Open mike 05/11/2011

120 comments on “Open mike 05/11/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Scotty 1

   5 November 2011 at 7:45 am

   The MSM are palpably relieved their chosen one has got his ‘mojo’ back,
   Not any coherent substance, just his mojo.(ability to shout slogans over someone else speaking)
   But hey, thats good enough for Garner and co.
   Even a cursory glance at Keys record at forecasting growth /jobs, shows how completely unhinged from reality he is.
   Garner, your ghost journalism isn’t keeping the country informed bro.
   • ianmac 1.1

     5 November 2011 at 8:19 am

     Garners dribbling performance on last nights news was appalling to me. I suspect that since he put all his eggs in Key’s basket, now his credibility is on the line and is desperate that Phil does not do well.
     Bennet in the Herald thinks Labour’s books are $400mil out whereas Key now says its um $6bil out. What happened to the $17bil that Key/English said they were out? Questions from Garner? Never!

     In spite of the quality of modern communications it seems to me that Key etc have managed to deflate enthusiasm for scrutiny and participation. Democracy? In our hands be it.
   • Dan1 1.2

     5 November 2011 at 8:25 am

     Garner would be at home on Fox News. His bias is appalling.
   • logie97 1.3

     5 November 2011 at 3:57 pm

     The gnome in the Herald today
     “… New Zealanders no longer have control and have to endure the rapaciousness of privatised Telecom for 30 years…”

     Come, come. Such strident vocabulary.
     How come it has taken you so long to vent in such a way about privatisation?
     Your little darling Jokey get a bit bruised, did he?
2. Pete George 2

   5 November 2011 at 8:03 am

   Some awful comments by Paul Henry on Metiria Turia, followed by David Cunliffe with a nasty personal attack:

   “I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.”

   Sound clip here.
   • mickysavage 2.1

     5 November 2011 at 8:26 am

     Pete you need to get out more.  And you need to get a sense of humor.  And you should not run Slater attack lines.
     • Pete George 2.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 8:35 am

       Neither Henry’s nor Cunliffe’s comments were humorous to me. My wife was appalled.

       If you got out more, ooyside your red bubble, you wouild know how pissed off many people are with the behaviour of politicians. It’s obviously not all politicians that give them a bad name, I’d expect Goff to be very embarrassed by this.
       • marty mars 2.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 9:07 am

         “how pissed off many people are with the behaviour of politicians”

         yeah like you pete and your singlehanded attempted demolition of hope and the future – I hope you’re proud of yourself – how’s occupypete going falsetalker?

         and have you tried being positive instead of the slime tactics – you could be a hero pete not a zero and you may actually get legitamised for wearing your undies over your trousers unlike now where people just don’t get it.
         • Pete George 2.1.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 9:16 am

           People are getting it marty, people who want to make a difference. I get attacked by people who don’t want party power moved to people power.

           Back to the issue raised, what do you think of what Henry and Cunliffe said?
           Acceptable bloky banter or a bad look?

           Or are you just going to attack me for mentioning that too?
           • marty mars 2.1.1.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 9:27 am

             I am attacking the constant grubbing around to find an issue to get airtme pete – as for what they have said I haven’t listened and won’t – it’s nothing new just the same old same old.
             • Pete George …

               5 November 2011 at 9:35 am

               You don’t have to listen, I included the quote in my first comment here – did you not boither to read what this is actually about?

               I don’t think that’s acceptable from any broadcaster or politician.
               • mickysavage …

                 5 November 2011 at 10:45 am

                 Pete enought with the faux outrage.
                  
                 I get upset about a number of things.  Climate change, the destruction of our environment, resource depletion, unemployment, poverty, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and the appalling job this Government is doing with our future to name a few.
                  
                 Someone saying something not very nice about someone else does not rate by comparison.
                  
                 You really should get out more and experience things.
                 • Pete George …

                   5 November 2011 at 11:22 am

                   Cunliffe has just apologised on The Nation and says he has apologised to Judith Collins.
                   • McFlock …

                     5 November 2011 at 6:21 pm

                     He must have apologised because of your bleating here, Pete.
                      
                   • ianmac …

                     5 November 2011 at 6:31 pm

                     And Judith has graciously accepted the apology.
                   • Pete George …

                     5 November 2011 at 7:03 pm

                     “It was an unfortunate comment, I sincerely regret it and I have rung her to apologise. I should not have been in that conversation and it was the wrong thing to say.”

                     That would have to be one of the better apologies from a politician I’ve heard (it sounded genuine).
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 November 2011 at 7:35 pm

                     That would have to be one of the better apologies from a politician I’ve heard (it sounded genuine).

                     Please take note then Pete so you can better imitate the tone of voice.
       • Ianupnorth 2.1.1.2

         5 November 2011 at 3:22 pm

         You have a wife!
     • Luva 2.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 9:01 am

       Micky, are you honestly trying to defend cunliffe and Henry.
       • Campbell Larsen 2.1.2.1

         5 November 2011 at 9:26 am

         One would have to be a fool to defend Henry – he makes a living from saying inappropriate things about people – it is practically his trademark.
         As for ‘Crusher’ Collins – since she has chosen to cultivate a militant and aggressive public persona I don’t think anyone can be surprised that she is not considered good mating material – pointing it out is just stating the obvious.
         • Luva 2.1.2.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 9:30 am

           Just change the name Collins for Clark

           Now how does it sit?
           • Campbell Larsen 2.1.2.1.1.1

             5 November 2011 at 9:50 am

             Luva – Clark did not embrace the stereotype that she assigned by the media – Collins clearly has.
             Anyway no one cares about this trivia apart from you and Pete G – there are more important things going on.
       • Mickysavage 2.1.2.2

         5 November 2011 at 9:43 am

         I would rather gnaw my toe nails than defend Henry.
         • Pete George 2.1.2.2.1

           5 November 2011 at 9:46 am

           But you would defend Cunlifffe even if your foot was in your mouth?
         • Luva 2.1.2.2.2

           5 November 2011 at 10:16 am

           Typical left wing arrogance. Purporting to speak on behalf of all
           • mickysavage 2.1.2.2.2.1

             5 November 2011 at 10:46 am

             Where?
     • thejackal 2.1.3

       5 November 2011 at 2:47 pm

       Lol I bet this pissed a few people off… they were probably all National voters anyway 🙂
   • happynz 2.2

     5 November 2011 at 10:26 am

     I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.

     Ms. Collins is late-fifties, early-sixties? I’d wager that Judith Collins is likely post-menopausal and therefore I reckon the comment to be accurate.

     🙂
     • Ianupnorth 2.2.1

       5 November 2011 at 3:24 pm

       And like most of the cabinet she was raised in Matamata – probably the most racist little shithole in NZ
   • felix 2.3

     5 November 2011 at 12:33 pm

     Oh for fuck’s sake all of you get a grip.

     If Cunliffe says what Pete says he did then that’s a horrible thing to say about anyone and he shouldn’t have gone there. Apparently he’s apologised so that’s something.

     These Nats are horrible in so many ways there’s no excuse for resorting to fat-hate or sexist bullshit or things to do with their families.

     We don’t need to waste time on this sort of crap so let’s acknowledge the slip and the apology, and lift our game and get on with it. We’ve got an election to win after all.
     • chris73 2.3.1

       5 November 2011 at 12:56 pm

       I reckon he apoligised because her husbands from Samoa and a former cop so hes worried he might get the bash

       But I agree, it was a pretty tasteless comment and hes apoligised so time to move on and focus on the rest of Labours joke campaign
   • pollywog 2.4

     5 November 2011 at 2:11 pm

     “I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.”

     So Pete would you take her out for a hoon ?

     How about throwing Basher Bennett in the back of the van for a quicky ? Nah ?…Steaming Hot Tolley more your cup of tea ?
     • Tiger Mountain 2.4.1

       5 November 2011 at 3:41 pm

       ooh you are awful…
   • The Pink Postman 2.5

     5 November 2011 at 3:48 pm

     remember the old saying the truth hurts. !
   • The Pink Postman 2.6

     6 November 2011 at 3:51 pm

     Well to tell the truth one look into those cold eyes would put even the most desparate man off. Only women left or not.
3. Hilary 3

   5 November 2011 at 8:32 am

   It seems like the bullies are cheering on the other bullies. Duncan Garner’s comments on 3 news last night a good example.
4. aerobubble 4

   5 November 2011 at 9:20 am

   The MSM coverage of the election is sickening.
   • thejackal 4.1

     5 November 2011 at 10:36 pm

     Perhaps we should start interventions to rescue some of the MSM reporters before it’s too late and they completely overdose on brand Key.
5. tc 5

   5 November 2011 at 9:33 am

   I try not to consume the bias crap that spills from granny and the MSM, it’s as predictable as the Nats abuse of process and telling of the porkys is.
   Focus on informing the swinging voters people, that’s the best return for the effort as CT in association with Joyce etc rigged that game long ago.
   Key wouldn’t last 6 months after tranzrail against the Oz media and they certainly would’ve seen the ACC BS for what it was at the time not like the compliant extensions of govt PR we have here.
   • aerobubble 5.1

     5 November 2011 at 9:39 am

     STV in Australia is an essential monopoly for neo-liberalism. They
     even fine people for not voting.
6. randal 6

   5 November 2011 at 9:39 am

   well garner and espiner get away with it because no one complains.
   they are slimy little turds yet the coronation st type fawning adulation just because they are on the teevee gives them power above their station.
   start writing to the papers, the teevee staion and the BSA and cut them down to size.
   • Anne 6.1

     5 November 2011 at 8:02 pm

     start writing to the papers, the teevee staion and the BSA and cut them down to size.

     The papers don’t print the letters.
     The teevee station pass it on to a bevy of lawyers who bury the authors’ letters in a plethora of legal mumbo jumbo.
     The BSA consists of a bunch of lily livered Tory sycophants who don’t have the guts to uphold anything that might undermine their political lords and masters.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 8:07 pm

       We need a left wing MSM
       • Jilly Bee 6.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 8:34 pm

         I’m mildly surprised that no-one has bothered to comment on Paul Holmes pathetic column in Granny Herald today – I’ve been thinking about it, but can’t get my brain into gear at present. Acshully if I’m really honest, I’m glad there hasn’t been a comment – because it’s really not worth commenting on. Now wait for Murphy’s Law to kick in!
     • seeker 6.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 8:38 pm

       Has any one written to the advertising council regarding nationals infrastructure election ad using Labour’s infrastucture as examples?

       http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-ad-claims-credit-for-labs-infrastructure/

       I rang them and the woman said do write of course which I hope to do,even tho’ Iagree with Anne about the frustration involved. I’m hoping even even one letter pointing out the fabrication and false advertising should be enough to get them to remove it. Saw the fraud last night and the false smarm and self righteousness of it makes me so furious.
7. vto 7

   5 November 2011 at 9:49 am

   A question for standardistas … Which of these is worse?

   1. Physical violence.
   2. Psychological violence.
   3. Verbal violence.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     5 November 2011 at 9:53 am

     I’d have to say that #3 is certainly the least bad, as it can only potentially lead to #2.

     There’s no way to separate #1 and #2 because both can leave you completely debilitated and unable to function.
     • vto 7.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 10:30 am

       hmmm, I tend to think that the psychological impact of a physical act is the worst. The physical will heal (in most cases).

       Just questioning because our society is one of the very few that has ever existed that does not allow for physical sanction to resolve conflict (except war of course). Most societies had duels or similar, or hard labour, floggings, etc. Also, the nats announcement re tougher penalties on protection orders brought it to mind again. Also, the state itself, while prohibiting the physical allows itself to conduct the physical (well, until about 1960 I think). And why does the state condemn the physical and not the psychological?

       I guess the physical has the most potential to cause heavy damage if out of control, although people subjected to a long period of the psychological are generally even more badly damaged and more difficult to heal.
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 11:03 am

         And why does the state condemn the physical and not the psychological?

         Probably because for a long time psychological damage wasn’t even recognised but that’s now changing. Look at new laws about workplace stress etc.
     • rosy 7.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 10:36 am

       “There’s no way to separate #1 and #2 because both can leave you completely debilitated and unable to function.”

       True, they’re interconnected, especially in long-term abuse such as domestic violence. But physical violence in something like domestic violence is experienced by innocent onlookers (children) as well as by the intended victim, whereas psychological violence might not be understood so well by kids. Physical violence can also lead to murder, so IMO for both these reasons, is worse. I guess the answer would depend on experience and circumstances. Verbal violence – awful and there is no excuse – but there are more options for the victim so to me is the lesser of the 3 evils.
   • millsy 7.2

     5 November 2011 at 10:17 am

     I think all 3 are equally bad. They just affect people in different ways.
     • KJT 7.2.1

       5 November 2011 at 11:22 am

       I agree one and two are equal..

       Simple verbal violence is not going to hurt unless it has a psychologically violent effect.

       Though depending on the level.

       Ostracism and other forms of psychological torture can blight entire lives.
       The same level of physical violence can be overcome.
       Punchups between boys at school are common and usually quickly forgotten.

       It is the psychological effect of violence and bullying which causes the ongoing hurt even if it is partly physical.

       I see many parents now, who discipline their kids with put downs and what could only be described as constant psychological abuse. I am going to get flamed here, but a smack on the bum would be a lot kinder.
       • vto 7.2.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 4:31 pm

         That is a real shame to hear kjt.
   • MrSmith 7.3

     5 November 2011 at 12:10 pm

     You are more likely to die from Physical violence than the other two. 

     The world is still ruled by violence and thats not about to change any time soon. 
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       5 November 2011 at 12:23 pm

       Not sure which is worse, death of the body, or death of the spirit (which then leads to premature disease and death of the body).
   • chris73 7.4

     5 November 2011 at 1:08 pm

     I guess it depends.

     Can you give an example?
     • vto 7.4.1

       5 November 2011 at 1:45 pm

       maybe … kids in the playground. They have some ongoing conflict. The ‘stronger’ one whacks the weaker on occasion but other than that they get on ok. Or… the ‘stronger’ one ostracises and abuses the other one on an ongoing basis resulting in the exclusion of the weaker.
       • chris73 7.4.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 2:40 pm

         Ok so would you rather be ostracised from a group, told you’re useless or smacked in the face?

         Assuming all of the above will happen on a regular basis.
         • vto 7.4.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 3:18 pm

           smacked in the face.

           but that’s just it. … it would be the ongoing psychological impact of the continuing smacks that would get to me (provided the physical damage was not damaging). ??
   • vto 7.5

     5 November 2011 at 1:43 pm

     Appreciate the opinions. Keep ’em coming.

     I guess what I was wondering was if the opinions would be similar to mine in that the psychological is at least as bad as the physical and that society needs to acknowledge that, through general daily living, legislation, media, etc etc. Currently there is an imbalance.
     • felix 7.5.1

       5 November 2011 at 2:24 pm

       What’s the practical difference between verbal and psychological violence as you see it?
       • vto 7.5.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 3:13 pm

         Well not much. In fact all three usually wallop at once. One nearly always has a component of one of the others. But verbal can be fleeting. The other tends to linger. Mr Bastard below makes a good point, and the point above about how it is slowly being acknowledged through, for example, workplace stress and bullying.

         One of the most cogent factors imo is the fact that a bruise will heal quicker than a putdown. A bruise is limited in effect. A mind / spirit attack has an effect that can be widespread for the victim though more difficult to spot, as Mr Bastard says.

         Side effects are usually discounted to a larger degree than is justifiable. I have just been holding the watering hose on our vege patch (and lying on the lounger) because unattended watering is a no-no in post-quake Chch with its limited water supplies. And a side effect of that is a sunburned tummy and a tiddly feeling due to beer necessities …
     • Draco T Bastard 7.5.2

       5 November 2011 at 3:03 pm

       that the psychological is at least as bad as the physical

       I actually think it’s far worse. People who have had their spirit broken don’t engage with the rest of society and tend not to do anything worthwhile with their lives due to self-doubt that has been implanted by that abuse.

       National policies about welfare, especially the bene bashing that they engage in, is the state engaging in psychological abuse.
   • Vicky32 7.6

     6 November 2011 at 4:15 pm

     Physical violence by a nose, but they are all bad. Many people commit number 3 and then praise themselves with that childhood chant about “sticks and stones”, which is bollices in fact!
     For example, Karen Carpenter became anorexic because of some verbal violence by a self-satisfied little man  “reviewing” a concert by the Carpenters.
8. Scotty 8

   5 November 2011 at 9:50 am

   Pete George.
   I see UFs’ latest fabricated concern is water quality.
   How does that gel with propping up the only Political party thats promoting further degradation of our common water resource.(assuming acts gone).
   Apparantly UF is also concerned about selling state assets.
   Crap, Peter Dunne could announce today that hes not backing National if they go ahead with asset sales,but he wont
   What UFs’ overiding concern is ,Peter Dunnes’ absolute need for an income after the 26th Nov.
   Put up or shut up.
   • Pete George 8.1

     5 November 2011 at 9:57 am

     United Future have much more chance of getting action on water quality than Greens. UF#2 Doug Stevens is a strong promoter of environmental and outdoor issues and water quality is a major one.

     Stevens is far more likely to be an infuential part of the next government than anyone from Greens. He has a good track record: http://yournz.org/2011/11/03/blogview-uf2-doug-stevens/
     • Scotty 8.1.1

       5 November 2011 at 10:22 am

       No NZ would have a much better chance of getting action on water quality if UF didn’t continue to support a Government that has protected polluters and reduced funding for water quality.
       • Pete George 8.1.1.1

         5 November 2011 at 10:31 am

         United Future top 5 policy priorities includes:
         * Establishing a robust National Environmental Standard for all freshwater waterways.

         If UF have a few MPs and are part of government (2 of the top 5 on the list have environment/outdoor policy priorities, 3 of the top 8, 4 of the top 10) as is likely, with the backing of Greens outside government, the UF voice is the best chance of getting something happening on this next term.
         • Scotty 8.1.1.1.1

           5 November 2011 at 11:12 am

           Cow crap Pete George, United Future and National have weakened environmental standards.
           Actions speak louder than a thousand words.
           Good bye Pete George
           Good bye United Future
         • felix 8.1.1.1.2

           5 November 2011 at 1:13 pm

           Nonsense Pete.

           A couple of weeks ago I asked you what Dunne and UF had ever done with regard to environmental legislation and all you could point to was a this note on their website: http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/balanced-pest-game-management/

           The 2005 Confidence and Supply Agreement between United Future and Labour included a provision that United Future would be involved in the development of a nationwide pest reduction strategy. As a result $200 000 was allocated in Budget 2007 for a consultation panel to be established to look at recreational and environmental issues surrounding deer, chamois, tahr and pigs. The panel is made up of environmental, recreational and scientific experts and intends to hold a public submission process before reporting back to Government in early 2008.

           No mention of anything coming of it, or even if it happened at all. Just vague promises to talk about things at some point. Blah blah. It’s even unclear whether this was a UF initiative at all.

           Also worth noting that this single pathetic environmental achievement wasn’t a result of UF working with the Nats, but with Labour.

           Where’s UF’s record of working with National to protect our environment, Pete?

           Nowhere, that’s where.
           • Pete George 8.1.1.1.2.1

             5 November 2011 at 1:25 pm

             One MP limits what you can influence. Next term that will change, with significant and determined outdoor/environmental voices being added to the mix.

             It has already been happening – http://yournz.org/2011/11/03/blogview-uf2-doug-stevens/ – but it’s not something the media are interested in, so if you don’t look for it you don’t find out.

             If UF even just get one more MP it will make a big difference to how much that can be achieved. If we get five it will impact a lot on environmental influence, especially if UF end up holding balance of power. And if we get 8 we will rock 🙂

             While Peter Dunne is an essential part of UF there’s much more to the party, it’s rebuilding with some very determined outdoor interests involved. Very different to the current term.
             • felix …

               5 November 2011 at 1:42 pm

               Pete, UF has had several MPs in parliament in previous terms.

               They’ve also had the influence of the outdoor recreation lobby in previous terms.

               If either of those factors were relevant to UF’s record on environmental legislation, you’d be able to provide us with some examples of the achievements.

               But you can’t, because there haven’t been any.

               And now that UF is wedded to the Nats whose only consideration of our environment is how many cows they can pack into it, you expect us to believe they’re about to turn the corner and become green champions?

               Pull the other one Pete, it’s full of mastitis. UF has had plenty of time in govt to advance any environmental agenda they might have and they’ve utterly failed to do so.
               • Pete George …

                 5 November 2011 at 1:49 pm

                 No, you’re wrong, UF haven’t had anywhere near the outdoor influence as high in the party that they have now. It’s a significant change.
                 • felix …

                   5 November 2011 at 2:23 pm

                   How many years has Peter Dunne been an MP now Pete?
                   • Pete George …

                     5 November 2011 at 3:13 pm

                     Not as long as Phil Goff, who’s saying he would do things he hasn’t already done. I presume then you don’t believe he’d do anything different either.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 November 2011 at 5:44 pm

                     Phil Goff was there when NZ went nuclear free. It seems to me that Goff is well ahead of Dunne on actual environmental achievements.
         • mik e 8.1.1.1.3

           5 November 2011 at 1:16 pm

           PG you should advocate for anne tolley to set and enforce them then seen as you can do so much sucking up to any one maybe you guys could suck all the pollution out of the rivers and streams . but as per usual the only one to benefit will be mr sensible he will get a ministerial appointment for being a good we boy and not rocking the boat so he can drive round in a bmw and get a ministerial pay!
     • mik e 8.1.2

       5 November 2011 at 1:10 pm

       PG how come under your watch i.e. 1 man band the rivers have deteriorated markedly
       • Pete George 8.1.2.1

         5 November 2011 at 1:36 pm

         Can you show evidence of that?

         Have cows only started shitting in the last three years?
9. uke 9

   5 November 2011 at 9:52 am

   Interesting interview on RNZ this morning with economist Ravi Batra. Didn’t agree with everything he said (e.g, the virtues of increased production), but his explanation about our current economic woes arising from a disparity between supply (productivity) and demand (wages) made a lot of sense to me, as a non-expert in such matters.
   • Carol 9.1

     5 November 2011 at 6:05 pm

     Thanks for the tip. Listening to it. Interesting. But I’m not sure about his faith in economic democracy coming soon, as spear-headed by the occupy movement. Over-optimistic?

     Ravi Batra:

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20111105
10. Adele 10

    5 November 2011 at 9:52 am

    4. Cultural Violence
    • vto 10.1

      5 November 2011 at 10:33 am

      Perhaps Adele, in the wider sense. Anyone with maori, scot, jewish, muslim, irish, waitaha … (add as appropriate) ancestry could relate to that.
11. Wayne91 11

    5 November 2011 at 10:07 am

    Actually I find Henry and Cunliffe’s comments trivial compared to Campbell Larsons nasty vindictive wishing the Mad Butcher “would hurry up and die”
    • Campbell Larsen 11.1

      5 November 2011 at 10:27 am

      Careful Wayne91, I’m just itching to use my voodoo again, and you seem like a a deserving recipient.
12. Neil 12

    5 November 2011 at 10:09 am

    Ute talks about Ravi Batra’s views on the current financial crisis.
    Batra wrote a book on the coming 1997 crisis which never arrived, actually we had the .com boom.
    Be wary of these economists, many are pushing a book. Harry Dent is another US economist who has his views pushing a new book.
13. Wayne91 13

    5 November 2011 at 10:51 am

    Woooo Campbell Larson Im terrified of some faceless coward who makes nasty comments and threatens people form behind thier keyboard
    • Campbell Larsen 13.1

      5 November 2011 at 10:57 am

      Lolz – I warned you buddy, getting out the pins now…
14. newsense 14

    5 November 2011 at 11:18 am

    From Fran O’Sullivan, who past shilling apart, is disturbingly saying the things I’m thinking over and over again:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10763961
    “Last Saturday, Goff chalked up the plaudits for Labour having “the balls” to go where Key does not dare by raising the age of entitlement for superannuation. It didn’t seem to matter to Labour that its proposal would not be implemented until most of the baby boomers are in their 80s thus rendering it completely useless.”

    Labour’s policy is still intergenerational theft. The baby boomers will in the majority be the beneficiaries of the recent tax cuts, they’ve benefited from the welfare state as they grew up and then dismantled, had their houses paid off by inflation, had their education for free and now those 44 and younger are going to be paying the cost for their retirement and health care cost.

    This fucks me right off. And National are worse.

    Oh and while I’m here- Kiwisaver isn’t government guaranteed making it an incredibly scary way to save for your retirement. Especially if it becomes compulsory.

    As you were.
    • RedLogix 14.1

      5 November 2011 at 12:52 pm

      While Fran O’Sullivan is technically correct; she’s overlooking the simply reality that you cannot implement this sort of policy overnight… it has to be phased in over a period of time… and as a nation we’ve left it too late.

      The reason why we left it too late is because for the last 30 odd years anyone who looked like doing something about the problem got bashed by the likes of Fran O’Sullivan.
      • Pete George 14.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 1:18 pm

        I agree, but unfortunately that’s symptomatic of our politics – bash first, and don’t care about the consequences later. Politicians, media, online media and the public all share the blame.

        A priority next term, no matter what configuration of government, should be to discuss, debate, and decide the future of national super and everything related to it. One of my biggest criticisms of Key is his intransigence on this. If he remains Prime Minister he won’t deal with it of his own accord, so it needs to be forced on him.
        • mikesh 14.1.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 2:42 pm

          If Labour get back in some of those baby boomers, who find themselves having to work two extra years, will be cursing Jim Bolger for scrapping the the surcharge.
          • Carol 14.1.1.1.1

            5 November 2011 at 6:12 pm

            Actually, I think most boomers I know would have been OK with the super age having been raised to 67yrs earlier so that they would have had to work 2 extra years.

            We boomers started working believing we would retire at 60 years. The super age was raised to 65 years in the mid 90s. All the boomers I know accepted this as being necessary and don’t complain about it.

            The problem is that politicians should have got onto this earlier so that the age was raised to 67 yrs before most boomers retired.
            • Descendant Of Smith 14.1.1.1.1.1

              5 November 2011 at 8:08 pm

              “We boomers started working believing we would retire at 60 years.”

              Hmm yes and no.

              Baby boomers were aged between 11 and 29 in 1975 when Muldoon lowered the age so quite a chunk ( more than 50%) started their working life when it was still 65 and therefore voted for this change along with the earlier older generation.

              As important as the age change was Muldoon’s move from contribution based to universal. It is also worth noting that in 1959 a national government also removed asset (property) testing.

              I have always found it somewhat odd that National doesn’t see these types of changes as increasing the welfare state and continually bleat about Labour increasing the welfare state.

              The recent changes to gifting will also make it easier for people to hide their assets and declare no income so doubt more well off will now get their underage partners included and further increase the demand on the state.

              National’s dishonesty in having a go at sole parents (originally partially existing as a deserted wives benefit) and the unemployed while somehow elevating the super population to some sacrosanct sacred cow is both economically and intellectually dishonest.
      • newsense 14.1.2

        5 November 2011 at 5:19 pm

        so can we at least reverse the tax cuts then?

        and get started with the phasing in the age change sooner?

        I just feel like the baby boomers are the reason a we are doing this and they aren’t having to chip in at all. Felt like that for a while.

        @mikesh if it only applies to those currently 44 and under that ISN’T the baby boom
15. thejackal 15

    5 November 2011 at 11:26 am

    The Worm Turns

    The worm in fact refers to a little squiggly line that walks across peoples TV and is meant to register the publics votes about the broadcast.
    • Bill 15.1

      5 November 2011 at 1:29 pm

      Bloody nice that, innit? The ‘worm’ twists peoples’ perceptions. TV debates don’t use it any more. (Thankfully)

      But John Key wants (needs?) a ‘worm’ component added to debates. His government gives TV3 (how many$$?) and – hey presto! – TV3 supplies and advertises an i phone app that is essentially a worm (but even more bias) and whose activities can be broadcast during debates.
      • idlegus 15.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 3:27 pm

        tv3 tested the worm on tv last night, just showed a random set of clips & we got to watch it go up & down, clips of key, goff, graham henry, basketball, kardashians etc…& it didnt wiggle much, complete waste of time of course, but when it finished the presenter straightaway said “oh you all liked john key didnt you?”, which was bizarre coz the worm didnt even move that mich wither way for anything! i guess he had it written on the teleprompt already, & so it goes.
        • vto 15.1.1.1

          5 November 2011 at 3:32 pm

          Didn’t John Key’s government bailout TV3 and lend them about $35 million dollars?

          Of course they would have to say that – TV3 is compromised.
          • thejackal 15.1.1.1.1

            6 November 2011 at 4:17 am

            $43 million to Mediaworks.
16. thejackal 16

    5 November 2011 at 11:30 am

    Political Speed Dating

    Not just another candidate’s debate. Members of unions and community organisations will be speaking about their experiences and asking candidates to respond to their questions on:

    WELFARE, INEQUALITY AND A LIVING WAGE — PUBLIC SERVICES, HEALTH AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION — DISABLED PEOPLE’S ISSUES — CARING WORK — ACC and more.
17. ianmac 17

    5 November 2011 at 1:42 pm

    A bit late for the discussion on David Cunliffes bad remark but…
    The question that he was asked by Henry was “who he would make children with if other passengers on a plane he was on or other Parliamentarians were the only people left on the planet.”
    In that context he answered and while I would steer very far from Miss Collins persona David has apologised for something that is in the modern idiom. (Will you go out with me? No! Not even if you were the last person on the planet!)
    A dumb response just the same in an election.
    • vto 17.1

      5 November 2011 at 4:27 pm

      ffs, that question says everything about the wanker Henry.

      And Cunliffe’s lack of judgement in even going there.
    • Dv 17.2

      5 November 2011 at 6:44 pm

      Was this a set up by Henry?
18. thejackal 18

    5 November 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Move Your Money

    Today the Occupy movement has reminded us that it’s Move Your Money day, which targets banks where it hurts…
19. The Pink Postman 19

    5 November 2011 at 3:59 pm

    I see the Herald is at it again in todays issue. Is this once good paper now completly owned by the political Right and National. I just hope that Labour members will not forget the way the Herald has treated them .I hope they take my example and cancel their subscripton .
20. Tigger 20

    5 November 2011 at 4:14 pm

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5914711/Do-you-forgive-me-John-Key

    Fuck you, MSM, this is not important! Hang your heads in shame as your business model erodes beneath you.
    • Carol 20.1

      5 November 2011 at 6:26 pm

      Actually when that article first appeared, and when I first saw it on Stuff, it’s headline was scammed by John Key

      The headlines show up in a google search, but the article has been changed;

      http://www.google.co.nz/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=Key+scammed+me+at+tennis+&pbx=1&oq=Key+scammed+me+at+tennis+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=209131l209131l2l209585l1l1l0l0l0l0l344l344l3-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=baf810a18c8a65f5&biw=1152&bih=678

      The man who whacked John Key
      ‎
      New Zealand Herald – Jarrod Booker – 12 hours ago
      I’ll never forgive him for scamming me at padder tennis. I got done over by him.” Mr Key mentioned his run-in with Mr Buzzard when he and Labour leader Phil …

      Key scammed me at tennis
      ‎
      The Press West Coast – 6 hours ago
      The man who punched the Prime Minister while at intermediate school says he still hasn’t forgiven John Key for “scamming him” at a game of padder tennis. …

      NZH version:
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10763998

      A man who punched John Key in a schoolyard spat almost 40 years ago says he was "done over" by the Prime Minister in a game of padder tennis.

      Mr Key yesterday outed Greg Buzzard in a light-hearted interview for hitting him at Christchurch's Cobham Intermediate and said he still hadn't forgiven him.

      Mr Buzzard said he didn't remember throwing a punch, but still recalls a dodgy umpiring decision by Mr Key which cost him his place on the court.

      […]Mr Buzzard, a competitive table tennis player, recalls the future prime minister making the wrong call against him when Mr Key was next in line to take the court.

      “He definitely called it out when it wasn’t. I’ll never forgive him for scamming me at padder tennis. I got done over by him.”
      • thejackal 20.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 10:44 pm

        Cancelled my subscription.
21. Jasper 21

    5 November 2011 at 4:14 pm

    130 years ago today race relations in NZ took a backward step

    130 years ago today, people were choosing to live a life that was different to that introduced by the settlers.

    130 years ago today, the nation should remember what happened, and hang it’s head in shame,.

    Remember Parihaka.
    Remember wanton bloodshed and rape.
    Remember that the government condoned it then.
    And still condone it now.

    Where’s the apology? Where’s the remembrance?

    Oh, there is none. And very little in the media about it too.
    • Descendant Of Smith 21.1

      5 November 2011 at 8:19 pm

      Made this comment last year. I was back at NPBHS earlier in this year and still nothing has changed.

      “I sure learned more about New Zealand history after leaving school than I did at it.

      Part of what got me interested more deeply was going to NPBHS school centenary. Albert Wendt was an old boy and had been asked to write an article for the centennial magazine. He had previously been asked to do this for the 75th Jubilee and had written an article then about how he had to leave school to learn about Parihaka and how could this be when it was such an important part of NZ history – and so close to the school to boot.

      Twenty five years later nothing had changed and so he simply asked for the article to be repeated.

      A couple of years ago I met a teacher from the school and asked whether this was yet being taught, whether the school ever made the effort to visit Parihaka. Sadly Albert Wendt would have to repeat the article yet again.”
22. newsense 22

    5 November 2011 at 5:26 pm

    John Roughan saying Goff has no class.

    Nixon should have got up and said “I’m not a crook. I just live in a dinamic environment”

    I remember Terry Pratchett saying that the rich are never crazy, just eccentric.

    John Roughan is right in a sense: Goff has no respect of class. If Key told a lie, he isn’t dinimac, he’s a liar.
23. The Chairman 23

    5 November 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Iceland’s Unorthodox Policies Suggest Alternative Way Out of Crisis – IMF Survey online

    Decision not to make taxpayers liable for bank losses was right, economists say.

    Iceland set an example by managing to preserve, and even strengthen, its welfare state during the crisis.

    Recent IMF research has shown that countries tend to grow faster and more consistently when income distribution is more equitable.

    Capital controls were necessary and are now seen as useful addition to policy toolkit.

    There are clear advantages to having a heterodox toolkit – more tools are better than fewer.

    More here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2011/CAR110311A.htm
    • RedLogix 23.1

      5 November 2011 at 9:06 pm

      That IMF link is fascinating. Remarkable because of who is saying it.

      Quietly it amounts to a complete repudiation of the entire neo-liberal madness.
      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1

        5 November 2011 at 9:18 pm

        Don’t get too excited. The IMF is still acting to help the top 0.1% exploit the physical resources and assets of the 99.9% at very cheap rates.

        Also watch this from 12 mins (Keiser Report ep 205; interview with Icelandic MP

        Lesson: don’t believe the PR of the new “cuddly” IMF.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlzgtbEY-Vc
      • Draco T Bastard 23.1.2

        6 November 2011 at 2:58 am

        Reads to me as if the IMF is still trying to keep the neo-liberal line while saying that there’s lessons to be learned. In other words, they’ll keep doing what they’ve always done while saying that they’ll consider other options.
24. joe90 24

    5 November 2011 at 6:37 pm

    Cryptome: Women Protest Worldwide Photos 4.
25. Colonial Viper 25

    5 November 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Paul Henry rewarded with position on Australian Breakfast TV

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10764120

    Hahaha seriously.
26. Dave Kennedy 26

    6 November 2011 at 12:48 am

    It’s easy to be Green right now!
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-not-so-hard-being-green.html
27. randal 27

    6 November 2011 at 3:22 pm

    Anne, you are right. the papers are the problem.
    the easiset way to get at the manques is to name them on a blog.
    eventually the search engines pick it up and hopefully it goes viral.
    It is amazing how naive kiwis are and how they let little arsewipes like garner and espiner tell them what to think.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS