Open mike 14/07/2012

107 comments on “Open mike 14/07/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   14 July 2012 at 6:33 am

   Q: What is the greatest single thing that prevents our parliament from taking real action against climate change?

   A: The ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme)

   The ETS also known in some circles as the PTS (Pollution Trading Scheme). Allows polluters to buy credits to allow them to continue polluting, (In practice the ETS has overseen an increase the amount GHG (Green House Gases) emitted by this country.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     14 July 2012 at 6:45 am

     Its not legislation which is preventing climate change action. Its the influential top quartile high consuming middle class middle management electorate who don’t want to be told that they need to scale back their energy and resource usage by 25%, immediately. Altering ETS legislation won’t affect that mindset.

     No legislation will.
     • Jenny 1.1.1

       14 July 2012 at 7:14 am

       What a cop out.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 7:34 am

         You have a solution to the top quartile problem then? What is it?
         • Jackal 1.1.1.1.1

           14 July 2012 at 11:14 am

           Don’t help them when the shit hits the fan.

           The problem isn’t the ETS as such, the problem is that many polluting industries are not included in the scheme and the taxpayer is subsidizing polluting industries by purchasing half their credits. Without a proper charge being placed on pollution, including industries paying for cleanup costs (including climate change mitigation), there will be no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and our existence on earth will become even more tenuous.
     • Jenny 1.1.2

       15 July 2012 at 6:07 am

       Its not legislation which is preventing climate change action. Its the influential top quartile high consuming middle class middle management electorate who don’t want to be told that they need to scale back their energy and resource usage by 25%, immediately. Altering ETS legislation won’t affect that mindset.

       Colonial Viper

       How do you know how any section of the population will react unless you give a lead?
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     14 July 2012 at 6:55 am

     JMG’s advice is simple – “Collapse now and avoid the rush”

     http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2012/06/collapse-now-and-avoid-rush.html

     Thing is, no politician or business leader can advocate anything like this, even if they wanted to. They wouldn’t be a politician or business leader by the end of the month.
     • Jenny 1.2.1

       14 July 2012 at 7:17 am

       “Collapse now and avoid the rush”

       Is this the Labour Right’s advice to the Greens?
       • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 7:32 am

         lol. More seriously, this is where things need to go, but politicians and business leaders will never say it. To them, BAU growth will return shortly. No it won’t.
   • Jenny 1.3

     14 July 2012 at 7:11 am

     A right wing monetarist scheme to avoid meeting our international obligations to cut back on GHG emissions, the ETS was brought in by a Labour Government, controversially (and provisionally) supported by the Green Party.

     The time has come for the Green Party to remove that provisional support, or forever be a patsy for either of the two main parties in parliament.

     Like most monetarist avoidance schemes,once they are in place, under successive administrations they are refined and made even more inequitable. Over time the rules are made slacker, the loopholes are made bigger.

     And so it has proven with the Pollution Trading Scheme, rather than the polluters paying the cost of their pollution, this cost has been ‘socialised’. Now the taxpayers are effectively paying the polluters to continue BAU. (Business As Usual).

     (Not that this is much different from the Labour Government’s privatised version of the ETS, where the polluters just passed on the costs of polluting through price adjustments that left no effect on their bottom line. Which left them free to keep on keeping on, and even increasing emissions.)

     The time is well past when the Greens should have removed their support for this pollution trading scheme.

     The question is: Will the Greens parliamentary wing heed the call from the right of the Labour Party to shut up about the environment in exchange for a seat in cabinet?

     Or will they remain an independent voice in parliament outside of cabinet?

     Will Labour’s continueing “dogmatic” support for market solutions to climate change, be the breaking point of any coalition agreement, between Labour and the Green Party?

     Will Green continued support for pollution trading be the sticking point?
     • Colonial Viper 1.3.1

       14 July 2012 at 7:36 am

       NZ has fifteen years to get ready for a deeply energy depleted future. Transport, energy and comms infrastructure have to be absolute priorities.

       How many years of those 15 are you willing to waste dancing around the ETS?
       • weka 1.3.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 11:53 am

         Why the 15 year timeframe, CV?
       • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2

         14 July 2012 at 1:40 pm

         NZ has fifteen years to get ready for a deeply energy depleted future.

         WTF? No we don’t. All indications are that we won’t be importing enough fuel by the end of this decade which, practically speaking, means we’ve got between 3 and 4 years to get ready. In 15 years we’ll be in the deeply energy depleted future.
         • weka 1.3.1.2.1

           14 July 2012 at 1:55 pm

           Which indications are you referring to Draco? I hear a wide range of informed opinions on the timeframe.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.2.1.1

             14 July 2012 at 3:34 pm

             http://oilshockhorrorprobe.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/when-might-new-zealands-oil-imports-dry.html

             Peak Oil combined with oil exporting countries using more of the oil they have at home instead of exporting it and 100 year oil contracts* which we don’t have.

             * Not that I expect 100 year oil contracts to actually last out the 100 years.
             • weka …

               14 July 2012 at 9:03 pm

               Thanks, interesting. I accept the general premise of the article and understand the rational for his timeframe.
                

               For example New Zealand produces about 61,000 barrels per day and consumes about 151,000 barrels per day (CIA 2009 data).
                

               Does that mean that, theoretically, leaving aside the drop in production, at the moment we could manage to be self supporting if we dropped our usage by 60%?
                

               The P50 estimates of actual oil production for the significant oil-producing fields around New Zealand each fall to the near-useless volume of 1 million barrels per year (about 2750 barrels per day) between 2020 and 2025
                

               Is that giving us a 8 – 13 year window to power down if we actually owned and used it ourselves?
                

               So even if we were to divert local production to our refinery (and then pay the going global price for it)
                

               Why would we have to pay the global price? Is that because the refinery is privately owned?

               We do not even have any first-call on our local oil production that hovers between 60,000 and 40,000 barrels a day, depending on the state of our tiny oil fields. Instead we take the royalty money to assist with our balance of payments, and as noted above even that meagre cash injection is set to decline sharply. 

                
               When the heat really goes on, can the NZ govt get out of that agreement, or nationalise the production and refining?
                

               This ‘triangle of hope’ in the top left corner of the chart, terminates (and I use the word advisedly!) in about 2016, five years from today.
                

               Do you mind me asking what you personally are doing in the face of that?
                
                
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 15 July 2012 at 2:02 am

                 Does that mean that, theoretically, leaving aside the drop in production, at the moment we could manage to be self supporting if we dropped our usage by 60%?

                 Depends upon what we’re actually importing it for. Purely for fuel, then, yes. Other stuff like plastics would still need to be imported (As I understand it NZ oil is a very light-sweet crude which isn’t suitable for producing the heavier products)

                 Why would we have to pay the global price?

                 Because the wells are privately owned and sell the oil at the global price and then pay us a pittance (5%) of what they sell it for.

                 The really funny/ironic thing about this whole concept is that if we did use it ourselves and only charged ourselves what it cost us to produce the rest of the world (especially the US) would be complaining about us subsidising the oil. This is, of course, complete bollocks and what they’d really be complaining about is the fact that they wouldn’t be able to buy it.

                 When the heat really goes on, can the NZ govt get out of that agreement, or nationalise the production and refining?

                 Parliament is supreme so, yes, we can get out of it. The question is whether the government at the time will do so.

                 Do you mind me asking what you personally are doing in the face of that?

                 Don’t own a car, walk as much as possible, PT for the rest. Meridian for power which, prior to Gerry Brownlee fucking around with the set up, didn’t have any fossil fuelled generators while minimising power usage as much as possible. What I’d like to do is add some solar panels/water heating and some passive heating and better insulation but it’s not actually my house.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   15 July 2012 at 2:10 am

                   btw the spot price of oil, whether brent or wti or any other, can bear very limited resemblance to what is traded in the ‘dark pool’ exchanges, and is certainly of limited relevance to the prices set within long term supply contracts.
                 • mike e …

                   15 July 2012 at 2:35 am

                   DTB Just velcro panels of styrofoam insulation panels on the walls and ceiling with cheap velcro dots.
                   paint these panels the colour you like.
                   Cut out panels the size of windows to cover windows at night.
                 • weka …

                   15 July 2012 at 8:37 pm

                   Have you looked at 12V solar? It is much more efficient than 240. And you can set up a system that is moveable/portable. You could probably do that for solar hot water if you’re handy too.
       • Jenny 1.3.1.3

         15 July 2012 at 6:13 am

         NZ has fifteen years to get ready for a deeply energy depleted future. Transport, energy and comms infrastructure have to be absolute priorities.

         How many years of those 15 are you willing to waste dancing around the ETS?

         Colonial Viper

         None.
       • Jenny 1.3.1.4

         15 July 2012 at 7:14 am

         NZ has fifteen years to get ready for a deeply energy depleted future. Transport, energy and comms infrastructure have to be absolute priorities.

         Colonial Viper

         Every time we are discussing climate change CV diverts the thread onto peak oil.

         Why is this CV?
         • Jenny 1.3.1.4.1

           15 July 2012 at 7:33 am

           Another tactic CV uses to avoid taking a stand on Climate Change is to scapegoat the “middle classes” Claiming that the middle classes are far too attached to their “comforts” to be asked to support a party that calls for action against Climate Change.

           In my opinion all this evasion, scapegoating and diversion and excuse making is a cover for the Labour Party’s support for deep sea oil exploitation, fracking, opening new coal mines for a new export industry, and probably the most CO2 polluting technology ever invented, lignite to diesel production. All plans approved and championed by the last Labour Government.

           CV’s hidden message is clear, Climate Change technologies will be continued and even expanded under a Labour administration. Blaming the middle class and citing peak oil will be the two most used excuses for doing so.

           I put it to you CV that your two excuses are very flimsy, and have both been discredited.
         • weka 1.3.1.4.2

           15 July 2012 at 8:40 pm

           I don’t know why CV does it, but for me personally it’s because I think it’s far to late to do anything about CC*, but we still have some time to respond to PO.
            
           *Which doesn’t mean that I think efforts around CC should stop, I do think they’re very important for not making things worse.
           • Jim Nald 1.3.1.4.2.1

             15 July 2012 at 9:08 pm

             Or it could be quite simply that given the various lifecycles related to each of them, we will experience PO much more significantly before CC?
             • weka …

               15 July 2012 at 10:07 pm

               Or we could have them both at the same time 😉
2. Gable 2

   14 July 2012 at 7:27 am

   Are you a Labour Party Member? Do you support the membership having a genuine and effective role in when and how we select the Leader? Are you concerned that ” senior sources” wants the Caucus to have a block vote? And that they can over-ride the process if their preferred candidate is not selected? Do you want to influence those on the NZ Council shaping the decision? They want to hear from you. Here is the contact info that you require.

   David Shearer    david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz
   Grant    Robertson, grant.robertson@parliament.govt.nz,
   Moira Coatsworth
   Chris      Flatt,  gensec@labour.org.nz
   Maori Senior VP, Parekura Horomia parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz
   Women’s VP, Kate Sutton
   Senior VP, Robert Gallagher
   Affiliates VP, Angus McConnell,
   Policy Council, Jordan Carter,
   Young Labour VP, Glenn Riddell,
   Te Kaunihere, Rudy Taylor,
   Te Kaunihere, Deborah Mahuta-Coyle,
   Pacific Island Vice President,
   Area 1,  Tanja Bristow,
   Area 1, Paul Chalmers,
   Area 2, Sonya Church,
   Area 3, Shane Stieller,
   Area 4,  Paul Tolich,
   Area 5, Tony Milne,
   Area 6, Glenda Alexander,
   Rainbow Sector, Simon Randall.

   Kia Kaha

    
3. Gable 3

   14 July 2012 at 7:37 am

   And here is to background for your chat with your Area Rep. (taken from a blog on another stream)

   Seeing coverage of the apparently unhurried steps towards Labour party members having a say in future leadership bids made me want to stop and ask some questions about whether they are telling the full story:

   1) Will members have the same say as MPs? And who were the “Senior members” said there was some concern that giving too much weight to the membership vote over the caucus vote? Isn’t the point that MPs are accountable to the
   membership? If you think of the caucus as being like the employees and the membership is the Board, then employees don’t get to choose the CEO – in a grown up world you work with who you need to. And if the membership choose
   someone presumably they are doing it for a good reason? Could it be that there are some MPs who think there is something to fear from that extra level of accountability to the party grassroots?

   2) Will the proportion of the leadership vote assigned to affiliates be shrunk by those within caucus who distrust the union movement? Once again what do MPs fear? This is the Labour party, grounded in the Labour relations movement isn’t it?

   3) What will happen to the automatic 2013 vote (year ahead of an election)? Surely this would be the perfect opportunity for the membership and affiliates to illustrate their support for the leader for whom they will be volunteering their time to help elect in 2014? And given that this whole undertaking is designed to empower the party membership then why would you try and sidestep the rules before the ink is dry?

   4) How is the winnder in each category determined? Winner takes all? Proportional? We all recognise how the ‘first past the post’ approach establishes bias in the system – that’s why we have MMP!

   5) Finally, while I applaud caucus and the party for bringing this to the table they can’t afford to do it in a way that is less than meaningful. Besides, what are caucus afraid of? If all is going well who would want to challenge and open themselves to the sort of scrutiny that brings – especially as they would have to justify their decision to the membership, and the wider public, if things are out in the open. Having chosen to open this topic caucus cannot afford to sell the members short. Who is the winner if the party tears itself apart over this? Short term it may be those within the caucus who are resistant to change, but the long term answer would be National, as they’d retain the Treasury benches for some time to come.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     14 July 2012 at 7:49 am

     Thanks for posting this. NZ Council meeting is this weekend and people need to get word to their rep to make sure that members and unions get the utmost say, not the 30-40 people in caucus.

     A wide array of real options need to be brought to a democratic vote in front of delegates at November Conference.

     And who were the “Senior members” said there was some concern that giving too much weight to the membership vote over the caucus vote? Isn’t the point that MPs are accountable to the
     membership?

     As you know, there are a bunch of MPs who don’t really believe in any accountability to the party, and who prefer a party compliant to caucus.

     As for the “senior members” you ask about, I suspect (but cannot know for sure) Parker, Jones, Cosgrove and Robertson to be amongst them.
   • Pete George 3.2

     14 July 2012 at 7:55 am

     …I applaud caucus and the party for bringing this to the table…

     I applaud this too, good to see it being looked at and widely and openly discussed.

     Democracy sounds simple – until you start to consider all the possibilities. FPP is much simpler than MMP, but is generally regarded as less fair and less democratic. A simple majority has it’s benefits but also can have potentially major flaws – including when it comes to leader and candidate selection.

     I hope it ends up with a better way of doing intra-party democracy
     – but remember, democracy doesn’t satisfy all of the people all of the time.

     Vernon Small writes on it: Labour tiptoes towards perception change.
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

       14 July 2012 at 7:57 am

       Pete George, you took Gable’s quote right out of context. It was actually:

       while I applaud caucus and the party for bringing this to the table they can’t afford to do it in a way that is less than meaningful. Besides, what are caucus afraid of?
       • felix 3.2.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 12:08 pm

         PG selectively quoting so as to present the opposite impression to what was said?

         Shock I am.
   • Ad 3.3

     14 July 2012 at 8:42 am

     Has anyone read Fran O’Sullivan in the Herald this morning? She says what many on this site have been saying for months, namely, that Shearer just isn’t doing a good job of presenting Labour policy or ideas and always prefers mango-skin variant stories.

     Even worse, that his primary threat is Greens Leader Russell Norman, who always appears succinct and focussed and appealing.

     Which means that those slowly increasing poll numbers for Labour are occurring DESPITE Shearer, not because of him.

     What we don’t want to do is lose the next election because we didn’t have someone who could unify the troops, or have the confidence of the whole – caucus, members, and our own SuperPACs the unions. We need a leader in fact who will do that.

     And this constitutional review must provide Labour with the mechanisms to do that.

     I dread what will occur if Labour’s NZCouncil do not.
     • muzza 3.3.1

       14 July 2012 at 9:01 am

       “Which means that those slowly increasing poll numbers for Labour are occurring DESPITE Shearer, not because of him.”

       Nah those polls are a carefully orchestrated diversion to ensure that there are still simpletons who think that NZ politics is a democracy, which is clearly is not!
     • Te Reo Putake 3.3.2

       14 July 2012 at 9:19 am

       Jeez, Ad, if you are relying On Fran O’Sullivan to back your arguments up you must know you’ve already on a loser. David Shearer is going to be the next PM whether you like it or not.
        
       Give the man some credit for steadying the ship. These slow, but effective poll gains are a result of his leadership and some real discipline from the rest of the caucus. Notice there haven’t been any self inflicted wounds in recent months? Discipline and positivity are going see Labour lead the next Government.
       • Ad 3.3.2.1

         14 July 2012 at 9:28 am

         Yes O’Sullivan makes me sick generally. Still the NZHerald editorial this week was clearly extremely well briefed by those who prefer the current leadership system to be protected, so it was good to see the Herald giving with one hand and then taking with the other. Balanced journalism right? 😉

         It was pretty steady under Goff. In fact it was pretty steady under Rowling. Steady losers.

         Discipline and positivity is standard code for do what caucus tells you to do.

         We are over that now. Moira let the democracy genie out of the bottle and there is no stuffing it back in.

         Discipline and positivity will not will Labour any election. Inspiring members, supporters, and in fact inspiring New Zealand will.
         • mike e 3.3.2.1.1

           14 July 2012 at 10:59 am

           The Neo Con man Key is loosing his Teflon.
           Investment bankers are the most despised people in the world today.
           Labour just has to sit back and watch National implode.
           Austerity policies will Guarantee the economy continues to bottom drag.
       • Olwyn 3.3.2.2

         14 July 2012 at 9:38 am

         Some perspective is needed here. National’s vote is slowly collapsing. Labour’s vote has returned from its election day low to the general area where it has yoyoed for the past four and a half years. Winning an election from that position would very likely render it a one term government, with a long time in the wilderness to follow.
       • BillODrees 3.3.2.3

         14 July 2012 at 9:43 am

         Jesus wept, TRP
         How fucking inspirationless and ambitionless can we be? 
         Are you saying that the new strategy of the twits who brought Labour to its worse election defeat in 2011 is to just avoid upsetting people?  And then, Mirabula Dictu, half a million who did not vote or drifted to parties that inspired them, will come, racing down the street, first thing in the morning, and vote Shearer and Robertson into a government!  

         Next you will be telling us that the Meet shall inherit the Earth!  
         • Colonial Viper 3.3.2.3.1

           14 July 2012 at 9:58 am

           Bill. The Labour caucus has got a policy of leadership by managing internal poll numbers. Its the reason why NZ1 and the Greens can react faster and more authentically on every single issue.

           And the faction currently in power in the Labour caucus are only interested in chasing the soft middle class vote and befriending big business; they aren’t interested in turning out the working or under class vote.
         • Te Reo Putake 3.3.2.3.2

           14 July 2012 at 10:01 am

           Not saying any of those things, Bill. But I know a good strategy when I see one and letting your opponent make mistakes, while making none yourself tends to result in wins. And Labour will be looking to go into election year ready to win. That means building support now and announcing good policy then. Which they are clearly doing, according to my mate Roy Morgan. Under Shearer’s quiet, but effective leadership.
            
           Sorry you don’t have the patience, Bill, but the rest of us will carry on to victory with or without you.
           • muzza 3.3.2.3.2.1

             14 July 2012 at 10:08 am

             “But I know a good strategy when I see one ”

             –You don’t even know yourself, which is why you are able to spout this sort of shit!

             Ego is not being able to see where ones-self has been fooled, because ones ego, wont allow it!

             The other part is just being a fucken idiot, too stupid to see your own ego, yet making statements like “But I know a good strategy when I see one” & “Sorry you don’t have the patience, Bill, but the rest of us will carry on to victory with or without you”

             You manage to pull off both like a champion, but its your ego which is causing you the real problems, and its possible you are not dumb enough for that to be the major excuse!

             ‘Victory”, “the rest of us” – Sums you up right there, you cant even begin to hide it….dick!
             • Colonial Viper …

               14 July 2012 at 10:15 am

               TRP embodies the core Labour caucus political philosophy.

               They are for winning, and stand against losing.
           • Ad 3.3.2.3.2.2

             14 July 2012 at 10:19 am

             “The rest of us will carry on to victory with or without you”

             … shows precisely why we no longer need a Labour Party dominated by caucus. Any criticism sees the blood-veil come over the eyes, and out come the “with us or against us” Bush-isms, just as you did.

             You need to get ready for democracy within Labour, Te Reo. There will be no more of that crap.

             No more bullying in the guise of “discipline”. You will have to learn grace. Leadership will have to learn to take criticism within and without. As, Te Reo, will you.
           • lefty 3.3.2.3.2.3

             14 July 2012 at 12:33 pm

             Whats the use of winning an election by default?

             It leaves the electorate totally without hope because all they have done is vote against something.

             Those who support Labour standing for nothing simply because that will get them into government are actually actually advocating stripping out the final vestiges of any real meaning in the system of parliamentary democracy.
           • Blue 3.3.2.3.2.4

             14 July 2012 at 12:42 pm

             A party NOT shooting themselves in the foot every five minutes is expected. It is the minimum standard to achieve.

             You don’t get a medal for doing that.

             Shearer and Labour are invisible. No one knows what they are doing, what they stand for or who they are. The Greens and NZ First have taken on the job of being the Opposition.

             National are losing popularity all on their own, not because Labour has done anything special lately. We’re at or nearing the point where the balance could tip.

             But it won’t if people see no alternative to National. Even if they dislike National they will still vote for them if they think Labour is worse.

             The idea that National losing popularity on their own is enough to propel Labour into Government is false. We could end up with a hung Parliament or a National/NZ First coalition or some other mad combination.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.3.2.3.2.5

             14 July 2012 at 2:02 pm

             But I know a good strategy when I see one and letting your opponent make mistakes, while making none yourself tends to result in wins.

             There’s a difference between not making any mistakes and not doing anything at all.

             That means building support now and announcing good policy then.

             Support that only comes because people are sick of the other side is very, very soft.
           • Te Reo Putake 3.3.2.3.2.6

             14 July 2012 at 10:05 pm

             Cheers, y’all, I salute your relentless positivity.  Meanwhile, the fight goes on.
             • Colonial Viper …

               15 July 2012 at 2:31 am

               The fight? Wake up man, the fact there is no fucking fight in Labour – merely a timid strategy to run down the clock with fingers crossed – is what everyone is pointing out!!!
       • muzza 3.3.2.4

         14 July 2012 at 9:50 am

         “Give the man some credit for steadying the ship. These slow, but effective poll gains are a result of his leadership and some real discipline from the rest of the caucus”

         –You are a bigger part of the problem than I ever gave you credit for…Please just stand down!
         • Colonial Viper 3.3.2.4.1

           14 July 2012 at 9:59 am

           Yeah pretty much. Look up “The Peoples Flag is Palest Pink”.
       • Vicky32 3.3.2.5

         15 July 2012 at 5:22 pm

         Discipline and positivity are going see Labour lead the next Government.

         Much though it hurts* to agree with you, I do.
         The Labour hatred, and specifically the Shearer hatred here gets very, very old…
          
         * You possibly have some conception of how much it hurts – and it applies to this one topic only! I’d rather die than agree with you about anything else, ever again.
     • QoT 3.3.3

       14 July 2012 at 6:29 pm

       Gotta say, I’ll be deeply depressed if he follows her advice on this bit (referring to mining):

       Right now he is trying to extricate himself on the mining issue after the Herald’s bellwether poll showed that New Zealanders have warmed to the prospect of surgical mining to leverage the country’s valuable natural resource base: reversing himself out of the poll-driven cul-de-sac that he parked himself in when public opinion was running in the other direction.

       Or, just a thought, he could say “There is no such thing as surgical mining. I won’t lie to the New Zealand people about the effects of mining just to win votes, unlike the Government.”

       But of course O’Sullivan is not in the business of giving Labour good advice, just sometimes accidentally hitting on the truth when telling them how they’re doing it wrong.
     • Carol 3.3.4

       14 July 2012 at 6:33 pm

       Both Shearer and Norman are too far to the right for my liking. But NAct and supporters will continue to focus on those two as more desirable than the more left wing members of of the Labour and Green Parties. And they will continue to try to play them (Shearer & Norman) off against each other.

       It’s taken some time for Norman to build a media presence, too. Remember when he was portrayed by righties as a wimpy joke when he protested with a Tibetan flag at parliament?
   • Draco T Bastard 3.4

     14 July 2012 at 1:49 pm

     Could it be that there are some MPs who think there is something to fear from that extra level of accountability to the party grassroots?

     Careers are a lot easier when you only have to impress a few people at the top of a hierarchy rather than most people in an egalitarian organisation.

     This is the Labour party, grounded in the Labour relations movement isn’t it?

     It’s got the same name but it is no longer that party and hasn’t been since the 1980s.
4. Carol 4

   14 July 2012 at 7:41 am

   Kind of related to this morning’s (so far) open mike theme of environmental destruction and the collapse of the dominance of the industrialised western world….

   As someone who is just not into owning land, this mania to purchase a mortgage, with people scrambling over the banks bargain bin sale, just sees like a craziness to me:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10819502

   Thousands of New Zealanders chasing a cut in their home loan interest rate have caused a log jam in the banking system, which is groaning under the weight of homeowners battling for the best deal.
   […]
   Mortgage rates have hit rock bottom and banks are going to extreme lengths to get borrowers to switch lenders.

   And then I read Monbiot’s piece commemorating the environmental poet, John Clare (1793-1864)

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/09/john-clare-poetry

   Clare came from a poor [English] background, but took to the printed word, recording his pleasure in the natural world around him. Monbiot says, for Clare:
   While life was hard and spare, it was also, he records, joyful and thrilling.

   But then came enclosures, and the despairing decline of Clare. Monbiot describes the impact of the enclosures:

   Farming became more profitable, but many of the people of Helpston – especially those who depended on the commons for their survival – were deprived of their living. The places in which the people held their ceremonies and celebrated the passing of the seasons were fenced off. The community, like the land, was parcelled up, rationalised, atomised. I have watched the same process breaking up the Maasai of east Africa.

   And that last sentence reminds me that for John Key, the issue of water is about outright ownership, while for tangata whenua, it’s about rights & kaitiaki:

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10819504

   [Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngapuhi chairman Sonny] Tau said talk of who “owned” water was merely confusing, “because at the end of the day ownership in the Western ideology is not what we seek”.

   “We seek to be recognised in our role as kaitiaki or guardians of water so that if there’s any allocation or allocation of rights to water, then Maori need to be significantly involved.”

   We need to get away from western notions of ownership of land and resources, and get more into a kaitiaki state of mind. To quote Clare, as cited by Monbiot:

   “Inclosure came and trampled on the grave / Of labour’s rights and left the poor a slave … And birds and trees and flowers without a name / All sighed when lawless law’s enclosure came.”
   • Carol 4.1

     14 July 2012 at 8:04 am

     I also meant to include this quote from Monbiot’s article, about how the seeds of the decline of Western capitalism, were built into its (environmentally-destructive) rise:

     Our environmental crisis could be said to have begun with the enclosures. The current era of greed, privatisation and the seizure of public assets was foreshadowed by them: they prepared the soil for these toxic crops.
     • Uturn 4.1.1

       14 July 2012 at 10:57 am

       I agree. The conflict/solution, either/or, way of thinking creates conflicts that become ends in themselves. Lose perspective, find a “problem”. Treat the problem with a loss of perspective, create another problem, treat it with the system that created the problem, create another problem, treat it with the same system, that creates another problem…
   • Ad 4.2

     14 July 2012 at 8:53 am

     It makes it easier to describe what makes up the kind of world we have created when you describe the world as a series of conceptual layers:

     – Synchronised time, across all parts of the world, which calibrates our waking life into a march
     – Property, which drives divisiveness and pollutes humans with an ether of constant anxiety and avarice
     – Patriarchy, which sorts people by a scopic order of beauty and violence repressed or otherwise
     – Resource, as subset of property, which commodifies the earth into things that are quantified as ready to be used up
     – Speed, which integrates time and resource into productivity and lived experience
     – and Money, a subset of property that accelerates time and resource and enables them to be expressed together

     Get rid of any one of those layers in your life and you really no longer fit onto this world.
     • Uturn 4.2.1

       14 July 2012 at 10:49 am

       Succinct.

       Would you say that on leaving “this world” people can enter a new place, that despite it’s challenges, isn’t all that bad?
       • Ad 4.2.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 11:20 am

         Yes, particularly in New Zealand. There was a little book a while ago called “The Eight Tribes of New Zealand” and one of those was the Raglan Tribe. They are the outsiders, small in number, in some alternative black economy, often subsistence, sometimes illegal. They are our outsiders.

         I wouldn’t want it myself. Too soft.
   • weka 4.3

     14 July 2012 at 12:05 pm

     [Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngapuhi chairman Sonny] Tau said talk of who “owned” water was merely confusing, “because at the end of the day ownership in the Western ideology is not what we seek”.

     “We seek to be recognised in our role as kaitiaki or guardians of water so that if there’s any allocation or allocation of rights to water, then Maori need to be significantly involved.”

     We need to get away from western notions of ownership of land and resources, and get more into a kaitiaki state of mind.
     ——————

     I quite agree Carol and am pleased to see Tau specifically naming Western ideologies as a problem. I’ve been increasingly alarmed by how much this debate is being framed around water as a commodity and who gets to control that, rather than any core concepts of rivers and lakes being part of the world we belong to and have responsibilities towards.

     A big problem here is that the MSM have almost no capacity for speaking outside the Western mindset, and because they are generally useless at covering Te Ao Maori, it’s unlikely they will even notice the differences. For those of us here who believe that we are all better off acknowledging and working within tangata whenua worldviews, there is a challenge now to change the nature of the debate.
     • Uturn 4.3.1

       14 July 2012 at 1:31 pm

       For those of us here who believe that we are all better off acknowledging and working within tangata whenua worldviews, there is a challenge now to change the nature of the debate.

       Do you have any “everyday practical guidelines” for this?

       For example, the chances of me becoming a journalist are nil, and the instances where I might influence a journalist are theoretical at best, so what would people like me do that would change the debate from street level? I’m sure direct confrontation/endless arguments will work for some, but my experience is that it’s like bouncing a ball off a concrete wall. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good demonstration as much as the next protestor, but one reactive format does not suit every situation. Surely there’s got to be something big on effect, that does not rely on being adversarial?
       • weka 4.3.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 2:08 pm

         Haven’t thought it through yet Uturn, but off the top of my head…
          
         The blogosphere is increasingly influential, and there is no reason why it can’t lead the way on this. Write posts and comments.
          
         Target reasonably receptive media like National Radio eg get Kim Hill to interview someone who knows these issues inside out and can hold their own talking with her. Use whatever means available to comment to MSM directly (txt, email, posting one websites). Make the issues visible.
          
         Educate ourselves and start using language and concepts that support alternatives to the Western world view (and try not to use Western new age language). This is a major challenge IMO. Many Pakeha do understand these issues to some extent, but English is not yet a good/easy language to discuss them.
          
         Start talking about Peak Water. Now that Peak Oil is in the mainstream, it gives an easy reference point. Fear can be a useful motivator.
          
         Build bridges between Maori and non-Maori. The risk here is that Pakeha appropriate Maori concepts and ideas without changing power structures (aka they steal more shit), or they engage in brownwashing.
         • Uturn 4.3.1.1.1

           14 July 2012 at 2:39 pm

           Build bridges between Maori and non-Maori. The risk here is that Pakeha appropriate Maori concepts and ideas without changing power structures (aka they steal more shit), or they engage in brownwashing.

           On building bridges without first acknowledging power structures and “brownwashing”:

           This would roughly equate to not wearing gimmicky things like flags and t-shirts related to maori sovereignty? Turning it into a cheap fashion statement. Like the Che Guevara stuff that was once popular.

           How would a pakeha person behave in a way that tangata whenua would recognise as respectful/correct, regardless of there being any maori around to notice; avoiding brownwashing and other manifestations of a shallow kind of affirmative action?

           For example, let’s pick something randomly modern: Pakeha is at the supermarket, what is he/she doing, how is he she behaving, that allows space for maori to be maori, should maori enter the line at the checkout? Doesn’t matter which maori fills that space, just so long at it’s there when needed and that pakeha aren’t unwittingly occupying it in the meantime. How do pakeha “find their place”, or “make space”?

           Is this what you mean, or have I misunderstood something?
           • weka 4.3.1.1.1.1

             14 July 2012 at 3:19 pm

             Not really understanding that example Uturn? Why would anyone need to let someone go first in the supermarket?
              
             I was thinking more about Pakeha being willing to engage with Maori on Maori terms eg spending time on Marae or in other Maori dominant spaces, reading Maori media and writings, educating ourselves about Te Ao Maori and finding ways to put aside our own agendas for a while, acknowledge that we are on a learning curve and let Maori voices be heard and practiced in non-Maori spaces (perhaps starting with TS)
              
             I also think taking actions to support/tautoko te reo. I only learned quite recently that te reo is not yet out of danger and that many of the gains in the 90s eg Kohanga reo are going backwards again.
              
             Brownwashing… just that we need to avoid doing what we’ve done with eco issues. So much of the middle class wants to do the right thing but only of it doesn’t inconvenience them too much, so we have lots of eco things that are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I think Pakeha NZ is quite capable of taking what it wants without really changing.
              
             One example of this is the new agers. They acknowledge a deficit in their own cultures’ society and spirituality, express an interest in indigenous practices, and decry the fact that they’ve lost their own indigenous experience eons ago and so the only way they can feel connected is via someone else’s culture. They then flock to anything native so long as it’s presented in a non-complex, non-threatening way. As far as I can tell this is predominantly to make the new agers feel better. They are largely devoid of any political awareness (and will in fact say that politics is not good for spirituality) and so will take the things they perceive as taonga and almost completely ignore the rest (the real racists among them will go further and talk about the nice peaceful Waitaha and the nasty violent Ngai Tahu, and how there were really white people here before Maori anyway).
              
             A friend of mine calls them culture vultures. Not all new agers are like that, but it has been a core feature of those communities for a long time. I see the potential for Pakeha to do this with Maori culture in general – take the bits that feed them (or they feel comfortable with) and ignore/deny the rest. 
             • Uturn …

               14 July 2012 at 3:46 pm

               I don’t mean let people go first at the supermarket, but that there must be a mindset for pakeha that from a maori world view perspective, is correct for pakeha.

               If I understand correctly that a maori world view has everything in it’s place, then no matter where pakeha are e.g. at the supermarket, beach, riverside, on a hill, there must a be an action that illustrates a mindset. To do anything more overt, would be brownwashing, adopt-a-maori type thinking and completely false or ingenuine. Which is why I suggest, even if there are no maori around to notice, pakeha occupying a position that is inherent to tangata whenua would cause a disturbance to the maori world view?

               To avoid a brownwash situation entirely, should we be able to imagine a world where maori are there and pakeha are over there, the two rarely meet, but each occupies it’s correct space. Or to use another metaphor: if what we have now is a wall between maori and pakeha, and pakeha have a habit of jumping over the wall and taking stuff and jumping back again; and maori would prefer to replace the wall with a more fluid interface, what does that interface look like, as described by maori, once pakeha stop invading maori territory?
               • Carol …

                 14 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

                 I’ve seen some articles relating to Matariki and traditional Maori food gathering (wild food from the bush) and food preparation. Some of it publicised events for everyone to learn a little about the traditional tangata whenua approaches to food.

                 Also, Pakeha have our own traditions that predate capitalism, that we can look back to. The community and common good that the poet Clare & Monbiot wrote about.
         • muzza 4.3.1.1.2

           14 July 2012 at 5:00 pm

           “The blogosphere is increasingly influential, and there is no reason why it can’t lead the way on this. Write posts and comments”

           –While the net is a good tool for gathering, and sharing ideas, never underestimate its ability to suck the energy out of good intentions, misdirect them, and flat out be used against them.

           I can’t help but feel people believe that being active online is in some way helping, like believing that humanity becoming closer or better communicators, because we communicate more, when the opposite is in fact true. The tech is isolating, as much as it is unifying,

           So while the the blogs etc are all good an well, dont be fooled into thinking that at some point, all but the very few will have to take physical action, those few will also have to sometime after that.

           I know there was more to your post Weka, but I just wanted to highlight that singular component.

           Cheers
           • weka 4.3.1.1.2.1

             14 July 2012 at 7:15 pm

             It’s a good point muzza, and I tend to agree as a generalisation. However I think I was meaning more that the mainstream is now taking blogging more seriously, the MSM uses the blogosphere, and people who have been traditional power holders also use the blogosphere. That means it’s a (one) point of intervention in terms of influencing how the debate goes. But yeah, don’t worry, I’m not thinking it’s replacement for real life.
5. just saying 5

   14 July 2012 at 8:25 am

   .

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/13/racism-public-discourse-power-to-define

   A brilliant piece from the Guardian: “Racism is still very much with us. So why don’t we recognise it?”

   …The consensus that societies are post-racial has supported a range of political strategies often described as “cultural racism”. The people are not racist, the argument goes, and any prejudice is merely a natural defensive response to the “reverse racism” of “migrants” who refuse to adapt and accept “our way of life”. While these strategies eschewed overt claims of superiority, 9/11 and its aftermath have brought assertions of cultural hierarchy unashamedly back into mainstream European politics.’ ‘Our way of life’ only makes sense when there is somebody to define it, and defend it against.

   If shifting forms of racialisation make racism hard to pin down, the liberal ideal of “colour-blindness” makes it even harder. Being blind to race often involves being blind to racism. The election of Barack Obama led to the celebration of a post-racial era in the US, but it also led to what Darnell L Moore calls “e(race)sure”. That is, racism has not been overcome because a black President was elected, but the legitimacy of analysing society in terms of race has been undermined. Obama can be made to stand as evidence of the removal of the final racial barriers to achievement, with the twist that those who do not now achieve fail not because of inequality, discrimination or exclusion, but because they don’t try hard enough.

   The insistence that we live in post-racial societies, and the outrage when racism is called out, denies those who experience racism the right to define it and combat it on their terms. This is a central anti-racist principle, yet it is those who perpetuate racism who increasingly claim the right to say what racism is and, more frequently, what it is not….
   • QoT 5.1

     14 July 2012 at 6:30 pm

     In fact, claiming to be “colour-blind” or “post-racial” actually makes you less likely to spot/address racism.
6. aerobubble 6

   14 July 2012 at 9:41 am

   Its not that we need a new paradigm to fix the problems.
   Its we need the rules to actually matter.

   Take my present problem. First some preliminaries.
   When you sleep you ears pick up (for evolutionary
   reasons that hearing a predator coming means you
   live to pass on your genes) a lot more. So
   much so people are oft required to use white noise
   machines to protect their hearing at night.

   Now we all know that road vehicles have a upper
   limit of noise, measured of course when they are
   maxed out for speed on the open highway. We
   see councils building new roads with huge earth
   barriers on either side of the roads, negative
   sensitive areas. Because to reduce costs, we
   spend more instead of investing in better motor
   vehicles (silent electric cars and putting freight
   on trains).

   Thirdly, in harder times people get angry. They
   are likely to believe they have a right not only
   to noise but noise at low speed. So they reconfigure
   their cars, which won’t be assessed for noise at
   low speed (or acceptable because the limit at high
   speed when engine is most violent is met), to be mean
   noise bombs the moment the ignition is turned on.

   Now obviously if they also go to work at 7am, too
   their high noise building site, where they lost their
   hearing many years before, then end up pounding their neghbors
   with noise every morning.

   And how does our society deal with this problem, of
   a legal road vehicle, pumped up for noise, waking
   good people to excessive noise at 7am when they
   were asleep. Well they call noise control.

   And as is the want of council noise control to
   decide what is acceptable, what they will investigate,
   because that what’s council decide, they do a rather
   blaize investigation and apply no standards but
   the subjective assessment of council officers!@#@

   You see, after a run of massive credit binging, not
   only have councils not had to deal with the growing
   rage and so losened their grip on what their legal
   duty is. That they have to investigate noise – ANY NOISE.
   Also, to be fair, its easier to clear up a problem by a
   word or too to the party of noise, and so they didn’t
   need all that dumb noise testing equipment and chucked it.

   Its not that we need a new paradigm to fix the problems.
   Its we need the rules to actually matter.

   Thirty years of neo-liberalism have softened the brains
   of our bureaucrats to the extent that even the most
   hairy sane ministers come up with nonsense policies
   that would have had their departments carefully pressing
   the buttons to talk down the minister. Not any more.

   Because the rot isn’t just noise officers saying they
   cannot investigate noise despite their legal duty under
   the local government act to do so, diligently. No,
   the rot is everywhere where a generation has had it too
   easy, easy in both senses, easier laxer regulation and
   easier and simpler times requiring a phone call to clear
   up. Not as now with lots of angry people and their angry
   cars.

   Since we are moving and becoming, a rightly, more angry
   society again. Cheap energy has made us destroy the planet,
   we don’t need no new paradigm, we just need to get anal
   about rules again. Apply them consistently, apply them
   rigorously, apply them quicker.

   And their in lies the problem. The conservative, always
   waiting at tipping points to stop the backward movement
   of society, away from all their deregulation and political
   hired lazy bureaucrats. Its doesn’t matter that a neighbor is
   losing their hearing, getting tinnitus, ACC is waiting
   to pay out. Its doesn’t matter that the costs of
   conservatism will cost us more, more destroyed lives.

   All that matters is our preservation of the ruling elite
   and their self-serving bad thinking patterns, the turd blossom.

   The turd blossom is a simple trick. The idea is to stop
   change that harms the elite. It involves a two step
   process, or as I like to think of it, arse backwards.
   Arguments start with evidence and then talk to changes.
   Arse backwards turb blossoms reverse this, they talk
   first about costs and difficulties with implementation
   before there is even agreement over evidence. So the
   convincing argument for change, that the elite fears
   becomes a mess of misunderstanding, distorted facts
   (since facts are worked differently in the investigation
   phase and the governing phases), and dispersion of the
   root need the argument was talking to.

   Now let’s not be too high minded, some turb blossoms are needed
   to protect the nation state. The problem is that conservatives
   are using them exclusively to protect themselves, the elite few.

   We don’t need no paradigm shift, we can’t wait for one, we
   need the rightwing to STFU, stop going brutal like a bunch
   of weak fearful people who are about (rightly) to be sacked
   for incompetence and laziness. Its only going to cost more
   in the long run, the longer they hang on that is.

   But we don’t need no frigging new paradigm, we need rules to
   matter. we don’t need no fanatic Senisible Sentencing Trust
   rush of blood to their head, end the right to silence.
   A classic two stop arse backwards argument, because
   the accused could create a better justice system by exposing
   themselves in court, then we should mess up the evidential
   trail by making it easier for botchups earlier in the process.
   we seperate matters for a reason. A good investigator
   knows the facts at the time of the crime will have a
   different facet in courts. So police can stage a press
   conference where they may believe the suspect is a family
   member, or use the need to search the area for offenders and
   find evidence in the course of investigating. Why would
   we want to reward the state law officers with the nonsense
   of the police investigation process, where facts found during
   investigating can have both positive and negative connotations.

   I need council to investigate a noisy car on private property,
   that leaves every morning just before 7am, a noise bomb, that takes
   the quiet of early morning and smashes it with a noise
   that should only be coming from a truck at 100 on the open
   highway. All vehicles should be minimized for noise, for
   obvious reasons that if we didn’t the cacophony would be
   horrendous. So why is it so hard for Police and Council to
   work together to minimize the noisiest vehicle around here,
   BY FAR? Because Police cannot act as its a car on private
   property, not the open road, and council says it cannot
   act because the car is legal for the road!!!! Council needs
   to act because it has a duty to investigate all roadway
   vehicles on private property being tested for their big
   day at the local raceway. So why isn’t it, is my council
   just more lazy, reckless about the loss of hearing to
   not only neighbors but family of the petrol head, his kids
   with 10m of this noise bomb???? Will ACC be picking up the
   costs in future years when these kids start claiming
   hearing aids??? When he deliberately passes his hearing loss
   to his own kids???

   We’ve had it easy, with lots of dosh, loads of money, flushing
   the economy, our bureaucrats didn’t need to be ruthless in
   regard of regulation, our society was happy, our public
   servants could nuance solutions off the cuff. These days
   are over. We do not need National’s continuing new paradigms,
   charter schools, national standards, kids learn naturally,
   ask why they aren’t, not how they can do so faster. Yeah,
   how stupid are National, that they believe if they can get
   kids at the tail to learn faster like those at the top do!
   Kids arent learning at the bottom, are inhibited, and aren’t
   going to learn faster if they aren’t fed, if they can’t do
   their homework for the cold home they live in, if all they
   can see is debt in their educational future. No reward, lots
   more barriers.

   National paradigm of having new solutions, of looking active,
   when we all know their extremism selects laughable evidence
   from crazy America, look at the great US, its imploding from
   horrendous levels of stupidity, the US will take us all with
   them into an environmental, economic, societal hell on earth.
   Its a joke that anyone believes Key’s government is good for NZ.

   We do not need a new paradigm, we need to live in the now,
   and enforce the rules we have now, and reverse the decline
   in rules that rightwing governments of Labor and National
   have produced. National are anti rule of law, want change now,
   when we need diligent government who worry about outcomes
   not balance sheets (they come later).

   National are arse backwards, like their neo-liberal turd
   bottom agenda. And someone get the council to do something
   about the noise bomb please!!!
   • John Connor 6.1

     14 July 2012 at 10:25 am

     very creative and very funny. If I could emoticon a big cheesy grin I would.
     • Uturn 6.1.1

       14 July 2012 at 10:40 am

       

       http://thestandard.org.nz/faq/smile/
       • John Connor 6.1.1.1

         14 July 2012 at 10:55 am

         and then? mouse does not pick them up? Im such a luddite, but give me an in-chassis overhall of a 14 litre truck engine……..

         So the machines better watch out.

         Consider,
         EFT
         GPS
         Social-networking
         blogging
         TV
         Satellite
         Surveilance
         Surveys
         Statistics
         Apps
         E-readers
         Phones
         Pads
         Vehicle computers
         HIGH FREQUENCY ALGORITHMIC MARKET TRADING

         bored now, better go do my chores.

         It be Master and Slave.

         (well, spose peoples are not mining for salt here yet!)
         • Uturn 6.1.1.1.1

           14 July 2012 at 11:03 am

           To get that green smiling face, write as you word a normal word :,mrgreen,:

           but leave out the commas I’ve put in there. There should be no spaces between the colons and the mrgreen.

           Same goes for anything on the emoticons list link, but some are symbols only, such as,

           8 ,-, ) remove the commas and you get 😎

           You can’t copy and paste the actual emoticon into this system’s text boxes. Won’t recognise it.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             14 July 2012 at 1:00 pm

             You’re a helpful soul

             😈
             • Uturn …

               14 July 2012 at 1:33 pm

               😉
           • John Connor 6.1.1.1.1.2

             15 July 2012 at 9:14 am

             😀
   • Uturn 6.2

     14 July 2012 at 10:42 am

     Enjoyed reading your words, aerobubble.
7. joe90 7

   14 July 2012 at 10:20 am

   EFF on the TPP.

   https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/21st-century-agreement-is-really-best-way

   So, in summary, the USTR has released a public blog post about a secret proposal to expand something – a filtering mechanism on copyright limitations and exceptions – which might have real social, moral, and economic value. And all we know is that the only thing the authors of the proposal really wanted to make public was the fact that no matter what the content was, it was subject to enough international restrictions that it could be effectively gutted. The only thing 21st century about that is they used a blog to tell us about it.
8. John Connor 8

   14 July 2012 at 10:29 am

   The irony is that this current cohort of wannabees do not recognise that the ubermensch over-come themselves not come-over themselves.
9. Herodotus 9

   14 July 2012 at 10:32 am

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10819498

   Mr Quivooy said there was a two-year statute of limitations in the Gambling Act which meant “the department would be unable to bring a prosecution”.
   Was this law ever intend to be used in keeping the industry honest ?
   Perhaps these machines should be nationalised and be incorporated within the Lotteries commission, as it appears we cannot trust those running gambling 🙁
   IMO if like alcohol any license operator caught breaching the rules then 1st case week, 2nd breach month suspension of ability to sell, then loss of license.
10. Pete George 10

    14 July 2012 at 10:47 am

    John Key has copped most of the flack over water ‘ownership’, but he holds a fairly common view.

    Labour has exactly the same position as National – nobody owns the water – and if there were an adverse finding of the Waitangi Tribunal would not necessarily follow them.

    Yet leader David Shearer is unable to articulate it strongly for fear of sounding like National and for fear of offending the party’s Maori constituency.

    Instead, he joined Mana’s Hone Harawira this week in calling for the Maori Party to end its support agreement with the National Government.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10819407

    Tricky position.

    The Shearer argument went something like this: Yes, John Key is inflaming things by rarking up the Maori Council and saying his Government won't be bound by any Waitangi Tribunal ruling on the push to stop the Mighty River Power share float until a deal is done in this area.

    But, no, Maori don't have a valid water claim. Nobody owns water. We pay for water rights to use water, whether it be for irrigation or hydro-electricity or whatever.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10819407

    A waterproof jacket is different to a flak jacket.
    • mike e 10.1

      14 July 2012 at 11:11 am

      pg in your case a straight jacket.
      trying to shift blame again.Nationals poodle
11. John Connor 11

    14 July 2012 at 10:56 am

    oops

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault
12. deuto 12

    14 July 2012 at 11:01 am

    A somewhat different approach from Audrey Young also on the Herald website this morning from Adam Bennett – John Key: Waking the Taniwha.

    The Maori Council’s Waitangi Tribunal water claim has served notice that the “taniwha” of Maori customary ownership has been awakened by the Government’s partial asset sales plan.

    It’s a creature that previous governments have trifled with at their peril, but Prime Minister John Key this week goaded it with comments that have been widely interpreted as marginalising the tribunal and its findings before they have even been produced.

    Though the elderly Sir Graham Latimer is not playing an active role in the presentation of the council’s case, his presence at Waiwhetu marae in Lower Hutt and his name on court papers as first claimant at the Waitangi Tribunal hearing should serve as a warning. It was Sir Graham who initiated court action over fisheries, in a major lands case, and over radio spectrum….

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10819504

    IMHO, Bennett’s article presents a much greater understanding of the implications than that of Young’s.
13. joe90 13

    14 July 2012 at 11:31 am

    The mask slips: Fuck them all.

    Andrea Fabra, a deputy of the ruling party PP in the Spanish parliament, became the center of political storm in the recession-hit country on Friday after video showed her insulting unemployed citizens saying “Fuck them all” just seconds after Spanish PM announced austerity measures.
    • David H 13.1

      14 July 2012 at 2:34 pm

      So she has just said what Bennett, Key, English, and co think all the time!
14. weka 14

    14 July 2012 at 12:12 pm

    When I reply to someone’s post, there is no menu bar with the bold, italics, quote etc buttons, but the reply box at the bottom of each page has one. ‘Use WYSIWYG’ is ticked in the bottom of page box, but not in the ‘reply to specific posts’ box. Anyone else have this?
15. joe90 15

    14 July 2012 at 1:01 pm

    More skulduggery from the bankers.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/13/us-jpmorgan-earnings-idUSBRE86C0G420120713

    (Reuters) – U.S. federal investigators are looking at whether JPMorgan Chase & Co traders hid trading losses that have since grown to $5.8 billion, according to a person familiar with the matter, after the bank said its own probe found reason for suspicion.
    • Colonial Viper 15.1

      14 July 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Will they have the nerve to ever charge the man at the top, Jamie Dimon. Who is protected by a huge wall of political and financial influence in Washington.

      Meanwhile from Zerohedge:

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/jpms-punshiment-two-years-clawbacks-three-traders

      Behold Newton’s 3rd law of Fraudics: Every gross fraudulent action has a laughably inadequate and unequal wristslap reaction. For years of mismarking CDS and the CIO ‘Mistake’, which incidentally everyone at JPM knew about for quarters, and where JPM thought it could manipulate any market it wants simply by sheer scale

      Also

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/jpm-admits-cio-group-mismarked-hundreds-billions-cds-effort-artificially-boost-profits

      As a result of this, regulators who now are only 3 years behind the curve, are most likely snooping to inquire not only how JPM did it (call us: we can brief you in 2 minutes), but who else has been doing this? Hint: everyone.

      This is like the “LIEBOR” gate international interest rate setting scandal enveloping Barclays Bank.

      It will shortly be shown that multiple major banks participated. And why not, in an industry where DEFRAUDING CUSTOMERS (whether they are big or small) is seen as “best practice”.
      • mike e 15.1.1

        14 July 2012 at 1:32 pm

        Add Wells Fargo 175million USD for racial discrimination&and the
        bank of America and at least 1/2 a dozen others for allowing drug cartels and terrorists to launder money.
        • Colonial Viper 15.1.1.1

          14 July 2012 at 1:46 pm

          Ongoing legal action against BNY Mellon. A very large US bank.

          http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/31/us-bnymellon-ruling-idUSBRE82T1GR20120331

          Basically, the bank screwed large pension funds on forex trades. They retrospectively assigned the worst forex prices of the day, at the end of the day, to the pension funds.

          And kept the best prices for themselves.

          If you ever hear about US worker pension funds being “underfunded” just recognise that the banks have ripped them off of billions upon billions of dollars, over the last 10 years.

          Seems like BNY Mellon is currently doing a good job of getting off the hook on technicalities.
          • David H 15.1.1.1.1

            14 July 2012 at 2:39 pm

            And as usual they will get away with it.
      • bad12 15.1.2

        14 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Tossing the ‘man at the top’ in a cold jail cell for a decade or 2 while having a certain satisfactory ring to it would in the end be mere window dressing,

        There can only be one ‘logical’ outcome resulting from such systematic criminality inherent within the Western Worlds financial institutions, and that is for the relevant States to seize all the assets listed as possessions of such banks as part of the proceeds of crime committed by banking institutions using their position as banks as mere fronts for such organized criminal activity,

        Putting ALL the immoral,illegal and outright criminality in it’s correct perspective is the ultimate CON perpetuated by the Worlds banking elite, that of these institutions of crime being ‘Too Big To Fail’,

        Once government’s everywhere bought into that little gem of a fraudulent idea the criminal banking elite have at any time in the future the key to any country’s Treasury,

        Should not the gutless western World’s Governments move to seize the Banks at the heart of such fraudulent organized crime the next round of destruction unleashed upon us all via such Banks will simply be a far more complex systematic defrauding of both the public and private purse and as ‘growth’ is still the demand from within the ‘Ism’ the next wave of systematic criminality from those Banks will by far overwhelm in monetary terms the excesses of the past decade of deregulated debauchery unleashed upon us all by the institutions of criminal Banking…
16. Draco T Bastard 16

    14 July 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Pay them and they shall come, don’t pay them and they won’t.

    Fletchers EQR is contracted by the Earthquake Commission to carry out earthquake repair work.

    The company has cut the rate painters are paid from $25 to $19 per square metre.

    Sorry Christchurch but Fletcher’s is more concerned with their profit than with you getting a place to live.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      14 July 2012 at 2:49 pm

      The entire city should be sorted out by a reformed Ministry of Works. Massively cheaper and more efficient.
      • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1

        14 July 2012 at 3:41 pm

        Yep and then the government just gives the bill to the insurance companies.
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1

          14 July 2012 at 8:29 pm

          And if the insurance companies don’t pay, we nationalise all their insurance contracts into a new NZ State Insurance, and the privateers can fuck off back whence they came from.
    • Murray Olsen 16.2

      14 July 2012 at 3:42 pm

      Fletchers should be expropriated without compensation. They grew on taxpayer money and were given a virtual monopoly position by successive governments. Now would be a good time for some dividend to be paid.
    • RedBaron 16.3

      14 July 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Do they pay more for any commercial contracts they are doing?
    • John Connor 16.4

      15 July 2012 at 10:07 am

      🙂
17. Morrissey 17

    14 July 2012 at 6:17 pm

    American Hero Watch No. 1: MATT LEE

    Yes, Virginia, there ARE some American reporters with the courage to do their job.

    Watch as Matt Lee of the Associated Press confronts government PR woman Victoria Nuland. The really disturbing feature of this clip is not Ms. Nuland’s refusal or inability to engage in debate, it’s the sheepish, embarrassed, bemused behaviour of the drones behind Matt Lee….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfEIXy64HL0&feature=g-all-u
18. RedBaron 18

    14 July 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Help please??

    I am clearing mail for a younger family member and they have scored a request to participate in a 20 year survey on finances. Selection was by way of the electoral roll – supposedly – and age details etc must have been accessed..
    I checked the Electoral commission website privacy statements

    (noting they use google analytics but failing to reassure any of us that the commission continues to own the data not google. There is also no reassurance that Google are not doing some data matching of their own against other bases they may control and the data is stored offshore – whoopee- so under a different legal system)

    and find they can do this:

    “We may give this information to scientific or health researchers, political candidates, members of Parliament or political parties. We can also tell them your age group, postal address and whether you are of Maori descent.”

    Does anybody know how they control the research aspect? I can’t find any list of who is doing approved research or what controls there are on reserchers, if any. Does this mean that a named right wing funded think tank can access details and having done some vaguely worded research questions then supply all the details to the political party of their choice?

    The answer to the finance question is simple -‘already gone overseas for better prospects’.
19. mike e 19

    15 July 2012 at 2:51 am

    More bad banking news Visa and master card have had to pay out $8billion dollars
    Because of over charging.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS