Open mike 19/05/2016

97 comments on “Open mike 19/05/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paul 1

   19 May 2016 at 6:11 am

   Another day in John Key’s neo-liberal nightmare.
   We have become a cruel, ugly and selfish nation under his wretched leadership.
   • Macro 1.1

     19 May 2016 at 11:28 am

     John Campbell does such a fine job bringing the realities of this tragedy into the living rooms of everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Those who live on the benefits of escalating house prices however will have neither.
     • Chooky 1.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 4:00 pm

       +100 Paul and Macro
   • srylands 1.2

     19 May 2016 at 3:53 pm

     Look saying shit like that is simply not credible. It is ridiculous. What is neoliberal about this government? It is a Centre left government and it has the policies to match. You come across as totally mental.
     • Stuart Munro 1.2.1

       19 May 2016 at 6:23 pm

       Don’t be obtuse – stealing and privatising public anything is neo-liberal. Serco. Charter schools. State house sell-offs.

       This is a failed, corrupt, extreme right government – if it were working it’d’ve used market mechanisms to address the housing crisis instead of pretending it didn’t exist.

       It’d’ve rebuilt Christchurch to prove the validity of its economic preferences – the rubble proves the converse. The market simply does not work under lame-assed regulation like this.
     • Paul 1.2.2

       19 May 2016 at 7:59 pm

       Stop talking nonsense.
       If you find it acceptable to defend the government’s cruel treatment of the homeless, then you are part of the problem.
2. Paul 2

   19 May 2016 at 6:15 am

   Brian Rudman: Blaming others won’t build homes, Mr Key

   If April 1 hadn’t been long gone, I’d have said Prime Minister John Key and his housing Sancho Panza Nick Smith were taking the mickey when responding to reports of dozens of families reduced to living in cars alongside a South Auckland sports ground.
   Dr Smith chose to appear on television before a huge roaring fire, like the Queen delivering her annual Christmas message, first tut-tutting gravely, before launching into yet another attack on local councillors and anyone other than himself.
   The next day, Mr Key was on radio blaming the dumb victims. He suggested they be good folk and pop along to the local Work and Income office and all, it seemed, would be sorted out. “People often don’t understand what’s available to them.” He said the bureaucrats would “do their very best to support people in those situations, especially when children are involved”.

   If you want to read more it’s here….
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11640202
   • Gabby 2.1

     19 May 2016 at 11:12 am

     People often don’t understand what’s available to them

     WINZ didn’t get where it is today by telling people what’s available to them.
     • Macro 2.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 11:31 am

       Emergency houses are only available to them for a couple of weeks – and only if they are prepared to pay WINZ back the $2000 odd it cost them to live in some overpriced room.
       • Macro 2.1.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 11:50 am

         Online petition at Action Stations requesting the Minister (Anne Tolley) forgive the debt for this so-called “entitlement”

         please sign
3. Steve 3

   19 May 2016 at 6:29 am

   Amazing achievement…sadly not NZ though 🙁

   “Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday”

   http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/portugal-runs-for-four-days-straight-on-renewable-energy-alone
   • save nz 3.1

     19 May 2016 at 9:01 am

     +1 Steve. Not only does the government need to address homelessness and low wages/high rents/house price ratio as a major issue, but also the price of running a home these days with the cost of power.

     If most new builds were all designed to be on solar and there were a lot more incentives for conversions to solar then the again people have more money in their pockets to enjoy their lives, not spend every cent of food and utilities and every other essential cost in this country that is out of line with the average wage.
     • save nz 3.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 9:07 am

       Also the same for new build businesses. Westgate mall, Auckland for example was built and opened this year, no sustainability in design for water or power – so no savings for businesses operating in this mall… It doesn’t look too bad inside, but in NZ developers are only focused on the appearance, not what is happening underneath.

       Also had corporate welfare given to it by Auckland council, of course not bothered to make it easier for ratepayers for water and power, public transport etc….

       It is also not doing too well, the businesses have no clients and are going broke.

       Could have been another IronBank but no, so short sighted.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 12:48 pm

         It appears in NZ that developers and councils are still focussed on what worked in the 19th century and not looking at what’s needed today.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2

       19 May 2016 at 12:46 pm

       but also the price of running a home these days with the cost of power.

       Oh, I’m pretty sure you’ll find that the government is quite concerned about the price of power and is doing all it can to ensure that the new owners keep getting massive profits.
   • ianmac 3.2

     19 May 2016 at 9:38 am

     Thanks Steve. Because NZ is mostly run on renewable Hydro, the urgency is not upon us. Sadly, the Mum and Dad shareholders must get a dividend from our companies like Genesis so up go our costs. Pity our Government treats Solar with contempt.
     An interesting discussion on Pundit re Solar started by Mike Williams.
     Alfie West Wrote a rebuttal for another commentator:
     “I invite you to consider solar in a slightly different way… as an energy saving appliance.

     Say you fitted a couple of low energy appliances, or added better insulation and maybe changed your lighting to LED throughout your home. Would you consider it fair if your power company said, “Your usage has dropped. You were using $x of electricity per month but now it’s only $x, our profits have dropped therefore we’re going to tax you the difference.” Would you happily pay that extra tax? Of course you wouldn’t. What you are advocating is a little like anyone buying a Prius being “taxed” by petrol companies because they’re using less of their product. ”

     http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/solar-tax-makes-its-harder-to-be-green-for-now
     • save nz 3.2.1

       19 May 2016 at 10:21 am

       @imac – good link… extract

       “I was astounded to learnt the Hawke’s Bay power lines company, a monopoly called Unison, has announced increased line charges for households generating their own electricity. This “solar tax” runs counter to New Zealand’s attempts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the most stupid business decisions I’ve heard of in a very long time.”

       Fascism is upon us.

       But no mention of the Nanny State from the media…. installing low energy bulbs is nanny state, but companies putting up power for individuals based on their usage is fine….
       • save nz 3.2.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 10:24 am

         You can also beat the power companies by going totally off grid – but maybe not so easy in urban areas as you need fire to heat generally and you get caught up in planning regs.
       • Chooky 3.2.1.2

         19 May 2016 at 10:53 am

         +100…obviously those outside corporates and businesses who have bought formerly NZ State- owned NZ electricity are desperate to hold on to their profits…

         jonkey Nact needs to be held to account for this rorting of New Zealanders

         …there needs to be some analysis and sunshine on the facts here and who is making profits out of New Zealanders

         …Yes mainstream media is generally pathetic on this..i think Kathryn Ryan may have covered some debate on this issue though ( unfortunately I wasnt listening properly)

         http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201777147/solar-energy-'biggest-challenge'-to-electricity-pricing-says-ea

         http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/20151103

         http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/20150928

         http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201751454/new-energy-and-money-saving-technologies
4. weka 4

   19 May 2016 at 6:33 am

   Marama Davidson on the housing issue,

   In the past year, at least nine of my close friends have been without their own home – “homeless”. They happen to all be Māori women with children. They have lived in garages, have been taken in by other families to overcrowd their homes or have endured spirit-breaking emergency accommodation.

   They are some of the thousands of families without stable housing in this country. They are not just Māori and they aren’t just in Auckland. This problem is impacting disproportionately on Māori and Pacific families but also on lower income people including those in paid employment, from all backgrounds and across the entire country.

   Real political leadership would put families first. Real leadership would discourage the buying up of houses as a speculative business; homes are for people to live in, not for profit at the expense of all else. Real leadership would actually invest in building more state homes. Real leadership would be to go and see for yourself what exactly is going on with our families, our children, and our elderly – our New Zealanders.

   Real leadership would acknowledge the absolutely vital role of government in implementing a whole of system approach to end homelessness; ensuring that government agencies, local government and the community sector are offering a coordinated response to the complex structural issue that is homelessness.

   https://blog.greens.org.nz/2016/05/17/homelessness-national-has-failed-all-of-us/
   • tc 4.1

     19 May 2016 at 6:47 am

     How about some focus on the puppet party enabling the state housing flogging, the Maori party.

     About time they were run out of the trough along with shonkys wrecking crew.
   • vto 4.2

     19 May 2016 at 8:10 am

     Of course Key has failed.
     It is his biggest failure

     The chief is unable to look after his villagers.

     That is the epitome of failure

     John Key is a wretched prick for this
     • TC 4.2.1

       19 May 2016 at 9:12 am

       Key doesnt see this as failure just the market doing what it does and those ‘choices’ folk make.

       The fact that he created the market conditions with immigration, tax havens and no cgt needs to be pinned on the likes of nick smith who is an accident waiting to happen.
5. Puckish Rogue 5

   19 May 2016 at 9:33 am

   Well done to Labour for recognizing the problem and offering a solution, this is the type of thing voters are looking for.

   Good job.
   • scotty 5.1

     19 May 2016 at 9:54 am

     Yep – now that Labour has skinned Nationals’ red herring we can deal to the real causes of the housing crisis.
     Excessive immigration, foreign buyers, out of control speculation and Nationals’ failed social housing policy.
     • Roflcopter 5.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 12:04 pm

       The Xenophobia is strong with this one.

       [You appear to have misunderstood the meaning of either the comment, the word xenophobia or both. Instead of failed one liners, how about trying to contribute to the discussion meaningfully? TRP]
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 1:16 pm

         No, xenophobia would be banning tourism.

         Stopping immigration, foreign ownership and speculation is addressing the problems that those bring about.
         • Chooky 5.1.1.1.1

           19 May 2016 at 3:58 pm

           +100 DTB
   • Puckish Rogue 5.2

     19 May 2016 at 9:54 am

     Ref: Opening up land for housing
     • framu 5.2.1

       19 May 2016 at 10:05 am

       OK – some one should be able to answer this – how many homes need to hit the market at the same time to have a big enough effect on demand that slows prices down?

       or are we talking forcing the savings through to the purchaser?

       opening land will mean more houses – sure, but there is nothing in that that means any kind of impact on prices – all that will happen is a drip feed with each house being priced to the max the market will bear – and in AK we have ever growing demand
       • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 10:59 am

         That’s true, I guess it comes down getting as many houses onto the market (as soon as possible (safely of course)

         But its a good step in the right direction at least
         • framu 5.2.1.1.1

           19 May 2016 at 12:33 pm

           kinda points to it not working doesnt it
           • Puckish Rogue 5.2.1.1.1.1

             19 May 2016 at 12:52 pm

             Well think of it like this, its still a long way to go but since there seems to be agreement over one of the causes and that cause is looking like may be on its way out then its a step towards where Auckland needs to be going

             Of course I also tend to be somewhat of an optimist
             • Draco T Bastard …

               19 May 2016 at 1:17 pm

               its still a long way to go but since there seems to be agreement over one of the causes

               Only by the fuckwits.
             • framu …

               19 May 2016 at 3:23 pm

               “agreement over one of the causes”

               that ignores pretty much all the far greater causes and ignores new issues created by sprawl

               anyone pushing the “free up land” argument should be able to show how it leads to better house prices, better value for ratepayers (infrastructure costs etc) and an affordable life style for those that purchase that far out (transport and de-centralisation) – so far not one person actually has

               ” looking like may be on its way ”

               its already gone anyway – both nat and lab are talking about a boundry that has already been done away with in the upcoming plan (according to RNZ interview this morning)

               the whole thing is really weird and has more of an aspect of voter PR than anything actually meaningfull
               • Puckish Rogue …

                 19 May 2016 at 3:47 pm

                 the whole thing is really weird and has more of an aspect of voter PR than anything actually meaningfull

                 – If so then Labours done good, turned a corner perhaps?
                 • framu …

                   19 May 2016 at 4:41 pm

                   only if you are soothed by PR (he he) 🙂
     • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2

       19 May 2016 at 1:12 pm

       That’s not the solution. In fact, IMO, that seems to be a large of the problem. We need large, dense cities to develop high tech and better education. What we don’t need is massive amounts of sprawl that damages the environment and causes cost of living to skyrocket.

       In other words, we’d all be better off if we developed our regional cities to do the high tech and education as well as Auckland.
       • Puckish Rogue 5.2.2.1

         19 May 2016 at 1:21 pm

         Well that is certainly one way of looking at it especially for the longer term but in the short term I think this is a better option
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.1.1

           19 May 2016 at 2:00 pm

           And next year you’ll say the same thing and the year after that. End result is that the correct thing to do, the thing that needs to be done, will never be done.

           Listening to stupidity like yours is what’s caused so much poverty and heartache in our society.
           • Puckish Rogue 5.2.2.1.1.1

             19 May 2016 at 2:16 pm

             Let me guess, your idea would be for NZ to elect a communist government, because that’s worked so well in the past

             Thanks but no thanks
             • McFlock …

               19 May 2016 at 2:24 pm

               wow. From short-sighted deregulation to communism in one easy step.
               • Puckish Rogue …

                 19 May 2016 at 2:30 pm

                 Oh c’mon get serious, its Draco so you know that what he really wants is communism
                 • McFlock …

                   19 May 2016 at 2:50 pm

                   True, but that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong about everything.

                   And his preferred political system is, I suspect, only tangetially (at best) related to his ideas on urban architecture.

                   It seems to me that the idea of vertical expansion, which you seemed to regard as a reasonable long term solution, would lose its investment appeal if urban sprawl were allowed to expand. So your short term solution inhibits, if not outright stalls, developing reasonable long term solutions.
                   • Puckish Rogue …

                     19 May 2016 at 2:57 pm

                     I’m thinking that the short term solution, that might stall the long term solution, will offer quicker easing of the housing market then the longer term idea mooted

                     Yeah its not ideal but sometimes you have to work with what you have not what you want.

                     If National and Labour both agree on this then this is whats going to happen
                   • McFlock …

                     19 May 2016 at 3:04 pm

                     But the longer term idea might create more sustained and extensive easing of the housing market than the shorter term idea. See how that works?

                     And just dropping the discussion to holler “commie!” is about as interesting as your fatalistic attitude to policy development.
                   • Puckish Rogue …

                     19 May 2016 at 3:25 pm

                     But the longer term idea might create more sustained and extensive easing of the housing market than the shorter term idea. See how that works?

                     It might or it might not so I’d rather have short term relief followed by the long term solution taking longer then no short term relief and the long term relief (which may or may not work)

                     And just dropping the discussion to holler “commie!” is about as interesting as your fatalistic attitude to policy development

                     About as interesting as believing communism is the cure for the worlds ills
                   • McFlock …

                     19 May 2016 at 3:34 pm

                     But the discussion wasn’t about all the world’s ills, or communism.

                     The discussion was about vertical versus horizontal sprawl in Auckland, and short term patches versus longer term solutions, and you just randomly started on about communism.

                     Did the fear of being asked to show some intellectual depth make you leap for the derail? Or was it just tory-tourettes?
                   • Puckish Rogue …

                     19 May 2016 at 3:45 pm

                     Nothing quite like that, its more like certain posters because of what they’ve posted before bring out a certain response in me.

                     So like when I post something on here posters immediate reactions are it must be tory-speak or something (quite understandable) and rather then look at what was posted its immediately put into the tory trash bin

                     So with Draco my immediate thought is that sooner or later hes just going to come out with something about communisim

                     Although I do note my original post was positive and complimentary towards Labour
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     19 May 2016 at 4:16 pm

                     It might or it might not so I’d rather have short term relief followed by the long term solution taking longer then no short term relief and the long term relief (which may or may not work)

                     The big problem is that your short term solution isn’t a solution at all but a kicking the can down the road action.

                     The long term solution, higher density urban areas, can be implemented just as fast and probably better and cheaper than your short term solution that isn’t.

                     Although I do note my original post was positive and complimentary towards Labour

                     Because they were supporting stupid Tory policies.
                   • Puckish Rogue …

                     19 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

                     Except we don’t know your idea will work any better and I’d rather have cross-party consensus in trying to deal with this issue
                   • McFlock …

                     19 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

                     Except we don’t know your idea will work any better

                     Well, what are the advantages or disadvantages?
                     Sprawl requires more infrastructure development like streets, sewers, drains, power, comms, high volume public transport.

                     Blocks require larger capital outlay initially, higher value property/public works purchases, and small design or construction failures can have repercussions on social and structural safety for hundreds or thousands of people.

                     Sprawl simply delays the inevitable and increases pollution and energy inefficiency. Blocks can extend the solution by acting as testbeds for even larger blocks, and can be much more resource efficent than distributed housing.

                     However, sprawl is harder to fuck up catastrophically. This is a major factor because, sooner or later, tories will be involved in the process.

                     I’d rather have cross-party consensus in trying to deal with this issue

                     Why? You’re always one for saying shit like “oh, but X have the votes, it’s a done deal”. Now you want consensus within the confederacy of dunces (of greater and lesser degree)? Given that the discussion here is unlikely to change government or opposition policy, why not actually talk about what you think is the best option, not the option you think is politically most likely?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     19 May 2016 at 5:30 pm

                     Except we don’t know your idea will work any better…

                     Except for the fact that we, you know, do. All we have to do is look to the higher density cities in Europe, the US and other nations across the world.
                 • North …

                   19 May 2016 at 9:20 pm

                   Well you know PR, the DTB comes across way more caring and compassionate than you. Which means he sees common weal. Seems you don’t. Seems common weal is like unintelligible to the articulate PR. Which is a shame of course.
       • srylands 5.2.2.2

         19 May 2016 at 1:29 pm

         You are a barometer. Whatever you say, the Government should do the opposite. i.e you seem to be wrong on everything.

         The future of the world is in the suburbs. The current urban limit in Auckland has pushed up housing policies and hurt the poor. There are two big factors that have caused child poverty. 1. Housing costs. 2 Tobacco costs.

         I suggest you read this excellent essay on the future of cities.

         http://www.economist.com/suburbs
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.2.1

           19 May 2016 at 1:57 pm

           New studies measure the true cost of sprawl, and it’s more than you think

           Suburban households drive about three times more than households close to the city centre. All that extra driving has a big impact on household budgets, family stress, and personal health. Extra car ownership and fuel cancel out much of the household budget savings from lower home prices, bringing the real cost of a suburban house closer to the sticker price of an urban residence.

           An abundance of credible research indicates that sprawl significantly increases per capita land development, and by dispersing activities, increases vehicle travel. These physical changes impose various economic costs including reduced agricultural and ecological productivity, increased public infrastructure and service costs, plus increased transport costs including consumer costs, traffic congestion, accidents, pollution emissions, reduced accessibility for non-drivers, and reduced public fitness and health. Sprawl provides various benefits, but these are mostly direct benefits to sprawled community residents, while many costs are external, imposed on non-residents. This analysis indicates that sprawl imposes more than $400 billion dollars in external costs and $625 billion in internal costs annually in the U.S.

           Suburban sprawl costs billions more

           PLANS to build thousands of homes on Melbourne’s fringes will cost Victorians around $40 billion more than if they were built in existing suburbs, a new State Government report shows.

           In an embarrassment for the Government on the day that submissions close on its plans to further expand Melbourne’s urban growth boundary, the report released on Wednesday shows the total cost of building homes in new outer suburbs is more than double that of building in existing areas.

           The added costs include extra infrastructure such as power, water and transport, as well as higher health costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

           The report, commissioned by the state Department of Planning, cites research that found “for every 1000 dwellings, the cost for infill development (in existing suburbs) is $309 million and the cost of fringe developments is $653 million”.

           The Economist, like you, wouldn’t know what an economy was they fell over one.
           • TC 5.2.2.2.1.1

             19 May 2016 at 5:30 pm

             Yup, melb has become very choked over the last 15 years with sprawl/apartments and not matching it with public transport.

             Been watching a mature conversation going on over there in contrast to the stupidity of key, smith, blinglush etc here.

             They will probably end up allowing multistorey blocks within x of a train stop. Something akl needs but the landed akl gentry killed in its tracks.
         • left for dead 5.2.2.2.2

           19 May 2016 at 6:02 pm

           I get the trifector here today, srylands slow learner son. Mcflock and DTB, you wipe the floor with Puckish rogue, he smears half thought out ideas so few see.
       • Molly 5.2.2.3

         19 May 2016 at 2:16 pm

         Agree. Affordable housing needs to mean affordable to live in and run, not just affordable to buy or rent.

         If people have to use their car to travel to work, services and activities then the cost of living in those houses is higher, and is prone to increases in travel costs. Not only that, it takes time to travel – more time away from already time poor households.

         The social costs of commuter households is also high. There is very little opportunity for connection when residents are always going somewhere else to shop, work etc. The financial benefits of good social cohesion can be found in reduced crime, better quality of life etc.

         IMO, only allow greenfields development if that development is created with these features:
         Access to public transport within 5 minutes
         Roads/lots developed with passive solar orientation in mind,
         All stormwater processed on site,
         All new homes installed with alternative energy source – either individually or as a collective,
         Also, plan community spaces and linkages with buildings that can be adapted for use as small commmercial or retail spaces.
         • Sacha 5.2.2.3.1

           19 May 2016 at 3:08 pm

           Sprawling suburbs do not contain enough people to make public transit viable.
           • Draco T Bastard 5.2.2.3.1.1

             19 May 2016 at 4:29 pm

             Public transit would still be more viable than private cars and you’re wrong anyway:

             Myth: Viable public transport requires high population densities

             Fact: Public transport runs successfully in many cities with similar or lower population densities than Melbourne. Any city with sufficient population density to cause traffic congestion has sufficient population to support a first-rate public transport alternative.
             • Sacha …

               21 May 2016 at 2:37 pm

               It’s not the average density of a city that’s the issue – only particular areas like sprawling fringe suburbs. Ever seen a bus route try to service all of Massey or Flatbush? Gee, I wonder why so many of their inhabitants drive ..
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 21 May 2016 at 5:06 pm

                 And that’s BS as well. One bus route won’t work, multiple will.

                 We’re still talking suburbia here and not rural and even rural could be well served by buses.
6. swordfish 6

   19 May 2016 at 9:39 am

   Some recent US / UK Poll findings

   (1) Clinton’s lead over Trump narrows
   Nationwide polling average shows gap down to just 3 points
   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiqzcruWgAAP2mC.jpg:large

   New NBC Poll suggests Overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans fall into line behind their Party’s prospective nominee, but Independents split 44/36 in favour of Trump
   https://politicalwire.com/2016/05/17/clinton-holds-narrow-lead-nationally-over-trump/

   Part of the explanation could be contained in a recent YouGov Poll (conducted Late-April) which found that …

   (2) Clinton’s lead over Sanders as preferred nominee (specifically among Democratic Primary voters) had shrunk from double digits earlier this year (as high as a 58%/33% split in Clinton’s favour in January) to just 4 points at the end of April (47%/43%). (Among all voters, Sanders is preferred over Clinton by 41%/30%)

   Importantly, the opinions that Sanders Voters have of Clinton have changed dramatically. More than 60% held a Favourable view of her late last year, now just 44% do (with 56% holding an Unfavourable view).

   Just over half (54%) of Sanders supporters say they’ll vote for Clinton in November (although that rises to 63% when Trump is specified as the GOP candidate). That still leaves 37% of Sanders voters unprepared to go Clinton.

   The YouGov highlights an interesting split between Democrat-identifiers and Independents who have voted (or intend to vote) in the Democratic Primaries. It’s a split that’s been evident in the Primaries conducted so far and in a number of recent Polls. Clinton’s been winning the majority of Registered Democrats / Sanders has been taking the lion’s share of Independents (a long with the relatively small % of GOP identifiers).

   And it’s these Independent Sanders voters who are most dissatisfied with Clinton – a large majority hold an Unfavourable view of her, 61% agree they will be “Upset” if she wins the nomination (compared to only a quarter of Sanders’ Registered Democrat supporters), and while 74% of Sanders’ Democrat supporters are prepared to vote for Hillary in November, less than half (just 45%) of his Independent voters say they will.

   (Independents in general – regardless of whether or not they’ve voted in the Democratic Primaries – prefer Bernie over Hillary by 49% to 20% and 60% hold an unfavourable view of Clinton)

   https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/clinton-seen-likely-nominee-sanders-voters-arent-b/

   (3) YouGov (which is, of course, a UK-based Pollster) has also been polling UK Labour Party members on their attitudes towards Corbyn and finds support for his leadership has solidified and grown, with 64% now saying they’d vote for him in another Leadership ballot / against 33% who wouldn’t. Party members are now also more likely than not to believe he’ll become PM – a reversal of the findings in the previous (November 2015) Poll.

   His overall Approval ratings are also up among Party members – in Nov 2015 66% though he was doing well / 32% thought his performance was poor. Now the split is 72% / 27%. (Corbyn appears to have won over large minorities of those members who supported Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham in the leadership contest – 43% in both cases now believe Corbyn is doing well, whereas only 17% of the staunch Blairites who supported Liz Kendall approve of his performance).

   https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/05/17/labour-members-increasingly-bullish-on-corbyn/

   All of which is bad news for his Blairite/Brownite adversaries.

   The “Anti-Semitism” Witch-Hunt (which leading operatives in Labour’s new and old Right factions played a central role in fuelling (eg Labour First leader and Israel lobbyist, Luke Akehurst) was supposed to bring Corbyn and McDonnell down – both directly through a manufactured “crisis” and unbearable MSM pressure and indirectly by ruining what they already hoped would be a particularly dismal Local Election result for Labour – there was a lot of talk of the Party losing a few hundred council seats, thus creating a Leadership crisis in which they envisaged Party members turning to a more “Centrist” leader . In the event, Labour did a lot better than expected.

   Which makes the following YouGov result important …

   (4) Labour Party Members
   Anti-Semitism is:
   A bigger problem in Labour than in Other Parties 5%
   A problem in Labour but no worse than in Other Parties 47%
   Not a problem in Labour but is a problem in Other Parties 16%
   Not a problem in any Party 22%

   And
   The Labour Party:
   Has a problem with Anti-Semitism and it is right that the Media report it 10%
   Has a problem but is being used by the Press and Corbyn’s opponents to attack him 35%
   Does not have a problem and it has been created by the Press and Corbyn’s opponents to attack him 49%

   Leading journo with The Independent, John Rentoul, thinks these figures show Labour Party members are “out of touch” with the rest of UK society (his tone suggests woefully so). That’s not entirely surprising – Rentoul has been one of Corbyn’s most vehement critics in the MSM since that June 2015 YouGov revealed the veteran MP for Islington was the frontrunner in the Leadership contest.

   But if you look at a YouGov carried out in the immediate wake of the witch-hunt, you’ll find that the UK public in general hold very similar views to Labour Party members on the “scandal”. 45% of voters in general believed Labour had either “No” or only a “Very Small” Anti-Semitism problem, with just 22% agreeing it has either a “Fairly Big” or “Very Big” problem. This despite the fact that the MSM have consistently and uncritically portrayed the crisis as symbolising a Very Serious problem of Anti-Semitism.

   Suggesting that, for Rentoul, it’s all about being “in touch” with the views of the tiny UK Establishment and its various enablers and bottom-feeders, rather than with the outlook of British voters in general.
   • Phil 6.1

     19 May 2016 at 9:52 am

     Re: #2.

     If you ran a ‘find replace’ of Clinton->Obama and then Sanders->Clinton, you’d have the exact same story at this stage in the ’08 democratic primary.

     There’s, understandably, a lot of passion in the Sanders camp, but I really struggle to see many of those people moving over to Trump in the general election.
     • swordfish 6.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 12:29 pm

       But you forget, Phil, that crucial attitudinal divide I highlighted between Sanders’
       (1) Registered Democrat supporters and (2) Independent supporters. The former are already suggesting they’re prepared to vote Clinton in November in overwhelming numbers (74%), but most of the latter (who comprise a clear majority of Sanders’ voters) say they won’t (only 45% will vote for her).

       Back in 2008, Obama was the one who was winning the Independents in the Democratic Primaries, not Clinton (the ratio was more than 2 to 1 in Obama’s favour – quite similar to Sanders’ advantage among Independents today).

       in other words, Clinton’s 08 supporters were overwhelmingly Registered Democrats (as they are today) – so it was entirely predictable that they’d ultimately get in behind Obama in November 2008. Sanders supporters today are largely Independents and they’re a whole different kettle of fish. Far less certain to back a candidate that many (quite correctly) see as running to the ideological Right of Trump on certain key policy areas.

       Independent voters in general are as Unfavourable towards Clinton as they are to Trump (in terms of Very Unfavourable ratings – both candidates are on 49% among all Independents).
     • AmaKiwi 6.1.2

       19 May 2016 at 4:34 pm

       Phil

       “There’s, understandably, a lot of passion in the Sanders camp, but I really struggle to see many of those people moving over to Trump in the general election.”

       You are working on the assumption that voters decide based on reason instead of feelings (passion). If you assume they vote based on feelings, it becomes easy to imagine many angry voters shifting from angry Sanders to angry Trump.
     • Rodel 6.1.3

       19 May 2016 at 7:21 pm

       Phil. Didn’t you see the latest poll giving Trump a 3% lead over Clinton?
       Who did the poll? Oh wait..it was Fox News. (fair-balanced and sh*t scared)
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.3.1

         19 May 2016 at 7:32 pm

         Dude if you are going to shit on the Fox Poll then you better ignore the other result it came out with which was that Bernie Sanders would win the Presidency ahead of Trump and Clinton, easy as.
   • Ad 6.2

     19 May 2016 at 11:24 am

     Sanders has an historic capacity to defeat Trump if he directs his supporters to do so at Dem Convention to align with Hillary.

     Otherwise Sanders risks being a graceless spoiler who -unlike Cruz – knew when to enable just one candidate to command the media field.

     His movement must also evolve to become a Superpac that focuses on Sente, Congress and Governorships – where Republicans have made massive gains for three decades straight. Feel The Bern can’t be wasted into another defeated and directionless Occupy.
     • swordfish 6.2.1

       19 May 2016 at 5:16 pm

       See Paul Buchanan: He feels Sanders is “playing his cards correctly” by following a moderate-militant strategy – playing hardball in order to force significant concessions from the Clinton camp.

       Buchanan rightly argues that: “Given her own negatives, she can no longer rely on loathing of Trump as a guarantee of a defensive vote turnout against him.* She needs Bernie more than he needs her, and his playing tough all the way to the convention is a way of underscoring that point … The worst thing that Sanders can do is concede or pull out of the race before the convention. Were he to do so he would lose any bargaining position he might have had …”

       What the Clinton camp must understand most “is that the chances of a Clinton victory in November rest as much on gaining his support as they do on her own qualifications and experience.”

       * Phil rightly highlights Trumps Sky High Unfavourability ratings but ignores the fact that Clinton isn’t too far behind him in this regard. She is strongly disliked by the all-important Independents.

       http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2016/05/bernie-the-spoiler/

       Personally, if I was American there’s no way I’d vote for an Establishment/Status Quo Uber-Hawk like Clinton. But I’d be unable to bring myself to go for Trump either. Head, instead, I think in the direction of the Green candidate Jill Stein (which seems to be what a significant swathe of Sanders’ Independent supporters are thinking of doing).
       • Ad 6.2.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

         At this point in proceedings it’s not the Clinton camp that need to understand what to do next. His legacy relies a whole bunch more on persuading her, then her persuading him. And he’s got just over a month to figure it out.

         I can understand the desire for staying clean of it all by voting Green. Kind of.

         From New Zealand, with the campaign attack ads and accusations to come, it’s filthy.
     • North 6.2.2

       19 May 2016 at 8:10 pm

       Your last sentence at 6.2 says it Ad. The Bern is actually part of the notableness of this run up to the US election. Incongruously Sanders and Trump occupy a very limited common ground.
7. Halfcrown 7

   19 May 2016 at 9:40 am

   Some Snowden Papers to read.

   The more people are informed the better.

   https://theintercept.com/snowden-sidtoday/
8. ianmac 8

   19 May 2016 at 10:08 am

   Came across this on can Clinton loose?
   “Hillary dislikes the media. Her impulse is to keep the press away, to only give the appearance of access and to focus her attention on friendly outlets that will engage in puffery.”
   Sound familiar? Surely not the same for Key?
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11640967
9. Sabine 9

   19 May 2016 at 10:23 am

   so a distressed Lady comes to the shop, asks me if she could use my phone to call the cops.

   Why not i says, and hand her the phone.
   She finally ends up speaking to a copper, and at some stage just lost it : Listen, please send a cop car up that house and arrest these guys as they are cooking Meth, and i think they have given some to my partner and hie is out of it, and i ran away from home feeling not safe. ……A minute or two later she says : Look, if you don’t go, I will go up there with a shot gun and just shoot the fuckers? Would that be enough for one or two of you to show up and do your shop?

   she hangs up and hands the phone to me, shaking in her barefeet. Close to tears very distraught. I hand her a cuppa and tell her to wait.

   Coppers call the shop and ask me if this is for real!!!!! So i says, why yes, she is here, she is in tears, and obviously something is up and why don’t you come and check it out? i had to repeat that at least three times.

   Coppers speaks with the Lady again, and finally agrees that someone will come.

   End of story, some people got arrested for cooking meth, and distribution.

   The two growth sectors in NZ during the National Party Years, houses and Meth.
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     19 May 2016 at 11:47 am

     That’s a big morning. Very well done Sabine. But what the hell is up with the business as usual attitude police?
     • Sabine 9.1.1

       19 May 2016 at 12:21 pm

       the dairy next to me has been robbed several times.
       i have had some bloke beating the living day light out of his missus while the baby was screaming its head of.
       road rage with people pulling others out of their cars and such is daily occurrence and we used to be such a lovely neighborhood, until empty houses, high unemployment and unaffordable housing came near us.
       Oh and drug deals after 5 pm on our shared carpark. Sometimes you kinda just want to ask whats the quality and how much.

       and fact is, the coppers are not here for us, they are here to protect the nice hoods, and give us tickets.

       So, frankly this business as usual.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1

         19 May 2016 at 1:37 pm

         and fact is, the coppers are not here for us, they are here to protect the nice hoods, and give us tickets.

         As proven by their raids when FJK complained about The Teapot Tapes, the raid on Nicky Hager after Dirty Politics proved how corrupt National is and Slater getting off on diversion when he wasn’t eligible.
   • mary_a 9.2

     19 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

     Sabine (9) … Police quite complacent. But then they must be at the ready to jump to anything FJK demands eg harassing Nicky Hager and other whistleblowers!

     “The two growth sectors in NZ during the National Party Years, houses and Meth.”

     True. Now add poverty to that list and you have three major growth sectors.
   • left for dead 9.3

     19 May 2016 at 6:18 pm

     Good citizen Sabine, their are plenty of us out there, I hope that women will be all right.
10. Sabine 10

    19 May 2016 at 11:15 am

    A city is built of brick, Pharoah. The strong make many, the starving make few. The dead make none.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049833/quotes?item=qt0469445for accusations.

    an interesting read on the ‘real economy’ and the parasite economy – or the ‘free’ market economy that can not sustain itself without government handouts and subsidies.

    http://prospect.org/article/confronting-parasite-economy

    “here are two types of businesses in America today: those that pay their workers a living wage—the real economy—and those that don’t—the parasite economy. And all of us who live and work in the real economy should be royally pissed at the way the parasite economy is sucking us dry.

    Here in the real economy, we solve the problems, build the things, and pay the wages that make America great. When politicians of both parties promise to attract “good jobs” to their districts or states, they’re talking about the kind of real-economy jobs that pay a decent middle-class wage—jobs that provide the income, benefits, and security necessary to participate robustly in the economy as a consumer and taxpayer. It is the real economy that drives both production and demand, and that fills our tax coffers with the money needed to educate our children, maintain our infrastructure, invest in research and development, fund our social safety net, and provide for the national defense.

    But in the parasite economy—where companies large and small cling to low-wage business models out of ignorance or habit or simple greed—“good jobs,” and the economic dynamism they produce, are in short supply. This is the economy in which tens of millions of Americans work for poverty wages with few if any benefits, often in the face of abusive scheduling practices that make it impossible to plan their life from day to day, let alone month to month.”
11. te reo putake 11

    19 May 2016 at 11:40 am

    Headline of the day!

    Helping Out Lends a Hand to CV

    (Sadly, it’s not actually about disaffected Labour Party members in the deep south, just some advice on sharpening up your resume)
    • left for dead 11.1

      19 May 2016 at 6:24 pm

      You did that all by yourself, are you sure your alright, i mean to say theirs not even an apostrophe in sight, get your shit sorted fella. 👿
12. Gangnam Style 12

    19 May 2016 at 3:56 pm

    “Housing crisis, what housing crisis? It depends on what you mean by crisis, says the Government. And of course, what you mean by housing.”

    “These are the public agencies that make Serco look good.” Raybon Kan

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11640706
    • Gangnam Style 12.1

      19 May 2016 at 4:02 pm

      This gem in the comments “We have also noted that the ones interviewed about living in cars on the news were all living in nice looking vehicles. No clapped out run about for them. “
      • Sabine 12.1.1

        19 May 2016 at 4:17 pm

        one thing that i have heard a few times, and i guess it is gallows humor

        I got myself i nice van, used, but relatively new, not to expensive to run and when i loose my flat or house i can live in it for a while.

        So in a sense, if one is part of the precariat, it makes sense to invest in a vehicle such as a peoples mover or a van as it will provide shelter for the days where they have no home and the Winz drone is not helping.
      • North 12.1.2

        19 May 2016 at 8:58 pm

        Yeah I’ve made this comment before: 40 years ago May 1977 transiting at Manila on the way to China our plane taxied to the end of runway. Visible 150 metres away, shacks with TV aerials, amongst the banana palms. All the jet blast and the noise. Jeezuz !

        “Ooh, look, they’re meant to be poor but they can afford TV !” rang out the voice of one of the ’20 Young Workers from New Zealand’ of which I was one. There was a bit of raruraru broke out as we taxied to the terminal. Everyone shut up at the sight of armed soldiers at the bottom of the stairs.

        Same thing. “What wastrels ! They’ve got a $9,000 people mover.” On which they owe 7 grand, arseholes who think like that. Really inviting the pitchfork aren’t you ?
        • Gangnam Style 12.1.2.1

          20 May 2016 at 6:27 am

          Also with refugees & cell phones, which I once saw a pithy commenter write – “They are escaping a war torn country, not the freakin’ 18th century!”
13. swordfish 13

    19 May 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Momentum with ALP in Aussie Election

    18 polls since the beginning of April

    Two-Party Preferred
    ALP leads in 9
    Coalition leads in 1
    Tie in 8

    (ALP leads in 4 of the last 5 – and by 5 points in the latest)

    Main concern: Significant number of key Marginals in NSW – just about the only State in Australia where the Coalition remains popular (at least at the State level). Means ALP probably need 51%+ in practice to win.

    NZ Context
    Coalition behind in Polls despite Turnbull remaining considerably more popular as Preferred PM than Labor’s Shorten and clearly more popular than John Key is here.
    • TC 13.1

      19 May 2016 at 5:39 pm

      Unlike here oz have independant media who get watched in election campaigns so banksta turnbull gets doesnt get an armchair ride like shonky does here.

      Murdochs papers are doing their best for malcolm but with compulsory voting he has to fool a majority not a third like here.
14. Chooky 14

    19 May 2016 at 5:04 pm

    Letter from Britain:

    ‘Leave EU or face greater terror threat, Brexiteers warn’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/343424-libya-brexit-interpol-migrants/

    ‘Tories will use Counter-Extremism Bill to silence their opponents – campaigners’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/343461-queens-speech-extremism-bill/

    ‘Tony Blair lied on Iraq and will be exposed by Chilcot report’ – Corbyn’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/343403-corbyn-chilcot-blair-iraq/

    ‘Trump blasts Tony Blair for Iraq War ‘disaster,’ says Britain should stand up to US presidents’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/343295-trump-blair-iraq-khan/

    ‘ ‘Crime of aggression’: Alex Salmond’s quest to put Tony Blair on trial over Iraq hits legal snag’

    https://www.rt.com/uk/343151-salmond-blair-iraq-impeachment/
15. adam 15

    19 May 2016 at 5:05 pm

    For Lprent, no more court for you – well over this one.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/19/breaking-blogwatch-cameron-slater-halts-appeal-in-long-running-defamation-case/
16. Richardrawshark 16

    19 May 2016 at 5:55 pm

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36315952

    Good article on the need for Farmers to control emissions. From the BBC science site.
17. weka 17

    19 May 2016 at 6:50 pm

    Unbelievable. Housing NZ has been selling its properties in Queenstown and Wanaka despite there being a serious housing shortage and a local Community housing trust offering to manage them. Source today’s ODT, not sure if it’s online.
    • save nz 17.1

      19 May 2016 at 7:58 pm

      Shocking!
    • Graeme 17.2

      19 May 2016 at 9:23 pm

      Link to odity article on this http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/383719/state-house-be-offered-auction

      Differing eligibility requirements between HNZ and Housing Trust, and $$$$ to be made by HNZ playing the market. I gather it’s really hard to meet HNZ requirements here as nearly all people with housing problems are from somewhere else, so it’s like go back where you came from. The local trust is a bit more realistic, just starved of capital and not getting a lot of assistance from government, yet.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS