Open mike 17/03/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:57 am, March 17th, 2014 - 180 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Happy Saint Patrick’s day.

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

180 comments on “Open mike 17/03/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    17 March 2014 at 7:35 am

    summary of the interview of john key on tvone breakfast:

    interviewer:..”..you had me at hello..”

    • freedom 1.1
      17 March 2014 at 10:20 am

      For the next four weeks, like all good little sycophants, they will be falling over themselves to get the Royal Interview spots.

    • David H 1.2
      17 March 2014 at 10:59 am

      I see that TricKey is off to China. As they are having a crackdown on ‘Shonky’ dealings maybe the letting off of Collins will be seen as a sign of weakness. Also TricKey overseas I wonder if he has that itchy feeling between his shoulder blades. As thats when the Nats roll their leader.

      Dear John

      Stop off in Hawaii
      Don’t come back to NZ

      Love and Kisses Judith. PM Collins

      HAHAHA

      • Anne 1.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:43 am

        …the letting off of Collins will be seen as a sign of weakness.

        You will be interested to know David H that Mike Williams made precisely that point on the RNZ political spot this morning. What’s more, Matthew Hooton seemed to agree with him. (Other way round this time)

        • aerobubble 1.2.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 4:16 pm

          Its not the first time Key’s be caught sucking his thumb, drolling over the dummy.

  2. swordfish 2
    17 March 2014 at 8:15 am

    Here’s some remarkably good news…….Liverpool 3, Man United 0.

    Liverpool captain, Gerrard, scored two penalties. Now, if that doesn’t put a smile on a few faces, here, then I’m buggered if I know what will. Let’s all rejoice. The good have vanquished the bad.

    • Allyson 2.1
      17 March 2014 at 11:44 am

      After rampant Trade Unionism of 70’s 80’s is good to see scousers with something to smile about. Once the bitter employment battles ended it was so sad to see a once vibrant city decline to crime and welfare. After the Union leaders and politicians bailed there was no hope of employment with entrepreneurs ignoring politicians pleas to come back with free factory rents and other sweeteners Lessons have not been learnt as Detroit follows same path to destruction. But it was good to see Socialist Liverpool thrash the bankers of Manchester.

      • Skinny 2.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:47 am

        +1

      • tinfoilhat 2.1.2
        17 March 2014 at 12:14 pm

        “But it was good to see Socialist Liverpool thrash the bankers of Manchester.”

        What’s the average wage across those two soccer teams ?

      • tricledrown 2.1.3
        17 March 2014 at 2:16 pm

        To alay your lies
        Allyson.
        Ferguson is one of the few top celebrities to come out and support the labour Party.
        Unlike the lilly Livered scouses.

        • Allyson 2.1.3.1
          17 March 2014 at 4:11 pm

          Lily livered scousers is not what you should call your comrades. Scouse militants provided the muscle, the backbone and the go forward for Labour movement in UK. Ever heard of flying pickets (mostly liverpudlians)
          Once it became obvious that no worker driven Marxicst state was to be set up in Anglophilia there was little left for the hardliners, but for a good football club. The cost of a failed attempt at Marxism can be measured in the gloom and despondancy of this once great city.

    • Tracey 2.2
      17 March 2014 at 12:54 pm

      Not on mine. United fan for 40 years. Had enough good times to last some down years… not sure how many I can take tho.

  3. weizguy 3
    17 March 2014 at 8:28 am

    Quick question about the site: Last week, instead of loading the front page, I get a blank page with the words “Hello World” in the top left. Yes, it’s IE, but I can’t change it because I don’t control the IT. Thoughts?

    • lprent 3.1
      17 March 2014 at 8:40 am

      The site got overwhelmed and fell over. Your browser cached the fall over (gotta fix that damnit). Press shift+F5 (or shift + click refresh) on the front page to clear the cache and reload should fix it.

      • weizguy 3.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 10:21 am

        Thanks. Really should have thought of that.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 10:35 am

          No problems. It is always a useful thing to recall, especially when the graphics fail to load on a site correctly and get cached on the browser for the next few days as “broken”.

          I fixed the fallover (I hope) this weekend with a much more aggressive policy against bots. If anything reads 10 page inside a minute then they get locked out of the site for 2 hours unless they are google, feedburner, a couple of other known search engines, and National Library (if they give me server IPs). If they get caught too often then I add them to denial in the firewall. We were getting quite aggressive bots hitting us at about 0730. I permanently killed 24 this morning.

          The “hello world” was the placeholder at the root of the apache directory system. It was put in to make sure that there was something there when the system got bootstrapped. I’m still surprised that that the server crash fell back to there. It implies that the virtual host system that thestandard is in had failed completely.

          But because it had no caching set up, the browser put whatever it felt like on the page.

  4. travellerev 4
    17 March 2014 at 8:29 am

    Venice Votes For Independence, UN Says It’s Illegal! Neh, of course not but then Venice isn’t sitting on a ton of oil!

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      17 March 2014 at 1:28 pm

      Not that anyone should be surprised. The US refused to accept the Palestinian election when they elected Hamas as well and all the Western nations meekly accepted the ruling of Big Brother.

  5. freedom 5
    17 March 2014 at 9:50 am

    Listening to Radio New Zealand this morning, I certainly enjoyed the extensive coverage on the tens of thousands of our Australian neighbors and allies who took to the streets in protest at the recent steps taken by their Government. Over thirty thousand in Melbourne alone. It was wonderful to hear the RNZ team give such clear and accura……oh hang on, that was my fantasy land busting through.

    all we did hear about, at length, were some folk up north who did something America does not like

  6. veutoviper 6
    17 March 2014 at 9:51 am

    The Collins saga led me to want to learn a little more about Oravida and Deyi (‘Stone’) Shi, close personal friend of Collins and her family.

    A google search on Deyi Shi came up with some interesting links Shi (now a NZ citizen) and his family have been in NZ for 12 years have significant holdings in various companies, and purchased the Hotchins mansion in Auckland for $39M.

    This Herald article provides more information.

    And this January 2014 Herald article reveals that the rates being paid on Mansion were still at 2011 levels when the property was valued at much less than its purchase price with strong criticism of this from Cameron Brewer.

    In some of the many media articles on the Collins saga, there has been oblique mention of the Crafer farms, and much more mention of donations to the National Party. This blog by Frank Macskasy details the various timelines and players in the Crafer farms purchase saga, including Oravida and Deyi Shi.

    More on the Crafer farm and contributions to the National Party from the Herald in Dec 2011 – “Chinese money flows to Nats”

    And here is Farrar trying to play down these connections and donations in response to the Dec 2011 Herald article.

    The google search also threw up this very, very interesting article 11 months ago on the NZX Agri website entitled “Milk runner tangles PM in product endorsement”

    This article in particular gives a possible insight into the dilemma facing Key last week – and his anger at Collins’ actions bringing the whole Oravida connections into the limelight. Walking on eggshells springs to mind!

    NOTE: as an aside, Oravida’s interests in hidden kauri and Comvita are also not insignificant as these two articles indicate

    Kauri

    Comvita

    • Bill 6.1
      17 March 2014 at 10:00 am

      I hear that many former and current Nat mps are riding various milk floats…

    • freedom 6.2
      17 March 2014 at 10:15 am

      from the Agri article – “The Cabinet manual, a guide for ministerial behaviour, says no minister should endorse any product in any media. It warns ministers when accepting invitations to tell the organisation it may not use photos taken of the minister at the event or to publicise the event.”

      On the Oravida News and Events page I see Grosser, I see Key, I see Collins.

      pub·lic·i·ty (pŭ-blĭs′ĭ-tē)
      n.
      1.
      a. Information that concerns a person, group, event, or product and that is disseminated through various media to attract public notice.
      b. Public interest, notice, or notoriety achieved by the spreading of such information.
      c. The act, process, or occupation of disseminating information to gain public interest.
      2. The condition of being public.

      Verb 1. publicise – call attention to publicise –

    • Tracey 6.3
      17 March 2014 at 10:44 am

      Thanks for this. Interesting piece about Key and the golf etc

    • Rosie 6.4
      17 March 2014 at 12:31 pm

      Whoah! Super dodgy!

      Thanks for your detective work on this Veutoviper (and to Frank MacSkasy). I see this as an article in it’s own right.

      It’s interesting how the media do report questionable dealings the PM and his Ministers have with business, but the stories really never go that far. They kind of fizzle out in a cloud of Crosby Textor dust.

      If these connections were as meticulously picked apart and shouted about as any Oppositions party’s MP’s slightest transgressions tend to be, we would have a voting population sitting up and paying attention.

      • veutoviper 6.4.1
        17 March 2014 at 12:41 pm

        There is a lot more there too, Rosie. I intended only doing a quick search, but two hours later … and I had only touched the tip of the iceberg. Hoping to spend some more time tonight, but more mundate things need to be done – washing, cleaning parrot cages, bathing one of my two dog etc!

        But the more digging, the more Key is deep in there too.

        • Tracey 6.4.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 12:56 pm

          Which is why he didnt sack collins? Cos she would take him with her? Explains why slater has got twitchy typing fingers

          • veutoviper 6.4.1.1.1
            17 March 2014 at 1:10 pm

            “Which is why he didnt sack Collins?” That is my take. See my comment at 8.2.
            Must have a quick look at WO …. yuck.

            • Tracey 6.4.1.1.1.1
              17 March 2014 at 1:21 pm

              No dont. I was Just stirring about his twitchy fingers cos I dont go to his and judith and johns site.

  7. travellerev 7
    17 March 2014 at 10:03 am

    NATO And New Zealand Sign New Partnership Accord And John Key Is Delirious with That

  8. Chooky 8
    17 March 2014 at 10:06 am

    @ veutoviper…i think the Greens would have something to say on Collins partner’s links and the kauri trade issue…it is known

    imo the Maori should have first rights to this taonga treasure for their traditional carving and art

    …it would be pathetic if the Chinese exported it back to us as faux art

    ….the New Zealand Maori are being sold short and sold out by NACT imo

    • veutoviper 8.2
      17 March 2014 at 12:06 pm

      I agree that Maori should have first rights to hidden kauri – and I was appalled at what I read re this when googling Deyi Shi and I want to find some time to research this more at a later date.

      But the tangled web between this gentleman and the National Party, not just Collins AND Key, is fascinating – and of concern. IMO it is so tangled that it is no wonder that Key was angry with Collins – but at the same time, could not (and probably cannot) afford to step her down as a Minister. Too many skeletons in the cupboard – and Collins is not someone I would like to cross. A woman scorned etc etc (allowed to say that, as I am female!)

      • Chooky 8.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 12:45 pm

        Maori should getting hot about this theft of their Taonga….a covenant should be placed on this precious Swamp Kauri like the covenant on Ngai Tahu’s taonga Pounamu , greenstone.

        where is the Maori Party on this?…dont laugh….they are in with bed Judith Collins and NACT….ok where is Hone Harawira?…where are the Northland Tribes?….where is our Shane Stallion Jones?

  9. Tracey 9
    17 March 2014 at 10:47 am

    Cool article over at stuff about the use of Hempcrete for building home sin NZ.

    Great to see NZ finally catching up. Of course Fletchers and Carters wont have had any part in trying to prevent its growth (pun intended) in NZ.

    Here is their NZ site

    Hemp Technologies
    http://www.hemptechnologies.co.nz/styled/

    “Construction costs may be reduced by:

    Shallower foundations
    Lower transport costs of materials to site
    Lower finish costs
    Discounted Insurance costs
    Reduced mechanical (HVAC) requirements"

    Here’s a link tot heir brief hempguide in pdf

    http://hemp-technologies.com/resources/Hemp-Building/New-Zealand/NZhemp98.pdf

  10. bad12 10
    17 March 2014 at 10:51 am

    SO, the Official Cash Rate set to be raised another 2% by the Reserve Bank Governor in the next 18 months in the face of a measly amount of inflation in the economy, 1.6%, most of which is caused by house price over-inflation in the cities of Auckland and Christchurch,

    Who wins and who loses???,

    The winners, got a spare million bucks or two loitering in a banks term deposits, you win, kaching chalk up an extra 20 bucks a year per hundred thousand you have in a term deposit,

    The Banksters, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the Reserve Bank Governors move against high inflation that does not exist would be to ask the question(s), has he got a few million tucked away in bank term deposits???, or, has the bloke entered into a ‘side-contract’ with the trading banks???,

    The trading Banks and their profits and shareholders will be the real winners from the announced intentions to raise the OCR, full stop, that’s it as far as winners go,

    The losers??? all of us including the Government accounts which with the current tax settings and debt loadings MUST have a rate of GDP growth of 3–5% to (a) achieve a sustainable balancing of the books,and (b), must have an ongoing GDP growth of 3–5% so as to enable a sustainable paying down of the 80 billion dollars of gross Government debt befor the next in the ongoing series of crisis in Capitalism becomes apparent,

    Given the Reserve Bank Governors proposed actions i can only conclude that such monetary reactionism is an attempt to deliberately sabotage the NZ economy in favor of profiting the trading banks and the call should go out to have the position of Governor terminated with a committee of non-bank aligned economists put in His place to decide future OCR rates based upon an all of economy view…

    • Tracey 10.1
      17 March 2014 at 10:56 am

      and it won’t halt the escalating house prices in Auckland and CHCH, will it?

      Bad, how do you reckon we can find out if Brownlee is renting out 3 of his 4 properties in Ilan and Fendalton? I really want to know if he is, what is the rent today compared to january 2010?

      • bad12 10.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:12 am

        Definitely not, the upwardly mobile middle class will simply do their sums and stay put in what they have now further crimping supply,

        The vast numbers,especially in the Auckland market, who have dual citizenship and access to funds from economies with a lesser trading bank interest rate will of course carry on the current game of monopoly with a lesser supply of housing to indulge in will push up prices none-the-less,

        As far as Brownlee goes i could suggest a couple of things, but, won’t, as such things i could suggest could be seen as an invasion of His personal life…

    • Skinny 12.2
      17 March 2014 at 11:54 am

      I would be more concerned about this timezone it could be the collapse of the Greens party vote later this year. Mojo & Roche future as politicians look uncertain and probably a couple of others? They better hope Dot Com doesn’t start up the Internet Party or they will get relegated behind NZF.

      • Colonial Viper 12.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 12:10 pm

        I don’t think that the Greens vote will collapse just because you wish it. Plenty of people in Labour think the Greens are pretty close to their absolute maximum potential vote now, but from what I can see that is based mostly on wishful thinking, not solid reasoning.

        • weka 12.2.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 12:13 pm

          I agree, but Skinny I’m curious why a NASA study on our impending future would collapse the Green vote. I would have thought the opposite.

        • Te Reo Putake 12.2.1.2
          17 March 2014 at 12:28 pm

          Well, CV, you must have missed my comments on the matter! To repeat, The Greens have maxed out because of their branding. Their marketing around their name and campaigning on important but low voting priority issues means that low teens is the best they can achieve.

          Not that they seem unhappy with that podium position anyway. A solid third place is not to be sneezed at in MMP environment, particularly with a tight election coming. And they remain the best performing Green party in the world.

          • bad12 12.2.1.2.1
            17 March 2014 at 2:49 pm

            Maxed out Te Reo, lolz the last election result says that the Green Party are anything but maxed out, should the growth of the last election cycle continue in the upcoming one then i will be happy to see the Green Party nudging 15% of the vote…

            • Skinny 12.2.1.2.1.1
              17 March 2014 at 3:51 pm

              So here is Bad12 living in la la land not seeing the latest halfwitted moves by the Greens as anything to worry about and it’s onwards and upwards to 15%. You think Labour is going to sit idle and allow the Greens to walz away with another 4-5% of our vote. No it won’t happen and we want what we lost back. So the Greens have tanked and will be rolled back some.

              • Murray Olsen …
                17 March 2014 at 5:52 pm

                It’s not your vote, Skinny. That sort of arrogant thinking once belonged with the Tories, and is one reason why Labour’s share has been shrinking.

              • bad12 …
                17 March 2014 at 6:23 pm

                My view of you Skinny from what you have so far contributed today would be that you are a ‘wing-nut’ engaged in a rather stupid masquerade,

                Stupid because that appears to be the level of intellect you have brought to today’s debate,

                Like your stupidity below concerning the Hamilton electorates you do not seem to have a grasp on the realities of MMP politics preferring instead to use insult as the currency of debate in place of constructive thought,

                As has already been pointed out to you, ”your vote” in respect of the Labour Party consists of what your Parties policy accrue to you on the day, voting day that is, and i would suggest that as David Cunliffe has little options available to Him in the way of policy options except the same old thing with a slightly different spin the ”truly red”,(snigger),Labour Party is pretty much a Fizzer…

                • Skinny …
                  17 March 2014 at 6:52 pm

                  Settle down 12 a ‘wingnut’ I in the Labour party to keep them Left. I walked when Goff took the helm, I attended one Green meeting which was disappointing to say the least. Sitting in a circle on floor was a bloody joke, no real struture compared to a Labour ex’s meeting, which had a proper struture in place. I get on very well with many of the Green MP’s and rank and file. Ok the spray about ‘our vote’ was a tad rough, however I am simply saying don’t get distracted with silly stuff like the God Botherer Colin Craig. Btw I have a nice number to crack National in the house which the Greens get first crack at ‘ahead of the other opposition party’s. Why because it’s a nice go forward for our coalition partner!

                  • bad12 …
                    17 March 2014 at 6:59 pm

                    What makes you so sure i am unsettled Skinny, every thing you have so far sprayed my way smacks of ‘wing-nut’ masquerading in a little pantomime,

                    Admittedly a different twist to the usual, ”i voted Labour but never again” rubbish we usually get to read here,(i notice tho you have just used the same in a ”i went to a green party meeting once and they were all sitting round on the floor”),

                    You might think you are clever but i seriously doubt you have any Labour Party credentials at all,(i will happily be proven incorrect),

                    As far as having something to knock National with which you are going to gift to the Green Party, just more bullshit…

                    • Skinny …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:27 pm

                      Cut it out I posted a video on here a month back, a protest I organised and was interview on TV3 as the spokesperson. I did invite the Greens but they were a no show, however one of my Green mates is an orginiser who intended coming but was told not to attend as it’s was a unionised site and he had to tow the line, admittedly it was short notice and not much of a green presence up here. Move on mate we are in it together to remove the Neo-Liberals.

                    • bad12 …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:43 pm

                      Now that Skinny is frigging hilarious, ”remove the Neo-liberals” as if the Labour Party isn’t chock full of them,

                      The ‘pimping’ of neo-liberalism will continue unabated under Labour just as the condition was imported and legislated for by that very Party,

                      The ultimate in neo-liberal policy is to be found in the Labour policy to build 30,000 homes as a reward to the children of the middle class who’s parents having been well rewarded by such neo-liberal economics helped create the current cluster fuck of house price over-inflation putting home ownership out of thee reach of their children,

                      The next step into ugly neo-liberalism will be the raising of the age of entitlement for superannuation by this oh so red Labour Party, with the support of the National Party as no-one else will support such a ludicrous policy which attacks those in the bottom 30% of the economy while giving every favor to those who earn the most thus having the greater ability to save,

                      ”Remove the neo-liberals” that is funny Skinny, your supporting a party that wants another spin of the neo-liberal wheel…

            • Te Reo Putake 12.2.1.2.1.2
              17 March 2014 at 6:23 pm

              ” the last election result says that the Green Party are anything but maxed out”

              The RM poll just before the 2011 election had the Greens on 14.5%. The actual result was 3.5% less at 11%. Current RM polling? 10.5%. I hope they improve their vote this time round, but they aren’t getting 15% this election because they are not geared to that kind of result. Low teens is actually an amazing result for the kind of party that the Greens promote themselves as in an MMP environment, particularly as they are list only.

        • Skinny 12.2.1.3
          17 March 2014 at 12:37 pm

          Actually the Green are their own worst enemy, the last thing I would have predicted in election year is their own self harm. It was Labour I was concerned about with their unruly caucus. The last thing I expected was the Greens losing the plot, but then when you think about it they have a nickname which pops up readily when they do jackarse stuff. Umm like Norman & Craig, & Molly Hughes & Jones. Very disappointing, now it’s tainted/soured peoples minds.

          • Tracey 12.2.1.3.1
            17 March 2014 at 12:59 pm

            What are you on about?

            • Skinny 12.2.1.3.1.1
              17 March 2014 at 1:33 pm

              No offense Tracey but I could not get why Norman carried on a silly tit for tat scrap with Craig. It detracted from the solar panel policy, and then reacting the way they did to Shane ‘one man band’ Jones was another wimpy thing to do. Hughes grates a lot of people that may otherwise vote the Greens. I am telling you Greens you will get thumped if you don’t stick to the ‘smart sensible Greens’ image.

              • bad12 …
                17 March 2014 at 2:35 pm

                Yawn your comments are ‘funny’ in the un-amusing sense Skinny, the Green vote only just started to ‘mine’ the young born to rule National/Green vote in 2011,

                If the trend continues and the contest is tight i could easily see the Green Party Vote being wrested from National electorates toppling the Tories,

                There is a willingness out there among the young in those National held electorates to vote split, its more pronounced in the larger cities at the moment, should such a trend tho continue into the provincial cities National are in for a shock…

                • Skinny …
                  17 March 2014 at 3:44 pm

                  And I can see the Greens standing candidates in West Auckland and West Hamilton to name 2 that will cost Labour the electorate seat, instead of list only. Sound about right?

                  Problem with you lot Bad12 is you probably back Norman by donating to his defamation case defense. Stupid crap like this is a distraction. Time and energy wasting exercise where Craig loses but shows the Green up along the way. Stick to your core values of sensible smart Green platform. Or the right just trot out the loony, left extremist tag. Make your mind up what’s it to be?

                  • bad12 …
                    17 March 2014 at 6:11 pm

                    Yawn, electorate seats, which century did you just spring from Skinny, electorate seats are pretty much meaningless in the enviroment of MMP,

                    If Labour want to represent people in either of those seats there is nothing on the planet stopping them from opening electorate offices and assigning a List MP to do the work,

                    Your argument is facile, a bit like me moaning that Labour will contest the Waiariki electorate seat when this will likely hand the seat to Te Ururoa Flavell,

                    The problem with making assumptions Skinny is they end up being as flaccid as the other part of your comment is facile, i havn’t donated to any legal fund up to this point in time,(unless the name of that account Lprent give me was a cunning hint),

                    Your also wrong with the further assumption surrounding this, picked upon by Mr money-bags is likely to see support for Russell Norman rise among the young and it will only be Wing-nuts and You,(are the two mutually exclusive), that strut about going tutt tutt,

                    The ‘right’ have been trotting out the ‘loony’ slur for years right back to the Values party days, and my mind is made up which basically says that i should either laugh at or spit upon anything you would suggest in the way of advice to the Green Party…

                    • Skinny …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:06 pm

                      Turn the page tomorrow is another day brother, my apologises 🙂 I don’t want the Phil Ure treatment from you day in day out lol. My original post was having a crack at Hooton, over spining NZF will roll with National, which included the nutty Green party slur also, I didn’t reply to his question as I choose to ignore it as he knew it was an attack about his general stifling spin.

                    • bad12 …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:30 pm

                      Go on Skinny, the Phill Ure ‘treatment’ was entirely of a beneficial nature, finally i have an admission from Phill that ”yes He is a poly-addict”, in terms of benefits to the addict the admission is halfway to being free,

                      i am sure tho by your attitude expressed today toward the Green Party that we are set to have much more fun discussing this attitude and the remarks it causes you to put forward…

                  • greywarbler …
                    17 March 2014 at 7:02 pm

                    Skinny
                    I see your point Most of it. So don’t get dissed by bad12 getting tired. The only person around here that can do that and get away with being bored is Ennui.

                    Getting distracted from the path wastes a lot of time.
                    We have got to practise political orienteering this year.
                    Follow the map, keep a sharp look out, keep up the speed, and touch all the bases. No time for yawning.
                    Just regular knackered naps and back to it.

                    • Skinny …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:36 pm

                      Thanks Greywarbler for your words of wisdom 🙂 I admit perhaps bit of a line cross, more out of frustration the green supporters here haven’t engaged in debate about Norman getting distracted and then the hypocritical stance by Hughes. The silence was deafening.

                    • bad12 …
                      17 March 2014 at 7:51 pm

                      There there little warbly, still sting a bit does it….

                • lefty …
                  17 March 2014 at 7:15 pm

                  As things get worse the capitalists will increasingly promote the Greens and their green capitalist ideas to save their system in pretty much the same way they did with Labour and Keynesiam economics in the 1930s.

                  Short term this is good news for the greens electorally but for the rest of us it is another diversion from the need for some real transformational politics.

                  • Skinny …
                    17 March 2014 at 8:43 pm

                    The capitalist ruling class are aided by brainwashing the worker drones through rampant consumerism. Modern society has become very self centered, the me, myself and I syndrome. It’s the pits that a mere capital gains tax policy is seen by many Kiwi’s as radical, too many comfortable babyboomers are tied up in property. I guess to be fair L/G/NZF want to limit foreign speculation.

                    Perhaps a website setup to crunch some policies to bring real transformational change like you suggest Lefty.

  13. Skinny 13
    17 March 2014 at 11:37 am

    Just listened to RNZ political show, Hooton spoils the show with total fabricated nonsense. This morning it was about Winston Peters. Typical lunatic carry on with overly headstrong opinions. What a vast difference between RadioLive’s Sunday morning show hosted by Wallace Chapman and the diatribe being feed on Nat radio’s show, thanks to Hooton.

    Get rid of him he stifles open debate and spins too much baloney to be taken seriously.     

    • Matthew Hooton 13.1
      17 March 2014 at 11:57 am

      What’s the fabricated nonsense bit?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 12:04 pm

        Perhaps the fabricated nonsense maybe about the donation Winston didnt know about.

        Mike Williams , last week revealed he was the intermediary to getting the donation which was paid to a lawyers account without Winstons knowlege

        • Matthew Hooton 13.1.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 12:07 pm

          That is not what Mike said. He said Winston did know about it but that the money went from Glenn to the lawyer and not to NZ First, so, in Mike’s opinion, Winston was telling the strict truth when he held up the sign saying “NO” in answer to questions did Owen Glenn donate to NZ First.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1.1.1
            17 March 2014 at 12:16 pm

            So which of these two statements is true:

            Glenn did not donate to NZ First.

            I will not raise GST after the election.

            One statement gets hammered, the other is so what. Are not both bending the truth.

      • Skinny 13.1.2
        17 March 2014 at 12:06 pm

        Matt your trying to limit Peters-NZF vote by repeating he will run with Key-National. This won’t happen. NZF stands to gather more votes going with a L/G’s setup.

        • weka 13.1.2.1
          17 March 2014 at 12:11 pm

          “NZF stands to gather more votes going with a L/G’s setup”

          Sorry, but unless Peters says before the election who he will go into govt with, that sentence is a nonsense.

          • Matthew Hooton 13.1.2.1.1
            17 March 2014 at 12:14 pm

            Of course it is nonsense, Weka. And votes in 2017 probably aren’t that important to him, because he will be 72 by then and probably won’t seek a further term.

            • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1.1.1
              17 March 2014 at 1:36 pm

              And votes in 2017 probably aren’t that important to him, because he will be 72 by then and probably won’t seek a further term.

              I suspect that’s wishful thinking on your part 😛

          • Skinny 13.1.2.1.2
            17 March 2014 at 12:19 pm

            Not a particularly bright bird is the Weka, on par with a Molly Hawk I’d say.

            Winston has written off Key-National because he wants to buy our assets back. That is telepathic speak “trust me I won’t go with Key.”

            Anyway the old fox won’t be standing in Whangarei, I will ensure his sister gets the nod for Labour, that’s telepathic speak of my own. You self-centered teachers can relax up here.

            • Matthew Hooton 13.1.2.1.2.1
              17 March 2014 at 12:26 pm

              But how do you know he wants to buy back the shares in the power companies? (BTW, does that include Contact Energy?) He said he was against asset sales in the mid 1990s and then, lo and behold, read page 8 of his 1998 Budget speech: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/1998/pdfs/speech-fsr98.pdf

              Similarly, he campaigned for major change to the Reserve Bank Act in the 1990s, and then, as Treasurer, made only token changes to it and re-appointed Don Brash as governor.

              So you can choose to believe the words he says but I think his record suggests that is a mistake.

              • Skinny …
                17 March 2014 at 12:50 pm

                He won’t buy a single share back, you’ll here nothing more of it once Labour/NZF and the bit players (chickens over humans party) get in power.
                Hooton ya mate McCarten was slow pushing the buy back line as was the Greens, Peters trumped them, Shifty DC would have been better spouting that one at his economic speech on Friday.

              • Tracey …
                17 March 2014 at 1:04 pm

                Mr key is becoming quite similar…

              • ianmac …
                17 March 2014 at 2:44 pm

                Didn’t Winston refuse to allow the sale of Wellington Airport? You know an Asset Sale. Didn’t that cause the Shipley fall?

                • weka …
                  17 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

                  From Hooton’s Treasury link above –

                  Government-owned businesses

                  The performance of Government-owned businesses has a significant effect on the economic performance of New Zealand.

                  As we said last year, whilst the Coalition Agreement identifies the strategic assets that the Crown will continue to own, the Government has agreed to consider the Crown’s ownership interest in non-strategic assets on a case-by-case basis.

                  Key issues will be the risks to the taxpayer in continued ownership and whether changed ownership will provide customers with access to better products and services at lower costs.
                  The reality is that the Government faces major capital requirements in health and education. Its priorities for investing whatever scarce capital it has are schools and hospitals.

                  Where non-strategic assets are concerned, New Zealanders must make a choice. Are we to build and maintain schools and hospitals to world class standards? Or do we use that money to service interest on unpaid debt and financing developments for which we do not have the funds?

                  We have low-returning funds locked up in businesses like airports and coal mines which demand future investment from the taxpayer that would be better spent on schools and hospitals.

                  Accordingly, we are negotiating with other local government shareholders to divest the Crown’s ownership interest in Auckland International Airport, by way of a public float.

                  Our first priority will be to ensure that all New Zealanders who want to buy shares will have the first opportunity to do so.

                  Again, this Government is committed to investing new capital in our schools and in our hospitals.
                  The Government has also started the process of divesting its coal mining SOE, Solid Energy.

                  On the one hand, 1998 was a long time ago. On the other hand, where is the evidence that what Peters says now means anything?

                • Matthew Hooton …
                  17 March 2014 at 3:22 pm

                  That was his excuse – he figured he needed to get out of coalition to have a chance of getting back into parliament in 1999. But prior to his grandstanding over Wellington Airport, he had happily sold shares in Auckland Airport and had led the process, as Treasurer, to sell the shares in Wellington Airport.

                • alwyn …
                  17 March 2014 at 6:02 pm

                  Winston may have opposed the sale of the airport but it certainly didn’t lead to the fall of the Shipley Government, or prevent the airport being sold. After all Winston threw a tantrum and took about half of his party out of the Government and went into opposition in 1998. The remainder of Winnies party remained in the Government, and the Government sold its 66% share in the airport.

                  The Government then remained in power until the election late in 1999.
                  That election caused the Shipley fall but it was about 18 months after Winnie threw his toys out of the cot.

            • weka 13.1.2.1.2.2
              17 March 2014 at 12:45 pm

              Telepathy, that’s just what the left needs to win the election. Nevertheless, most NZers aren’t telepathic so my comment stands. No-one knows what Peters will do so saying that he stands to garner more votes by going with Labour is still a non-sense until Peters declares before the election who he will go with. I suspect much confusion amongst NZF voters this year, just like in other elections.

              • McFlock …
                17 March 2014 at 1:28 pm

                Heh – I reckon a few here think they’re telepathic already, assigning the most devious motives to the every nuanced arse-scratch an MP makes 🙂

              • Skinny …
                17 March 2014 at 1:54 pm

                After the dirty campaign National ran against Winston which saw NZF ousted out of Parliament do you honestly think Winston’s sole motivating factor is to exact revenge. Adding to that his 2ic Tracy Martin is closer to the Greens in her thinking and wouldn’t have a bar of National. NZF will gain most from the demise of the Maori Party and disillusioned National voters.

                I am comfy righting a NZF/NACT setup out.

            • greywarbler 13.1.2.1.2.3
              17 March 2014 at 9:31 pm

              What’s that about teachers Skinny. You are getting enigmatic. Is Peters’ sister a teacher? And is calling them self-centred being ironic or just plain mean?

          • Tracey 13.1.2.1.3
            17 March 2014 at 1:03 pm

            I wonder when anyone will call on dunne to declare who he will go with.

        • Matthew Hooton 13.1.2.2
          17 March 2014 at 12:11 pm

          It is my opinion he would, based on previous behaviour and current polls, as discussed here: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/what-would-winston-want

          Your opinion seems to be otherwise.

          But where is the “fabricated nonsense” bit?

          • Bearded Git 13.1.2.2.1
            17 March 2014 at 12:25 pm

            But Winnie hates Shonkey….build that into the calculation Mr. Hooton

          • rhinocrates 13.1.2.2.2
            17 March 2014 at 12:30 pm

            More amusement provided by Hoots affecting to be shocked, shocked that anyone would suggest that he’s not the very paragon of honesty.

      • Tracey 13.1.3
        17 March 2014 at 1:01 pm

        Do you not want to guess in case skinny is thinking of different fabricated nonsense to you?

    • Chooky 13.2
      17 March 2014 at 12:11 pm

      @ Skinny….yes he was telling fibs about NZF and Winnie all over the place ….I am not sure why ….because i think that Wiinnie is intent on going with Labour and getting Minister of Foreign Affairs…actually maybe this is the reason why he is telling so many lies …he is certainly a one man band ANTI- WINNIE PR machine…Hoots Possum is going spin crazy

      eg of one such fib….Hooton said Winnie could have formed a coalition with Helen Clark and Jim Anderton to give the first Labour Govt with Clark as Prime Minister but didnt and chose instead to go with National….As Winnie has pointed out on many occasions it was an impossibility for him to form a coalition with Clark and Anderton because Anderton was not playing and was unwilling to have a coalition with Labour.!…Labour simply did not have the numbers to form a government in coalition with Winston’s NZF

      ….as it turned out the coalition Winnie did go into…. (the only coalition alternative to form a government was with National) …he ended up pulling down because of more proposed asset sales

      • Matthew Hooton 13.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 12:36 pm

        You are saying he didn’t hold two months of coalition negotiations with Labour? Strange if such a deal were impossible. I have been remained close to politics since 1996, but have never heard this theory before.

        • Chooky 13.2.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 12:49 pm

          It was in the Helen Clark documentary….spelt out very clearly!

          …I guess he doesnt feel obliged to put you right…because some of your spinning backfires to his advantage

          • Enough is Enough 13.2.1.1.1
            17 March 2014 at 1:48 pm

            Why do you think it was impossible Chooky.

            He campaigned in ’96 that he could bring down Bolger. Then negotiated for 2 months with Clark and would have gone her had she given him Finance. She was his first choice.

            History would now tell a different story if she had given him what Bolger ultimatley did..

            • Chooky 13.2.1.1.1.1
              17 March 2014 at 4:03 pm

              …well check out that documentary…did Jim Anderton pull out of negotiations early or late?….did he stand on NOT forming a coalition with Labour…i cant remember….Helen Clark would know

              • Matthew Hooton …
                17 March 2014 at 4:52 pm

                Anderton was never in the negotiations. He was pledged to support a Labour-led govt. There were two negotiations – Peters with National, and Peters with Labour. Not a single person around parliament or the media at the time would agree with this idea that Peters had no choice (except, retrospectively, perhaps Peters – taking your word for that).

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  17 March 2014 at 11:08 pm

                  Nah, Chooky has established that there were some factors involved that made it less of a sure thing that everyone had expected at the time. Chooky never said there were no coalition talks.

                  It suits the interests that you work for for people to not know the factors that might have lead Peters to choose the way he did. It is better that we, however, know – so that we can make informed choices.

                  It wasn’t great that Peters made the choice that he did, however he is leader of a centrist party and it was perhaps naïve (helped by the lack of real political analysis in the media) to assume that NZ First would go with Labour.

                  It suits National just fine to have people like you spinning their line – but centrist voters might just decide that it is worth voting for NZ First because even if he chooses National over Labour he will either tone down the ultraism and incompetency of the Nats OR break up the agreement early if he doesn’t manage this. Either way this is preferable to having another 3 long years of this bunch of buffoons. It all depends what the polls are showing closer to the time – which is, after all, what Peters appears to be saying over and over again…..

          • weka 13.2.1.1.2
            17 March 2014 at 3:08 pm

            “It was in the Helen Clark documentary….spelt out very clearly!”

            I don’t think that doco said what you think it does. But even if it did, it is a single source that no-one else seems to find that credible. Further, after that election Peters held NZ to ransom, and undermined much trust in the new MMP system. His behaviour was anti-democratic and appalling. I can understand why some people want him in parliament, but it is beyond me why anyone still trusts him on what he says.

            • Chooky 13.2.1.1.2.1
              17 March 2014 at 4:25 pm

              @ weka …check out the doco again if you can be bothered( i cant)…it was pretty clear to me that he had no option but to go with National because Jim Anderton wanted his pound of flesh against Rogernomics and the Labour Party and was not going to help them into govt via a coalition

              ….however by going into coalition with National Peters not only pulled that National govt down on the issue of asset sales and has created NACT enemies ever after eg Hooton….but he almost killed his own party support outright…i think he learnt from this ( i was one of many of his voters who was dismayed and felt betrayed at the time)

              ….as far as I am concerned what matters is NOW!

              …there is no point in alienating Winston and NZF when…. 1.) he worked well with Clark second time around …was a brilliant Minister of Foreign Affairs 2.) kept the Labour Govt in … 3.) Cunliffe is willing to work with him and the Greens… 4.) the Labour Left coalition will probably need him to become the next Govt

              Sniff the wind ……why is Matthew Hooton ( MSe…master spinner extraordinaire ) trying to alienate everybody from Peters and at the same time doing a u-turn and saying Peters will form a coalition with National? Answer: he knows National will not be able to form a govt without Peters

              (…that is my read of it anyway)

              • Matthew Hooton …
                17 March 2014 at 4:42 pm

                This theory of yours is absolute nonsense. To believe it, you have to believe that there was a chance of a National/Alliance government. There wasn’t, on either side. Clark knew she could take Anderton’s votes for granted. And there were two months of negotiations, with Peters talking to both sides. His decision was a total secret until the moment he announced it. Labour staffers burst into tears (Helen Clark has already been on the cover of the NZ edition of TIME mag as prime minister elect). National staffers couldn’t believe their luck (I was in Goa at the time and got excited faxes from friends working in the Beehive). The idea Peters had no choice but to support National is fanciful. He could have chosen Clark — and most people thought he would. I don’t know what nonsense he has spouted to his supporters since about having no choice, but of course he did.

                • Chooky …
                  17 March 2014 at 4:50 pm

                  lol…well he certainly shouldn’t have gone with National…it just about killed him and his party completely

                  He has learned that lesson!

                • McFlock …
                  17 March 2014 at 5:20 pm

                  Well, for years I thought that, but then if you factor in Anderton’s vibe I actually think it quite believable – his alternatives consisted of:

                  A) going with national, getting some concessions to tout (gold card and doctors visits for kids) for as long as possible;

                  B) supporting neither/abstaining so there was a minority national govt (same as A without the concessions) or even a rerun of the election because nobody can form a govt without him and he votes against everyone;

                  C) go with labour and hope Anderton swallows his pride, in which case anderton gets all the concessions and credit, or forces a rerun after winnie’s delayed for two weeks trying to get the numbers.

                  And after watching what Anderton did to the Alliance in 2005?2002? there’s every possibility he would have burned the house down around him even then.

                  I still don’t go with A, but I’m not quite so outraged about it.
                  edit: although maybe I’m mellowing in me old age 🙂

                  • Chooky …
                    17 March 2014 at 8:11 pm

                    sounds interesting and plausible…from what i can remember…but mainly the gobsmacking outrage at his going with National

                    …he wont do it again

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      17 March 2014 at 11:22 pm

                      Yes, it is certainly plausible that Clark had less to offer Peters, due to requiring the support of Alliance too.

                      It is plausible that the Nats appeared more stable due to the dynamic between Clark and Anderton

                      It is certainly proven that it was very bad for NZ First’s reputation that Peters choose National over Labour after leading the public to believe that a vote for them was a vote against the government.

                      Here is hoping that not only Peter’s has learned from the experience – that Labour also have learned about the value of how they relate with potential coalition partners – in a manner that allows all to see the government under such a team would be stable…

                    • McFlock …
                      17 March 2014 at 11:27 pm

                      Here’s also hoping that Shane Jones stops destruct-testing that last paragraph 🙂

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      17 March 2014 at 11:40 pm

                      lol….We can only hope…

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.2.1.2
          17 March 2014 at 1:23 pm

          @ M.Hooton 13.2.1

          Your response to Chooky’s comment is an indictment on the quality of political analysis on this country and the circles you hang out in, Mr Hooton, rather than any reflection on the content of Chooky’s comment.

          Further, it appeared to me that Winston was calling all the main players in National incompetent buffoons in the debate on TricKey-the-PM’s statement

          As I said, New Zealand’s external balance sheet is in an awful state. The dollar is going up, and over the past 5 years National has failed totally to diversify our economic base. We are now even more vulnerable to what is known as a black swan, or an unforeseen event or shock. That is where we sit today, and wise people have said it…[interruption]…. We have an economy based on, or characterised by, one dominant export product, which is milk powder; one dominant export company, which is Fonterra; one dominant export market, which is China; and one dominant import, which is people—immigration. That is not a plan that a party calling itself National, which would evince putting its people first, should ever be proud of. – Winston Peters

          link: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/speeches/50HansS_20140128_00000321/peters-winston-debate-on-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-statement

          Whilst Mr Peters is notoriously hard to predict – it is extremely hard to imagine that he would like to end his political career by working with that pack of buffoons – which I guess is why he is fairly much calling for the lot of them to be sacked – (found in the above-linked speech) – Key especially. It would seem that his political preference is National but not with the current state of incompetency of this current bunch of incompetents government.

          • Skinny 13.2.1.2.1
            17 March 2014 at 2:35 pm

            You got it blue Cat nice work!

          • weka 13.2.1.2.2
            17 March 2014 at 3:11 pm

            “Your response to Chooky’s comment is an indictment on the quality of political analysis on this country and the circles you hang out in, Mr Hooton, rather than any reflection on the content of Chooky’s comment.”

            Do you have any evidence that Chooky is right? I’ve not seen any.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.2.1.2.2.1
              17 March 2014 at 4:17 pm

              I have certainly heard the theory that Chooky relayed – unlike Hooton despite his mixing with the media and in political circles – this is the point I was making.

              I have no evidence for the particular point Chooky raises – that is not to say it has no foundation – considering the lack of political information and analysis available in this country – particularly at the time that this occurred – that is hardly surprising really is it? I don’t think it should be dismissed merely because Mr Hooton ‘hasn’t heard of it’. I have certainly heard that Clark and Anderton were not getting along very well at the time, yet do not have time today for trawling for evidence (may do so later though).

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                18 March 2014 at 12:37 am

                I went back to search for info and so far I have come up with no articles that go into the details of either what was being offered in the coalition talks or the relationship between Clark and Anderton.

                Most articles I’ve come across take about one paragraph to mention National offered more than Labour – but include no details on what Labour were offering.

                Perhaps I am just having bad luck with my searches tonight – or perhaps the information is just not out there…unsure which.

          • Chooky 13.2.1.2.3
            17 March 2014 at 4:47 pm

            Peters is not only a brilliant speech maker …but he is a master poker player

            …i may be horribly wrong …but I cant see him going with National

  15. Draco T Bastard 15
    17 March 2014 at 12:41 pm

    On the Wrong Side of Globalization

    What’s more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements’ new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.

    When agreements like the TPP govern international trade — when every country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations — multinational corporations can return to the practices that were common before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers — namely, the rest of us.

    • Tracey 15.1
      17 March 2014 at 1:08 pm

      Dont forget the lawyer fuelled hunt for loopholes.

      • Colonial Viper 15.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 3:53 pm

        Tracey. There is no need to conduct a “lawyer fuelled hunt for loopholes” when the corporate lawyers are there in the negotiating room helping to insert the loopholes.

  16. amirite 16
    17 March 2014 at 2:00 pm

    There’s more rotten stench of corruption coming from this National Government, Amy Adams is to personally profit from the irrigation scheme, after Environment Canterbury was conveniently sacked undemocratically to prioritise farmers’ interests at the expense of the environment.
    Pity the majority of public couldn’t detect corruption if it punched them in the nose. Can’t see past Key’s fake smile.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/9834430/Adams-well-linked-to-land-of-milk-and-money

  17. ianmac 17
    17 March 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Further to Veuto “The Collins saga led me to want to learn a little more about Oravida and Deyi (‘Stone’) Shi, close personal friend of Collins and her family.”
    Public Address has a very very interesting collation of the significant National MPs connection to Oravido and to Amy Adams and the Canterbury water travesty.
    Russel Brown writes on the Adams family connection/background to water from 2013:
    http://rebuildingchristchurch.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/special-investigation-adams-family-values/
    And today in Public Address:
    http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/things-worth-knowing/

    I reckon this could damage further the credibility of this Government. 2+2=4

    • veutoviper 17.1
      17 March 2014 at 4:36 pm

      Thanks for that, ianmac. Will check it out later.

      • veutoviper 17.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 5:18 pm

        I have now had a quick read of the Public Address link and will read it properly after the menagerie and I have been fed.

        I note that there is speculation as to why Collins went to China in October 2013 (not mentioned is the fact that she also went back to China again less than a month later in Nov 2013).

        Yesterday I posted a number of comments with links about both these trips. The first trip (when Collins had the dinner, lunch and cup of tea with milk with Oravida friends etc) was to attend and speak at a (Chinese govt? sponsored) conference on corruption (!). Information re this trip and conference are in this one of my comments yesterday (witha link to her speech in the second).

        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16032014/#comment-786594
        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16032014/#comment-786780

        Re the second trip, this was to attend and debate at an APEC Women’s Leadership Forum. Details and links in this comment yesterday
        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16032014/#comment-786784

        And another comment I made the day before is also related, but more to provide a link to an enlightening TVNZ video on the Oravida – National Party connections.
        http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15032014/#comment-786207

        I have never commented at Public Address and don’t really want to. But if anyone here wants to share any of the information about Collins’ trips on their post, feel free to use the information and links in my earlier comments.

    • Chooky 17.2
      17 March 2014 at 4:55 pm

      +100 ianmac…this NACT MP corrupt goings on is the real cruncher!

      (…Peters and what he did and did not do is a red herring…and Hooton is playing it for all he is worth….we have to keep our eyes on the ball here)

  18. felix 18
    17 March 2014 at 4:48 pm

    So what’s the “really nasty nickname” that Collins is called by others in the National Party?

    (according to Mike Williams, NineToNoon this morning)

  19. Morrissey 19
    17 March 2014 at 6:09 pm

    United States “not meddling” in Ukraine, and Bush “exported democracy”;
    Welcome to the wit and wisdom of Jim Mora
    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Monday 17 March 2014
    Jim Mora, Mark Inglis, Ellen Read

    If one were to embark on the unedifying task of compiling a list of the most dismal cretins in this country, one would have to include at least some of the following names: John “Barney” Barnett, Karl “Doolally” Du Fresne, Garth “Gaga” George, Rodney “The Perk-taker” Hide, Christine (Spankin’) Rankin, Jamie (“Lock Up His Daughters”) Whyte, and the hysterically funny but dim Jordan Williams. Disturbingly, all of that grim list, except for the two ACT MPs (the Perk-taker and “Lock Up His Sisters”), consists of regular guests on Radio NZ’s dire chat-lite show The Panel. Whenever they have had the chance to run their mouths unchecked for a few minutes, these people have been so extreme, and sometimes even so deranged, in their comments that one is tempted to invoke the immortal words used to describe Marinetti about a century ago: “He is not just a cretin; he is a phosphorescent cretin.”

    Up until recently, I have tended to give the host of this unfortunate program the benefit of the doubt. Could Jim Mora in all fairness be blamed for the calibre of his guests? Surely the one to blame was his producer, I would rationalize. Even when a particularly brutal guest, Dr Michael Bassett, frothed and snarled and called Nicky Hager a holocaust-denier live on air a few years ago, and Mora said nothing, not even a murmur of demurral or reproach, I thought that maybe he had said nothing because he was simply flabbergasted by Bassett’s boundless viciousness and dishonesty. Even when he laughed along with the likes of Chis “Haw Haw” Trotter as they mocked the suffering of political prisoners and fugitives of state vengeance, I believed that he was simply laughing along as a dutiful mein host. Basically, I thought, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, Jim’s an intelligent and thoughtful guy who does his best to run an entertaining show; sure, he’s a little glib, a little lazy—he never seems to read anything other than the New York Times and he quotes such moral imbeciles as David Brooks as if they are serious commentators—but basically, he knows what’s what.

    Today, however, Jim Mora’s performance was so bizarrely substandard that the old nagging doubts have risen to the surface yet again….

    To discuss the situation in Crimea, Waikato University professor Al Gillespie was brought on to the program. But instead of listening to Prof. Gillespie, who actually knows something about the topic, Jim Mora decided to air a few of his own thoughts. The first one would be hilarious if you didn’t consider that Mora was not trying to be funny….

    JIM MORA: Well if we look at the role of the United States—one couldn’t exactly call it meddling….

    Shortly after the nonsense continued….

    JIM MORA: Ahhhh, the Guardian, which is not exactly a right wing rag….

    The absurdity reached its nadir with this piece of black comedy, rendered even blacker by Ellen Read’s attempt to respond with something intelligent….

    JIM MORA: George Bush was very big on exporting democracy wasn’t he.

    ELLEN READ: [with utmost gravitas] Not so easy.

    Professor Gillespie did actually manage to say a few things, but Mora’s harebrained comments went unchecked. Here they are again, in all their phosphorescent glory:

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

    (1) the United States is not meddling in the Ukraine;
    (2) the Grauniad is a trustworthy and fair newspaper;
    (3) George W. Bush was exporting democracy.

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

    I swear that if I had not heard him utter those statements, I would never have believed this program could sink so low.

    • Macro 19.1
      17 March 2014 at 8:11 pm

      I gave up years ago.. Your fortitude does you credit. But why it continues is beyond understanding – I guess it fills in time 🙁

    • Te Reo Putake 19.2
      17 March 2014 at 10:22 pm

      “I swear that if I had not heard him utter those statements, I would never have believed this program could sink so low.”

      Except, Moz didn’t hear him utter those statements, as Mora didn’t say any of these things. No3 is as close to accuracy as Moz gets, but even then he misunderstands what Mora has said (listen again Moz, Mora’s mildly taking the piss out of Bush, not endorsing him).

      It’s actually a very good interview and worth a listen (starts about ten minutes in): http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2589258/the-panel-with-ellen-reid-and-mark-inglis-part-2

      • felix 19.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:05 pm

        Good lord.

        Moz’s first “quote”, taken in context, says more or less the exact opposite of what was actually said.

        Muziness as usual I suppose.

        • McFlock 19.2.1.1
          17 March 2014 at 11:18 pm

          I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya

          • Morrissey 19.2.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 7:56 pm

            Another witless contribution from our friend McFlock, I see. At least felix and Te Reo have the ability to mount some sort of a case to back up their arguments.

            McFlock on the other hand…..

            Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Jack. Zippo.

            • McFlock 19.2.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 9:04 pm

              I can’t be bothered writing another transcript that your delusions will soon scab over into an amazing victory for yourself.
              You’re a fucking nutbar.

        • Professor Longhair 19.2.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 12:00 pm

          The quotes were indeed accurate. Certainly Mr Mora was a little more roundabout and mealy-mouthed than he appears in the extract provided; however, what Mr Breen posted up is what Mr Mora said, viz., “one couldn’t exactly call it meddling.”

          I note that the usual tiresome triumvirate is shouting loudly again.

        • Morrissey 19.2.1.3
          18 March 2014 at 7:31 pm

          Moz’s first “quote”, taken in context, says more or less the exact opposite of what was actually said.

          Felix, I appreciate that Mora was actually trying to say something reasonable and balanced. Of course, that was completely undermined by the fact that he said of the United States’ meddling in Ukrainian politics: “one couldn’t exactly call it meddling”.

          That was about as sensible as discussing the O.J. Simpson case and saying “one couldn’t exactly call it a double knife-killing.” Or about as sensible as claiming the racist vitriol of the ACT maniacs who railed against iwi representation on Auckland Community Boards was “not exactly rancorous”. Mora made THAT claim this afternoon.

          Mora’s mealy-mouthed attitude, in combination with his glib and facile tongue, overshadowed, indeed destroyed, any of the thoughtful contributions he had to make.

          • felix 19.2.1.3.1
            18 March 2014 at 8:02 pm

            Nope, he said exactly the opposite of what you imply he said. Do you want to quote the full sentence or shall I?

            • Morrissey 19.2.1.3.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 8:21 pm

              I was right and you know it. You are just banking on the fact that most people won’t click on the link to that tedious discussion. If they do, it’s quite clear which of us is lying.

              • felix …
                18 March 2014 at 8:53 pm

                I guess that’s me then. Ok.

                Mora:

                What about the west did though? You wouldn’t go so far as to call it “meddling” but the west went in, in terms of visiting those camps, encouraging the protesters, talking about sovereignty, but all the while there was a democratically elected leader in power…

                Interviewee:

                That’s correct, Yanukovych was democratically elected and these were judged in 2010 to be fair and free. However he did flee the country and parliament now is overwhelmingly saying he is not the leader, so there is a little bit of truth in both sides on that aspect

                Mora:

                But don’t we have a situation where the west is in fact cheering the ousting – or did – cheer the ousting of a democratically elected leader, while Russia was expressing concern about it?

                Interviewee:

                That’s fair comment. The west certainly want the Ukraine to lean more toward the west rather as opposed to the east.

                etc.

                So there you have it. Jim Mora questioning the role of the west in stirring up dissent against a democratically elected leader. The opposite of what your out-of-context quote implied he had done.

                • Professor Longhair …
                  19 March 2014 at 10:11 am

                  MORA: You wouldn’t go so far as to call it “meddling” but the west went in…

                  As your transcript proves, Mora said exactly what Mr Breen said he did. Mr Breen has already acknowledged that Jim Mora was trying, somewhat diffidently, to raise the almost forbidden question of U.S. hypocrisy. Unfortunately, his timidity led to him immediately undermining his own words with that mealy-mouthed blather.

                  He said it, as you confirm. But you’re still kvetching.

                  Foolishly.

                  Game, set and match to Mr Breen.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    19 March 2014 at 10:30 am

                    Morrissey, you saddo, Mora did not say the United States, which is what you claimed in the initial comment. It’s arrogant that you now (disingenuously) acknowledge your error by referring to ‘the west’ while still claiming that’s what you originally said. You claimed Mora said the United States. He didn’t. Originally, you were mistaken. Now you are just lying.

                    You still owe Mora and the readers an apology for the original mistakes, which include hilariously confusing the Guardian with another newspaper altogether.

                    ps, regarding the Independent, if you’d been more on to it, you could have mounted a good argument around the ownership of that newspaper by a Russian oligarch, and what that might mean for its coverage of the Crimea. But, nooooo, you’re just not up to the task.

                    • Professor Longhair …
                      19 March 2014 at 10:42 am

                      There is very little difference between the Indescribablyboring and the Grauniad. They both parrot pretty much the same government talking points as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune . You would realize that if you actually read not only those propaganda rags, but a little of the wealth of informed critiques of them by scholars who know what they are talking about, as opposed to the hapless chaps who pass for commentators on National Radio. We recommend you look at some of the work done by Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky, for a start.

                      And of course “the West” is not a code word for the United States. Of course not.

                      Similarly, “the Eastern bloc” of a generation or so ago was not a code word for the Soviet Union. Of course not.

                      No doubt Mr Breen is penning a suitably abject apology to that outstanding journalist Jim Mora at this very moment. Of course he is.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      19 March 2014 at 10:51 am

                      The difference between the two papers is that they are different newspapers. The USA is not the west, unless you are suggesting that your alternative personality ‘Mr Breen’ writes in tongues.

                      To summarise your errors, you claim the following was said by Mora:

                      (1) the United States is not meddling in the Ukraine;
                      (2) the Grauniad is a trustworthy and fair newspaper;
                      (3) George W. Bush was exporting democracy.

                      (1) not said by Mora, made up by moz
                      (2) not said by Mora, made up by Moz
                      (3) sorta said by Mora, but not as a statement of fact. Misinterpreted by Moz.

                      3 strikes, no hits. Next batter to the plate …

                    • Professor Longhair …
                      19 March 2014 at 11:01 am

                      1.) “The difference between the two papers is that they are different newspapers.”

                      Similarly, the BBC, CNN and Fox News are different broadcasters, but their adherence to official government spin is impressively uniform.

                      2.) “The USA is not the west, unless you are suggesting that your alternative personality ‘Mr Breen’ writes in tongues.”

                      Of course “the West” is not an absurd fiction for “the United States.” Of course Britain pursues a robustly independent foreign policy. Of course New Zealand’s government is fearlessly independent, just like it was in the 1980s.

                      Of course.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      19 March 2014 at 11:07 am

                      A simple apology would suffice, Moz, but keep on wanking if that suits your purposes.

                    • sockpuppet …
                      19 March 2014 at 8:59 pm

                      I don’t know why Messrs Morrissey and Longhair bother trying to educate the philistines.

                    • felix …
                      19 March 2014 at 11:17 pm

                      Fuck off Morrissey.

    • the pigman 19.3
      18 March 2014 at 9:28 pm

      Meh, keep it up Mozz. I had the misfortune of catching that interview (and much of the panel) while ironing my shirts, and your round up was several times more amusing than the usual triumvirate’s dissection. Tall poppies and all that jazz.

      • felix 19.3.1
        19 March 2014 at 8:50 am

        It’s nice that you don’t care if people just make up any old horseshit about other people and post it all over this site as if it were true.

        As an aside, this one time at band camp I caught Morrissey fucking a chicken and he said “Well so what? I fuck chickens daily. Who doesn’t?”

        Not roasted ones though Morrissey. And not at the dinner table.

        • Professor Longhair 19.3.1.1
          19 March 2014 at 12:41 pm

          “As an aside, this one time at band camp I caught Morrissey fucking a chicken and he said…”

          Things have come to a pretty pass when this is posted up as some kind of an argument.

          Would I be the only person on this forum to feel a profound sense of despair when reading such substandard stuff?

          • Te Reo Putake 19.3.1.1.1
            19 March 2014 at 1:02 pm

            You don’t see Morrissey denying it though, do you?

            • Professor Longhair 19.3.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2014 at 4:34 pm

              “You don’t see Morrissey denying it though, do you?”

              A very good point, sir, maugre the allegation being a fowl one.

              Touché.

          • felix 19.3.1.1.2
            19 March 2014 at 8:34 pm

            What’s your problem with what I posted, Moz? You’re the one who did it and said it, I’m simply reporting it with 100% accuracy.

  20. captain hook 20
    17 March 2014 at 6:54 pm

    God defend New Zealand.
    Has shifty key resigned yet?

  21. Tracey 21
    17 March 2014 at 6:55 pm

    you mean slater hasnt mentioned the nickname during his anti collins tirades in the name of outting corruption in the halls of power?

    • felix 21.1
      17 March 2014 at 7:12 pm

      Weirdly not!

      I don’t understand it as he is really, really into offensive nasty nicknames. He even publishes list of them. He must know, surely.

  22. felix 22
    17 March 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Come on, National trools. You can’t all be Cameron Slater.

    Spill the beans.

  23. Draco T Bastard 23
    17 March 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit

    There was a time when academia was society’s refuge for the eccentric, brilliant, and impractical. No longer. It is now the domain of professional self-marketers. As a result, in one of the most bizarre fits of social self-destructiveness in history, we seem to have decided we have no place for our eccentric, brilliant, and impractical citizens. Most languish in their mothers’ basements, at best making the occasional, acute intervention on the Internet.

    If all this is true in the social sciences, where research is still carried out with minimal overhead largely by individuals, one can imagine how much worse it is for astrophysicists. And, indeed, one astrophysicist, Jonathan Katz, has recently warned students pondering a career in the sciences. Even if you do emerge from the usual decade-long period languishing as someone else’s flunky, he says, you can expect your best ideas to be stymied at every point:

    You will spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors, you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. . . . It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal, because they have not yet been proved to work.

    So much for corporatism making things more efficient.

  24. greywarbler 24
    17 March 2014 at 7:46 pm

    Another muddy splash on Abbott’s suit. Strangely he and the Tasmanian leader are shoulder to shoulder pushing for something like 74000 hectares of heritage forest to be removed from its status.
    This is so it can be milled. But the interesting thing in an ironic way, is that it is absolutely unprofitable. The state subsidises it all the way. The more that gets milled the more the taxpayers pay out. But they seem to be set on a lockjawed gritty fight – Greens two legs, political pigs four, and the biggest number is the right one.
    I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay hey! See you tube for Monty Python. Got to larf or you’d bawl.

    The people are confused – a poll taken thought that logging supplied 20% of employment when in fact it is 1%. It might be more if Only looking at employment for males (mostly) but still the state does better from leaving the trees where they are and getting returns from tourism which I think were 16 times higher. Curiouser and curiouser. Madder and madder. And Australians will be put in the stocks and pelted with rocks by Abbott before they can vote him out. And they will deserve it for voting him in.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/tasmanias-forest-wars
    Tasmania’s forest wars: Barking up the wrong tree

    Labor, Greens attack Tony Abbott for saying nation’s forests too .
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-greens-attack-tony-abbott-for-saying-nations-forests-too-locked-up/story-fn59niix-1226845685829

    More on google with key words – abbott and Tasmania leader heritage park cut timber felling
    .

  25. greywarbler 25
    17 March 2014 at 9:04 pm

    Dr Neville Bennett economic historian – with NBR. Talking about the effects of the GFC arising around the world huring the developing economies – talking to Bryan Crump on Radionz.

    Referred to Malaysia controls on capital flow. It sounds as if that is what we need to stop the high dollar and the volatility. We will have to grit our teeth and pay more for imported stuff. That will be our willing contribution to our country instead of selling off everything so we can get plastic toys at Christmas, and lots of mass produced clothes.

  26. Ergo Robertina 26
    17 March 2014 at 9:29 pm

    New Oxfam report reveals Britain’s five richest families have more wealth than bottom 20% of the population. They must have worked very hard.

    ‘The most affluent family in Britain, headed by Major General Gerald Grosvenor, owns 77 hectares (190 acres) of prime real estate in Belgravia, London, and has been a beneficiary of the foreign money flooding in to the capital’s soaring property market in recent years. Oxfam said Grosvenor and his family had more wealth (£7.9bn) than the poorest 10% of the UK population (£7.8bn).

    Oxfam’s director of campaigns and policy, Ben Phillips, said: “Britain is becoming a deeply divided nation, with a wealthy elite who are seeing their incomes spiral up, while millions of families are struggling to make ends meet.

    “It’s deeply worrying that these extreme levels of wealth inequality exist in Britain today, where just a handful of people have more money than millions struggling to survive on the breadline.”

  28. Penny Bright 28
    17 March 2014 at 11:09 pm

    Keeping the pressure on against the corrupt corporate control of the Auckland region ……………

    Seen this?

    Granny scares Mayor out of chair!

    I was there today, outside the Northcote Public Library, together with Dick Cuthbert from the LEN BROWN STAND DOWN Coalition – holding a Tui Bill Board banner which said “Mayor Len Brown says people have “moved on” – YEAH RIGHT”

    Penny Bright

  29. Jim 29
    17 March 2014 at 11:43 pm

    A couple of thoughts sparked by, but only tenuously related to, the reaction to Shane Jones:

    [For me the jury is still out on SJ. Some of his comments make good common sense, but I’m not clear yet on whether he is a man of substance or “just a naughty boy”.]

    My first thought was about where leaders tend to come from relative to their party membership. I think they naturally tend to come from a more authoritarian place, but do they also tend to come from a more right position also? Shipley, English, Brash, Key, Goff, all more right/authoritarian I suspect. Shearer more right; Clark certainly more authoritarian.

    Thinking about my own preferences for leadership, and coming from the libertarian left, I realised that I tend to be less comfortable with leaders who do or might sit to the libertarian left of me, and I seem to have a preference for centrists, and I wonder if this might be something of a general truth?

    Subsequent to some of this thinking, I took a look at the pre-populated charts on the ‘political compass’ website (google it if you’re not familiar with it) and found that they suggest that:
    a) Most democratically elected governments around the world are on the authoritarian right of the spectrum.
    b) NZ Labour is listed just right of centre and neutral on the authoritarian/libertarian axis – much more similar to Germany’s SPD and France’s PS, than it is to the ALP (the latter having moved steadily right/authoritarian over the last 7 years).
    c) Labour party leaders Ed Milleband and Julia Gillard are/were significantly more authoritarian right than the NZLP.
    d) in 2008 NZFirst was listed as a little further left and more authoritarian than Labour.

    Which I think adds something to the mix of thoughts.