Open mike 11/12/2013

183 comments on “Open mike 11/12/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Linz 1

   11 December 2013 at 7:25 am

   Can any older Standardistas help me? If my increasingly more unrealiable memory is not playing tricks, I recall a friend of mine telling me about how Desmond Tutu visited New Zealand and stayed in her house in Pt Chev. This would have been between 1981 and 1985, before he was really famous. Can anyone confirm that? Thanks.
   • swordfish 1.1

     11 December 2013 at 8:18 am

     Sorry, can’t confirm it. But, I’m pretty sure Tutu was very high-profile well before the 81 Tour.
     • Linz 1.1.1

       11 December 2013 at 8:40 am

       I meant before he was seen as a “celebrity”.
       • swordfish 1.1.1.1

         11 December 2013 at 2:15 pm

         @ Linz

         I’ve only had time for a very limited search, but found a brief reference to: “It was Bishop Desmond Tutu’s testimony at the Auckland trial of Hone Harawira in 1983 that saw the 96 charges against Hone dropped…” (The rest of it’s entirely about Hone / no more mention of Tutu. But, I assume he gave the testimony in person in The City of Sales).
         • weka 1.1.1.1.1

           11 December 2013 at 2:33 pm

           http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1107/S00291/30th-anniversary-commemorative-event-of-the-springbok-team.htm

           Would like to see some confirmation of that though.
           • swordfish 1.1.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2013 at 4:01 pm

             Thanks, Weka.

             Here’s another http://www.honorearth.org/blog/%5Buser%5D/hone-harawira-and-maori-politic

             Tutu came in 1983 at the invitation of the Anglican Church / provides testimony for Harawira / as a result, all 10 defendents acquitted of charges surrounding 81 Tour protests.

             The site doesn’t entirely get things right, mind. For example: “Harawira is a seasoned activist, one of the few members of Parliament with a long arrest record for protesting – for land rights of Maori, environmental rights, and in support of South African Apartheid.” Hone, you bloody turncoat !!!

             (Hope the above link works. If so, my first ever !!! – cheers, Anne. From Swordship)
             • weka …

               11 December 2013 at 4:10 pm

               thanks 🙂
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 December 2013 at 4:11 pm

               Yeah I’ve heard Hone tell the story of Bishop Desmond Tutu wondering in late into court as his witness.

               The judge was annoyed initially as Hone wouldn’t say who the witness he was calling was going to be, but the court room was electric when Tutu shuffled in. And started speaking on all manner of things almost completely unrelated to the facts of the case. However, the judge on the bench gave the good Bishop all the lattitude (and time) in the world to continue speaking and yes, all charges were subsequently dismissed.
               • Rogue Trooper …

                 11 December 2013 at 4:12 pm

                 the ‘good judge’.
           • Linz 1.1.1.1.1.2

             11 December 2013 at 7:40 pm

             Thank you for this information. Bishop Tutu testifying testimony at Hone Harawira’s trial would have been a great story to rerun on the anniversary of the trial. I might look it up in the old newspapers at the Hocken. Cheers you all.
     • grumpy 1.1.2

       11 December 2013 at 11:16 am

       Yes he was.
       • swordfish 1.1.2.1

         11 December 2013 at 2:32 pm

         Cheers, grumps.

         I certainly recall Tutu in the late 70s being considered on a par with Mandela in his importance to the anti-apartheid movement. Long regarded as “South Africa’s moral conscience”. I suspect he was already becoming well known internationally during the early-mid 70s, but particularly so from 1978 – when he became Sec-Gen of South African Council of Churches.
2. amirite 2

   11 December 2013 at 7:26 am

   Nellie Hunt has found a new home for her and her three children! It’s sad though that she had to end up on TV for something to be done, seems to be the only way these days because the government agencies which are supposed to do their job are actually useless.
   But the sad fact is, there are thousands of Nellies out there who’s story won’t be heard.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9501385/Hunt-family-get-home
   • bad12 2.1

     11 December 2013 at 8:40 am

     On the same subject,(from the Christchurch Press via Stuff), this is what Nellie was paying 220 dollars a week for, and the Landlord(an A/hole rack-renter was demanding another 40 bucks a week from Nellie for),

     ”When the ,(Housing Tribunal),Adjudicator saw the state of Hunt’s (rental)house, including the ‘yellow stickered’ lounge with holes in the roof, the case was sent back to mediation”,unquote,

     Did the Landlord put up His hands and say OK i am being a A/hole here trying to rack up the rent on what appears to have been to all extents and purposes a ‘wreck’ of a house,

     Like hell, in what is obviously a fit of pique, looking like the tables having been severely turned on Him complaining that Nellie was refusing to pay the rent, our rack-renting Landlord then reached for that other ‘tool’ more and more of these Landlords are using against their tenants, the 90 day provision allowed to evict a tenant when a property is to be ‘sold’,

     This time, it didn’t come off for the Landlord, trying to circumvent the actions of a tenant or the Tenancy Tribunal it’self by using the ‘tool’ of the 90 day eviction notice, a full hearing of Nellie Hunt’s case, caused by the Landlords own application for eviction , awarded Nellie Hunt $4000 less the $700 She had withheld in rent from the Landlord,(and the Tribunal has no choice in Law other than to grant the Landlord his 90 day eviction notice),

     My admiration for Nellie Hunt, a working mother of 3 kids, who has continued in Her employment while at the same time fighting this PRICK of a Landlord through the Tenancy Tribunal and looking for alternative accommodation is Huge,

     Yesterday the Christchurch City Council stepped into the fray offering Nellie a City house and the Press reports that on the verge of taking this property Nellie’s current Landlord approached Her with the offer of Her current rental which better suited Nellie’s kids as it’s just around the corner from the previous house and allows the kids to keep the same friends and not have to change schools,

     We all should give Nellie Hunt a big ups for showing such steel in a fight where the odds were all stacked against Her,(specially when we think that She and Her whanau have lived there through the earthquakes), and thanks to all those who offered and did help,

     As Nellie was quoted saying during the darkest hours of this struggle,(and such a struggle is being repeated daily up and down the country), ”this is not New Zealand”, in the end tho, the real New Zealand, the one with Heart where everyone gets a fair go stood up an i thank them all for doing so…
     • Rosie 2.1.1

       11 December 2013 at 9:54 am

       “We all should give Nellie Hunt a big ups for showing such steel in a fight where the odds were all stacked against Her,(specially when we think that She and Her whanau have lived there through the earthquakes), and thanks to all those who offered and did help,”

       And hugs too. Nellie must have a core of tenacity to still stand tall after what she and her kids have been put through with this on top of living in a quake zone and still carry on and go to work!

       Like amirite says there are 1000’s of Nellie’s out there whose story won’t be heard. What an inconvenient truth it would be for our PM and housing Minister if they were.
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         11 December 2013 at 10:51 am

         +1, good on her for staying strong.

         The Press can reveal Hunt was taken to the tenancy tribunal by her previous landlord when her rent increased by $40 a week and she missed $700 of rent payments.

         When the adjudicator saw the state of Hunt’s house, including the yellow-stickered lounge with holes in the roof, the case was sent back to mediation.

         A few days later, Hunt was served with a 90-day notice to vacate because the landlord was planning to sell the property. Her rent was reduced to the original $220 a week until she left.

         Hunt fought her eviction in the tribunal and was awarded $4000 against the landlord, $700 of which was returned to the landlord.

         So fuck you all the commenters on yesterdays Stuff article who thought there was something wrong with Hunt and that’s why she couldn’t find somewhere to live.

         As for the council offering her a house, what about the person that was about to get the house they decided to give to Hunt? And the person in the queue after that?
         • Rosie 2.1.1.1.1

           11 December 2013 at 12:54 pm

           “So fuck you all the commenters on yesterdays Stuff article who thought there was something wrong with Hunt and that’s why she couldn’t find somewhere to live.”

           Hi weka. the stuffed.co.nz comments section is a constant seething, writhing mass of hatred and ignorance. If theres sport to be had in kicking someone when they’re down they will.
           I gave it up some time ago. It was a downer.
           • Rogue Trooper 2.1.1.1.1.1

             11 December 2013 at 1:05 pm

             “and don’t forget to give our love to Rosie 😉
             • Rosie …

               11 December 2013 at 1:45 pm

               Gratefully and humbly received, thank you comrade 🙂

               and btw, there have been moments when the sorrow in Cash’s songs have bought a dampness to the eye. What a man.
               • Rogue Trooper …

                 11 December 2013 at 2:13 pm

                 Excellent; just been processing the feeble tr01ing attempts of ‘Garbageman’; good to be back on track
                 “That old wheel is gonna roll around once more
                 When it does it will even up the score (Mob rules Garbageman)
                 Turn the other cheek and don’t give in
                 That Old Wheel
                 will roll around again”. 😀
                 • Rosie …

                   11 December 2013 at 2:53 pm

                   That was a mighty fine and wise song, and completely relevant to those who would be most uncharitable, such as that “Garbageman” was towards to you on “Smile & Wave” by Bunji.

                   You can stand tall with your mana in tact though. You’re not the one to belittle others, as garbageman is, and he’s the one that diminishes his own mana by doing so. Those folks like him and dumarse etc are a waste of time, when all they can do is be spiteful and insulting. THEY are like the folks on the stuffed site that weka was referring to. I see “rich the other one” never came back to face his critics. Must have known he couldn’t win.

                   The other RWNJ’s that pop up here at least try to put an argument forward and attempt to stand by it. Mind you I don’t bother with them (I have enough of them in real life!) either usually, (with rich as a rare exception) and leave it to those with the sharps and the energy to have fun with.

                   But why do they come here, when they know it makes things hard for them?

                   I know Moz says “hard for me” but we can play with it. It was the first thing that popped into my head.

                   Here’s Suedehead

                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JenlsnA9-mE
                   • Rogue Trooper …

                     11 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

                     Absolutely Beautiful and profoundly moving A’little death’ in the afternoon ; There was a Rose, never attempted to ‘lay’ her, out of respect.
                     Her photograph survived the tearing required by a less secure partner. (yes, we have regrets) Still, no errors, no learning.
3. phillip ure 3

   11 December 2013 at 7:31 am

   bloody hell..!..first parker/pension-age..labours’ refusal to ‘talk beneficiaries-poverty’..

   ..and now this..?

   ..goff a tpp-pimp..?

   ..is this the official labour party stance on this isssue..?

   ..was that authorised by cunnliffe..?

   ..or are the neo-libs in labour just undermining cunnliffe..?

   http://whoar.co.nz/2013/goff-comes-out-pimping-for-the-tpp-ed-first-parker-with-his-t-i-n-a-threat-to-raise-the-pension-age-and-now-this-is-anyone-else-having-a-rogernomics-flashback/

   phillip ure..
   • Tigger 3.1

     11 December 2013 at 7:41 am

     Agreed. Time to go, Phil.
   • Flip 3.2

     11 December 2013 at 8:11 am

     Phil Goff
     “We have the least barriers and therefore we have the least we have to give away,” he said. “Other countries have to give away much more.”

     Of course we do. We’ve already given it away. Others were not so stupid. Duh.
     • Paul 3.2.1

       11 December 2013 at 9:34 am

       Think it was Phil and has mates who initiated all that giving away in the 1980s.
       Neoliberal shill Phil
       • Will@Welly 3.2.1.1

         11 December 2013 at 10:19 am

         I’ve said this elsewhere. I’m no fan of the Tories but they’ve learnt from the past. Time to go through the Party and clean out the old wood, the dead wood, and the ones who just don’t understand that ideologically their ideas belong in the ark.
       • weka 3.2.1.2

         11 December 2013 at 2:15 pm

         “Neoliberal shill Phil”

         Or traitorous wretch. He’s had time to learn from his mistakes.
         • Arfamo 3.2.1.2.1

           11 December 2013 at 2:45 pm

           http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-shoots-themselves-in-the-foot-again/#comment-740900

           I rest my case.
           • Rogue Trooper 3.2.1.2.1.1

             11 December 2013 at 4:14 pm

             a vote winning link!
4. yeshe 4

   11 December 2013 at 8:07 am

   Other stuff we have been stupid enough to do for the USA .. from the Daily Telegraph this morning quoting reewarch by Ray Waru .. I haven’t seen this anywhere here at home so far …

   Yep, let’s use bombs to create tsunamis off our coast for the US govt .. years ago, but WTF ??

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html
5. James Thrace 5

   11 December 2013 at 8:18 am

   Yeshe – this was in the Dominion Post at the start of the year. On mobile so cbf hunting for the link, if its even online anymore that is.
6. North 6

   11 December 2013 at 8:20 am

   Deborah Hill Cone’s mother.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11169116
   • ianmac 6.1

     11 December 2013 at 9:19 am

     Pretty amazing woman. Not everyone hits the headlines and is made into a public hero. Her Mum is one of the quiet honorable people with the strength to live her beliefs against the tide.
     • vto 6.1.1

       11 December 2013 at 9:31 am

       Didn’t read the article but it reminds me of the 81 springbok tour times and troubles – as a young rugby-mad boy the springboks were exciting. Off to a couple of the matches I trundled, not really able to understand the commotion and being upset that the protestors were trying to interfere with what I saw as my right to play rugby with whoever I wanted.

       I recall the most influencing protest, passed by on the way to the infamous third test at Eden Park….. it was the very quiet protests where older mums and dads stood quietly and grimly, each of us looking at the other. They left the impression and got the mind to working and thinking.

       Post-test the mess in the streets was not so influencing and even today it was those quiet staunch people that made the mark.

       Good for them.
   • Rogue Trooper 6.2

     11 December 2013 at 12:24 pm

     Great article
7. vto 7

   11 December 2013 at 8:50 am

   staunch national party member yesterday, conversation about john key and his lies, deathly quiet……

   the evil man is heading for total oblivion next year……..
8. CC 8

   11 December 2013 at 8:59 am

   What is it with the Labour strategists? Cunliffe not only joined the Mandela Road Show to stroke Key’s ego but compounded the compromise by taking the seat at the funeral that should have been refused, leaving it open for one of the other ’81 pro-tour racists or for Suck-up Pete. That would have at least demonstrated the hollowness of the Government on the world stage. It is understandable that Cunliffe might lose perspective and indulge in big-noting but his minders should have had more sense. Add in TTP Goff’s latest utterances and it is hard to see Labour as anything other than National-Lite – still! So much for the 800 000 who are still waiting for a principled party that represents the tenuously employed and the displaced who languish in unemployed poverty.
   • Paul 8.1

     11 December 2013 at 9:39 am

     Until Labour come out and apologise for the 1980s unreservedly and admit the damage the neoliberal policies they unleashed in New Zealand did and promise to undo this, then most of those 800 000 will rightly continue to mistrust them.
   • gobsmacked 8.2

     11 December 2013 at 9:48 am

     That’s a silly comment, CC.

     The leader of the opposition was right to accept the initial invitation, and right again when he offered his place to Pita Sharples, when it was thought that only 2 could attend.

     And I don’t think that decision was – or should be – taken by “minders” or “strategists”.
   • Bill Drees 8.3

     11 December 2013 at 11:24 am

     CC, grab a coffee and try to regain perspective.
     Cunliffe has the statutory and constitutional role of “Leader of the Opposition”.

     It would have been stupid to make a scene at the funeral overs Key’s choice of representatives.
     • CC 8.3.1

       11 December 2013 at 3:07 pm

       Bill – had the coffee while reading about mourners having no qualms about showing up hypocrisy – no form before substance there!
9. greywarbler 9

   11 December 2013 at 9:09 am

   A wandering sportsman out at 4 am is being searched for. Often there will be an expensive search for, mostly, lost men. Things that men want will be done for them. Compare this to the actual needs, not just wants, of women who have children. Less than the basic needs is reluctantly provided for these vital people renewing the population.

   What a contrast, showing the lack of respect for women, their unique role in the renewal of the population, and their important task in caring and teaching their children as they grow from helpless babies to youth, vulnerable and needing support, guidance and develop their own strength of character and life purpose. Big tasks, so poorly respected and celebrated.
   • Kevin Welsh 9.1

     11 December 2013 at 9:17 am

     What are you on about?

     Do you think there is a search on for this man, because he is a man?
     • greywarbler 9.1.1

       11 December 2013 at 9:36 am

       I’m talking Kevin W about the way that society is skewed. What men want to do will be provided for. What women with children need is not provided for.
       • grumpy 9.1.1.1

         11 December 2013 at 11:20 am

         You sound somewhat bitter – any reason?
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.2

         11 December 2013 at 11:22 am

         You better go ask Bennett, Collins, Parata or Tolley to stuff the childrens’ stockings full then.
   • andy (the other one) 9.2

     11 December 2013 at 10:31 am

     A wandering sportsman out at 4 am is being searched for

     Classy.

     Try this “A tourist is missing in Hamilton, Police searching river for Body, Parents fear the worst”, sounds a lot different.
     • veutoviper 9.2.1

       11 December 2013 at 10:42 am

       Add to your last sentence – A vegan, non-drinker who appears to have been acting totally out of character.

       To put it politely, Greywarbler appears to be drawing a very, very long bow with her comments re gender. And I tick the F box ,not the M.
   • andy (the other one) 9.3

     11 December 2013 at 3:18 pm

     Look at the photo on this article and tell me again why NZ police should not have searched for him because he was a man.

     Look at the sorrow on that those poor peoples faces.

     Stay classy.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11170910
     • weka 9.3.1

       11 December 2013 at 3:22 pm

       Greywarbler didn’t say they shouldn’t search for him. Nor did they say they shouldn’t search for him because he is a man. If you don’t understand what Greywarbler said, better to ask for clarification.
       • andy (the other one) 9.3.1.1

         11 December 2013 at 4:36 pm

         I read it a couple of times and the comment was in extreme bad taste, people have lost a loved one and there is no gender equity issues involved. Clarification not required.

         The inference is that the search is only because of gender, I call bullshit.

         I’m talking Kevin W about the way that society is skewed. What men want to do will be provided for. What women with children need is not provided for.

         Look at the Photo, no one deserves this. People get searched for all the time, gender is not at issue.

         http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11170910
         • greywarbler 9.3.1.1.1

           11 December 2013 at 8:58 pm

           Andy …
           If you have a bad taste in your mouth, why not just clean your teeth and giving your tongue a slight scrub can help.

           Don’t worry your pretty head about what I’m saying and meaning. It’s over your head. And you won’t get the point with your knee jerk reaction.

           I’m actually not talking about whether people should be searched for at all. Not whether it should be by gender, by one or two legs, red hair or brown, town or country. So if you can’t get it then let it rest. FFS.
10. greywarbler 10

    11 December 2013 at 9:23 am

    The economist with the tongue twister name from IER criticises the Reserve Bank for being open to receiving information and considering it. Unlike bible-bound economists. The Reserve Bank has cut the LVR on new houses. It’s a good move, and contrary to what our King Economist spokesperson says, it will further their plan. New houses will increase the stock of houses and so mean a small relief on demand and the rising prices that are so problematic.

    We don’t need a buddha figure for head of the Reserve Bank, sitting and looking enigmatic, pondering who knows what in the realms of life experience, separate from the seething world around him. We need thinking man, doing the best thing to cope with the problems plainly before us. So let us try things out, after due consideration, and monitor the effects, present and future, against the computer generated scenarios of expectations, and there will always be possibly three different scenarios and variables.
    • Linz 10.1

      11 December 2013 at 9:41 am

      I respectfully disagree. We do need more Buddha figures in the Reserve Bank and in Government. The Buddha’s rules for Good Government, known as ‘Dasa Raja Dharma’.
      1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,
      2) maintain a high moral character,
      3) be prepared to sacrifice one’s own pleasure for the well-being of the subjects,
      4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity,
      5) be kind and gentle,
      6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate,
      7) be free from hatred of any kind,
      8) exercise non-violence,
      9) practise patience, and
      10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.
      • weka 10.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 11:04 am

        Linz, 😀
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.2

        11 December 2013 at 11:24 am

        Not bad at all 🙂
      • yeshe 10.1.3

        11 December 2013 at 11:46 am

        Linz, thank you 🙂
      • greywarbler 10.1.4

        11 December 2013 at 9:08 pm

        Linz
        The problem is that Buddha doesn’t move. He leads by spiritual power and goodness. Key is on a different planet. None of Buddha’s good precepts and needs to move to get some.
11. ianmac 11

    11 December 2013 at 9:28 am

    May be a testing time for Mr Banks:
    “Beleaguered MP John Banks will face a judge-alone trial next year.
    His trial was fixed for May 2014, and was set down for 10 days.”
    • Rosie 11.1

      11 December 2013 at 10:03 am

      Good

      http://media.tumblr.com/faf838594a6f9bdb6b2f9e00b3fc2a0c/tumblr_inline_mrqh76Q4mv1qz4rgp.jpg
    • Mary 11.2

      11 December 2013 at 10:29 am

      If Banks is convicted it’ll be within six months of the election therefore there won’t be a by-election in Epsom. So Banks would no longer be a MP which means Epsom is left without an MP until the election? If convicted is this the scenario we’re looking at?
      • Anne 11.2.1

        11 December 2013 at 10:43 am

        is this the scenario we’re looking at?

        Probably not. We’ll have an early election instead.
        • Lanthanide 11.2.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 12:22 pm

          I really don’t think that’s a given.

          Everyone routinely forgets, National has a confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party. They don’t need Banks’ vote to stay in power. All they need is his vote to pass right-wing policy that the MP won’t vote for.

          That may or may not be a particular sticking point, come May.
          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 12:25 pm

            Plus National are not intending to go further right in an election year anyway. Expect some lollies.
      • veutoviper 11.2.2

        11 December 2013 at 10:55 am

        I think so, Mary, but could be wrong. It would also mean that National have one less supporting vote in Parliament for six months.

        The timing is also interesting as IIRC the possible date for Dotcom’s extradition hearing is now April, although this could be delayed yet again – especially as he will no doubt be a major witness in the Banks trial!

        The 10 days set down for the Banks’ trial also seems long, considering to date the only known witnesses have been Dotcom, Wayne ? his security chief, the Skycity CEO, and the ACT person who prepared the return – and presumably Banks himself. So maybe other unknown people are also to be called?
      • alwyn 11.2.3

        11 December 2013 at 2:20 pm

        Actually no.
        There doesn’t need to be a by-election if
        a) It is within 6 months of the date on which Parliament would expire (actually 24 July 2014 is the cut-off for that)
        OR
        b) The PM nominates in writing that the election will be held within 6 months
        AND 75% of MPs vote not to hold it. Please take the OR before the AND.
        It doesn’t mean that there won’t be a by-election. It allows the possibility that there doesn’t need to be one.
12. grumpy 12

    11 December 2013 at 10:01 am

    Serious question here, and one that will no doubt strain the loyalty of a few contributors.

    Who do you support, the battler looking for justice for his union member mates who were ripped off – or the higher level political corrupt ratbags?

    http://pickeringpost.com/story/relief-for-gillard-accusers/2463
    • Arfamo 12.1

      11 December 2013 at 10:05 am

      Serious answer here. Who gives a shit about what happens in Oz? This is Nz. It’s a different country. Do you realise that?
      • grumpy 12.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 11:08 am

        Dunno about that. The left here were pretty fired up about Gillard’s crying “misogyny”. Would you support the political side doing the coverup or the real unionists trying to expose the scam?
        Bit of a conundrum – eh?
        • Arfamo 12.1.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 11:09 am

          Only for you. It’s another country, is Oz. Who cares. It’s almost another universe over there. And don’t be such a grump.
    • joe90 12.2

      11 December 2013 at 1:13 pm

      Larry Pickering huh, racist anti-semite still pushing the tripe that The Australian was forced to apologise for.
13. Rosie 13

    11 December 2013 at 10:09 am

    Folks, pardon my ignorance but when will the results of the referendum be announced?
    • Arfamo 13.1

      11 December 2013 at 10:14 am

      http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/2013_cir_english.pdf

      The preliminary referendum result will be announced after 7.00pm Friday 13 December.

      The final result will be declared on 17 December after all votes received in time have been processed.
      The result will be available from electionresults.govt.nz and elections.org.nz.

      The results of Citizens Initiated Referenda indicate the views held by voters on specific questions and are not binding on the Government.
      • ianmac 13.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 10:31 am

        I wonder if the results so far are being fed to the Cabinet so that they can prepare reaction.
        If the vote works out 50/50 Mr Key can rubbish the result.
        If it is 70/30 in favour of asset sales then Mr Key can laugh all the way to the next election.
        If it is 70/30 against asset sales (NO) then Mr Key will ummm…
        What do you think?
        • gobsmacked 13.1.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 10:45 am

          I think you’ve been listening to Colin Craig too much! “Fed to the Cabinet” is a conspiracy he’d be proud of.

          If the Cabinet need to “prepare reaction”, given that the number of results is limited, and only one result is likely, then they are even more stupid than they appear. So, no.
        • Lanthanide 13.1.1.2

          11 December 2013 at 12:24 pm

          Yes, this sort of conspirational thinking is easy to get caught up in, but ultimately it’s not the thought of thing one should make a habit of.
      • greywarbler 13.1.2

        11 December 2013 at 10:47 am

        What was that ..results are not blinding on the Government?
        Doesn’t compute. They are already blind.
        Oh, not -binding- on the Government.
        Must be government unbridled then. Whoa shonkey! Catch that nag.
      • Rosie 13.1.3

        11 December 2013 at 10:55 am

        That soon. Good. It’ll be a good day for Grumpy cat, if at best we did get a 70/30 NO vote as ianmac is suggesting, as a possibility along side other less desirable ones. Tie that in with a conviction for Banks, some interesting skeletons about Key in Dotcom’s hearing next year, combined with the awakening of the voting public and an effective and well organised Opposition and we may, just may have some hope.

        Prepare your dancing shoes people.
    • veutoviper 13.2

      11 December 2013 at 10:18 am

      Arfamo beat me to it!

      But the total number of votes now received, is 1,206,381. This includes yesterday’s total of 45,110.
      • Arfamo 13.2.1

        11 December 2013 at 10:20 am

        Someone had to step up to the plate pretty damn quickly. 🙂 I figured I had what it takes.
        • veutoviper 13.2.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 10:38 am

          LOL. I had also been wondering when the results would be announced, so should have just waited for your reply to Rosie. Well done 10/10,
    • grumpy 13.3

      11 December 2013 at 11:12 am

      Pardon my ignorance but when will the results of the E&Y inquiry into Len Brown be released? Len’s had it since Friday, how much more time does he need?
      • Arfamo 13.3.1

        11 December 2013 at 11:13 am

        Why not email Len? Go straight to the horse’s arse for your answer.
        • grumpy 13.3.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 11:22 am

          I think everyone has been, The Herald, Councillors, radio, TV etc. On Monday he claimed on radio to have not seen it but he had it on Friday.
          Bit tough banging on about Banksie while giving Len a free ride.
          • Arfamo 13.3.1.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 11:27 am

            Bit tough your banging on about dopey Len’s banging and trying to draw a comparison with Banks. Banksie’s another tosser whose tossing was for another completely different matter.
          • gobsmacked 13.3.1.1.2

            11 December 2013 at 11:35 am

            Even if he’s done wrong, all Len has to do is say “I will not resign, but continue until the next election”.

            That’s all Banks has done.
      • alwyn 13.3.2

        11 December 2013 at 2:25 pm

        He might let it out at 7.30 pm on 13 December. Then he will hope that the MSM will be so busy salivating over the referendum result they are expecting that they will ignore it.
        The alternative will be at 11.00 pm on 24 December
14. bad12 14

    11 December 2013 at 10:14 am

    From RadioNZ news at 10, the Wellington City Council will vote today on whether to extend the ‘Living Wage’ to all Council employees at an estimated cost of 700 odd thousand dollars a year,

    If you know a City Councillor i urge you to email them this morning and tell them YES is the only vote you want to see come out of this Council meeting, or email Celia the Mayor with the same message,

    Wellington City Council need only look to it’s management structure, top heavy in over-paid managers, to find the 700 thousand in annual savings to pass on as the ‘Living Wage’ to all it’s employees,

    One major saving would be to split the CEO’s role into 2 positions paying 200 thousand annually each,just that would save $100,000 a year and using such a template across the whole management structure would provide a far wider range of management skills across all areas of Council effectively doubling the size of the management team while saving millions annually in the Council’s budget,

    It is the grandiose employment of ‘top tier’ managers for grandiose salary packages that provide little accept to cripple the Council financially that Council should be concentrating it’s efforts upon…
    • RedBasronCv 14.1

      11 December 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Yep It doesn’t have to be a budget breaker and we’d get more stuff done not talked about
15. Bearded Git 15

    11 December 2013 at 10:19 am

    I just like the sound of the West Indies skipper.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11170316
16. North 16

    11 December 2013 at 11:08 am

    Get this sick mongrel:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/09/katie-hopkins-x-factor-tweets_n_4412362.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
    • weka 16.1

      11 December 2013 at 11:21 am

      But really, isn’t that just part of the British gladiatorial culture now?
17. weka 17

    11 December 2013 at 11:14 am

    Going back to our conversation about the patriarchy, for people that want a quick overview of matrifocal culture, see this article (HT: QoT)

    About eight years ago, early in my new phase of research, I sat in the kitchen of Alice Papineau-Dewasenta, an Onondaga clan mother. Over iced tea, Alice described to me the unbroken custom by which traditional Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) clan mothers nominate the male chiefs who go on to represent their clans in the Grand Council. She listed the qualifications: “First, they cannot have committed a theft. Second, they cannot have committed a murder. Third, they cannot have sexually assaulted a woman.”

    There goes Congress! I thought to myself. Then a wishful fantasy occurred: What if only women in the United States chose governmental representatives and, like Haudenosaunee women, alone had the right “to knock the horns off the head,” as Stanton marveled — to oust officials if they failed to represent the needs of the people unto the seventh generation?

    Among the Haudenosaunee, family lineage was reckoned through mothers; no child was born a “bastard” (the concept didn’t exist); every child found a loving and welcome place in a mother’s world, surrounded by a mother’s sisters, her mother, and the men whom they married. Unmarried sons and brothers lived in this large extended family, too, until they left home to marry into another matrilocal clan. Stanton envied how American Indian women “ruled the house” and how “descent of property and children were in the female line.” Gage, while serving as president of the National Woman Suffrage Association in 1875, penned a series of admiring articles about the Iroquois for the New York Evening Post in which she wrote that the “division of power between the sexes in its Indian republic was nearly equal” while the Iroquois family structure “demonstrated woman’s superiority in power.” For these white women living in a world where marital rape was commonplace and forbidden by neither church nor state (although the Comstock Laws of the 1870’s outlawed discussion of it), Indian women’s violence-free and empowered home life must have looked like heaven.

    At the 1888 International Council of Women, they listened as Alice Fletcher, a noted white ethnographer, spoke about the greater rights of American Indian women. Fletcher made clear that these Indian women were well aware that when they became United States citizens, they would lose their rights. Fletcher quoted one woman who told her:

    As an Indian woman I was free. I owned by home, my person, the work of my own hands, and my children should never forget me. I was better as an Indian woman than under white law.

    http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/iroquoisinfluence.html

    That last quote is particularly pertinent for NZ, because Maori women lost substantial power and independence by becoming NZ citizens.
    • Colonial Viper 17.1

      11 December 2013 at 11:31 am

      The Americans destroyed most indigenous Indian culture and alternative systems of governance with it. However, over the last 50-60 years American culture and governance has been systematically destroyed and replaced by corporate consumer culture and corporate rule. And it’s spreading.
      • weka 17.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 12:55 pm

        So you can see how some of us think that the current dominating structures are just yet another manifestation of something that has been going on for some time now.

        “However, over the last 50-60 years American culture and governance has been systematically destroyed and replaced by corporate consumer culture and corporate rule.”

        Kind of like evil eating itself. In the rules of the game, anyone and anything is game. The strongest can do whatever they like to everything else. It’s a pretty stupid game though, because in the end everything dies.
        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 3:58 pm

          Kind of like evil eating itself. In the rules of the game, anyone and anything is game. The strongest can do whatever they like to everything else. It’s a pretty stupid game though, because in the end everything dies.

          Sure. But that’s not a masculine or gendered quality. It’s the quality of Thanatos, and it is embodied in every person and in every civilisation.
          • weka 17.1.1.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 4:08 pm

            I think you still don’t get what the patriarchy is. It’s not that men ‘made’ it. It’s that the system of domination favours men. I challenge you to find a system run by women on the same scale that favours women and suppresses men. Think about why that is so hard. There are very good reasons why men are favoured and why men don’t want to give up power. Likewise, there are reasons why women never developed such systems. This doesn’t make men bad and women good, but it doesn’t serve us to be gender blind when talking about systems of domination.
            • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.1.1

              11 December 2013 at 6:41 pm

              You might as well tell me that the systems of domination are run on Windows and Linux (they are), for all the good that does to solving the prime problem.

              Which is that our civilisation is stuck in a self destructive spiral with perhaps only 10 years to go before we cross the event horizon. If we haven’t already. Climate change of 3-4 deg C is virtually baked in now. Unlivable sacrifice zones are spreading across the world as we commodifiy and financialise everything in our quest for maximum paper profits.

              In my analysis, this spiralling downwards is being driven by completely irrational forces. These are forces which gendered and patriarchy analyses can only scratch, because the energies of Thanatos, of greed, of avarice, of consumerism, of elitism are in the final analysis psychic energies which are in their essence not gendered.

              You want men to give up power fine. But even if that happened we have seen that there are plenty of ambitious and power hungry Thatchers, Richardsons, Clintons, Rices, Legardes, Bennetts, Collins, Paratas and Tolleys ready to step in and take the place of the men. Yes, it’s so nice to see all these empowered, educated, authoritative women in the modern age. We should all be pleased with this evidence of success and equality, no?

              At least I agree with you that acting against existing systems of domination is crucial to our ongoing survival and humanity. I know that 80%-90% of men AND women are going to be considered disposable proles by the system. In this context whether our new neo-feudal leader is male or female is completely irrelevant to me. As is the incidental observation that feudalism is a highly gendered, hierarchical, patriarchal construct.
              • Rogue Trooper …

                11 December 2013 at 9:58 pm

                some of your best recent work my friend
                • Colonial Viper …

                  11 December 2013 at 10:31 pm

                  Gracious.
      • joe90 17.1.2

        11 December 2013 at 1:23 pm

        This.

        http://matikawilbur.com/blog/
    • vto 17.2

      11 December 2013 at 11:40 am

      So in these transformations in North America and New Zealand the indigenous women lost power and the men gained power. To revert to something like that….. then surely that means men will lose power and women will gain power.

      Gain loss loss gain win lose gain gain lose lose…….

      You have described a situation but I don’t know that it leads us anywhere…. does it? For example, the North American Indian men were on the powerless side. Was that right? Or was it similar to the situation now but just with the genders reversed?

      Not quite sure the point of your point…..
      • weka 17.2.1

        11 December 2013 at 12:30 pm

        vto, there is a huge difference between sharing power, and having power vested with one group over the others. Yes men need to give up power that has been afforded them under the patriarchy, but that doesn’t mean they become subjugated, it just means that they become equal with everything else.

        The impression I constantly get from you is that you don’t want to share power because it means you have to give some things up. That you would prefer to keep your priviledges at the expense of other people, even those close to you. Why is power so important to you?

        btw, in NZ and the US, indigenous women lost power to the pakeha cultures, so it wasn’t just a male/female thing. It was because the Euro colonisers enforced a grossly sexist society upon the native peoples, because that was the norm for the colonisers.

        The point of my comment? That patriarchal societies are cultural constructs not human nature, and we have choices. Also, we don’t have to look that far for other, more fair models of how to organise ourselves.
        • vto 17.2.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 1:31 pm

          ” It was because the Euro colonisers enforced a grossly sexist society upon the native peoples,”

          But you have just described other previously grossly sexist societies. Not equal ones.

          ” patriarchal societies are cultural constructs not human nature, and we have choices. Also, we don’t have to look that far for other, more fair models of how to organise ourselves.”

          So too are matriarchal societies cultural constructs not human nature, so this point is redundant. As for “more fair” societies, your original post stated nothing about how such strongly matriarchal societies could be seen as “fair”, all you did was describe how women held the power, and that is just as unfair as when men hold the power. What you described is as bad as patriarchy in terms of the imbalance between the genders. That is why your post is difficult to understand.

          ” there is a huge difference between sharing power, and having power vested with one group over the others.”

          But again, you have said nothing about sharing power. You have described other societies equally sexist with one group having power over the other.

          Your paragraph 2 is assumption rubbish.

          You seem all at sea on this post.
          • weka 17.2.1.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 2:08 pm

            Where do you see the Iroqouois as being sexist and giving more power to one gender than the other? What I linked to describes egalitarian society, not matriarchy (as in women rule). Stop misuing terminologies.

            Do you understand the difference between the words ‘equal’ and ‘equitable’ esp with regards to politics?

            “Your paragraph 2 is assumption rubbish.”

            No, it’s considered observation over time. As per usual you don’t actually answer the question or clarify where you do stand.
            • vto 17.2.1.1.1.1

              11 December 2013 at 2:59 pm

              You need to stop reading into the written word whatever your mindset has as its well-worn settings and prejudices.

              As for this “Where do you see the Iroqouois as being sexist and giving more power to one gender than the other? What I linked to describes egalitarian society, not matriarchy (as in women rule). Stop misuing terminologies.”

              .. how about here for just one example …. ” the Iroquois family structure “demonstrated woman’s superiority in power.””

              And you still haven’t explained how this alternative gender-based society is somehow better or fairer or utopian or whatever it is you are trying to say. Where is the measure? Where is the scale? Where is the objective assessment? Rose-tinted glasses is what I see.
              • weka …

                11 December 2013 at 3:16 pm

                God you are a dick sometimes. Did you even read what I linked to? The snippet you quote is what a white US woman said in the 1800s comparing her own position within her own culture compared to Iroquois culture. Why would you sum up all of Iroquois society on the basis of what one white woman said? Are you really incapable of understanding things in context, or are you just being disingenuous.

                “And you still haven’t explained how this alternative gender-based society is somehow better or fairer or utopian or whatever it is you are trying to say.”

                yes, I have. I’ve pointed to a culture that treats women and men equitably, and compared it to my own which doesn’t. Many other people have made this same observation, but I suppose the fact that those people are largely not men and not white makes our assessments invalid in your view. Or are you saying that treating men and women equitably is not a sign of fairness?

                You still completely and utterly fail to address the substance of the conversation, so I can only assume I am right when I say that you want to keep your power irrespective of how that impacts on others.
                • vto …

                  11 December 2013 at 11:15 pm

                  why is the race of the US woman relevant?

                  dick
                  • weka …

                    12 December 2013 at 12:06 am

                    It’s not. But culture and ethnicity are. Different cultures value people differently. Why not learn from that?
                • vto …

                  11 December 2013 at 11:25 pm

                  “yes, I have. I’ve pointed to a culture that treats women and men equitably, and compared it to my own which doesn’t”

                  ha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha ahaha ha ha ah ha ha sah ha ha aha
                  • weka …

                    12 December 2013 at 12:11 am

                    Sounds about right, and the height of your intellectual powers being expressed there. Seriously, I’m not just being rude. You repeatedly fail to do anything other than say ‘you are wrong, I am right’, without any kind of explanation or communication of meaning.
                    • vto …

                      12 December 2013 at 12:23 am

                      you cannot handle your assumptions being challenged.

                      you made the original post, so back yourself and the assumptions and implications that you make. where is the evidence for those other societies being non-gender based, egalitarian, fairer, better…..

                      cos there aint nothing there weka
                    • weka …

                      12 December 2013 at 1:25 am

                      Did you read the article? Thought not. Time waster.

                      By all means challenge what I say. I look forward to you actually doing that with substance instead of “you’re wrong”.
          • weka 17.2.1.1.2

            11 December 2013 at 3:19 pm

            “So too are matriarchal societies cultural constructs not human nature, so this point is redundant.”

            No it’s not. The point is that we have choices about how we arrange our affairs, so why not choose the ones that are fairer to all? Maybe we are really getting to the nub of it here with you, that you really don’t believe in the egalitarian princple. Perhaps you feel that some people are more deserving than others.
            • vto 17.2.1.1.2.1

              11 December 2013 at 11:46 pm

              weka who cares what I believe?

              it is facts that count
    • Flip 17.3

      11 December 2013 at 11:55 am

      Enlightening. Shows patriarchy just so happens to be our cultural heritage (western society) and is not universally so. Patriarchy is in the majority of peoples cultural heritage globally though. I’d hope we’ve moved beyond patriarchies or for that matter matriarchies by now and focus on the quality of leadership not the sex.
      • weka 17.3.1

        11 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

        “I’d hope we’ve moved beyond patriarchies or for that matter matriarchies by now and focus on the quality of leadership not the sex.”

        There is no such thing as a matriarchy in the sense of compared to the patriarchy.

        Myself, I find the way that some indigenous peoples organise interesting. The idea of gender equality is quite a Western thing in the sense of gender being irrelevant. What I see in indigenous cultures is that gender difference is valued, but it is valued in equitable ways. I can see why it works for the Iroquois to have women choosing the men who lead the men’s council. Likewise, talk to Maori women about their actual roles and how power is shared on Marae esp during powhiri and other protocol, and you will see something quite different than how their roles are viewed via Pakeha eyes (‘oh, women are denied speaking rights’ etc).

        To our Western eyes, this seems odd, why not just have men and women ‘equal’ and in the same decision making or political/speaking/power roles interchangebly? But women work differently when in women-only groups than they do in mixed groups, and I suspect that men likewise have times when it’s better for them to work together. I’m not sure how white women would manage using the Iroquois model, and I’m probably not even suggesting that they do, but I do think it is healthy and useful to consider that gender ‘equality’ is also a cultural construct and that Western feminism (let alone Western culture in general) doesn’t necessarily have the best take on this.
        • KJT 17.3.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 10:32 pm

          Not sure that is entirely correct.

          I think that Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama, to name just two examples, had a lot of power over the direction of their respective husbands presidencies.

          You see it often in the West, at many levels, where the female partner is the, “power behind the throne” so to speak.
          • weka 17.3.1.1.1

            12 December 2013 at 12:19 am

            I agree, and it’s good to see that being acknowledged (many women historically have been written out of history despite their significant influence). Individual women have always had varying degrees of power within the patriachal cultures. In the case of women like Obama and Clinton, they are being allowed a certain kind of power. It is certainly not something granted to all women (or all people for that matter). You want to look at how women fare as a class, not the individual examples.

            Also, the classic feminist response would be that Obama and CLinton should be allowed to rule like their husbands and equality will be achieved when the US has a woman president. I would say that is unambitious, and an egalitarian society will exist when women like Obama and Clinton are able to change how politics are done, not merely be allowed the play the boys’ game.
            • marty mars 17.3.1.1.1.1

              12 December 2013 at 10:23 pm

              Thought you might like this link weta

              “It resonates with a wider cultural trend in which feminist empowerment has been conflated with individual gain within a patriarchal system, not a collective effort to end patriarchy once and for all.”

              http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/12/10/the-solution-to-patriarchy-pantene-says-shine/
    • Ennui 17.4

      11 December 2013 at 2:27 pm

      I don’t have any issue with the Iroquois set up…you should meet my mother!

      It goes a little further too, I heard on a Ecoshock Radio interview an Indian woman claim that at the behest of women the decisions made by the Grand Council had to take into account 7 generations (i.e what would the impact be to the 7th generation). Will try and find URL. Eminently sensible.
      • weka 17.4.1

        11 December 2013 at 4:09 pm

        Would be interested in the link if you find it.
18. Ake ake ake 18

    11 December 2013 at 11:49 am

    Good on Michelle who has a grounded sense of the occasion, and looks resolutely ahead while the so-called leaders take a selfie.

    And Obama was certainly in trouble. Who needs the might of US armed forces when The Stare can halt a thousand naval ships!

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbH0Q9GCYAA7S01.jpg
    • Ake ake ake 18.1

      11 December 2013 at 12:06 pm

      And here is Part 3 (note the change in seating arrangements).

      Guess who might be sleeping in the doghouse at the Whitehouse?

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbIsT9ZIQAAsXRj.jpg
      • Rogue Trooper 18.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 12:47 pm

        apparently some Conservative US numpty suggested Obama “sanitize his hands” after the hand-shake with Raul Castro- oh “the innocent blood on Castro’s hands”
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/obama-shakes-hands-raul-castro-mandela-memorial
        Yep, just a little irony
      • North 18.1.2

        11 December 2013 at 2:19 pm

        Michelle: “Who the fuck are you Martha Stewart lady ? ……… this ain’t Vaudeville !

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BbH0Q9GCYAA7S01.jpg

        No pics yet of ShonKey Python topping infamous triple hand shake with a needy quadruple ?
        • weka 18.1.2.1

          11 December 2013 at 2:32 pm

          This really shouldn’t be a spectator sport 🙁
          • joe90 18.1.2.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 4:34 pm

            Indeed weka – no context either, the Obamas’ are talking to Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

            http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Billedserier/2013/12/10133713.htm
      • ianmac 18.1.3

        11 December 2013 at 3:18 pm

        Ake ake. Well. Some leaders do have aphrodisiac attractions but watch out if important leader’s wives find out! Sizzle!
19. amirite 19

    11 December 2013 at 12:18 pm

    This is how Cameron and an ‘unindentified guest’ paid their respects to Nelson Mandela: (BTW this pic screams for a good meme!)

    http://postimg.org/image/exovfy221/

    Time to get rid of these psychopathic, disrespectful, worthless douchebags.
    • marty mars 19.1

      11 December 2013 at 1:24 pm

      Yes I saw that and I think key will be beside himself with rage.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa/9504109/Keys-forgettable-moment-at-Mandela-event

      Who is he? Just an interchangeable cog in the big machine that’s grinding up people left, right and centre.
      • Ake ake ake 19.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

        and key hopes having his own taxpayer-paid photographer will make a difference!
    • Chris 19.2

      11 December 2013 at 1:45 pm

      ouch…
    • Rosie 19.3

      11 December 2013 at 1:52 pm

      I feel a little sick.
      • Colonial Viper 19.3.1

        11 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

        Really? Then this photo of Key should make you really vomit. (Trigger warning)

        https://twitter.com/johnkeypm/status/410332701057499136/photo/1
        • Rogue Trooper 19.3.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 4:07 pm

          M8! fine dining out on the proletariat
          (ps, I personally savour this comment). 😀
        • Rosie 19.3.1.2

          11 December 2013 at 5:11 pm

          Thanks for the warning – made it to the bathroom in time
        • joe90 19.3.1.3

          11 December 2013 at 10:26 pm

          Harper huh.

          http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/
          • Rogue Trooper 19.3.1.3.1

            12 December 2013 at 3:24 pm

            Holy Shamoly joe90
        • Colonial Viper 19.3.1.4

          11 December 2013 at 11:23 pm

          Three Eyes.
    • North 19.4

      11 December 2013 at 2:04 pm

      Visitor from Hawke’s Bay trying to impress Auckland Racing Club president. President “polite”. President’s assistant betrays president’s true feelings. “Oh God…….not this fuck again !”
      • Rogue Trooper 19.4.1

        11 December 2013 at 2:16 pm

        that is interesting
    • swordfish 19.5

      11 December 2013 at 3:13 pm

      KEY: “…….And then I told them ‘I’m very, very sorry everyone but I just can’t remember how I felt about the Tour !'” (Cameron laughs loudly) KEY: “You ?”

      CAMERON: “Campaigned to have the bugger lynched in my Young Conservative days !” (Both laugh uproariously).
    • phillip ure 19.6

      11 December 2013 at 5:59 pm

      @ ‘unidentified guest’..

      ..surely that cameron/key pic is screaming for a caption contest..?

      i’ll kick it off:..

      key to cameron:

      ‘isn’t it hilarious when the peasants scream like stuck pigs..?’..

      cameron:..’i know..!..i know..!..’

      phillip ure..
20. Rogue Trooper 20

    11 December 2013 at 12:53 pm

    So, Fonterra cuts dividends to investors “sharply” by 2/3 down to 10c a share;
    Investors react and share price drops 10%.
    According to Fonterra, while milk-powder returns are high, hence the record payout per kilo of milk solids at the farm gate, cheese and other processed products not doing so well.
21. Rogue Trooper 21

    11 December 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Hows that for a baiting headline?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11170653
    Taxpayers pay for Harawira’s trip to Mandela
    Good ol’ boy Southern Hospitality with clean white sheets.
    • weka 21.1

      11 December 2013 at 1:09 pm

      What, and John Key is paying for his own ticket himself?
      • Rogue Trooper 21.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 1:20 pm

        donated the price of his fare to charity.
        • Arfamo 21.1.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 1:33 pm

          The Sky City or Warner Bros charity?
          • Rogue Trooper 21.1.1.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 2:19 pm

            charity of his choosing; gotta make those ‘quick trades’.
    • freedom 21.2

      11 December 2013 at 5:39 pm

      on a side issue that is, dependant upon your perspective a little odd or a lot obvious, observant folk will notice that on the Herald page there are numerous comments (currently 15) yet the comments link on the herald page seems to be completely inactive. Interesting though that every other article with comments is working absolutely fine. 😎
22. amirite 22

    11 December 2013 at 2:01 pm

    To John Key: You, sir, are an idiot!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/national-news/9501567/Sky-weeps-for-Madiba
    • idlegus 22.1

      11 December 2013 at 2:28 pm

      Key said the American leader was the “stand-out”, and told him so when they had a little catch-up.
      “You’ve just got to give the guy 10 out of 10 for being a brilliant orator,” Key said.
      “He really, I think, knocked it out of the park … he had some very strong messages.
      ” I kind of think in a way he made the day.”

      !!!!!!!
      • amirite 22.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 2:34 pm

        I know. 😀
23. mac1 23

    11 December 2013 at 2:57 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9373334/Shanks-to-leave-politic

    Katrina Shanks is on her pony, as another Nat rides off into the West.
    • Arfamo 23.1

      11 December 2013 at 2:59 pm

      They just roll out the next glove puppet.
    • Puckish Rogue 23.2

      11 December 2013 at 3:09 pm

      Its called rejuvanation, something Labour might like to consider…
      • Arfamo 23.2.1

        11 December 2013 at 3:12 pm

        Yep. Aaron Gilmore was their best rejuvenation ever.
        • Colonial Viper 23.2.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 3:19 pm

          Shanks was a non-performer, although not in the same disastrous implosion vein as Gilmour.

          And your Gilmour example is perfect. National moved that guy on very quickly and smoothly.

          Make no mistake. National are currently putting together a very fresh faced and able line up for 2014. (Or at least that’s how it will be portrayed to the electorate).
        • Puckish Rogue 23.2.1.2

          11 December 2013 at 3:23 pm

          Almost as good as Philip Field
          • Arfamo 23.2.1.2.1

            11 December 2013 at 3:30 pm

            Lol. Nope. Aaron was much better. His Parliamentary arrival and departure was positively rocket-boosted.
      • mac1 23.2.2

        11 December 2013 at 3:20 pm

        I prefer Fisiani’s characterisation “Nats quaking in their boots, leaving the sinking ship in droves.”

        Admittedly, quoted out of context, but a good mixed metaphor is a still a metaphor not to be missed.
      • alwyn 23.2.3

        11 December 2013 at 4:31 pm

        It is something that Labour SHOULD consider but it is certainly not something they WANT to consider. The real deadwood, people like Mallard, Fenton,Curran et al, will only be prised out of there with a crowbar, or a couple of sticks of gelignite.
        They might have to get jobs if they get the boot and they have long since been incapable of doing anything useful.
        Is there a single Labour MP, apart from Ross Robertson, who has announced they are standing down at the election? I suppose for some of them the feel that if they get through to the election they are safe when Cunliffe is rolled.
      • mac1 23.2.4

        11 December 2013 at 4:49 pm

        Puckish Rogue, you’re good at what you do, eh? Good attempt at diversion away from another Nat jumping ship along with the others including English jumping onto the List life-raft.

        My comments stands- another National MP, for ‘family reasons’, stands down from losing at the next election. They’ve read the entrails, sniffed the wind and seen the tsunami on the horizon.

        And are running.
        • Colonial Viper 23.2.4.1

          11 December 2013 at 4:58 pm

          with the others including English jumping onto the List life-raft.

          huh? English didn’t need any kind of life raft. He could be 80 in that seat and they would still vote him in.
          • ScottGN 23.2.4.1.1

            11 December 2013 at 5:14 pm

            Sadly as a Clutha-Southland constituent I have to agree with that sentiment. By going list only English is clearly signaling that whatever happens at the next election he is preparing for retirement from politics. Personally I hope it comes quickly in the wake of an election defeat for National.
            • mac1 23.2.4.1.1.1

              11 December 2013 at 6:45 pm

              Agreed, ScottGN. If English stayed as an electorate MP it would be more difficult to do a runner from Parliament than as a list MP who no doubt would find family reasons within a decent interval to resign from Parliament after a National electoral defeat.

              Our local MP resigned in 1999 to go onto the list in anticipation of nine long years in opposition, and perhaps, Colonial Viper, could have been beaten in a seat similar to Clutha-Southland where you stood, with the baggage he carried, for his seat had he stayed. In the event he resigned before the 2002 election.

              Like you, Scott GN, I see going onto the list as a preparation for leaving parliamentary politics. Leaving the list for retirement, as Katrina Shanks is doing, is an indicator of seeing a political career about to be lost or curtailed in opposition. Locally, one MP resigned after six years in parliamentary opposition- no chance for her of a ministerial career and her replacement hangs on, with a challenge from the local electorate organisation.

              If he announced his resignation from Parliament shortly, before the electorate nomination process which is due mid this month, then I might consider, as Puckish Rogue did in his diversion, that National is trimming its dead wood. Our local MP is certainly fallen timber, in that regard.
    • Rosie 23.3

      11 December 2013 at 3:41 pm

      Thats been the craic around here in the Ohariu electorate for a bit now. Question is who will replace Charles Chauvel? He’s been gone a while and I haven’t heard a peep. C’mon Labour members, what’s the goss? Got a real feisty one that will put down a real challenge to ol’ Dunney boy?
24. Puckish Rogue 24

    11 December 2013 at 3:10 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9504034/Uruguay-legalises-marijuana-trade

    – Now this is something I’d like to see here
    • Arfamo 24.1

      11 December 2013 at 3:15 pm

      Send a tweet to the Justice Minister telling her that. Her tweet in reply would probably be worth a read.
      • Puckish Rogue 24.1.1

        11 December 2013 at 4:15 pm

        Oh I’d tweet her all right
        • Rogue Trooper 24.1.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 4:25 pm

          would she tweet in response is the question
        • Arfamo 24.1.1.2

          11 December 2013 at 5:01 pm

          Oh I’d tweet her all right

          Cool. Ronya dude. Post the link here when you’ve done it. Will you be long? Or are you all mouth and no trousers?
    • Rogue Trooper 24.2

      11 December 2013 at 4:24 pm

      thanks for that; motivation to renew passport.
      • Colonial Viper 24.2.1

        11 December 2013 at 4:59 pm

        No good soz; you have to be a citizen of Uruguay. Anyways…NZ ‘horticultural output’ is hard to beat…
        • Rogue Trooper 24.2.1.1

          11 December 2013 at 10:19 pm

          one could patiently await citizenship (this wonderful thought ushered me into my afternoon nap 🙂 )
          40 grams a month? Smoking!
    • Draco T Bastard 24.3

      11 December 2013 at 7:52 pm

      a pioneering social experiment that will be closely watched by other nations debating drug liberalisation.

      How can it be a “social experiment” when humanity has been smoking the stuff for thousands of years?
25. Morrissey 25

    11 December 2013 at 6:36 pm

    “What makes Obama the greatest speaker of our times, Ashley?”
    Another dismal, irony-free edition of The Panel
    Radio NZ National, Wednesday 11 December 2013
    Jim Mora, Stephen Franks, Lisa Scott

    Two days ago, nasty right winger Jock Anderson was allowed to run free in the studio, slinging off at the poor, sounding off at activists like Charles Waldegrave, and scoffing at the very idea that there was poverty in this country; his ranting was amplified by fellow guest Mark Inglis who was similarly impatient with namby-pamby charity workers: “I’ve been to India,” he intoned in high seriousness, “where I can show you REAL poverty.” All through this ideological rampage, host Jim Mora sat quietly.

    If you were unwise, unlucky or bored enough to end up listening to the Panel this afternoon, you will have been subjected to more of this indignant, self-righteous fury from the extreme right wing. The offender this time was a regular Panel guest, the former ACT MP and S.S. “legal counsel” Stephen Franks.

    After a few opening pleasantries about the tribulations of pre-Christmas office parties, Franks got down to business. First up, he railed against the Resource Management Act, which in simple-minded ACT Party fashion, he blames for the housing shortage in Auckland. A little later, when the expert guest was Roger Levy from HOBANZ, Franks frothed about “the economic dunces on the left who tell us that every house must have a certificate of regulation”.

    After both outbursts, there was nothing but silence from his fellow Panelist Lisa Scott. And, worse, there was complete silence from host Jim Mora. It is worth noting that Roger Levy also chose to say nothing, but in his case the refusal to engage with Franks was probably a sign of contempt, or an inability to comprehend that someone, especially a lawyer, could be so extraordinarily mulish and obtuse.

    Jim Mora’s failure to control, or to argue with these right wingers is instructive. It is a sharp contrast to the way he treats liberal commentators: if someone like Gordon McLauchlan, or Mai Chen or Gary McCormick says something even mildly critical of government policy, Mora almost invariably jumps in with an objection, insisting on construing government statements in the most indulgent manner. Earlier this week, a guest criticized a cruel and dismissive Twitter quip aimed at John Minto by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. Mora immediately chipped in, and insisted that Collins would not have actually meant what she had actually written. And that, he made it perfectly clear, was the end of that discussion. If any guest does persist in a way that displeases him, his affable mask slips and he shouts petulantly: “No but hang on!” and insists that the last word is the government line.

    But let’s get back to today’s debacle. Worse, far worse, was to come from the mouth of Stephen Franks: in his “Soapbox” segment, he began by inappropriately quoting Orwell, which is a ruse common to extreme right wing commentators—and one which would have appalled Orwell, who utterly detested people like Franks. He warned Jim that he might want to stop him, because he had “something to say about the New Zealand judiciary”. Of course, Jim did not so much as demur as Franks launched into his tirade, which was simply another of his trademark rants against the legal system, during which he had the unmitigated gall to invoke the S.S. Trust, that discredited, deregistered, bloodthirsty knife-enthusiasts’ organization for which he acts as “legal counsel”.

    Finally, mercifully, the rant petered out….

    MORA: [contemplative sigh] All right. Stephen Franks on the Panel. Keep us up to date with it, will you?
    STEPHEN FRANKS: I will.
    MORA: Ahhh, there’s a bit of a hold-up on State Highway No. 1, by Huntly, due to roadworks. ….[pause]…. Now, Nelson Mandela’s funeral. The stand-out speech by all accounts was by President Obama.
    STEPHEN FRANKS: It had that cadence which comes from someone who has been steeped in Southern evangelical traditions. It produces great rhetoric.
    LISA SCOTT: Yes.
    MORA: Where are the great orators? You were quoting Churchill before, Stephen, so it’s not only the Southern evangelical tradition. Eisenhower, Clinton, De Gaulle and Kennedy—all great speakers!
    STEPHEN FRANKS: [Quietly and intensely, to indicate great depth of thought] I wonder if it’s because we’ve turned our backs on rote learning.
    LISA SCOTT: Yes.
    MORA: Ashley Campbell joins us. How are you?
    ASHLEY CAMPBELL: I’m good!
    MORA: Ashley is a speech expert. What makes Obama the greatest speaker of our times, Ashley?
    ASHLEY CAMPBELL: Obama is an orator. The reason he is so effective is he gets intensely personal. He brings absolutely everybody in. He spoke to everybody in that stadium, in that country, and in the world. And he spoke of “we” and “us”, like when he said: “He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well. Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas.” [2]
    MORA: Yeah, Churchill used to do that didn’t he, and Kennedy!
    ASHLEY CAMPBELL: Yep, yep, “We will fight them on the beaches”, blah blah blah.
    MORA: That is what Obama is a master of! We NEED great speeches don’t we!
    FRANKS: [gravely] It would be a fortunate New Zealand politician who would not be mocked if he tried delivering an American style inspirational speech.
    ASHLEY: That’s what Lange did.
    LISA SCOTT: Yes.
    FRANKS: Blair had flights of oratory. He was known for it at the beginning, but he ended up being mocked for it. That toxic tribalism makes oratory pretty much impossible. For all his rhetoric, Obama has a very low approval rating.
    MORA: Even if you’re an Obama opponent, you probably forgave him after that Madiba speech.

    ….[Music wells up]….

    MORA: We haven’t got time to talk about impostors now. Maybe tomorrow!

    [1] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09122013/#comment-741884
    [2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/transcript-remarks-president-barack-obama-nelson-mandela-service-article-1.1542986#ixzz2n8lz6vsW
    • Paul 25.1

      11 December 2013 at 8:30 pm

      Morrissey, couldn’t agree with you more.
      Mora always is the contrarian to the mildest left wing opinion, yet is silent while extreme right wing ideas are raved on about.
      Is he intimidated or does he quietly agree?
26. ianmac 26

    11 December 2013 at 6:53 pm

    Roy Morgan:
    Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows John Key’s National Party (45%, up 0.5%) level with a potential Labour/ Greens Alliance (45%, unchanged). Support for Key’s Coalition partners is down slightly: Maori Party 1.5% (unchanged), United Future 0% (down 0.5%), ACT NZ 0% (down 0.5%).

    Support for the Labour Party has fallen to 30.5% (down 3.5%), while the Greens have risen to 14.5% (up 3.5%), New Zealand First 5% (up 1.5%), Mana Party 1% (unchanged), Conservative Party of NZ 2% (unchanged) and Others 0.5% (down 1%).

    Trendy Stuff!
    • Morrissey 26.1

      11 December 2013 at 7:05 pm

      Roy Morgan’s polling is about as trustworthy as an Obama speech is sincere. This “poll” defies credibility. How was it conducted? Who did they “poll”? The sheep of Epsom?
27. Penny Bright 27

    11 December 2013 at 8:10 pm

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Banks-trial-date-set/tabid/423/articleID/324693/Default.aspx

    Not surprising that John Banks has chosen trial by Judge, rather than trial by jury?

    It probably wouldn’t be easy to find a jury of his ‘peers’?

    How many ex-Ministers with chronic amnesia are there out there?

    Penny Bright

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS