Open mike 22/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 22nd, 2015 - 234 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

234 comments on “Open mike 22/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. CnrJoe 1
    22 September 2015 at 6:33 am

    Dara O’Biain the comedian and t.v presenter tweeted this link to the sharp as CassetteBoy

    https://youtu.be/FBpQJ98rR4o

  2. vto 2
    22 September 2015 at 7:25 am

    Interesting letter to the editor in the local rag this morning hauling ‘opinionist’ Beck Eleven up for her outrageous gender profiling and outright sexism over her recent repeated statements that she “doesn’t listen to old white men”.

    She and others such as Michelle a’court have a history of sexism and bigotry based on a persons gender and age.

    And of course it is something which goes on around here all the time, by the likes of Tracey (hi tracey)…

    The examples of this are so numerous that it has become acceptable to label people on the basis of their gender, race and age. An example of this was on NatRadio a couple of days ago where a young female musician said similar about old white men. The broadcaster let it slide.

    It is ok to label some parts of society on the basis of the gender, age and race. Apparently…

    … interesting. And foolish because it permits the same labelling in return….. I mean, really, how much value is there in young white women opinions? Or any female opinions, no matter the age or race?

    Sound familiar?

    • marty mars 2.1
      22 September 2015 at 8:06 am

      yep I feel your pain

      I can handle the ‘old’ bit – as it ever was, and even the ‘men’ – although it is based usually upon a duality of gender which is not related to the real world. The one that gets me is the ‘white’ bit – pink, eggshell, vanilla so many choices other than the obviously incorrect ‘white’ – now sure it is shorthand for privilege, so I let it go mainly for that.

      • vto 2.1.1
        22 September 2015 at 3:31 pm

        marty, your argument fails.. justifying unacceptable racist, sexist and ageist behaviour (which is even decried by the perpetrator when subjected to the same) on the basis that some other people of the same race, age and gender are ‘privileged’ doesn’t fly

        at all

        the stereotyping continues unabated across all sectors of our population

        as always

        as always

    • Chooky 2.2
      22 September 2015 at 8:38 am

      vto…let it slide…your male chauvinism is showing( not your petticoats)…considering what women have been through at the hands of the male sex over the centuries…these women are survivors…show them some respect and leeway!

      really Beck Eleven is a bloody good journalist as is Michele A’Court …as is Tracy!

      What disappointed me recently was Michelle A’Court’s greeting David Farrar as a long esteemed mate on Jim Mora’s programme…made me want to puke Michelle

      Farrar, the fat jonkey nact PR arse licking humpty dumpty , has been trying to reinvent himself ( his persona) as a mountaineer /tramper /environmentalist…!

      He was about to pontificate on the film ‘Everest’ …and I pressed the STOP, NO MORE, I CAN’T STAND IT !…turn off button!

      ( how about that for a bit of female sexism …against the unctuous duplicitous corrupt right wing PR porcine male ?)

      • vto 2.2.1
        22 September 2015 at 3:35 pm

        “considering what women have been through at the hands of the male sex over the centuries…these women are survivors…show them some respect and leeway!”

        that argument doesn’t fly either chooky.
        many many people and societies have been through shit.
        this does not give them the right to belittle and abuse others

        simple

        as for “show them some respect”. Well no. Certainly not for the reason you suggest. Respect is earned – it doesn’t come solely because of your gender. Nor your race or age.

        I do not respect a’court, or eleven, for the stereotyping they have indulged themselves in

        They are indulging in the exact same behaviour as that they abhor

        like children

        • arkie 2.2.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 4:01 pm

          The thing is respect isn’t earned by white cisgendered men, society already values their opinions and feelings above everyone elses.

          It is you that sounds like the child throwing a tantrum,

          • vto 2.2.1.1.1
            22 September 2015 at 4:08 pm

            “The thing is respect isn’t earned by white cisgendered men, society already values their opinions and feelings above everyone elses. ”

            Well you see arkie, that is exactly my point with Eleven and A’Court, if you read and think a little more closely on what was posted. They do not value the opinions of white men above everyone else’s. That is the entire point – they have even said they do not listen to “old white men” – their opinions are marked down, not up.

            They do not value their opinions, on the basis of their age gender and race. Nothing else.

            • arkie 2.2.1.1.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 4:11 pm

              They are individuals and those are their individual actions, therefore these are not examples of sexism or racism, as racism and sexism are the institutional marginalisation of the women, POC and LGBTQA+.

              You sound really bitter and unempathetic.

              • vto …
                22 September 2015 at 4:14 pm

                “as racism and sexism are the institutional marginalisation of the women, POC and LGBTQA+.”

                Horseshit

                That is but one small part of the racism, sexism book. You are another part, it sounds like.

              • Tim …
                22 September 2015 at 7:06 pm

                Obviously the far more important examples of racism and sexism are those which are institutional in nature or those which occur against a minority (because of their more significant deleterious effects). It’s not entirely clear how well vto understands this most important point although he claims to.

                Also obviously white males can be the targets of sexism and racism – it’s just rarer and that the effects are less harmful given their current position in our society. It doesn’t mean it’s okay or to be condoned etc etc. However I skimmed a bunch of what Beck Eleven wrote and it seems pretty inane and harmless so I’m not sure what instances vto is referring to.

                It sounds like you arkie (as well as vto) are also being very dismissive of vto and making some fairly absolute statements about sexism and racism

                • vto …
                  22 September 2015 at 7:13 pm

                  Agree with your first paragraph Tim, exactly. Also second. It is the entire point and is not intended to minimise in any way the other forms of bigotry that exist and that are more harmful.

                  Re beck eleven – this is not the first time, there have been numerous instances but I have no links or the like to establish.

                  • Tim …
                    22 September 2015 at 7:36 pm

                    Yes vto but when have you ever been a victim of sexism or racism that has denied you access to work or meant your efforts are significantly less rewarded financially? And when have you been a victim of sexual or physical abuse based on your sex? Or a wrongful target of the police based on your race?

                    These examples are on an ENTIRELY different scale to taking cursory offence at someone writing ‘i don’t listen to old white men’ in the newspaper, although it’s easy to agree with the point that not listening to people solely because they are old, white and male is wrong. In the grand scheme of racism, abuse and suffering it’s just a very very small sidenote.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:50 pm

                      assault by way of playing with a ponytail is minor compared to assault by way of rape, yes I agree.

                      comparing the two is a complete nonsense though and only seeks to minimise situation of the woman who had her ponytail grabbed

                    • Tim …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:51 pm

                      A very very small sidenote but still wrong and it should still irk us.

                      I should’ve said in the grand scheme of sexism, racism and abuse it’s a sidenote. In terms of suffering men have suffered plenty, conscription during wars, for example, but this abuse has been suffered at the hands of other men, while women typically suffer horribly at the hands of men during war.

                    • Grindlebottom …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:58 pm

                      There’s sexism, racism and ageism, committed by individuals.

                      And there’s institutionalised sexism, racism, and ageism, committed by groups of individuals.

                      They involve the same things but differ in extent and impact.

      • Psycho Milt 2.2.2
        22 September 2015 at 4:01 pm

        considering what women have been through at the hands of the male sex over the centuries…these women are survivors…

        Well, damn! Somebody gots to be giving ’em some money, or somethin’.

    • weka 2.3
      22 September 2015 at 9:12 am

      “It is ok to label some parts of society on the basis of the gender, age and race. Apparently…”

      I think you are confusing identity with prejudice. I don’t have a problem with anyone identifying me as a middle aged white woman, because that’s what I am. What I might have a problem with is say being paid less then men because of that.

      I think what you are objecting to is the calling out of older white men by class for their privilge. Unless you can demonstrated that older white (probably wealthy) men as a class don’t have this privilge, your argument fails. Or perhaps you want us all to be colourblind?

      I’ve seen ageism here on ts eg ridiculing Don Brash because of his age. And I’ve called people on that in the same way as I do when I see fat phobia or racism or misogyny. But there is nothing wrong with identifying that men like Brash, because of their age, gender, and class, are afforded things that other people in society aren’t. It’s not about women having a go at men, because an analysis could just as easily be about the differences between a 70 year man like Brash compared to a 70 year old man who’s been a labourer all his life.

      • vto 2.3.1
        22 September 2015 at 3:42 pm

        No weka, I am not confusing the two different things you identify.

        Sexism, ageism and racism will not disappear as long as people continue to get stereotyped on the basis of their age, race and gender.

        For such a letter to make to The Press I would suggest means that the issue is reaching mainstream. Just like people of a certain political persuasion used to dismiss complaints of racism and sexism, so too are people of another political persuasion now dismissing complaints of racism and sexism.

        • arkie 2.3.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 3:50 pm

          I think you should do some research on white and male privilege . You’re coming across as the type of person who rails against the ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’ in affirmative action.

          Just to reiterate: White men are 100% NOT victims of sexism or racism.

          • vto 2.3.1.1.1
            22 September 2015 at 4:03 pm

            This is not about privilege

            This is about stereotyping and belittling

            As for your last line – you need to get out more, that is patently absurd. By definition. Sheesh.

            • arkie 2.3.1.1.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 4:07 pm

              Yes it is about privilege. You are complaining that you are the victim of sexism and racism, assuming you a white, cisgendered and male you are part of the privileged majority, this is what is patently absurd, by definition.

              You need to get out more and listen to women, POC and LGBTQA+ instead claiming you are being belittled while you belittle their voices further.

              • vto …
                22 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

                No it is not about privilege.

                It is about discrimination and stereotyping on the basis of gender, age and race. That is what these “opinionists” have said. Their words, not mine.

                • arkie …
                  22 September 2015 at 4:13 pm

                  You clearly do not understand feminism, sexism or racism. I recommend that you do some reading, listening and thinking.

                  • vto …
                    22 September 2015 at 4:16 pm

                    Your understanding is too limited arkie

                    is that all you’ve got?

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:24 pm

                      You clearly have not read the link I posted, you clearly have taken the writing of these women you deride so personally that it has blinded you to your own lack of understanding. I have tried, but many better writers and thinkers have explained why the feelings you are expressing are misplaced, but you dismiss me out of hand and refuse to read them and accuse me of a limited understanding. The irony.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:30 pm

                      Jeez arkie, do you not see that that is exactly what you have done?

                      I am well aware of the ideas you speak of and do not need to re-read but they fail for reasons which have been covered many many many times.

                      The idea that because SOME members of a particular group of people in our society have certain characteristics and engaged in certain behaviour in the past, the entire group is open to justified belittling and abuse does not stack. Do you see where?

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:37 pm

                      Good grief.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:39 pm

                      You clearly don’t then

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:43 pm

                      And neither do you.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:51 pm

                      Seriously arkie. Hows about you put all your current ideas and tight subjective definitions and readings to one side for a moment and try stepping into the shoes of the old white man who penned the letter to the editor …….

                      to answer this …

                      ‘The idea that because SOME members of a particular group of people in our society have certain characteristics and engaged in certain behaviour in the past, the entire group is open to justified belittling and abuse does not stack. Do you see where?’

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 5:19 pm

                      Well for a start, I do not agree that old white men are subject to belittling and abuse because of what SOME members of the MSM write in their opinion pieces.

                      Do you not see how tiny this hill you are dying for is?

                      And secondly why don’t you put aside your anachronistic patronising views and listen to the lived experience of literally billions of women, POC and LGBTQA+?

                      The irony. It hurts.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 5:30 pm

                      Sure. I similarly do not believe that women are subject to belittling and abuse because of what SOME members of society think in their opinion minds

                      …

                      and there we are, right back at the nowhere point

                      the exact reason for posting in the first place

                      one bad turn begets another

                      edit” don’t go editing on me mid-reply please..
                      Why don’t you listen to the lived experience of this one old white man who penned the letter instead of trying to divert away from the old man? Irony for sure

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 5:35 pm

                      Sure. I similarly do not believe that women are subject to belittling and abuse because of what SOME members of society think in their opinion minds

                      And THIS is why you are wrong, why you do not understand what sexism, racism and privilege are and why you are sound like an MRA manchild.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 5:36 pm

                      Why is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a person’s views solely because of the person’s age, race and gender please arkie?

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:02 pm

                      Your reply at 5.35 crossed over… you do realise the sentiment that went with the comment don’t you? I wonder think not actually. I suspect steam is fogging your vision.

                      Now back to the subject of the post – the old man and his letter to the editor…

                      Why is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a person’s views solely because of the persons age, gender or race please arkie? I would seriously like to know.

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:06 pm

                      Why is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a person’s views solely because of the person’s age, race and gender please arkie?

                      This is a straw man.

                      Now I’m not going to go through this whole thread post by post to convince you because your mind is made up but I will point out what made me join this discussion instead of continuing to ignore it. You began this thread with this:

                      Interesting letter to the editor in the local rag this morning hauling ‘opinionist’ Beck Eleven up for her outrageous gender profiling and outright sexism over her recent repeated statements that she “doesn’t listen to old white men”.

                      To start with you belittle her by titling her an ‘opinionist’ when she is a columnist and a journalist. Then you claim that her personal opinion is ‘outright sexism’. This is an incorrect claim and shows your lack of understanding of what sexism and racism are.

                      You then accuse other women of bigotry and sexism and then try and goad specific members of this forum into engaging with you because they had the temerity to point out your privilege and inaccuracies in your statements in other threads.

                      Then you replied to the measured and informative responses to your OP by doubling down on your misunderstanding of what constitutes prejudice, sexism and racism.

                      No-one can explain it to you if you refuse to listen.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:11 pm

                      No it is not a straw man, it is exactly what happened to the old man who penned the letter to the editor. It is in fact real life.

                      Answer it if you can

                      Why is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a person’s views solely because of that person’s age, gender or race please?

                    • BM …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:25 pm

                      I wouldn’t worry about it.

                      You’re dealing with privileged middle class socialist whities who’ve been indoctrinated to believe that white males are the root of all evil.

                      Older white males are the most evil.

                      There’s no reasoning with such sad, pathetic self-loathing individuals, I just pity them.

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:31 pm

                      it is exactly what happened to the old man who penned the letter to the editor

                      So Beck Eleven, Michelle A’Court and others specifically dismissed and belittled this letter writer personally? No, you both object to the personal opinion of Eleven in the statement that she doesn’t listen to old white men. That is her prerogative, it’s her column, you don’t have to read it, it doesn’t affect you other than to challenge the supremacy of opinions like yours. To say that it is bigoted ‘outright sexism’ is where you are so very wrong.

                      edit:
                      Ooh look vto, look who agrees with you! You’re in fine company now!

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:33 pm

                      BM it is important.

                      It is just nasty, shallow and a poor form of human conduct. Much like bullying and the like.

                      And it is acceptable to the left wing. And they can’t seem to see it.

                      The old white man who penned the letter sees it though – the wisdom and clarity that age provides eh

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:35 pm

                      Oh, you are there arkie, I thought you were hiding from the question.. let me try again then …

                      Why is it ok to belittle / dismiss all of a person’s views solely because of the person’s gender, age or race please?

                    • Grindlebottom …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:39 pm

                      I wonder how long this debate can last…pretty impressive stamina from both protagonists so far.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:42 pm

                      Dunno Grindlebottom.

                      Maybe if I ask the question in a different way it might get answered…

                      Is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a person’s views solely because of the person’s age, race or gender please arkie?

                    • Grindlebottom …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:45 pm

                      Looks on track to be won by whoever goes to bed the latest.

                    • arkie …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:48 pm

                      @vto
                      I have explained why this question is a strawman, how the starting point of your whole grudge is flawed. Evidently I cannot make you even consider that you are wrong on this issue. You and BM are welcome to continue your circlejerk but I will not engage you further.

                      Apologies to all for the length of this thread.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:54 pm

                      that is a total cop out.

                      you have explained no such things. What you have done is gone all around the outside yelling in, while being simply too scared to answer the question. Chicken

                      Once more for luck, in even a further revised version…

                      When is it, arkie, ok to dismiss / belittle the whole of a person’s views solely because of the person’s age, race or gender?

                      This is real life arkie, real life. Go talk to Beck Eleven and read her opinions. Go read the Press letter today – it is even the first one up. Real life. Facts.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:56 pm

                      Is there a glossary for this anywhere? I’m seeing LGBTQA+ as Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans Quality Assurance Plus, but am sure that can’t be right. I’m also seriously hoping that POC isn’t Piece Of Crap.

                    • Grindlebottom …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:02 pm

                      LGBTQA+ I think stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Asexual, the + alludes to other sexual orientations like Pansexual.

                      POC I think means person of colour.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:09 pm

                      Maybe I try the question yet another way….

                      Is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of the views of all members of a particular group of people solely on the basis of their race, age or gender?

                      There you go arkie, I pulled out the personal element for you per your upthread point. Care to have a crack now?

                    • BM …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:11 pm

                      Positive discrimination.
                      Thanks for that lefties.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:13 pm

                      Asexual’s an identity now? What’s next, Mildly Interested But Not Very When It Comes Down To It? Also, I don’t even want to think about “Pansexual” – hopefully they rule out non-humans and inanimate objects?

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:47 pm

                      I wouldn’t worry about it.

                      You’re dealing with privileged middle class socialist whities who’ve been indoctrinated to believe that white males are the root of all evil.

                      Older white males are the most evil.

                      Good to know you haven’t a clue about what the politics are that you are criticising.

                      For other people reading, it’s not that white, wealthy men are evil (I certainly know plenty who aren’t). It’s that the dominant paradigm (patriarchy, kyriarchy, dominator culture, whatever you want to call it), privileges certain people over others. And that privilege can take many forms from slight to outright evil. White, older, wealthy men get privileged way out of proportion in our society. Men are only responsible for that to the extent that they want to keep BAU which oppresses other people.

                      (it’s why I as a Pākehā don’t take Māori talking about racism personally, unless of course I am being racist, in which case all power to them not me).

                      Maybe Michelle A’Court has been sexist and ageist but I doubt it (based on examples vto has given in the past that turn out to be quite different than how he describes them). But even if she has, the politics of domination culture are still sound to everyone except those who want to retain their privileges at the expense of other people.

                      btw vto, you saying “I’m not confusing identity and prejudice” doesn’t necessarily make it so.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:59 pm

                      Hi weka, I understand all those points you make (except the ones you make about me…) but it misses my point about Beck Eleven dismissing and belittling people on the basis of their age, race and gender.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:07 pm

                      “but it misses my point about Beck Eleven dismissing and belittling people on the basis of their age, race and gender.”

                      AFAIK you haven’t shared what she actually said, so I can only go on previous conversations like this that we’ve had, where when I go and track down the actual comments being objected to I find that the person said something else entirely. Following from that I can only work with the general argument, which is that you appear to confuse identity and prejudice.

                      I don’t know Beck Eleven’s work, but I have read enough of Michelle A’Court to know that what you are saying is at odds with what I’ve read.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:23 pm

                      pressreader.com has a copy of the letter to the editor. Sorry, my internet machine isn’t playing ball so I can’t copy the link through ….

                      Note the letter writer also references previous instances of Beck Eleven doing this. She has a reputation for this poor conduct.

                      weka, is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of a persons views solely on the basis of their age, race or gender?

                    • Puddleglum …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:31 pm

                      Hi vto,

                      May I have a go at providing an answer to your question? “Is it ok to dismiss / belittle all of the views of all members of a particular group of people solely on the basis of their race, age or gender?”

                      Of course, I in no way claim to be speaking for arkie – only myself.

                      I think a lot hinges on the word ‘ok’.

                      One way of understanding that word is to replace it with, say, ‘rational’ or ‘justified’ (which usually means some evidence-based or logically-based reason for an action).

                      In that sense, clearly it is not ‘ok’ (i.e., ‘rational’, ‘logical’) to belittle or dismiss what someone says on the basis of their age, race or gender. That is, it’s hard to think of a formal (‘rational’, ‘logical’) reason that would justify that response.

                      But – of course there’s a but 🙂 – another way of understanding ‘ok’ is to think of it in terms of it being an ‘understandable human reaction’, in the ordinary or everyday sense of that phrase.

                      I’d argue that it is entirely ‘ok’ – in that sense – for someone to be so frustrated by their ‘lived experience’ of repeated comments from particular groups (perhaps over a lifetime and as reported by other people like them) to get to the point of just saying ‘I’ve had enough! I’m not going to listen to anything that anyone from that group says ever again’.

                      That seems to me to be a perfectly human and understandable – and in that sense valid – response. It’s ‘ok’.

                      And when it comes from a member of a group that has, quite objectively, been subjected to just such repeated negative experiences from members of another relatively privileged or more powerful group (men, white men, old white men, traffic wardens, bureaucrats, rich people or whoever) I can well understand the adoption of a dismissive or even a belittling reaction.

                      So, ‘yes’, it’s ‘ok’ – as in ‘perfectly, humanly valid’ – to (re)act in that way.

                      By contrast, it would hardly be ‘ok’, in the sense I’ve just used it, for someone who was a member of a group that had relative privilege and power to dismiss or belittle a person’s opinions just because of their gender, age or race.

                      That’s because it is not a ‘humanly valid’ (or moral) reaction – it wouldn’t make ‘human’ sense. It would be enraging, even. (Imagine a wealthy privileged person dismissing someone’s views just because they were poor.)

                      Here’s an example to highlight my argument:

                      Would you say, for example, that it’s not ‘ok’ for a survivor of genocide to dismiss the views of all members of the group who committed genocide against them?

                      Extreme, I know – although if you look at the history of how women have been treated in many different cultures, maybe not.

                      But, either way, I think it gets to the heart of things.

                      As I said, this is entirely my own thinking on display. It is not meant to represent anyone else’s view.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:54 pm

                      puddleglum, you always have such a good way of explaining your good views.

                      You are correct in that such a response is probably ‘humanly understandable’ and in that context it is ‘ok’. I would suggest though that that context is relenting to the weaknesses of humans and is a poor route to follow. In a wider good human behaviour context it is not ‘understandable’ or ‘ok’ because such feelings of revenge do not lead to good society. It is understandable but not ok – just like a lot of crime. The old saying of two wrongs do not make a right comes to the fore.

                      The example you used of genocide – is it ok for a survivor of genocide to dismiss any member of the group who committed the genocide? Well, like your dissembling of my question in order to fully answer, the same is required here..

                      .. using the naz1s.. if that member was an SS officer then I would have thought, in your context, extremely so. But if that member was just a German then no, not. The link is insufficient.

                      There must a be a sufficient link I think, to justify such a dismissal. To use a closer example, Beck Eleven may be well justified in dismissing all members of, say, an Old Boys Club which restricted female membership and had a history of mocking females and their endeavours.

                      … however to extend that to all old white males loses the link and becomes outright stereotyping and bigotry. This is exactly where Beck Eleven sits.

                    • Puddleglum …
                      22 September 2015 at 9:32 pm

                      Thanks vto – I always appreciate a response.

                      I suppose I do relent to the “weaknesses of humans quite consistently, although I think of it as being considerate of the very different lives that all of us experience (tempered by my sense of the power that someone has).

                      Yes, ti would be better if people were entirely insensitive to the harm that others do to them. But think what that might mean for your own reaction to Beck Eleven.

                      In your example of the ordinary German unfairly dismissed be a survivor of genocide. I put myself in that person’s shoes and ask ‘how would I like to react’. The answer is that I would hope I would be aware of the experiences that led that person to treat me in that way.

                      I would take the hit – knowing that it was relatively minor in the scale of things.

                      That’s what I would hope I would do.

                      But, of course, I am also a weak human so it may not work out like that.

                    • vto …
                      22 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

                      Very nicely put puddleglum, that is a significant strand in the weave for sure

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

                      Let’s not forget that we don’t even know what the letter to the Editor said, let alone what Beck Eleven said. So we don’t know if belittle on the basis of gender, age etc is the right descriptor.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 10:20 pm

                      I tracked down the article by Beck Eleven being referred to, and commented here,

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22092015/#comment-1073453

    • Rodel 2.4
      22 September 2015 at 8:30 pm

      Columnists like Beck 11, Hoskings, and Garner, who psychobabble about themselves tend to use the word ‘I” many times in their first sentences and are are best avoided.
      Michelle A’court is different. She writes about issues- not so much about herself.

      We the readers (well me) are maybe mildly interested in the personal opinions of these writers but are uninterested in their personal lives any more than they are interested in mine.

      • Jenny Kirk 2.4.1
        22 September 2015 at 8:49 pm

        Hi Puddlegum

        I like your answer to vto. Not sure if it represents what Arkie would like to see.

        Couldn’t connect to your actual comment Puddlegum – the reply button wasn’t available.

        Can feel Arkie’s frustration with vto, tho. Sometimes I just give up because the blokes just cannot see what you’re getting at …….. and boy, do those older white males (and younger white males) go on and on about stuff at times which they have not actually experienced . Its blinkin’ frustrating ….. and if you call it sexism, they don’t know what you mean. Cheers Arkie – keep at it !

        • vto 2.4.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 9:08 pm

          Jenny, I did not miss what arkie was saying. Those matters are very real and important. What happened is that arkie kept diverting away from the particular and specific matter. It was total avoidance. arkie has still not answered the question raised.

          Just because I kept to the post and didn’t divert down the path arkie wanted doesn’t mean I don’t agree the path exists.

          And what on earth do you mean “go on about stuff which they have not actually experienced”? Instead of trying to second guess and assume all sorts of things (as arkie did too), why not just read the words written? It was about Beck Eleven’s dismissal of all old white men. It was not about sexism throughout society in all its myriad forms and scales. It was about her and her columns, and the old man who wrote the prime letter to the editor today, together with a couple of other similar instances by other opinionists.

        • vto 2.4.1.2
          22 September 2015 at 9:19 pm

          If I might just tag on the end here Jenny. I haven’t had an exchange of views like this for quite a while on here. It is good and invigorating and healthy and believe it or not the ideas put forward by the likes yourself and arkie slot into the mind and whirr away – they have an impact.

          But you know a funny thing… when first started bouncing around here I was pretty much solid rightish wing, but after ranting and listening and watching and arguing over a period of time my views were changed by the opinions and ideas around here. There are a coupe of other reasons for it (going back to roots for example) but fundamentally the good ideas around general left wing philosophy convinced and changed my politics….. but here is the funny thing … it hasn’t happened on the matter of the subject at hand. I find the left wing sexist and racist and ageist in particular circumstances such as this, and the arguments and the like put forward over numerous years have failed to convince otherwise, unlike so many other left wing ideas…

          there is something in that. Imo.

          • marty mars 2.4.1.2.1
            22 September 2015 at 9:59 pm

            “I haven’t had an exchange of views like this for quite a while on here.”

            I think it is great that others are taking up the challenge to explain the views that are so hard for you to fathom – I have tried a number of times over the years and although we have bantered away it really becomes frustrating, from both sides I’m sure.

          • RedLogix 2.4.1.2.2
            22 September 2015 at 11:42 pm

            @vto

            Read the whole thing as it unfolded – and decided I was far too privileged to have an opinion. 🙂

  3. The lost sheep 3
    22 September 2015 at 8:00 am

    Evidence mounting that Corbynism is a symptom of internal discontent on the Left, rather than a mood for change in the wider electorate…

    In the first test of voting intention since Mr Corbyn’s election, Labour have increased their poll rating by just one point, up to 30 per cent. The Conservatives are up two points to 42 per cent, meaning their lead has stretched to 12 points in the ComRes poll.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-has-failed-to-gain-labour-supporters-among-the-wider-electorate-poll-reveals-10509394.html

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      22 September 2015 at 8:40 am

      So you went looking for evidence to confirm your personal beliefs and you found some on the internet. That level of proof is only recognised in Psychology.

      • The lost sheep 3.1.1
        22 September 2015 at 8:51 am

        On that basis most comments on this blog will attract your ridicule OAB.
        Oh that’s right, they do.

        So regardless of your obsession for trying to make my posts about me, are you are implying that the poll i linked to, and the others in the last week that indicated very similar results (replicated), are not ‘evidence’ that is equally significant for anyone interested in this matter?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 9:19 am

          I’m not trying to make them about you, Sheep, I am making them about your dubious assertions.

          If Corbyn has the long-term strategy he’s been talking about, and given his party’s poll rating has gone up 1% in a week, can I conclude that the UKLP will be on 50% support after another 20 weeks?

          Only if I use Lost Sheep’s logic.

    • Chooky 3.2
      22 September 2015 at 8:53 am

      you really are a LOST sheep arent you?…sure you havent got scrapies or BSE ?

      • Rodel 3.2.1
        22 September 2015 at 8:39 pm

        Hey Lost Sheep-quick If you want more evidence for your beliefs..read the Press article today by an idiot Liam Hehir (how do you get a name like that?) who suggests that Donald Trump is more trustworthy than Jeremy Corbyn because nobody that principled could be trusted to do the right thing.
        Funny logic these people have.

    • swordfish 3.3
      22 September 2015 at 9:09 am

      Your usual bollocks, sheepy.

      See my comment here for the various Party Support Polls conducted since Corbyn’s Election …http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20092015/#comment-1072585

      Labour cuts Tory lead in all four of them.

      (You’re comparing the latest Com Res with the last poll by the same company conducted specifically for the Independent on Sunday / Sunday Mirror (early August). However, Com Res conduced another poll in late August (for The Daily Mail), and that’s the one you should be comparing this latest poll with. Same Pollster, same methodology, just different client. So, Labour have, in fact, cut the Tory lead from 14 to 12 points)

      You’re also cherry-picking polls. After making recent changes to its methodology,
      Com Res has a marked tendency to show bigger Conservative leads than other
      major British Pollsters.

      So, you carefully chose the one that finds the Tories lead by a significant 12 points, yet the others carried out since Corbyn’s win suggest Labour’s cut the Tory lead to anything from 5 to 8 points.

      Notice, too, the increase in Labour’s share of the vote in the 4 local body by-elections carried out since his win.

      In the real-life electoral tests that matter, the Corbyn-led Labour Party isn’t doing too badly at all.

      See also … http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20092015/#comment-1072579
      for the large minority of supporters of other parties who say they are now more likely to vote Labour with Corbyn leading the Party.

      • The lost sheep 3.3.1
        22 September 2015 at 10:25 am

        You can spin those results around as much as you like Swordfish….but they still don’t add up to any evidence at all that Corbyn has made significant inroads into the current Non Left vote.

        At best. I agree the evidence gives you grounds for hoping that it will occur, if that was your hope, just it also suggest there are grounds for believing it will not.

        • Bill 3.3.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 11:05 am

          Hmm, you could also conclude that the tsunami of shite sent Corbyn’s way by major media has kind of…didn’t work. Not just ‘holding his own’, but going up a point or two. 😉

        • swordfish 3.3.1.2
          22 September 2015 at 11:22 am

          No disagreement with your 2nd paragraph – there’s still everything to play for.

          But isn’t it great to see that Tory poll lead cut by the Corbyn-led Labour Party in every single poll conducted over the last week or so, despite the tsunami of vitriol he’s had to put up with from some particularly vile pricks in the British media. I can just imagine you punching the air with excitement, lost sheep. Happy days, happy days.

          Even if Corbyn’s role is strictly short-term, the fact is he’s already transformed the UK Labour Party from a low-membership elite-driven cadre-Party (just as Blair and Brown had always envisaged) into a vibrant, revitalised grassroots mass-participatory movement (with a membership that’s now greater in number than that of the Tory,
          Lib Dem and SNP parties combined). It’s that democracy in action, that power being unceremoniously ripped from the hands of the Westminster elite and their “professional” (but, generally inept) political operators that so upsets the insiders/enablers like the Phil Quins and Prof Tim Bales of this world.

          They clutch their pearls in abject horror as those simply ghastly unwashed masses
          take over, rudely usurping their carefully cultivated positions of power and presuming to want a hand in formulating policy if you please !!! Scandalous !!!

          And, of course, Corbyn’s massively broadened the parameters of acceptable political discourse, realigning the Party with that solid core of social democratic values that continue to animate a majority of British voters. No more spineless capitulation to an increasingly unpopular austerity regime, no more advocacy of a privatisation agenda that’s been deeply unpopular with the British Public for more than a decade now. No more Tweedledum / Tweedledee politics, basically.

          • The lost sheep 3.3.1.2.1
            22 September 2015 at 12:03 pm

            Whatever impact it ends up making on the voting public, as you point out it’s what Corbynism means for the Left that is likely to be the more significant immediate question.
            I would suspect that Corbynism will turn out to have been ‘organised’ to some extent, by roughly the same groupings of people as organised/supported the ‘Occupy’ movement, and the Corbyn movement reflects both their frustration with current Left Wing politics, and a positive strategy to achieve change through involvement at the Parliamentary level.

            If Corbynism succeeds in gaining ground electorally, I predict the Center Left will go with it, and a unified Labour will genuinely shift Left. At that point I will agree that it may represent a major turning of the tide politically.
            Even the docile old Left might get down off the fence and show some signs of change here in NZ if that happens.

            But if it doesn’t, which would be my prediction purely on the basis that there is no indication of support for a significant Leftist shift among Centrist voters, then I predict that a major schism will open up between the passive Center and an activist Far Left in British politics, including major turmoil in or even a break up of Labour, and ultimately a redefining of the Left into Hard and Soft factions that expend as much energy fighting each other as they do the Right.

            So it’s all on the line really. And even if I’m not a fan of Corbyn’s specific politics, i do genuinely agree with you that it is fantastic to see people taking control through democratic action.

            • Naturesong 3.3.1.2.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 1:58 pm

              So what your saying is that Corbyn now has, on top of a massively increased and revitalised Labour membership, the entire occupy movement with all it’s networks activated and working for him.

              That sounds terrible!!

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1.2.1.2
              22 September 2015 at 2:06 pm

              So “your” “analysis” is exactly the same old right wing narrative that predates Corbyn and in fact predates you.

              Polly wanna cracker?

              • Alethios …
                22 September 2015 at 5:42 pm

                To me, OLS is saying: If Corbyn succeeds in capturing the general electorate, Labour will permanently shift to the left. If he fails, we can probably expect a Labour/New Labour schism. Do you not agree?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 September 2015 at 6:13 pm

                  No, I don’t: even the World Bank and IMF have noticed that “Neoliberalism” is a little bit shit. The precious English-speaking nations can’t be that far behind.

  4. Chooky 4
    22 September 2015 at 8:24 am

    On the TPPA;

    Labour, Greens and NZF should be taking the Leadership role and giving Jonkey Nactional ultimatums about NOT signing!

    There has been NO democratic process here ….therefore there can be NO signing of the TPPA!

    ….anything else is a violation of our democracy !…and a usurpation of our country New Zealand!….any such signing is VOID!

    This is a civil and constitutional emergency. This should be said in Parliament .
    Our MPs were elected to protect New Zealanders and their democracy

    ’10 days till Groser swallows the TPPA rat?’

    by Professor Jane Kelsey

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/09/22/10-days-till-groser-swallows-the-tppa-rat/

    “There is now an increasingly active propaganda machine trying to sell the deal.

    We will know on 3 October (2 October US time) whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will conclude or faces collapse. According to a calculated drip-feed of unofficial information, chief negotiators from the 12 countries will resume talks in Atlanta, USA on 26 September, with the ministers now scheduled to meet in for 3 days from 30 September to 2 October, and the chiefs continuing on until 4th….

    ‘John Key starts softening NZers up to signing the TPPA – check his dramatic change of language’ -by Martyn Bradbury

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/09/21/john-key-starts-softening-nzers-up-to-signing-the-tppa-check-his-dramatic-change-of-language/

    • save NZ 4.1
      22 September 2015 at 8:30 am

      +100 Chooky

      Groser would sell his grandmother to get TPPA through and we know that it only takes a game of golf with Obama to convince Key to give up the security keys to our country and our future.

    • Planet Earth 4.2
      22 September 2015 at 11:14 am

      Nonsense Chooky, the TPPA needs to be ratified by our duly elected Parliament.

      Why do you hate democracy?

      If the democratically-elected government isn’t doing what you want, persuade a majority (or enough of a minority) to your way of thinking.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1
        22 September 2015 at 11:32 am

        The only thing that the TPPA has to do with democracy is destroying it.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.2.2
        22 September 2015 at 11:35 am

        It is the Cabinet that ratify the TPPA, not the Parliament.
        http://itsourfuture.org.nz/one-more-time-pm-parliament-does-not-get-to-ratify-tppa/

        • Planet Earth 4.2.2.1
          22 September 2015 at 12:00 pm

          Thanks for clarifying, Tautoko Mangō Mata – the Cabinet appointed by our duly elected Parliament, specifically.

          • Chooky 4.2.2.1.1
            22 September 2015 at 12:17 pm

            it is being conducted in secret…the terms are secret…the discussions are secret …the potential outcomes for New Zealand are secret….it has not been discussed in Parliament( except by those who oppose its secrecy)

            …that is NOT democracy…are you kidding?

            jonkey nactional do not have a mandate from New Zealanders to sign a secret agreement

            ( as for calling yourself ‘Planet Earth’….are you kidding? (Orwellian Double Speak…right wing PR merchant is more like it)…this corporate designed Treaty will threaten New Zealand’s environment and New Zealanders’ control of Planet Earth’s well being in their own country of New Zealand)

            • Planet Earth 4.2.2.1.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 12:56 pm

              The “discussions are secret”, correct – most negotiations are – but the final agreement to be ratified by our elected representatives will be public.

              • Sacha …
                22 September 2015 at 1:19 pm

                There is no ratification.

              • Chooky …
                22 September 2015 at 1:19 pm

                Bullshit Planet Earth …..most negotiations of such importance to a nation are not as secret as these….and jonkey does not have a democratic mandate to sell New Zealand out to corporate interests

              • dv …
                22 September 2015 at 1:32 pm

                but the final agreement to be ratified by our elected representatives will be public.

                I recall that the texts are not allowed to be published for 5 years.

                  • Naturesong …
                    22 September 2015 at 2:03 pm

                    Wanting something really, really badly does not make a thing true no matter how many times you repeat it (and link to documents that disprove your assertion).

                    Paragraph 7.112 states that “In New Zealand, the power to take treaty action rests with the Executive.” In practice that means the Cabinet.

                    Cabinet decides whether to enter into negotiations, the negotiating mandate and any revisions to it, and what trade-offs are made to conclude a deal.

                    Cabinet then approves the signing of the agreed text by the Minister. This is a definitive step that binds the government to act in good faith towards its negotiating partners. The Cabinet manual makes it clear that by signing an agreement the executive indicates an intention for New Zealand to be bound to that text. This constitutes a good faith obligation under international law.

                    Parliament does not get to see the completed text until that stage. According to the Cabinet Manual, a signed TPPA would then be presented to Parliament, accompanied by a National Interest Analysis. These analyses have been widely criticised during the standing orders reviews and submissions on the International Treaties Bill for their lack of independence and balance, because they are prepared by the same Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that negotiated the agreement.

                    The treaty is then referred to the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee, which has the discretion whether or not to seek public submissions. But the select committee has no substantive power. The Cabinet Manual (para 7.119) makes it clear that the executive can move to ratify the TPPA while the select committee process is still underway.

                  • Naturesong …
                    22 September 2015 at 2:50 pm

                    No.

                    Parliament does not elect the cabinet.
                    It is the Executive branch of government

                    You need to read up on how our representative democracy actually works.
                    Your mistakes are basic fundamental ones. Meaning It’s going to affect all your thinking that is built on that understanding.
                    It’s kinda shitty, but you’re going to have to go back to basics and unpack the lot.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                22 September 2015 at 2:11 pm

                Five years after ratification. So, still not democratic.

          • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.2.2.1.2
            22 September 2015 at 12:54 pm

            “The method of selection of Ministers depends on party practice. The elected leader of the parliamentary National Party chooses his Ministers and assigns the portfolios. In the parliamentary Labour Party the number of Ministers to be appointed is determined and the required number is elected by the caucus.”
            http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/government-parliament/page-7

            John Key elected the current Cabinet.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.1.3
            22 September 2015 at 2:09 pm

            Nope. Cabinet is appointed by the PM and has nothing to do with parliament.

            • Planet Earth 4.2.2.1.3.1
              22 September 2015 at 2:32 pm

              OK – Cabinet is appointed by the leader of our democratically elected Government, fine with that?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                22 September 2015 at 2:35 pm

                Nope because it’s still not passed by the majority of our representatives. I don’t think that Cabinet is even a majority of the government.

                Our system is not democratic. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s anti-democratic. That it has, in fact, been designed to prevent democracy.

              • weka …
                22 September 2015 at 2:37 pm

                not really. MMP was supposed to give us a more representative democracy but for various reasons that promise has never been fulfilled. The democracy we have is rudimentary at best and open to manipulation. Plus you’re probably not going to get very far arguing that this particular cabinet deserves democratic respect given how much anti-democratic action they’ve taken in recent years.

                • Planet Earth …
                  22 September 2015 at 3:58 pm

                  They may not have your democratic respect, but they do have the NZ people’s mandate. I wonder which they care about the most?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    22 September 2015 at 4:05 pm

                    They may not have your democratic respect, but they do have the NZ people’s mandate.

                    No they don’t:

                    The polling conducted by Consumer Link between 14th and 21st November and 4th to 10th December shows consistently high levels of opposition to
                    1) keeping the text secret until it is signed (65% opposed, 14% for);
                    2) allowing foreign investors to sue the government in offshore tribunals for compensation for new environmental laws (61% opposed, 9% for);
                    3) the New Zealand government’s failure to reject those special rights foreign investors to sue (62% opposed, 12% for); and
                    4) making trade-offs that would result in a significant rise in what it costs the government to supply medicines to thepublic (52% opposed, 18% for) when Australia has completely rejected the concept.

                    In other words, the people are opposed to the TPPA – National will sign it against the will of the people and thus undemocratically. Just as they did with the sales of the power companies.

                    I wonder which they care about the most?

                    Whatever their donors want. What the people of NZ want won’t even get a mention.

                    • Planet Earth …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:28 pm

                      OK, I was referring to the mandate (as expressed by the electorate last year) to enact their manifesto. I’m sure that if the majority are upset enough by this issue then they will vote them out in 2017. You might not agree, but to me that’s democracy.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:32 pm

                      😆 at manifesto.

                      ‘To further the personal financial interests of members of Cabinet Club.’

                      I checked their website lies prior to the election: “light on policy” is a charitable way to put it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      22 September 2015 at 5:46 pm

                      You might not agree, but to me that’s democracy.

                      It obviously isn’t. Democracy is doing what the people want and not what the corporations want.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:16 pm

                      In other words, the people are opposed to the TPPA – National will sign it against the will of the people and thus undemocratically. Just as they did with the sales of the power companies.

                      And then they rub our noses in it by giving us a referendum for the fucking flag.

                    • John Shears …
                      22 September 2015 at 10:20 pm

                      DTB 100%

      • Naturesong 4.2.3
        22 September 2015 at 2:14 pm

        This is an excellent argument for civics to be a required subject at secondary schools.

  5. save NZ 5
    22 September 2015 at 8:32 am

    On what we can expect with our health care AKA USA style. The CEO is also a former hedge fund manager.

    Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight
    By ANDREW POLLACKSEPT. 20, 2015

    Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection.

    The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    • northshoredoc 5.1
      22 September 2015 at 9:09 am

      As I have repeatedly said our healthcare is not going to turn into the USA healthcare system due to the signing of the TPPA.

      The example you have given is of a company that has decided to go down the track of extreme price gouging primarily because they can in the USA. In virtually all cases in NZ, PHARMAC contract for the supply of a funded pharmaceutical and there is not the opportunity for companies to alter the prices.

      As the product is well out of patent PHARMAC would simply choose to organise supply out of south east asia… possibly that’s what they do already.

      The TPPA should fail on the fact that there is probably little to no access for our agricultural/horticultural products into key markets (US, Canada or Japan) and due to this little reason why we would enter the TPPA for anything other than wanting to be part of the club.

      • dv 5.1.1
        22 September 2015 at 9:15 am

        How do you know? Have you seen the documents?

        • northshoredoc 5.1.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 9:24 am

          Opinion.

          It’s very unlikely we’ll get any reasonable access to agricultural/horticultural markets in USA, Canada or Japan, these lobbies are hugely protectionist and no one has managed to crack them to date.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2
          22 September 2015 at 9:26 am

          It’s a reasonable assumption given recent news reports.

        • save NZ 5.1.1.3
          22 September 2015 at 10:05 am

          That is the point, nobody is allowed to see the documents. TPP is against democracy and a fundamental absurdity.

          A few individuals about to sign a major deal that the public, law society and nobody else has a right to see prior to signing.

          This Government shows how pathetic they are by, signing the ‘great deals’ with Serco and Sky City – already in trouble. Sheepgate etc, – who knows how many other sheep will be flown around the world as bribes by our idiots.

          Village idiots should not be allowed the power to sign with the big boys.

          And no, agriculture (which we are unlikely to get anyway) is not worth the rest of the country. Surprisingly there are markets out there, like Russia who could be buying our products, and when the big boys fall out with each other as they often do, little NZ can trade with them. Will be more access than be told without being told, no trade by our controlling government for political reasons.

          • northshoredoc 5.1.1.3.1
            22 September 2015 at 11:33 am

            “Village idiots should not be allowed the power to sign with the big boys.”

            In case you haven’t noticed that’s how democracies work. If you don’t like the current lot of village idiots you get a chance to replace them with a new batch in a couple of years.

            As for the old chestnut of ‘to hell with them lets just trade with Russia’ I would have thought a better position is that we should trade with whomever we want to (within reason).

            • save NZ 5.1.1.3.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 1:11 pm

              As for the old chestnut of ‘to hell with them lets just trade with Russia’ I would have thought a better position is that we should trade with whomever we want to (within reason).

              …so begs the point why do we need a trade agreement that seems more about stopping free trade and empowering foreign corporations to strip mine assets and taxes and destroy local jobs and undermine health and the environment, than free trade.

              A recent case in the US the courts found that water was not considered a fundamental right for people. Is this a society where NZ wants to head and be part of? When we need to consult a 1000 page agreement to be allowed water, and governments are sued when they try to stop people smoking or the gun lobbyists persuade us all we need to arm our selves to the eyeballs to ‘keep safe’ like in the good ol USA.

              • northshoredoc …
                22 September 2015 at 1:55 pm

                Look I get that you don’t like the USA, they certainly can be odd and I don’t believe anyone in NZ wants NZ to be a carbon copy of their society and that your suggestions that the TPPA will preclude NZ being able to make its own regulations regarding gun laws and smoking cessation programs is hyperbole.

                But the reason NZ is taking part in the negotiations is to see whether there is benefit for us – which there would be with a level playing field in relation to agricultural/horticultural exports – from my understanding the tariffs on these are fairly sizeable in the USA, Canada and Japan especially. It would be negligent not to be part of the discussions and I’m fairly sure all politic parties would agree on that point.

                Whether there will be any benefits or an agreement out the back end I’m very doubtful about, as I said somewhere else I don’t think there’s any chance of North America or Japan agreeing to any significant freeing up of access for agricultural/horticultural products so can’t see why we would sign up.

                • weka …
                  22 September 2015 at 2:23 pm

                  “But the reason NZ is taking part in the negotiations is to see whether there is benefit for us ”

                  Irrespective of the validity of the rest of your arguments, I think many of us would object to the use of the word ‘us’ in that sentence.

                  • northshoredoc …
                    22 September 2015 at 2:50 pm

                    Well it’s your prerogative to object if you want to.

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:48 pm

                      ok. Your argument is ridiculous if you use the word ‘us’.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:56 pm

                      What word would you prefer ?

                    • weka …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:00 pm

                      “vested interests”?

                    • northshoredoc …
                      22 September 2015 at 8:07 pm

                      No, that would be a completely different meaning from what I intended.

                      As I stated the reason NZ is taking part in discussion is to see if there is benefit in it for us (NZ).

                      If you are suggesting that they are only doing it is to see if there is benefit for vested interests is I believe overly cynical, which vested interests did you have in mind ?

            • Naki man 5.1.1.3.1.2
              22 September 2015 at 6:31 pm

              “As for the old chestnut of ‘to hell with them lets just trade with Russia’ I would have thought a better position is that we should trade with whomever we want to (within reason).”

              The wheels have been in motion for some time now for trade with Russia.
              There has to be factory inspection and audits, it takes months but will be happening very soon.

        • Tracey 5.1.1.4
          22 September 2015 at 1:14 pm

          Save NZ was also expressing an opinion

      • McFlock 5.1.2
        22 September 2015 at 9:59 am

        Sabine posted a link to the same article yesterday.

        While I agree that it’s not really a TPPA issue, as it doesn’t actually involve intellectual property as such, it is a prime example as to why capitalism and medecine make uncomfortable bedfellows.

        An interesting paragraph:

        With the price now high, other companies could conceivably make generic copies, since patents have long expired. One factor that could discourage that option is that Daraprim’s distribution is now tightly controlled, making it harder for generic companies to get the samples they need for the required testing.

        So, basically, the cocksuckers boosted the price of a cheap and reliable medication that is used to treat toxoplasmosis and malaria, on the odds that they’ll have a decent window of price gouging before competitors can bring out generics and the price goes back down to the ballpark of ibuprofen. A window they’ll artificially extend by controlled distribution rather than intellectual property. All for a drug that is on the WHO essential medicines list and is needed more in the developing world than in the continental USA.

        Profits before people’s lives.

        • Sabine 5.1.2.1
          22 September 2015 at 10:59 am

          the market will fix that…..just hope you don’t need the medication.

          as i said, this of course would never ever happen here, cause our hedge fund managers err ponytail puller would never ever do something here to enrich themselves.

          never ever
          yeah
          right
          Tui

          • northshoredoc 5.1.2.1.1
            22 September 2015 at 11:41 am

            @Sabine, i believe your comment was that NZ healthcare was going to go USA style under a potential TPPA, I don’t believe there’s any evidence to support that whatsoever.

            Funding of services, medicines, distribution and staff is completely different in the USA and NZ, one system is pretty much user pays while the other is pretty much funded via the government.

            • Sacha 5.1.2.1.1.1
              22 September 2015 at 1:29 pm

              TPP adds the ability for big pharma companies to deploy lawyers in ISDS tribunals against Pharmac for reducing projected future profits. Also expect to see clauses that force Pharmac to reveal its prioritisation process to said lawyers.

              • McFlock …
                22 September 2015 at 1:35 pm

                reasonable points

              • northshoredoc …
                22 September 2015 at 1:45 pm

                Sigh.. PHARMAC’s prioritisation process is very transparent, just have a look on their website.

                In relation to any TPP clause that companies would use against PHARMAC reducing future profits who knows ?

                The only thing i would be confident of is the first company to deploy such a maneouvre would struggle to ever have another medicine funded by the government in NZ.

                There’s been a number of companies that have tried to go after PHARMAC via lawyers over the years but not surprisingly in the medium to long term (and even usually in the short term) PHARMAC have been the winners.

                • Sacha …
                  22 September 2015 at 2:12 pm

                  ISDS has been widely discussed in relation to TPP.

                  Big pharma are also on record wanting to crack non-transparent parts of Pharmac’s process for many years. Unlike us, not only have they seen TPP, they have had input into it.

                  Leaked drafts show the impact of both aspects. Believe whatever you want.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 September 2015 at 2:27 pm

                  @NSD what do you make of this?

                  Media release: Doctors for Healthy Trade, 11 June 2015.

                  “Superficially, the language in the leaked text seems benign, but the underlying changes would give pharmaceutical companies a combination of new levers to undermine PHARMAC processes,” says Dr Laking. “What we see in the text is a variety of small changes – every one favouring pharmaceutical companies ¬– that multiply their force when added together.

                  • northshoredoc …
                    22 September 2015 at 2:49 pm

                    I’d agree with some of the things George says and take a different view on some of the others.

                    As an example.

                    “One thing is certain – don’t expect the industry to play by gentleman’s rules – under the proposed changes, PHARMAC would be pressured to make important decisions within shorter time frames and under more intensive input and scrutiny from industry. There would also be more onerous requirements to release information which could then be used to challenge its decisions through a review process.”

                    I’d agree with that but don’t have a problem with PHARMAC having to make decisions more quickly, they have taken outrageous amounts of time to make decisions on certain products over the years whenever there might be a financial cost to the pharmaceutical budget. I also find it odd that we can on one hand argue that Pharmac shouldn’t release information on their decision making process (which in my opinion they do reasonably well) while arguing that we should be privy to all of the TPPA decision making process.

                    “The threat of an expensive law suit hanging over every decision would have an intimidating effect and would tend to make PHARMAC more hesitant about fighting to get the best deals for New Zealanders. The Australians have tried to close the investor-state loophole by explicitly excluding their equivalent of PHARMAC from being subjected to these lawsuits under the TPPA, but for some reason New Zealand has not done the same with PHARMAC.”

                    Now I’d see this in a different light, in that if this was to be the case PHARMAC would just slow decisions to a snails pace and make the requirements and hurdles to get new medications funded insurmountable. Pharmaceutical companies would still need to come to a commercial arrangement to get a new medicine funded as is the present situation and a situation which happily almost always favours PHARMAC as per their current consultations on funding new Hep C medications.

                    I guess we’ll all be more in the know if the deal ever goes through….. I still think that’s quite unlikely.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 September 2015 at 3:45 pm

                      So on the one hand they’ll be forced to make decisions more quickly and on the other they’ll be able to slow access to our portion of the global pharmaceutical market down.

                      Um, you kind of reinforced Laking’s point there, Doc.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:00 pm

                      No you misunderstand.

                      PHARMAC will be able to continue to use their operating procedures and policies to their best interest.

                      Where they allow products into the decision making process for example when issuing a request for proposals for the supply of new medicines for Hep C as per

                      https://www.pharmac.health.nz/news/rfi-2015-08-10-hepatitis-c-treatments/

                      They will be able to move products through faster and the decision making process may be more transparent – although most know what the decision will be based upon.

                      Where a company is seeking funding for a new product via application for inclusion on the pharmaceutical schedule the process might become more problematic the is currently the case depending on how problematic the company applying for the funding was.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:26 pm

                      Where a company is seeking funding for a new product via application for inclusion on the pharmaceutical schedule, looking at it from their perspective they’re going to get a smaller return on their investment because PHARMAC.

                      Take Hep C for example, with 2-3% of global population requiring treatment, it’s a huge market; that PHARMAC can slow access to our portion of it doesn’t strike me as very much leverage.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 September 2015 at 4:28 pm

                      …especially when you consider the political pressure for new drugs.

                    • Sacha …
                      22 September 2015 at 6:23 pm

                      I hope the whole thing fails, but our government has already admitted they expect Pharmac’s budget to increase.

                      That’s partly because they know they are likely to make law changes to weaken Pharmac’s current arrangements as part of implementing TPP in NZ. Hence the weasel words around only preserving the ‘fundamentals’.

                      Our negotiators have been conceding goodness knows how much in our name, just so a few piss-weak Ministers with daddy issues can say they scored a deal with big ol USA.

                      And we’ve just seen the PM soften us up about the deal being merely “as good as we can get” rather than good. But hey, we elected these clowns and tolerated opposition parties too disorganised, ego-ridden and stupid to tie their shoelaces.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      22 September 2015 at 7:50 pm

                      “Take Hep C for example, with 2-3% of global population requiring treatment, it’s a huge market; that PHARMAC can slow access to our portion of it doesn’t strike me as very much leverage.

                      …especially when you consider the political pressure for new drugs.”

                      Yes you’d think that, but time and time again the pharmaceutical companies roll over and do a deal at prices they could only dream of in the USA… it’s odd.

            • Sabine 5.1.2.1.1.2
              22 September 2015 at 4:53 pm

              no my comment was just me stating that I don’t trust our current bankers and welfare bludgers in parliament to safeguard our current system that allows us to purchase medication at reasonable and affordable prices.

              As for the differences between the US and NZ, they are very fluid and can be changed, and will be changed very quickly if an appropriate agreement is signed.

              I do hope that you have a good health insurance, because you will need it in the future.

              As for it can’t happen here, i suggest you have a look to see how it happened in the US of A where literally not having insurance will either bankrupt you or kill you.
              Because you know what, wishful thinking is just that, wishful.

              • northshoredoc …
                22 September 2015 at 8:26 pm

                “As for the differences between the US and NZ, they are very fluid and can be changed, and will be changed very quickly if an appropriate agreement is signed.

                I do hope that you have a good health insurance, because you will need it in the future.

                As for it can’t happen here, i suggest you have a look to see how it happened in the US of A where literally not having insurance will either bankrupt you or kill you.”

                Well we’ll have to agree to disagree as I can’t see the NZ health system becoming anything like the US health system under any agreement the government may or may not enter.

          • save NZ 5.1.2.1.2
            22 September 2015 at 11:46 am

            Yes they rob from the poor and the sick to give to themselves.

        • northshoredoc 5.1.2.2
          22 September 2015 at 11:38 am

          “So, basically, the cocksuckers boosted the price of a cheap and reliable medication that is used to treat toxoplasmosis and malaria, on the odds that they’ll have a decent window of price gouging before competitors can bring out generics and the price goes back down to the ballpark of ibuprofen. A window they’ll artificially extend by controlled distribution rather than intellectual property. All for a drug that is on the WHO essential medicines list and is needed more in the developing world than in the continental USA.”

          Yep exactly, although it’s mainly a useful medicine in patients who are substantially immunosuppressed with toxoplasma than in others. WHO have a good number of alternatives that they source out of India and Asia hence it doesn’t really effect them. Pharmaceuticals supply and pricing in the US is odd (to be polite) hence the number of people that pop over the border to Canada.

          Interestingly there’s a product for certain cancers in NZ (carmustine) which the worldwide supplier is trying to do the same thing. Old medicine hardly anyone making it anymore and the Indian company wants to put the price up many many fold around the world.

      • Tim 5.1.3
        22 September 2015 at 7:18 pm

        Fellow doctor here – I obviously agree it’s obvious our system won’t become the USA system overnight because of the TPPA but if you think our health system is safe from National I reckon you’re being naive. They’re just too smart to do too much too soon and get on the wrong side of public opinion.

        Little changes add up and I wouldn’t underestimate what ponytail puller and his ilk are capable of – look at what dead pig fucker and his party are doing to junior doctors in the UK. For the past few years they’ve been biting away at the rights of doctors in the UK and getting more confident with every little success – did any of it mean they became satisfied and stopped there? No, now they are instituting a contract which means at least a 30% pay cut for GP trainees and a cut more like 10 to 15% for junior doctors in other specialties by redefining normal hours completely. It may mean the first strike action over there in over 20 years.

        All I’m saying is: don’t be complacent.

        • GregJ 5.1.3.1
          22 September 2015 at 7:34 pm

          All I’m saying is: don’t be complacent.

          QFT.

        • northshoredoc 5.1.3.2
          22 September 2015 at 7:54 pm

          Hi Tim

          I don’t think anyone is being complacent, however, having practised in NZ for quite a few decades I haven’t seen any great change in the overall health system in NZ regardless of whether the blue team or the red team is the government of the day.

          Re the NHS – from what i understand the ongoing restructuring and bureaucracy involved has turned a bit of a basket case into a potential shambles, although saying that the centres of excellence in the UK are still pretty impressive.

  6. save NZ 6
    22 September 2015 at 8:51 am

    And Lastly from the Pope

    Pope Francis will be visiting the US Sept. 23 – 27. In his encyclical, released June 18, 2015, the Pope called for “all sector[s] of society to take actions to protect the environment.” http://nyti.ms/1iY49SM
    Pope Francis Continues to Speak Out Against “Free Trade”
    “The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor.” http://cnn.it/1KoEbAX

  7. Tracey 7
    22 September 2015 at 9:41 am

    Today a story has broken about a charity trying to help people into homes up North. John Carter (Mayor of the Far north District) was interviewed on RNZ about it just after 8am. He called Internal Affairs “nuts” and mentioned he was on a “loopy rules committee.”

    And then, by some huge coincidence Paula Bennett releases the report of the very committee that John Carter (former national MP) was talking about…

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1509/S00364/rules-reduction-taskforce-report-released.htm

    “The members of the Taskforce also heard loud and clear that there are several myths about rules and regulations that don’t actually exist. This includes the misconception that lolly scrambles have been banned, and that people can’t use three-step ladders.

    “By breaking through this misinformation, New Zealanders will be better placed to focus on the serious rules designed to keep people safe and our economy growing.”

    I wonder what the report and taskforce cost?

    PS Thanks Weka for your comments above. Indeed there is a difference between identity and prejudice

  8. ianmac 8
    22 September 2015 at 9:45 am

    An interesting take on the deeper implications of the Cameron story and how the wielding of power structures work.
    “The PM, the Pig and musings on Power by Rob Fahey.
    “Initiation ceremonies or “hazing” rituals, often of a painful, humiliating, transgressive or sexual nature, are a well-documented part of the culture of many organisations run by and for young men, especially those from positions of privilege or in elite institutions. …. By committing transgressive acts together, members develop a sense of sharing in a mutual secret, thus instantly creating trust; by overcoming some humiliation or pain, new members deepen their commitment to the group, as their internal logic reasons that if they are willing to endure such an ordeal, it must mean that the group is important and deserving of loyalty (otherwise, they would have made a terrible mistake and gone through all of that suffering for nothing). ……”
    http://www.robfahey.co.uk/blog/the-pm-the-pig-and-musings-on-power/
    (I bet his mate Key will explain how to dodge the downsides of ridicule as he did with pony tails!)

  9. swordfish 9
    22 September 2015 at 10:09 am

    Right, so let me get this straight.

    We now have 5 consecutive TV Polls (Colmar Brunton / Reid Research) putting the Opposition Bloc on 50-52% and the Govt/Broad Right Bloc on 48-49%.

    Compared to Election Night:
    Oppo up around 7 points
    Broad Right down 5 points
    Lab+Greens up 7-8 points

    And a marked change compared to polls conducted during the first 8 months following the Sep 2014 Election.
    First 16 post-election Polls = Govt ahead in all but 2.
    Last 8 Polls = Oppo ahead in all but 2.

    Clearly, National’s support is only holding up because of the near-total collapse of the minor parties of the Right. Meaning it’s 47% is no longer enough to hold onto power.

    And yet, once again, (just like a couple of weeks ago with the last Colmar Brunton) the
    Dom Post summarises the latest Reid Research Poll findings as some sort of major triumph for National, The whole “defying gravity”/”as popular as ever”/”Key will be pleased”/”Good news for National” meme currently much favoured by the MSM.

    Sharp Dom Post readers with only a passing interest in politics may have become a little confused as they got towards the end of the item and noticed the almost-in-passing comment that according to this poll “New Zealand First would hold the balance of power”. They may well have thought to themselves: “Well, hang on a minute, they’re saying National’s as popular as ever and that the poll’s good news for both Key and the Nats and yet surely something must have changed since the last election for NZF to be in a position to hold the balance of power according to its poll support ? I don’t understand, something’s not quite right here.”

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      22 September 2015 at 10:44 am

      The not quite right bit is the journalists lying.

    • greywarshark 9.2
      22 September 2015 at 11:14 am

      Thanks Swordfish – your analysis is thorough and constant. Thanks for keeping us in touch with reality while we wend our way through the maze of mirrors.

    • ianmac 9.3
      22 September 2015 at 11:35 am

      Good work there Swordfish. The Key lot will be very aware of the realities and expect machinations agin the Left to increase.
      If the trend continues then won’t it be a surprise to many who only take a passing interest.

    • odysseus 9.4
      22 September 2015 at 1:07 pm

      But are you counting NZF as part of Oppo – if so, that is problematic surely?
      I mean , is it really so cut and dried that Winston won’t go with the Nats if push comes to shove?

      • Tracey 9.4.1
        22 September 2015 at 1:11 pm

        Sure BUT National is ruling now without NZF. These polls suggest they would NEED NZF, so they are, therefore, not as popular as pre election.

        • Puddleglum 9.4.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 2:47 pm

          Yep Tracey.

          That’s the crucial point I think swordfish was making – and another excellent comment and analysis, swordfish. Concise, clear and well-reasoned.

      • Sacha 9.4.2
        22 September 2015 at 6:32 pm

        Parties who do not have a support agreement of some sort with the government of the day are collectively the Opposition. As you note, that does not necessarily make them part of a future coalition, but then media can hardly just include them on the government’s side either, can they?

  10. Penny Bright 10
    22 September 2015 at 10:16 am

    Who is in Auckland today and can help?

    MEDIA ALERT!

    “Making history to help stop this John Key led National Government signing the TPPA!’

    Politicians understand ONE thing – VOTES!

    Nikki Kaye is a National Government Cabinet Minister – sitting on a 600 vote majority over Labour’s Jacinda Adern.

    https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2014-au6200

    “AUCKLAND CENTRAL

    Candidates Votes Received

    ARDERN, Jacinda 11894
    KAYE, Nikki 12494 ”

    Nikki Kaye is the Minister of Youth.

    TPPA – WALK AWAY! Auckland activists plan to collect 2000 signatures in 2 days outside Auckland University,
    TODAY Tuesday 22 September and TOMORROW Wednesday 23 September!
    TIME: From 12 noon to 5pm!

    WHERE: Petitions on clipboards (under a BIG beach umbrella will be available for signing outside Auckland University – corner of Symonds St / Grafton Rd!

    Petition wording:

    “To the MP for Auckland Central – Nikki Kaye

    We, the undersigned state:

    That if this John Key led National Government does not ‘walk away’ from the secretive, undemocratic. pro-corporate ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’ (TPPA), then we pledge to campaign vigorously amongst our friends, families, neighbours and workmates, for the voting public to walk away from National.”

    There will be banners / placards / street theatre!

    (We understand that PM John Key and Trade Minister Tim Groser may be making an appearance, as they did outside the Titirangi Golf Course on Friday 18 September 2015 – see photo 🙂

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11515195

    Signed petitions will be presented to Nikki Kaye’s Auckland Central Electorate Office – Thursday morning 24 September 2015.

    “The Trans Pacific Partnership deal is almost certain to be done and dusted in the next few weeks when chief negotiators and then Trade Ministers of the 12 countries meet in Atlanta, in the United States.”

    Where have we heard THAT one before?

    Wasn’t the TPPA supposed to have been ‘done and dusted’ ‘signed and sealed’ in Maui at the end of July 2015?

    It ain’t over till it’s over, and a week IS a long time in politics!

    Particularly given that the “Hearing of Legal Challenge to TPPA Secrecy set for Monday 28th September at Wellington High Court”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1509/S00277/legal-challenge-to-tppa-secrecy-set-for-28th-september.htm
    Hearing of Legal Challenge to TPPA Secrecy set for Monday 28th September at Wellington High Court

    The legal challenge to the secrecy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations will be heard in the High Court in Wellington at 10am next Monday, 28th September.

    The hearing coincides with the meeting of chief negotiators in Atlanta, USA prior to a ministerial meeting from 30 September to 2 October, which is being billed as their final meeting to conclude the deal. Those talks are once again being conducted under conditions of secrecy.

    The case involves judicial review of the blanket refusal by the Trade Minister Tim Groser to release eight categories of information sought by Professor Jane Kelsey of the University of Auckland under the Official Information Act.

    The request reflected information the European Union Ombudsman had just recommended for release in relation to parallel negotiations between the United States and the European Union.

    Other applicants include Consumer NZ, Ngati Kahungunu, Oxfam and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists. …”

    ___________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

  11. bearded git 11
    22 September 2015 at 10:30 am

    @swordfish the same trend is apparent in the msm’s reporting of the economy where all is sweetness and light despite growth heading below 2 per cent and the dollar plummeting

  13. veutoviper 13
    22 September 2015 at 12:23 pm

    An interesting list of questions in the House today for Question Time.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/?document=00HOH_OralQuestions

    Of the 12 allowed questions, six are exactly the same – ie To the PM “Does he stand by all his statements after almost seven years as PM?”

    Q1 and 4 – Little
    Q5 – Shaw
    Q7 – King
    Q9 – Kennedy Graham
    Q11 – Ardern

    And Q2 from Ron Mark to the PM is the usual wording – “Does he stand by all his statements?”

    Hardly coincidence, methinks …..

    • ianmac 13.1
      22 September 2015 at 12:35 pm

      OOps veuto. Snap

    • Gabby 13.2
      22 September 2015 at 6:56 pm

      Not sure that line of questioning works well on a psychopath. Still, maybe they’re building up video clips for electioneering attack ads.

      • marty mars 13.2.1
        22 September 2015 at 10:33 pm

        I watched those questions and they were useless in the extreme – key was all over them and using them as a way to poke fun and ridicule at the questioner. I have to say, and it sticks in my throat, that key outplayed any one of the many opposition questioners. It may be that we have to find a ‘better key’ to sort this one out – Lange for instance would have chewed him up but noone today looked even in the same league – key was smarmy, smartarsey and I wanted to spit at his jokey bullshit. Mr and Mrs kiwinobody would have fucken loved it.

  14. ianmac 14
    22 September 2015 at 12:33 pm

    That’s interesting. Question Time today has 7 identical questions to the PM, Two from Andrew, and the rest from Labour and Greens. Co-ordination?

    “ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements after almost seven years as Prime Minister?”

    Better find the Key claims?

  15. Chooky 15
    22 September 2015 at 1:02 pm

    On farming matters…why it is a bad idea for the New Zealand farmers’ cooperative Silver Fern Farms to sell out to the Chinese

    Rod Oram discusses the government’s rejection of Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for Lochinver Station and further aspects of Shanghai Maling’s proposal to take control of Silver Fern Farms.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201771603/business-commentator-rod-oram

    • Draco T Bastard 15.1
      22 September 2015 at 1:47 pm

      Short version: Foreign investment is bad for the country.

      • save NZ 15.1.1
        22 September 2015 at 2:12 pm

        I disagree, BAD foreign investment deals are bad for the country is the point he is making – not even that – there is a very unequal relationship in the 50:50 Silver Ferns farms deals. It is not really 50:50 as the balance of power is to Shanghai.

        • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 2:33 pm

          But there’s no such thing as good foreign investment. As he points out, there is almost no economic difference between a foreign investor operating a business or a NZer (in fact, it’s likely to be a NZer operating it anyway). The only difference is that the profit goes offshore and that is truly bad for the country.

    • save NZ 15.2
      22 September 2015 at 1:48 pm

      +100 very interesting and worth listening too. One to share.
      In particular the governments Ra Ra stance on Silver Fern farms not mentioning it is not an equal relationship of 50:50 as the Shanghai Maling gets to control the budget (and therefore strategic direction) and veto the CEO. Not only that as Rod points out, the benefits will almost certainly flow to the Chinese supermarkets where the higher profits are made, and in the short term they can cause damage to Alliance by having the funds to outbid and cripple them to reduce competition.

    • arkie 15.3
      22 September 2015 at 5:39 pm

      Rob Oram explains this very well.

  16. save NZ 16
    22 September 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Fresh after the leaky building fiasco after the National government ‘relaxed’ building permits to the private sector and let untreated timber be allowed under its BRANZ but somehow do not feel responsible for leaky buildings this little gem..

    Government propose to let builders sign off own work

    Yes, lets relax standards again, cos it worked so well last time! Lets not forget Pike river ‘relaxed standards’ and CTV buildings ‘relaxed standards’

    I really want Dodgy Nactz and A development chums (Penny Webster ex ACT) and Shanghai Central builders signing off their own work!

    Auckland already looks like a ghetto in many places, but we can make it so much worse!

    Wonder who will pay for the F up’s the rate payers and tax payers per chance?

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    22 September 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Local councils unfairly blamed for the cost of building consents: report

    A new report on rules and regulations suggests local councils have been unfairly blamed for the cost of building consents.

    Which is, of course, what anybody with half a brain has been saying for years if not decades.

    Instead the finger of blame is being pointed at central Government and the fees it gets from building levies.

    And I suspect that bit’s wrong too considering this:

    From 1 April 2005, the Levy will be $1.97 per $1,000 of building work for which there is a consent and will still only be collected on works valuedat $20,000 or more. This represents approximately 0.2 percent of building costs.

    To me it looks like an inquiry was set up to find an ideological answer and has done so:

    The door is ajar for letting builders sign off on the quality of their own work.

    The proposal is among recommendations released today by the Government’s rules reduction taskforce, which was set up to look at the rules and regulations causing frustration for taxpayers.

    The taskforce said self-certification should be encouraged for builders who meet set levels of qualification.

    All fucken codswallop that will make building quality even worse because we can guarantee that this government will implement those recommendations.

    • weka 17.1
      22 September 2015 at 2:17 pm

      That first link is very light on detail.

      • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1
        22 September 2015 at 2:30 pm

        Yeah, I noticed that. I went looking for the report but couldn’t actually find it. Perhaps it’s time we made it a mandatory aspect of journalism – reports to be linked.

        • weka 17.1.1.1
          22 September 2015 at 2:39 pm

          It’s odd they don’t already, although I guess they could just be cut and pasting from a sparse press release. Still, they could refuse to print it without access to the source material.

          • Puddleglum 17.1.1.1.1
            22 September 2015 at 3:00 pm

            Yes, I’ve often thought that if news organisations simply published the press release as the press release (as Scoop does transparently) rather than trying to claim it as a news story then that would be a ‘win-win’ – no criticism of journalistic effort and no confusion over how much was from a press release.

            Of course, then the actual number of news stories (i.e., articles that require journalistic effort to report accurately and informatively) might look a bit slim.

  18. James 18
    22 September 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Current national Party staffer, troll and black hat computer hacker Benjamin Guerin pirates Gibson Group’s Sensing Murder on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBMnwOsi50gkO7IFbg8QH3Q

  19. greywarshark 19
    22 September 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Get ready for a good lecture from Rod Oram.

    Rod Oram – “Follow the money” – the future of business journalism
    The feeble state of business journalism in New Zealand and around the world is but a subset of journalism’s general decline. To try to survive financially, many media organisations are increasingly blurring the distinction between journalism and advertising, devaluing both in the process. Yet, there has never been a more important time for business journalism.

    Profound change is sweeping through business and economics and the societies they help shape. Journalists should be trying to explain what’s happening – the good and the ill – for the benefit of participants and public alike.

    Wednesday 14 October, 6pm

    Maidment Theatre, 8 Alfred Street, The University of Auckland
    Doors open at 5.45pm, lecture starts at 6pm. The Maidment Bar will open from 5pm     http://www.brucejesson.com/?p=624

    also you can listen to Mike Joy’s 2014 lecture – Mike Joy delivered the 2014 Lecture entitled ‘Paradise Squandered; New Zealand’s Environmental Asset Stripping’. The full text is available on our web site.
    http://www.brucejesson.com/?p=527

    Bruce Jesson journalism award http://www.brucejesson.com/?p=586#comment-683

  20. Smilin 20
    22 September 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Keys position on the Islander fella claiming climate refugee status
    “Its a fucking joke” you can see Key laughing that thru the news interview
    I dont blame the guy for trying, look at Keys he’s a Hawaiian overstayer getting free money from the govt, none of us would be worse off if he wasnt here, in fact get him to ring me and I will tell him to fuck off .

  21. Smilin 21
    22 September 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Keys position on the Islander fella claiming climate refugee status
    “Its a fucking joke” you can see Key laughing that thru the news interview
    I dont blame the guy for trying, look at Keys he’s a Hawaiian overstayer getting free money from the govt, none of us would be worse off if he wasnt here, in fact get him to ring me and I will tell him to fuck off .

  22. weka 22
    22 September 2015 at 10:19 pm

    Following on from the conversation above re old white men,

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22092015/#comment-1073082

    Ok, I did a bit of digging. Here’s a snip from the letter to the Editor that vto refers to (I can’t access the whole thing without an account).

    It’s somewhat ironic that in Beck Eleven’s column on Saturday (Sept 19) she indulges in gender stereotyping to reinforce her otherwise well-made points on the moral imperatives for posi…

    http://www.pressreader.com/search?query=beck&newspapers=1272&in=ALL&date=Today

    This appears to be the column being referred to,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/72184859/beck-eleven-being-white-is-its-own-reward

    The only references to old white men are this (it’s worth reading in context),

    The best I can explain is recalling a tour through the Beehive where the walls are adorned by paintings of old white men with beards. They were the ones who decided the rules therefore they were the ones who got the step up in life.

    If that’s not a type of scholarship I don’t know what is.

    I’ll bet my bottom dollar that old white men with beards weren’t thinking about Maori or women’s rights because they were, unsurprisingly, thinking from their own perspective.

    I don’t see how this is gender stereoptyping (she is describing actual paintings of actual old white men with beards, although I guess she could be exaggerating for effect – maybe not all of them are old, maybe some are clean shaven). She is also describing actual people in positions of actual power and making a political point about their access to that power on the basis of their gender, race and age (but presumably not their facial hair).

    She then makes the point that they probably weren’t thinking about people who weren’t white and male and older, which I’ll admit is an exaggeration, but with a core of truth to it.

    Nowhere in there do I see belittling of older white men. This is why I think vto is confusing identity and prejudice. Prejudice would be something like ‘all old men are bigots’. Which might indeed be how vto interpreted it, but it’s not the only interpretation. Myself, I would see those men as having a mix of understandings about gender and race, but the shared element they have is their privilege, which is the point that Eleven was making. She’s not extrapolating to all old white men, she’s just using that particular group of old white men as an example of a group of people with privilege.

    I also don’t see the problem with calling old white men “old white men” when they patently are. Eleven talks about her experience of going to Te Matatini. Should she not describe most of the people there as Māori? Wouldn’t that just be weird?

    If Eleven has made repeated statements that she “doesn’t listen to old white men” as vto claims, I’d like to see links to the actual statements.