Open mike 09/06/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 9th, 2013 - 228 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

228 comments on “Open mike 09/06/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. CrosbyTextor 1
    9 June 2013 at 6:35 am

    -*-*-*-*- CONFIDENTIAL MEMO -*-*-*-*-

    TO: Kevin Taylor, Andrea Vance

    CC: Greg Hywood, Allen Williams

    FROM: HQ

    RE: Congratulations!!

    Well done on stitching up Dunne. Yes, okay, we admit it now, we were skeptical but, really, who’d’ve thought the ole honey-pot ruse would still lure in a long-time, sly as politician? First job for the pair of you when you’ve knocked back the case of champers arriving this morning by courier is to identify other targets for similar ops. What about Mallard?

    In terms of mopping up with Dunne, the only sticky point with him is that he knows he didn’t leak so he has to be kept silenced. It seems fairly certain that Carter giving his party extra time to get its paperwork sorted will help but, perhaps, just let him know we have the emails. Maybe dribble out another tidbit or two for Whaleoil early next week to remind him?

    The other sticky point is that Key cannot find out his own office was responsible. It certainly suited him at the time after he nearly had us going to war against North Korea, and it took the pressure off any further investigation into the Fletcher / Hollywood / GCSB connections. Looks like we wangled that okay, but the PM’s been getting a little reluctant to keep up the facade lately. The doofus seems to be somewhat distracted by the idea of leaving a legacy or some such bullshit. So, whatever you do, you also stay schtum. Until you know when.

    Otherwise, carry on.

    Kindest regards

    Lynton and Mark.

    • Pasupial 1.1
      9 June 2013 at 7:27 am

      Nice.

      I would have added something about Vance coordinating her operations with Lusk under the guise of her recent puff-piece profile. And even before this debacle, calling Dunne “sly as” seems overly generous – sure he’s been a survivor up till now, but so are; cockroaches, and; Peters.

      • karol 1.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 7:50 am

        I didn’t realise Andrea Vance once worked for that scandal-mongering rag, The News of the World, in the Scottish office.

        None of these were illegal and in my time there I never saw, heard of or would have guessed anyone was hacking into voicemails. Those things certainly wouldn’t be condoned, or allowed, by my present employer.

        A very different media culture exists in Britain…

        I’ve signed kiss-and-tell deals in an interviewee’s home while rivals were leaning on the doorbell, trying to up the bid, yelling numbers. Sources were babysat at secret locations for days – sometimes weeks – on end. More hours than I’d care to count were spent sitting in cars outside houses in case another hack came to knock on the door.

        Bewildered ordinary people thrust into the news were hounded into telling their stories with exaggerated tales of what might happen if they didn’t “set the record straight”. …

        In New Zealand, the market isn’t so saturated. Tabloids don’t thrive because, in a sparsely populated country, the danger is you’re spilling the secrets of someone whose path you’re likely to cross.

        Kiwis also aren’t inspired by the same level of “outrage” that seems to motivate the British and drive their media….

        With freedom comes responsibility and a high standard of ethics – the media cannot hold people to account if there is no accountability within the industry.

        The News of the World built up a formidable reputation in its 168 years for aggressively pursuing the truth, shining a light on hypocrisy and championing the downtrodden and the victims of injustice. Some of the proudest moments during my time at the paper were giving a voice to someone who was powerless against or exploited by authority.

        That crusading journalistic spirit was the backbone of the News of the World – I hope it isn’t the greatest casualty of all.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      9 June 2013 at 8:45 am

      Good call Lynton and Mark. I agree when you put Key demanding Dunne’s resignation together with Carter’ offering Dunne a lifeline things look really shonky. Both events need to be looked at simultaneously. I have blogged about it at http://waitakerenews.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/the-decline-of-dunne-and-rise-of-peters.html

      • veutoviper 1.2.1
        9 June 2013 at 9:23 am

        MS, I have not yet read your blog, but totally agree that both Key demanding Dunne’s resignation and Carter’s ‘lifeline’ have to be looked at simultaneously.

        It occurred to me in the middle of the night that in terms of Carter’s decision which seemed uncomprehensible at the time, this could possibly be viewed as an attempt to maintain the status quo in respect of UF’s Confidence and Supply agreement.

        That is, if UF’s deregistration was deemed to result in Dunne becoming an Independent MP, the C and S agreement could be null and void thereby allowing Dunne complete freedom in terms of his voting if he was no longer a Minister – particularly as we now know that the night before Carter’s ruling, Key had delivered his ultimatum to Dunne. National need his votes on a number of important pieces of legislation in the next few weeks – including the GCSB Bill when it is reported back from Select Committee in late July. Hence the 8 week grace period?

        Carter’s refusal to release the advice he had received to the House, or say who provided the advice, also suggests that the advice may have not come from an independent adviser, for example the Clerk of the House – but possibly from Carter’s National colleagues/masters. Thin ice, I know, but this week could be very interesting.

        On the subject of Dunne’s leaking, Winston Peters is now claiming that Dunne has leaked to Vance on several other occasions recently
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10889276

    • Maui 1.3
      9 June 2013 at 8:56 am

      Lynton Crosby under pressure to reveal clients of lobbying firm

      New details emerge of how Tory strategy guru combines role as political adviser with that of commercial lobbyist

      David Cameron is under pressure to force his chief election strategist, Lynton Crosby, to reveal the identity of his business clients as new details emerge of the way the Australian combines roles as the Tories’ top political adviser with that of a commercial lobbyist. Crosby’s position as the Conservatives’ election guru – at the same time as heading his own communications, polling and lobbying firm, Crosby Textor, whose client list is not made public – is causing growing unease inside the party and the coalition, as ministers prepare to introduce sweeping new transparency rules on the role of lobbyists in public life.

      Labour and Tory MPs, backed by pressure groups, insisted that Crosby – who is due to address Conservatives in the House of Commons on party strategy – should have to reveal his clients under the planned clean-up of lobbying rules triggered by recent scandals.

      Since the Australian was appointed by the prime minister last November to mastermind Tory tactics, having run Boris Johnson’s successful campaign for re-election as London mayor last year, the government has abruptly dropped policies on minimum pricing for alcohol and cigarette packaging. It had also put on ice plans for a register of lobbyists. While Cameron insists Crosby does not advise him on policy but only on political strategy, critics have raised questions about the impression of potential conflicts of interest. Crosby Textor has represented tobacco and alcohol firms and was involved with British American Tobacco when the company was opposing new rules on packaging in Australia.

      .. snip ..

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/08/lynton-crosby-tory-strategy-lobbying-firm

    • ianmac 1.4
      9 June 2013 at 9:45 am

      Crosby me old mate. Many a true word….

    • QoT 1.5
      9 June 2013 at 11:52 am

      the ole honey-pot ruse

      Really? 🙄

    • gobsmacked 1.6
      9 June 2013 at 12:54 pm

      All this “Crosby/Textor” stuff is very entertaining, but it ignores the obvious question – Did Labour have to fall for it? Because clearly they did …

      http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/9/7/a/50HansQ_20130529_00000001-1-Prime-Minister-Statements.htm

      Either the Dunne story DOES matter (in which case talk of Crosby/Textor “distraction” is codswallop) or it doesn’t matter, in which case David Shearer is a fool who got played. Which?

    • irascible 1.7
      9 June 2013 at 6:52 pm

      Now to sort out the political embarrasment that Crosby-Textor’s involvement with Boris Johnson & David Cameron is creating in the UK.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/08/lynton-crosby-tory-strategy-lobbying-firm

  2. Strategos 2
    9 June 2013 at 6:45 am

    Words fail me .. Russel probably did the right thing in coming over here.

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/exlabor-pollster-tips-epic-disaster-20130605-2nqlb.html

  3. Ugly Truth 3
    9 June 2013 at 7:05 am

    http://theweek.com/article/index/245317/what-we-know-about-prism-the-nsas-data-goldmine

    We now know a lot more about PRISM, the top secret National Security Agency program that apparently allows the U.S. government to mine all sorts of electronic communications, than we did Thursday morning. For one (big) thing, we know it exists, thanks to simultaneous reports in The Washington Post and Britain’s The Guardian.

    But there’s plenty we don’t know, because the program, after all, is a classified secret. The disclosure of the PRISM program, launched in 2007, was accompanied by the leak of a training PowerPoint presentation, The Washington Post says, by a “career intelligence officer” who has had first-hand experience with PRISM. The officer wanted “to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy.” You can read some of the PowerPoint slides, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s response to the leak.

    • Muzza 3.1
      9 June 2013 at 8:24 am

      That people could be surprised this is going on, given its been “out there” for years now, is telling!

      The obligatory criminal investigation of the leak, will be well underway, the fasc*st owners of these systems built and designed these enterprises , for exactly what Prism is going. Digital finance, banking , trading et al. Nowhere to hide, almost total mapping of your daily life!

  5. Lanthanide 5
    9 June 2013 at 7:53 am

    Re-post from my post in the iPredict forum. Projection based on the latest predictions on party vote and electoral seat winnings stocks per party on iPredict. In response to someone asking if there was manipulation with the National PM after next election having some suspiciously large purchases apparently trying to keep the percentage up over 50%, despite there being no good news recently that should make anyone trade at that level.

    In fact, I was interested what the other stocks for the election show, the % party vote stocks which are less fun to manipulate as they’re less of a headline grabber, and in any event don’t pay out as well (alternatively, you don’t lose money if you’re wrong).

    Unfortunately the current %s listed for the stocks don’t actually add up to 100%, they go slightly over, so I had to massage a few parties down, mainly the minor that don’t meet the 5% threshold anyway. Then I took the electorate vote stocks as well, which are important for the minor ‘parties’ such as John Banks and Peter Dunne, and also for the Maori Party. Those stocks currently have Mana winning 1, Maori Party winning 2 (down 1) and Banks and Dunne failing to win their seats back. I gave the MP seat to Labour since Mana is only projected to win 1 and not 2, and the Ohariu and Epsom seats to National, based on the party votes in those seats at the last election – in Ohariu Charles Chauvel has left politics so it’s an open question who Labour will stand there.

    Anyway, with all of that, these are the results I get when plugging into the MMP election calculator:
    http://www.elections.org.nz

    Party Party Votes Electorate List Total MPs % of MPs
    Green Party 11.00% 0 14 14 11.57%
    Labour Party 35.00% 23 21 44 36.36%
    Mana 0.80% 1 0 1 0.83%
    Māori Party 1.00% 2 0 2* 1.65%
    National Party 41.60% 44 9 53 43.80%
    NZ First Party 5.30% 0 7 7 5.79%
    Totals 94.70% 70 51 121 100.00%

    I’ve cut out some of the columns from the results on the site.

    This result would give 61 seats to Labour + Greens + Mana + Maori Party, vs 60 to National and NZFirst, or even Labour + Greens + NZFirst (abstaining?) for 65 vs National on 53 without even counting Mana or Maori P.

    This strongly suggests that National’s only chance at government after 2014 would be to go into Coalition with NZFirst. The stock for NZFirst to support National in a balance-of-power situation is currently trading at 34% (up 7%), which IMO is a much more accurate representation of National’s chance of winning, rather than ~50% of the headlining stock.

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      9 June 2013 at 8:02 am

      Lynn, can you fix this table up? I’ve done my best with non-breaking spaces but it still looks like ass.

      Even better, can you fix the code tags up so that they actually preserve spaces and tabs? That would solve all the problems.

      • lprent 5.1.1
        10 June 2013 at 5:38 pm

        Basic fix. I’m holding off pushing in the next set of updates until wordpress 3.6 finally and belatedly releases. The last two betas have been a bit disconcerting in the test system.

    • Te Reo Putake 5.2
      9 June 2013 at 9:25 am

      Nice work, Lanth, though shame about the layout problems. I’ve done the same exercise in the past and also been unable to edit it to look good.

      But, the important thing is the numbers, and as you say, NZ First is National’s only hope now. It’ll be intersting to see how much pressure is put on Winston to identify his preferred coalition partner pre-election. If it’s generally thought that he will go with the Nats, then that could affect the results of both parties. NZF voters who want National gone may not vote for Winston and National voters desperate to give Key a coalition option may choose to party vote NZF, dragging down the Nat’s overall vote.

      it also presents problems for Labour, who may have to distance themselves from Winston to avoid giving him credibility, thereby risking pushing him to the right. All in all, I think a simple Labour/Green coalition will be attractive to voters who want a change and that’s what I think we’ll end up with.

      • Lanthanide 5.2.1
        9 June 2013 at 10:05 am

        Yeah, my boyfriend pointed out that Labour’s approach here should be to try and reduce the NZFirst vote as much as possible. That would ensure that Winston would go with National, though.

        I tweaked the numbers so that NZFirst got 4.9% of the vote, in that situation National-no-friends get 56 seats, vs Labour/Greens having 62 in a 121 seat parliament, so they wouldn’t even need Mana or MaoriP.

        • kiwicommie 5.2.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 10:55 am

          I think NZ First does a good enough job of losing votes on its own, it might be tolerable in most things, but on immigration and a lot of social issues it is far too socially conservative. It’s stance on gay marriage was pretty weird, then it isn’t new for a party Winston is in to vote down any kind of positive social reform.

          • logie97 5.2.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 11:17 am

            Key is on record somewhere stating that he could not work with Winston Peters. That statement needs to be unearthed and the public reminded of it. Would love to hear Honest John explaining his way around that one should he start courting Peters.

            • Clockie 5.2.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 11:23 am

              The short answer is, Realpolitik. Whenever a politician talks about principles, you can expect them in the next breath to explain why they can’t put those principles into practice.

            • Populuxe1 5.2.1.1.1.2
              9 June 2013 at 7:24 pm

              Unless Key suddenly does a massive u-turn on asset sales, it ain’t going to happen

            • Puddleglum 5.2.1.1.1.3
              9 June 2013 at 10:11 pm

              Hi logie97,

              I think this is the link you are looking for.

              From the link:

              “National Party leader John Key has ruled out Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters having a role in any future National coalition, unless he can provide an explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.

              Mr Key said this afternoon he would not accept Mr Peters holding a position in a future National Cabinet unless he could provide a “credible explanation” following evidence put before Parliament’s Privileges Committee by Mr Glenn, which “appears inconsistent” with Mr Peters’ earlier evidence.“

          • Populuxe1 5.2.1.1.2
            9 June 2013 at 7:22 pm

            There was nothing weird about NZF’s stance on marriage equalisation (please don’t call it “gay marriage”, we don’t live in gay houses, pay gay taxes or work gay jobs) – as a small party with a diverse voter base NZF makes divisive social issues a matter of direct democracy (compare it with their support for a referndum on cannabis – not exactly what you’d call socially conservative). I rather thought you might be keen on direct democracy. It had no stance either way. The vote against was a matter of political principle because the party wanted a referendum – which is exactly the same as the Greens voting against Labour’s proposed same sex adoption act reforms because they don’t go far enough.

            As for being conservative on immigration, while I don’t like the excessive focus on the Chinese, they really aren’t all that different from Greens policy regarding assimilation, preserving a national identity, economic sovereignty, and protecting the status of the tangata whenua.

    • Maui 5.3
      9 June 2013 at 9:43 am

      Re. “This result would give 61 seats to Labour + Greens + Mana + Maori Party”

      Can you really see Mana and ‘Maori’ parties working together in the same coalition ?

      It certainly puts Winston in the drivers seat .. which he is doubtless well aware.

      • Lanthanide 5.3.1
        9 June 2013 at 10:03 am

        “Can you really see Mana and ‘Maori’ parties working together in the same coalition ?”

        Yes. Maori Party almost always votes against National’s policies, despite giving them confidence and supply. Pita has made it quite clear that he thinks it’s “important to be at the table” to be involved in making decisions; in other words he doesn’t actually have any principles and doesn’t care that he’s propping up a government that by and large are acting against his natural constituents’ best interests.

        • BM 5.3.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 10:59 am

          Do you not think that there are Maori capitalists?.

          The Maori party has evolved into the Maori wing of the National party representing those Maori on the center right, that’s were they’re now naturally suited and where they can make the most impact.

          Why would they want to fight for the scraps between themselves and Mana.
          As it is, the Maori faction in Labour will control everything, if Mana or the Maori party is lucky they may get tossed a bone when ever they’re needed.
          Who the hell would want to be part of that setup.

          • Lanthanide 5.3.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 11:28 am

            Maori Party acting as a 3rd or 4th wheel has more in common with Labour/Greens than it does National. Since Sharples thinks it’s “important to be at the table”, he’ll go into government with either, but obviously with the one that better reflects their values. Their voting record shows that is Labour, not National.

          • Populuxe1 5.3.1.1.2
            9 June 2013 at 2:32 pm

            Arguably every iwi functions as a corporation with shareholding based on genealogy

    • Alanz 5.4
      9 June 2013 at 9:48 am

      ?Shearer to Charles:

      “Come back please!
      “Can we swap?
      “I’ll go back to the UN, you return to Labour.
      “And if-I-were-Prime-Minister Grant will step up and campaign for 2014.”

      • Tigger 5.4.1
        9 June 2013 at 1:05 pm

        Actually a new face in Ohariu doesn’t hurt Labour at all. I wouldn’t wish Carles to return. His leaving speech was perfect and he needed to get out.

      • Hami Shearlie 5.4.2
        9 June 2013 at 4:47 pm

        Grant Robertson as Prime Minister?? – Really?? From what I’ve read and been told, he’s not really that popular outside Parliament. Hardly ever seen in his electorate office even though it’s just over the road from Parliament, so I hear. Labour came THIRD in the party vote in his electorate BEHIND the Greens if I remember correctly. Unlike David Cunliffe who increased his majority in what would normally be a National Seat since the boundary changes. Cunliffe as Prime Minister is believable, Robertson, not believable at all!

        • Ed 5.4.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 11:29 pm

          His electorate office is not opposite parliament – so perhaps you have been looking in the wrong place. He is however often in his electorate office in Willis St. Remember that Wellington Central was a National seat not that many years ago, and also elected Richard Prebble even more recently.

          I believe Labour did not do enough to promote the party vote at the last election; I know a lot of people voted Robertson for the electorate vote and other parties for the party vote – including some for National!

        • Maui 5.4.2.2
          10 June 2013 at 6:18 am

          I really don’t much care which personality it is as long as they have integrity, ideas, take people with them, and are effective.

    • Morrissey 5.5
      9 June 2013 at 10:17 am

      Party–Party Votes %–Electorate–List–Total no. MPs–% of MPs

      Green—11.00—-0–14–14–11.57
      Labour–35.00–23–21–44–36.36
      Mana—–0.80—-1—0—-1—0.83
      Māori—–1.00—-2—0—2*–1.65
      National-41.60—44–9—53–43.80
      NZFist—-5.30—-0—7—-7—5.79

      Total—–94.70—70–51–121–100.00

    • ghostrider888 5.6
      9 June 2013 at 10:20 am

      Thanks for the predictions Lanth.

    • Colonial Viper 5.7
      9 June 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Outstanding bit of analysis there, Lanth.

  6. North 6
    9 June 2013 at 8:46 am

    Rodney Hide doing his inglorious little ad hominum bit on Russel Norman:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10889269

    Thanks anyway Love Perks, for demonstrating just how much you boys and girls are crapping your pants.

    A sad time for you I know – Max Merritt and The Meteors say it best – “Slippin’ Away-Ay-Ay…….”

    http://www.lyricsondemand.com/m/maxmerrittthemeteorslyrics/slippingawaylyrics.html

  7. Tim 7
    9 June 2013 at 9:36 am

    I can’t let this go past:
    An observation. I’m watching Q+A with the sound turned off (Mediawatch is a better option).
    Simon Bridges is being interviewd.
    Try it net time you see the guy on TV. Observe the anger and attitude in that guy! One little pumped up despot in the making

    • veutoviper 7.1
      9 June 2013 at 9:42 am

      That is exactly how Bridges comes across to me when he answers questions in Parliament!

    • freedom 7.2
      9 June 2013 at 9:44 am

      ” One little pumped up despot in the making”
      who John Key stated a few weeks back was “the future of the party”

    • Paul 7.3
      9 June 2013 at 9:45 am

      He seems a particularly repulsive man.
      The ACT, I mean, National Party use him to pass all their laws attacking human rights in the country.
      The Right to Protest at sea…
      It’s a bit of a joke that he’s the MP from Tauranga passing that law, given the oil that the Rena left on the beaches of the Bay of Plenty.

    • Saarbo 7.4
      9 June 2013 at 9:48 am

      Corin Dann actually did a good job on the major arsehole Simon Bridges.

      Bridges reckons “Increased Profits = increased Wages” hahaha, so his legislation will reduce wages to increase profits which will lead to increased wages……………………..who is supporting these dickheads.

      • muzza 7.4.1
        9 June 2013 at 10:20 am

        who is supporting these dickheads

        Oh, they all frequent the same lodges/clubs etc – Its, the *Those in on it*, and the *Those who wannabe in on it*, brigade!

        Unfortunately, too stupid/morrally bankrupt, to understand, on current track, they too, are all in the queue, for the chop, just a little nearer the end of it!

      • Tim 7.4.2
        9 June 2013 at 2:45 pm

        Aha … so that’s what it was about – I’ll watch later with the sound turned on, but watching in silence, it looked like it was Bridges doing the “how DARE you ask me questions I don’t agree with”. (I’ll tell you where and when you can protest, and what is reasonable!!!)

        • Tim 7.4.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 3:28 pm

          I wondered where I’d come across those steely eyes, the abrupt/clipped speech, and the aggressive body language before – when journalists and/or citizens call their government representatives to account.

          Then I realised. There’s a pathetic little malignant narcissist psychopath 3 hrs flight time to the north that displays the exact same behaviour, and who tries to dictate what is reasonable and what is not, and who thinks he knows best regarding the welfare and well-being of ‘his’ citizenry.

          Where did democracy go? ( I mean aside from the fact that it got commodified, risk managed, and cost-benefit analysed by the political class and a cast of a thousand consultants).

          I wonder whether the Esmeralda is still afloat. When Dear Leader Jude comes to power in perfect embroidered pink (if she ever does) – Esmeralda training might have to be compulsory training for ‘Her’ Cabinet.

          Seems to me that the only difference between Frank and Soimon is that the former professes to have come from the left, whereas Soimon is ‘from the right’.

          Same shit, different stink as they say. The end result is the same – which might be how one explains Mike Williams.
          Ah well ….. NineToNoon tomorrow – Mike will be there clipping the ticket no doubt.

          Anyway, my self-imposed TS ban is not supposed to be up till Tuesday. It was an observation though of earth shattering importance :p

    • ghostrider888 7.5
      9 June 2013 at 10:23 am

      on this topic of Bridges, and tying in with the frequent criticisms of Mike Williams on TS;
      from Q+A

      “I’m normally quite impressed by him (referring to Bridges)”.- Mike Williams.

      • Saarbo 7.5.1
        9 June 2013 at 11:09 am

        Yes, what exactly would impress Williams about Bridges?

        • ghostrider888 7.5.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 11:19 am

          an insightful question indeed. I feel for the working-class man, woman, and child; not so confident that Labour Party upper hierarchy do, but then, there was a Mike Williams who was a deputy of Wild Bill Hickok, accidentally shot and killed by Wild Bill. 🙂

        • fender 7.5.1.2
          9 June 2013 at 12:03 pm

          Bridges to nowhere, Mike Williams channeling Larry Williams.

          Last week Mike proudly stated: “I’m a lefty”. I think he means he’s left-handed.

    • Hami Shearlie 7.6
      9 June 2013 at 4:50 pm

      A real little fascist if he thought he could get away with it. I can’t bear the way he speaks, like his mouth is full of marbles – and that awful grimacing he does to add emphasis!!! Painful to watch and hear!

  8. North 8
    9 June 2013 at 9:55 am

    Get Dunne invoking the old chestnut |” I’m human…….I make mistakes like everyone ” sort of thing.

    No such delicate quarter given the horrible underclass by him and his masters I note – this underclass invariably suffering deprivation and stress which of course heightens the incidence of human failure – that he as a perennial trougher wouldn’t have a bloody clue about.

    • Tigger 8.1
      9 June 2013 at 1:07 pm

      That’s ironic from such a righteous twerp. He looked down his nose a lot. Hope he likes the view from the other angle.

  9. North 9
    9 June 2013 at 10:12 am

    Q + A. That old trusty Michelle Boag crapping her pants too obviously. Doctrinaire, shrill, back-foot.

    Oh My God. Bassett. They’re out in force. Yet as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth he acknowledges ” the market “, as oppposed to government action in housing, is a fuck-up.

    • ghostrider888 9.1
      9 June 2013 at 10:32 am

      -“vested interests of politicians, planners (property investors) in maintaining Metropolitan / Urban Limits…there is almost an immoral aspect to it”.
      yet, still manipulating the population’s consciousness into the ‘home and section’ dream.
      criticised “green” regulatory environment for costs and delays, local government regulatory costs.

      and Yep, Boag, nervous, scoffing defense of Nat. employment reforms and opposition to CGT; so
      vacuous
      vacuous
      vacuous.

  10. Morrissey 10
    9 June 2013 at 10:30 am

    Humbug Corner
    No.2: PETER DUNNE

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    “What a load of drivel and sanctimonious humbug – you can’t expect to be taken in any way seriously.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    —The Rt. Hon. Peter Dunne, ripping into “KappaMuTheta” on Twitter, after being upbraided for boasting about his drug orgies in parliament. (December 14, 2013)

    http://thestandard.org.nz/late-night-twitter/#comment-563195

    More humbug….
    No.1 Dominic Bowden: “It’s okay to be speechless.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-02062013/#comment-642288

  11. Morrissey 11
    9 June 2013 at 10:43 am

    Humbug Corner
    No. 3: DEAN LONERGAN

    “Y’know what? The only people who will mock them are people who are dwarfists.”

    —-Boxing schlock promoter Dean Lonergan, on the upcoming bout between two “little people”.

    Humbug Corner is dedicated to gathering, and highlighting, the most striking examples of faux solicitude, insincere apologies, and particularly stupid recycling of official canards. It is produced by the Insincerity Project®, a division of Daisycutter Sports Inc.

    More humbug….
    No. 2 Peter Dunne: “What a load of drivel and sanctimonious humbug…”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09062013/#comment-645811
    No. 1 Dominic Bowden: “It’s okay to be speechless.”


  12. Morrissey 12
    9 June 2013 at 10:57 am

    Humbug Corner
    No. 4: DR. RODNEY SYME

    “If you want good, open, honest practice, you have to make it transparent.”

    —Dr. Rodney Syme, croaking his advocacy for “doctors” being allowed to kill patients. Later, he sneeringly puts down the opposition to this as “a few sermons from a few pulpits”. (Radio New Zealand National, 9 June 2013)

    More humbug….
    No. 3 Dean Lonergan: “The only people who will mock them are people who are dwarfists.”
    No. 2 Peter Dunne: “What a load of drivel and sanctimonious humbug…”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09062013/#comment-645811
    No. 1 Dominic Bowden: “It’s okay to be speechless.”


    • Populuxe1 12.1
      9 June 2013 at 2:34 pm

      I take it you don’t believe should be able to choose to die with dignity then?

      • Morrissey 12.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 4:05 pm

        I take it you don’t believe should be able to choose to die with dignity then?

        I certainly do. I don’t think we should kill them though.

  13. logie97 13
    9 June 2013 at 11:11 am

    On Q+A this morning, Boag opined that if National were to win a bi-election in Ohariu, that would not affect proportionality.

    Yes that statement is true. Proportionality would remain intact.
    However, a National Party electorate MP coming into the Beehive would necessitate the bottom listed List MP having to drop out of the Beehive. And that surely is the point of the whole debate. Dunne, being a member of another party, gives the government a working majority for confidence and supply. If Dunne goes, then National would struggle to get the numbers.

    Is my understanding of the issue correct?

    • kiwicommie 13.1
      9 June 2013 at 11:23 am

      National were to win a bi-election in Ohariu

      Not according to how close Labour was to winning it last time. If Dunne lost popularity it would swing back to Labour:

      United Future Peter Dunne 14,357
      Labour Charles Chauvel 12,965
      National Katrina Shanks 6,907
      Green Gareth Hughes 2,160

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Chariu#2011_election

      • Lanthanide 13.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 11:35 am

        The Party Vote is very strongly in favour of National however. Also Charles Chauvel has resigned, so it would likely be a blank canvas in terms of personalities; I doubt National will stand Katrina Shanks there again.

        • kiwicommie 13.1.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 11:49 am

          Ah, well that evens things out a bit. But I am doubtful that National would get beyond 7000 or so were they to stand someone. The mood in the electorate is rather negative towards Dunne, and the party vote doesn’t really make a difference in the end – the electorate is by in large conservative, but is quite socially liberal. That explains how people give their party vote to National, yet vote for rather mild candiates like Dunne or Chauvel.

      • wyndham 13.1.2
        9 June 2013 at 11:36 am

        Yes, but that high Labour vote was for the greatly respected Charles Chauvel. He’s gone and we have to thank Shearer for that. Unlikely that the voters would go for Labour per se now.

        • Alanz 13.1.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 12:02 pm

          And it wasn’t *just* Charles Chauvel.

          Recognition and credit should be given to his partner, David, together with the team who built up the party membership. They are good people.

          • mickysavage 13.1.2.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 1:30 pm

            Amen to that.

            The seat is wealthy and naturally National leaning. Of 37,000 party votes last time National won about half and Labour only 10,000 with the Greens on 5,400. Charles did extraordinarily well in the circumstances. It would be a huge ask for Labour to win it but for the 6 weeks or so National would be tottering on the edge of losing a vote in Parliament. They still need Dunne or they need Peters for support.

    • ianmac 13.2
      9 June 2013 at 11:23 am

      That will be an interesting answer logie. It would be unprecedented for an MP to leave the Government for such reasons. Maybe Winston has it figured.

      • kiwicommie 13.2.1
        9 June 2013 at 11:27 am

        Well National and the right wing worked hard to try and crush Winston, would be poetic justice in that sense for Winston to bring down one of National’s coalition partners. 😉

    • Dv 13.3
      9 June 2013 at 11:24 am

      I don’t think bye elections don’t change the list allocations?
      So nats winning ohariu woulds give them a extra more controllable member??

    • Lanthanide 13.4
      9 June 2013 at 11:34 am

      “However, a National Party electorate MP coming into the Beehive would necessitate the bottom listed List MP having to drop out of the Beehive. ”

      No, that’s not how it works.

      The number of list seats each party is entitled to is determined from the final tally of the General Election. At that point, they are frozen until after the next General Election.

      In this case, since Peter Dunne is in Parliament because he is an electorate MP, if he lost his electorate, he would be out of Parliament, and whoever wins is a straight replacement for him.

      Actually I wonder how this works for the Maori Party, whose election outcome allows them 2 list seats, but they have 3 electorate seats. Say two of their current MPs were to leave parliament, by-elections would be held in each electorate, and say they went to Mana or Labour. Would we end up with the 2 new electorate MPs from the by-election, plus a new list MP for the Maori Party to make up their list entitlement?

      • kiwicommie 13.4.1
        9 June 2013 at 11:41 am

        Did you check the stuff article? They have to be brain dead to be quoting the party vote last election, it is the numbers that vote for electorate candidate x that win that electorate. But let them run BS lines about National winning the seat, come next election there Shanks won’t make it beyond 7,000 votes vs Labour’s 12,900+. 😉

        • Lanthanide 13.4.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 11:48 am

          Obviously it’s the number of electorate votes that determine who wins the electorate, but in terms of sentiment the party vote is the best gauge of people’s political leanings, and generally the party that wins the party vote in an electorate will usually also win the electorate.

          With Charles Chauvel gone, UF in no position to stand any other candidate, the likely winner of the seat would be National.

          • kiwicommie 13.4.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 11:52 am

            The likely winner of the seat would be National

            Not sure about that, it could just as easily be claimed by the Greens (if Labour has a weak candiate or no candiate), if you are going under the assumption that Shanks won’t stand again.

            • Colonial Viper 13.4.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 12:53 pm

              No way Labour won’t stand, the vote will be split between them and the Greens.

              • RedLogix …
                9 June 2013 at 12:58 pm

                Indeed … the last 2011 election results for Ohariu:

                http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/electorate-35.html

                If we made the very rough assumptions that the 14,000 Electorate votes for Dunne were to fall left and right in a proportion similar to the Party vote, ie about 16,000:18,000 and Labour stood a candidate at least as strong as Charles Chauvel, and the Greens did not split the vote, then there is a perfectly reasonable chance for Labour to take the seat.

                Not a game-changer by itself, but overall a much needed boost for the left at this stage.

                • Tigger …
                  9 June 2013 at 1:12 pm

                  Factor in Shanks gunning for the seat rather than acting like wallpaper which is how she did. She’s a weak candidate and prone to clangers. And as an Ohariu voter I can attest that the Greens don’t have a chance here.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    9 June 2013 at 1:21 pm

                    They’ll put a few weeks of training into her to make sure she gets better

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 June 2013 at 1:30 pm

                      Why would they stand Katrina again? They’re under no obligation to do so, and they’d be wise not to if they actually wanted to win the seat.

                      Dunne is the longest serving MP in Parliament. Why would Ohariu want to replace him with a nobody like Katrina?

                    • RedLogix …
                      9 June 2013 at 1:39 pm

                      The point is, two elections in a row Labour has missed out on an electorate seat because the Greens have split the vote.

                      The sad part is that both parties stood pretty good candidates, Gareth Hughes and Charles Chauvel. This is not a mistake the right made in Epsom. (Well arguably they stood two very lousy candidates … but that’s another story.)

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 June 2013 at 2:07 pm

                      The greens and Labour are going need to sort out their dance steps before 2014. Stop stepping on each others toes.

                      NZers like their political parties principled (eg stand in every seat)…but we also like our political parties to be politically and tactically astute (i.e. don’t screw each others chances).

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 June 2013 at 3:56 pm

                      The point is, two elections in a row Labour has missed out on an electorate seat because the Greens have split the vote.

                      Which is why we need a proportional voting system in electorates.

                  • kiwicommie …
                    9 June 2013 at 2:13 pm

                    And as an Ohariu voter I can attest that the Greens don’t have a chance here.

                    As I am in the same electorate for 2014, I would say the Greens have a good chance. I know a lot of people in the electorate who used to support Dunne and give National their party vote (and will still vote National) – who are considering voting for the Green party member who stands.

                    • RedLogix …
                      9 June 2013 at 2:34 pm

                      While I agree that Ohariu is one of the more Green friendly electorates, their only chance of winning a by-election is if the 10,000 who voted for Charles Chauvel switch their vote to the new Green candidate. I can’t see the Labour hierarchy agreeing to that plan.

                      Point is, if both Labour and the Greens strongly contest the by-election, National will win it. As CV says, someone has to sort out the dance card.

                • Watching …
                  9 June 2013 at 1:54 pm

                  These Ohariu voter like those in Espom, the 7 Maori seats and previously those voters in Jim Anderton’s old seat do vote differently from other electorates. The system allows for it.

                  I know many voters in Ohariu. Its not about voting for Dunne but if they are National voters they are able to have two effective votes. Just look at the 2011 numbers from RedLogix – 16k-18k Nats party & 6k electorates votes. This doesn’t make logical sense unless you say the National voters are really getting a 2:1 deal.

                  Something to consider – if the MMP rules translated the electorate vote into list % then Dunne and Banks as MP’s would never have happen.

                  • RedLogix …
                    9 June 2013 at 2:10 pm

                    My thinking is that Ohariu is a rather centrist if you go just by the party vote results. This is confirmed by the fact that Dunne who has positioned himself as totally centrist has been able to hold the Electorate seat for so very long.

                    My reasoning is this:

                    If Labour put up a decent candidate then they should be able to get at least the same 10,000 people who voted for Charles Chavel to vote Labour again. The same for the 7,000 people who voted for Katrina Shanks.

                    The 14,000 people who voted for Peter Dunne will need to find a new candidate, and I’m assuming they will fall roughly (14,000 * 16,000/37,000) = 6,000 to Labour giving a total of around (10,000 + 6,000) = 16,000.

                    National get (14,000 *18,000/37,000) = 8,000 giving a total of (7,000 + 8,000) = 15,000.

                    That’s a game on contest …. assuming that the Greens don’t split the vote again.

                    • kiwicommie …
                      9 June 2013 at 2:20 pm

                      I don’t see National getting 15,000. If Dunne doesn’t run, most of those who voted Dunne just won’t vote. There is little interest among most Dunne voters to change to someone else. National just sits in their office, and has done nothing for the electorate. Commentators are dreaming if they think it is an easy win for National.

                    • Alanz …
                      9 June 2013 at 2:42 pm

                      Agree that it is not as clear cut, especially the OB electorate is centrist, smart and there can be a tendency to vote during a by-election to send a particular message to the government of the day.

                    • Watching …
                      9 June 2013 at 4:13 pm

                      kiwicommie, there are no Dunne supporters.

                      To suggest that the 14000 who voted Dunne in 2011 can be split back into National & Labour on a pro ratio basis does not make sense.

                      If those 14000 voters wanted Labour in 2011 they would not have voted Dunne. Everyone in the Ohariu electorate understand that voting Dunne was getting an extra seat for Key.

                      Those voters will go back to (1) National or (2) a 3rd party. What I saying is that Labour reached its peak Ohariu vote in 2011 – maybe in a by-election they may pick up another 1k.

                      As I stated before the voters in Ohariu/Espom/Maori seats are 2 for 1 voters.

                    • RedLogix …
                      9 June 2013 at 4:22 pm

                      Everyone in the Ohariu electorate understand that voting Dunne was getting an extra seat for Key.

                      Not quite … everyone understood that a vote for Dunne was gaining an electorate seat for whoever formed the government.. If Goff had won (and the 2011 election was contrary to popular sentiment a very close run) … then Dunne would have been a Minister in a Labour/Green coalition government.

      • Lanthanide 13.4.2
        9 June 2013 at 11:46 am

        Ok, just had a look at the 1993 electoral law, and this is my interpretation of how the situation with the MaoriP above would be resolved.

        The law seems to hinge on the way in which the person creating the vacancy was elected to Parliament. If the MP has left and they were elected from the list, then the next list candidate for that party will take their place (we see this commonly enough). If the MP has left and they were an electorate representative, then the person that wins the by-election replaces them, regardless of what party the original MP was, or the party of the new MP – we also see this fairly commonly.

        In my scenario above, all 3 Maori Party MPs are electorate MPs, so if there is a vacancy in any of their seats, and the new party that wins the seat is not the Maori Party, the MaoriP does not get to bring anyone in from their list. In other words the only thing keeping the MaoriP in Parliament is their electorate seats, if they lost all of them in by-elections they would end up with 0 MPs in parliament, despite their 2011 election result allowing them 2 list positions.

        In that respect, getting 2 electorates seats + 1 list seat is much preferable to 3 electorate seats, as the list seat acts as a stable anchor independent of by-election outcomes.

        • logie97 13.4.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 11:59 am

          I respect your researching of all acts Lanthanide.
          However National only got a certain percentage of the popular vote at the last election and that is all they are entitled to have in this parliament. That was the whole reason for having a stitched up deal with ACT in Epsom. They got their proportional percentage plus one guaranteed extra MP to vote for them in the house (i.e. ACT). The same was the issue of Ohariu. Dunne’s vote did not affect National’s proportion of the vote. National by proportionality are only entitled to X number of members of parliament. The number of ELECTORATE MP’s has no bearing on the proportionality – the difference being made of LIST MP’s. If Dunne goes, National’s proportionality does not change. They simply get another ELECTORATE MP. (if they win Ohariu) and they cannot have extra respresentation beyond their proportion of the last election.

          • gobsmacked 13.4.2.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 12:10 pm

            If National win the by-election, they don’t lose a list MP.

            Party A (United) loses a seat, Party B (National) gains a seat. The relationship between the parties is irrelevant here.

            If Labour win the seat, they don’t lose a list MP either. They are up 1, UF are down 1.

            Overall proportionality can change, through the ballot box at by-elections, and then the general election. That’s all.

            • bad12 13.4.2.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 12:33 pm

              The proportion of the party vote cannot change in a by-election for an electorate seat as such a vote is for the seat only,

              In a by-election there is NO party vote so proportionality is governed by the result of the previous general election where there is a party vote,

              National now have their full compliment of MP’s based upon the electorates they won in 2011 and topped up by X list MP’s to match the proportion of the party vote they won,

              Should a by-election be held in Ohariu and National win they will have 1 more MP in the house than their proportion of the party vote in 2011 allows, thus they would need lose a list MP to maintain the number of MP’s allowed by their proportion of the vote at the 2011 election…

              • gobsmacked …
                9 June 2013 at 12:44 pm

                We can debate whether they should lose a list MP. But fact is, they won’t.

              • Lanthanide …
                9 June 2013 at 1:13 pm

                “Should a by-election be held in Ohariu and National win they will have 1 more MP in the house than their proportion of the party vote in 2011 allows, thus they would need lose a list MP to maintain the number of MP’s allowed by their proportion of the vote at the 2011 election…”

                By that same logic, the Maori Party should not have been allowed to create an overhang by winning 3 electorates but only having enough party votes for 2 list seats.

                And yet they did. That was at the general election. By-elections are no different.

                • logie97 …
                  9 June 2013 at 1:24 pm

                  On the contrary Lanthanide. The Maori Party issue under MMP creates the situation of Overhang in the parliament where it is possible to win electorate seats out of proportion to your Party Vote. Precisely what happened in this parliament. That is why there are more than 120 members sitting there. They were elected on a separate roll and that is what has caused the overhang in this parliament.

                  The Maori MPs in the Labour Party, affect the number of list MPs Labour can have in the overall proportionality. If Labour were to win all of the Maori seats, then there would be only 120 MP’s in parliament.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    9 June 2013 at 1:25 pm

                    I’m not sure what your reply is about, because I already said they created an overhang. It seems you’re agreeing with me.

                    • gobsmacked …
                      9 June 2013 at 1:37 pm

                      Apart from anything else, if the bottom-ranked list MP had to drop out, then all s/he would have to do is waka-jump before the by-election result (or before the new MP is sworn in). An independent MP can’t be thrown out of Parliament.

                      So it would be an unforceable rule (if it existed, which it doesn’t).

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 June 2013 at 1:45 pm

                      Good point.

                    • logie97 …
                      9 June 2013 at 3:09 pm

                      Nope – the Maori seats come from a different poll.

                      And as for a list MP Waka jumping – quite apart from the fact that that would put Collins’ refusal to adopt the recommended changes to the legislation in a very bad light – the Waka jumper would kiss any further chance of party recognition good ‘bye.

                      It was also the reason for the recommendation that “coat-tailing” be removed.
                      ACT polled enough of the party vote to get 1 MP, but not two. Hence that Ellectorate MP was also the one and a bit pcnt. not enough for two members. Similarly for UF.

                • bad12 …
                  9 June 2013 at 3:13 pm

                  No your wrong, electorate seats are paramount in the Parliament, if any party were to say win 60 electorate seats but only gain say 30% of the party vote they would keep ALL 60 electorate seats,

                  Thats where the Maori Party overhang comes from, their proportion of the party vote entitles them to only 2 seats, they won 3 electorate seats, such electorate seats trump the party vote entitlement,

                  Which is the point being made about the Ohariu seat should Dunne resign and National win it in a by-election,

                  There are no specifics in the Legislation surrounding this aspect of such a by-election, but, under the relevant legislation it would behove the Electoral Commission to revisit the calculation made after the 2011 election,

                  The Electoral Commissions duty is quite clearly laid out in the Electoral Act 1993, Section 192, sub-clause (2),

                  ”Subject to subsection (3), the Electoral Commission MUST then proceed, in respect of each remaining party listed in the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote, to DEDUCT from the number of seats to which each party is entitled to under subsection (1)-

                  (a), the number of persons who stood as CONSTITUENCY CANDIDATES for that party and whose names were endorsed on the writ persuant to section 185 as having been elected as members of Parliament…

                    • bad12 …
                      9 June 2013 at 5:19 pm

                      Lolz, definitive???, the Electoral Commission is charges under law with maintaining the proportionality of the Parliament,

                      The relevant sections i have quoted from the Electoral Act shows how the Electoral Commission are to carry out their function, the number of electorate seats are to be subtracted from the TOTAL number of seats any party gains from the party vote AND THEN the allowable number of LIST MP’s will become MP’s to make up the total of a party’s allowable number of MP’s based upon the % of the party votes cast,

                      No-where in any legislation does the DUTY of the Electoral Commission to maintain proportionality become extinguished,

                      What i notice from the previous debate vis a vis the Epsom seat that you have linked me to is that in one part YOU even make a claim that an MP can be both an electoral and a list MP,

                      PS, and Graeme Edgler is the definitive voice on this particular question why???…

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 June 2013 at 6:03 pm

                      “What i notice from the previous debate vis a vis the Epsom seat that you have linked me to is that in one part YOU even make a claim that an MP can be both an electoral and a list MP,”

                      In the sense that they consume a list slot while representing an electorate in Parliament. As per the strict algorithm for deciding who is in Parliament, MPs that win electorate seats are given primacy and therefore are considered Electorate MPs rather than List MPs, and the number of electorate MPs for a party is deducted from their total list allocation to determine the number of list MPs the party therefore ends up with.

                      “Lolz, definitive???,”

                      Definitive in the sense that I linked 5 preceeding comments to give you some context to the discussion, which was actually about a slightly different issue than what we are discussing at hand. The final one I linked to is therefore definitive when talking about this specific issue.

                      “No-where in any legislation does the DUTY of the Electoral Commission to maintain proportionality become extinguished,”

                      You are right, the legislation does not give formal instructions (as far as I can find) about how a seat from an electorate MP is to be filled after a by-election; in contrast it does give very explicit instructions on how to fill a vacant list seat in S137.

                      S193 that you are relying on is talking about determining who wins list seats after a general election based on the party vote at that general election. There is no party vote in a by-election, so it it is not clear that any of the process mentioned by S193 or related sections would apply after a by-election.

                      “PS, and Graeme Edgler is the definitive voice on this particular question why???…”

                      I didn’t say he was “the definitive voice”, just that he agrees with me, and I pointed out the particular relevant comment in regards to this present conversation.

                      You may also read in that thread that Andrew Geddis does not disagree with Graeme or myself on any points, while he does disagree with Mike Smith.

                      Graeme Edgeler is a Wellington barrister with a self-proclaimed interest in legislature and legislative process. Andrew Geddis is a professor of law at Otago and lists in his research interests Election Law and Constitutional Theory. Andrew is often asked to comment on political and electoral matters by the mainstream media.

                    • bad12 …
                      9 June 2013 at 6:25 pm

                      Lanth, Your reply at paragraph 2, why not just say that in the previous debate you got that point wrong instead of typing out a pile of mumbo jumbo about algorithms,

                      You made a blunt ‘unqualified’ assertion in the previous debate you linked me to that an MP could be both a list and electorate MP, we both know that that assertion was not correct and your attempt now to qualify it is facile,

                      Second point, we only assume that section 192 of the electoral act is strictly confined to general elections, nowhere in the legislation does it say this,

                      Section 192 simply proscribes how the Electoral Commission will maintain the proportionality of the Parliament it gives no hint as to whether such prescription is to be only applied to general elections just as it gives none that it is also to apply to by-elections,

                      We could then spend any amount of time debating this issue which i personally do not have the inclination to persue,

                      i will attempt to put aside the time during the week so as to enable me to put the question to the Electoral Commission as to what they would do vis a vis this very question, until i can contact them and gain an answer we will have to agree to disagree…

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 June 2013 at 6:49 pm

                      “Lanth, Your reply at paragraph 2, why not just say that in the previous debate you got that point wrong instead of typing out a pile of mumbo jumbo about algorithms,”

                      Because you have to look at the context of when I made that statement. I was strictly wrong, in that an MP is technically not both a list and electorate MP, but what I was trying to illustrate is that the point that it is the number of list MPs that is fixed by the general election, not the total number of MPs in an electorate. That is actually the same point we are arguing right now.

                      “We could then spend any amount of time debating this issue which i personally do not have the inclination to persue,”

                      Well there’s nothing more to say other than what has been said. We both agree that the legislation, as far as we can tell, does not definitively say what must be done after a by-election vis-a-vis the total number of MPs a party is awarded in Parliament following the prior general election.

                      I’ve presented my argument, which is agreed to by Graeme Edgeler and not objected to by Andrew Geddis, and you’ve presented your argument.

                    • bad12 …
                      10 June 2013 at 7:54 am

                      The Monday morning update: i have emailed the Electoral Commission regarding the question of debate,

                      Having read the Electoral Commission website i am now leaning to ward conceding that i am wrong where i contend that National should they win Ohariu in a by-election would have to drop a sitting MP off of it’s party list to accommodate the extra electorate MP and maintain the proportionality of the Parliament,

                      The Electoral Commission website states bluntly that a by-election might upset the proportionality of the Parliament which while not conclusive tends to support your view of what would actually occur given a by-election in Ohariu,

                      ‘Things’ might get a little interesting when the Commission replies as i will be querying the Commission about which specific piece of legislation supports whichever stand they take around this issue,(or perhaps where the legislation is unclear they just make up the rules as they go along),

                      foot-note: listening to RadioNZ National this morning discussing the same issue, they tend to support my argument, or should i say my previous argument as i now lean toward believing i got that wrong…

                  • Lanthanide …
                    10 June 2013 at 9:13 am

                    “foot-note: listening to RadioNZ National this morning discussing the same issue, they tend to support my argument, or should i say my previous argument as i now lean toward believing i got that wrong…”

                    I heard that too – one reporter implied your interpretation.

                    However a later interview with John Key implied strictly the opposite – that if they win Ohariu on a by-election they end up with an extra seat. I’d trust Key’s word (since likely he would have been briefed on the possibility) over a journalist.

                    • bad12 …
                      10 June 2013 at 9:35 am

                      Lolz i had the radio on during Kim Hill’s interview of Slippery the PM, my brain immediately switched off when the little Shyster started whining as it does these days as a default setting to ensure appliances do not suffer unnecessary damage…

            • kiwicommie 13.4.2.1.1.2
              9 June 2013 at 1:10 pm

              I doubt Peter Dunne is leaving any time soon, it is very unlikely there will be a by-election.,

      • bad12 13.4.3
        9 June 2013 at 12:06 pm

        What you are saying does not sound quite right,(as i have read it), if Dunne resigns and a by-election returned a National candidate for the Ohariu seat then National under the proportional rule would have to lose a list MP yes/no,

        The proportion size of the National vote in 2011 only allows for them to have the number of MP’s it’s caucus currently has,

        Winning the Ohariu electorate would push the National Party 1 MP above what it is allowed given it’s proportion of the Party Vote which is the final arbiter of the total number of MP’s a party is allowed…

        • Lanthanide 13.4.3.1
          9 June 2013 at 1:14 pm

          No, you’re wrong, if National win the electorate of off Dunne they don’t lose a list seat, they simply gain an extra electorate seat.

          • Jackal 13.4.3.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 6:02 pm

            At the last election, Labour gained twice as many electorate votes as National did in Ōhariu Lanthanide. In this regard you’re likely to be wrong… The Natz simply won’t gain enough of Dunne’s vote to make up the 6000 votes that Labours last candidate was ahead by.

            In fact being that Dunne is centrist, his vote is likely to be split right down the middle. That will give Labours next candidate around 20,000 votes to the Nats 14,000.

            Of course some of Dunne’s right wing vote will be soaked up by Act, NZ First and the Conservatives when the Greens will hopefully campaign more effectively against people giving them their electorate vote. There really isn’t any choice for people who previously voted for Dunne who lean left other than Labour.

            Electorates are often won by candidates that don’t have the most party votes. To be exact 19 electorates at the last election were won by candidates where the party vote told another story.

            • Lanthanide 13.4.3.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 6:09 pm

              Jackal, my reply at 13.4.3.1 was specifically about bad12 saying that if National win Ohariu in a by-election, they would lose a list seat.

              Your reply is rather about the chances of National winning the seat, rather than the outcome. That topic is discussed by myself and others elsewhere in this thread: 13.4.1 and onwards. You’d be best to read up the replies there and reply in that sub-thread, rather than continue this one.

              In any event, your particular analysis here is too shallow: Charles Chauvel has since resigned from Parliament and presumably would not stand in a by-election, which are very much about personalities, and Katrina Shanks was not seriously contesting the electorate vote in Ohariu (actually she got told off by the party at one point for implying that Ohariu voters should give 2 ticks to National). This is all mentioned in the comments further up-thread. I think RedLogix had the best take on it – Labour could potentially win, but only if the Greens didn’t split the vote. Also the idea that a more-educated electorate could take the opportunity to send a message to the government could see a vote against National.

              • Jackal …
                9 June 2013 at 6:32 pm

                The Greens would need to split the vote by an unconceivable amount Lanthanide if they were to ensure Labour lost Ōhariu in any bye-election. What makes you think that there will be a huge increase in people giving their electorate vote to the Greens when they have campaigned against it, and will they even stand somebody in a Ōhariu bye-election anyway?

                In one sentence you seem to imply that Chauvel only gained 13,000 votes because of his personality, but then mention that National would likely stand Katrina Shanks again. A turnip has more personality than Shanks, so I don’t think that will be much of a factor.

                I also believe that National would lose a list MP even if they managed to secure Shanks in Ōhariu. The party vote hasn’t changed, and that’s what determines such things. Therefore if either National or Labour win Ōhariu, the government will lose one vote, which is all the majority they really have.

                In that event, the Maori party would have huge bargaining power, which many National supporters will find hard to swallow. It will also mean a vote of no confidence is likely to succeed, and a snap election called.

                • Lanthanide …
                  9 June 2013 at 6:51 pm

                  Jackal, please refer to the posts above as I indicated, which discusses this stuff in detail. For example, see RedLogix’s post:

                  If Labour put up a decent candidate then they should be able to get at least the same 10,000 people who voted for Charles Chavel to vote Labour again. The same for the 7,000 people who voted for Katrina Shanks.

                  The 14,000 people who voted for Peter Dunne will need to find a new candidate, and I’m assuming they will fall roughly (14,000 * 16,000/37,000) = 6,000 to Labour giving a total of around (10,000 + 6,000) = 16,000.

                  National get (14,000 *18,000/37,000) = 8,000 giving a total of (7,000 + 8,000) = 15,000.

                  16,000 for Labour vs 15,000 for National would easily be disrupted by the Greens snatching 2,000 votes, which is approximately what they won in 2011.

                  “but then mention that National would likely stand Katrina Shanks again. A turnip has more personality than Shanks”

                  Actually I did NOT say that all, although I can see how you might think I did. Once again, please refer to the posts further upthread where this has already been discussed – and I have already said several times I don’t think National would stand Shanks again.

                  I’m not going to reply to any further comments by you on this particular sub-thread because there’s no point – you’re missing a lot of context in other people’s arguments.

                  • Jackal …
                    9 June 2013 at 7:09 pm

                    Lanthanide, I’m not wanting to debate other people’s comments, which is why I’m replying specifically to you.

                    To me there seems to be a lot of massaging of figures, when the actual results are very clear.

                    If you don’t want to protect your position, then I suggest you don’t make up any more rubbish about why National would win a by-election in Ōhariu.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      9 June 2013 at 7:15 pm

                      “If you don’t want to protect your position, then I suggest you don’t make up any more rubbish about why National would win a by-election in Ōhariu.”

                      No, I want you to reply to my comments up-thread, where I already discussed this issue. For some reason you’re refusing to.

                    • Jackal …
                      9 June 2013 at 8:11 pm

                      What happened to you not responding? In my opinion; “You must respond at the correct places” isn’t much of an argument Lanthanide. I see no issue with me replying here to your numerous incorrect statements throughout this thread.

                      Firstly you say that it’s an open question who Labour will stand in Ōhariu, but then imply that the next Labour candidate will lose votes because they won’t have the similar likable personality as Charles Chauvel.

                      In an electorate that is predominated by around 40% business people, your argument that these people would naturally support National over Labour, which ignores the fact that these same people are likely to be prejudiced against Chauvel is telling.

                      Then you state that the Greens could split the vote, despite not knowing if they will even stand a candidate and that they would need to increase on their 2011 electorate vote by around 200% to be able to strip enough votes away from Labour for National to win.

                      When you make such grandiose statements that are clearly unsubstantiated, don’t be surprised when somebody questions your reasoning.

                      There’s also the claim that if National win, they would retain all their list MPs. This is despite you stating:

                      The number of list seats each party is entitled to is determined from the final tally of the General Election. At that point, they are frozen until after the next General Election.

                      This is a complete contradiction in terms… You are effectively arguing against yourself. You also claim that:

                      …generally the party that wins the party vote in an electorate will usually also win the electorate.

                      This claim is made despite the fact that 19 electorates in the 2011 election had a candidate winning when the party vote was not in their favour. One of these electorates was Ōhariu.

                      I will concede that personality has a lot to do with who wins electorates, however relying on such a weak analysis like yours, which is obviously favouring National winning in the event of a by-election, is obviously flawed.

                      Another flaw in your analysis is the fact that you have not taken account of the percentage shift away from National in favour of the left, in which an equal shift should be calculated for most electorates.

                      Relying on how people on iPredict are spending their money, to analyze how any potential election, whether it be a snap or not, is clearly not an affective statistical instrument to rely on.

                    • Poission …
                      9 June 2013 at 8:31 pm

                      …generally the party that wins the party vote in an electorate will usually also win the electorate.

                      What gets overlooked is the party vote to NZF,in CHCH central they got more then the cumulative total of all the other parties.In this electorate ACT and United each polled on the party vote less then the informal(errors) which a cynic might conclude that you are more likely to make an error then vote either ACT or United.

  14. Anne 14
    9 June 2013 at 11:32 am

    Your logic seems logical logie7. However it’s all getting a bit too convoluted for my brain cells.

    Assuming you are correct, is that why NAct – through the supposedly neutral Mr Speaker – saw to it Dunne’s little facade of a party would continue to be funded?

    • veutoviper 14.1
      9 June 2013 at 1:04 pm

      As I mused up at 1.2.1, it occurred to me in the middle of the night, that Carter’s decision on Thursday re continuing to recognise UF as a parliamentary party for the next 8 weeks or so, has nothing to do with Standing Orders, legalities or even dollars.

      Rather Carter’s National Party need the UF confidence and supply agreement to continue to ensure Dunne’s support for legislation etc over the next few months. If Dunne was now to be deemed an Independent MP, this would presumably nullify the C&S agreement, allowing Dunne complete independence with his vote. National cannot afford a possible renegade in this regard. As we now know, Carter’s decision came after Key’s meeting on Weds night with Dunne – with its ultimatum.

      Carter’s refusal to release the advice on which he made his decision also raises who gave that advice. I doubt very much that it was independent advice – eg the Clerk of the House. Moree likely from Carter’s National colleagues for political reasons – hence his refusal to release the advice.

      • Anne 14.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 1:22 pm

        The advice would have come from John Key via a suitable mouthpiece. No holds barred… do as I say or else we will see you are the laughing stock of the nation.

        So much for Peter Dunne putting his trust in this Prime Minister.

      • mickysavage 14.1.2
        9 June 2013 at 1:37 pm

        Both decisions were made by the looks of it on Wednesday night. They have to be related. And it shows National’s contempt for the rule of law that they would not worry about a little thing like Parliament’s Standing Orders to stand in the way.

    • Alanz 14.2
      9 June 2013 at 1:44 pm

      The outcome at the end of the past week was a negotiated dunnekey win-win package deal.

      With the passing of days when the David Henry report should have already been due, and leading up to the long weekend, the wheels were falling off one by one for Dunne, with ramifications for Key.

      (1) Dunne’s party problems with de-registration.
      Various key people have been sitting on it and keeping mum, but can’t for much longer.

      (2) Dunne’s continuing refusal to provide the requested material so that the Henry report can be completed.
      The report was due by 31 May and Tory Watkins already ran a story the previous day reporting Dunne as saying “discussions are ongoing [!?] because the report hasn’t been completed”. The report was formally completed and dated 5 June, and handed to the PM.

      (3) Dunne’s un-ministerial conduct in habitually leaking would be evident (if revealed) from his emails to Vance.
      Btw, in the scheme of things, these were actually only a few emails that reflect a sliver of Dunne’s pathological leakey habits that go quite a long way back.

      (4) The personal tone of his emails (to put it politely).
      Although this is the least of the worries, it is also the sexiest in terms of tabloid fodder. Commentators should not be distracted by this and should now regard this as immaterial. The above-mentioned matters are of greater significance legally/constitutionally, politically and for the government.

      (5) As would also be evident, if the emails were released, they will reveal some unsavoury things about Key and his cabinet. More diplomatically and tersely here, it can just be said that they would reflect badly on Key as PM and also as the Minister responsible for GCSB. Brand Key can do with less damage at the moment.

      With (3), a few key things would be exposed. Some of these, taken individually, would not be hanging offences but would be run-of-the mill leaks that would be embarrassing; however, others, and given the series of them, were more serious. The leaks related to various cabinet appointments and departmental matters, not just about the leaked Ketteridge report, but recent matters that roped in the PM/Minister responsible for GCCB, as well as at least a couple of major things that are yet to more fully play out and would be of interest more widely, outside the country … cough cough

      Where does that leave us?

      (A) Dunne gets to keep the party leadership and his parliamentary status (the famous Wednesday night discussion and then the Speaker’s ruling, on Thursday, before the next’s day bombshell in the lead-up to the weekend.. best to drop them in this order and in quick succession)

      (B) Dunne, as the lesser of many evils for him and Key, gives up his ministerial portfolios

      (C) Dunne gets some time out to attend to various matters on various fronts and, no, he and Key do not want a by-election in Ohariu-Belmont

      (D) With confidence and supply, Dunne continues to keep the now shakey government going

      (E) The search for who actually leaked the Ketteridge report can be officially announced as ended

      (F) A bit more time is bought to hold off some matters not just of domestic concern but that have the eyes of other countries … cough cough cough

      Now, who has read the David Henry report? (pdf at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/pm-releases-leak-inquiry-report-accepts-minister%E2%80%99s-resignation)

      Without criticising the investigator, the focus should be on the limitations of that report. The question still remains – who actually leaked the Ketteridge report; and can the leaker be found, assuming fingerprints were unintentionally left?

      The thing is this is a small country and there are still many people who have a higher sense of what is right and what is wrong. It is of course in Key’s interest that other matters in the email do not ever (if that is possible) or do not yet see the light. The emails may eventually be more widely available – it is a question of when and to what extent. At this low ebb, there isn’t very much more that Dunne can lose. It is for the opposition to shine the light on Key from this point …

      Oh, and then there was Winston going on The Nation yesterday. Incidentally, he had previously indicated likely support for the GCSB bill and so will provide the government with additional numbers. This is useful in case Dunne’s support does not come through after the first stage, or if Key’s other partners come to grief in the near future.

      All’s well that ends well for the National government? For now? Over to the other side of the House to hold Key to account.

      • Colonial Viper 14.2.1
        9 June 2013 at 1:50 pm

        (F) A bit more time is bought to hold off some matters not just of domestic concern but that have the eyes of other countries …

        Not surprising given that Obama is currently embroiled in a massive firestorm of intelligence/spying over-reach revealed by numerous leaky leak leaks.

      • Alanz 14.2.2
        9 June 2013 at 1:54 pm

        Oh, because blogs and comments may not be read, can someone in the know pass this message to Shearer and Grant: please don’t stuff up.

        • Colonial Viper 14.2.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Pretty sure Clare Curran reads the Standard 😈

          • Alanz 14.2.2.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 2:14 pm

            No less should be expected from a very proficient, knowledgeable and intelligent spokesperson for broadcasting, open government, communications and IT
            😈 😈

            • Anne 14.2.2.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 3:12 pm

              Well if the following sentence from her latest post on Red Alert is any indication, I’m not sure about proficiency – grammatically speaking anyway.

              Her and her partner (who was at work) had a $600 debt which they were trying to get rid of.

              • RedLogix …
                9 June 2013 at 4:39 pm

                The interesting thing is … what will Andrea Vance do next? She must have some very interesting angles she’s keeping mum on for the time being.

                • Anne …
                  9 June 2013 at 6:43 pm

                  A further interesting thing is… we have Winston Peters getting stuck into Peter Dunne for leaking sensitive information to a reporter, yet someone has leaked electronic copies of the emails in question to Winston Peters. Is he going to demand the sacking or removal of… the person who has leaked to him? Doubt it somehow.

                  • Alanz …
                    9 June 2013 at 7:28 pm

                    It will be difficult to mete out appropriate consequences to the leaker if that person’s identity is not known, not even (let’s say directly, officially or formally) to the leakee.

                    There are simple old-fashioned ways for documents to be leaked without needing to hand them over by hand/in person or electronically 🙂

                    John Key should know this and it was possibly on his mind when he announced the David Henry investigation 😈

                    • RedLogix …
                      9 June 2013 at 7:42 pm

                      Alanz … thanks for the insights.

                    • Alanz …
                      9 June 2013 at 7:58 pm

                      You’re welcome.

                      To be mischievous 🙂 it can be suggested that even Vance and Fairfax may not even “actually know” the identity of the leaker given the way information reached their desk.

                  • TruthSeeker …
                    9 June 2013 at 10:31 pm

                    I doubt that Peters has electronic copies of the emails in question. It is obvious from his answers on Q+A and The Nation that he only knows some of the contents. Now, there are a number of people who could have passed that information on to Peters. I suggest that Vance is probably the least likely.

                • veutoviper …
                  9 June 2013 at 7:41 pm

                  There seems to be a number of people keeping mum at the moment.

                  Firstly Andrea Vance. Her employee, Fairfax, have made their position very clear that they will not reveal their sources etc etc . Re Andrea herself – according to Farrar, she is due to get married about now, so probably has other things on her mind. And personally, I would like to send her my very best wishes. I don’t necessarily agree with some of her writings, but at least Andrea seems to be ‘on the job’ in terms of investigative journalism compared to some of our other so-called journalists.

                  edit – that was a reply to Anne’s comment above.

                  • Anne …
                    9 June 2013 at 8:00 pm

                    I have just seen the Q +A video and according to Michelle Boag… there was only one person who had a copy of the emails etc. and that was Andrea Vance. She effectively said it was Vance who supplied the electronic emails to Peters. If she is right then the plot thickens. 😯

                    panel on Peter Dunne

                    • Alanz …
                      9 June 2013 at 8:19 pm

                      Boag would predictably want others to follow that seemingly obvious path.

                      The spotlight would then turn on Vance.

                      The real issues do not relate to the hunt for the leaker (and possibly dragging in a few people as collateral damage) but to pinning down accountability and responsibility to office holders.

                    • veutoviper …
                      9 June 2013 at 8:22 pm

                      Anne – according to Michelle Boag. How does Michelle know who has copies of those emails? She doesn’t. She tried to blame Vance for passing the emails to Peters – but she does not know who has copies. She is a hands length vehicle to get people to believe what National/Key want us to believe. She is trying to shift the blame etc – National need Dunne to stay for his vote in the meantime.

                      Peters has had many decades of relationships with the media etc – he has many contacts. He knows how the game works. Remember the teapot fiasco when he said he had the tapes. Never underestimate him.

                    • karol …
                      9 June 2013 at 8:28 pm

                      How does Boag know only Vance and Dunne had access to the emails? Surely Vance would have showed them to her boss? And could someone in Dunne’s office have seen them?

          • Tim 14.2.2.1.2
            9 June 2013 at 4:55 pm

            I’m bloody CERTAIN of it CV – well she used to anyway.
            Either that, or she’s got a sixth sense – which somehow I doubt

      • ghostrider888 14.2.3
        9 June 2013 at 4:13 pm

        Alanz, sooo knowledgeable inside.

      • TruthSeeker 14.2.4
        9 June 2013 at 10:29 pm

        “The emails may eventually be more widely available – it is a question of when and to what extent.”

        The only emails that matter are the four that Dunne deleted, in my opinion. I suspect that the redacted emails shown to the Henry inquiry are the potentially salacious ones.

  15. joe90 15
    9 June 2013 at 12:09 pm

    William Binney talks to RT, December 2012: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all information stored.

  16. ghostrider888 16
    9 June 2013 at 12:52 pm

    SOME HUMANS AIN’T HUMAN
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwYiBdoWHE
    LYRICS (cool).
    http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/prine-john/some-humans-aint-human-15762.html
    (at the speed of the sound of loneliness).

  17. Lanthanide 17
    9 June 2013 at 1:25 pm

    Clip of Winston on the radio saying over the next few weeks, he’ll release proof showing Dunne leaked the Kitteridge report, and some other sensitive reports too.

    • McFlock 17.1
      9 June 2013 at 1:57 pm

      nice

    • Alanz 17.2
      9 June 2013 at 2:05 pm

      Looking forward to that …. those who have more time on their hands can play 20 questions … or play Hangman …..

      D _ _ _ _ m ?

      H _ a _ _ _ ?

      _ _ _ _ _ _ n ?

      Oh, will Winston stagger-release these for maximum public coverage and political mileage 😉

      • ghostrider888 17.2.1
        9 June 2013 at 2:09 pm

        I’d like to buy a vowel : ‘e’

        • Alanz 17.2.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 2:20 pm

          Just discovrd Nats hav appropriatd that vowl from my kyboard and sold it off!

          Lt’s lave it to winsom Winston to xpos in good tim.

          • ghostrider888 17.2.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 2:21 pm

            winsom, lossom; if h a usful tool h will tank this govrnmnt.

    • ianmac 17.3
      9 June 2013 at 2:06 pm

      Cunning enough to leak bit by bit to keep both himself and the issue alive and well.
      Must be why Mr Dunne would prefer an instant caning to hours in detention?

    • Lanthanide 17.4
      9 June 2013 at 2:30 pm

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/137161/more-to-come-on-dunne-says-peters

      New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says more damaging information will emerge in the next few weeks about United Future MP Peter Dunne.
      …
      However, Mr Peters told Radio New Zealand News on Sunday he has information which proves Mr Dunne not only leaked the GCSB report before its scheduled release, but also other classified documents.

      He said it’s the prime minister’s job to get his hands on the emails and reveal the truth.

      Mr Peters did not rule out releasing the information himself, but said it should come from John Key and not from someone outside the Government.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    9 June 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Seen this?
    FYI

    Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright slams Minister of Justice Judith Collins
    ” Since when did she become an expert on fluoridation or public health?”
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    “I am unclear how Minister of Justice Judith Collin’s childhood in rural Waikato, makes her support of fluoridation of water supplies a ‘considered opinion’?” asks Auckland Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/8766919/Judith-Collins-slams-city-council-over-fluoride

    “But Collins, who said she was brought up drinking fluoride-free water in rural Waikato, described the decision as “absolutely gutless”.

    “It [the council] didn’t just ask for central government to make a decision, it made a stupid decision, which I think the council will find the people of Hamilton will revisit for them in October.”
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Auckland Mayoral candidate, Penny Bright, suggests that the Minister for Justice Judith Collins, Ministry of Health officials, and others who support the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies, carefully read this new study in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health which delivers a significant blow to fluoridation:

    “..chronic effects of fluoride involve alterations in the chemical activity of calcium by the fluoride ion. Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides …”

    “Industrial fluoride ingested from treated water enters saliva at levels too low to affect dental caries. Blood levels during lifelong consumption can harm heart, bone, brain, and even developing teeth enamel.
    The widespread policy known as water fluoridation is discussed in light of these findings. ….”

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

    “Can the Ministry of Health and Watercare Services be trusted, given their proven track record in supporting the use of Waikato water, as a ‘raw’ source of drinking water supplies for the Auckland region?” asks Bright.

    “As someone who has spent hundreds of hours researching this issue, I suggest that people read the following document which I prepared for a meeting of the Auckland City Council Finance and Business Committee back in October 2002, and ask yourselves.”

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Waikato-Amended-ACC-Presentation-18-10-02.pdf

    “For the public record, I again state my considered opinion, that as a 2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate, I do NOT support the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies.”

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation’ campaigner.

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    9 June 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Study Suggests Life on Earth is the Result of Icy Comets

    “Cometary impacts could result in the synthesis of prebiotic molecules without the need for other ‘special’ conditions, such as the presence of catalysts, UV radiation, or special pre-existing conditions on a planet,” Goldman said. “This data is critical in understanding the role of impact events in the formation of life-building compounds both on early Earth and on other planets and in guiding future experimentation in these areas.”

    Could have interesting implications for the spread of life throughout the universe.

    • ghostrider888 20.1
      9 June 2013 at 4:37 pm

      ‘spreads’ and ‘universes’. (still staying with the black hole of Kraft). 😀

    • pollywog 20.2
      9 June 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Always had a soft spot for Panspermia.

      ask Aunty Wiki…

      Comets and planets = sperm and egg.

  21. Morrissey 21
    9 June 2013 at 4:52 pm

    ANAGRAM TIME
    No. 1: John and Bronwyn Key

    Now handy, bonny jerk.

    (There is significance in that, possibly.)

      • Morrissey 21.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 5:24 pm

        Anagram Genius is pretty good too. For example:

        ‘Andrea Vance and Peter Dunne MP’

        anagrams to….

        ‘Depraved apeman, entranced nun.’

        • Ennui 21.1.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 7:41 pm

          The word on the street from no less luminaries as Cactus, Whale and the NBR is that Peter D. has an infatuation with the lovely Andrea, as QoT phrased earlier the “ol honeypot ruse”. Might it be that the grey haired old buffoon doesn’t want the world to see emails confirming that his desires involve not so much as leakages as unzipping himself.

          Its all rather unseemly, imagine of a governments majority rises and falls with the zipper of an aged wannabee Lothario.

          • Alanz 21.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 7:49 pm

            It is quite clear why those folks are focusing on the “infatuation” bit which is actually now immaterial in the scheme of things.

            The left and parliamentarians should stay focus on the real issues that matter, tracking back to the PM and the Minister responsible for GCSB.

            And if the identity of the leaker is of such interest – the question still remains whether it was an inside job. Even more serious is the question whether the PM was involved with that, even if indirectly.

            • Ennui 21.1.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2013 at 8:01 pm

              Really Alanz. We are a tabloid nation, sound byte simpletons. We will forget tomorrow who leaked what and not quite understand the significance and sinfulness of the action. Our Presbyterian morality however will have us judge and condemn scandalous sinful depravity (or mere suggestions there of) far more acutely. Who remembers Colin Moyle?

              • Alanz …
                9 June 2013 at 8:30 pm

                “We”, as a nation, and about four decades later, can learn from that and do better.

                Vance’s role in the scheme of things is retreating to the periphery.

                Dunne’s emails, sent in the course of work, courtesy of taxpayers, and in his capacity as a cabinet minister as well as the government’s coalition partner, are still of central focus and the issues caught up with the negotiated deal are of public interest. The mess goes right up to the PM’s door which people should keep on knocking.

              • Anne …
                9 June 2013 at 8:30 pm

                Who remembers Colin Moyle?

                I do. Very well. And yes… that was a set-up. Interestingly it was not a set-up organised by the PM of the day (Muldoon), but he came to hear about it and used the incident to destroy Colin Moyle. It was nasty and the background activity that led to the incident would have been unlawful, but the culprits either got away with it unidentified, or for political reasons were allowed to get away with it.

              • ghostrider888 …
                9 June 2013 at 8:35 pm

                We can be more; “We can be Heroes, just for one day…” (see below).

        • Tigger 21.1.1.2
          9 June 2013 at 10:27 pm

          Genius M, that so needs to be a headline on the front page of the Herald.

    • Chris 21.2
      9 June 2013 at 5:28 pm

      Peter Dunne = unrepented ? sin

  22. Morrissey 22
    9 June 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Humbug Corner

    No. 5: AARON SMITH

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    “The French lay all over the breakdowns, the referee let a lot go.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    —All Black halfback Aaron Smith, betraying not even the slightest hint of irony. (Radio New Zealand National news, 9 June 2013)

    More humbug….
    No. 4 Dr. Rodney Syme: “If you want good, open, honest practice, you have to make it transparent.”
No. 3 Dean Lonergan: “The only people who will mock them are people who are dwarfists.”
No. 2 Peter Dunne: “What a load of drivel and sanctimonious humbug…”
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09062013/#comment-645811
No. 1 Dominic Bowden: “It’s okay to be speechless.”


    Humbug Corner is dedicated to gathering, and highlighting, the most striking examples of faux solicitude, insincere apologies, and particularly stupid recycling of official canards. It is produced by the Insincerity Project®, a division of Daisycutter Sports Inc.

    • Ennui 22.1
      9 June 2013 at 7:55 pm

      Poor young Aaron. may he grow up to be as cynical as moi, a less than skilful opensider with a rather cavalier disregard for the offside line. The lad needs to learn honesty, free admission that the game of rugby is a matter of who cheats better, who can organise and get away with the most nefarious deeds. Going by the record we NZers are rather superior serial offenders. They say the game reflects life, move over Richie, Shonkey step up and take the number seven jersey.

  23. Aotearoean 23
    9 June 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Bye Bye Peter.But what gnome will take your place?

  24. ghostrider888 24
    9 June 2013 at 8:32 pm

    “Nietzsche was probably the most self-aware person that ever lived.”
    -Sigmund Freud.

    “Every person must choose how much truth they can stand”.

    “Despair is the price one pays for self-awareness. Look deeply into life, and you will always find despair”.

    “Only the wounded healer can truly heal”.

    “If we climb high enough we will reach a height from which tragedy ceases to look tragic”.

    “It is wrong to bear children out of need, wrong to use children to alleviate loneliness, wrong to provide purpose in life by reproducing another copy of oneself. It is also wrong to seek immortality by spewing one’s germ into the future as though sperm contains your consciousness”.

    “Marriage and it’s entourage of possession and jealousy enslave the spirit”. (It is better that a man not marry, but if he must…).
    -Irvin D. Yalom; Author of ‘When Nietzsche Wept’.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_D._Yalom

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      9 June 2013 at 8:35 pm

      Ahhh, a nice coincidence. The Archdruid writes about Spengler

      http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/the-scheduled-death-of-god.html

      • ghostrider888 24.1.1
        9 June 2013 at 8:50 pm

        “There are no coincidences” my good friend; I only went to get feesh and cheeps, and there was a book on 20th C History to read while waiting (curry roll too, and sustainably-fished Hoki), so read up on The Boxer Rebellion (whose On The Mat now) and a few other choice tidbits from around 1900. and the Freud quote was in a section on you-know-who.

        I wonder if we have Depts. running courses strictly on Nietzsche in this country (incl. all his influences, before and after). Now, there’s a job for A Portrait of The Artist as a Young Man.

        Lynn, when you gonna send me my jottings?

        • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.1
          9 June 2013 at 8:53 pm

          That’s quite some F&C shop

          • ghostrider888 24.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 9:21 pm

            rabbit: Foreign and /or Colonial Investment in a WORKING COMPUTER would be helpful; don’t you people know it rains a lot in the winter. 😉

        • lprent 24.1.1.2
          10 June 2013 at 5:22 pm

          Good question. I seem to keep winding up oversleeping on weekends at present.

          • ghostrider888 24.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2013 at 5:38 pm

            that’s OK, I understand, I only arise when I have finished resting, and can still only follow “conversations” by catching them on the fly in the comments box, top-right.

      • ghostrider888 24.1.2
        9 June 2013 at 9:12 pm

        Furthermore, always found it beneficial to think spherically of history and culture; euro-centricism is a trap for small thinkers. Interesting the reference to the sustaining influence of African-derived Popular and Rock Music (and jazz) in the 20th C.
        Excellent article, exactly what we are seeing and ties up all the salient references many of us have made and offered.

        1st and 4th white-chocolate fish if you can guess who I enjoyed reminiscing over on the national broadcaster this evening.

        which reminds me, now this ‘authoritarian-awareness’ meme has taken root, the N/national psyche is certainly a fertile bed in which Confucianism can establish. 😀

        • Colonial Viper 24.1.2.1
          9 June 2013 at 9:28 pm

          Ha! The shape of history and the morphology of civilisations is irresistable.

          More and more people are realising that the future they have been sold is very unlikely to ever be delivered. Which means that people are going to go back to things that they know do work.

          As for the rise of authoritarianism and imperial pervasiveness…George Lucas already framed it well in the mid 1970’s, with a very fetching Carrie Fisher

          “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”

          • ghostrider888 24.1.2.1.1
            9 June 2013 at 9:43 pm

            that last quote will give the control-freaks something to miss.

            Close, but it al starts, and finishes with an A yeeeeeeee

  25. Penny Bright 25
    9 June 2013 at 10:20 pm

    PROTEST!
    AGAINST THE HOUSING ACCORDS AND SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS BILL!
    Social Services Select Committee are hearing verbal submissions IN AUCKLAND
    on this Bill, from 9am – 4.30pm, MONDAY 10 June 2013.

    WHERE? At the Ellerslie Novotel Hotel 72 – 112 Greenlane East, Ellerslie.
    http://www.novotel.com/gb/hotel-3060-novotel-auckland-ellerslie/location.shtml

    WHY? Only 13 days were allowed for submissions!

    This bill will allow government to override communities and councils if they don’t agree with decisions.

    The bill also supports non-notification and no right of appeal.

    ***PLEASE COME IF YOU OBJECT TO THESE UNDEMOCRATIC PRACTICES***

    I will be giving my submission from 4.10pm – 4.20pm, then giving EVIDENCE to support the following petition, from 4.20pm – 4.30pm.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Presented/Petitions/5/0/5/50DBHOH_PET3157_1-Petition-of-Penelope-Mary-Bright-requesting-that.htm

    Petition of Penelope Mary Bright

    Requesting that Parliament declines to proceed with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill until the lawfulness of the reliance of Auckland Council on the New Zealand Department of Statistics”high”population growth projections, instead of their “medium” population growth projections for the Auckland Spatial Plan, has been properly and independently investigated, taking into consideration that both Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, have relied upon “medium” population growth projections for their infrastructural asset management plans.

    Petition number: 2011/64
    Presented by: Holly Walker
    Date presented: 30 May 2013
    Referred to: Social Services Committee
    ___________________________________________________________________

    MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz/?page_id=137

    Penny Bright

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

  26. Chooky 26
    10 June 2013 at 12:40 pm

    From the Perch

    Love the late night musings comments/quotes on/from Nietzsche and Lucas…..from Ghostrider and Viper…very poetic and thought provoking…water from deep springs….. food for thought! Thanx

  27. Chooky 27
    11 June 2013 at 11:04 am

    thankyou…

  28. Chooky 28
    11 June 2013 at 11:27 am

    Winnie loved it too….chirpy , chirpy, cheep , cheep

    …and he knows all about serving……for a bloody good stir

  29. Chooky 29
    11 June 2013 at 12:08 pm

    On the subject of Civilisation

    Saint-Exupery “wanted to make certain that human life and landscape be framed as much by the poetics of arts -and -letters humanism as by Cartesian science” (Edmunds V Bunkse, ‘Saint -Exupery’s Geography Lesson: Art and Science in the Creation and Cultivation of Landscape Values’. Annals American Geographers)

    “I dont care if I am killed in the war. But what will remain of what I have loved?….What is valuable is a certain ordering of things. Civilization is an invisible tie, because it has to do not with things but with the invisible ties that join one thing to another in a particular way. Civilization is an invisible tie, because it is not to do with things but with the invisible ties that join one thing to another in a particular way.” ( Saint-Exupery shortly before his last mission over France)

Links to post