10/40/4102 ekim nepO

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, April 1st, 2014 - 200 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike
… ekim eht ot pu petS

.(yciloP eht ees) ylppa ruoivaheb doog fo selur lausu ehT

.esoohc uoy revetahw ,noissucsid lareneg ,stnemecnuonna roF

.tsop ruoy si ekim nepO

200 comments on “10/40/4102 ekim nepO ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    1 April 2014 at 6:41 am

    ‘ekim nepo’..

    ..it must be april 1st..

    • Chooky 1.1
      2 April 2014 at 9:37 am

      look forward to you coming back next week Phil

      …in the meantime keep working on that Philip Ure Vegan Sausage …it could make you a millionaire

  2. joe90 2
    1 April 2014 at 6:44 am

    .htuom eht fo tsrif eht rof hcund a pua hcuid yddah a pua lla guiuroM

    • rehtar p,noy fi ‘rO

    ɥʇuoɯ əɥʇ ɟo ʇsɹıɟ əɥʇ ɹoɟ ɥɔund ɐ puɐ ɥɔuıd ʎddɐɥ ɐ puɐ llɐ ƃuıuɹoɯ

    • Once was Tim 2.1
      1 April 2014 at 7:01 am

      clery vever

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 8:21 am

          Hehe. I have been wondering if at 12 pm Geoff pops up and says “April fools”!

          • karol 2.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 8:26 am

            Would that be necessary? See for instance this bit in the Listener article:

            Political insider and age-grade Poleconomy champion Matthew Hootah said the rumours had been circulating for weeks. “Sir Geoff is a well-known pinko socialist, and the veteran broadcaster’s attraction to crypto-anarchic groups is well known in certain circles,” he said. “As one window closes, another window opens, and Windows is well known in certain circles as an operating system on computers.”

          • geoff 2.1.1.1.2
            1 April 2014 at 6:21 pm

            I’m too late.

            Oh, you didn’t realise I was that Geoff?*

            *kidding

        • veutoviper 2.1.1.2
          1 April 2014 at 10:06 am

          I had a good laugh at that April Fools day article, while listening to Geoff’s last Morning Report.

          I am sad about his retirement as I have listened to MR virtually every week morning for decades. Not sad at loosing Mercep, however – and awaiting the Mary Wilson/ Mora Checkpoint with trepidation rather than anticipation.

          Back to Geoff, Andrea Vance has tweeted about the Listener article, saying she wished it was true – and also that she has heard that Robinson is a “grand theft auto top player”!

          • Anne 2.1.1.2.1
            1 April 2014 at 10:26 am

            He will have a different producer and that might make a difference. Here’s hoping…

            Btw, I have an irritable mouse. It works sometimes and sometimes not. No amount of gentle(?) admonition is making any difference. Any ideas what I can do about it?

            • karol 2.1.1.2.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 6:28 pm

              Needs servicing or a bit of a clean up? What sort of mouse – wireless or wired?

              • Anne …
                1 April 2014 at 6:36 pm

                Thanks karol. It’s fairly new but its the arrow that’s the problem. Disappears then re-appears but hard to control.

  3. phillip ure 3
    1 April 2014 at 7:01 am

    if you are a fan of awkward/trainwreck television..

    ..the business reporter on one breakfast is co-compering with ‘rawdy’..

    ..and it is a toss-up which is funniest/most-cringeworthy..

    ..the anti-chemistry between the two co-comperes..

    ..or the blinding incompetence/ignorances of that business-reporter..

    ..and of course..of ‘rawdy’…

    ..as just one of the delights on offer..

    ..the new benchmarks set in the art of the rictus-smile..

    ..from said business-reporter…

    ..who has never seen a topic she hasn’t been able to cover superficially..

    ..and who is such an unashamed (uncritical) pimp for those ‘business-interests’..

    ..she just parrots out the message du jour..

    ..for them..

    .and of course..pete-the-elder/sage is reading the news..

    ..always a delight for fans of the harrumph! at the modern..

  4. bad12 4
    1 April 2014 at 7:08 am

    Whales 1 Whalers 0….

    • phillip ure 4.1
      1 April 2014 at 7:14 am

      one can only hope that greenpeace will now turn their attention/efforts to that ever-more-pressing domestic environmental issue..

      ..the farmed cow…

      • bad12 4.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 7:30 am

        Manic depressive Phillip??? lets spend the day breathing a sigh of relief for the Whales and hope that the Japanese Government make a speedy decision to uphold the Court’s decision…

        • phillip ure 4.1.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 7:51 am

          what the fuck have i got to be ‘manic-depressed’ about..?..

          ..there..tony..?

          ..(you don’t mind if i call ya ‘tony’ do ya..?.)

          ..and my regards/respect to ‘the crew’…

          ..(how’s vinnie..?..has his ‘little-problem’ been sorted yet..?’)

          ..and as an update for you:..

          ..the japanese govt has already said they will abide by the decision..

          ..so that is all done and dusted..

          ..meanwhile..back at the ‘farmed-cow’…

          ..every day..things just got/get worse and worse..

          ..as we fuck over our rivers/environment..

          ..and still sit..leech-like on the globe..

          ..exporting cancers/premature-deaths..

          ..to that world..

          ..adding it all up..we are really global anti-citizens..

          .aren’t we..?

          ..and..’clean and green’..?

          ..more..’dirty and dirtier’..eh..?

          • bad12 4.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 8:04 am

            Phillip,Ha–Ha–Ha, oh nothing Phillip,Ha–Ha–Ha, and then Phillip cocks His,or is that Her, little puppies leg and sprays another shower of …manic-depressive’s…barely intelligible raving…into this mornings Post…

            A living tragedy, ”Nandor and Sue should be running the Green Party,(into electoral irrelevance) right Philip…

            • phillip ure 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 8:39 am

              purely as a factcheck..

              ..that is not what i said..

              ..i answered a question on the circumstances of bradford leaving the greens..

              ..i made no such statement as you claim i made..

              ..you’re getting to need yr own personal fact-checker..

              ..you appear to orifice-pluck at will..

              ..with scant regard for the truth..

              ..you aren’t doing yrslf any favours..

              ..carrying on like that..

              ..are you..?

              ..and hoping to cash in on the ‘white-gold’..are we..?

              …arguing for that..?

              ..are we..?

              ..and spare me yr fucken crocodile tears over dead whales..

              ..are you a size-ist..?

              ..you only eat smaller creatures from the sea..

              ..cry me a fucken river..eh..?

              ..can’t you hear the screams of the calves..

              ..from the slaughterhouse just down the road..?

              ..talk about selective-sympathy/empathy for suffering/slaughtered animals..eh,,..?

              ..you really are fucken full of it..aren’t ya..?

              ..’greenpeace-bbq’..?..anyone..?

              • bad12 …
                1 April 2014 at 9:00 am

                My my Phillip, your latest ‘effort’ simply reminds me of the little analogy i drew for greywarbler down the bottom of an ‘Open Mike’ about your ‘sprays’ of invective a few days back, the little puppy has certainly redoubled its efforts to ‘spray’ away that which was left by another,

                Ha-Ha-Ha Phillip, you made definite statements that Russell Norman had promised Sue Bradford the Green Parties Co-leadership if She gave Him the numbers to become the male co-leader of the Party, you then claimed, without a shred of evidence, that Russell had welched upon this deal,

                That Phillip is Defamation and i feel we have to again address your psychological status in an effort to have you cease using the pages of the Standard to publish such Defamations,

                This may take some time as the previous ‘program’ applied to you while having some initial visible effect does not seem to have stuck,

                You can Phillip always short circuit the program by simply Withdrawing and Apologizing to Dr Norman for the Defamation you published in ‘Open Mike’ yesterday…

                [lprent: You don’t want me to review anything to do about “defamation”. I’m usually more inclined to demonstrate the bounds of the law of defamation in NZ than to explain it. I find it leaves a longer lasting impression and not a particularly pleasant one.. ]

                • phillip ure …
                  1 April 2014 at 9:14 am

                  and yr ‘defamations’ of me..?

                  ..you pompous prick..

                  ..and isn’t it time you went and fried a fish..
                  ..and had a ciggie..

                  ..and careful you don’t let those whale-crocodile tears drop into the frying pan..eh..?

                  ..it cd make yr ‘dish’..too salty..eh..?

                  [lprent: Where is the point here?

                  BTW: Avoid the accusation of “defamation”. It pisses me off. If you want to do something about it, then take it to a court. But since mostly it is fools saying it without any understanding of the actual law of defamation, then you don’t want me to examine your basis for any case. I tend to resort to demonstrating the legal limits rather than explaining the law. I find it makes more of an long-lasting impression and a better appreciation about the limits of that particular branch of the legal system. ]

                  • bad12 …
                    1 April 2014 at 9:17 am

                    Phillip, you cannot defame pond scum…

                    • tinfoilhat …
                      1 April 2014 at 9:23 am

                      Can I make a plea for the moderators to offer some advice to the two combatants above.

                      There appears to be some systemic bullying, baiting and bashing of mental health issues that is pretty poor form.

                      [lprent: It doesn’t particularly affect the site – which is what moderation is for. It is boring but they are largely keeping it in OpenMike and while it is a pain skipping the moronic comments, it is preferable to the alternatives.

                      I’ve found over time that usually the best way is to just let people work their way to a agree to disagree level with a low level grumpiness. It usually doesn’t take more than a week at worst before the slow learners involved realise that is where it winds up at. Eventually with further experience on the net, it winds up that people state their difference of opinion clearly and avoid the boring bickering that irritates the rest of us. But if I short-circuit it, then how are they going to learn the fundamental futility of their behaviour.

                      If they don’t or it gets too damn boring, then eventually I just take some actions against all participants as being too stupid to comment here. But I hate wasting time on it.

                      And of course if they start forgetting to put a point to their abuse (I can see a couple of instances now), then they may find that they get an abrupt holiday. ]

                    • bad12 …
                      1 April 2014 at 9:37 am

                      Funny that i only see ‘robust’ debate occurring between myself and Phillip, reading such exchanges is hardly compulsory, discussing what we think is going on in another commenters mind is in fact the bread and butter of the Standard be it from pointing out we think a commenter has made a stupid remark to where-ever…

                    • phillip ure …
                      1 April 2014 at 10:14 am

                      i don’t see ‘robust debate’..

                      ..i see you digging as deep as you can..

                      ..for what you think may ‘hurt’ me..

                      ..and you do this at will..

                      ..and ever-escalating..

                      ..to what exactly..?

                      ..i will argue issues all day long..

                      ..but if you can’t control yr baser drives to do that..

                      ..you can just fuck right off..

                      ,.if i want a diet of that shit..i’ll go hang at kiwiblog..

                      ..and as someone with a raft of current addiction-issues..

                      ..pointing the stick at someone who hasn’t used junk in decades..

                      ..and is a vegan health-freak..

                      ..yr quivering forefinger shaking in judgement..

                      ..is beyond fucken irony..

                      ..and i repeat..get yrslf under control.

                      ..or just fuck right off..

                      ..it is beyond fucken boring..

                      ..there is too much important business on the table to waste time/energies on that crap..

                      ..and that you think it is a ‘game’ of some sort..

                      ..says more about you //than you’d probably like said..

                      ..this conversation is now at an end..

                      ..u can ‘pond-scum-junkie!’ to yr hearts content..

                    • bad12 …
                      1 April 2014 at 11:32 am

                      Phillip,Phillip, tsk tsk, you know why i have taken the metaphorical stick to you this morning,

                      Just to remind you, that is the Defamation of Russell Norman you published in yesterday’s ‘Open Mike’,

                      i aint about to be going anywhere Phillip, remember who’s website you are currently connected to, a hint would be that it aint ‘attention whoar’, so, you my childish little friend do not get to have a say in who here comments at what time and where,(why kiwiblog Phillip,is it a bit lonely over there at ‘attention whoar’ waiting for someone,anyone to post a comment upon your latest outlandish ravings),

                      Would love to stay and discuss your attitudes to the Green Party/psychological failings further Phillip but i have things to accomplish this mornig in the real world…

                    • phillip ure …
                      1 April 2014 at 3:54 pm

                      yet another basic-comprehension-fail for you..

                      ..you can ‘fuck off’ away from me..

                      ..i couldn’t care less what else you do..

                      ..mm-kay..?

                      [lprent: a weeks ban for pointless abuse. ]

    • You_Fool 4.2
      1 April 2014 at 7:25 am

      Que tonight’s news with a John Key who is pleased that this practice has been stopped and how it is abhorrent, all said so not to piss off Japan. Oh also that NZ was integral to the whole case going through and how he was behind it all the time, despite never having the balls to step up and say so before this international ruling. Also don’t expect Key to commit to NZ navy frigates patrolling the Southern Ocean and enforcing the new ruling.

      • Tracey 4.2.1
        1 April 2014 at 8:46 am

        he will if Obama champions the decision in the media in the next 2 days

      • Anne 4.2.2
        1 April 2014 at 10:32 am

        And don’t expect Key to give any kudos to those most deserving of it. I refer to Peter Bethune and co., Greenpeace, and all those who have worked for so long to bring about this outcome. And I have to say rather sadly that in the past Labour was only lukewarm in it’s praise of these courageous people. Lets hope they make up for it now.

        • Tiger Mountain 4.2.2.1
          1 April 2014 at 11:22 am

          It may be like the anti apartheid movement–denounced as traitors by Muldoon, Mandela a terrorist etc., after the first South African elections it was hard to find a public figure that had been pro’81 tour.

          History will remember the brave crews of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace rather than the scabby Japanese killing those beautiful creatures under false pretences. Bethune did time too in Japan.

        • greywarbler 4.2.2.2
          1 April 2014 at 6:26 pm

          Actually one of the pollies I suppose McCully was implying today on Radionz that Sea Shepherd didn’t aid the project with their interfering. He implied that NZ and the other forces of good would have carried forward this Japanese case and been effective in getting to this end without them. Fat chance.

          That’s the sort of thing lazy middle class right `wingers untouched by the angel kiss of any integrity and stirs of kaitiaki always say. Those protesting gits should have stayed home and we would have had all things good so much faster.’

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    1 April 2014 at 7:44 am

    Japan accepts UN whaling ruling

    That’s probably a better result than John Key’s plan – whatever it was.

    • karol 5.1
      1 April 2014 at 8:07 am

      Well, in the end, Team Key seems to have supported Australia’s challenge with Finlayson providing some evidence on behalf of NZ.

      Attorney-General Chris Finlayson gave evidence on behalf of New Zealand during the court case in the Hague July last year.

      He told the court that Japan was wrongly interpreting article eight of the whaling convention, which deals with scientific permit whaling.

      Nevertheless, McCully seems to be fighting a rear guard action in support of Key’s (alleged) alternative plan.

      • bad12 5.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 8:16 am

        RIP 3500 whales slaughtered in the name of ‘science’, the dance of death might not be over yet, i missed the name and status of the Japanese sounding person who just spoke on RadioNZ’s Morning Report talking about the Hague’s decision only being relevant to the whaling in the Antarctic,

        They do tho have the ‘opportunity’ to carry on such barbarism in the Northern Pacific…

        • Chooky 5.1.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 9:03 am

          @bad12 …a lot of dubious and awful stuff is done in the name of Science….’Science’ is supposed to exonerate and provide a final unimpeachable excuse for just about everything…from Polls which knee cap good politicians to killing whales to …..Neolib economics to ……imm………

          ….about time ‘Science’ was demystified as the God…it is often bullshit

          • bad12 5.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 9:21 am

            Oh i quite agree with your penultimate last four words Chooky, the problem being that we agree with some science and disagree with other,

            The Earth so the ‘science’ of the time said was flat, looked that way too until someone sailed off the edge and then came back again…

            • Chooky 5.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 9:47 am

              lol…yes and how many sweet little whales had to die in the cause of ‘Science’ …..until another ‘Science’ came along and said the first lot of ‘Science’ was bunkum

              ….so resorting the reason ‘Science’ is no end argument in itself …and it is time it was debunked as such

              …also nonscientists could have told them the first lot of ‘Science’ was bunkum long ago

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1.2
              1 April 2014 at 9:59 am

              The Earth so the ‘science’ of the time said was flat, looked that way too until someone sailed off the edge and then came back again…

              Actually, science proved the Earth was round back in Ancient times. It was superstition that continued to hold that the Earth was flat.

              • MaxFletcher …
                1 April 2014 at 10:31 am

                The ‘flat-earth’ idea was never a widely held belief.

                • McFlock …
                  1 April 2014 at 12:52 pm

                  Indeed. Apparently, the main reason Columbus kept getting laughed out of the medieval Dragons’ Den auditions was that those who didn’t believe the earth was flat (i.e. anyone who knew anything about navigation or geography) knew damned well that a ship in those days wasn’t going to be able to make the voyage without the crew dying. Basic math of the required food and fresh water being well below the travel time.

                  He basically sailed past the point of no return, but luckily for him (and unluckily for the “Americans”-to-be) there was an uncharted continent there

              • Chooky …
                1 April 2014 at 11:28 am

                @ DB..well yes good science is er um ‘good science’

                …and certainly preferable to the superstition and edicts of the mad rabbis, priests and mullahs of patriarchal monotheism

                ….it is just ‘Scientism’ that is appealed to as having some special status and as always being the Truth and right that i object to

            • greywarbler 5.1.1.1.1.3
              1 April 2014 at 6:28 pm

              Who was that then? Rincewind?

            • John W 5.1.1.1.1.4
              2 April 2014 at 12:07 pm

              An understanding of what is science helps. Argument is not to be confused with evidence tested. Reductionism is a common environment for erroneous conclusions. A holistic view must always be of overriding value.

      • Tracey 5.1.2
        1 April 2014 at 8:44 am

        AFTER Australia launched an action which NZ had been begged to lead, and to co-claim. BUT Mr Key didnt want to offend Japan and possible money from them to our shores, so he sat again… and waited, and took the safe back seat.

        Still now Russell and Matiera can congratulate the newest hippie and loonie of NZ, one Mr John Key who now supports whales.i

    • Naturesong 5.2
      1 April 2014 at 10:22 am

      Key’s alternative plan was to allow commercial whaling with a sinking lid policy.

      Even an idiot could see that once commercial whaling was legal, Japan would move to legitimise products from their whaling and turn it into a proper industry. After which point there would be no chance of stopping whaling for at least a generation, possibly longer.

      I’m not sure what’s more embarassing, that he comes out with this drivel, or the number of nodding dogs that lap it up.

      • Tracey 5.2.1
        1 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

        yup key taking credit this morning…he will have forgotten he ever supported that notion, now that he has saved the whales. mind you, mccully very luke warm on challenging their practices in the northern pa ific…

  6. dv 6
    1 April 2014 at 8:13 am

    日本の国会は「ハハあなた4月ばかしまった」捕鯨について語った

    [lprent: according to babelfish “Japan’s Parliament is “haha you did April fool ‘ said about whaling (English)” ]

    • karol 6.1
      1 April 2014 at 8:16 am

      Google translate says:

      Diet of Japan said, “expectations Bakashi April Haha you” to whaling

  7. Jenny 7
    1 April 2014 at 9:04 am

    Love is but a song we sing
    Fear is the way we die
    You can make the mountains ring
    Or make the angels cry

    “As sharp differences between the Greens and Labour open up over coal……”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-07102013/#comment-706455

    (And the other deadly extractive fossil fuels related to climate change…..)

    “When it comes to coal mining, our policy is no new mines” Russell Norman,
    ‘The Vote’, November 6, 2013 23:30 minutes in, (pay walled).

    Election year has hardly started, but there’s a major split between Labour and the Greens.

    While Prime Minister John Key is busy building coalition bridges, David Cunliffe today dynamited a big one on the left.

    He has announced a Labour-led government will carry on deep sea drilling off New Zealand’s coast even though its most powerful partner, the Greens, are vehemently opposed…..

    Patrick Gower TV3 News January 22, 2014

    What I had hoped to point out, (as gently as possible), is that the Greens cannot afford to change to Labour’s position, and instead that Labour must change to the Greens position. No New Coal Mines, No support for risky unconventional fossil fuel technologies like fracking, or deep sea oil.

    But most of all what I had wanted to point out, is that climate change is not “electoral krytonite”.

    All it takes is a little courage:

    “Coal is Dead”

    “Coal is no longer viable as a long term source of energy, or a reliable source of jobs in Montana … The 700 million tons of coal in Montana will be left in the ground … We must both mitigate climate disruption and build new infrastructure.”

    Dirk Adams educator, banker, rancher, and Democratic Candidate for the Montana Senate

    Even the unions, the state’s AFL-CIO leader said he appreciated what Adams says about coal “because the guys need to hear that.”.
    (This is the sort of leadership on coal that we need to hear in this country from union leader Helen Kelly)

    Dirk Adams said he talks about climate change “in every conversation” with voters. “It’s one of my two campaign points. I talk about women’s issues and I talk about the environment and climate change.”

    Dirk Adams honesty about climate change is an admittedly risky strategy:

    Out of the 26 coal producing states in the U.S., Montana ranks 8th, with production last year totaling more than 36 million tons from six mines. While employment, around 1,200, is not that significant compared to other industries, a proposed new mine in southeast Montana would more than double total employment to about 2,900.

    Since 2009, Montana coal exports abroad have grown six-fold to 13 million tons. The state receives about $48 million in coal royalties.

    Whether Adam’s leadership on climate change will be appreciated by voters won’t be known until the election in June. A 2012 poll showed that a majority of Montana voters favoured relaxing environmental laws to allow more coal and gas developments. And another poll showed that almost 50% felt that concerns about global warming had been exaggerated and more research was needed before they would support action to combat it.

    But Adams claims this is a plus:

    “People understand that politicians who speak the truth are a value, and by and large in the Democratic primary, voters understand,”…
    “It will probably hurt with some of the union guys, but it’s important to tell people the truth …

    “I will not be dishonest about this for political gain. Lying isn’t going to help those [coal industry] workers. Instead, I have a plan for retraining and job growth. I’m going to serve the impacted citizens by dealing with reality, rather than serving myself by hustling concerned workers for votes with promises no candidate will keep.”

    Dirk Adams educator, banker, rancher, and Democratic Candidate for the Montana Senate

    Climate change needs to be an election issue in this country, this election, this year.

    We cannot afford a repeat of this: The snake that ate the elephant in the room

    Postscript:

    On thursday June 5, 2013; Myself and Green Party member weka went toe to toe on how far the Green Party should be prepared to compromise to gain seats in a Labour led cabinet in which Weka said this:

    <blockquote>So would you be happy if the GP went into govt and as part of that won an agreement from Labour to not mine Denniston?

    <b>weka</b>
    </blockquote>

    To which I replied:

    Weka, YES. Yes, I would. This would be a major concession from Labour. And major blow to the fossil fuel industry. Stopping Denniston would be a step forward in the war against climate change in this country. I would be overjoyed. I would be stunned if the Greens could win such a concession from the Labour Party.

    Jenny

    To which Weka responded:

    <blockquote>Can one of the Labour people here tell us if that would be a hard thing for Labour to give up?

    <b>weka</b>
    </blockquote>

    I reinforced weka's query of our Labour Party brothers and sisters:

    Yes, come on Labour Party people, tell us what you think.

    How about you Colonial Viper? How about you R0B? Or maybe lprent?
    Would any of you like to have a go at answering weka’s question?

    Maybe even EDDIE might like to share her opinion with us?

    Jenny

    To date:

    Not even one self identified Labour Party member or supporter, contributing author, or commenter has chosen to reply to Weka’s query.

    Weka’s question still hangs in the air. Will Labour agree to stop the rape of the Denniston Plateau and the hugely increased contribution to climate change that will result?

    Or will Labour refuse to concede this position to the Greens?

    Remember that hundreds, possibly thousands of grass roots Green Party members and others are mobilising to protest and blockade Bathurst Resources climate crime on the Denniston Plateau. The Green Party cannot afford to back down on Denniston without seriously disappointing the bulk of their membership.

    On this April First on this oddly singular occasion of my official return to The Standard, I thought I would give our Labour readers and writers serious opportunity to answer Weka’s question:

    Labour Party members, supporters, commenters, contributing authors, anybody want to dare an answer to weka’s question?

    <

    blockquote>So would you be happy if the GP went into govt and as part of that won an agreement from Labour to not mine Denniston?

    Can one of the Labour people here tell us if that would be a hard thing for Labour to give up?
    weka

    [lprent: Personally I find it a rather daft question – as I pointed out in email. The position of both the Greens and Labour was that neither were particularly willing to break existing contracts. For instance on the Denniston or on the oil/gas exploration areas. But the current coal prices tends to make many of your other coal points moot (and for that matter probably the Denniston mine as well).

    Personally I find your thinking is often muddled between cause and effect. In particular that not having any particular policy means that political parties have a policy that you incessantly define. You don’t make policies for parties and are probably incapable of doing so. It was what got you banned last time and I can see you doing it again in this comment (please try to point to a Green policy about what they would do with existing contracts for drilling for gas/oil instance). I suggest you don’t repeat ascribing your lying bullshit about party policies again. Be prepared for me to insist that you point to the actual policy and to ban you if you don’t. You have had your warning..

    And please make sure you don’t start claiming that a lack of response means anything more than many people can’t be bothered answering you ]

    • Bunji 7.1
      1 April 2014 at 9:24 am

      It won’t be a hard thing for Labour to give up – they had policy at the last election to block Denniston from happening.

    • weka 7.2
      1 April 2014 at 9:40 am

      Didn’t get past you quoting Gower, Jenny. Why the fuck you think he is any kind of useful or reputable source is completely beyond me. Unless you are happy to use his disingenuous, biased spin for your own ends? It actually doesn’t help clarify issues or make points to use other people’s lies.

      • Jenny 7.2.1
        14 April 2014 at 7:11 pm

        I quote Gower knowing that as a Right wing pundit, you or Lynn are less likely to dismiss him, or in Lynn’s case label him a Goebbels or allow death threats to be made against him to be put up on this site.

        • lprent 7.2.1.1
          14 April 2014 at 7:20 pm

          Actually no. If I or any moderator sees threats of violence even pretend violence, then people get anything from a warning to a banning. I will tend to wipe the actual part of the comment at fault. And personally I tend towards the banning. As well as being unacceptable, it is also illegal.

          Calling people names generally doesn’t cause me much fuss provided it is pointed (ie explained why that was chosen), doesn’t fall over in hate speech (again illegal), and unless it spills over into some kind of boring tit-for-tat flamewar.

          Quite simply it is frequently appropriate to call an arsehole by their true name without being mealy mouthed about it. With many people with poor social skills and without a self-awareness of how they look to others, it is frequently the only way that you can ever get their attention to the fact that is how you view them (and why).

          It isn’t hard to find examples of both of these moderator behaviours on the site.

          • Jenny 7.2.1.1.1
            14 April 2014 at 8:34 pm

            “If I or any moderator sees threats of violence even pretend violence, then people get anything from a warning to a banning.”
            lprent

            That’s just not credible Lynn. Not only do you keep maintaining that the Greens’ positions on coal mining look “remarkably the same” as Labour’s, (and by extension “close” to National’s position.)

            You knowingly allowed Te Reo Putake, Pascal’s bookie, and Colonial Viper to openly discuss how much CO2 would be created if they burned my body, even raising the question on how it should be done. And don’t claim you weren’t aware of it.

            “Am I the only reader wondering how much carbon burning martyrs contribute to the atmosphere?”
            Te Reo Putake 6 October 2013 at 9:36 am

            “I dunno. But if you could harness energy from Jenny’s switching back and forth about who is selling out the planet, the problem could well be solved.”
            Pascal’s bookie 6 October 2013 at 9:42 am

            “Almost certainly less than 15kg of carbon released, depending on how it is done….”
            Colonial Viper 6 October 2013 at 9:44 am

            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-061013/#comment-706085

            Lynn not only do you demonstrably tolerate threats of violence and pretend violence you seem to do so against the Left of the political spectrum. Your resort to Godwin’s Law and banning show that you have no rational defence of your position that we should not put demands on our political leaders on this site to do something about climate change.

            • lprent 7.2.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2014 at 9:01 pm

              You have never demonstrated anything that makes me think different about the greens policy. All I usually see is you throwing your own interpretation on it – one that you are clearly incapable of defending bearing in mind that you never try to explain the logic. You merely assert, and in my view quite incorrectly. Basically you appear to lack the ability to distinguish between your wish on how the world is and that of reasonably verifiable and reproducible facts.

              Threat? I really don’t think so. When I saw it, I thought they were talking about your habit of blowing off in volume about bugger all and evaluating it in terms of CO2. But it doesn’t read like a threat

              It might have offended you. But

              a. that really isn’t hard to do.
              b. is what the site is for – it is part of the process of robust debate (a concept that you don’t appear to understand).

              • Jenny …
                14 April 2014 at 10:44 pm

                “Threat? I really don’t think so.”
                lprent

                They talked about burning my body, joke or no, you allowed it and still maintain it as acceptable behaviour. Would I talk about someone like that, I wouldn’t dream of it.

                “….you never try to explain the logic. You merely assert, and in my view quite incorrectly.”
                lprent

                Good for you Lynn, you must have an idle moment, or two.

                I am quite capable of defending my position with facts and logic, and it is not about “bugger all” it is usually about the screaming need for our parliamentarians to seriously do something about cutting down our CO2 emissions. Your resort to Godwin’s law show that it is you who have no logical defence of Your argument that the Greens and Labour policies are remarkably the same. I have shown you the link* where the Green Party leader Russel Norman restates his party’s clear position is “No New Coal Mines”. Apart from that, as I have explained to you before, even current and past Green MPs who have communicated with me have had trouble finding the proof that, “no new coal mines” is their party policy, though they have strongly assured me that it is. Weird I know. (from their memories they tell me that it was voted in some time in the late ’90s and has never been rescinded) I am sure that other Green MPs find it annoying that I have reminded them of this policy. And would rather it remain buried.

                *“When it comes to coal mining, our policy is no new mines” Russell Norman
                The Vote

                Duncan Garner. Question: “A moratorium on all new coal mines under your government?”

                Russel Norman. Answer: “That’s right”

                And is this Green Party policy remarkably similar to Labour’s and therefore according to David Parker “close” to National’s?

                These are the substantive questions which you continually and selectively ignore and refuse to address while accusing me of making “mere” assertions.

                What about my “mere assertion” that the Green Party (and the rest) played down climate change during the last election and by all indications look likely to do so again. At one stage I recall you called me a “Fucking Liar”.

                Hot Topic analyses the 2011 election. November 16, 2011

                “You know what really strikes me about climate change in the election? It’s the absence.”
                Simon Johnson at Hot Topic November 16, 2011

                I notice that you haven’t called the authors at Hot Topic Fucking Liars you just ignore them.

                With your intolerant behaviour and personal abuse and refusal to address the facts of an argument rationally and fairly it is little wonder that your site is trailing The Daily Blog in the stats. People want a site that is either Left or Right, they want a site where rational polite and respectful discussion is encouraged.

                The Greens better watch out, Mana and TIP are rumoured to have quite strong climate change policies in the works and are prepared to fight for them.

                At their AGM last weekend the Mana Party unanimously voted to write “No New Coal Mines” into their policy, and are unlikely to hide this policy away and forget it, to keep the Labour Party happy.

                • lprent …
                  14 April 2014 at 11:48 pm

                  So find a labour policy that says that there will be new coal mines outside of existing mining rights (which BTW is what the greens policy actually appears to be in practice). Don’t quote individual politicians. Quote policy because that is what you claim.

                  Basically you are just lying through your teeth because labour has no clear policy. But as far as I am aware there hasn’t been a new mining license issued for coal for decades. So tyhe greens policy is in essense meaningless.

                  The coal rights in existence are a existing property right that would be difficult for any government to revoke. They cover all of the best deposits. They would also be difficult for any government to legally prevent for rights holders to exercise.

                  The only thing that the government could affect are the safety regulations, and they would be limited in the courts and international trade about how far they dick about with that.

                  That is why your distinction about the greens policy is meaningless, futile, and outright stupid.

                  • Jenny …
                    15 April 2014 at 7:39 am

                    “….your distinction about the greens policy is meaningless, futile, and outright stupid.”

                    Tell it to the Greens leader then:

                    Duncan Garner. Question: “A moratorium on all new coal mines under your government?”

                    Russel Norman. Answer: “That’s right”

                    Better yet, tell it to the Greens membership, and many others who are mobilising on the ground to stop the Denniston Coal Mine.

                    Tell it to Forest and Bird and Greenpeace who launched expensive appeals against the ruling that climate change could not be considered as an objection to granting consents to starting new coal mining.

                    This is just the sort of authoritarian claptrap that will ensure the destruction of our biosphere.

                    And lastly it is pedantry.

                    “The coal rights in existence are a existing property right that would be difficult for any government to revoke. They cover all of the best deposits. They would also be difficult for any government to legally prevent for rights holders to exercise.”

                    When it comes to contracts and even statutes, the state has no problem ripping them up when it suits.

                    In the extradition case being taken against Dotcom the law clearly states that the claiments must produce a summary of their evidence before a New Zealand court, yet in the interests of our relationship with the US this statute is being tossed aside.

                    From the Dailyblog:

                    …..Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias who pointed out the Extradition Act states the record of case “must include both ‘a summary of the evidence acquired to support the request for the surrender of the person’ and ‘other relevant documents, including photographs and copies of documents’.” She also noted that natural justice requires those charged are to be informed “in detail of the nature of the charge”, and are to have “the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence”. On the face of it, it’s hard to disagree with such a fundamental right – especially when facing the prospect of being locked up in a United States prison. The majority of Supreme Court judges however said, despite the wording of our Act, natural justice was overruled by our international obligations – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/01/why-the-right-need-to-destroy-kim-dotcom/#sthash.FhPawt11.dpuf

                    We are at war, at stake is the future of human civilisation and humanity itself.

                    Did Churchill worry about what binding contracts private business had with Germany when he declared war on them?

                    Does Obama worry about the contractual arrangements that the EU has with Russia over natural gas when he demands an international boycott of Russian Federation over their interference in the Ukraine?

                    Obviously not.

                    For those of us who are serious about saving the climate there will be no hiding behind such plainly stupid and meaningless pedantry either. For you to demand that we do is what is futile. Do your worst mother fucker.

    • Jenny 7.3
      2 April 2014 at 1:12 am

      To my Grandchildren, Sorry we couldn’t save the climate, because you see, we had these contracts with the polluters….

      #1 (please try to point to a Green policy about what they would do with existing contracts for drilling for gas/oil instance)

      Houston we have a problem.

      Legally most of the carbon that cannot be burnt without destroying the climate is already legally above ground in the balance sheets of the fossil fuel companies.

      Such things as pension funds are heavily dependant on the valuation of these proven reserves being realised, by being dug up, and burned. Pension funds like insurance funds are contracts that cannot legally be broken.

      The problem we are calling Houston about is that to keep a planet even vaguely similar to the one we have now, all these social constructs we call financial contracts will have to be broken.

      I think we need to step back and have a rational assessment of the situation

      A social construct involving scattered pieces of paper with various politicians and businessmen’s signatures appended to them have gotten in the way of having a viable eco-sphere? That’s just nuts.

      The Sanctity of Contracts:

      Are contracts more sacred than human life?

      Are contracts more sacred than the continued existence of such natural wonders as the Great Barrier Reef, 50% of which has already gone?

      Let’s put the concept of the sanctity of contracts under the microscope.

      If for instance the National Government signs up to the TPPA and puts legal contractual obligations on all future governments not to pass legislation that could harm the returns on investment of the big multinationals.

      #2 Would in your opinion Lynn a Labour and or Green administration and every other administration after that, have to honour that contract?

      Or,

      #3 Would in your opinion Lynn, an independent sovereign government, democratically chosen, to enact certain policies in disagreement with the TPPA, have the power to over rule such a binding contract and bin it, if deemed necessary, in the best interests of the people they are elected to represent?

      If your answer is yes to question #3 then you have the answer to question #1. If a Labour/Green government decide that mining Denniston or Deep Sea Oil drilling is not in the best interests of the country, (or the continued existence of human civilisation) then they have every right as the independent sovereign rulers of this country to over rule any contract. (That is, if democracy means anything at all).

      Of course if you answered no to question #3 then we would have this condition:

      https://archive.org/details/CapitalismAndTheCorporateState

      To my Grandchildren, Sorry we couldn’t give you affordable medicines, or plain packaging on cigarettes, or safe labour legislation because you see, we had this contract with the big multinationals….

      I think Lynn that your objection about existing contracts is silly petty fogging. Every independent sovereign government has the legal and moral right to rip up contracts that they consider are no longer tenable. If it was not so, we would still have bonded slavery.

      http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/gg58/cbl.pdf

      (please try to point to a Green policy about what they would do with existing contracts for drilling for gas/oil instance).

      (I was very pleased not to have to try to point to a Green policy about what they would do with existing contracts for drilling for gas/oil instance).

      Because it is an innate part of democratic government.

      (If it wasn’t, democracy wouldn’t be worth anything, parliament wouldn’t have primacy, business contracts would).

      I suggest you don’t repeat ascribing your lying bullshit about party policies again.

      Labour’s finance spokesman, David Parker, says his party’s policies on oil, gas and mineral extraction are close to those of the Government.

      “I don’t think we are much different from National,” Parker said.
      labour National “close” on mining NZ Herald

      Even a cursory look at this early phase shows that they seem to have policies that look remarkably the same.

      Labour Greens “remarkably the same” on mining Lprent @ The Standard

      According to David Parker Labour and National policies “are close” and Labour and the Greens policies are remarkably the same according to Lynn Prentice.

      What can we draw from this?

      That Business As Usual will carry on what ever administration (or combination of) we elect?

      That Labour National and the Greens are all pretty much in agreement?

      I think most Green Party members would be appalled to hear that National Labour and the Greens are all remarkably the same/close on oil gas and mineral extraction. And I think that most Green Party leaders if asked would deny it.

      I could be wrong and Labour the Greens and the Nats are all remarkably the same/close on oil gas and mineral extraction, but I wouldn’t be guilty of spreading lying bullshit, I would just be honestly mistaken and I don’t mind saying just a little bit shaken if this was proved to be true.

      • Jenny 7.3.1
        4 April 2014 at 5:40 pm

        “(please try to point to a Green policy about what they would do with existing contracts for drilling for gas/oil instance)”

        Whether the Greens or Labour or any other party have such a policy or not is irrelevant.

        There is no getting around it. The sanctity of business contracts cannot be balanced against the sanctity of a survivable climate.

        To stop climate change, governments are going to have to over rule contractual arrangements relating to the fossil fuel reserves.

        Exxon Has 25 Billion Barrels of Fossil Fuel and Plans To Extract it All

        The company’s report to investors on climate risks shows it has a grim outlook on carbon rules

        ……if countries around the world implement sufficiently stringent carbon regulations to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—a threshold agreed to at the 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen. The amount of carbon humans can release without exceeding this limit—roughly 485 billion metric tons of carbon beyond what we’ve already emitted

        ….”The reserves are going to be able to turn into money, because they’re assuming there isn’t going to be a policy change,” said Natural Resources Defense Council Director of Climate Programs David Hawkins. “They’re definitely saying that no matter how bad it gets, the world’s addiction to fossil fuels will be so overwhelming that the governments of the world will just suck it up and let people suffer.”

        Tim McDonnell April 2, 2014

    • John W 7.4
      2 April 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Labour needs the West Coast vote.
      The Coast need a strong champion of low wage earner worker interests.

      No one is offering anything else to the West Coast to take the place of mining. Unemployment is high and people are feeling wasted. A depressed community but supermarkets chains do OK.. Everything is dearer on the Coast. There is a limit to the scope of tourism without destroying environment and the character attractions carefully marketed.

      No political party has provided a way for this community to sustain itself if mining is removed.

      An alternative is needed and none are on offer.

      The misquote attributed to Helen Clark ( “feral”) and propagated by gutter press enabled National to make giant gains in a Labour stronghold. Coasters as a group are fiercely protective with a history of hard times and battling adversity.

      The high rainfall allows good growth for dairy but not many crops can do well in the open. Marijuana being an exception judging by the police hauls by chopper.

      Local industry is so dependent on mining.

      Mining is a poor option with no long term sustaining of the community. Some better approach is needed to providing jobs and a living economy.

      A lot of profit is extracted from the West Coast by transnational “investors”, but wages are kept low while prices for goods are high. Some isolation through distance from Christchurch and Nelson allows transnationals like Toll to gobble up all competitions and dominate transport in and out of the Coast.

      Service industries establish branches on the Coast and undercut the locals initially to get established and expand. They pay dividends but not to coasters.
      Electrix for example boasted how many millions they had extracted out of the coast business back to Christchurch.

      There are many ways the Coast economy could be consolidated and sustain a better life for the community.
      Rampant capitalism is not the answer for such communities in many places around NZ.

      The extraction industry takes much more than coal.

  8. Tracey 8
    1 April 2014 at 9:05 am

    IF plain packaging is not reducing smoking in Australia, why wouldn’t the tobacco companies be excited that:

    a. it’s not working; and
    b. they are saving millions on expensive branding

    ”
    Plain packs derided as not working

    By Martin Johnston
    4:15 AM Tuesday Apr 1, 2014

    Save
    Like on Facebook 9
    Post on LinkedIn 0
    +1 on Google+ 0

    Health
    NZ Government
    National
    Smoking

    Tobacco giants begin efforts to dissuade Govt from law change with new research.

    The tobacco industry has ramped up efforts to persuade New Zealand against plain packaging. Photo / Brett Phibbs
    The tobacco industry has ramped up efforts to persuade New Zealand against plain packaging. Photo / Brett Phibbs

    The tobacco industry has ramped up efforts to persuade New Zealand against plain packaging, by circulating research claiming to show the policy has not worked in Australia.

    However, tobacco control experts have dismissed the findings and say it will take years to see the effects of the policy.

    Philip Morris, the manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes, has drawn attention to “three separate data sets that demonstrate plain packaging has not reduced smoking rates in Australia”. Two are company-funded surveys of smoking prevalence, by Zurich University and by policy consultancy London Economics. The third is industry sales data, released by the company, showing a 0.3 per cent rise in the volume of tobacco delivered to retailers last year.

    The Australian plain packaging law in December 2012 forced the removal of brand imagery and colours from tobacco packets and replaced them with enlarged health warnings and drab background colouring.”

    Cos they have a history of “finding” research to fit their position perhaps?

    • bad12 8.1
      1 April 2014 at 9:30 am

      Tracey, the only logical means of measuring any movement in use of tobacco products is in fact that of delivery to retail outlets,

      The fact that Governments neither gather nor publish such information shows that they have something to hide…

    • Stephanie Rodgers 8.2
      1 April 2014 at 9:44 am

      I haven’t read up on this in detail, but I can think of a logical answer to ‘why aren’t they excited they are saving millions on expensive branding’. Their statistics purport to show that the amount of smoking has increased, but that’s across all brands. Of course each individual company wants to increase their market share within the total number of smokers, and that’s where having an identifiable brand comes in.

  9. karol 9
    1 April 2014 at 9:38 am

    This is one time I agree with Brian Edwards. I caught this disgraceful Gower jonolism last night – including a montage of clips of Key calling Cunliffe “tricky”. Gower made an effort to give Key a bit of a slap, recently, now he’s back to full on Nat Government PR.

    Is this journalism or a party political broadcast on behalf of the National Party?

    • bad12 9.1
      1 April 2014 at 9:53 am

      i would suggest that Alfred E. Nuemann,(Gower), has had His chain yanked quite severely by the owners of that particular television channel,(therefore Gower’s owners),

      The difference between the two interviews, one a ‘blindside’ of Slippery the Prime Minister in a ‘press scrum’ and the other an obvious ‘pre-scripted’ event while both Gower and the PM were in China was glaring,(both interviews discussing the PM’s mis-use of a ‘charitable event’ that was in reality a National Party fundraiser),

      The Parliament sits again next week and if the opposition parties do not mount a concerted attack upon this ‘Fraudulent’ mis-use of ‘charities’ which turned out to be the National Party(full stop), then they are unlikely to get another chance as this to chisel from the PM enough of a % of support necessary leading into the election,

      It is in fact only the PM that provides to this National Government any modicum of electability and the ‘golf games for charity’ which were anything but becomes the perfect device to undermine His perceived popularity,

      i doubt the Opposition will get a better blunt instrument with which to blacken the reputation of the PM again befor the votes are cast in September…

      • RedLogix 9.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 10:51 am

        In principle yes.

        But of course such an attack will be painted up as ‘our poor hard-working Proim Munster being persecuted by that pack of feckless pinkos again’.

        John Key could barbecue a baby on live TV, scoff it down – and Gower would ask if it tasted delicious.

        This is not a play-fair game. It is rigged. Look closely at the rigging and work with it.

    • idlegus 9.2
      1 April 2014 at 9:54 am

      i stopped watching 3, i just find their news untrustworthy, if i cannot trust gower to give me fair & balanced & informative news how can i trust any of their ‘news’. i switched to tv1 instead, i did try give up all tv news but a better protest is for me to watch tv3s main competitor.

      • karol 9.2.1
        1 April 2014 at 10:15 am

        I don’t watch much TV3 news any more. But I am into watching how the news treats stories.

        I tend to watch TVNZ 6pm news live, if I am available. But I also often record both TV One and 3 News (it’s a time when I am doing domestic chores). Then i can flick through them on ff & only play items of interest.

        A lot of the headline news last night was about crimes and disasters.

    • Pete George 9.3
      1 April 2014 at 9:59 am

      I agree on this, I thought that item was overly slanted. It looked like a poll question was used to create a news story and then quotes from Cunliffe and Key were cherry picked to fit the story, but with unfair bias – noticeably more than usual.

      I think Gower swipes both ways but takes it too far too often.

      • karol 9.3.1
        1 April 2014 at 10:12 am

        Gower has consistently swiped at Cunliffe – way more so than against Key. He did go fairly hard on Key once or twice recently – and that after he came in for a lot of criticism for anti-Cunliffe bias. but his main attack on National was re-Key’s leadership rival Judith Collins.

        So I don’t think Gower is very even handed on this.

        News organisation polls are used as an easy way of creating an “exclusive” news item. They are ratings’ chasers. Then, once they have the results, to make headlines out of them, they need to present them in terms of something fairly dramatic. I would like to see political polls being taken away from news organisations.

    • phillip ure 9.4
      1 April 2014 at 10:00 am

      @ karol..

      ..that ‘tricky’ mash-up was particularly jaw-dropping..news as propaganda-gif..

    • Bearded Git 9.5
      1 April 2014 at 10:17 am

      +1 Karol. Gower should hang his head in shame.

    • Anne 9.6
      1 April 2014 at 10:45 am

      I can’t face watching it again but reflecting afterwards on the inherent venom coming from Gower I wondered if he ended up on the mat over the recent stick he gave Key. I will try to find footage and post here because my recollection was that Key was fuming and almost threatening in some of his responses.

      • Anne 9.6.1
        1 April 2014 at 6:29 pm

        Just as a comparison… TV1 had a clip on the same subject this evening. It was objective, fair and Cunliffe’s response was brief but looked like it was played in full.

        That’s the end of TV3 news for me. I suggest all reasonable people do the same!

        • karol 9.6.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 6:46 pm

          It was an interesting report on One News tonight. Key doing his best to Rubbish Cunliffe and the Labour caucus.

          The One News poll shows Cunliffe is the preferred leader for Labour (30+%), don’t knows 20+%); Robertson and Jones less of the vote than that.

          Cunliffe said it was because “his people” (Labour people?) knew him better than the rest of the country.

          • Anne 9.6.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 7:41 pm

            Cunliffe said it was because “his people” (Labour people?) knew him better than the rest of the country.

            Yes. And that’s why the membership and the unions voted overwhelmingly for Cunliffe. Because we know him to be a decent, honest and trustworthy person.

            Shame, shame, and more shame on you Paddy Gower and TV3.

            Edit: no disrespect to the other two candidates when I say that.

          • bad12 9.6.1.1.2
            1 April 2014 at 7:49 pm

            Coupled to this is the type of question asked by the Pollsters used by TV3, as i have alluded to on a number of occasions my belief is that a series of questions is asked of those polled by these companies that are specifically designed, in the vein of the clinic full of cynics trying to twist the peoples wrists, that paint a particular political party in a less than good light,

            You may have or may have not noticed that the day after the two channels broadcast the results of their different political polls, from different polling companies, TV3 followed this up on the Monday with a ‘result’ from the same poling company which had obviously asked the question of responders, ”do you trust Labour Leader David Cunliffe after the revelations surrounding the trust which held monies for His leadership challenge”, quite a mouthful that,

            Putting aside entirely the ‘results’ of this particular question i am suggesting that this particular polling company actually asked responders a series of questions about David Cunliffe and Labour in the same vein as the one i pose above, and, they asked such questions BEFOR asking those responding about their choices pertaining to the upcoming election,

            i am just about willing to bet you all, remember i qualified that with a just about, that a series of questions were also put to those responding to these polls querying what they thought of National and Slippery the Prime Minister in light of the recent good economic news,

            That is how polls are twisted and then used to instill bias in the minds of those watching the results broadcast on their televisions, laughably in what to me looked like a ‘public relations exercise’ these same polling companies agreed to sign up to an ‘industry code of conduct’, the ‘code’ business as usual, nothing was changed in the way polls are currently conducted by these companies,

            While Legislating for ‘fairness’ in such polls or Legislating such polls out of existence would be fraught with difficulty and may even raise opposition to a perceived suppression of free speech my belief is that such polls when published must also include the FULL list of questions asked of respondents and that published list should be done so to expose THE ORDER the questions were asked in,

            That at least would give us all ‘transparency’ and that is the least we can demand…

            • Anne 9.6.1.1.2.1
              1 April 2014 at 8:15 pm

              Do you know Bad12 I have a recollection that once upon a time that is exactly what happened. I think it might have been in the days before TV3 arrived on the scene. From memory the question asked would precede each individual result.

              • bad12 …
                1 April 2014 at 10:20 pm

                Yes Anne, i have the vaguest recollection of what you are saying, i am not sure tho if ‘back then’ the polling companies had taken to the cynical means of attempting to twist the peoples wrists by first asking a series of questions designed to put firmly in the minds of respondents a negative attitude to a person or Party…

    • Pete George 9.7
      1 April 2014 at 11:04 am

      Russell Brown covers this in some detail: Poll Day 2: Queasy. He concludes:

      It may be that Gower has a zinger about John Key for us tonight. If so, I hope it’s better and more fairly framed than last night’s story was. I respect the right of Gower and his colleagues to be robust, even provocative in their work. It’s important that they can be and if I’m watching TV at 6pm it’s usually them. But last night’s effort left me feeling a bt queasy.

      Specific cases of poor reporting like this need to be challenged and social media is one of the best tools available, http://bsa.govt.nz/complaints/making-a-complaint takes far too long.

    • BM 9.8
      1 April 2014 at 12:31 pm

      Personally, I found it quite an informative piece.

      Gave a good insight into why David Cunliffe is polling so badly, not sure what he can do to turn it around though, those character flaws seem to be hard wired in.

      Anyway It’s quite likely Jones will be PM in 2017, so it’s not all bad for Labour.

      • Skinny 9.8.1
        1 April 2014 at 12:55 pm

        The only thing missing is the narative that it’s over for Key-National even you know that BM. A cold winter soaring electricity bills, and interest rates rising just adds cream to the cake.

        When you take into account the 350,000 of the previous non voters coming out to vote things look very grim for National. I’m relaxed about Cunliffe’s polling as the other leaders of big 3 L/G/NZF coalition will share the burden of ruling, therefore Labour only need to point this out and it’s good night nurse for the Right.

        • BM 9.8.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 1:50 pm

          6 leaders aye, that’s a recipe for success and stability right there.

          You’d have to be mad, to not want that winning combo running the country.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.8.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 3:24 pm

            Well, ATM, we’ve got John Key, The Act dudes (one of which is in court), United Hair, and the Māori Party co-leaders. That, by my count, is 7.

      • anker 9.8.2
        1 April 2014 at 7:10 pm

        Sorry BM but dont agree. Very slanted. A number of times during this piece JK was edited in saying DC is “tricky”. That is complete right wing propaganda. Where is the story on Collins? Key and his “charity”.

        Frankly it was a disgraceful piece of reporting. As Brian Edwards said like a party political broadcast for the Nats.

        The only insight about why DC is polling badly is this sort of biased crap jonolism.

    • Tracey 9.9
      1 April 2014 at 3:14 pm

      imo gower was nowhere near as rabidly right as he is now at tv3. i think his aberration last week is who he is, but he bends to satisfy his paymaster.

    • Murray Olsen 9.10
      2 April 2014 at 1:52 am

      I think all the opposition parties should boycott TV3. They’d need a good campaign explaining why they were doing it, but I think it should be possible. I can’t see any good reason for any of them to appear in serial beatification of John Key.

  10. tricledrown 10
    1 April 2014 at 9:42 am

    Tobacco companies make a mockery on the war on drugs the deaths from tabacco use outweigh all other drugs yet tobacco companies are aloud to
    With impunity.
    Tabacco company chiefs should be treated the same as drug cartel lords.

  11. phillip ure 11
    1 April 2014 at 9:58 am

    this is very funny..

    ..it’s a victorian-era pen-name generator..

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/31/pen-name-generator_n_5045267.html

    ..mine is paul umble..

  12. ianmac 12
    1 April 2014 at 10:04 am

    Sue Kedgley has a point about saving National Radio. It is not being snuffed out but is instead being squeezed out but frozen funding by this Government. Sue’s final sentence sounds good to me as a National Radio listener:

    If Radio NZ’s half a million loyal listeners made it plain that they would vote only for a party that was committed to adequately funding it, perhaps the Government would sit up and listen.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11229714

    • Bearded Git 12.1
      1 April 2014 at 10:21 am

      Quite right ianmac. Some votes for the left here with a promise to restore RNZ funding to 2007 levels and then promise to increase funding in line with inflation.

    • Tracey 12.2
      1 April 2014 at 3:16 pm

      sue kedgley is such a loss to nz political landscape… most of tge pollies i can say that of, were Greens

    • karol 12.3
      1 April 2014 at 4:18 pm

      Very important article there by Kedgley

      Conservative governments all over the world seem to dislike public service broadcasting.
      […]
      But the truth is that it’s hard to get quality broadcasting in a commercial environment, as Brian Edwards pointed out some years ago, because the saturation level of advertising that’s required to keep a commercial radio station viable makes in-depth coverage of complex social and political issues almost impossible. There’s no room for extended interviews and in-depth discussions of complex ideas, which are the daily fare of Radio New Zealand.

      You need only listen to current affairs on commercial radio to see how true this is. The constant refrain of Larry Williams and Duncan Garner, is “sorry, we’ve run out of time. We’ve got to go to an advertising break.”

      It’s inevitable, too, that if a broadcaster is reliant on advertisers and sponsors it will become, in some sense, beholden to them, and this will compromise its editorial independence somewhere down the line. I mean, realistically, you cannot get stuck into a sponsor.

    • John W 12.4
      2 April 2014 at 1:13 pm

      RNZ has a Chairman who is ex Bolger’s office.
      The new CEO is ex Fairfax.

      Neither are loudly protesting about fund reduction by stealth.

      If they successfully move the RNZ agenda even more to the right then the funding issue will change.

      The changes on Morning Report will be illuminating.

  13. anker 13
    1 April 2014 at 10:34 am

    Well time to put in a complaint to TV3. I know its tedious and wet bus ticket response………But I think better than doing nothing.

    Somebody posted yesterday about the procedure for complaining to TV3 (sounds like their complaints file was pretty full!), but if anyone has that information to hand, that would be great.

    I think I might write to Mr Gower personally. Or maybe that would feed his ego?

  14. veutoviper 14
    1 April 2014 at 10:46 am

    I just read this post at the Eropei blog, which I have never visited before – and want to share it as I found it an open and refreshing perspective (depite the fact I am an aging babyboomer).

    Got the link from a tweet by Vikram Kumar, now of the Internet Party, who tweeted “Finally a brilliant understanding of what the #InternetParty is about. [link] The power of an open mind.”

    http://t.co/5uAcOwFp1A

  15. Disraeli Gladstone 15
    1 April 2014 at 10:57 am

    Giovanni Tiso has a really excellent piece on Dotcom and Mein Kampf:

    http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/his-kampf.html

    Well worth a read, especially considering his own perspective of Italy and Mussolini. Dotcom’s German nationality is oft pushed to one side by some of his defenders.

    • veutoviper 15.1
      1 April 2014 at 11:54 am

      Kim Dotcom is actually a dual citizen of Germany and Finland, as his mother is Finnish, and he has a strong affinity to Finland.

      So, in saying that his German nationality is oft pushed to one side, are you implying that all German nationals should be looked at with suspicion ?

      • Disraeli Gladstone 15.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 12:37 pm

        Sigh.

        It’s nothing to do with looking at Germans with suspicion. My mother is German. What she and other Germans don’t do is buy signed memorabilia of Hitler. The very fact that my mother is German means I’ve long been exposed to the fact that Germans are very quiet and unnecessarily ashamed of their history.

        The fact that Dotcom is happy to wear an SS Helmet as a “joke” says a lot about him.

        • bad12 15.1.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 1:48 pm

          Yawn Gallstone, even the Parliamentary Library has a copy of the fucking thing, you should be storming the barricades demanding its burning,

          And the fact that the littlest princling has the gall,there’s that word again, to dress up in an Afrika Corps uniform complete with Swastika armband shows he is the perfect example of the British ruling family???…

          • Disraeli Gladstone 15.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 5:20 pm

            Prince Harry was an idiot who has grown-up (great charity work), but who is sometimes still an idiot (stripping in Vegas).

            Kim Dotcom was an idiot who instead has only just done more stupid (and illegal) things. The two are not actually comparable.

            Also, it’s not a case of owning Mein Kampf for crying out loud. Stop constructing straw men because you don’t know how else to reason. There’s legitimate historical reasons for having it to study. Kim Dotcom is not a historian. He has a signed copy from Hitler for the mana of it.

            Which is already creepy. It’s even more creepy when coupled with other factors (the SS helmet, for instance).

            I’m genuinely left dumbfounded at why people are defending him.

            • bad12 15.1.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 10:45 pm

              Gallstone, i could quite imagine that you are still left dumfounded by having to form a working knot with your shoelaces,

              Your pathetic denigration of DotCom is missing something, FACT, DotCom owns the book as a capitalist money making venture, if He were to be seeking Mana from owning such a relic He would have it on prominent display somewhere where anyone visiting Him could see it,

              The argument could be just as well made that the littlest princling dressed as a Nazi not because of stupidity but because of familial connections to that particular regime, blood connections in other words,

              i can well imagine what the legitimate reasons to have such a book in the Parliamentary Library are, actually i can’t, being a library we could imagine for politicians to read up about politics and regimes in far away places their only reason to be reading such a text would be for hints in imitation…

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                2 April 2014 at 9:57 am

                Have you actually read the link I originally posted from Mr Tiso?

                • bad12 …
                  2 April 2014 at 10:17 am

                  You are now living in the past, then again that’s not a bad idea, please stay there…

    • phillip ure 15.2
      1 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

      disraeli..cd you run yr judgement-ruler over my half-german son..?

      ..do you have an app for that..?

      ..”should i play ‘ride of the valkyries’ to him..?

      ..see if it gets him agitated..?

      ..and marching jerkily around the room..?

    • Puckish Rogue 15.3
      1 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

      You seem to forget that Dot Con might be able to “get” John Key with the information hes suggested he has (he doesn’t of course because Dot Cons basically a con man but the left need to cling to anything at this stage) and therefore Dot Con gets defended

      • Disraeli Gladstone 15.3.1
        1 April 2014 at 12:42 pm

        Pretty much.

        It’s remarkably like sexism in the working classes. We should address such problems while recognising that the working classes are piled on by forces such as National. We’re complex human beings. We can criticise sexist, out-dated attitudes and improve working conditions and life. But no, because blue-collar working class men are the Holy Grail of the left-wing vote, a lot of people simply refuse to do so (we don’t have the time, it’s not important, look at the bigger picture). Hence the Thought Processes of Chris Trotter and co.

        Here, we have the very real problem that National are building a surveillance state and we should look to fix that. But that doesn’t mean we can’t also say that Kim Dotcom is a convicted criminal, donated money to John Banks, refused to pay creditors until publicity came about and in several months time will probably be exposed as a compulsive liar.

        Apparently there’s are sections of the left who are only capable of one dimensional thought.

        • Puckish Rogue 15.3.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 12:46 pm

          You might say that I couldn’t possibly comment

        • phillip ure 15.3.1.2
          1 April 2014 at 1:37 pm

          ok disraeli..

          ..that pile of bullshit has to be unpacked..

          ..”..because blue-collar working class men are the Holy Grail of the left-wing vote,..”

          that is old thought..of course they are part of the constituency the labour party is meant to take care of..

          (should we pause to thank those two labour govts for their contributions in building the high-cost-of-living/low-wage/poverty-ridden/environmentally-fucked economy nz has become under their ‘care’/stewardship..?)

          ..anyway..the holy grail for both labour and the greens nowadays..

          ..should be the smart/tech-savvy young..

          ..and it would seem that both those parties are about to lose/piss that vote away..

          ..’cos the internet party is going to come out much heavier branded than both of them..

          ..in things that matter to the young…

          ..the green party will be out-greened by the internet-party..will be out-pot-decrimed by them..

          ..be outsmarted on the smart/good/new/green ideas the internet party will come out..

          ..and the labour party will be out-laboured..

          ..(a universal basic income wd be a gordian-knot/labour party buster for the internet party..

          ..an idea where sue bradford and gareth morgan meet in agreement..

          ..it shouldn’t be too hard for the internet party..to go there too..

          ..and as a social/poverty-busting-policy..it cd only have harawira/mana nodding in agreement..

          ..and ticking more of the alliance-lite boxes that need to/must be ticked..before any deal can be considered..

          “..Kim Dotcom is a convicted criminal..”

          ..he did stupid stuff when young..those innocent please line up on the right..and not being caught does not equate to innocence..

          “.. donated money to John Banks..”

          ..his explanation is that banks sold himself to dotcom as a tech-man/future-thinker..

          ..i also think that banks may have offered to help him with residency issues/w.h.y…

          ..”.. refused to pay creditors until publicity came about..”

          ..yes..morally those debts were due..but legally there was no legal-obligation for him to pay them..and i agree we can’t know if he wd have paid were he not seeking de-facto public-office..i dunno..

          “.. and in several months time will probably be exposed as a compulsive liar…”

          ..now..this is the electorate-mp story you are referring to..

          ..and you are claiming this is an outright lie..

          ..now.think about this for a minute..

          ..the reasons to lie..?

          ..i can’t think of any..

          ..the reasons to not be lying..?

          ..the obvious ones are the vicious backlash the internet party wd receive at the hands of both the media and the public..

          ..were they shown/proven to be outright lying/misleading everyone..

          ..and they are too smart to do that..

          ..so i don’t think dotcom is lying about that..

          ..and i think the leader-in-waiting is shearer..

          • Disraeli Gladstone 15.3.1.2.1
            1 April 2014 at 5:22 pm

            I think you severely overestimate Kim Dotcom and come September will be disappointed when the Internet Party poll less than the Conservative Party (and heck, probably ACT).

            We’ll just have to wait and see.

  16. captain hook 16
    1 April 2014 at 11:47 am

    I met David Cunliffe yesterday and he is a decent person.
    What you see is what you get and his agenda is not self enrichment and self aggrandisement but genuine concern for people.
    The truth will out before the election.

    • Olwyn 16.1
      1 April 2014 at 12:32 pm

      I also think David Cunliffe is a decent person, and I very much hope you are right regarding the election.

  17. Puckish Rogue 17
    1 April 2014 at 12:20 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11230189

    Well done National, now thats what I call making a positive difference in peoples lives 🙂

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
      1 April 2014 at 12:28 pm

      Crime rates have fallen everywhere lead has been removed from petrol.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 12:32 pm

        In that case I suggest that Cunliffe tells the media exactly that just so some of the shine can be taken off National

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 12:42 pm

          Yeah I’ll also wait and see whether it turns out they’re massaging the statistics. My pick is they probably are, since they rely on lies for everything else.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 12:44 pm

            Cunliffe should also say that as well…you really should be advising Cunliffe, he’d romp in 🙂

        • anker 17.1.1.2
          1 April 2014 at 12:52 pm

          Wikipedia/wiki/Crime_in_New_Zealand

          Gee Pukish Rogue, this helps me understand why Key is so popular. People such as yourself rely on sources like the Herald to be informed.

          Try reading this. The falling crime rate is an international phenomena (fraid Shokey can’t claim this one). This outlines so of the reasons why crime has fallen. Demographics is very significant, but not the whole answer.

          Sorry for mis-spelling your name, but think Pukish Rogue rather becomes you. I might leave it as is.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.1.2.1
            1 April 2014 at 12:59 pm

            Well I’m just sorry I can’t come up with anything to do with the name anker but the main point is not the falling crime (though thats good) but its the headline people will notice and remember

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1.2.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 1:02 pm

              I think Lprent nailed you with Puckwit.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                1 April 2014 at 1:15 pm

                Yes hes an amusing funny guy all right and I looked at his bet as well but I found it pretty one sided, all the risk on my side and no reward so I didn’t feel like taking him up on it butt since Lprent likes to make bets I’ve got a good one for him:

                If John Key is the PM after the next election Lprent stops posting on here, he can still do all the nerdy stuff behind the scenes but no posting

                If anyone other then John Key is the PM after the next election I’ll never post on here again

                So there you go I’m confident that JK will be the next PM, how confident is Lprent?

      • MaxFletcher 17.1.2
        1 April 2014 at 12:45 pm

        “Crime rates have fallen everywhere lead has been removed from petrol”

        While this is a very interesting study correlation doesn’t equal causation.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.2.1
          1 April 2014 at 12:56 pm

          Only one study? Are you sure, or are you just desperate to demonstrate that you can parrot a skeptical sounding phrase?

          • MaxFletcher 17.1.2.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 1:19 pm

            Well, it is right to be skeptical because the study/studies/hypothesis/theory hasn’t been proven.

            It is interesting though and I while I am fairly confident there is some truth it I wouldn’t consider it the only reason.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.2.1.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 1:37 pm

              Oh dear, another one who thinks “proof” happens anywhere other than in Maths.

              You missed the point: there is far more than one study that establish the links between environmental lead and neurotoxicology. The recent one that made a splash is just the only one you’ve ever heard of.

              cf: studies by Rosenfeld, Needleman, Nevin, to name but a few.

              • MaxFletcher …
                1 April 2014 at 1:57 pm

                I understand how a proof works.
                And no I haven’t missed the point and there are very compelling studies relating to this.

                Nonetheless while interesting and compelling it is a hardly certain enough to make a blanket statement about. The same as Puckish can’t put it down solely to National’s crime policies.

                • Puckish Rogue …
                  1 April 2014 at 2:15 pm

                  “The same as Puckish can’t put it down solely to National’s crime policies”

                  I’m more that its the headline will people will see, the soundbite they’ll hear thats important

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 April 2014 at 2:18 pm

                  National’s social, penal and economic policies increase inequality and therefore have a negative effect on the crime rate. Removal of environmental lead and demographics have a positive one.

                  Puckwit’s point scoring is a perfect illustration of the finding that low IQ predicts for right wing beliefs.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    1 April 2014 at 2:46 pm

                    and while you’re pontificating about inanities the right will win the next the election

              • Seti …
                1 April 2014 at 2:33 pm

                And there are others, such as this from the US National Institute of Health, who reviews the various studies (Nevin, Reyes, etc).

                “…the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that variations in environmental lead exposure in childhood over the past 50 or so years in the USA explain, first the rise, and then the decline in crime rates.”

    • phillip ure 17.2
      1 April 2014 at 12:43 pm

      nice spin attempt there..pucky..

      ..a fact-check on that will show you that the drop in crime here is just the local echo of a marked international trend..

      ..and national have long been front-runners for the cynical-opportunist-award..

      ..for their long claiming this is all down to their get-tough-on-crime policies..

      ..but this is utter horse-shit..as these sharp drops in crime are evident in countries from both ends of the ideological-spectrum..from the most liberal/progressive..to the most repressive..

      ..and funny story..!..our local corporate/access media seemingly has neither the will nor the intelligence to know this widely reported international-trend in crime-dropping..

      ..and to challenge the govt spin/bullshit on it all being down to them..

      ..maybe their fact-checking/research doesn’t go much past reading/regurgitating/parroting govt spin/press-releases..

      ..you’d have to ask/assume..

      • Puckish Rogue 17.2.1
        1 April 2014 at 12:48 pm

        It may well be spin but the headline is a good one for National and very difficult to argue against

        • anker 17.2.1.1
          1 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

          Yeah only hard to argue against if you are non too bright……………………so we can conclude that people such as yourself who buy the spin are non too bright. Most people with half a brain will get it.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.2.1.1.1
            1 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

            Well you might like to consider this poll:

            http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/04/march_public_polls-3.html

            But no doubt you’ll say thats just spin and the people will see through that as well

            • anker 17.2.1.1.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 1:42 pm

              Your last attempt was BS so I am not bothering with you again.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                1 April 2014 at 1:45 pm

                Yes well sticking ones hands over ones eyes could be construed as a valid arguement I suppose

            • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1.1.1.2
              1 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

              I considered it. It shows National well below the polling level that gave them 59 seats in 2011, and since they have no mates, and Corruption Collins, not to mention King Gerry and Parroty, the next government will be Labour/Green.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                1 April 2014 at 1:53 pm

                Well ok then how about this, the bet I offered to Lprent how about you and I have the same bet?

                Its a gimme for you really, John Key becomes PM after the next election you never post here again and if anyone other then John Key becomes PM I’ll never pst here again

                Because I think John Key will be the PM after the next election

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 April 2014 at 2:00 pm

                  What, and give up the opportunity to rub your face in it every single chance I get? Not likely.

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    1 April 2014 at 2:11 pm

                    I’ll sweeten the deal, same bet as before but I’ll post for one day after (if anyone other then John Key wins) just so you can rub my face in it.

                    See heres the thing, I know John Key will be the PM after the next election so I can confidently make this bet , how confident are you you that he won’t?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 April 2014 at 2:22 pm

                      I’m confident that your desire to stop me posting here has something to do with an enlarged amygdala.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      1 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

                      Blame Lprent for putting the idea in my head but it does make me wonder just how confident some people are about the lefts chances…

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      1 April 2014 at 2:50 pm

                      Now now I’m sure the media would never over-exaggerate just to sell more newspapers, if its claimed there were thousands then there was most certainly thousands and if anyone claims otherwise then they’re bad evil-doers 🙂

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 April 2014 at 3:24 pm

                      Well, the NZ Herald ran one of their straw polls (yes, I know) and close to eight thousand people were 78% against, so what does that tell you?

                • McFlock …
                  1 April 2014 at 3:20 pm

                  if anyone other then John Key becomes PM I’ll never pst here again using this pseudonym because my craving for attention is significantly larger than the product of my integrity and intellect

                  FIFY

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    1 April 2014 at 3:34 pm

                    Ok Mcflock and Tracey take the bet and we’ll see what happens, of course you need gumption to take a bet like that so being from the left you won’t take it because when its all said and done the left are basically neutered

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 April 2014 at 3:42 pm

                      🙄

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2014 at 3:44 pm

                      Oh bullshit. Why would I take that bet? If key’s back in october, life will be bad enough. If Cunliffe is pm, there will always be obnoxious little scrotes like you even if you don’t come sliming back under that handle or any other. No gain, small marginal punishment.

                      Your problem is that you think you are some big nemesis that we’re all yearning to be rid of. You’re not. You’re just one of the rodents that come here from the sewer, bustle and squeak, and then descend for another coating of shitwater.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      1 April 2014 at 3:49 pm

                      No McFlock you’re gutless, as an ex-girlfriend would put it you’re all mouth and no trousers

                      I put out a bet that was quite generous but you won’t take it up which tells me you think theres a more then a decent chance John Key will still be PM

                      Put up or shut up in other words

                      [lprent: You can’t really talk about being gutless taking a bet. Still think that only a few hundred people would turn up to the TPPA protest on the weekend? I notice you avoided answering.

                      But since you feel this is such an important part of how this site operates (you notice I didn’t insist), a weeks ban for being a stupidly blatant hypocrite and falling into the pwned heresy. ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 April 2014 at 4:04 pm

                      Did you ever tell Ms. Malaprop the phrase is “all mouth and trousers” or were you too gutless?

                      You can tell me when you get back.

                    • fender …
                      1 April 2014 at 4:35 pm

                      Maybe he could also explain if it’s Key who’s responsible for the increase in sexual offending, despite it not being included in the almighty “headline”..

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2014 at 4:40 pm

                      you think theres a more then a decent chance John Key will still be PM

                      At the moment, I’d say a 30-40% chance.
                      But, as I’ve said before, the big decider is the campaign.

                      As it is, sadly we are without your company for a week – concerning which fact I am strangely numb.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      2 April 2014 at 2:29 am

                      I’ll take your stupid bet, but once you’re unbanned you’ll have to provide your real name. I won’t bet with a pseudonym.

                • Tracey …
                  1 April 2014 at 3:26 pm

                  we know lprents real name, whats yours… cant make a bet with an imaginary name that can rebirth itself

                  • Puckish Rogue …
                    1 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

                    I’m sure he knows my IP address besides I’m willing to trust his word if hes willing to trust mine

        • phillip ure 17.2.1.2
          1 April 2014 at 1:02 pm

          i thought the point i made that it is very easy to argue against/to show it as a pile of self-serving bullshit..

          ..with the question being why do neither the opposition politicians nor the corporate/access media have te wit/intelligence to do just that..

          ..only unthinking sheep just ‘baa!’ along in chorus..

          • Puckish Rogue 17.2.1.2.1
            1 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

            ..with the question being why do neither the opposition politicians nor the corporate/access media have te wit/intelligence to do just that..

            Because the msm are used to taking press realeases and rerunning them as news?

            • phillip ure 17.2.1.2.1.1
              1 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

              @pucky..

              ..aye..!

              ..and perhaps the most obvious example of this is the business reporter on tvone breakfast show..

              ..take her away from her autocue/rehearsed-pieces..

              ..and she gapes like a goldfish out of water..

              ..and in her area of expertise..her tugging of the forelock to those corporate/elite-interests is incessant..

              ..and she wd probably need a dictionary to know what critical-analysis is..

              ..she probably wd think it is a new mortgage-marketing package..

              ..’invest in our new ‘critical-analyis’ program!’..

              ..we do both the ‘critical’ and the ‘analysis’..

              ..so you don’t have to..!..

              ..fixed and floating holders of what those silly french call the ‘morte-gage’..the death-grip..are welcome to sign up for our free ‘critical analysis’..

              ..come and get a free-meeting with one of our consultants..

              ..here at the screw-you banking corporation..

              ..parking is also free..”

  18. scotty 18
    1 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

    There is gaping opportunity open to the left -with the new Snapper limits in Auckland.

    I agree with the lower limit – but by not including the commercial fishing industry –

    the new regulations are just another transfer of a common resource from all of us – to a select few.

    Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the National Party has close links to the Fishing Industry.

    David Cunliffe should be hammering this.

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      1 April 2014 at 12:45 pm

      the new regulations are just another transfer of a common resource from all of us – to a select few.

      Yep, and that’s something the parties of the left need to be hammering home.

  19. ianmac 19
    1 April 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Oops.

    “Businessman in citizenship row admits charges
    Donghua Liu today pleaded guilty to assaulting a woman and assault with intent to injure after an incident at the Boulevard Hotel in Newmarket, ……

    His de facto wife, Juan Zhang, was the victim of the more serious charge, assault with intent to injure, which carries a maximum sentence of three years in jail…..
    ……She is also a former director of the company that made a significant donation to the National Party.
    The Herald revealed last month that Liu was given citizenship against official advice in 2010 after lobbying by National Party minister Maurice Williamson and the then Mayor of Auckland, John Banks.”

    Well that will be fixed. Move on Key will say etc etc. Money for favours huh?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11230303

    • Tracey 19.1
      1 April 2014 at 5:36 pm

      can it be revoked?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 5:59 pm

        Nah, National cashed the cheque already.

      • srylands 19.1.2
        1 April 2014 at 6:17 pm

        No it cannot be revoked unless the citizenship was obtained fraudulently. There is no provision to take away someone’s citizenship because they are commit offences.

        BTW it is not unusual for Ministers to overturn official advice about granting citizenship. Between 2005 and 2011, Ministers overturned such advice relating to 8% of all citizenship applications. That covers the last three years of the last Government and the first three years of the current government.

        http://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/citizenship/part3.htm

        Given the large numbers involved, inevitably some new citizens who were granted citizenship against official advice will be convicted of offences. Some will also donate to political parties.

        • Tracey 19.1.2.1
          1 April 2014 at 6:25 pm

          thats ok then, if its just a statistical issue

        • Draco T Bastard 19.1.2.2
          1 April 2014 at 7:58 pm

          Between 2005 and 2011, Ministers overturned such advice relating to 8% of all citizenship applications.

          Yes, but how many of them committed a crime afterwards and which government did the most of such overturning?

  20. phillip ure 20
    1 April 2014 at 3:39 pm

    mmm!!!

    ..warm and toasty…!

    “..A Futurist on Why Lawyers Will Start Becoming Obsolete This Year..”

    http://www.wired.com/2014/03/geeks-guide-karl-schroeder/

    • McFlock 21.1
      1 April 2014 at 4:46 pm

      or some ultra-conservative pastors about to lose some of their flock.

      Because the big issue in south auckland is gay marriage. /sarc

      • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1
        1 April 2014 at 5:57 pm

        The previous right-wing narrative was that the voters of South Auckland do it for KFC. I can’t see how this one is any less racist than the last.

    • BM 21.2
      1 April 2014 at 5:40 pm

      Yeah,that’s quite big news and Labour could really take a hit because of it.

      I guess the final straw was the Len Brown debacle.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.3
      1 April 2014 at 5:50 pm

      Gosh! All six of them.

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    1 April 2014 at 8:02 pm

    Walmart Admits: ‘Our Profits’ Depend on ‘Their Poverty’

    Although a notorious recipient of “corporate welfare,” Walmart has now admitted that their massive profits also depend on the funding of food stamps and other public assistance programs.

    In their annual report, filed with the Security and Exchange Commission last week, the retail giant lists factors that could potentially harm future profitability. Listed among items such as “economic conditions” and “consumer confidence,” the company writes that changes in taxpayer-funded public assistance programs are also a major threat to their bottom line.

    The company writes:

    Our business operations are subject to numerous risks, factors and uncertainties, domestically and internationally, which are outside our control … These factors include … changes in the amount of payments made under the Supplement[al] Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, changes in the eligibility requirements of public assistance plans …

    So much for the wealth creating capitalists and their preferred Trickle Down hypothesis.

    • Molly 22.1
      2 April 2014 at 8:20 am

      Maori television had the documentary Walmart: The high cost of low prices” on a few weeks ago. Worth watching.

      And also worth considering is the fact that Walmart is privately controlled – over 50% of stock is owned by the Walton family. They are an accomplished user of tax havens and incentive subsidies that enrich them while impoverishing communities and governments.

  23. amirite 23
    1 April 2014 at 9:20 pm

    You shouldn’t believe Key and English when they’re saying there won’t be more asset sales. It’s all about ideology because Nats simply believe public ownership “should not be seen as the default setting”. Armstrong confirms this in his column today, saying that some of the non-profit infrastructure like state schools and major hospitals may be partly privatised if National stays in power and that Labour is fighting a losing battle in trying to stop it.
    Quite chilling, really.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11229836

    • Draco T Bastard 23.1
      1 April 2014 at 10:26 pm

      It’s all about ideology because Nats simply believe public ownership “should not be seen as the default setting”.

      National’s ideology is closer to nothing should be owned by the public.