’s time, energy and money have to be bundled up and directed at specific targets, rather than a scatter gun approach.

    • karol 4.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:13 am

      The TPPA demos got pretty positive coverage on the evening TV 6pm news and in the main daily newspapers. That’s a positive outcome.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      2 April 2014 at 9:47 am

      I think the oppositions’ very limited time, money and resources are a core issue.

      Interestingly enough I think that the left have forgotten what having a party is all about. It is, quite simply, to provide that time, money and resources. Not for everyone but for a few to do the necessary work.

      I think the left should not automatically turn to protest marches to make its points unless they are certain they are going to have a sizeable impact.

      I think you’re right there. I think we’d be better off using the time and resources provided by being in political parties to run polls, the advertising of those polls and the pushing of referenda. We need to engage everybody and not just the few who are already engaged and thus willing to turn up to protests.

      I would have loved to have gone to the march to support it even though I wasn’t convinced it would be effective but couldn’t afford the travel costs

      I would have gone to the protest but I had a choice of going for a job interview or going to the protest – the job interview won out.

    • Tracey 4.3
      2 April 2014 at 10:13 am

      which march did chris attend? If he didn’t, what was the last march he attended and when.

  5. Maureen 5
    2 April 2014 at 8:57 am

    The polls aside, I’m really worried. I caught David Cunliffe talking about asset sales this morning and worried more. He is a very good speaker but so negative and attack-oriented in an almost childish way. “New Zealanders don’t like asset sales and this will show up in the ballot box”. What??? I want to hear good reasons why the ongoing asset sales are bad for NZ. Why we need to keep Genesis. Don’t attack John Key all the time. He’s almost impregnable. Attack the right wing policies that are so bad for NZ. Show you can transcend petty party politics and can be a PM. Who’s advising him? Why has he changed? What happened to the fire in his belly?

    • BM 5.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:17 am

      Yesterday he was out and out lying on breakfast TV about John Key.
      Really bizarre.

      I get the feeling he’s starting to crack under the pressure.

      • framu 5.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 9:36 am

        really? – what were these lies?

        didnt see it so im actually interested

        • BM 5.1.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:07 am

          He accused John Key of having a secret trust for donors.

          David Farrar did a post on it yesterday:

          Quoted from breakfast interview
          DAVID CUNLIFFE: Absolutely not. In fact there’s a huge difference between what I did, which was to open up a campaign trust that wasn’t even under the Electoral Act, it was an internal party matter, for a trivially small amount of money and said to all of the potential donors through the trustee, you must make yourselves public. The Prime Minister has done none of that. The Prime Minister’s trusts have taken millions of dollars over the last few years and he’s refused to name even a single donor. So I’m afraid the National Party is in absolutely no position to be high minded with me. I have done everything I can to be transparent and frankly, I’ve had about enough of National’s hypocrisy on that matter.

          • framu 5.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:12 am

            depends if theres proof or not though doesnt it

            i would put money on the claim being accurate. key is hardly honest by any stretch of the imagination

            and if its a secret trust in the same vein as cunliffes “secret” trust (because it wasnt secret) – the nats have used that method for years via several trusts

            so not so much a lie – but an unsupported claim that you dont agree with

            • BM 5.1.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 10:18 am

              Sorry I added a bit after you posted.

              According to Farrar the trust that people used to donate through was wound up in 2007.
              I’d be surprised if Cunliffe didn’t know about this, so one has to wonder what trust he’s talking about.

              Maybe Cunliffe should come forward and present his proof.

              • framu …
                2 April 2014 at 10:35 am

                “According to Farrar” – hand me the salt so i can get some very big grains:-)

                question for those who know – does national still use trusts to hide the identity of donors?

                “Maybe Cunliffe should come forward and present his proof.” – yep, and maybe we should refrain from calling him a lier untill that time? – express doubt? – sure, get stuck in

                small note – in your quote above cunliffe doesnt accuse key of having a secret trust – he accuses him of hiding the donors via the trust

                • BM …
                  2 April 2014 at 10:41 am

                  See this is where it can get messy for Cunliffe.

                  What’s he going to do if Key goes for him over this accusation, where’s the proof? because if he can’t stump up with any than his honesty levels with the voter are going to take yet another dive.

                  Don’t be surprised to see Winston Peters over taking Cunliffe in the preferred PM poll.

                  • framu …
                    2 April 2014 at 10:55 am

                    do JK and the nats have a trust that hides the identity of donors? yes/no
                    is key refusing to disclose who these donors are? – yes

                    dont see much thats messy there – cunliffe only has to prove one thing which should be accessable via donations returns

                    i think your getting hung up on the word secret a bit too much here

                  • weka …
                    2 April 2014 at 10:55 am

                    lolz, yeah let’s all worry about DC being able to provide proof on the basis that you claim he lied despite you not having any proof.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 April 2014 at 10:54 am

                  question for those who know – does national still use trusts to hide the identity of donors?

                  Can’t see any trusts in the donation list for 2013/14 but there was Antione’s Restaurant which donated $60,000 as, seemingly, a result of a $5000/person dinner. None of the diners are named.

                • Tracey …
                  2 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

                  Did Farrar call for key to bring forward proof that Unite and DotCom had donated to Cunliffe’s leadership campaign? Link please.

              • Murray Olsen …
                2 April 2014 at 6:23 pm

                Was 2007 when the National Party became a charity and the trust was no longer needed?

                As to who’s telling porkies – given the choice of Cunliffe, or you, Farrar, and Key?? Hmmm, I don’t think it’s Cunliffe.

          • Tracey 5.1.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 10:16 am

            Sorry, didnt you think that because there was no proof DotCom HAD NOT donated to cunliffe it was fair to suggest he might have, but Cunliffe is a liar for the same kind of thing?

            Or are you holding Cunliffe to a higher standard than John Key who speaks out of both sides of hismouth. I am not a labour supporter but even I can see you are accusing Cunliffe of things you defend Key.

            • BM 5.1.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 10:25 am

              Cunliffe could have easily cleared things up if he just said who the two donors were, but since he didn’t of course people are going to speculate.

              By not fronting up all it did is give the impression that he was doing something shifty and had something to hide like Dot com donating to him.

              Would be rather embarrassing for Cunliffe if that was the case, which may explain all the secrecy.

              • weka …
                2 April 2014 at 11:00 am

                No, DC asked the donors if they were willing to be named. Two weren’t so he returned those donations. Given that the donors were told before they donated that they would be anonymous, DC seems to have done the honourable thing.

              • Tracey …
                2 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

                Somehow I knew you’d think it was different. So Key doesn’t have to have proof that Unite and Dotcom donated to Cunliffe when saying it, but Cunliffe has to have proof that key has got a secret trust???

              • fender …
                2 April 2014 at 3:50 pm

                Cunliffe never said he didn’t receive donations from Vladimir Putin either, I see what you mean BM, it’s really shifty…./sarc

      • weka 5.1.2
        2 April 2014 at 9:54 am

        I see your astroturfing masters still aren’t paying you that well BM.

      • Tracey 5.1.3
        2 April 2014 at 10:14 am

        as opposed to John key who was on television lying about John key? Key’s not cracking of course, under the pressure of the lies, he’s so used to it.

    • Once was Pete 5.2
      2 April 2014 at 9:43 am

      Totally agree with your point about going after policies. For some time I have thought that younger voters (I am in my 60’s) just don’t care about left/right. They seem more focused on what is fair/unfair; reasonable/unreasonable; just/unjust; and so on. To attack one of the most popular PM’s in history (if not the most popular) is just plain stupid, especially when so many of the attacks backfire. Now every time there is a similar attack voters can just shrug it off as more spitefulness from Labour.
      I think this is a very hard ask for Labour as many people (my opinion only) will find it hard to connect with Cunliffe. How does an affluent, double income, business trained, leafy suburb resident resonate with the less fortunate? I am sure Helen Clark was quite well off, but she didn’t sport the trappings so obviously. I just can’t see the missing 800,000 coming out in these circumstances. And that assumes that they would vote differently from the rest of the national electorate.

      • karol 5.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 9:57 am

        John key has been attacking Cunliffe intensively.

        Why is it different for Cunliffe to attack Key.

        How popular is Key exactly?

        I’m not convinced he is highly popular except among many sycophants in the MSM.

        • Maureen 5.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:12 am

          From what I’ve seen (I’m so childish about politics that I’m too scared to watch sometimes), Cunliffe’s attacks on Key and the Nats aren’t working. They’re not working for me as a voter; they’re not working in the polls. I feel that most people here could mount a persuasive argument about asset sales or many other issues and convince some of the undecided that another three years of National will set NZ back. As a voter I want these issues articulated in a positive way … I want to feel proud of belonging to the Labour party. I want a strong Labour/Green alliance. As things are now I’m voting Green, probably my natural home anyway, but for a moment there I thought that Labour would do it for me. And it’s not just me, my friends and family feel the same way: Baby Boomers and the generation below. Maybe we’re not the target audience but heck, I’m worried.

          • Tracey 5.2.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:19 am

            what attacks on key? Can you list them? I am interested to know the extent of the attack in your mind, cos in mine, I have only noticed it when brought up here and one or two times (like when key attacked sallies and cunliffe foolishly pitted mansion against mansion).

          • framu 5.2.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 10:28 am

            the thing for me though maureen, is the only place i see this negativity is in accusations directed at cunliffe or in media framing (see gower). Im concerned that you, your friends and your family are relying upon media pundits and not the words of the person, or party, in question

            ask yourself – is your view of party positions derived from traditional media or from actual first hand experience/research? (not “blaming the media” here – just pointing out that what you see there isnt what your getting)

            just where are these relentless attacks on john key? (note – valid, measured and well argued criticism isnt a personal attack in my book)

            • BM 5.2.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 10:31 am

              It’s negative, people don’t want to hear negativity.

              Turns people completely off.

              • framu …
                2 April 2014 at 10:35 am

                whats negative? “its”?

                • BM …
                  2 April 2014 at 11:01 am

                  Cunliffe attacking and making up stuff about Key.

                  No one wants to hear that, as Maureen wrote people want to hear why Cunliffe would be a better choice as PM than Key.

                  • framu …
                    2 April 2014 at 11:11 am

                    apart from your one exagerated quote where you insert the secret meme i dont see it

                    i do see key acting like a private school bully on a daily basis though and people seem to like him (according to the polls)

                    and your ingnoring my point – where does the negativity come from? Gower?

                  • Tracey …
                    2 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

                    but they do like it when key lies tot hem? You seem to thrive on it. Key said Unite and Dotcom donated to Cunliffe, he had no proof and was being negative.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                2 April 2014 at 10:58 am

                And yet National uses it constantly, i.e, labelling Cunliffe as “tricky”.

          • karol 5.2.1.1.3
            2 April 2014 at 10:30 am

            Last night on One News I saw Key attacking Cunliffe and Labour & not the opposite.

            The night before I say Gower use a montage of Key calling Cunliffe “tricky” and not attacks from Cunliffe.

            • Tracey 5.2.1.1.3.1
              2 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

              Yes, but BM does his “thinking” vicariously through WO and Kiwiblog. Do you see the difference?

          • amirite 5.2.1.1.4
            2 April 2014 at 6:22 pm

            Maureen -Have you ever watched a parliament session? have you seen how Key behaves?
            If you haven’t I recommend you do. Urgently.

        • Tracey 5.2.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 10:17 am

          His personal polling popularity is higher than national’s party polling… ergo, his popularity is largely unimportant. His party is neck-and-neck or close to neck-and-neck with Labour/Greens.

          • karol 5.2.1.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:34 am

            Tracey, you have got it the wrong way round.

            Key’s popularity on the latest polls is lower than the Nat share of the party vote.

            And he is polling as preferred PM in the low 40% range – so doesn’t look like the majority of Kiwis rate him that highly.

            • Tracey 5.2.1.2.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 1:12 pm

              Shit sorry. I assumed from the way the rightwing posters were going on and on the other day about how popular key was that he must be polling higher than hisparty…

              • alwyn …
                2 April 2014 at 2:14 pm

                Well, perhaps you should read the material on this blog Tracey. You will find left wing posters going on and on about how popular Cunliffe is and you may assume that he must be polling higher than his party.

                On the other hand if you think about it you may find that Labour are on about 30% and Cunliffe is on 8%. Just ignore it. It cannot possibly be true.

                • Tracey …
                  2 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

                  the important part, alwyn is labour/greens equal to national in some polls and a smidge behind in others.

                  where the maori seats go will also be important.

                  could you post the link to where people have gone “on and on” about how popular cunliffe is outside the labour party which selected him?

                  • alwyn …
                    2 April 2014 at 3:04 pm

                    I sure I could quickly flag a few entries here where people rave about Cunliffe.
                    I can’t show you, since they are as anonymous as the contributors to DC slush fund, that they are inside the Labour Party. I doubt, on the other hand, that you could point out where National Party supporters differ greatly from many Labour ones in highlighting Key’s popularity. Look at Brian Edwards or Chris Trotter for examples.

                    Does it matter. Of course not. It’s just that everyone who takes any interest in politics this far out from an election are, as both you and I and most people who make comments here, totally deranged on the whole subject.

                    The only thing that really matters, as you put in the first line is the final party vote. However we are getting ever further into a Presidential type contest and an unpopular leader is going to affect the popularity of their party. As the election gets closer people in general, outside the hard core, are going to decide their vote and a lot of this will depend on how much they like the leader.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 April 2014 at 3:10 pm

                      raving about cunliffe is not the same as “going on and on about how popular cunliffe is”. thats why i doubt you can find such links.

        • geoff 5.2.1.3
          2 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

          Always they conflate that John Key scoring high in the preferred prime minister polls means that he is really popular.

          • Blue 5.2.1.3.1
            2 April 2014 at 1:04 pm

            In the absence of a viable alternative…….he’s the preferred choice. I think it says more about Cunliffe than Key.

            • karol 5.2.1.3.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 4:12 pm

              Cunliffe has never had a fair showing in the MSM. There has been constant negativity about him via the MSM, since before he became caucus leader.

              On the other hand, Key was given and endless honeymoon period and lots of positivity since before he even became leader of the Nats.

              It’s not been a level playing field.

            • Tracey 5.2.1.3.1.2
              2 April 2014 at 4:23 pm

              so when the herald prints a statement of the pm which has no factual basis and which they dont check before publishing,that has no impact on his or cunliffes popularity

        • Bearded Git 5.2.1.4
          2 April 2014 at 1:52 pm

          agree Karol-Key is certainly not “impregnable” as someone said above

      • Anne 5.2.2
        2 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

        How does an affluent, double income, business trained, leafy suburb resident resonate with the less fortunate?

        Uggh? Is that comment said in jest Once was Pete?

        John Key was worth $50million in 2008 – probably closer to $100 million now.
        David Cunliffe might hit the $3million mark but isn’t likely to be much higher than that.

        John Key has half a dozen homes/mansions.
        David Cunliffe has one to my knowledge.

        John Key lives in a huge mansion surrounded by leafy trees in the most expensive area in NZ.
        David Cunliffe lives in a fairly ordinary sized house – with leafy trees granted – in an expensive area but less so than Key.

        John Key grew up to be a selfish, self centred, money obsessed plutocrat who has lied and cheated his way into the hearts of some very gullible NZers – including some in the MSM who should know better.
        David Cunliffe is devoting his efforts into lifting the poor out of their abject poverty and to make NZ a better place for everyone.

        You really have bought into the MSM disinformation campaign haven’t you. One of the gullible NZers?

        • sockpuppet 5.2.2.1
          2 April 2014 at 4:11 pm

          Shorter Anne……

          John key is rich and the devil incarnate.
          David Cunliffe is less rich but quite well off and is the messiah
          Anyone who doesn’t believe this is gullible

          • karol 5.2.2.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 4:13 pm

            It’s about their policies and politics, not where they live and how much money they have.

          • Tracey 5.2.2.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 4:17 pm

            how clever you were there. not having to mount any kind of actual argument with any facts…. you are probably fine with john keys latest lies.

            • sockpuppet 5.2.2.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 4:33 pm

              Tracey I was attempting to make a point which must have gone over your head.

              If those of on the left can only come up with rubbish such as that put forward by Anne we have no chance of connecting with the voting public but that’s probably fine from her perspective as she can put down another miserable failure by the Labour party and their ‘brains trust’ to the ‘gullible NZ voters’

              • Anne …
                2 April 2014 at 7:05 pm

                Rubbish out dear little sockpuppet?

                I was pointing out the contradictions in Once was Pete’s statement at 5.2..

                He attacks David Cunliffe for being (I paraphrase) so-called rich, living in a leafy suburb, has a business background and therefore couldn’t possibly relate to poor people. While at the same time he ignores the fact John Key is filthy rich (off the backs of the self same poor people) lives in an even leafier suburb, has umpteen dozen other properties and secret trusts all over the place but somehow that’s all OK folks. Key good, Cunliffe bad.

                Thanks for the compliment. Such a raving, incoherent response can only mean I hit a bulls eye. 🙂

          • newsense 5.2.2.1.3
            2 April 2014 at 10:37 pm

            John Key thinks child poverty and problem gambling are a bloody good laugh.
            Cunliffe doesn’t.

            Important difference. It doesn’t matter how much you’ve made, but what you are going to do.

        • Blue 5.2.2.2
          2 April 2014 at 8:27 pm

          So your response is “Cunliffe is rich , but not as rich as Key”, that’ll gain the votes of the poor.

          • Anne 5.2.2.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 8:32 pm

            Oh dear Blue can’t you read? There’s some excellent night classes available for….. ooops sorry, Paula Bennett did away with them.

          • Clemgeopin 5.2.2.2.2
            2 April 2014 at 9:43 pm

            Being rich is not an impediment to be the leader of a party and work towards policies that make the lives of people, including the poor, the workers, the family and the unemployed better.

            Helen Clark was rich. So were/are most of the Labour leaders here and abroad.
            Working towards social policies does not mean the leader or the socialist politicians should abandon all their wealth and live poor. Even Mahatma Gandhi was a London educated/practicing barrister from a wealthy family.

            Here is an analogy:
            The pope is very wealthy but he advocates not only for his Church but also for the poor of the world. So do lots of nuns and priests. Mother Theresa had millions at her disposal and she used it to help the sick, the poor and the dying.

    • miravox 5.3
      2 April 2014 at 10:07 am

      You “caught” David Cunliffe saying something negative about asset sales, Maureen? As if the reasons why this is bad policy haven’t been done to death.

      Concern, much?

      He also said, according to Stuff

      “There’s a tax bias in favour of speculators. We want to be an innovative economy; actually, we’re a speculative one.

      “Until we have a government that has the courage to address the problem of tax-free capital gains, like every other developed country virtually has done, we won’t fix that problem and Labour’s going to do that.”

      Have problem [speculative economy] + will do something about it [capital gains] (which is, btw, economically orthodox) = sounds pretty positive to me.

      • Maureen 5.3.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:22 am

        I admit my concerns are emotional and not based on a solid attention to the campaigning that’s going on. I should concentrate, I know, before I decide who to vote for. But that bit I heard about people not liking asset sales and that will show up in the ballot box is an aspect of Cunliffe’s campaigning I’ve heard before. Kind of facile comments that don’t seem worthy of the man he was before. Believe me, I want to believe him, vote for him, see him get in. If my casual assumptions are wrong, wrong, wrong, then I’m glad.

        Maybe he does what I’m doing here, making a bold statement without evidence? I promise I will pay more attention from now on:)

        • Tracey 5.3.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 1:13 pm

          If not labour, who are you thinking of voting for?

        • karol 5.3.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 1:39 pm

          Some of us vote Green, have some criticisms of some of Labour’s policies, and are not really getting into the rightwing framing re- their attacks on Cunliffe.

          • Tracey 5.3.1.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 2:36 pm

            that describes me too karol. i am wondering though whether it describes maureen.

        • miravox 5.3.1.3
          2 April 2014 at 8:33 pm

          Hi Maureen, Nice reply to my rather snippy comment. I do think the evidence for assets sales as a deal for the taxpayer is cannot be anything but negative, sadly. That is not Cunliffe’s fault, that’s the fault of the government which has sold the assets off.

          Just a note on the ‘punish at the ballot box’ comment that you didn’t like. Stuff has that line quoted more fully as:

          He said he believed voters would punish the Government at the ballot box, and vote Labour so we can buy some of these assets back [my bold]

          That is not negative, That is a positive response, that if wasn’t included in the piece you caught suggests maybe the report was cut-off rather than Cunliffe being overly negative.

    • Not a PS Staffer 5.4
      2 April 2014 at 10:56 am

      @DG
      I thought Cunliffe was excellent on the TV this morning.
      Bear in mind that Cunliffe had to pitch to people who had just woken up and, like me, don’t want too much fire and brimstone on their cornflakes.

      Cunliffe is performing extremely well on TV as a leader. He does the beakfast slots very well. His interview with Nercep on National showed great skill and a steely core.

      Have faith DG. He took over before Christnas an organisation and caucus that was in disarray and un-lead. We now have a leader who, despite a couple of gaffes, is an interviewee and speaker in whom we can be very proud. A major step up from where we were six months ago.

      • Bearded Git 5.4.1
        2 April 2014 at 1:57 pm

        Agree NPS Staffer. Cunliffe is performing well in the media. He has made a couple of stuff-ups but get over this! It’s not like Key hasn’t made plenty of stuff-ups!

        When the policy starts to roll out it will all change, and I think people will be surprised how good Cunliffe will be in the election debates.

        The left only needs to add 3.5% to take the treasury benches.

        Incidentally I wonder if Key will dare to debate Cunliffe head to head?

        • Tracey 5.4.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 2:39 pm

          if mana win two seats and mp only got one maori seat, how would this impact final outcomes?

  6. Te Reo Putake 6
    2 April 2014 at 9:04 am

    Nice to see that the MH370 disaster is good news for some. Some scabby Wairarapa millionaire is leasing his private jet out to help co-ordinate the comms. That’s leasing, not gifting. Charity is for suckers.

  7. UglyTruth 7
    2 April 2014 at 9:06 am

    http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/03/exposed-kerry-implicated-in-turkey-false-flag-using-alqaeda-to-start-war-with-syria-_syriangirlpartisan-2609538.html

    A leaked conversation between Turkey’s intelligence chief and the war room reveals plot to create a casus belli for war with Syria by using ISIL, an alQaeda offshoot, to threaten a turkish shrine Suleiman Shah Tomb. Turkey has blocked youtube in order to cover up the leaks. Turkish Foreign Ministry confirmed the recording of planning for a military incursion into Syria adding that a ‘network of treason’ was responsible for leak. Part two of the leaked conversation implicates John Kerry US secretary of state in the plot.

    • bad12 7.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:07 am

      On Al Jazeera news the other night was shown ‘rebel’ groups in Syria openly flying the flag of al Qaeda,

      George Bush, both junior and senior are likely to be well pleased with such and outcome,the House of Saud positively beaming and i am sure that Barak Obama can offer up an eloquent piece of oratory about a homeless al Qaeda providing stability in a war torn region without the merest hint of an outright guffaw…

  8. ianmac 8
    2 April 2014 at 9:08 am

    From the Herald:
    “Dairy product prices had the biggest drop in almost 20 months at Fonterra’s latest GlobalDairyTrade auction as whole milk powder fell to its lowest level in more than a year…..”

    But never mind. The Government will be prepared to subsidise the industry since it is the one shot mainstay of the NZ economy.

  9. captain hook 9
    2 April 2014 at 9:19 am

    hate to spoil the party but until someone comes up with a viable alternative then dairy for better or for worse is the bedrock of the economy so if you want teevees, cars, aeroplane rides to exotic foreign destinations then dont knock it. oh and dont forget teachers wages.

    • greywarbler 9.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:36 am

      Hate to spoil the party and the little homily by captain hook but everyone realises how we rely on dairy.

      And we are angry that this reliance is maintained and fostered so putting us ever further in a precarious one shot position.

      If anything goes wrong it could turn to custard, and indeed we might have to live on custard as we would have a huge oversupply of milk. Then we would get huge river pollution as dairy farmers had to spread it on their paddocks or dump it in the river. Blow on blow it would be. And our government would probably hop on their jets and operate the Cabinet from somewhere in Sydney near a casino.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      2 April 2014 at 9:53 am

      We would be far better off if we made the TVs, cars and aeroplanes than trying to forever produce more farming on a very small part of the world.

      • marty mars 9.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:12 am

        Perhaps if the world was going to continue in its present form but it isn’t, is it – so making TV’s cars and planes are really sunset industries with a unlikely future. Sustainable farming, diversity, and non-monocropping (including dairy), planting trees and food forests and so on would be much better ways to go than creating consumables even really big ones imo.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 11:30 am

          so making TV’s cars and planes are really sunset industries with a unlikely future.

          True but it’s a good example of diversification.

          Sustainable farming, diversity, and non-monocropping (including dairy), planting trees and food forests and so on would be much better ways to go than creating consumables even really big ones imo.

          Although I agree with all of that there’s not a lot of diversification there.

          We also, IMO, have to get away from regarding computers and phones as consumables. First off they’re necessary to modern life and that isn’t going to change even with power down. Secondly, these days they should be lasting about 5 years or more each.

          • marty mars 9.2.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 11:33 am

            Is modern life sustainable?

            • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 11:52 am

              No but some parts of it are and they’re also desirable, i.e, make life better. Computers are part of that because they help make communications and thus democracy better, help to make better plans for limited resources and, of course, means that we can maintain the massive productivity that allows us to have a life of plenty that can be extended to everyone.

              • weka …
                2 April 2014 at 12:25 pm

                That’s true. One question that arises is how can things be produced to last and still be made by businesses? How did businesses make themselves sustainable back when products were made to last?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

                  They didn’t and a hell of a lot of them got direct or indirect government funding to set up and continue.

                  Please note: I’m not against government funding of services, I’m against the people who profit from that government funding claiming that they did it all by themselves.

              • marty mars …
                2 April 2014 at 4:06 pm

                Computers won’t make it I suspect, as JMG says, and I agree with,

                If you want to build and maintain computers, you need an industrial infrastructure that can manufacture integrated circuits and other electronic components, and that requires an extraordinarily complex suite of technologies, sprawling supply chains, and a vast amount of energy—all of which has to be paid for. It’s unlikely that any society in the deindustrial dark ages will have that kind of wealth available; if any does, many other uses for that wealth will make more sense in a deindustrialized world; and in an age when human labor is again much cheaper than mechanical energy, it will be more affordable to hire people to do the routine secretarial, filing, and bookkeeping tasks currently done by computers than to find the resources to support the baroque industrial infrastructure needed to provide computers for those tasks.

                http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/seven-sustainable-technologies.html

                This life of plenty is an illusion even now and it is folly to believe that it can be extended to everybody. Much better imo to front up and rediscover technologies and techniques that are sustainable in the world we are creating.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  2 April 2014 at 4:26 pm

                  If you want to build and maintain computers, you need an industrial infrastructure that can manufacture integrated circuits and other electronic components, and that requires an extraordinarily complex suite of technologies, sprawling supply chains, and a vast amount of energy—all of which has to be paid for.

                  All of which already exist or if it doesn’t exist can be built up from what already does. Hell, we could make it from scratch using the basic knowledge that we already have. Energy for manufacture will be a problem in some places but NZ isn’t one of them.

                  It’s unlikely that any society in the deindustrial dark ages will have that kind of wealth available; if any does, many other uses for that wealth will make more sense in a deindustrialized world; and in an age when human labor is again much cheaper than mechanical energy, it will be more affordable to hire people to do the routine secretarial, filing, and bookkeeping tasks currently done by computers than to find the resources to support the baroque industrial infrastructure needed to provide computers for those tasks.

                  That’s the bit that JMG doesn’t get – we’re not going to de-industrialise. We’ll probably use less than we do now but we won’t stop using it altogether and in many places we’ll use more – like those automated bike factories that I was talking about.

                  We’re still going have tractors down at the farms but they’ll be electric rather than diesel. Nanometre are already electric and so the change will be from using fossil fuels to produce that electricity to using renewables. Really, about the only thing that we’ll lose is cars and I’m pretty sure that most people will come to see that as a Good Thing.

                  • Tracey …
                    2 April 2014 at 4:30 pm

                    and computers laptops smartphones guzzle power like there isno tomorrow

                    maybe dotcom should announce he is going to be build a server farm in nz powered by solar and wind…

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 April 2014 at 5:38 pm

                      and computers laptops smartphones guzzle power like there isno tomorrow

                      But we have enough power and it’s renewable anyway.

                      maybe dotcom should announce he is going to be build a server farm in nz powered by solar and wind…

                      Why? The Greens have already said that they’re going to help people put solar power on their roof. Just need both the Greens and Labour to announce that they’re going to replace all fossil fueled generation with wind, solar and geothermal from purely NZ resources.

                  • marty mars …
                    2 April 2014 at 4:47 pm

                    It is the ‘paid for’ bit that is the key draco.

                    Your idealistic belief that we won’t deindustrialise is quaint and doesn’t stack up – and this idea that magially renewables will fill the void left when (relatively) cheap energy effectively runs out – well JMG has smashed that one to bits numerous times – it’s up there with aliens arriving to save everything.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 April 2014 at 5:35 pm

                      It is the ‘paid for’ bit that is the key

                      Nope. Money isn’t a problem and never has been. As long as we have people to do the job and the necessary physical resources then we can “pay” for it all.

                      Your idealistic belief that we won’t deindustrialise is quaint and doesn’t stack up – and this idea that magially renewables will fill the void left when (relatively) cheap energy effectively runs out – well JMG has smashed that one to bits numerous times – it’s up there with aliens arriving to save everything.

                      And that’s load of bollocks as well. We have enough energy available now to produce everything. Build a few hundred wind turbines (yes, we have enough resources) and we no longer need the fossil fueled generators.

                      It’s not a question “cheap” as in do we have enough money but do we have enough resources. The answer to the latter is yes we do.

                      Both you and JMG have proven, time and time again, that you haven’t got a friggen clue as to what economics is. Not that that’s surprising – neither do the economists.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2014 at 5:56 pm

                      “Both you and JMG have proven, time and time again, that you haven’t got a friggen clue as to what economics is.”

                      lol – you are such an egotistical dreamer.

          • weka 9.2.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

            Computers should be lasting far more than 5 years. My last laptop lasted eight years. That’s without trying too hard, and I’m a bit hard on them in terms of use. The main reason for having to buy a new one is that after 8 years the parts are no longer available for repair, so they could last a lot longer.

            My cell phone is 7 years old. It’s about to die, but I can’t see a technical reason why it couldn’t be repaired.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 12:33 pm

              IME, computers tend to get replaced more because of the need for more computing power than the computer breaking. My last computer lasted me six years before I upgraded – I still have it and still use it even (It’s my Linux box (minus the box)). My last cell phone is sitting on my desk in near perfect condition including the battery (really, why is it that people don’t know how to look after batteries any more?).

              It’s about to die, but I can’t see a technical reason why it couldn’t be repaired.

              There isn’t a technical reason – there’s a cost reason and the a new cell phone is a hell of a lot better reason. The real problem is that it won’t be recycled either and that comes down to the cost reason again (Yeah, it’s still “cheaper” to unsustainably dig up more resources than it is to recycle resources already dug up and processed).

            • bad12 9.2.1.1.2.2
              2 April 2014 at 12:39 pm

              Lolz weka, i beat up on my old second hand laptop so bad that the ivories have taken to separating from the little rubber cones underneath them that give them their bounce,

              Always adaptable and way too cheap to spend upon a tube of glue i have a.s.d.e. all sitting on bits of scrunched up rolly paper(minutely measured i might add by my radial optical metrical laser to the nth degree),which does the trick nicely,

              (i feel and urge coming on to hang out my ‘computer repairs” shingle, any takers)…

            • alwyn 9.2.1.1.2.3
              2 April 2014 at 2:35 pm

              You say that your last laptop worked for 8 years. The reason that they are replaced, usually quite a lot before that, is that Moore’s law continues to operate. A new computer will have about 32 times the power of one that is 8 years old.

              I replaced my desk top about a month ago. The only reason for doing so is that Microsoft have dropped support for Windows XP and Windows 8.1 won’t really run on a 5 year old system. I wasn’t willing to use Internet banking on a system with no security updates.

              I also bought a new cell phone the other day. It cost the grand total, including $20 worth of time, of $17. It would cost about $17 for a repair shop to decide that an old phone wasn’t actually working without even thinking about repairing it.

              There is no technical reason why they cannot be fixed but it doesn’t make any economic sense to do so.

              • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                2 April 2014 at 9:39 pm

                Hmmm my last cellphone is a land-line.

                There are of course economic reasons to repair them – you’re just not factoring in the subsidised development costs, the discounting of the actual cost to manufacture by the phone companies who make their profit from their contracts not from the phone itself, the subsidised cost of manufacture via cheap labour, the cost and use of the mineral extraction, the costs associated with deliberate built in obsolesence and the cost of the disposal of waste.

                If you factored those in there there’s clearly good economic reasons to repair them.

    • weka 9.3
      2 April 2014 at 10:02 am

      “hate to spoil the party but until someone comes up with a viable alternative then dairy for better or for worse is the bedrock of the economy so if you want teevees, cars, aeroplane rides to exotic foreign destinations then dont knock it. oh and dont forget teachers wages.”

      Yeah, nah. There’s something wrong with that equation. We got sold the same line with tourism, so how come we need dairying now? If this is about economic growth, what’s going to come after dairying? And at what cost?

      Besides, I thought we were all borrowing to pay for our teevees and overseas holidays.

  10. bad12 10
    2 April 2014 at 9:21 am

    Hidden over in the ‘Opinion’ section of the Herald online is an interesting piece by business reporter Chris Barton,

    He provides a good analysis of DotCom’s recent loss at the Supreme Court where that Court was the final arbiter of DotComs attempt to ‘discover’ the evidence the US will use against Him at His New Zealand extradition hearing,

    DotCom of course lost this case in a majority decision with the dissenting voice being that of Chief Justice Sian Elias,

    Chris Barton’s opinion is that DotCom has been badly maligned by the Courts decision and He gives some compelling reasons why he has come to this conclusion,

    i totally agree with Him,(no matter what i think of DotCom as a person), the New Zealand system of Justice requires a ‘no surprises’ discovery of evidence to be used in Courts against any accused and just because another Stated,(the US), is pursuing this prosecution of DotCom it cannot be right that New Zealand subjugate its legal system to match the whims or mores of a foreign State pursuing a case through our Courts,

    Well worth a read for an explanation of the legal (un)niceties surrounding the Courts decision…

    • karol 10.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:34 am

      Yes. Read that yesterday. Very good summary of the article, bad.

      • bad12 10.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 9:09 pm

        Just as an afterthought on this Karol, perhaps the treatment being meted out to DotCom is the forerunner to what could be expected Corporations V Governments/others in a world ruled by the Trans-Pacfic Partnership…

    • Tracey 10.2
      2 April 2014 at 10:23 am

      Agreed.

      Interesting to see the times the CJ is the dissenting opinion. Of note for me was her dissenting voice in a SC decision over council liability for certifiers. Not surprisingly I agree with her reasoning in that decision. BUT she is the dissenting voice too often for me to feel entirely comfortable about the bench on the SC.

  11. bad12 11
    2 April 2014 at 9:31 am

    Mana Party leader Hone Harawira is doing an ‘election year’ interview on RadioNZ National about…now…

    • karol 11.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:01 am

      Hone was very sharp and handled that interview really well. He made a good case for an alliance with TIP (The Internet Party), while also acknowledging that many in Mana were still wary of such – to be worked out when the Mana Party people get together (myself I’m still not convinced that a formal Mana-TIP alliance is the way to go).

      Also talked up Annette Sykes on the ground campaigning. And Hone made it sound like he is networking well with some Labour MPs while also having a very good relationship with the Greens.

      • bad12 11.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 10:51 am

        Yes i was well pleased to hear that Annette Sykes spent Her Christmas,(with help), door knocking every home in the Waiariki electorate,

        There’s a simple message being delivered to the voters there and that is a vote for Te Ururoa Flavell is a vote for another 3 years of National Government,

        Hone believes that the Mana Party machine in Waiariki,(with a smaller rohe to cover),is if anything better than His own in Te Tai Tokerau and with the Mana Party AGM in Rotorua this year i should think that the feet on the ground will be able to do another door knock,(hopefully the first one gathered a good data base of where the Mana Party/Maori Party voters are in the electorate as Mana need to pull apart the support Flavell has in the electorate),

        i am still in ‘tai ho’ mode regarding the proposed Mana/internet Party alliance, it is the nuts and bolts of the ‘carve up’ when it comes to the relevant strengths of the perceived % gained at the election that will convince me,

        i ‘see’ a possible four MP’s coming from such an alliance, IF the proposed ‘carve up’ were to put Annette,Hone and John Minto +one from the Internet Party into the next Parliament then it is probable looking from this far out that i will cast a Party Vote their way,

        i don’t see the Internet Parties lack of Social Policy to be a problem, this is obviously well covered by Mana just as the reverse is true surrounding ‘internet issues’, so if they both adopt each other’s relevant policies there isn’t really any discord inherent,

        Hone made one small slip of the tongue when He said there were ‘other arrangements’ surrounding the Waiariki electorate, and then lolz, wished He hadn’t,all in all tho a very good display from the Mana Party leader on the radio this morning…

        • Tracey 11.1.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 2:42 pm

          how would such an outcome, four seats to mana impact the makeup of parl based on the recent poll figures?

      • Chooky 11.1.2
        2 April 2014 at 9:31 pm

        @karol +100…yes i think Mana is going to attract a lot of votes with Dotcom…very impressive interview with Hone Harawira and Kathryn Ryan asked the hard questions

        • Huginn 11.1.2.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:39 pm

          I was impressed with the way that he handled that interview. He came across as relaxed, confident and to the point.

          Mana and the Internet Party have common ground if you that good internet access is a way out of poverty.

          When people like Duncan Garner talk like this:

          ‘Dotcom wants internet freedom. Many of Hone’s rural supporters in outback Hokianga and Kaikohe don’t even own computers, let alone have super-fast broadband at their doorstep.
          Hone wants jobs, opportunities and better wages; Dotcom wants to stay in NZ.’

          They’re talking as though they can’t imagine a world where Maori in rural Kaikohe and the Hokianga use computers to access the web, and this speaks volumes about the kinds jobs they see them doing. It’s an unthinking, casual kind of assumption that sees poverty as a kind of entrenched natural order.

          If poverty is an inability to participate in society then the internet is a powerful tool that can break down the barriers that prevent participation.

          The people of rural Hokianga and Kaikohe should have computers as well as super-fast broadband because it’s a path towards jobs, opportunities and better wages for them.

          • newsense 11.1.2.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 10:43 pm

            +1

            as many are now contemplating- internet access is a basic citizenship right these days.

          • idlegus 11.1.2.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 10:50 pm

            yeah. i was impressed with that interview too. i see a way forward with mana & the internet party joining forces. the internet party want a revolution, so do mana. its very exciting stuff, a total new way of doing things. & really could get that missing vote, to paraphrase a blog i read yesterday, “no wonder the suits are shitting themselves”. indeed~!

  12. Colonial Viper 12
    2 April 2014 at 9:37 am

    Labour (UK) at “crossroads”; warned against “pale shade of austerity”

    In a speech to political journalists at a Westminster lunch, the Unite general secretary said the Labour party has reached a crossroads and will risk losing the support of Britain’s largest trade union unless it shows it is the “voice” of workers.

    McCluskey said he hoped that the Labour policy review would present a genuine alternative to the coalition. He said: “If it’s a pale shade of austerity then I believe Labour will be defeated at the next election … I believe the British electorate are of a mind that unless there is a real alternative to say, ‘We’d best stick with the devil we know.’

    “And so Ed’s challenge is to simply demonstrate that he’s on the side of ordinary people. Miliband has got to give hope to the poor, he’s got to demonstrate that we’re going to do something different in power. If he does that with some passion, if he does that with some conviction then in my view the polls will begin to alter and he will begin to be seen as a genuine alternative.”

    McCluskey said he could envisage his union disaffiliating from Labour when he was asked whether he could imagine supporting another party…”Labour consistently has to demonstrate that it is our voice; we created it. At the beginning of the last century, ordinary working people sat down to create a party of labour so that we had a voice in the political arena. Is Labour still that voice? I’m hoping the answer to that is yes, but we are at a stage in politics at the moment where just bumbling along in the old ways is not going to happen any more.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/ed-miliband-election-unite-financial-support-len-mccluskey

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:00 am

      And the same would be true of NZ Labour. ATM, it’s too busy being good to business and forgetting the people.

      • Tracey 12.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:13 am

        the key is getting those workers who have swallowed the rhetoric, and been given more money if not in a union, to see the downside.

        Especially as unions are there for non union members badly treated, maybe that has to change? Those who pile vitriol on unions seem to overlook that many unions will act for an unjustifiably dismissed worker who did not join the union… as long as they join from that point. That doesn’t smack of a bullying fee hungry organisation but rather one that genuinely gives a toss about workers

        • srylands 12.1.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

          A good lawyer will do a much better job of handling an employment dispute if the worker has a case. You could save the union fee in a fund, and draw on it once a decade when you need an employment lawyer.

          • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 2:37 pm

            A much better job than what? A much better job than if the employee doesn’t have a case? Obviously.

            A much better job of handling the case than a good union’s lawyer? You have no evidence to support that.

            A good lawyer would do a much better job than a bad union’s bad lawyer? Obviously.

            You comment is, at best, a baseless claim. At worst it’s a waste of space.

          • Tracey 12.1.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 2:45 pm

            calling bs on that srylands.

            and you wont get health or disability cover from your lawyer or the higher wage union members tend to enjoy.

          • Tracey 12.1.1.1.3
            2 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

            in a fund you say? like lombard finance or scf or bridgecorp or….

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.4
            2 April 2014 at 4:29 pm

            Or you could pay the union fee and get the ongoing benefits like increased wages every year.

          • Murray Olsen 12.1.1.1.5
            2 April 2014 at 7:40 pm

            I won’t bother telling you you’re a wanker, SSLands. Plenty already have, and you take it as a compliment to your self sufficiency.

            I will state the obvious: an employment dispute can be handled by a lawyer when the employee has very specific and in demand skills, and is difficult to replace. And no, I don’t mean overpaid CEOs or consultants, who should be a dime a dozen. Under your system, the average worker would have less rights than they have today. You should understand leverage, but obviously don’t. You are an idiot, and deserve the world you are trying to make. The rest of us don’t.

    • Not a PS Staffer 12.2
      2 April 2014 at 11:38 am

      Labour is putting party before the Scottish workers. The current Scottish Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, Johann Lamont, is very ineffective. The Scottish Nationalist Party has more votes and credibility than Labour. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx

      Labour in Westminster and the Scottish Labour leadership was caught out collaborating with the Tories in saying that the Pound will not be a currency option for an Independent Scotland. It has come out now that this stance was purely a bullying tactic.
      http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/swinney-condemns-currency-bluff.1396364298

      Labour in Scotland will get punished severely in the referendum in September. Labour in England will be seen to have been wrong on Scotland and too close to the Tories on the independence question. They will get punished in time for that also. This is a great pity as it might let the Tories win the next general election. Ironically the increasing likelihood of a Tory win in Westminster is the best bet for the people of Scotland. The Tories have only ONE (1) Scottish seat in Westminster.

  13. North 13
    2 April 2014 at 9:49 am

    Jackson has an aircraft which cost him $80 million and who knows how much to run. It is probably a managed asset, viz. available for charter. He has made it available in the search. We can hardly expect it to be deployed at his personal cost.

    We should also hardly expect that a business transaction be trumpeted as ‘Jackson Kiwi Icon’. There is a hint of that implication in the style of the Herald coverage unfortunately.

    If in this case Jackson’s kind heart is to the fore let us hear about it. If not STFU Herald. Unless of course you want to do a pap piece on Air NZ provincial and the rental car company I availed to meet needs on the occasion of my brother’s untimely death in the South Island.

    Oligarchy is not perfumed.

    • weka 13.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:03 am

      “We can hardly expect it to be deployed at his personal cost.”

      Why not?

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      2 April 2014 at 10:05 am

      Jackson’s plane, according to the news report I heard this morning, is faster and has a longer range than anything our airforce has. Of course, a search requires that the plane go as slow as it possibly can and that it have the actual equipment to do the search which I doubt that Jackson’s plane has. In other words, this is nothing but a PR exercise for Jackson.

      • framu 13.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 10:17 am

        they said on the news that it was for running messages – my immediate response was – cellphones? radio? satellite phone? email?

        what are these messages that require a plane to deliver them?

        jackson can do what he likes with his plane – but its weird that this is running as the lead, most important story of a news bulletin

        • Tigger 13.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 10:23 am

          Came here to post about this being the top story on the news. Matt D’s remarks are hilarious: “A lot of civilian and military aircraft are involved in the search and it’s kind of disappointing that because one is owned by a celebrity it becomes a matter of news when there are [over] 200 people missing.”

          Not nearly as disappointing as you getting NZ law changed to suit yourselves.

        • bad12 13.2.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 11:02 am

          i think the message being ‘run’ might be Jackson crying ”look at me me me me me me me”…

          • ExKiwiforces 13.2.1.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 11:25 pm

            Or a tax write off/ rebate for owning the jet, the only thing going for it is it has rather long legs apart form that bugger all as the Observers down the back have relay the good old Mk1 eyeball to spot anything down there

        • Draco T Bastard 13.2.1.3
          2 April 2014 at 11:11 am

          what are these messages that require a plane to deliver them?

          None. As you say, the airforce will have all required electronic communications. There’s no need for face to face comms either.

          • McFlock 13.2.1.3.1
            2 April 2014 at 2:49 pm

            Well, the international search coordinators seem to think they needed a communications relay.

            My understanding is that the search aircraft are flying at low level. That will cut their radio range, including data links.

            Even if all aircraft and ships had satellite comms, chartering a relay aircraft might be a faster, more reliable, or simply a backup option to coordinate the search.

          • nadis 13.2.1.3.2
            2 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

            The fact it is jackson’s jet is beside the point – it would have been leased via an aircraft lease company on the basis of what was available with the specific endurance, size and communications capabilities. The reason it has been chartered – by the Australians, not John Key – is to provide communications relay. The search area is far enough off shore that it means low flying planes won’t necessarily be able to communicate clearly with Perth.

            The jet has significant endurance so will likely fly out to the search area and fly around in circles at its most economical speed and altitude. It has an endurance of probably 15 hours which means it can be on station at dawn and leave at dusk – and coordinate the 20 odd search planes that come and go over the whole day. Bear in mind the search planes are actually flying at maybe 1500 feet. The air force plans have much shorter endurances and in any case using one of them to co-ordinate would leave one less search plane.

            • framu 13.2.1.3.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

              McFlock and nadis

              ahh – thanks for that – didnt realise the bit re: altitude and radio range

              still dont see how its the most important story of the day – did nothing of greater importance really not happen?

            • ExKiwiforces 13.2.1.3.2.2
              2 April 2014 at 10:09 pm

              Sorry Guys,

              Some of what you lot have said a are wrong,

              Your standard Maritime/ SAR Mission heights once on station are about 250 to 300ft off the deck (sea level) and it also depends on the current sea state/ weather or both especially in southern ocean at this time of the year. Also the wing span of the P3 Orion is 150ft long and if they are flying on 3 engines, 90% of all Maritime Ops are on 3 engines once on station as this increase the amount of time on station weather permitting.
              But this height there is very little room for error if something goes wrong esp you hit one those large birds down south ” the feather type”. If any of you get a chance to do a Maritime Patrol on P3 they bloody fun and you get watch 13 plus aircrew work their butts off. Its some of the best teamwork you would ever see anywhere.

              The RAAF has deployed one of its Wedgetail “Airborne Early Warning Control Aircraft” to control the rather crowded Airspace also act as a re trans (radio) relay to the ships and back to land.

              I know some here hate or don’t like the RNZAF P3’s and want the RNZAF to have a cheaper /Short range MPA “I hope you have a change of heart after this operation” . But they are prefer aircraft that AMSA/ RAAF want to use due too the recent sensor upgrade they got under Labour. Some on the ground are saying its better than the sensors on broad the P8 MPA (design to replace the P3) and the RNZAF crews know how operated in the Southern Oceans unlike the other Nations taking part in the recovery effort in other words the go too people.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                3 April 2014 at 11:17 am

                The only thing wrong with the RNZAF’s P3s is that they’re beyond their lifespan. Basically, we need some new aircraft even if it is just some new P3s.

                • ExKiwiforces …
                  3 April 2014 at 9:46 pm

                  True, they have been RNZAF service since 1965-66, but they starting to like my granddads old axe ie the P3’s have that many rebuilds in the last 15yrs that they almost new aircraft and more than any other P3 operator in the world that’s including USN and RAAF who have been operating them the longest.

                  Under National they had a major Structure rebuild including new wings and wing box that RNZAF/ MOD and Safe Air pioneer, that’s after Lockheed said it can’t be done! It’s a good thing that the MOD and Safe Air copyright their idea for 50yrs plus. It expected the with that rebuild they would at least another 20yrs out of them (look how long the B52 has been USAF service) but only issue from what I’ve told is the engines.

                  Labour has given them 3 sensor upgrades, Rigel 1, Rigel 2 and the last sensor which has been the most complex and technical upgrade done by any P3 user to date.

      • bad12 13.2.2
        2 April 2014 at 10:58 am

        Can i see the script of the next Jackson epic being written as His jet streaks across the sky of the search area,

        Perhaps wee Pete is on board hoovering up ideas and atmosphere so as to have a clue how to script something other than the usual pap written by someone else that He prefers…

  14. Tiger Mountain 14
    2 April 2014 at 9:55 am

    What do we think of it so far?–the Guyon and Susie show…

    Is there a “main stream” media front person anywhere in the whole country that is not a filthy tory or closet filthy tory?

    • karol 14.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:20 am

      I listened to a couple of reports online. I’m not inclined to listen to the whole programmes – I’d rather skim through the topics online & select.

      Good report on power companies profiteering from the poor.

      On fare evasions on Auckland trains – they only focused on fare evading and the Auckland Transport approach. They didn’t ask why many (focus on furthest out from the city in west Auckland) evade fares – the most obvious thingthat was ignored, is the high cost to those in transport poverty, for a low to medium quality service.

      A report with no context and limited in depth analysis.

      • Draco T Bastard 14.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:16 am

        Auckland Transport have made it so that it’s possible to walk onto some stations and then the trains without paying first and then it’s a simple act of being missed by the fare wardens. I assume they did this for speed to roll out the AT Hop card. It’s certainly not to do with cost as the proper equipment will need to be rolled out eventually and will cost more later.

        And then there’s the reasons as to why people are evading fares.

      • Lanthanide 14.1.2
        2 April 2014 at 10:33 pm

        They’re doing news and current affairs, not investigative journalism.

  15. Disraeli Gladstone 15
    2 April 2014 at 10:25 am

    How was Farrar’s reporting on Cunliffe? Was he selectively posting the transcript?

    If not…

    Cunliffe’s interview today with NewstalkZB. Ugh. I’m done. His response to a question about his time in government “well, let’s talk about Hollyoake or when Muldoon was a boy”. Fuck that. That is such an intellectually dishonest answer.

    How about you own your time in government, David? Say what you did right. Say what you did wrong, why you did it then, what’s changed now and explain why you’re changing what you previously did. Explain these things to the voter. Treat them with a little respect.

    All he did today was basically do a John Key “pfft” and ensure that National can keep talking about his time in government. Unless Farrar is playing tricky himself with the transcript.

    For example, on hitting the straps with NZ Power, what sounds better?

    A: Look, National needs to grow up. Helen Clark isn’t in power anymore. They can’t complain about what we did. I’m not going to talk about that. We might as well talk about Muldoon if we’re going to do that.

    B: Look, I’m proud of what the Fifth Labour Government achieved and I’m glad I got the experience to be under the leadership of Helen. But, let’s be clear. We got some things wrong. We allowed energy prices to soar. My future government won’t make that same mistake. We understand that this hurts people, National doesn’t. That’s why we’re taking action. That’s why we’re campaigning on NZ Power.

    It’s not hard. Cunliffe is leaving a lot to be desire as leader.

    • karol 15.1
      2 April 2014 at 10:41 am

      Was the interview today or yesterday?

      This one on ZB yesterday       with callers asking him questions?

    • karol 15.2
      2 April 2014 at 11:14 am

      It must have been part one.

      The question the righties have been slamming has to do with power prices

      Transcript:

      TIM FOOKES: How big an issue is this power price and the costs to households going to be for Labour leading up to the election?

      DAVID CUNLIFFE: This is a significant issue. It’s part of a bigger issue, which is called the cost of living. And what is happening is that middle income New Zealanders are getting squeezed. They pay a lot of tax. They can’t dodge tax. They have families to bring up. They’re trying to get ahead, they’re working hard, they’re playing by the rules. And what happens? They get slammed with price rise after price rise, whether it’s crazy rents and mortgages – and remember that house mortgages are headed for eight per cent now, according to the banks, so if you’re paying a 500 buck a week mortgage, that’s $136 extra, folks.

      TIM FOOKES: But, hang on, it was eight and a half per cent or close to 10 per cent in those 2007-2008 years, as well. So why…

      DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yeah, and we could go back to the Holyoake years, and justify all sins by saying, well, when Rob Muldoon was a boy, or Keith Jacka was in Parliament, you know, things were different then. Well, sorry, the current Government has been in power nearly six years. It’s time they manned up and took some responsibility. They cannot get away with excuse after excuse, wah, wah, wah, it was different under Helen Clark. Sorry, guys, grow up

      Before this, in response to a question from a caller Cunliffe talks of seeing first hand when he was first an PM, seeing people living in energy poverty. He talks about the current way the electricity market is working badly for people.

      CUNLIFFE: We have tried and tried and tried to get those damn Max Bradford reforms to work and after 15 years of trying I’m sick of it. And we’re actually going to move in and give consumers a decent deal.

      Fookes asks Cunliffe about the figures he uses from 2008 onwards:

      CUNLIFFE: Before you go on, look, power prices rose before 2008 as well.

      FOOKES: But they rose by more

      CUNLIFFE: Well, they did rise in some cases by more, although there’s been a real open drawing (?) since of the residential versus industrial power prices. And of course now, thanks to John key and his mob, half of that money goes to private investors, most of them offshore. Under the Labour government it all went back to taxpayers because the dividends got recycled. It’s a completely different ball game now at the moment. We’re making foreign institutions rich not

      Damn – hit submit by accident before I’d finished transcribing.
      But, yeah, I’d say the rightie transcript was pretty selective cherrypicking.

      Cunliffe then talks about having worked on this since 2001 and that he and Parker have a thorough knowledge of the issues. Cunliffe then talks about the wider context is one of increasing cost of living.

      Then comes the above righies’ cherry-picked transcript.

      • miravox 15.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:24 am

        Thanks Karol. That reads really well from Cunliffe, imo.

        • weka 15.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

          ” It’s time they manned up and took some responsibility. They cannot get away with excuse after excuse, wah, wah, wah, it was different under Helen Clark. Sorry, guys, grow up”

          😀

      • Ad 15.2.2
        2 April 2014 at 11:28 am

        Great to hear he was on ZB – I don’t bother myself.
        Thankyou for taking the time to transcribe for us.

        • Not a PS Staffer 15.2.2.1
          2 April 2014 at 11:45 am

          Last week I had a banger of a courtesy car from the panel beater. I could only get ZB! It is an appalling reactionary shit hole. Cunliffe was courageous to go on air there. I respect his cojones is trying to engage with their listeners.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 15.2.3
        2 April 2014 at 11:48 am

        Hmm. That’s certainly better from Cunliffe. But I still think he should be more proactive on both celebrating and reflecting on his previous time in government.

        Thanks, Karol for providing the fuller picture! Much appreciated.

        • Tracey 15.2.3.1
          2 April 2014 at 1:20 pm

          “How was Farrar’s reporting on Cunliffe? Was he selectively posting the transcript?”

          Good on you for being sceptical…

          Farrar doesn’t report, he spins and he massages for his “side”.

          • Disraeli Gladstone 15.2.3.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 3:40 pm

            Unlike say, Slater, I have a fair bit of time for Farrar. But yeah, you can’t take everything he says at face value. There’s a fair bit of spin to wade through.

            • Tracey 15.2.3.1.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 3:48 pm

              i dont read or click through to slater. i will occassionally read farrar. i dont like the tone of many of kiwiblogs commenters but david doesnt seem to stoop.

              he rarely publishes the other side if it is unhelpful to him or his side… hence he wont post the correction to keys fabricated figures.

              • karol …
                2 April 2014 at 4:19 pm

                I got the transcript from another right wing blog – keeping stock I think.

                • Tracey …
                  2 April 2014 at 4:27 pm

                  so it was possible to get the transcript right. …

                  • karol …
                    2 April 2014 at 4:55 pm

                    It was a partial transcript, I transcribed more of the ZB programme – mainly stuff on the same topic to give context to the selective right wing transcript.

                    The blogger took exception to Cunliffe having a go at National.

                    • Tracey …
                      2 April 2014 at 5:02 pm

                      imagine attacking national… when the right is pretending the right isnt indulging in smear and attacks on cunliffe and the greens….

                      the right can be such sensitive wee sausages.

      • ianmac 15.2.4
        2 April 2014 at 2:41 pm

        Thanks Karol. Even as a transcript you can hear the passion and this should reach the ears of prospective voters.

    • Wyndham, George 15.3
      2 April 2014 at 12:14 pm

      Cunliffe is doing heaps of interviews and doing them well. He has found his stride in the leadership role. He was always brilliant being interviewed when he was a minister. It is different job when leader and he has now got it.
      Cunliffe is stratospheric when compared to Shearer. Thanks Marya Street for rolling him.

      • Tracey 15.3.1
        2 April 2014 at 1:25 pm

        he’s also getting around the country, as are the greens. Clark did this very well in 1998 and 1999. She understood that meeting people in the flesh has a lasting impact, and doesn’t reply ont he media spreading your message.

        • Rosie 15.3.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 2:14 pm

          Thank you Wyndham and Tracey for your positive observations. Apart from that little Trust donation hiccup I have only viewed Cunliffe as being consistent, clear and steady and don’t understand why his would- be supporters such as Maureen, above, are turning off him, unless they are well and truly under the spell of the media and Henny Penny stories of the sky falling in.

          As for getting around the country – it would be fantastic if he were to come to Ohariu and speak. We need his presence here and he needs to show his support for our new candidate (after the bubba is due). Stephanie Rodgers mentioned the other day she was on the Labour campaign team for Ohariu – Stephanie, is there any chance of having David Cunliffe to talk on our turf?

          At this stage National haven’t put a candidate up (although I need to look into this) and the local gossip is that they won’t, and that they will rely on Dunne to retain the seat, because like bad12’s Waiariki Flavell/Sykes example above, a vote for Dunne is a vote for another 3 years of National.

          • Rosie 15.3.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 2:43 pm

            Nat candidates: I guess TBA = To Be Announced(?)

            http://www.mynational.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=389

          • ianmac 15.3.1.1.2
            2 April 2014 at 2:43 pm

            Is Maureen a would be supporter? I though she was a died in the wool Nat who spins a line that she would vote but….etc etc. Perhaps I mis-read her intent.

            • Rosie 15.3.1.1.2.1
              2 April 2014 at 3:20 pm

              Well it is curious ianmac.

              At 5.2.1.1. at 10.12am Maureen states “I want to feel proud of belonging to the Labour party….” so I’m assuming she is actually a member. She also says she wants a strong Labour Green alliance. But these words are at odds somehow as the tone expresses alarmed “concern” and accusation that Cunliffe is personally failing her and friends and family.

              It did set off a whole BM led tangent, so maybe they are in cahoots?

          • weka 15.3.1.1.3
            2 April 2014 at 5:33 pm

            “Thank you Wyndham and Tracey for your positive observations.”

            +1, much appreciated. We need to balance out the criticisms and critiques I think.

  16. bad12 16
    2 April 2014 at 11:57 am

    Campbell live last night did an interesting little piece on the savings to be gained from doing the fruit and vege shopping at the local Sunday market,

    Having for the first time taken the plunge,(its only taken 58 years a mere blink in the fabric of history), and visited the Harbuor-side Market here in Wellington on Sunday i can confirm the savings suggested on the Campbell Live program are possible,

    i was going to leave commenting on the relevant prices between market/supermarket until i had spent at least a month doing such a split shopping so i could get a proper ‘feel’ for the overall prices between the two,

    i can say tho that for the same spend that i normally do in the supermarket on fruit and vege i tripled the amount of fruit i usually buy and my normal weeks vege was definitely cheaper in most cases by more than a dollar for each item,

    Such savings tho have to be balanced against the transport cost of getting to your local market but having also done this weeks ‘general’ grocery shop i can say that there is a definite plus either way, dollars saved/increased amount of fruit and vege for dollars spent…

    • Tracey 16.1
      2 April 2014 at 1:27 pm

      you can also save money by eating seasonable fruit and veggies and by preserving the summer fruit.

      I no longer shop at my local supermarket (Countdown) and have shopped at a local fruit and veg store for some time. The prices are sometimes better, not more expensive BUT quality is WAY better.

    • karol 16.2
      2 April 2014 at 1:43 pm

      Yes, I saw that and was a little rueful because I work on Sundays. Will check out where the nearest market is though and try to visit.

      • bad12 16.2.1
        2 April 2014 at 4:06 pm

        The bonus for me is that with my pile of stuffed bones i was only just managing to get around the whole supermarket,using the trolley as a walking frame, i imagine makes me look like Quasimoto, and back to the car,

        i have been thinking for months that it is nearly time to do the shopping via the internet and have it delivered but stupid me would rather suffer the pain than ‘give up’,

        Effectively splitting the shopping in half works for me on that level as well as being of benefit to the pocket,(lolz i have packets of painkillers here that i look at thinking i refuse to become hooked on that),

        i will try the market over at the Newtown School next, the literature on the web says that prices are cheaper at that one…

        • veutoviper 16.2.1.1
          2 April 2014 at 8:25 pm

          The Newtown School market on Saturdays is good, bad12. It is not as big as the Harbourside market, but you can get a good range of fruit/vegs – very fresh etc provided you go in the morning and don’t leave it until early afternoon in hot weather. It is usually all over by about 2.30pm. Newtown prices are excellent IMO and probably lower than the Harbourside market as they cater to a lower income clientele.

          • bad12 16.2.1.1.1
            2 April 2014 at 8:57 pm

            Nice one vv, am definitely an early bird, was just wondering to myself a few minutes ago are they the same growers at both markets,

            Hell i was rapt with the prices at the Harbour-side one, avacado a dollar something each,

            One other question, what’s the parking like first thing at the school???…

            • srylands 16.2.1.1.1.1
              2 April 2014 at 11:02 pm

              “One other question, what’s the parking like first thing at the school???…”

              Terrible. I parked in the hospital last Saturday. I’ll watch out for you.

              • bad12 …
                2 April 2014 at 11:08 pm

                Running shoes might be a requirement to do that SSLands, what sort of dork,oops sorry i mean economist comes all the way from the Kapiti Coast into South Wellington to buy a bit of fruit and vege…

                • srylands …
                  2 April 2014 at 11:19 pm

                  One who has a daughter living in the city who wants to be taken shopping.

                  • bad12 …
                    3 April 2014 at 12:47 am

                    Ha-Ha-Ha SSLands, that is just soooo funny on sooo many levels and simply leaves you wide open for me to reveal to you even more of the bad vein of nastiness that runs through my mind with every comment you make here at the Standard,

                    It is tho late so for tonight you can escape my wrath, but, if your that soft in the head i do have a slightly used bridge for sale….

                    • veutoviper …
                      3 April 2014 at 8:37 am

                      If S Rylands is parking in the hospital carpark, he is risking a heavy parking fine as the hospital is now clamping down hard on people parking there and going to the market, and not legitimately there to visit the hospital.

                      I have never had a problem with parking, bad12. Don’t bother with Mein Street – almost impossible, but there are a couple of little side streets close to the school off the main drag where I have always found a park. In particular in the side street going to the main entrance to the school at the main road junction where Rintoul and Riddiford Streets meet. At the end of that street, there is also a public parking area on the school grounds right next to the market.

                      My understanding is that some growers supply all the markets while others just do some of the markets.or just one. I also understand that the actual sellers at the markets vary – sometimes the actual growers or their family/staff/ friends; and others use sellers employed strictly to sell the produce at the market.

                      I have also been pleased to note that Karbosh (?) and other similar organisations that are donated food to redistribute to the needy are well supported by the sellers at the Newtown market later in the day when the market is ending.

                    • bad12 …
                      3 April 2014 at 10:48 am

                      Yeah vv, as far as Kabosh goes, don’t they do a great job, the amount of food they collect and recycle is phenomenal, not sure of it was 12,000 tonne or 120,000 tonne in a year,

                      Even down at the local community hall there is now an unofficial food-bank running a couple of days a week, it started with bread but has now grown to include fruit and veg every now and then,(presumably via Kabosh),

                      Lolz, i could stop in there and get some freebies but the remaining shreds of my personal honesty prohibit me to do so on the basis that my particular budget,(at the moment), leaves me with enough to pay for the stuff so its best to leave the ‘freebies’ for others that have higher costs and less skills at budgeting….

                      (Karbosh? Kabosh? Kaibosh? lolz unsure but i got the picture)…

                    • veutoviper …
                      3 April 2014 at 11:21 am

                      “Kaibosh” – here is a link to their website

                      http://www.kaibosh.org.nz/

                      They have a list of their current donors (including the Newtown Market) under the “Who donates?” in the dropdown box entitled “Donate food”. Island Bay NW is not listed but I have seen their trucks there regularly over recent months.

        • Lanthanide 16.2.1.2
          2 April 2014 at 10:39 pm

          On general principles, once you decide to give up on physical activity because you find it difficult, you enter a downward spiral where you eventually stop doing more and more.

          Better to stay active as long as you possibly can.

          • bad12 16.2.1.2.1
            2 April 2014 at 11:00 pm

            Definitely Lanth, was my point about seeing not doing the shopping as ‘giving in’,my bones tho don’t allow me much free range activity,

            So its a matter of thinking up the methodology of getting what physical activity i need to and can do in smaller bites than what i have been used to accomplishing all my life,(my method of digging my garden still has me sniggering at myself, the important thing tho is that it works and keeps the pain level below that of the ‘handful of broken glass’ in the joints which is the point at which i begin again my love affair with the painkillers)…

  17. Jilly Bee 17
    2 April 2014 at 7:56 pm

    I did my first shift at the Avondale Market last Sunday, with my Labour Party rosette and pamphlets exhorting people to a) make sure they are on the electoral roll and b) make sure they vote (for Labour, of course). I had not been to that market before and I was absolutely gobsmacked at the amount of produce available and the excellent quality – it certainly made me think seriously about how to purchase fruit and veges in the future and other stuff, obviously. It was also an eye opener watching people with families fossicking through boxes of well used blankets, rugs and other household items – it was fairly obvious that they could not afford to purchase these goods from retail outlets – even, the Warehouse, K-Mart, Briscoes etc.

    As an aside, did anyone else consider that John Key had consumed far too much wine at that business luncheon today at Takapuna – his speech seemed to be rather more slurred and mangled than usual. Perhaps he needs the Piri Weepu stroke test. Just saying!!

  18. Rodel 18
    2 April 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Watching Simon Bridges n Campbell live. OMG What a simple Simon… Shudder to think he’s in charge of anything to do with me.

    • karol 18.1
      2 April 2014 at 8:19 pm

      His way of speaking is painful to warch.

      • Rosie 18.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 9:20 pm

        I can’t even bear to listen to him or to see him. There is something about him that sends my blood pressure soaring, It’s verging on the irrational…………….

        .I missed Campbell tonight but assume the interview was about his giddy excitement about issuing tons more mining exploration permits for our land and sea. I haven’t even started on his E.R.A Amendment Bill which passed it’s second reading last week, that will take away from workers their right to a break as well as including about 7 or 8 Union busting amendments….

    • Lanthanide 18.2
      2 April 2014 at 10:41 pm

      I haven’t decided if he’s genuinely thick, or purposefully speaking slowly so as to draw out the interview in order to reduce the number of questions he has to answer as well as give his brain more time to work out what he’s going to say next.

  19. captain hook 19
    2 April 2014 at 8:57 pm

    its the haircut that gives him away. what an infantile ‘do. does he think he’s gonna impress sum skoolgurls or sumfing. he doesn’t look like he knows anything about anything and what comes out of his gob verges on nonsense that hooton writes to confuse people.
    uggggggggghhhh.
    Is that the best the national party can do.
    They specialise in lowbrows but he is the bottom of the barrel.

    • Rosie 19.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:24 pm

      “They specialise in lowbrows but he is the bottom of the barrel.”

      I agree he is the bottom of the barrel, but as far as lowbrows (and poor haircuts) go, Nathan Guy is in the club too, in all senses of the word.

      • bad12 19.1.1
        2 April 2014 at 11:04 pm

        Lolz, just in behind wee simple Simons eyes lies a snake, as Slippery the Prime Minister has anointed wee Simon as the future of the National Party i dare say if we stick around long enough we will get to see this snake really hiss…

  20. Penny Bright 20
    2 April 2014 at 9:12 pm

    SEIZED THE MOMENT!

    Went out to the wilds of the North Harbour Stadium today, to try and catch NZ PM John Key giving his address to business leaders.

    Ended up with it just outside the entrance to the Stadium and caught lots of business types in very flash cars coming out.

    Didn’t see the PM – but I’m sure someone will have passed the message on….

    Just me and this banner – which got a rather ungentlemanly response from 3 older males (all gave me the fingers! HOW RUDE!

    Moment seized and sorted – there will be a ripple amongst those who fly at 30,000 feet …………

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151885282121790&set=t.100000081045781&type=3&theater

    Penny Bright