Open mike 23/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, April 23rd, 2014 - 186 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

186 comments on “Open mike 23/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. felix 1
    23 April 2014 at 7:08 am

    Questions for Pete George, assuming he has time to comment today:

    Pete said:

    “The aim is to raise people’s income by getting them into employment.”

    weka said

    That disqualifies you from having any opinion on beneficiaries until you answer the question: how many beneficiaries are not required to seek/gain employment?

    Then you will have to answer how many people are now required to see work, despite previously being exempt.

    Then come back and explain how those people are supposed to live. And why those people aren’t entitled to a livable income.

    Then explain why you think that beneficiaries are all unemployed.

    And then explain how unemployed beneficiaries are supposed to raise their income via employment when there aren’t enough jobs.

    Then, when youve done all that, retract your statement that NACT don’t keep people poor.

    Take your time, Pete. But please don’t go clogging up the threads any further until you’ve addressed these important questions.

    • Tracey 1.1
      23 April 2014 at 7:14 am

      hes pretending he doesnt know who he is going to vote for, so probably alot of time is being spent researching that.

      we should all help cos his fact checking…

    • Paul 1.2
      23 April 2014 at 7:24 am

      Like it.

    • David H 1.3
      23 April 2014 at 7:47 am

      Hell Felix I hope you are not holding your breath. Weka is still waiting for his answers, and his questions are about 4 days old. And don’t forget he is very busy checking facts for Politicheck.

    • Pete George 1.4
      23 April 2014 at 8:03 am

      I’ve taken my time and have posted a response – Answering weka’s questions.

      • marty mars 1.4.1
        23 April 2014 at 8:19 am

        Very tricky pete – I spose a few new pageviews can’t hurt eh.

        Q Then come back and explain how those people are supposed to live.

        A They live how they live. It’s very tough for many. Others find a way manage.

        To me that encapsulates the problem with asking you questions – the answer is, well, a nothing answer really.

        • Pete George 1.4.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:23 am

          And your proposed solution is?

          Perhaps weka can outline how he thinks an entitlement to a livable income could work, with examples of how similar policies have worked elsewhere in the world.

          • felix 1.4.1.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 8:26 am

            Or perhaps you could answer the questions directly, as put to you.

          • marty mars 1.4.1.1.2
            23 April 2014 at 8:42 am

            More rubbish eh pete – at least you’re recycling and reusing

          • Steve James 1.4.1.1.3
            23 April 2014 at 3:13 pm

            Hey Pete

            You make a lot of sense. It’s probably wasted on these people; they simply have too much hate to even try to understand and allow themselves to develop. Good on you for trying though 🙂

      • karol 1.4.2
        23 April 2014 at 8:19 am

        Why do we have to go to your blog, to see your answers to questions that were part of a discussion here?

        • karol 1.4.2.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:25 am

          PG’s answers:

          “Not sure how it can be avoided setting benefit levels statistically lower then people who are employed.”

          Benefits were cut by $20/wk in 1990. In the mid 80s the unemployment benefit was around the same rate as what school leavers were earning going into office jobs. We used to have relatively higher benefit rates then, why can’t we now?

          Cost. I presume there’s many more people on benefits now. At the end of March 2014: 295,320 working-age* people were receiving a main benefit. (MSD).

          And wanting to encourage people into paid employment.

          “I’m not sure than any of the larger parties are suggesting that should be substantially changed.”

          The GP want a UBI.

          Their Income Support Policy states “The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will: Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander”. They are interested in the concept (as I am) but don’t say they want one.

          The aim is to raise people’s income by getting them into employment.”

          That disqualifies you from having any opinion on beneficiaries until you answer the question: how many beneficiaries are not required to seek/gain employment?

          It doesn’t disqualify me from anything. I have already said that some people on benefits cannot seek employment. Both Labour and National governments want to encourage those who can seek employment to do so.

          I’ve also already said that if the number of people on benefits is substantially reduced then those who have to remain on benefits should be able to be provided for better.

          Then you will have to answer how many people are now required to see work, despite previously being exempt.

          I don’t have to do anything. I don’t know what point you are trying to make with this.

          Some current details are here at MSD.

          I think it’s reasonable to expect that those who are capable of working should be seeking paid employment and taking responsibility for their own welfare.

          I acknowledge that it can be very difficult finding work that people want with the pay they want. Some are more motivated than others. Some people have unrealistic expectations but for many there simply aren’t enough jobs.

          Then come back and explain how those people are supposed to live.

          They live how they live. It’s very tough for many. Others find a way manage.

          And why those people aren’t entitled to a livable income.

          You tell me why you think they should be entitled to a ‘livable income’.

          Ideally everyone should have an income that makes living not too much of a struggle. But expecting everyone should have comfortable style of living without having any money problems is fanciful and idealistic.

          Life can be hard work and bills can be difficult to manage, especially if you have children. We should strive for better and easier but it can never always be guaranteed or provided,

          Then explain why you think that beneficiaries are all unemployed.

          They’re not, some are partly employed. There’s a range of reasons why beneficiaries could be unemployed, including circumstance, health, choice, lack of alternatives and a shortage of jobs.

          And then explain how unemployed beneficiaries are supposed to raise their income via employment when there aren’t enough jobs.

          Some can supplement their benefit. Some could be more flexible in what work they seek and where they seek it (that’s difficult for many). And there are not enough jobs for many. That’s one thing benefits are designed to assist with.

          Then, when youve done all that, retract your statement that NACT don’t keep people poor.

          You’ll have to be more specific, I’ve made a number of comments related to that.

          I don’t believe that in general National (or Act) want to “keep people poor”. The effect of Government policies (Labour and National) may be that some people stay poor, but I question whether any MP wants to ‘keep people poor’.

          All parties propose economic growth with the intention of improving incomes and increasing the number of jobs.

          “I presume you know that if the minimum wage was raised by 50% and work was provided for anyone who wants it then we’d still have the same number of people under the statistical poverty line.”

          What everyone else just said. Plus, you’re a dick. If the people at the bottom end of the scale have enough to live on, then poverty stops being an issue irrespective of the statistics.

          But waving a money wand and waving a job wand aren’t realistic options.

          Can you show any country in the world where giving everyone “enough to live on” has succeeded over a period of years or decades.

          Poverty is a problem that needs to be addressed as well as possible, but Government giving substantially more money to people with productive work being an unpressured option is unlikely to succeed if history and current world conditions are anything to go on.

          But perhaps weka can outline how he thinks an entitlement to a livable income could work, with examples of how similar policies have worked elsewhere.

          • Te Reo Putake 1.4.2.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 8:47 am

            Thanks, Karol. The answers show Pete to be just another empathy free Tory, the method of answering shows him to be a desperate link whore.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.4.2.1.2
            23 April 2014 at 8:54 am

            Cost. I presume there’s many more people on benefits now.

            There’s also more people working so that doesn’t work.

            Both Labour and National governments want to encourage those who can seek employment to do so.
            I think it’s reasonable to expect that those who are capable of working should be seeking paid employment and taking responsibility for their own welfare.

            Which is the wrong way of looking at these things as it requires that there be employers first. What we should be doing is encouraging and supporting people to create their own work either as individuals or as cooperatives. This, of course, is where a UBI really shines and why a lot of people in power will reject it as it removes the force of poverty.

            Life can be hard work and bills can be difficult to manage, especially if you have children. We should strive for better and easier but it can never always be guaranteed or provided,

            Actually PG, it can be provided – as soon as we get rid of the rich and move to a stable state economy.

            I don’t believe that in general National (or Act) want to “keep people poor”. The effect of Government policies (Labour and National) may be that some people stay poor, but I question whether any MP wants to ‘keep people poor’.

            National and Act do as it’s the force of poverty that ensures that people will work for them and thus make them richer without them actually having to create any wealth. I specifically remember that when National lowered the UB it was so that the low minimum wage was seen as being better than staying on the dole. Labour probably don’t but their support for capitalism will ensure that they do.

            All parties propose economic growth with the intention of improving incomes and increasing the number of jobs.

            As we should all know by now is a) physically impossible and b) hasn’t worked anytime in the past.

        • Pete George 1.4.2.2
          23 April 2014 at 8:47 am

          “Why do we have to go to your blog, to see your answers to questions that were part of a discussion here?”

          You don’t have to go anywhere, it’s your choice.

          The discussions and questions were all over the place here in a variety of threads. It can get very messy and difficult to follow. I was being asked to respond in many places. It was easier to collate it in a single post at a single point. And it’s a good point of reference and library, that’s what I often use my blog for.

          I don’t mind that you copied and posted the full post here, I’ve heard it’s not the done thing but I hope the moderators cut you a bit of slack on this.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.2.2.1
            23 April 2014 at 8:55 am

            🙄

            Shorter Petty George: “Me, me, me, me, me.”

          • freedom 1.4.2.2.2
            23 April 2014 at 8:58 am

            dear Pete, why was presenting it here as a Guest Post not an option?

          • karol 1.4.2.2.3
            23 April 2014 at 9:01 am

            Thanks for drafting some answers.

          • felix 1.4.2.2.4
            23 April 2014 at 6:35 pm

            “The discussions and questions were all over the place here in a variety of threads. It can get very messy and difficult to follow. I was being asked to respond in many places. It was easier to collate it in a single post at a single point. “

            Uh huh. Of course you could have just answered the questions as directed to you, and no-one would have reposted them for days and days in different places as they chased your dishonest ass around the site while you pretended not to notice them, Mr ‘far too busy to respond to this but plenty of time to post that.

            🙄

      • freedom 1.4.3
        23 April 2014 at 8:19 am

        weka: And then explain how unemployed beneficiaries are supposed to raise their income via employment when there aren’t enough jobs.

        Pete: “Some can supplement their benefit”

        yeah, how exactly does that work Pete? Those on a Jobseeker benefit can only earn $80 a week gross, before they are then taxed at 70c in the dollar.

        When existing on a Jobseeker benefit, being able to work a whole six hours a week does not really change a person’s circumstance and it still leaves that rather large issue of there not being enough jobs in the first place.

        Now you have responded to weka’s questions, (it cannot be said you have really answered anything) will you be starting work on your budget for poor people?

        • David H 1.4.3.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:25 am

          To say nothing of the other entitlements get cut toot suite as well, like the Accommodation benefit.

          • weka 1.4.3.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 9:27 am

            In addition, people with assets other than their home over $8,000 are not eligible for Accommodation Supplement. Which means that the govt expects people to sell assets and use their savings before they get adequate benefit. That’s fine for people that are short term unemployed and go into a job that pays well enough for them to start saving again, but for anyone cycling on and off the benefit/temp or casual jobs that isn’t possible. It’s also not possible for people on sickness/invalids or DPB, which are all long term benefits. This is another way in which people are made more poor by state policy.

      • miravox 1.4.4
        23 April 2014 at 8:20 am

        Would you post a summary here please?

        • freedom 1.4.4.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:34 am

          Weka: a valid question

          Pete George: womble wimble wamble

          Weka: a valid question

          Pete George: wimble wamble womble

          Weka: a valid question

          Pete George: wamble womble wimble

          Weka: a valid question

          Pete George: womble wimble wamble

          etc etc etc

      • felix 1.4.5
        23 April 2014 at 8:21 am

        No Pete, your “answers” consist largely of “I don’t have to answer that, I’d rather talk about (x) instead”.

        There is a logic sequence at play in weka’s questions, Pete. It’s not a buffet, it’s “if, then, so”.

        If you can’t answer the “if” and “then”, you don’t get to make up a “so”.

        If you don’t understand this you should step down as Factmaster General immediately, it’s really basic stuff.

        • freedom 1.4.5.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:30 am

          +1

        • Pete George 1.4.5.2
          23 April 2014 at 8:43 am

          The fact is that you and weka et al don’t have a viable alternative, or at least you don’t have one that you’re prepared to give details of or evidence that it has worked elsewhere.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.5.2.1
            23 April 2014 at 8:52 am

            🙄

            No viable alternative.

            What an asshole.

            • Pete George 1.4.5.2.1.1
              23 April 2014 at 8:57 am

              Why has no New Zealand political party detailed a UBI in their policy?

              Where is evidence of a UBI being applied and maintained and being successful?

              • freedom …
                23 April 2014 at 9:01 am

                Do you understand that is not how change is forged?

                With folk like you around, always waiting to see what someone else did first, women would never have gotten the vote. Weasel around that one Pete!

                • Pete George …
                  23 April 2014 at 9:13 am

                  Generally change like that is forged in Parliament via party policies and bills and majority votes. I would support Greens if they tried to push their investigation of a UBI but I don’t know if they would get sufficient support where it counted.

                  The only thing from Labour that comes close is in this post from Stuart Nash:

                  Announce, set up and drive forward a Tax Commission with a mandate to undertake a complete overhaul of the NZ tax system without the constraints of the last one (where a whole raft of measures, including a capital gains, were off the table).

                  http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/21/labours-first-100-days-where-the-messaging-needs-to-be/

                  But there’s no indication that’s close to Labour policy and there’s nothing on it that I can find on their website.

                  If you have an alternate realistic way of forging on this I’m interested to find out.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    23 April 2014 at 12:13 pm

                    Generally change like that is forged in Parliament via party policies and bills and majority votes.

                    In the case of women getting the vote it was driven by the populace – not the MPs. This can be said of many policies throughout our history.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                23 April 2014 at 9:05 am

                Petty George, if you read the UBI posts and comments here you’d already have the solution to your ignorance of this matter. Google is your friend, asshole. I’m not doing your research for you.

              • karol …
                23 April 2014 at 9:11 am

                It was tried for a few years in Canada.

                It showed some positive outcomes, and very few negative ones.

                It has never been tried long term because there is not the political will by those with power. ie for the very reasons given by some here as to why those with power want to keep people on benefit levels that keep them at subsistence levels or below.

                Why do you keep asking new questions without actually engaging with the debate?

                The Green Party have as policy, for the UBI to be looked at in depth.

                Universal Basic Income (UBI)

                The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will:

                Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander.

                Why is your mind closed to new policy initiatives?

                • Pete George …
                  23 April 2014 at 9:16 am

                  I’ve said a number of times (including on this thread today) that I’m open to the concept of a UBI – and to a major restructuring and simplification of our tax and social welfare systems and I would support this if Greens pushed for it to be investigated.

                  That Greens promote an investigation only suggests it would be complex, a challenge to find out the best way of doing it and possibly difficult to achieve.

                  I quoted the same as you have here in my post (that you copy/pasted).

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    23 April 2014 at 9:18 am

                    Newsflash, dipshit, your “support” amounts to a party vote and an electorate vote. Which will you give to The Greens?

                    Or were you talking about your inconsequential dribbling? That isn’t supportive.

                    • Pete George …
                      23 April 2014 at 9:28 am

                      There’s other ways of supporting political initiatives other than the election. I’m working with Greens on something of mutual interest at the moment.

                      By the way, your abusive nature doesn’t help your message.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      23 April 2014 at 9:32 am

                      He’s lecturing me on how to express naked hostility and contempt now.

                    • bad12 …
                      23 April 2014 at 9:49 am

                      NOOoooooooo, now George wants to pollute the Green Party with his total transparency,

                      Spill this little something you are working with ‘the greens’ on George or it can only be taken by your recent trail of comments covering a week that you are now attempting an ‘over-coat’ change, flailing round for support from the Greens who regularly appear at the Standard,

                      The thought of Petty as a Green makes me automatically do this, 🙄 , 🙄 ,and this, 🙄 …

                    • freedom …
                      23 April 2014 at 9:52 am

                      ” I’m working with Greens on something of mutual interest at the moment.”

                      Can anyone from The Greens confirm this?
                      Don’t need details, just confirmation your statement is factual.

                    • freedom …
                      23 April 2014 at 11:40 am

                      Pete George: ” I’m working with Greens on something of mutual interest at the moment”

                      fyi, I have emailed The Greens office asking for comment/confirmation on this rather weighty statement you made earlier today.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    23 April 2014 at 10:10 am

                    That Greens promote an investigation only suggests it would be complex, a challenge to find out the best way of doing it and possibly difficult to achieve.

                    It is neither complex nor difficult to do. The problem is that the politicians do as they’re told by the business community and the business community don’t want it.

                    • Rogue Trooper …
                      23 April 2014 at 11:06 am

                      Herbert Macuse, the most widely known member of the Frankfurt School, mainly German neo-Marxists who fled the Nzs, many settling eventually in the US argued in One Dimensional Man (1964) that advanced industrial society has developed a ‘totalitarian’ character in the capacity of it’s ideology to manipulate thought and deny expression to oppositional views; or, in other words Consent is Manufactured -Chomsky.
                      By manufacturing false needs and turning humans into voracious consumers, modern societies are able to paralyse criticism through the spread of comparatively stultifying affluence. According to Marcuse, even the apparent tolerance of liberal capitalism serves a repressive purpose, in that it creates the impression of free debate and argument, thereby concealing the extent to which indoctrination and ideological control occur.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      23 April 2014 at 12:17 pm

                      I think I could probably agree with that. It’s similar to what The Century of the Self said.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                23 April 2014 at 9:40 am

                Why has no New Zealand political party detailed a UBI in their policy?

                Because either they’re really stupid and/or support the application of the Force of Poverty.

                Where is evidence of a UBI being applied and maintained and being successful?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

                And why is it that you RWNJs always insist that it has to have been tried before and been successful? We need change and change, more often than not, means doing something that hasn’t been done before.

                • Pete George …
                  23 April 2014 at 9:45 am

                  I don’t insist (but I’m not a RWNJ). But it helps to have seen how something might work elsewhere.

                  I agree though that sometimes change requires doing something that hasn’t been done before. That has greater risks of unintended and unwelcome consequences. I guess that’s why Greens call for an investigation rather than push a specific policy on it.

                  • bad12 …
                    23 April 2014 at 9:55 am

                    Most here George will agree on the abbreviated NJ, just where you fit in the political spectrum seems to depend on whichever way the wind blows…

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    23 April 2014 at 9:58 am

                    I don’t insist (but I’m not a RWNJ).

                    The nature of your question shows that a) yes you do and that b) yes you are.

              • McFlock …
                23 April 2014 at 1:47 pm

                So “viable alternatives” are only those that are party policies or those that have been done before?

                But wait, apparently even though dignified benefit levels have been done before, they can’t be done now because of “cost”.

                What about green party policy of income support, which includes investigating a UBI – do you think a UBI should be investigated?

                At the moment it seems you have an incredibly closed mind. Even though you pretend to embrace other points of view, you find contradictory excuses to discount anything that helps the poor, or anything that seeks to control alcohol and gambling, or anything that will take power from the rich.

                • Pete George …
                  23 April 2014 at 2:05 pm

                  What about green party policy of income support, which includes investigating a UBI – do you think a UBI should be investigated?

                  At the moment it seems you have an incredibly closed mind.

                  It seems you have incredibly closed eyes. I’ve commented on the Greens and UBI several times here plus in the original post.

                  • McFlock …
                    23 April 2014 at 2:15 pm

                    Yeah, your waffle does tend to merge onto a morass of grey.

                    So we can’t afford to pay decent benefit levels, but we might be able to afford a decent UBI?

                    You do realise that the UBI will be by definition bigger than humane benefit levels…

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    23 April 2014 at 3:56 pm

                    Quentin Todd at yournz:

                    FYI: I am on an Invalids Benefit – and hate it

                    I get $159.29 in hand after rent is paid. It’s really hard to keep up paying for monthly bills and with food costs rising every other day. My rent may rise from $210 to About $220-230pw the accommodation supplement is only $65 that means I will have to use $20-30 out of the $159.29

                    The recent cost of living adjustment I got was only $2.89. Oh! Forgot to mention I owe WINZ $20pw.

                    So for all the noise over benefits is mere electioneering. I will see what actually happens when reality sinks in for those who think they know all about benefits.

                    Just passing this on.

          • tc 1.4.5.2.2
            23 April 2014 at 9:01 am

            The fact is you’re a troll who attempts to derail threads with waffle.

            You’d make a great nact MP PG you’ve got the art of tory BS and diversion down pat, and as TRP states ‘…just another empathy free Tory’

          • vto 1.4.5.2.3
            23 April 2014 at 9:12 am

            Pete you need to get hold of the bigger picture first, before diving blindfolded into the detail. I suspect that is half the problem for you. You simply do not have a big picture of how you see society should function – you simply bounce here and flounce here and wonder this and wander that. It is no wonder that others tire and get frustrated at your bouncing flouncing wondering and wandering.

            For mine own big picture I picture a small village….
            In that small village all people conspire to create a good shelter for each village member to inhabit and good food for each to live on. This is done, as it always had been in most all of human past, in a cooperative manner (you know, like NZ’s biggest businesses do). This then ensures that each person is provided for and healthy, and hence the entire village is at its peak strength, or rather, without any structural weakness by way of a weak link. This is the base, the starting point, the main foundation stone ……

            For Nact types their big picture is nothing like this and their thinking is to be deplored… For Nact types it is every member for himself…. …. Imagine a small village where every member is for himself Pete. Imagine it if you can ….. it is like NZ today …. no wonder our foundation stones are failing …. the basis of human existence is undermined and non-existent.

            • Pete George 1.4.5.2.3.1
              23 April 2014 at 9:25 am

              vto – I agree with your small village ideal. I grew up in a rural/village environment.

              But even small villages have practical problems in real life. And the larger villages/towns/cities get the greater the chance of problems and the greater the problems.

              There are some attempts being made to get village thinking into cities but it’s challenging, especially in a modern society that’s very mobile and very connected communications often over large distances.

              A good place to practice the village way and to spread the ideal by example would be on a blog like this, wouldn’t it? Where are differences are accepted and respected, and debated with decency?

              • freedom …
                23 April 2014 at 9:44 am

                “But even small villages have practical problems in real life. And the larger villages/towns/cities get the greater the chance of problems and the greater the problems.”

                whooooosh
                and yet again, vto’s point sails over Pete George’s head

          • freedom 1.4.5.2.4
            23 April 2014 at 10:52 am

            it’s called a Robin Hood tax (or use any of the alternate titles that are out there)

            Every transaction is taxed
            no if buts or maybes
            no exemptions
            no outs
            no hidey holes

            Simply put, you tax turnover, not profits.

            You want a UBI you pay a very small % tax on every thing you do. Something in the region of 0.1% would suffice. Be it buying a loaf of bread, paying a rates bill, trading a fortune in currency bonds or mining a national forest park. Want to write off a few hundred million in assets so your profit isn’t so high… you pay the tax first.

            Simply put, you tax turnover, not just profits.

            It is administered as the principal tax before any existing tax processes are enacted. I.e: before any other tax is accounted for or paid. The very small % tax is then directed solely into a UBI fund. You only have to look at the Cullen Fund for an example of how much money these funds can generate once established.

            Once adopted, the UBI Tax is collected for a full year to establish a base fund, before being released as a UBI of approximately $15k per person per year.

            Yes it is an additional tax to p.a.y.e.
            yes it is an additional tax to g.s.t.
            yes it is an additional tax to kiwisaver.
            But, at its most basic level it means that Corporations and Trusts cannot hide their vast sums behind an accountants’ wizardry. Simply put, you tax turnover, not just profits.

            Just think how much the Casino and Lotto scams will deliver to the coffers every year.
            Then consider the banks and the currency traders. The very industries that will argue most strongly against this idea are the same industries that are the most risky to our economy in the first place. IMHO, The money traders, the stock markets, the bankers will hate it and their consequent reduction in risky or unnecessary activity could translate to a more stable and sustainable economy. We try something new or we continue the cycles of deprivation and bailouts that have peppered the last thirty years.

            Is this all an overly simplistic explanation of an incredibly complex issue? Absolutely!
            Do I claim to be an expert, not at all, but I am a person who can state honestly that I put ideas on the table, not excuses.

            To build something new Pete, you have to do that one thing you seem incapable of …
            you have to take an honest step forward into unknown territory.

            • Rogue Trooper 1.4.5.2.4.1
              23 April 2014 at 11:14 am

              was a worthy read imo freedom.

            • Lanthanide 1.4.5.2.4.2
              23 April 2014 at 11:56 am

              Yes, but how much money will a 0.1% tax actually generate?

              • freedom …
                23 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

                more than not having one generates 🙂

                all funnies aside Lanthanide, many many billions are lost to this country every year as money is siphoned out of our economy, not declared as profit, written off as devalued assets, swapped between trusts and generally just fiddled with to keep taxes as low as possible. This has to be addressed.

                To be clear, my actual preference would be a Robin Hood tax of closer to 1%

                Obviously 15k per person, even in a small population like NZ is a huge amount of cash for the Government to pay out. An alternative to receiving a UBI payment is maybe those who are employed choose to receive it as a tax free allowance, so the first 15k of income tax is forgiven. That is the first 15k of tax due, not 15k of income. That way those earning well don’t have any reason to bludgeon those receiving the UBI payment directly. The Robin Hood tax would still apply to all transactions, as would income tax on those receiving the UBI.

                I think somewhere in there is a workable solution to the problem, but I am not an expert and if all I have done is supplied some giggles to economists then fine, but all I know is what the experts keep doing does not seem to be working.

            • phillip ure 1.4.5.2.4.3
              23 April 2014 at 12:43 pm

              @ freedom..

              ..+ 1..

    • Not a PS Staffer 1.5
      23 April 2014 at 9:55 am

      🙄

  2. Tracey 2
    23 April 2014 at 7:10 am

    well done shane

    youve let national get collins off the hook.

    all the righties who are posting how much this will damage labour and who agree with much of what jones has said… think about those 2 things and how they might be a contradiction.

    I vote green so it doesnt hurt mt preference.

    maybe one day labour will wake up and remember this nation doesnt need national lite.

    • Paul 2.1
      23 April 2014 at 7:24 am

      Too many Labour MPs are still wedded ot the 80s

    • David H 2.2
      23 April 2014 at 7:54 am

      Now if only he would Take bloody Mallard with him as a gofer.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1
        23 April 2014 at 10:13 am

        +1

      • phillip ure 2.2.2
        23 April 2014 at 12:47 pm

        i wd prefer goff to go..

        ..esp since finding out he was on that cosy little pacific islands tour with mccully/jones..

        ..where/when mccully made his first offer to jones..

        ..mccully..jones..goff..

        ..all singing from the same neo-lib song-sheet…

        ..there is yr grand-coalition between nats/lab already in action..

        ..you can barely slide a cigarette paper between the neo-lib/right in labour..

        ..and the nacts..

  3. amirite 3
    23 April 2014 at 7:28 am

    The timing of Jones leaving could not be worse. Had he left 6 months ago or waited up until after the election, it would be less suspicious. This was timed so he can inflict maximum damage to Labour’s election chances this year. I can only imagine a field day the Nats will have in Parliament at question time, every answer will contain a jibe about Jones and the Labour Party in disarray. And the media, talkback radio etc…
    With MPs like Jones, Labour doesn’t need enemies.

    • vto 3.1
      23 April 2014 at 7:33 am

      Agree. A very poor showing by Jones. Acting in bad faith is what is exposed by his actions, timing and the like.

      A man to be very wary of. Not to be trusted.

    • karol 3.2
      23 April 2014 at 7:36 am

      I caught Kelvin Davis phone interview on First Line this morning.

      It was a confident and assured performance, and making it look like he will hit the ground running, making for a smooth transition.

      Jones resigning nearer the election would have been worse. It’s also fortunate that Davis is next in line – did he say he would be leading the Maori caucus?

    • Draco T Bastard 3.3
      23 April 2014 at 10:16 am

      This was timed so he can inflict maximum damage to Labour’s election chances this year.

      If so then I think it’s going to backfire on whomever planned it. It’s been widely accepted for a long time that Jones was more National aligned than Labour.

      • idlegus 3.3.1
        23 April 2014 at 11:03 am

        & also generally accepted that kelvin davis is a very able & intelligent & talented guy, this could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for labour (or at least i hope someone is spinning it hard as such). watch out hone is all i can say (& im a mana supporter).

  5. felix 5
    23 April 2014 at 7:38 am

    Just heard rnz person Jane Patterson saying, in the same breath, that:

    a) Labour is too much about gays and unions, and
    b) Labour is not enough about blue collar workers.

    Who the fuck do these people think unions are?

  6. Ad 6
    23 April 2014 at 7:38 am

    When is Cunliffe’s next big speech, and can we finally have one about the economy please?

    And ideally do it on the day Jones leaves?

    And can we have some memorable lines, some actual passion, and some fries with that?

    Get back on the horse Cunliffe. Ain’t no other PM I want.

  7. phillip ure 7
    23 April 2014 at 7:50 am

    five minutes from now it’ll be ‘shane who?’…

    ..the supermarket-duopoly issue isn’t shane jones..

    ..it’s the supermarket duopoly issue..

    ..and his achievements in those nine years..?

    ..waiting..waiting…

    ..he will get a footnote as man in wrong party..

    (national or nz first are his natural homes..)

    ..who serially over-promised/under-delivered..

    ..and had the laziest man in parliament award in his pocket most years..

    ..(as noted elsewhere he has been spokesperson for maori affairs since the death of parekura horomia..

    ..and who knew..?..eh..?..)

    ..his leadership tilt was a (tory/oil-company-funded) rightwing spoiling action..

    ..and was a joke…

    ..and it will be his auto-eroticism/laziness/disruption that will mark any memories..

    ..as he sprays his way out the door..

  8. RedLogix 8
    23 April 2014 at 7:54 am

    Just don’t buy into their framing of this.

    Jones is just one man – and Labour is a lot bigger than anyone one person. (Unlike National who would be nothing without Key at the moment.)

    Jones has every right to determine his own future. He’s given a lot of time and energy to the Party for many years and he deserves credit and thanks for that. But commitment comes with a price, and he’s looked at the where he stands and made his choice to leave with dignity.

    It’s still some months out from the election and while it would have been better to have timed it sooner; perhaps that was beyond his control. And of course you cannot help but ponder the Machiavellian role McCully may well have played here. It would have been way worse for Labour and Jones to have slogged through an election when his heart was not in it.

    As for the ‘party in disarray and shock’ nonsense – just treat it with the utter contempt it deserves. Sure there will be some people who are surprised, some disappointed, and someone is bound to say something stupid – that is the nature of politics everywhere.

    Never ever give away your power to your enemy.

    • felix 8.1
      23 April 2014 at 8:00 am

      “And of course you cannot help but ponder the Machiavellian role McCully may well have played here.”

      True. We know what he was offered to leave. We don’t know what he was threatened with should he stay.

    • karol 8.2
      23 April 2014 at 8:12 am

      Checkpoint last night (after the 6pm TV news). So much for some of the Stuff and NZ Herald claims about no one from Labour being available for comment immediately after the TV announcements of Jones plan to resign.

      Coatsworth was interviewed and said Jones had told her a while back that he was contemplating leaving. He told her his decision earlier yesterday. And, there’s also an interview with Matthew Hooton, in which he apparently claims Jones had been talking to him off the record for a while – saying he was unhappy with Labour.

      Labour is better off without such a Nat Trojan Horse in their midst. And, actually, Labour were all on message pretty quickly last night. Cunliffe on the Henry show, Coatsworth etc… and then this morning, Kelvin Davis doing itnerviews – all wishing Jones well, praising his time in parliament, and looking forward to Davis’s contribution.

      The MSM shows whose sidethey are really on with the way they are spinning it.

      • fambo 8.2.1
        23 April 2014 at 8:28 am

        Excellent interview with Mary Wilson. She’s so sharp. Makes me wonder when National will try and push her out of Radio NZ

      • Tigger 8.2.2
        23 April 2014 at 8:29 am

        Jones was ‘colourful’. That’s it. Every gain he made is outweighed by his blunders (FFA, he paid for porn with taxpayer money!). The redneck men he appealed to wouldn’t vote Labour anyway. And let’s face it, Davis is both capable and likeable. If Jones is a loss he’s not the fatal one the MSM claim.

        • RedLogix 8.2.2.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:39 am

          (FFA, he paid for porn with taxpayer money!)

          Again that’s just buying into their spin. FFS it was all of $20 that was automatically plonked on a credit card hotel bill and Jones had reimbursed back in the normal course of events. It was never anyone’s business but his own.

          There are way worse things that people do than watch a few tits and bums on tele.

          I really get fucked off by the way so many people get obsessed over piffling panty-sniffing distractions – while oblivious to the main event.

          • Colonial Viper 8.2.2.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 8:42 am

            Yep. Jones’ too friendly corporate dealings are of far, far more concern. But people get predictably outraged about the scandalous BS and the MSM are masters of manipulating to that exact principle.

          • Molly 8.2.2.1.2
            23 April 2014 at 9:26 am

            Agree.

            The video service was a legal one offered by the hotel, and as it had been reimbursed is a story propelled by the sort of sniggering associated with prepubescent schoolboys. Apologies to all the non-sniggering teenagers out there…

            (Porn-watching is not appealing to me as a voter, but think his corporate associations and right-wing views were much more scandalous)

          • Ergo Robertina 8.2.2.1.3
            23 April 2014 at 7:26 pm

            ‘It was never anyone’s business but his own.’

            I disagree. Watching and funding pornography that degrades and demeans women is behaviour that does not exist in isolation.
            That he initially used public money to fund this industry underlines his arrogance, sense of entitlement, lack of boundaries, respect, and empathy. It’s not the only thing, but it’s still relevant.

      • Ant 8.2.3
        23 April 2014 at 9:19 am

        Where are the reports about David Cunliffe saying that Jones leaving is “all National’s fault” coming from, I’ve heard this repeated all morning on RNZ but they aren’t citing a source at all.

      • Rodel 8.2.4
        23 April 2014 at 4:35 pm

        Hooton’s radionz attempt to pretend that Jones ‘ leaving is bad news for Cunliffe is so 12 year old logic that it’s laughable.
        But unfortunately it will resonate with some voters who have also the same age level logic as Hooton.
        Jones is resigning one job to take up another.
        People do it all the time. Linda Clark has just done it.
        Some media commentators have just changed jobs.
        What’s the big deal?

    • Tinfoilhat 8.3
      23 April 2014 at 8:20 am

      Really ?

      Labour is bigger than just one person? So why has it been an omni shambles since Helen left?

      The only parties that aren’t bigger than just one person are The Greens and possibly the Maori party.

      • felix 8.3.1
        23 April 2014 at 8:24 am

        lol yeah the maori party is two people.

        • Tinfoilhat 8.3.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 8:34 am

          Yes it will be interesting to see if they survive with pita and tariana.

          Will you come over to the greens or will you stay labour till the bitter end?

          • felix 8.3.1.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 6:50 pm

            You mean me? lol I think I might have candidate-voted Labour once. Maybe.

            • tinfoilhat 8.3.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2014 at 8:55 pm

              Oh that surprises me.

              I thought with all the support you give to labour on this site you’d be a labour man for sure. Who do you think you’ll back at election time ?

              [lprent: He does? When? How could I have missed it in the tens of thousand plus comments left by felix?
              You are quite mistaken. ]

              • felix …
                23 April 2014 at 9:08 pm

                Probably Green unless they do anything really annoying before September. No promises, but 😉

    • miravox 8.4
      23 April 2014 at 8:28 am

      +1 to all of that RL.

      • RedLogix 8.4.1
        23 April 2014 at 8:43 am

        BTW mira – great atavar.

        I always did think the Hundertwasser design was by far the best choice.

        • miravox 8.4.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 9:10 am

          Ta RL – I’ve always liked it too, and it’s of special significance to me right now as a link between my home and (temporarily) adopted countries.

    • David H 8.5
      23 April 2014 at 8:43 am

      And Gower this morning as usual blowing it up out of all proportion saying it’s a hugfe conspiricy by McCully Jones and the Nats. Usual Story (bullshit) from Gower.

      • Roflcopter 8.5.1
        23 April 2014 at 9:15 am

        That’s funny, a good proportion of posters on this blog site are saying the same thing… oh wait, it’s different when the media do it.

    • ffloyd 8.6
      23 April 2014 at 7:04 pm

      Absolutely agree RL. Not to sure of Jones leaving with dignity having must heard him on tv3 saying that Labour was full of geldings. Nice,not. However I do think that Labour should just stick to its’ knitting and keep a dignified silence on the media beat-up. There is nothing for them to answer to. National however may have to answer to public perception as to how ethical they are. Which is not at all. Keys comment that Shane Jones will be a welcome assert to national said it all. He needs to watch his tongue, he will trip over it one day. Also if Labour refuses to participate in keys particularly spiteful, nasty dialogues it will drive him nuts. If he hasn’t got a participating opponent he has nothing.

  9. Saarbo 9
    23 April 2014 at 7:54 am

    Enough of Shane Jones, MSM are very upset, I wonder why? Their main inside source is moving on, moving onto to a National Party inspired job, wankers unite, good riddance.

    Anyway, is there anyone else out there who feel like slitting their wrists when listening to RNZ new breakfast pair… Im struggling to listen to them without falling back to sleep….

    • Chooky 9.1
      23 April 2014 at 9:00 am

      +100…bring back Geoff Robinson and get rid of that soft spoken toadie

      • Rogue Trooper 9.1.1
        23 April 2014 at 11:22 am

        Geoff Robinson has retired. Personally, I just catch the Midday report and Checkpoint; too much media noise makes for a grumpy, saturated rogue.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    23 April 2014 at 8:38 am

    It’s interesting listening to the news on the radio this morning – they’re all implying that Shane Jones leaving Labour has weakened Labour. This is, of course, BS. National must be concerned about Labour losing its biggest footnmouth.

    • bad12 10.1
      23 April 2014 at 9:33 am

      There’s also the underlying theme being pushed by the media that Jones has strong support within the ‘blue collar working class’,

      Such a media driven picture of Jones is essentially an interview with either their mirrors or computer screens,

      Jones most 3 most famous moments:

      Being a Porn watching wanker,(possibly in both senses of the word),

      Thinking He could become leader of the Labour Party and coming third in the contest,

      Announcing His departure from politics,

      From here in the heart of blue collar territory i can only say Jones is being applauded for the latter of His famous moments…

  11. Chooky 11
    23 April 2014 at 8:52 am

    Internet freedom being threatened in censorship plan in TPP( I guess this is no news to many here but just in case)

    “We know from leaked documents that this secretive plan will censor your use of the Internet and strip away your rights…If finalized, this plan would force ISPs to act as “Internet Police” monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites”

    https://stopthesecrecy.net/?src=156144

    Free open internet is essential for Democracy

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      23 April 2014 at 10:50 am

      The TPP is nothing more than the politicians giving even more power to the global corporates so that they can stick their teeth even further into our necks.

  12. millsy 12
    23 April 2014 at 9:31 am

    They say that Jones espoused “traditional working class values”.

    I cannot understand how giving the extractive industries free reign to take our natural resources (ie rip them out and leave stinking toxic crap behind, like that old tailings dam at Te Aroha), as long as a few token brown faces are on the payroll are “traditional working class values”.

    What happened in the West Coast mining industry during the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s was an effort for the “traditional working class” to have some measure of control/ownership over that industry, and ensure the benefits were more widely spread than they are now. And yes, environmental and health and safety regulations were a part of it. Neoliberalism not withstanding, conditions for mining workers are way better than they were 80 years ago.

    Now that Shane Jones will soon out of the Labour caucus, we will all now see the contrast that his views have with the views of the Party.

    His valedictory speech will give the first indication.

    • Sacha 12.1
      23 April 2014 at 10:20 am

      The guy’s a suit-wearing Harvard-educated senior fisheries manager. What’s “working class” about that? His engagement with Maori is also mainly with the iwi elite rather than the flaxroots.

      I’m delighted he has found something more useful to do with himself. The way it’s happened is like the rest of his career – all about what’s good for spoilt little boy Shane rather than his party or his people.

  13. bad12 13
    23 April 2014 at 9:40 am

    Hooton spinning at the speed of light on RadioNZ NIne to Noon this morning, claiming ”it will be that much more difficult for Winston Peters to sign NZFirst up to a Labour/Green coalition without Jones being in the Parliament”,

    My last conversation here at the Standard with wee Matty featured a couple of these, 🙄 ,His latest laughable attempts at political analysis deserves little better, 🙄 , 🙄 , 🙄 …

  14. Penny Bright 14
    23 April 2014 at 10:01 am

    Meanwhile – keeping the political blowtorch on the Minister for CORRUPTION – Judith Collins ..

    OIA acknowledgment from Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully’s Ministerial Secretary received 9.25am today 23 April 2014:

    Dear Ms Penny Bright,

    On behalf of Hon Murray McCully, Minister of Foreign Affairs, thank you for your correspondence of 22 April requesting information regarding any involvement of the New Zealand Ambassador to China in Minister Collins’ Oravida dinner.

    You will receive a reply within 20 working days as required by the Official Information Act.

    Yours sincerely,

    Holly

    Holly Bennett | Ministerial Secretary | Office of Hon Murray McCully
    Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister for Sport and Recreation
    6.1 Executive Wing Beehive | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand

    22 April 2014

    NZ Minister for Foreign Affairs
    Murray McCully

    ‘Open Letter’ /OIA request to NZ Minister for Foreign Affairs Murray McCully – what was the involvement of the NZ Ambassador to China (Carl Worker) in Judith Collins’ ‘private’ Oravida dinner?

    Dear Minister,

    Please provide the following information which confirms;

    1) Who invited Carl Worker, the NZ Ambassador to China, to this Oravida ‘private’ dinner?

    2) Why the NZ Ambassador to China, Carl Worker, declined to attend this Oravida ‘private’ dinner.

    3) In what capacity did Minister of Justice Judith Collins speak “.. to the ambassador about the dinner the following day and told him “nothing had occurred that was untoward and it was just a very private friendly dinner that was short”.

    ie: As a private citizen, or as the Minister for Justice?

    4) Did Judith Collins speak to Carl Worker in his capacity as NZ Ambassador to China, regarding this Oravida ‘private’ dinner?

    5) Please provide copies of ALL information, ‘briefing notes’ / emails / notes of telephone messages/ memos / minutes /reports (and the like)
    between Judith Collins (Minister for Justice) and Carl Worker (NZ Ambassador to China) relating to this matter.

    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11240640

    “Justice Minister Judith Collins has recovered her memory after telling Parliament she could not recall whether she had briefed New Zealand’s ambassador to Beijing about her Oravida dinner.
    …..
    In Parliament’s last session before a two-week recess, she again refused to identify the official she dined with, said she did not know of Oravida’s difficulties in the Chinese market before the dinner, and said she could not remember whether she had briefed ambassador to Beijing Carl Worker about the dinner.

    She told the Weekend Herald she didn’t believe she had spoken about the dinner to Mr Worker beyond an initial discussion beforehand when he said he would not attend.

    But on Thursday evening, she said she had checked her notes and believed she had spoken to the ambassador about the dinner the following day and told him “nothing had occurred that was untoward and it was just a very private friendly dinner that was short”.

    She said Mr Worker had asked her on the day of the dinner to just let him know if there was anything that he needed to know about.
    …….”

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright

    ……………………
    …………………….

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate, polling 4th with 11,723 votes campaigning against corrupt corporate control of the Auckland region

    http://www.pennybrightformayor.org.nz

    • Not Petey 14.1
      23 April 2014 at 10:22 am

      Paid your rates yet Penny ?

      • Penny Bright 14.1.1
        23 April 2014 at 10:50 am

        Absolutely NOT ‘Not Petey’.

        Not as long as Auckland Council fails to follow the RULE OF LAW and tell us EXACTLY where rates monies are being spent on private sector consultants and contractors.

        (Public Records Act 2005 s.17)

        I’m making a stand on principle that cannot be ignored.

        How about yourself?

        Kind regards,

        Penny Bright

        • Not Petey 14.1.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 10:51 am

          If it can’t be ignored why are the Auckland council ignoring it and getting the rest of us to subsidises your continued bludging ?

          • McFlock 14.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 1:55 pm

            well, it’s not bludging, it’s a protest.

            And it won’t cost you a cent, because they will take her house to pay the arrears and legal costs.

            So who’s more foolish: the fool or the fool who gets worked up about the microscopic and ultimately imaginary harm they think the fool causes?

          • Penny Bright 14.1.1.1.2
            23 April 2014 at 4:57 pm

            errr….. did I get paid for the work I put in to help get John Banks into Court to face the charge of electoral fraud?

            (Did Graham McCready? Nope.)

            http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

            Nope.

            Did I get paid for the work I put in to help stop the RORT of Metrowater ‘charitable payments’?

            (From which Auckland City Council planned to take $320 million in the form of increased Metrowater price rises for water and wastewater services over a ten year period, in order to subsidise rates).

            Nope.

            In 2010, I got a ‘Good Citizens’ award for service to the community.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10655565

            How about yourself?

            I choose to work FULLTIME on a self-funded basis as an anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog.

            ‘Bludging’?

            Doubt it.

            What have YOU done lately ‘Not Petey’, that has helped the public or the public interest?

            (Probably won’t take you long to reply ……)

            Kind regards,

            Penny Bright

            http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz
            http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz
            http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

          • Paul 14.1.1.1.3
            24 April 2014 at 12:19 am

            Very petty, not Pete.
            Why don’t you challenge the powerful instead?

      • freedom 14.2.1
        23 April 2014 at 3:19 pm

        from the article
        “There was a perception of a conflict of interest that was raised, the minister I’m sure will manage that better in the future.”

        translated:
        The Minister will more carefully manage the perception certainly,
        of course the conflict will continue unabated.

  15. Puckish Rogue 15
    23 April 2014 at 10:11 am

    So National get rid of deadwood before the next election (except for T Ryall whos a big loss) and the lefties proclaim it as a sign Nationals in trouble

    S Jones stands down to work for a government created role…wonder who he thinks will win the next election 🙂

    • Sacha 15.1
      23 April 2014 at 11:05 am

      “the lefties proclaim it as a sign Nationals in trouble”

      Where? I’ve only seen it acknowledged that they are better at clearing deadwood than Labour is.

    • McFlock 15.2
      23 April 2014 at 2:10 pm

      lol

      I think he’s finally realised that he won’t win the next leadership election, regardless of how the general election goes. Finally picked which way the wind is blowing in the party.

      How many nats are leaving – a dozen? more?
      How many labour folks have announced their departure? 1? 2? 3? Even percentage-wise, I reckon there’s a bit of a difference between the two.

      • Puckish Rogue 15.2.1
        23 April 2014 at 2:35 pm

        “How many labour folks have announced their departure? 1? 2? 3? Even percentage-wise, I reckon there’s a bit of a difference between the two.”

        Of course there is, National MPs generally go off and earn more in the private sector whereas for those on the left parliament is the best they’re ever going to do (with one or two notable exceptions) so they stay as long as they can

        • McFlock 15.2.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 3:54 pm

          You do realise that your piece of spin requires that the primary motivation for both elected office and future careers is money?

          Nice glimpse into your pointless existence, there

          • Puckish Rogue 15.2.1.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 4:04 pm

            Maybe not at the start but after a few years of money and perks and the realization that the private sector can’t match what you have know…

            I mean it worked out really well for G Beyer didn’t it and what would someone like T. Mallard do

            Nope for a left politician its to stay on for as long as you can

            • McFlock 15.2.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2014 at 4:12 pm

              Again, your argument is that the main reason someone will choose between elected service, basic public service, or the private sector is money.

              Some folks have actually turned down higher-paying work in favour of lower-paying work that has some value to society. But you wouldn’t be able to comprehend that.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                23 April 2014 at 4:19 pm

                “Again, your argument is that the main reason someone will choose between elected service, basic public service, or the private sector is money.”

                Yeah I can just see someone like T. Mallard jacking it all in and going back to being a teacher 🙂

                • McFlock …
                  23 April 2014 at 5:31 pm

                  But the nats assure us that teachers are well paid, on like $70k after only a few yearsd experience…

                  Seriously, you’re a muppet. Do you really think that after all his years in government mallard couldn’t walk into an equivalently-paying private sector job – especially considering the amount of work expected from folk like Doug Graham. Not to mention the fact that he’s probably accrued a nice cushion to retire on, anyway.

                  If you’re still chasing coin after almost 30 years in parliament, you’ve most likely got either a gambling habit or a drug habit. Which makes the large volume of nat ship-jumpers somewhat interesting.

    • risildowgtn 15.3
      23 April 2014 at 2:15 pm

      well I guess Keys car getting egged in the blue seat of Napier today.. i say otherwise yeah national sure are in trouble..

      • Rogue Trooper 15.3.1
        23 April 2014 at 3:26 pm

        according to the kumara vine John Key’s PR machine whizzed through the suburb I grew up in- Maraenui- to open new Social Housing.

      • Puckish Rogue 15.3.2
        23 April 2014 at 4:21 pm

        Finally the tide has turned and the people of NZ now see John Keyas the left see him and everyone will now turn to Labour to deliver us from the evil of National

        and then the posters on the standard woke up 🙂

  16. Saarbo 16
    23 April 2014 at 11:42 am

    Labour can do all it wants but as long as The New Zealand Herald continues with its CONCERTED attacks against Labour, we will continue to go down in the Polls.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11242668

    This article about a tweet from 2011 is the NZ Heralds number 1 story…arseholes. They really hate Labour Policy and will do anything to ensure they don’t win in September. All to do with CGT.

    • Rogue Trooper 16.1
      23 April 2014 at 11:59 am

      certainly scraped up that story from the base of the barrel.

    • not Petey 16.2
      23 April 2014 at 2:36 pm

      Politicians and twitter a bad mix.

      • Rogue Trooper 16.2.1
        23 April 2014 at 3:28 pm

        certainly are; see it time and time again, tweets displaying default thinking processes like labeling and compartmentalizing for examples.

    • Ant 16.3
      23 April 2014 at 7:31 pm

      Its a bollocks beat up story, but shouldn’t this crap have come out in the Tukituki selection process to show that perhaps this person MIGHT NOT BE AN IDEAL CANDIDATE for Labour??!

    • Paul 16.4
      24 April 2014 at 12:23 am

      Which does suggest this is a high stakes elections for the people who own the Herald.
      One more win will mean….
      the signing of the TPPA
      the privatisation of health and education
      More private prisons

      More for the 1% and less for everyone else.

  17. Rogue Trooper 17
    23 April 2014 at 11:58 am

    Buller region experience a ” 1 in 500-year” battering from five days of storms.

    Dunne quibbles that new synthetics to the market since the current legislation are behind the reports of concerns over their harms, with only 6 of 71 Local body councils regulating their sale so far. He quotes Time magazine article stating that synthetic drug manufacture and prohibition is a ‘cat-and-mouse game’ worldwide.

    Obama on Francis- “he projects the humility and kindness I associate with Jesus”.

  18. Rogue Trooper 18
    23 April 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Maybe, just maybe, the ‘C’ in Act, stands for cannabis 😉
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11242444

    It does not appear that Australia will be reducing ‘greenhouse emissions’ any day soon
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=11242452

    The US sends 600 troops to Poland and other nations sharing borders with Russia.The acting Ukrainian government calls for further ‘anti-terrorism’ action in the eastern pro-Russian cities.

    A U commission is investigating if NZ ACC claimants are experiencing justice.

    and the dollar reaches US86c.

  19. Philj 19
    23 April 2014 at 1:12 pm

    xox
    I avoid reading PG , he is not credible, and a waste of abreviation. Move on to real stuff folks, not PG tips.

    • Rodel 19.1
      23 April 2014 at 7:52 pm

      Philj
      yes and three or four others..fismi, pukrogue tin hat and others i can’t remember who contribute nothing to the otherwise informed debate on this website.Ignore and don’t respond to their simplistic jibes.. Respond only to those who present reasoned arguments with or against your views.
      I now skim these people just as I skip trivial adverts on tv.

    • Paul 20.1
      24 April 2014 at 12:27 am

      What next?…..
      Some news from 2014, not 2011.
      Or maybe some balanced journalism.
      A story about the corrupt practices of Judith Collins.
      Or an investigation into the TPPA
      Or an investigation into child poverty.

      You know …….actual news.

  21. polish 21
    23 April 2014 at 1:52 pm

    Man made climate change but not the kind we’ve been lead to believe exists

      • polish 21.1.1
        23 April 2014 at 2:31 pm

        were the rolly eyes before or after watching the link. I’m picking before. 😉
        If so thats a big part of the problem we face as a society – apathy
        Given that what she’s talking about is supposedly a matter of pblic record in the USA it is quite concerning

        • McFlock 21.1.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 3:59 pm

          wasted my time on some of it, actually. Got bored when she claimed that all the programmes she was talking about were on the public record but had no public oversight.

  22. fisiani 22
    23 April 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Wow Just heard Bill Shorten Australian Labor leader declare that he wants to make Labor no longer the political wing of the union movement. The complete opposite of New Zealand Labour which is just a gaggle of interest groups controlled by union hacks and led by someone without majority support in caucus.

  23. greywarbler 23
    23 April 2014 at 3:37 pm

    fishy smelly as usual
    I thought I heard on Radio this a.m. that Oz people can’t belong to their Labor Party if they are not in a union. Can someone confirm or correct me on this please.

    • Paul 24.1
      24 April 2014 at 12:30 am

      It’s called propaganda.
      The manipulation of public opinion by powerful anti democratic forces.
      And you know it.

  25. Mary 25
    23 April 2014 at 4:32 pm

    I hadn’t seen that the latest benefit fraud Bill was passed and while it’s utterly sickening Labour supported it.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17042014/#comment-800004

    It’s horrendous to think that partners of people who’ve committed fraud can be criminalised even if they did not know about the offending, which the Act now it’s been passed will allow (and assuming of course there is in fact a relationship in the nature of marriage which is another huge problem because nine times out of ten Work and Income get that wrong). Few people commented on this because all focus went on the liability for repayment resting largely on women, which it does. but if this is the problem then it should have been dealt with in terms of civil liability, not criminalisation for a dishonesty offence when the accused is not required to have knowledge of the offending. This is horrendously bad law.

    What’s equally disturbing though, and again it wasn’t largely talked about and in some ways is worse, is the removal of Work and Income’s ability not to recover debt. It’s probably beyond your average Labour MP to comprehend but this has to be a new low in NZ’s lawmaking history.

    Labour significantly reduced the ability for debt to be written off back in 2002. Now they’ve supported legislation that goes even further by saying that all debt must be recovered (apart from the very small proportion of debt arising from error and where the person has received the payment in good faith etc). This latest legislation also allows for minimum repayment levels to be prescribed depending on how the debt was incurred. Currently there’s a discretion that allows for debt repayment to be either suspended, deferred or at the very least set at rates that take into account personal circumstances including hardship etc. From July even that discretion is gone. This is in effect a benefit cut because there’s no ability not to reduce the level of payment a person receives. And Labour said yes to this.

    Surely we need to send the message to Labour that we cannot give them support until they show they’ve changed their stance towards the vulnerable. Despite all of David Cunliffe’s bluster upon becoming leader their support for this Bill shows nothing has changed at all.

    We all trusted Labour following the Shipley/Richardson years only to see the poor regularly shafted by Labour throughout nine years under Helen Clark. Are we going to sit by and let Labour under Cunliffe do it all again? What happened to his “I’m all about change” speech?

    Seeing Labour supporting this Bill is sickening. It’s complete irony that the biggest problem for the poor in New Zealand is the Labour Party. The plight of the vulnerable in this country cannot change until Labour changes, and Labour will not change unless they know we do not support them. I think it’s time Labour were sent this message.

  26. Pete George 26
    23 April 2014 at 4:36 pm

    This is fundamentally useless.

    Labour’s left is starting to look like a left wing kiwi version of the tea party. They would rather purity in opposition than have to work with those who think differently. They would rather preside over a utopia of ashes than actually take power.

    And like the tea party, if they are unable to compromise and work with people who are not ideologically pure, they will doom their party to dysfunction and the opposition benches.

    It seems the Labour left is more interested in finding heretics than converts. I can understand that Jones was never left enough for the party membership, but he was effective at talking to people outside the liberal hack bubble.

    Whether you like or agree with Jones is irrelevant. Labour have lost a solid performer. He is a Māori leader who appeals to soft National voters.

    The political reality is seemingly beyond the grasp of the party’s left- the Left cannot win without growing it’s vote and taking votes from the Right. We can push turnout all we like, but without eating into John Key’s support, we will always struggle. The party needs to appeal to people who have different values.

    But the party’s left doesn’t want to appeal to those who think differently; it wants those people to change their views.

    http://fundamentallyuseless.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/the-red-bush-tea-party/

    Especially if it’s ignored.

    • Rogue Trooper 26.1
      23 April 2014 at 5:03 pm

      that’s an interesting blog title, well-written and argued piece.
      “An ideology is more or less a coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action , COHERENT, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power (Neo-liberal capitalist economics for example) 😉 .All ideologies therefore,
      a, offer an account or worldview of the existing order
      b, advance a model of a desired future (eg, less inequality and discrimination)
      and
      c, explain how political change can and should be brought about (eg, CGT, Financial transaction tax)

      Ideology brings about two kinds of synthesis: between understanding and commitment, and between thought and action; in relation to the first synthesis, the fusion of understanding and commitment, ideology blurs the distinction between what ‘is’ and ‘what should be’.

      I’m an ex diesel mechanic, former harley rider, and general nature lovin’ bloke, yet Shane Jones was too narrow-minded, outspoken and a liability for this Labour supporter. Half the population are wimmen, dontcha know.

      • felix 26.1.1
        23 April 2014 at 7:03 pm

        Pete, and Trotter, and Tamihere, and anyone else who thinks Jones is relevant are all working from a caricature of a template of an idea of a working person from the 1950s, which was about the last time they ever rubbed shoulders with the commoners.

        Insultingly they assume working people are all bigots, all whiteys, and yep, all blokes.

        Fucking idiots.

        • Pete George 26.1.1.1
          23 April 2014 at 7:14 pm

          You’re show some idiocy here felix, making things up again. I’ve never claimed Jones has anything to do with working people and I don’t assume anything like that about working people. Your claim is idiotic, but that’s what you do.

          • felix 26.1.1.1.1
            23 April 2014 at 7:19 pm

            If you’re going to post screeds of shite from other blogs you can damn well stand by them, dickhead.

            • Pete George 26.1.1.1.1.1
              23 April 2014 at 7:26 pm

              It’s not as if you stand by your bull felix. I simply quoted someone because it was relevant to discussions, you deliberately misquote and misrepresent.

              And resorting to abuse when you’re called on it doesn’t help you.

        • weka 26.1.1.2
          23 April 2014 at 7:36 pm

          “Insultingly they assume working people are all bigots, all whiteys, and yep, all blokes.”

          And that all working people think the same.

          • felix 26.1.1.2.1
            23 April 2014 at 7:46 pm

            And of course there are no, for example, gay workers, because those are two different demographics. And gays all think the same, just like workers all think the same.

          • Pete George 26.1.1.2.2
            23 April 2014 at 7:52 pm

            It looks a bit pathetic for you both to resort to obvious nonsense like that. I guess if you’ve got nothing else.

  27. Rogue Trooper 27
    23 April 2014 at 4:44 pm

    The US are examining allegations that the Syrian govt. have carried out six attacks using chlorine gas. They are being utilized to drive people out of rebel-held cities with the govt. banking on international silence. US defense commentator suggests investigations won’t begin until current surrendered stocks are destroyed.

    and Shane Jones? Always something fishy about that man.

  28. Penny Bright 28
    23 April 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Keeping focused with the anti-corruption blowtorch ……

    As a proven ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner, in my considered opinion, there is significant and growing public concern about Minister of Justice Judith Collins’ ACTUAL ‘conflict of interest’ regarding her role in promoting/ endorsing her friends and husband’s company – Oravida.

    Just as with DODGY John Banks, NZ Prime Minister John Key AGAIN, is defending the indefensible?

    Seen this?

    Seems that unfortunately for Cameron Slater, Judith Collins and Prime Minister John Key, there are actually a growing number of New Zealanders who do ‘care a stuff about who people have dinner with’ :

    “Should Judith Collins step down as a minister?”

    8:49 AM Wednesday Apr 16, 2014 1016 comments

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11239082#comment-form

    And this?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11242726

    Envoy kept tabs on Judith Collins in China

    9:11 AM Wednesday Apr 23, 2014

    Ambassador to China had asked minister to inform him what was discussed at dinner.

    Judith Collins insists the Beijing dinner was a private occasion. Photo / Michael CraigJudith Collins insists the Beijing dinner was a private occasion. Photo / Michael Craig

    New Zealand’s ambassador to China, Carl Worker, asked Judith Collins to tell him of anything he needed to know about the Beijing dinner with an unnamed senior Chinese border control official, which the Justice Minister insists was a private social occasion.

    Ms Collins has refused to answer questions about the dinner late last year, attended by her friends and Oravida bosses Stone Shi and Julia Xu, on the grounds it was a private dinner.

    But after denying in Parliament last week that she had spoken about the dinner with Mr Worker, she later told the Herald that she had not only discussed it with him afterwards, but he had also asked her to keep him informed of what was discussed.

    “He’d said to me on the Sunday, just let him know if there was anything he needed to know about.”

    ……

    This issue is NOT going away.

    It is a DISGRACE.

    There is a LOT more to come …..

    Penny Bright

    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate (who polled 4th with 11,723 votes, campaigning against corrupt corporate control of the Auckland region)

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz

  29. Chooky 29
    23 April 2014 at 5:39 pm

    +100…. Go Penny

  30. greywarbler 30
    23 April 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Poorer Benefit is also the Local Bodies Minister. WTF This is an important role, that of central government liaising and working with our local politicians – our at home, neighbourhood politics. Not some young Jenny-come-lately.

    She has a big portfolio with WINZ and this is a big enough job for one person to concentrate on, and she could be doing more about finding projects that would be of benefit to the country from people on benefits working on them. A virtuous circle. But no she shows very little concern, has done the minimum to provide thoughtful support for those on welfare. And so has time for working on her profile for photo ops,

    • srylands 30.1
      23 April 2014 at 8:59 pm

      “she could be doing more about finding projects that would be of benefit to the country from people on benefits working on them.”

      I find it amazing you think that is the role of a Minister? (I assume beneath the childish drivel you are referring to Paula Bennett?

  31. Hamish 31
    23 April 2014 at 7:29 pm

    Looks like the leftover arseholes in the Labour caucus should just fuck off.
    Damien Oconnor, Clayton Cosgrove you two rightwing pricks should have no home in the Labour party.

    And good fucking riddance to the tory masturbator Shane Jones! What a piece of shit he is! Still a few more wankers to go but he was the worst offender.

  32. Belladonna 32
    23 April 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Radio Live on now and accusing the Nats/Shane Jones of corruption – about time the media stepped up and did their job. Have been listening to the radio most of the day and this is the first I have heard the media state that Shane Jones is immoral. Timothy Giles is the host and is talking good sense.

  33. Rodel 33
    23 April 2014 at 8:37 pm

    Just read an old message from ‘Jenny’ which I think contains wisdom.

    Jenny said….”The strategy for the Left is clear. National is more Left than ACT, Left voters in Epsom would ..( read ‘should’) choose National over ACT every time.”

    If Epsom left voters had followed this logic last time we might have had a Labour led government now…and wouldn’t have the Banks/Key subterfuge…..BUT… my left leaning friends in Epsom couldn’t bear to vote National in the last election and either voted Labour or stayed home.

    They should at least consider Jenny’s logic

    What happens in September in Epsom, could decide whether Cunliffe or Key determines the governance of our country.