Open mike 27/03/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 27th, 2011 - 71 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

71 comments on “Open mike 27/03/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Bored 2
    27 March 2011 at 8:00 am

    Matt McCarten has said it far more eloquently than me in the Herald today, Goff has to go.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10715084

    • Marty G 2.1
      27 March 2011 at 8:07 am

      well, carter’s put the kiss of death on that, it seems

    • Draco T Bastard 2.2
      27 March 2011 at 12:44 pm

      Frankly, neither Labour or National have any intention of changing the fundamental neo-liberal dogma that steals from the poor and gives to the rich. Their differences are on the edges.

      That I’d agree with. In fact, from what I can make out, all political parties are supportive of that particular paradigm and don’t seem to be in any hurry to change it.

    • millsy 2.3
      27 March 2011 at 1:04 pm

      The ball is in the Labour party’s court now. If they are going to roll him, they need to do it quickly and cleanly. As in this week. If they dont do it soon, its going to fester.

      You have nothing to lose, Labour. Go on, stop thinking about your parliamentary salaries and start thinking about your supporters and your target market. You may lose this election regardless, but at least you’ll be in good stead for 2014. Do you really think that Phil Goff will still be there then?

  3. logie97 3
    27 March 2011 at 8:30 am

    Netball sells out to the highest bidder.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10715226

    The Herald on Sunday understands the national broadcaster made an offer of $700,000 for the rights – far, far below Sky’s successful bid of $2.3 million.

    Wouldn’t mind betting they will still have charitable status and have their hands out for other government grants / sports foundation funding though.

    • millsy 3.1
      27 March 2011 at 12:47 pm

      Australian cricket icon Richie Benaud has always been a stauch advocate on cricket being broadcast on free to air TV. Obviously he understands that the long term viability of a sport depends on having it reach as wide a television audience as possible.

      Unfortunately, with the exception of former All Black (Sir) Fred Allen, who the modern establishment would just dismiss as some raving senile old pensioner, the sporting authorties here do not appear to share that view, with international rugby in 1996 and cricket in 1999-2000 making the move over to pay TV – of course Sky then cunningly decides to change the rules on their customers and move some games over to channels that they need to pay extra for. Suffice to say, rugby (with the exeption of the World Cup and Sevens tournaments), and cricket have dissepared from free to air TV, apart from a few delayed games on Prime which are constantly interrupted by ads, with that, I belive that has lead to the dropping of playing numbers across the board for rugby and cricket in the past 10 years, given the fact that families and indivduals are unable, or unwilling to pay for a sky subscription, to watch our national game.

      Now I have no objections to niche sports, such as NFL/MLB/NBA or the Masters, or English football being shown on Sky, which is the best place for them, but the Olympic and Commenwealth Games, All Black tests, NPC/Ranfurly Shield matches really should be shown on free to air TV, to capture as wide an audience as possible, after all, like it or not, sport is a part of our national culture, and I think the NZRFU, NZ Cricket and now NZ Netball have comdemed their sports to long term damage for short term profit.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1
        27 March 2011 at 1:22 pm

        If they’re professional sports, which rugby is in NZ, then they should probably be on pay-tv. Amateur sports should be probably be on free-view.

        • millsy 3.1.1.1
          27 March 2011 at 1:42 pm

          Im talking about All Black tests, and test and ODI cricket, not super rugby or 20/20 slogfests.

          Before Sky got greedy and wanted everything, a reasonable compromise existed where TV1 broadcasted the All Black tests, and home cricket matches live as wells as a couple of NPC games each week, while Sky delivered the overseas stuff as well as the old Super 10 matches and the games that TVNZ were unable or unwilling to cover. I belive that such a compromise would have been more suitable than sky getting ALL the live stuff and TVNZ showing ad ridden replays.

        • logie97 3.1.1.2
          27 March 2011 at 2:18 pm

          Not sure that the professional aspect has much to do with it. The point missed here is that these sporting organisations always have their hand out when it comes to funding. They enjoy charitable status in some cases and therefore get tax relief (effectively a subsidy from the tax payer.) Might be nice for the tax payer to get a little bit of a return on their investment, rather than a snub…
          Just as an aside – who actually pays for the extra police required for large sporting events?

          captcha: dog

        • William Joyce 3.1.1.3
          27 March 2011 at 4:59 pm

          If they’re professional sports then they should pay for the turf at Ami stadium to be repaired. It is an essential part of their business and they chose not insure it.
          What happened to Verse 27 of the Book of Free Will in the LeoLib Bible regarding moral hazard?
          What about the uninsured home owners of Christchurch – we have to teach them a lesson but not the professional rugby industry!

          • MrSmith 3.1.1.3.1
            27 March 2011 at 5:56 pm

            Rugby is Social control William, we have to keep all those suckers supporting there team and watching pointless ‘games’ because if they actually had time to think, they just might want some change and we couldn’t have that now.

  4. Jim Nald 4
    27 March 2011 at 9:40 am

    9:37am Watching Paul Holmes interview Phil Goff
    Has the standard of interviewing descended so low? This is so very rude.
    Is Paul whipping himself into a frenzy so that he can ejaculate all over the carpet?
    Phil is keeping cool. I’m watching this because I want to hear Phil.
    Will turn off the tv right after this interview.

    p.s. can our Parliamentarians introduce a bill so that we can smack media interviewers?

    • happynz 4.1
      27 March 2011 at 9:50 am

      Not much of an interview. More of a vehicle to have Paul Holmes gas along like a bad TV series lawyer. I have to give Goff credit for showing patience. He answered the question, such as it was, at least several times.

      • Jim Nald 4.1.1
        27 March 2011 at 10:08 am

        Phil was tested and came across well – measured, thoughtful, cool, fair.
        Holmes should just interview cardboard cut-outs next time and indulge in a manic soliloquy.
        What has happened to the code of etiquette for media interviewers?
        Thought Kevin Rudd gave it back well to Guyon earlier in the morning – the interview, indeed the morning, showcased the mediocrity of journalism on TV1.

      • Anthony C 4.1.2
        27 March 2011 at 1:30 pm

        Haven’t watched this yet, but considering how much of a dick Holmes made of himself to Tariq Ali, I don’t think there is much lower you can sink, unless he is intent on slowly burrowing his way through the sea floor on a slow journey through the earths mantle.

        Bad TV series lawyer is apt, like Denny Crane without the charm.

        I don’t want to be defamatory but Holmes seriously comes across like his mind is addled.

        • lprent 4.1.2.1
          27 March 2011 at 1:35 pm

          I haven’t seen that interview, but by the sounds of it perhaps we should get some excerpts up on the screen.

          • higherstandard 4.1.2.1.1
            27 March 2011 at 2:05 pm

            Phil should have shouted ‘Macbeth” at him.

            • Kevin Welsh 4.1.2.1.2.1
              27 March 2011 at 8:46 pm

              If Paul Holmes continues to host Q+A, I will continue to watch. The thought of not watching on the day his head actually explodes on tv, is too much to bear.

              • Jim Nald …
                27 March 2011 at 10:30 pm

                Maybe not too long before that happens. Can it be made a term of his employment contract that he be administered some valium before the mike gets flicked on?

                1:42 “fffleeing” [fff?? drama queen moment]

                [Grunts and snorts at, for eg the following points, .. would make you wonder if he was fucking a pig. Or being fucked by a pig]
                2:09
                2:21
                2:26
                2:39
                2:50

                2:59 “It is not trial by mediaaa!” [oh, really, dear Paul, and what do you think you’re doing? Watering pot plants?]

                etc [ok, I’m not going to waste my evening and you can listen to the clip yourself ..]

        • Mac1 4.1.2.2
          27 March 2011 at 9:58 pm

          Just watched the item. Holmes seemed like it had become very personal. He was emotional, interrupting far too much. The grunt of dismissal or disagreement at the end when Goff thanked him was most ungracious.

          I would hope that an independent and fair assessment of Holmes’s interview could be made by his employers. I think it was ill-mannered, emotionally loaded and unprofessional. If he was trying to badger Goff into saying something unwise, then even that did not work.

          Goff was measured and very patient, Holmes frankly disgraceful. Well done, Phil Goff.

          • felix 4.1.2.2.1
            27 March 2011 at 10:54 pm

            “If he was trying to badger Goff into saying something unwise, then even that did not work”

            Yep. Not only is he an obnoxious bully, but he sucks at it too.

  5. Chris 5
    27 March 2011 at 9:46 am

    Ex. Herald 27th.March

    “Little said he and Goff had been together at least six times and the Hughes situation had not been mentioned. Goff said last night it had been a busy week and he had not had time to call Little.
    “It is, for me, a caucus matter.”

    Thats really going to help the relathionship. Goff was very remiss in not discussing it considering the ramifications.

    • William joyce 5.1
      27 March 2011 at 10:05 am

      Yes, he’s leaving Phil to hang twisting in the wind. It sends a message about the party internal politics.

  6. Sanctuary 6
    27 March 2011 at 10:01 am

    I watched a bit of NSW election coverage on Sky channel 90 last night and there was something very odd about it that I couldn’t put my finger on… And then it came to me. In Australia, it is OK to present to different points of view without the argument immediately degenerating into hysterical acccusations of deviation from the received wisdom!

    People could talk about Labor having to get back to Labor values without them being mocked by fashionably cyncial journalists and solidly neo-liberal media talking heads, and no one felt like their revolutionary dogma was under threat by merely talking to a working class trade unionist on air.

    Not for the first time I looked at the more sophisticated Australian political debate and dispairingly realised that New Zealand’s entire political/media establishment is afflicted with monolithic ideological blinkers that reduces our political debate to a comical certitude of self important navel gazing.

  7. William joyce 7
    27 March 2011 at 10:03 am

    Q+A follow up…..re: DH affair
    I thing the panel had a point that this is politics and from a politics POV Goff dropped the ball.
    From a POV of honour, Goff played it well in the interests of those involved.

    The sad truth is sometimes politics and honour are mutually exclusive.

    • Jim Nald 7.1
      27 March 2011 at 10:18 am

      Mmm, not sure. After being immersed with the politics of smiling assassination, honour is refreshing.

      • William Joyce 7.1.1
        27 March 2011 at 11:28 am

        I’m a big fan of honour – but too jaded to expect it from pollies. Yeah, nice to see it when it appears. But the jocks of politics see it as a weakness and give you a wedgie and throw you in the dumpster.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      27 March 2011 at 12:53 pm

      Politics an honour should be mutually supporting. If they’ve become mutually exclusive then our society has become very sick.

  8. ianmac 8
    27 March 2011 at 10:13 am

    I was pleasantly surprised at how well Phil did with the ever- awful Holmes. Specially liked his succinct one word answers to the first few questions.
    At the end of the show there was a note about the top State Servant refusing to lead the Recovery Team because he couldn’t work with Brownlie.
    Anyone?

  9. Chris 9
    27 March 2011 at 10:51 am

    I’am sorry did I miss something. There’s going to be no change ? after several years of ‘unremarkable’ polling for Labour, after years of personal low polling by Goff and him failing to gain any traction for Labour, after this debacle where Goffs poor handling has been highlighted, where fractions and decent within the Party are very public, and then when even someone like Matt McCarten says he has to go and change has to happen – we just stick a plaster over this large boil and expect everything to be rosie ? This with an election looming ? Is this a recipe for resounding success for Labour ? – sorry I’am not buying it.

  10. Tigger 10
    27 March 2011 at 11:07 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10715181

    Now comes all the ‘gossip’ stuff – this piece about Hughes apparently making a ‘pass’ – very dangerous move because there is a bunch of ‘gossip’ about MPs in Wellington and I suspect the lid is about to come off some of it. Two in particular…

    • Jim Nald 10.1
      27 March 2011 at 11:23 am

      Haha … I have heard at least three juicy stories about Cabinet Ministers.
      I wonder if we’re about to go into ‘open season’ about the sex lives of MPs, of any party.

      • gobsmacked 10.1.1
        27 March 2011 at 11:47 am

        I remember hearing on the grapevine several years ago about a politician (still active) visiting a massage parlour.

        Of course I enjoyed the gossip, but thought then (and still do) that this was private, legal and irrelevant.

        But that’s the trouble when the sewer is running our media. It’s very tempting to respond in kind. There’s more than enough “dirt” to go around.

  11. William Joyce 11
    27 March 2011 at 11:21 am

    I can’t see a justification for this article. Passes in the work context are made every day of the week and twice on Sundays. It’s a matter of degrees and the article doesn’t tell us that. What would be interesting to know was the degree of the passes – somewhere on the spectrum from tentative invitation for further “congress” to rebuffed, persistent harassments.
    The sad thing for DH is that being in politics is not the best place to explore your sexuality, especially if you are in the process of “coming out” (if indeed this is what has been happening).
    I suppose this would be a something that we would expect an older person to have been through and then moved on to politics. (Tho’ history/politics/religion is littered with older men who have not done this).

    anti-spam : personal

  12. Colonial Viper 12
    27 March 2011 at 11:58 am

    500,000 march in UK against Government cut backs and public sector lay offs

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2011/mar/26/march-for-the-alternative-live-blog-updates

    • Bored 12.1
      27 March 2011 at 12:01 pm

      Was just going to post the link, good stuff Viper. I sense the sense of frustraation is moving on from the Arab states to the west…its happening in the US (even though we are never told) and its across Europe. 1848?

    • Sanctuary 12.2
      27 March 2011 at 12:11 pm

      Cameron wants to be careful, the English are not like those rioting continentals – it is all polite marches, then next thing you know its a civil war and the king’s head is on a pike.

      I see even the Torygraph is reporting 400,000. Although in true liberal Tory style reporting apparently every one of the marchers is an anarchist bent on killing your neighbourhood bobby.

      • Colonial Viper 12.2.1
        27 March 2011 at 12:16 pm

        it is all polite marches, then next thing you know its a civil war and the king’s head is on a pike.

        Exactly. Just wait until a few more Northern Irish and Scottish turn up to the next meet. At that stage all the King’s men won’t do Cameron and Clegg an ounce of good.

    • Carol 12.3
      27 March 2011 at 7:27 pm

      ON TV3 News tonight, the UK report they used was stressing how most of the protesters were peaceful & only a small minority got violent. The subtext was that the violent protesters were out of order & off message. But they did report that the “violent” protests were against wealthy businesses/retail chains: banks, the Ritz Hotel, the upmarket Fortnum & Mason. The reporters seemed to wilfully ignore the selective targetting of businesses as part of the message of the protest.

  13. Morrissey 13
    27 March 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Government’s science adviser not so smart about politics
    National Radio, Sunday 27 March 2011, 11.10 a.m.

    For someone who prides himself on his scientific thinking and his education, Chris Laidlaw’s guest Peter Gluckman showed himself to be alarmingly woolly-minded about politics. After Gluckman mentioned something about the “heroic” image of Israel before 1967 “when things started to go wrong”, Laidlaw asked him about his thoughts on the Israeli regime of the present day…

    GLUCKMAN: Ahhhh, I am disappointed that it has not been able to, ahhhhh, find a way to some sort of reconciliation with those around them.

    LAIDLAW: Hrrrumph. What are your instincts about Israel finding a, hrrrumph, way out of the situation?

    GLUCKMAN: Ahhhhh, there needs to be, ahhhhh, rationality on both sides that can lead to the kinds of accommodations on BOTH sides that have to be met.

    LAIDLAW: Hrrrrumph. I hope you are right.

    Not once did Gluckman mention the need for Israel to start observing international law, not once did he mention the word “occupation”. He also said that “all Jews” accept the “need” for an Israeli state “for protection.” That’s false, in fact grievously false.

    It is disappointing that Laidlaw did not dare to contradict these wandery and cliché-ridden statements. Gluckman is a learned scientist who deserves respect when he speaks about scientific matters; sadly, however, he does not seem to have read a lot about politics and history, and his seem to no more informed than, say, the views of Leighton Smith, or Kerre Woodham, or John Key.

    • Bored 13.1
      27 March 2011 at 12:04 pm

      The stark contrast was Kim (the llightweight) Hills interview with Tariq Ali last Saturday. Tariq was gentle as he took the ground out from Hills cliche ridden establishmentarianism. Laidlaw is much the same, part of the status quo.

      • Morrissey 13.1.1
        27 March 2011 at 1:21 pm

        To be fair, though, Kim Hill did subject that criminal and pathological liar John Howard to a rigorous grilling late last year. At least it riled that poor old oenophile Karl Du Fresne to roar to the defence of the great man with an hilariously inept ad hominem attack on Hill in the Australian version of the Spectator.

        With friends like De Fresne….

    • Jim Nald 13.2
      27 March 2011 at 12:09 pm

      I’ve heard it many times from many sources that Gluckman thinks he is a learned scientist.
      Will be good to hear more of Gluckman so that we can make up our minds.

    • Vicky32 13.3
      27 March 2011 at 4:09 pm

      Thanks for that, Morrisey, as I had missed most of the interview!
      Deb

  14. joe90 14
    27 March 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Gluckmans reticence is understandable knowing that the IDF has set up an intelligence group to monitor any foreigner who criticises Israel and her actions.

    Richard Silverstein: IDF VS. THE DELEGITIMIZERS.

  15. William Joyce 15
    27 March 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Ouch – I’ve found myself thinking that Hone is making some sense. I think I will have to have a lie down now……
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1103/S00374/hone-harawira-open-letter-on-coastal-and-marine-area-bill.htm
    Chris “Sphincter Clench” Finlayson has not solved good-god-damn thing!

  16. todd 16
    27 March 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Asshole of the Week Award

    http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/03/asshole-of-week-award_27.html

    OK! So we’ve had an allegation concerning Darren Hughes, one of the Labour ministers. The police have been informed and will appropriately look into the matter. Do we have to have a trial by media who has run the story at the beginning of every news hour for the last four nights? Do we have to have a media beat up when there are far more important things happening in the World?

    • ianmac 16.1
      27 March 2011 at 4:28 pm

      The Jackal was a bit too kind to Mr Holmes though. Perhaps he could have really say what he thought. But otherwise totally agreed!

    • Deadly_NZ 16.2
      27 March 2011 at 10:28 pm

      Well that poison Dwarf Paul Homes is positive he is guilty.. I watched the I suppose you could call it an interview, but in my humble opinion it was someone blowing a gasket because his target did not rise to all the innuendo.

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    27 March 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Libya fighting shows just how idiotic the Defence Review was

    Analysis Recent combat operations by British and allied forces in Libya are beginning to tell us a lot: not so much about the future of Libya, which remains up for grabs, but about the tools one actually needs for fighting real-world wars against real-world enemy armed forces.

    Précis of the conclusions:
    1.) Aircraft are useless without aircraft carriers
    2.) Tanks and artillery are useless
    3.) If you want to fight a war then you need cheap and effective missiles
    4.) Profit making defense industry is a rip-off of the taxpayer.

  18. Chris 18
    27 March 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Read the Jackel comment and yes P.H.s was OTT – BUT sorry if this ‘scandal’ was handled from the start this ‘trial by media’ would not be occurring. This is what journalist live for its their bread and butter and this one is served up with jam . This ‘scandal’ will continue to be media fodder for weeks / months and it will distract us from the real issues as it has it all – politics, sex, human nature, intrigue, and coverups. A good old political sex scandal makes good copy and sells newspapers. It comes back to Goffs original mismanagement of this. The media and public just love a good political sex scandal – so don’t give them one.

    • weizguy 18.1
      28 March 2011 at 7:35 am

      “BUT sorry if this ‘scandal’ was handled from the start this ‘trial by media’ would not be occurring.”

      Rubbish. Utter rubbish. The political management angle is just another sideline. The reason that there is a trial by media is because our media is obsessed by sex and scandal. No matter what Goff did, as soon as this was leaked, it was going to be treated in this way.

  19. joe90 19
    27 March 2011 at 5:46 pm

    At last, jail time for a player in the sub-prime mortgage disaster.

    Was Mr. Engle convicted of running a crooked subprime company? Was he a mortgage broker who trafficked in predatory loans? A Wall Street huckster who sold toxic assets?

    No. Charlie Engle wasn’t a seller of bad mortgages. He was a borrower. And the “mortgage fraud” for which he was prosecuted was something that literally millions of Americans did during the subprime bubble. Supposedly, he lied on two liar loans.

    • Draco T Bastard 19.1
      27 March 2011 at 7:46 pm

      In any collapsing society you will always find the administrators protecting themselves and their clique at everyone else’s expense rather than facing reality.

  20. travellerev 20
    28 March 2011 at 10:03 am

    For those of you who enjoyed his writing, I have just been notified by my facebook page that a wonderful writer and all round great guy Joe Bageant has passed away after a four month long battle with cancer. May he rest in peace. I am gutted

  21. randal 21
    28 March 2011 at 11:16 am

    the dimpost is full of dire warnings about Phill Goffs performance over the weekend.
    they seem incensed that he told the meeja to go and get sstuffed on Q&A.WOW.Go backa gain next week Phil and give them another shot.
    TVNZ has a soft centre and they need a good kicking every now and again.
    who do they think they are?
    They dont run the country and they dont run the Party.
    they just a bunch of overpaid fleas dressed up as hothouse flowers.

  22. Mac1 22
    2 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I share your sense of grief and loss, travellerev.

    “Deerhunting with Jesus” is so applicable to New Zealand 2011. I wish I had been acquainted with his work before this year. May others discover this man’s writing, ideas and analysis. As his obituary said, they will live on.