Open mike 30/05/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, May 30th, 2014 - 378 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

378 comments on “Open mike 30/05/2014”

  1. Paul 1

    I read in the Dimpost an article
    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/all-in-the-game/

    which looked at a dreadful and typically biased Patrick Gower diatribe.
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334w9zpnH

    The comments below the article showed a lot of people’s disdain for the corporate media personified by Gower. This comment by Nick Taylor is worth publishing here.

    “I think it’s time you lost your job mate.
    NZ has a huge problem – nobody bothers to vote… and it’s not because it doesn’t matter, it does… it’s because you useless, worthless, pathetically inadequate people from “the media”, report politics as though it is a type of celebrity gossip.
    Here’s an idea: The purpose of the 4th Estate is to create an informed voting public.
    If after a year fewer than 50% of people can name more than 2 policies from the major parties, you lose your job.
    Fewer than 20%, and you go to prison – for criminal negligence.
    Reckon that might change your “reporting” style slightly?
    I think it might.”

    Brilliant.

    • what i took from that rant from gower..

      ..is what a lousy writer he is..

      ..it is political-opinion as adhd..

      ..a staccato machine-gunning assault of words..

      ..no cohesion..no flow..

      ..read it out loud..

      ..a 10 yr old could do better..

      ..were it a university-exercise..

      ..you’d give him an ‘f’..

      • Paul 1.1.1

        Sadly though this F grade writer gets air time.

      • bad12 1.1.2

        If you really want to spend 16 minutes learning, well nothing really, there’s a video on the Herald online of Sue Bradford explaining, well nothing much really…

    • Once was Tim 1.2

      +1

      The problem is it seems that most in the msm have lost all concept of what that 4th Estate is, or that ‘quaint old idea’ of a public sphere – they certainly don’t deserve the label 4th Estate any longer.
      They trot out the usual clap trap of ‘we’re just giving the audience what they want – usually based on viewing nummbers and ‘most populars’ ….. except that people don’t know what they don’t know, AND most popular doesn’t mean most important or even most beneficial.

    • Tracey 1.3

      Great reply.

    • amirite 1.4

      Paul, you should’ve seen the Twitter backlash yesterday. If I was Gower, I’d take stresss leave.

  2. that opinion-writer in the herald..trevett..

    ..has written a load of unadulterated-drivel…

    ..re mana/internet hook-up..

    ..i won’t insult you by linking to it..

    ..and only read it if you feel like getting agitated..

    ..and/or marking trevetts’ card.. as one to studiously ignore..

    • Once was Tim 2.1

      No thanks …. at the mo I’m too busy preparing myself for TV3’s ‘political’ panel of hacks about to grace the screen. I lost Gluon and Susie a week after they came to air

  3. Paul 3

    Another dreadful interview this morning on Morning Report, this time by Suzie Ferguson with the lawyer of Kim Dotcom.
    Sounds like Key supplied the questions for her.
    A disgrace our tax payer money being used for National propaganda.
    Jordan Williams and tax payer union need to act.

    • Tracey 3.1

      Why would the lawyer be speaking to media at all? Was it paul dale?

      • mickysavage 3.1.1

        Ira Rothken, .com’s US lawyer. Different rules apply there!

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1

          Ah, thanks Mickey. Still i do wonder about it cos within two days of announcing the alliance, one day of laila harre and the anticipated barbs of buying a bar to extradiction, theres his lawyer in the media

          • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1

            Thanks, paul dale presented wayne tempora and i confused him with paul davidson.

            Interesting that despite glucinas article in march about howdisgruntled tempora is he didnt change his original statement to the police of the banks donation.

            • veutoviper 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Thought that was the case, Tracey – ie confusing Dale with Davidson. Easily done.

              Re Wayne Tempero, my take is that he could probably not change his original statement without possible reprecussions if it was an affidavit for example. Hence Banks’ lawyer trying to run the “KDC is controlling Tempero, Mona etc”.

              • Tracey

                If he was being coerced he could recant. It happens, and if it undermined his credibility that would serve banks.

            • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1.1.2

              Unlike politicians, Tempero probably doesn’t change the truth depending on his relationship with someone. I can see how that would confuse Banks, Key, and WhaleSpew.

      • veutoviper 3.1.2

        No, not Paul Dale, who is not acting for Kim Dotcom in any capacity as far as I am aware. Or did you mean Paul Davidson QC, KDC’s main NZ lawyer?

        It was Ira Rothken, KDC’s US Lawyer talking about the Hollywood moguls’ attempts to freeze KDC’s assets.

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2597873/hollywood-wants-to-freeze-dotcom's-assets

        Snap – MS!

  4. bad12 4

    Soooo, Slippery the Prime Minister makes the accusation that Kim DotCom is simply ”buying influence” with the alliance of InternetMana,

    i really have to concede the point to Slippery on this one, my knowledge of ”influence buying” being minimal in the extreme,

    The Prime Minister after all is an Expert in the peddling of ”influence” having turned the Office of the Prime Minister of New Zealand into what looks like from here to be a simple whore-house,

    Such expertise in trading ”influence” for money is inherent in every ”charity event” the Prime Minister has ever prostituted Himself and the Office of the Prime Minister in where the beneficiary has been the National Party,

    If DotCom is ”buying influence” then it is Slippery the Prime Minister who provided the template and the lesson of just how this is accomplished

    • Tracey 4.1

      I laughed at the tuxedoed keysaying he would feel dirty if a donor was trying to buy him…

      He just moves his lips and out comes the hypocrisy and deception…

      Does maurice feel dirty, judith, oh an d john key the chief prostitue and pimp rolled into one for the nats

  5. BM 5

    Fell a bit sorry for Dave doesn’t matter what he does or says he’s going to be crippled by

    Norman
    Turei
    Harawira
    Dotcom
    Minto
    Skyes
    Peters
    etc

    That’s some serious drag factor there.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

      You wish. They all believe that government should do things, remember? And there’s plenty to do 😈

      • BM 5.1.1

        The horses are going do be nervous wrecks and addicted to prozac by the time the election rolls around.

        There’s only really two options at this years election for voters

        National outright and a continuation of good economic times and prosperity.

        or

        This motley crew of communists, crooks and nut bars which will cause money to flee the country faster than water going down a plug hole.

        My money is on number one.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1

          Look at the polls fool. National have dropped 3-14 points since 2011 and they have no mates. You really don’t get MMP do you?

          • BM 5.1.1.1.1

            I will expect the media to really start ramping up the negativity about the far left coalition.

            Every crazy arsed muttering by Harawira, Minto etc will be on the front page, there will be endless stories about how businesses confidence will crumble, the dollar will crash and mass unemployment is a certainty if the coalition of the crazies get their hands on the levers of power.

            Any working/thinking/house owning person won’t be voting left, that’s for sure

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Ramping up the negativity? Have you been sleeping for the past two years, or is there a two year lag in your brain?

            • miravox 5.1.1.1.1.2

              “Any working/thinking/house owning person won’t be voting left, that’s for sure”

              My partner and I are all those things. We also have kids and want them and their peers to have a half decent life – you know – like have a home, an environment, enough to live on and a fair chance of having their worth recognised as citizens, workers and valued members of whichever community they wish to be included in.

              We’re voting left.

              • BM

                Don’t you live overseas?

                • miravox

                  We do for now (it’s where the jobs are). It’s given us a really good insight into how ‘left’ NZ isn’t and how crazy the NActs are in building a not-so-bright future.

                  Luckily we’re home often enough to keep our right to vote.

                • Lanthanide

                  Funnily enough, the right to vote extends to citizens who live in other countries too, depending on when they last were in NZ.

                  Isn’t it naughty that we let our citizens experience the great-wide-world and let that inform their views on how NZ should be run?

                • Tracey

                  Dont you live in la-la land?

        • Tracey 5.1.1.2

          As opposed to your motley crew of facists, crooks and nut bars

          • srylands 5.1.1.2.1

            Tracey, your problem is that, apart from being constantly drunk or hungover, we already have a socialist government in New Zealand.

            The choice is a competent socialist government, presiding over a giant social welfare safety net, and a huge system of income redistribution, and a giant, interventionist government, or…

            an incompetent coalition that will burn through money, and (in the case of the Greens) are barking mad and have no understanding of markets. I mean none. At all.

            • freedom 5.1.1.2.1.1

              sixty billion plus of new debt , sixty billion srylands
              oh look it’s rainbow mat time, you’re runniing late
              better go hang your bag up and get to class

            • bad12 5.1.1.2.1.2

              SSLands, you are constantly proven here at the Standard to be a Coward and a Liar, if you get the feeling that you are not in any way welcome here, you are correct, you’re not…

            • Skinny 5.1.1.2.1.3

              Certainly appears your another upset rightwing lunatic, after the coup Harre is appointed TIP leader. Her sole ambition is to unseat your great leader Shrillands. Has Ipredict got the guts to post odds on Mana/TIP getting triple the party votes ACT get? If so the odds will be skinny. From what I am reading on social media Laila is well on her main mission to getting a good slice of the missing million out to vote.

              Looks like an early Xmas for the Left 🙂

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1.4

              National and friends aren’t even competent in their corruption.

              Meanwhile, the left have proven themselves competent in running the country.

            • The Al1en 5.1.1.2.1.5

              “your problem is that, apart from being constantly drunk or hungover”

              Prick

          • veutoviper 5.1.1.2.2

            Ignore S Rylands and his nasty comments about you , Tracey. He is just a sad case stuck in his one eyed neoliberal Right wing past. Not worth bothering with.

            • Bearded Git 5.1.1.2.2.1

              Simply ignore srylands. A troll.

              • Once was Tim

                +1
                Talk about the mother of assumptions (e.g. “Tracey …. your problem” …. etc.)
                What a fucking pratt of the first order.
                Troll
                Ideologue
                Rehearsed Lines (talking points)
                Diversion specialist (not a very good one)
                ‘End of Story!” Beep Bop Aloola…”that’s it – don’t mean maybe”
                Closed Mind
                Stereotypical used car sales spin merchant
                Fuckwit extra-ordinaire
                Wimp
                Coward

                The rulz of engagement prevent my saying more.

                Backbenchers sometime maybe Sry?

            • Tracey 5.1.1.2.2.2

              Thanks veuto. He doesnt bother me. He has told so many lies on here…

              His bottom line is two things

              His personal wealth and the market

        • bad12 5.1.1.3

          BM, 🙄 my money is on you being ejected way befor then, 🙄 …

        • Olwyn 5.1.1.4

          This motley crew of communists crooks and nut bars…

          We may lack communists at the helm, but we have no shortage of crooks and nut bars now. The difference is, they’re batting for your team, not ours.

        • Murray Olsen 5.1.1.5

          The money is fleeing the country already. That’s all a housing boom does – send money to Aussie banks. Then there’s the interest paid on money borrowed for tax cuts…..I could go on, but there are none so blind as those who didn’t stop wanking as soon as they needed glasses.

    • Rosie 5.2

      God you’re a laugh BM.

  6. millsy 6

    It is a bit rich for Key to accuse .com of buying influence when he has been bought and paid for by the Chinese Politburo.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

      +1

      • Kiwiri 6.1.1

        Quite.

        Key can talk! Journalists and people can ask Key to release the full bank details of donors to the Waitemata and Ruahine Trusts, plus other trusts that he and the Nats are hiding. He might even feel cleaner after that!

    • Colonial Viper 6.2

      And Hollywood

    • Populuxe1 6.3

      I thought he was bought and paid for by Washington DC? Do please make up your mind.

  7. Marius 7

    If it hasn’t already been enough with Plunket, Henry and James Cameron screaming ‘MONEY’ as Laila Harre’s only motivation for popping her head back above the political parapet – Radio Live allowing Richard Low’s early morning ‘On the field’ slot to become a political analysis segment has to be the limit. This morning we had the erudite Mr Low discuss with a somewhat reluctant Paddy Gower Harre’s new role as leader of the Internet party. ‘Interesting to see Laila Harre back in politics after so long an absence and joining up with the Internet party’, bumbled Richard, ‘I bet that won’t be politically motivated, Paddy’. Poor old Paddy did his best to not get too wordy with Richard and kept things to a sort of training run joke session as best he could. Embarrassing to say the least.

  8. “..Heartwrenching TV Ads Urge New York’s Government to Support the New Medical Marijuana Bill..”

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/heartwrenching-tv-ads-urge-new-yorks-government-support-new-medical-marijuana-bill

    (link has vid of ads..)

  9. One Anonymous Bloke 9

    I’m no fan of National but I do admire their contempt for Peter Dunne.

    • Tracey 9.1

      Oh look, its those highest ethical standards of the Minister for Oravida again, and “i would feel dirty doing that” Key.

    • emergency mike 9.2

      Wow, things must really be bad at the GCSB if Key doesn’t even want some BS review to go ahead. Peter Dunne gets to be all spluttery with indignation, and gets his prize hairdo in front of some camera or other.

      “Justice Minister Judith Collins said the issues listed by Dunne were on hold until work was complete and new privacy legislation was drafted.”

      I.e. we’ll be making sure the people we need to shaft are well shafted before anyone gets to actually look at anything. Or maybe their waiting for something in particular perhaps? The NSA has already drafted the legislation for them after all…

      Or maybe the conversation at the time of Dunne’s “willing buyer, willing seller” deal went a bit like this:

      Dunne: So John, you want my vote for this spy bill thing yeah?

      Key: That’s right Peter, we’ve got Al Qaeda all over the show. Keeping New Zealanders safe from terrorism is top priority. We have to accept that ackshully, the reality is…

      Dunne: Fuckin’ Jesus is the GCSB recording this John? Why are you talking to me like I’m an idiot?

      Key: Ha yeah sorry, just habit, it’s been a rough week. So what do you want mate?

      Dunne: I told you already, I expect to be taken care of like we talked about.

      Key: Yeah we can do that bro.

      Dunne: Nice. So just for the munters then, shall we say that I made you agree to, uh, a review or some shit?

      Key: Review, um, a review’s no good.

      Dunne: Well just a sham one obviously.

      Key: hiss

      Dunne: Ok ok. How about this, we say you made us agree to a review, and you get my vote. But later on you back out and make some excuse so there’s no review. I’ll be mildly upset about it, I can go with that.

      Key: Sure that works.

      Dunne: But I still get mine later on right John?

      Key: Of course, of course. You’ll get yours. I’m into murders and executions. You’ll get yours.

      Dunne: Come again?

      Key: I said I have to return some videotapes.

      Dunne: Right. So, Dunne deal?

      Key: Always a pleasure mate.

  10. Chooky 10

    Good on Nick Smith for rejecting the Fiordland National Park monorail!

    The next thing to be rejected is the road along the Hollyford….the sooner developers realise that pristine wilderness is the attraction and that inroads spoil wilderness the better

    ….but developers are crass creatures and anything to make a buck for themselves over-rides the very thing that is most precious to us all…the unspoiled nature wilderness!

    • Tracey 10.1

      Look for an ulterior motive chooky. He said they would look at alternatives…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2

      The project is undercapitalised. That translates as “Hey, Oravida, get your proposal in, pronto.”

    • Colonial Viper 10.3

      Nick Smith made the right call – again. The vast majority of people in the area will be pleased.

      • Tracey 10.3.1

        Internal polling must have been bad or a nat donor has a more profitable idea in the pipeline

        • Colonial Viper 10.3.1.1

          Yes, that too. But as someone who is knowledgeable, understands the issues, and listens, Nick Smith also has a good reputation amongst conservation groups – better than any on the Labour side.

          • Tracey 10.3.1.1.1

            But he still has to get past cabinet, which means joyce and key

          • Populuxe1 10.3.1.1.2

            I feel sorry for Nick Smith – I genuinely do believe he cares passionately about and lobbies for his Environment portfolio, but he’s up against an entirely unsympathetic caucus for whom it’s growth at all costs.

            • bad12 10.3.1.1.2.1

              Populuxe1, Sympathy for the devil???, Nick Smith is the Minister for unHousingNZ and is currently involved in unhousing 1000’s of the poorest most vulnerable New Zelander’s and the selling off of at least 20% of the States Housing stock to private interests,

              That sell off so as to enable this National Government to declare a ”budget surplus” is as large in dollar terms as any of the electricity generators previously sold in the asset sales program,

              Smith deserves sympathy for nothing, had the proposed mono-rail been ensconced within a safe Labour seat Smith would have probably given it the go ahead…

              • Clemgeopin

                5000+10,000

                [5000 was the number of state houses built by Michel Joseph Savage’s government in 1935 and 10,000 was the number of state houses built each year around the country after the war]

                Nick Smith is a wolf in sheep’s clothing shedding crocodile tears for the environment, the less wealthy and the poor. But he does advocate for his close accidental puller pals.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.3.1.2

          The same idea, backed with more money, and the original investor cut out of the deal completely. That’s how it’s done.

    • BM 10.4

      I actually thought the mono rail was quite a good idea.

      I’d be more likely to go on the mono rail than hike.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1

        Another reason not to build the monorail.

        • BM 10.4.1.1

          As Mike Hosking said, not everyone wants to spend days hiking through bush in the rain, chewing on scroggin while getting eaten alive by mosquitoes.

          I can see why that may appeal to all the hair shirters on the left but that’s not really my thing, I’d prefer to sit back and take it all in via a comfy chair, glass of wine/beer and an air conditioned cabin

          It would also be great for disabled people.

          • Tracey 10.4.1.1.1

            Oh give me a break, this isnt about the disabled. The disabled this govt is shutting out of heaps of the chch commercial rebuild.

            If you or hoskings want to “think of the disabled” start rallying for their everyday needs, sufficient payments, access to buildings, xarers and so forth.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.4.1.1.2

            Choice, so Mike Hosking won’t be there either.

          • srylands 10.4.1.1.3

            Well both you and Hosking are mad. The alternative on offer was (1) a bus trip – what happens now or (2) a combination boat ride, monorail, ATV trip.

            i.e (2) (which was rejected) was replacing a bus trip.

            Did you look at the map of the area? Have you been to Milford Sound?

            I fucking hate monorails, and I think this thing looked dumb, but it was not going through the national park, and it was replacing buses – you know the things that emit GHG and run bikes off the road.

            DOC advised the Minister that there were no material adverse impacts on the conservation estate.

            So I think it should have been allowed to be built (and probably fail, but that is the role of the market, not a Minister.)

            But I still hate monorails.

            So I am not too fussed.

            • weka 10.4.1.1.3.1

              “DOC advised the Minister that there were no material adverse impacts on the conservation estate.”

              Sorry, but DOC can no longer be trusted in these matters. Weirdly, they have a commercial imperative/conflict of interest, AND are now prevented from taking stances against projects. Don’t know about the monorail, but DOC’s reports for the Dart/Hollyford tunnel proposal were done by outside consultants who appeared to not know what they were talking about.

          • vto 10.4.1.1.4

            BM re monorail : “, I’d prefer to sit back and take it all in via a comfy chair, glass of wine/beer and an air conditioned cabin. It would also be great for disabled people.”

            It always astounds me how little thinking goes on in the right sphere of the brain….

            You do realise BM that the vast majority of tourist ventures and businesses and excursions into the Fiordland wilderness do provide exactly this already., don’t you … Do you?

            You can sit in a comfy chair travelling through Fiordland.
            You can drink piss travelling through Fiordland (in same comfy chair no less).
            You can drink piss in a comfy chair and in an airconditioned cabin travelling through Fiordland

            You can already do all of those things, and more BM. There are heaps of them, trust me.

            And same exactly for disabled.

            So sharpen up or ship out with your brainless and undeveloped ideas, you are a dangerous waste of space …..

            You’re like the bloody moronic loons from the 1800’s promoting the Haast-Hollyford highway – one of their main arguments is exactly yours above and it is total bunkum.

            Useless

            edit: and Mike Hosking is clearly a shit-for-brains too

            • marty mars 10.4.1.1.4.1

              Good points vto. For years they have also wanted to connect Golden Bay to the Westcoast via a highway (across the Heaphy aroundabouts) – straight through the beautiful wilderness and significant ecosystems. These people have no morals and few brains and luckily their ideas are ash.

              • vto

                Yep they clearly lack a decent pile of brains. But they need to be kept right on top of lest some government comes in and lets them do these things. This government is one such and I am surprised again at Nick Smiths wisdom in this…… must be an election year

            • weka 10.4.1.1.4.2

              And just so we are completely clear about what the monorail (and tunnel) is about: Queenstown business interests want to get their customers to Milford Sound and back much more quickly so that they can spend more money in Queenstown rather than sitting on a bus. This is ALL about greed. Tourism is a form of mining in the conservation estate. Suck up as much as you can, while you can, until the thing is ruined.

              • Populuxe1

                Queenstown business interests want to get their customers to Milford Sound and back much more quickly so that they can spend more money in New Zealand’s third world economy rather than sitting on a bus.
                FIFY

          • Draco T Bastard 10.4.1.1.5

            I’d prefer to sit back and take it all in via a comfy chair, glass of wine/beer and an air conditioned cabin

            You wouldn’t be taking it all in though, you’d be missing it completely.

      • Tracey 10.4.2

        And it’s all about you isnt it BM.

        By your reasining their should be a cable carto the top of mt cook.

        • BM 10.4.2.1

          Not a bad idea, maybe we could do a deal with the Chinese.
          Restaurant up the top, luge track, mini putt….

          I like the way you’re thinking Tracey.

        • bad12 10.4.2.2

          Nah, BM would rather Aoraki got the top couple of 1000 feet blown off in a act of drill it mine it, with the addition of an escalator capable of carrying Him, His walking frame and His incontinence bag to the top,

          That would make BM a happy camper…

          • marty mars 10.4.2.2.1

            BM the great survivalist if i remember correctly – chuck him in the bush and let him find his own way out – if it is meant to be, it will be.

      • Rosie 10.4.3

        You’re welcome to take a hike BM.

    • Bearded Git 10.5

      It was a no-brainer to reject that ridiculous scheme Chooky. It should never have got as far as it did. Presumably the Nats leant on DOC so that it wasn’t strangled at birth, so no credit to this government.

      Federated Mountain Clubs estimates the Hollyford Road will cost a billion. Wanaka and Queenstown will fight this tooth and nail as should the rest of NZ.

  11. Marius 11

    I agree. Good on Smith. Wait and see if National wins the election for a backtrack on that decision

    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      Well, they won’t but National will probably win Clutha Southland, where the monorail was to be situated 😈

  12. felix 12

    Kelvin Davis on rnz just now. Labour out to beat Hone.

    Fucking. Idiots.

    • Tracey 12.1

      Yup. Would rather lose the election than share.

      • marty mars 12.1.1

        Yep. Silly labour and silly davis – the left will just have to win in spite of the silliness.

        • Tiger Mountain 12.1.1.1

          Kelvin “Mr Nice Bloke” Davis is also a bit of a lunkhead. His deserved rep as a trouble shooting principal sorting out Far North “zoo” schools has just about used up its currency now. It pays too to watch out for Māori in the Far North who are well regarded by conservative pākehā.

          This election is different to the last, Mana and Hone have adapted to the new situation. National adapted years ago with their use of social media–think Trade Me discussion boards, Whalefail and the sewer. That is how they circulate their memes and vitriol that infect so many.

          Davis has lost three times in Te Tai Tokerau, why make it four? He will be a shoe in for parliament with a suitable list ranking. Hopefully Matt McCarten will earn his money and a quiet adjustment will be made despite Davis’ Dover Samuelsesque media blatherings.

          But it gets rather more serious if anyone else in Labour really believes they are going to take back all the Māori seats as Davis ejaculated this morning on RNZ.

          • Olwyn 12.1.1.1.1

            Stuart Nash made similar noises when Davis was named as contender for the seat. I think Laila hit a few nails on the head with one strike when she noted on Morning Report that KDC might be rich, but he was against the establishment.

            The difficulty with both the media and the established parties of the left is that both in different ways are meant to hold the establishment to account. And they more or less did so during the Keynsian years, when a rough equilibrium existed. But as life grows more precarious, both are readily transformed into vehicles for preserving one’s place in the establishment rather than challenging it. A party like IMP with money in its pocket challenges that attitude and embarrasses those who hold it.

        • bad12 12.1.1.2

          Yeah i just heard a re-run of Kelvin Davis on RadioNZ National news, ”i am the most intelligent, most sensible, most blah blah blah for Te Tai Tokerau,

          i first thought Wanker, secondly Peter Dunne’s long lost son, then thought that such expressions are a little unkind to direct at a probable coalition partner and i have obviously and foolishly ascribed to Kelvin Davis a level of intelligence that He obviously does not possess…

      • The Al1en 12.1.2

        For the number crunchers…

        If Labour swept the Maori seats, or at least took the Maori party held seats, then got 35% on poll day, with the greens getting 15%, would that not be enough to form a government?

        • weka 12.1.2.1

          Big IF there (and they need more than 50%. Better to use the calculator because it takes into account overhangs). You can use the elections result calculator to see what will happen if L/GP don’t get an outright win. In that situation IMP matters, so if L for instance take TTT and IMP don’t get any electorate seats and don’t reach 5%, the left loses MPs, and thus the election.

          This is why Labour are being complete fuckwits, they are willing to risk losing the election rather than sharing govt with more than the GP (and then there is Peters).

          http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system/mmp-seat-allocation-calculator

          I’m hoping to do some maths when the next Roy Morgan comes out, but it kind of astounds me that none of the left wing bloggers are doing this.

          • The Al1en 12.1.2.1.1

            A big if, sure, but just as big an if surrounding dotcon getting 3 or 4 seats without having to sell out the principles of the left in order to get them, or convince soft blue votes to get out and keep the ultra left at bay, which is conveniently for the nats, the party line being peddled.

            I say go hard Labour and the Green party and use the bought party as last cab of the rank as a last resort. I certainly wouldn’t be conceding anything at this point, no matter how convenient or dream fulfilling it may be for the very vocal but equally very small minority.

            • weka 12.1.2.1.1.1

              I think you missed the point. Irrespective of feelings about KDC, if Labour/GP don’t get over 50% AND they’ve campaigned against IMP and not allowed them to get seats, then the left loses the election (or Labour does a deal with Peters). On the other hand, if L/GP doesn’t get over 50% but IMP get some seats, then the left can for govt.

              This has nothing to do with KDC at all. If he had been extradicted already, we would be in exactly the same position with Mana and the Māori seats. I suggest you get set aside your antipathy towards KDC and look at the actual maths, unless like Labour you would prefer to risk losing the election than risk having a KDC funded party in parliament.

              • The Al1en

                I think you missed the bit in the first post where I said if Labour get 35% and the Greens 15%. Dumb as I am, that’s 50% right? My maths isn’t that bad, maybe not as suspect as your reading/comprehension 😉

                As for “unless like Labour you would prefer to risk losing the election than risk having a KDC funded party in parliament.”

                I’d rather deal with Winston that any vehicle of dotcon, which begs the point from an electorate wide perspective and the apparent line of the nat’s attack, who would scare voters away more?
                I’m quite content to use the ‘new deal’ as a last resort, but I’m hoping it won’t come to that.
                Last week of the election campaign and it looks dire for the reds and greens then yes, if it’s the only way, Kelvin should have a cuppa with Hone, so be it. But with it all still to play for and too close to call, as it is, it’ll take a lot more than a few serial posters dictating what should happen to convince me it’s a call they should make now.

                Damn right Labour should be fighting for every electorate seat, and hopefully DC sees it that way too.

                • weka

                  “I think you missed the bit in the first post where I said if Labour get 35% and the Greens 15%. Dumb as I am, that’s 50% right? My maths isn’t that bad, maybe not as suspect as your reading/comprehension”

                  No need to be mean. You are still missing my point. Obviously if L/GP get over 50% then they can form a govt. But the point is whether they are likely to and what are the other option.

                  You are ok with risking NACT getting another term rather than allowing IMP to gain seats. Fair enough, all clear now.

                  “Kelvin should have a cuppa with Hone, so be it.”

                  Should have a cuppa and what? You think that enough voters are going to be following the election campaign to change their vote strategically? Or are you suggesting that Kelvin should step down the week before the election? You seriously think Labour would do that?

                  • The Al1en

                    I’m never mean, that’s why I winked. It wasn’t a come on 😉

                    “You are ok with risking NACT getting another term rather than allowing IMP to gain seats. Fair enough, all clear now.”

                    I don’t think you have it clear. I said I’d rather Labour and the Greens went with NZ1st than dotcoms investment. That’s not the same thing at all, certainly not risking another nat term.
                    Plus you should factor in the fact that as long as Key thinks he can use Winston, he’ll continue to attack the ultra left, as he is doing, thus almost gifting 5% + and a chunk of seats.

                    “Should have a cuppa and what?”

                    Isn’t that what you’re advocating? Labour campaigning for party votes only in Hone’s electorate.
                    Eggs in baskets and all that, why count them yet?

                    “are you suggesting that Kelvin should step down the week before the election? You seriously think Labour would do that?”

                    Are you not suggesting Kelvin should walk away now? Why would you seriously think Labour would do that with an election still too close to call?

                    • weka

                      Good grief man. It’s about risk. Labour are risking losing the election. Too close to call is irrelevant unless you believe that Labour can sort this out the week before the election. I don’t, and I’ve made my argument about why.

                      Davis doesn’t have to walk away, he just has to shut the fuck up and run a quite campaign in the background.

                      btw, granting a concession in TTT in no way excludes courting NZF.

                    • The Al1en

                      “I’ve made my argument about why.”

                      I don’t agree with you or the notion that TTT should be given away by Labour in order to win the election yet, especially since the outcome is still up in the air. I do believe that pre mip deal, Labour and the Greens could well have got over the line, certainly with NZ1st if needed.

                      But I am pragmatic enough to accept that if the polls don’t look like returning a LG government, then look for deals there and then.
                      Unless it’s the only way, and clearly I don’t think it is, I don’t want dotcom anywhere near the next left government because I think he’ll ultimately prove toxic to it. No facts to check, no links, just a gut reaction and I’m sticking with.

                      So I still say to Labour go hard and play to win every seat until a deal is the only solution left.

                    • weka

                      Making a coalition with NZF = a centrist govt not a left wing one.

                      Of course L/GP might win on their own. They might not either. Mana getting TTT increases the likelihood of a left wing govt, their not getting TTT decreases the likelihood.

                      I just think it would be better if you were honest about your antipathy for KDC meaning you would risk the election 😉

                      ““I’ve made my argument about why.”

                      I don’t agree with you”

                      You haven’t said why though. Specifically, a response to this –

                      “You think that enough voters are going to be following the election campaign to change their vote strategically? Or are you suggesting that Kelvin should step down the week before the election? You seriously think Labour would do that?”

                      btw, a ‘cuppa’ to me means a secret back room deal that the voters don’t know about. I’m talking about being honest and up front.

                    • The Al1en

                      “Making a coalition with NZF = a centrist govt not a left wing one.”

                      In my view, one more electable than with dotcom, even with winnie. Plenty of time for the two main partners to show how they can work together in cabinet with an eye to 2017.

                      “I just think it would be better if you were honest about your antipathy for KDC meaning you would risk the election”

                      I’ve never disguised my dislike and mistrust of the bloke, even more so since he announced his intention to buy a political party and fu*k with our government.
                      Not supporting the mip charade doesn’t mean I’m risking the election, nor does wanting a Labour Green government, nor does hoping Labour fights for all the seats it can win without doing deals until there is no other way.

                      “a ‘cuppa’ to me means a secret back room deal that the voters don’t know about. I’m talking about being honest and up front.”

                      A cuppa to me means like the clear signal sent by the nats to it’s voters in Epsom. I thought that was a gimme to politico followers. .

                      “Specifically, a response to this”

                      Because it means so much to you 😉

                      “You think that enough voters are going to be following the election campaign to change their vote strategically?”

                      Yes, and because that’s what you advocate in the first instance by wanting KD to campaign only for the party vote. Unless of course you’re saying ttt voters aren’t as clued up as Epsomites.

                      “Or are you suggesting that Kelvin should step down the week before the election? You seriously think Labour would do that?”

                      If Labour couldn’t form a government on polling a week out, then yes, just like key did last time.
                      Will Labour do it? Only if it looks sh!t, but then they’re more likely to in that case rather than now.

              • karol

                By the sounds of Turei’s interview on RNZ this morning, the Greens are not campaigning against IMP at all. She talked up the left bringing about a change of government at the election. She focused strongly on the Greens’ policies, on families, children, anti-poverty, etc.
                Asked about the IMP, Labour, Green, etc fracturing the left, she said

                Under MMP any government is going to be made up of multiple parties … So the fact that there are multiple options for voters on the left, who want to see a change of government, is good for democracy. Because lots of voters, lots of choices. If we can see an increase in the vote, that will be great and increase in young people voting that would be great. That means a stronger, progressive government at the end of the day. … I’m campaigning for the party vote for the Greens. That is my number one priority.

          • Clemgeopin 12.1.2.1.2

            i am sure Labour strategists will do the maths and consider all this in due course. It is a little premature for that to happen now. The party lists and the candidate selections are yet to be completed by all the parties which is essential for all the number crunching and to give careful thought to the process for maximum benefit to all the left block parties. These things should not be decided and announced in a haphazard ad hock way, though it is good for us all to give our opinion in the meantime.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2

      Hmm. You think the deafening screeching about “Labour hypocrisy” from Slater/Gower/Key would be worth it?

    • freedom 12.3

      +1 felix

      • Anne 12.3.1

        Ummm…. do you think its possible that what they say in public and what they say (and do) behind the scenes might be a little different? Its happened before.

        • freedom 12.3.1.1

          In all honesty Anne, I do hope they are just playing the media (and the Nactoids) at their own game and the sensible decision has actually been made, is being kept well under wraps and the sensible decision that would only benefit New Zealand, will be announced much closer to the election date, thus securing the necessary removal of this John Key government.

          There is only one logical solution for New Zealand if it is to have a chance of getting off this highway to hopelessness. Remove the right from power at this election. I simply hope we can do it by working together to overcome the increasing hardship that our country is struggling with, respecting the diverse needs of our people whilst focusing on the incredible potential that this little land is world famous for.

          National has decimated the true potential of New Zealand, Labour must own its share of responsibility for that as well. This election is an opportunity for National to be sent a clear message. More importantly it is a rare moment where Labour, with a small magnanimous act, can put some shine back on that brand that has been steadily corroded by the increasingly toxic environment New Zealand has struggled through these past thirty years. Standing aside In Te Tai Tokerau is a very small step for Labour but will help Aotearoa take a gigantic stride on its long journey back home. No one party can deliver for all a nation’s people. It is foolhardy to believe that, or work towards that as an endgame. The left is borne of co-operation and community. A community is built of diversity and camaraderie. Politicians would do well to remember this occassionally.

          • Macro 12.3.1.1.1

            +1000

          • Draco T Bastard 12.3.1.1.2

            The left is borne of co-operation and community. A community is built of diversity and camaraderie. Politicians would do well to remember this occassionally.

            QFT

            As a side note, it’s interesting watching the right-wing do better cooperation, despite still sticking knives in each others backs, than the left.

        • Tracey 12.3.1.2

          They might need to let the electorate know at some stage?

    • BM 12.4

      Good news, shows Labour is thinking longer term and isn’t a complete lost cause.

    • greywarbler 12.5

      Kelvin Davis has been involved with rugby for 40? years and never went onto the field wanting to come second. That’s the simple minded thinking of a person who can’t understand NZ in the 21st century and the way that MMP is different to FPP. With MMP there are more ways than one of winning.
      So you don’t need to keep playing the old game and get spear-tackled or your jaw broken.

      Hone and Laila are sounding a good team. There must be some things to criticise sometime, nobody’s perfect but at present they are making 100% sense. And will never go under 90% I think.

      Way to go Labour. Take note you potential losers. Don’t screw up trying to be the free-standing Big Man. You have a lot of ground to make up before you get respect from the swinging voters and people who consider you have turned your back on the vast majority of the country and citizens. Don’t try to be proud and ignore the smaller parties. You haven’t done much to be proud of for years.

      • marty mars 12.5.1

        “Take note you potential losers.”

        lol – that is a great line imo, thanks.

      • phillip ure 12.5.2

        @ warbler..on labour..

        “..You have a lot of ground to make up before you get respect from the swinging voters and people who consider you have turned your back on the vast majority of the country and citizens.

        Don’t try to be proud and ignore the smaller parties.

        You haven’t done much to be proud of for years..”

        ..+ 1..

    • Rosie 12.6

      facepalm @ Labour

      • Rosie 12.6.1

        Slightly out of context as it was a reply to Jenny on another post re her point about Matt’s McCartens role in strategy planning BUT dropped into Open Mike as an additional 2 cents on the matter:

        “Exactly Jenny. Maybe there will be discussions about this most excellent opportunity behind the scenes and we don’t know yet, and as we know Matt and Laila go way back. But like CV says, “buy in”. Anyone in the caucus who is opposed to the idea of promoting strategic voting must surely have rocks in their head.

        Time to put ego’s and self advancement aside and work together. We have a fresh new force for good on the scene and the potential for winning has to mined to the maximum. (Sorry about the mining reference Jenny)

        And lol, what about sad and desperate Key on the radio this morning, something like “IMP are no threat to to National and the centre left, they are only a threat to those on the left as they will steal votes”. Sigh.”

        • greywarbler 12.6.1.1

          Rosie
          Connected to working together etc as you mentioned above. I discovered this link that CV had given me back in 2012 I think. Chris Hedges – a thoughtful speaker who sees into the future with a haunted look and sets it in context with the past.

          He comes out with something positive and says that things have happened because of mass movements in the past and to be ready as there can be an unexpected tipping point. It’s over an hour so need to make time, as gripping as a thriller on DVD!

          Christopher Hedges
          7/7/2012

          • Rosie 12.6.1.1.1

            Thank you Warbs for the link. I’ll make time to watch it in the weekend. Felix gave us a link (skygo.co.nz) to watch video on demand of shows on prime tv so I can now watch backbenches. I’ll watch the Chris Hedges during that couch time – sounds very good, and positive. Ta 🙂

            On the note of positive. I’ve been feeling increasingly positive about the right result come 20th September and Laila’s appointment has had me singing! Kelvin Davis just needs to do the right thing for things to flow smoothly. He can still hold on to his ego and promote a party vote for Labour. He’s still a winner, when Hone wins. We all win, can’t he see that?

            Oh a song! Here’s Frank Black with Hang On To Your Ego, for the rockers out there

            • yeshe 12.6.1.1.1.1

              rosie .. thx for the link from Felix (skygo.co.nz) but I think you have to be a Sky subscriber to make it work ? I couldn’t access anything free from Prime .. am I missing a something ? thx …

              • Rosie

                Hi yeshe. No, the good thing is you don’t have to be a subscriber. (free tv is the only way to go for me!) Via that website, skygo.co.nz you should be able to provide your email and a password and then you’re free to watch what you like.

          • greywarbler 12.6.1.1.2

            Rosie
            I’ll try that song.
            You have probably got Happy with Pharrell Williams but it sounds just like the right one for you.

            • Rosie 12.6.1.1.2.1

              There’s no denying theres some good soul in that tune and Happy is how I hope we will all be feeling within a few months. Good knows it’s been a long dreary 6 years.

    • Pasupial 12.7

      As Hone has beaten Davis in Te Tai Tokerau campaigns three times in a row (2008 and twice in 2011 – plus Dover Samuels in 2005), IMP don’t have to worry too much about Labour taking that seat from them. Though, given the 3000 odd votes that went to Maori last time are up for grabs it’s not impossible.

    • Skinny 12.8

      Felix don’t forget at this stage Mana/TIP are in the better bargaining position than Labour and the LP know it. While I personally prefer Davis over Hone on merit, and support Sykes over Flavell so advocate Labour voters in that seat vote Sykes. I will back off in a flash from campaigning for Davis should concessions need to be made for Labour to win in other seats that TIP contest. The pivotal Hamilton West seat springs to mind, Moroney can least afford bleeding candidate votes to The Greens and TIP fullstop.

      In summary all Left political party’s need to insist how they want the candidate vote to go i.e. If you want a Left Bloc collation to Govern party vote (our party) but please candidate vote such and such from (the most likely Left contender).

      • Mary 12.8.1

        Annette Sykes taking Waiariki may be nice back-up plan and saves the left’s bacon but that doesn’t mean we should ditch Hone in Te Tai Tokerau. We need a left coalition with as little as possible power going to Labour. At the moment the only good the left should see in Labour is its ability to make up the numbers, no more, and we all need to start saying this to their face.

        • weka 12.8.1.1

          +1000, on all counts.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.8.1.2

          +111

        • Clemgeopin 12.8.1.3

          I don’t agree with that. Labour is not the enemy! It is National and ACT.

          Labour needs a good strong showing to have a sensible responsible government. It is no good throwing the baby with the bath water. If too many radical programmes are unleashed too suddenly in one term due to the influence of Mana and Greens, the population will get shocked, testy and annoyed and THEN the left block will get badly punished at the NEXT election and possibly for a long time. Remember what happened to Labour after the other extreme right wing policies of Douglas and Prebble.

          • Mary 12.8.1.3.1

            That’s not what you said over here!

            Open mike 30/05/2014

            Which is it? Tee hee!

            • Clemgeopin 12.8.1.3.1.1

              No contradiction at all.

              To be assured of getting as many seats as possible for the left, the left block parties need to make some some strategic planning in some seats to ensure non wastage of votes.

              My point to you was about your statement that Labour should be made to be in a weaker position seat wise on the left block. I don’t agree with that.

              Remember that 50% or more of the general population are well to do, educated in good careers and not necessarily socialist or left minded.

              If too many radical changes are made too suddenly during its 1st term, based on the policies of the Greens and Mana as regards taxes, ETS, complete bans on mining and oil drilling, foreign trade, free tertiary education, free food in all schools, drastic changes to industries, living wages etc, not only will it affect the economy suddenly, it will also upset the vast majority of the people who will punish all the left block parties at the next election and possibly for a long time.
              Do not think of the general population as political or knowledgeable junkies like us here. Even Key was able to fool most.

              I am a supporter of Labour and support almost all the policies of the other left block parties, but I am convinced that changes have to be made carefully, pragmatically, incrementally and in smaller steps taking the population gently along with these ideas.

              We live in a modern democracy where reason and education works. We are not in an environment where bloody revolutions can take place and policies can be enforced and drastic changes made to a society by inducing fear and obedience using guns and threats without generating much backlash.

              We can achieve all that and much more in 3 or more terms without causing worry and backlash rather than survive for 1 term causing heaps of resentment, angst and disgust from half or more of the population.

              • Colonial Viper

                250,000 unemployed and underemployed
                250,000 children in poverty

                radical measures are exactly what is required, not gradual incremental managerialism.

                We can achieve all that and much more in 3 or more terms without causing worry and backlash rather than survive for 1 term causing heaps of resentment, angst and disgust from half or more of the population.

                Firstly, Labour Governments hardly ever get 3 terms. And secondly, in 3 terms = 9 years, another generation of kids born into poverty will be irreversibly damaged. Your “small steps” approach will be paid for in young lives.

                Re climate change and energy depletion – the house that our global civilisation lives in is burning down all around us. Taking our time to call the fire brigade is not helpful.

                • Clemgeopin

                  If you think you can force all that and also win at least 50% the people in just 1 term, good luck with that, as long as you are ok with Nats/ACT again taking power back in 2017 and holding it for a long time.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    If you think you can force all that and also win at least 50% the people in just 1 term, good luck with that

                    As noted below. The bar is set at what Michael Joseph Savage accomplished in 4 short years to eradicate poverty from this nation. The future of NZ was changed irrevocably.

                    I’m interested in why you don’t understand this example. People didn’t revere Savage because he held power for 4 terms. They revere Savage because his government put in place massive change each year, for the very few years he was in power.

                    Labour history also gives us the example of the revolutionary changes that the 4th Labour Government enacted in just 6 short years. Again, the future of NZ was changed irrevocably.

                    I don’t know where Labour learnt its timidity and caution. The aim is not to hold the Treasury benches for the maximum length of time. It is to change the future of NZ irrevocably.

                    Anyways, history tells us that most Labour Governments have a maximum of 6 years to get their work agenda done.

                    as long as you are ok with Nats/ACT again taking power back in 2017 and holding it for a long time.

                    This will certainly happen if Labour is slow and indecisive in government, and fails to make the case for change to the people.

                    Which by the way, its ~31% poll ratings suggest is the case right now.

                    • weka

                      Although to be fair, Clem isn’t suggesting ‘slow and indecisive’, and what makes you think that Labour won’t get 2 terms even if they keep up with the centrist shit?

                      Aside from that, I’ve been wondering about what controls and limist there are on subsequent govts repealing legislation and policy, and how much this has changed over the years eg was it different in the 30s compared to now? If a left wing coalition brought in radical changes in its first term, and then lost, how easy would it be for NACT to roll back?

                      Not that I consider what the GP want to do to be particularly radical.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Although to be fair, Clem isn’t suggesting ‘slow and indecisive’, and what makes you think that Labour won’t get 2 terms even if they keep up with the centrist shit?

                      It’s a matter of perception. ‘Confident and sweeping’ is what this next government needs to be. Anything shy of that is a wasted opportunity and to my mind, the mark of a party which wants to achieve maximum time in power, which is very different to achieving maximum change for NZ.

                      what makes you think that Labour won’t get 2 terms even if they keep up with the centrist shit?

                      Because Labour’s coalition will rapidly fall apart with that kind of agenda.

                      I’ve been wondering about what controls and limist there are on subsequent govts repealing legislation and policy, and how much this has changed over the years eg was it different in the 30s compared to now?

                      The Left must stop thinking about change primarily in the form of legislation and policy, and start thinking about change from the standpoint of institutions, infrastructure, culture and capacity building. The legislation and the regulation you develop merely provides a formal framework for those things.

                      Eg in the 1930’s. Labour didn’t just pass legislation around rail and around housing. It did that, and then it built massive capabilities and institutions around them.

                      You can repeal a piece of legislation, easy. But 15,000 workers building houses up and down the country, in all stages of construction and with a list of deserving people wanting to move in to every one – even when National take power again they can’t repeal that and make it disappear over night. They basically have to follow it through or be roasted by the electorate.

                      Tory-proofing, in other words.

                    • Clemgeopin

                      Why do you think that Labour is at only about 30% in spite of all the quite progressive policies announced so far? It is not Labour that is timid, it is the over 50% of the people of the country who are timid or self serving. There lies your problem, not Labour. We need to win them over and get their votes first if you want to form a government to implement the progress we all here want.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      If a left wing coalition brought in radical changes in its first term, and then lost, how easy would it be for NACT to roll back?

                      Let’s say the radical change is deprioritising all the RONS and many other major roading projects, and putting all that money and more into public transport, coastal shipping and rail.

                      What you do is you bring the public with you every step of the way. Excite them about the possibilities, create thousands of jobs up and down the country focussed on physically delivering these projects. Show families saving hundreds of dollars a year from needing to use their car less, to saving thousands of dollars a year by not needing a car at all.

                      If National come in and even try and constrain the programmes in motion they will suffer a huge electoral hit for it.

                      Of course, by bringing the public with you every step of the way – a Left government is going to win the next election handily. Of course the key is making radical change that the public understands the need for…hence one of the first projects should be true public broadcasting and alternative media channels both at a national level and also at the local community level.

                    • weka

                      Thanks CV, that’s what I was getting at, and good examples.

                      Do you have a sense of how ‘leftie-proof’ NACT’s changes of the last two terms are?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Things like reversing the selling of power assets is difficult, because international financial capital would object strongly.

                      The TPPA is in its late stage negotiations and its quite likely that Labour will have to sign it as received, or we would risk the opprobrium of the USA.

                      The destruction of Hillside Workshops is complete. National ensured that all the plant and equipment was ripped out and the skilled workers dispersed. There’s no easy way to get that talent back together.

                      The GCSB etc legislation which appears to have been drafted by the USA – I suspect that Labour will have to keep it 95% the same.

                      There are a lot of things which will be easy to reverse though, if Labour wanted. They are the things which rely mainly on legislation. 90 day right to fire, for instance.

          • Murray Olsen 12.8.1.3.2

            Labour was punished, and rightly so, for their lurch to the right with the first ACT government. The first Labour government, which arguably unleashed more radical programmes than any other in Kiwi history, remained very popular. To claim that there would be a voter backlash because of feeding and educating kids, housing families, making the spies obey the law, stopping the attacks on beneficiaries, pushing up wages at the bottom, and the rest is, at best, disingenuous. While Labour irresponsibly keeps NAct in power, it’s as bad as them.

            • Clemgeopin 12.8.1.3.2.1

              The First Labour Government of New Zealand was the government of New Zealand from 1935 to 1949, 80 years ago just before the end of the 2nd World War and straight after the war, when the conditions of most people was miserable.

              You can not compare that to today’s New Zealand. The economic, social, health, education, housing conditions, population and society are vastly different.

              • Mary

                Is that your justification for Labour abandoning what we thought were its core values, that the modern world demands this, but then in the same breath you argue for a slow and steady return to those values? It’s this kind of thinking that’s wrecked Labour and has caused all sorts of divisions within the party leaving a sad and loyal but tiny core of supporters who believe Labour’s “better than the alternative” or that “one day they’ll come right” and has wrecked the left in the process. Well, for me Labour’s lost its chance and what a huge number of chances we’ve given them. Sorry, but what’s next for Labour can only be open disdain and ridicule because nothing else has worked and it never will if we keep doing what we’re doing.

                • Clemgeopin

                  You are putting words in my mouth, assuming things and misrepresenting my position as though you are on a mission to undermine Labour for some ulterior motive of yours. Just because you are batting for a left wing government, as I do, does not mean you undermine Labour at the same time.

                  Read my posts to understand the reasons for my views. We don’t live in Guatemala or Venezuela to aspire for a sudden revolutionary change in everything-economic, social, business, manufacturing, trading, global warming, and environmental practices-which will abundantly please the activists like you and me, but make lots of the ordinary people mad as hell.

                  I too want the changes you bat for. What is important and crucial is HOW to achieve that without alienating the people.

                  It is foolish to beat Labour up in the pursuit of your crusade. A strong Labour is the vehicle we need for the changes we want.

                  • Mary

                    I’m not on a crusade. I’m merely telling it how I see things. Labour is open about who it stands for, and it doesn’t stand for the unemployed anymore. So then why does the left keep supporting it? It’s just dumb to give support to a party you don’t agree with.

                    • Anne

                      Labour is open about who it stands for, and it doesn’t stand for the unemployed anymore.

                      That is a nonsense Mary and you know it.

                      Walk away Clemgeopin.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      This is what Labour standing by the unemployed might look like:

                      1) Raise the sub-poverty level UB by $30/week.
                      2) Stop harassing people to apply for jobs which aren’t there.
                      3) Have a full employment policy for everyone 25 and under.

                      In contrast, currently Labour seems to vote with National on welfare reform, possibly fearing the label that it is ‘soft on beneficiaries’.

                    • Mary

                      Anne: Just take a look at the amendments to the Social Security Act Labour introduced between 1999 and 2008 and you’ll see what I mean. “Ardent” Labour supporters just don’t want to know because if their little world in which Labour can do no wrong would come crumbling down. There would also be people who support Labour who’ve bought the “taxpayer’s money” over citizenship line therefore accept the slicing off of the unemployed from the group Labour traditionally represents, that group being workers. Traditional Labour did not make that distinction, which is based on a rejection of the deserving/undeserving poor notion. The climate of opinion towards beneficiaries has changed including amongst Labour supporters but when that group is challenged they’re all of a sudden indignant because their values are being put to the test. David Shearer made it clear when asked about beneficiaries and Labour’s stance on welfare. He simply said “Labour is a party for workers”. This is entirely consistent with how Labour has treated beneficiaries since 1999, including supporting one of the most hideous pieces of anti-beneficiary legislation introduced by this government which was passed just two months ago. I cannot explain why people keep saying that Labour cares for the poor, the unemployed and the vulnerable. All of the evidence proves that they don’t.

                      Colonial Viper: I’d add to that list ceasing to support National’s anti-beneficiary attacks on the Social Security Act and a few other things, too.

                    • weka

                      Plus resinstate Special Benefit or its equivalent (ie an uncapped hardship grant for beneficiaries).

                    • Mary

                      Getting rid of the special benefit was a big one, especially when it was done as part of the 2004 budget therefore under urgency. That was total abuse. We should’ve seen that for what it was at the time but no – everyone kept marching on thinking Labour was our friend thinking “they won’t do anything else bad like that again, will they?” and “well, Labour’s not as bad as the other lot”. How naive we were.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Clemgeopin seems to honestly believe that Labour should have years and years to make incremental and carefully measured changes.

                      That’s nowhere near good enough. The revolutionary forces of corporate capitalism, the security and surveillance state, and global resource depletion do not sleep, even for a second.

                      There is no way that these things can be tackled piecemeal over an extended timeframe. The clock is counting down and Mother Nature will not be granting us extra time.

                    • Clemgeopin

                      @ Colonial Viper
                      “Clemgeopin seems to honestly believe that Labour should have years and years to make incremental and carefully measured changes”

                      That is rotten misrepresenting bollix from you.

                      Sure, some changes can be AND should be made immediately ;
                      Minimum wage, Accountability for Charter schools, review of spy laws, new housing strategy, CGT, reduction of power prices etc

                      But going Gung Ho on other excellent policies such as the increased carbon taxes, ETS, free tertiary education, banning of mining and oil exploration , blanket ban on free trade etc need more careful consideration if you want to get re-elected as those issues badly affect ordinary people, cost of living, production, economy, jobs etc. Those policies need slower going.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Let me ask you a question – what is it that Term 1 of the 6th Labour Government is going to be remembered for in 20 years’ time?

                      Being good administrators and policy settings experts?

          • Mary 12.8.1.3.3

            Labour is the enemy because by their own admission they’re the party for the employed.

            • Clemgeopin 12.8.1.3.3.1

              You are coming across as a nutter.

              • Mary

                Thank you.

                Give one example of how Labour could be described as a party for those without work?

                It’s Labour supporters like you who put their heads in the sand in the belief that Labour is still a left-wing party and who give Labour the arrogance to take for granted their support to carry on screwing the poor. Just have a look at the many Social Security Amendment Acts Labour passed from 1999 to 2008, and the latest Nact one they voted for. Look at WFF excluding beneficiary families – a concept taken from National where tax cuts were not given to those “significantly dependent on the state”. You won’t though because you’ve bought into the selfish neo-liberal hatred of the poor that’s now entrenched in our culture. My bet is that you think in terms of taxpayer’s money and ratepayer’s money and have abandoned all notions of citizenship. They’ve really done a job on you, eh? You along with most other New Zealanders. But I guess it’s all about being part of a group, and I know I’d rather be seen as a nutter than be apart of that group.

                • Clemgeopin

                  I don’t hold the views you assume I do! You are just being unfair, ignorant and completely wrong. Besides, you have not even cared to understand the points I have made in many of my posts.

                  • Mary

                    So you think responding with abuse is constructive? I can be more abusive than calling someone a nutter, far more abusive, like telling you that you sound like you work in the Labour Research Unit.

                    • Kiwiri

                      Hi Mary
                      Please excuse me for typing this and asking a question here.
                      What do you think of Labour’s proposal to push out the retirement age?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Sorry to butt in here…but it’s a total FAIL

                    • Clemgeopin

                      Mary, Mary, quite contrary!

                      you sound like you work in the Labour Research Unit.

                      Oh, no! Secret broken! There is nothing I can keep uncovered from your prying eyes! Want to join me?

                      P.S : Bring your rosary and scapular. A will bear the cross. I am thinking some prayers may help before a labour research session.

                    • Mary

                      That’s the trouble, Clem, whenever anybody says anything negative about Labour’s appalling treatment of beneficiaries where the facts speak for themselves their supporters display indignation and appear personally attacked because they support a party that’s done such horrible things. It’s an extraordinary phenomenon.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Labour even agreed with the Australians to cut Kiwis there out of the dole. How’s that for looking after the interests of your citizens.

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Mary,
                      Re:
                      “That’s the trouble, Clem, whenever anybody says anything negative about Labour’s appalling treatment of beneficiaries where the facts speak for themselves their supporters display indignation and appear personally attacked because they support a party that’s done such horrible things. It’s an extraordinary phenomenon.”

                      Whilst I haven’t been involved in this conversation, nor making personal attacks to the points you raise (which are worthy topics of debate), I do relate with the perhaps frantic nature of Clemgeopin’s responses. I also feel somewhat frantic when I read too much vitriol re Labour and their treatment of beneficiaries – because I have experienced rather long stints of unemployment under both National and Labour – and while you may be correct that Labour have not been perfect in regards to welfare – they have been light years better than National and I think it truly unfair the way you are framing Labour as having sold out completely on the matter.

                      I really do not think they have at all and to me, they sound like they really are aiming at addressing the issues that joblessness raises – moreso than any other main party has in 30+ years (including previous Labour party in that). That they are a main party and making such noises about recalibrating the entire system to focus more on job creation – and prepared to do so with a ‘hands on approach’ is the most positive aim and effective approach I have heard in years. This approach will fix more than joblessness IMO too. This entire system and our culture has been being done over by successive governments not being concerned about people having livelihoods – only concerned by meaningless counts such as GDP and ignoring the effects their policies have on peoples’ lives.

                      What do you think would happen if Labour came out and said -‘we are raising the unemployment benefit by 50 bucks a week when we get in and dropping the secondary tax rate for those working part-time’ These are things that really need to happen. Really, what do you think would happen given the type of media and enfeebled culture we have in this country?

                      Isn’t it better that they state that they are going to ‘ensure more jobs are created’ and that ‘they have better rates of pay? Both this and the above statement acknowledges joblessness – yet this last one, I am suspecting is far more palatable to the freaks who don’t believe unemployment is anything other than caused by ‘people making poor choices’.

                    • Mary

                      blue leopard: “they have been light years better than National”

                      I’m not going to repeat myself here but the crux is that I just don’t agree with your comparison. You really do have to look at the precise detail of what Labour’s done and what they haven’t done and you need to start from at least 1991. My guess is that most Labour supporters indeed most people generally don’t look at that detail and simply live with a false confidence that their caring Labour Party looks after the poor and if they don’t do it all time they’re certainly “better than National”. Well I say this just isn’t true. The facts are there for the viewing but you have to have a proper look.

                      On the vitriol towards Labour front, well, that’s just a logical next step from the fact that Labour is no better than National which they’ve proved via conduct, made clear by confirming what they do does reflect its position and that they have no intention of changing that position or its direction. So, for me, these things must be spelled out clearly because while Labour is at least as bad as National on the social security front Labour still enjoys support from people who would be appalled if they knew the gory truth.

                      And I’d say to Labour supporters who do have an inkling of what’s going on but who say “oh, but we need to give Labour a chance” and that “they’ll come right” this: Labour has not gone down this track in its treatment of the poor simply so that it can change. It’s not a matter of sorting them out with a friendly chat. Taking this approach does nothing but send Labour the message that no matter what they do they can still rely on their “ardent” Labour supporters. It’s this complacency that we must break and the only way we can do this is by Labour knowing that if they continue down this road then they cannot take that support for granted. I can understand that for many Labour supporters turning their backs on Labour would be too difficult a thing to do – it could be very difficult for some to accept that a political party they either work for or who they thought espoused values close to their own wasn’t what they believed it to be. But for those who regard looking after “those who can’t quite cut it” a priority then this must happen because Labour will not change if it continues to get that support.

                      So if this is vitriol, then I’m vitriolic. I think the more accurate summation, though, is that when “ardent” Labour supporters hear anything too negative about a party they’ve invested so heavily in it’s easier to just dismiss it as nothing but vitriol from nutters.

                • blue leopard

                  @ Mary,

                  Labour’s monetary policy and capital gains tax have both been cited as plans to shift the structure of the way money is invested in order to create more jobs

                  100% unemployment has been off the agenda since at least the early 80s and these policies and statements coming out of Labour is a major shift in thinking for a [potential] government, who traditionally have been using unemployment as a tool to keep wages low and/or more concerned about inflation than whether people have livelihoods. I recommend watching ‘Someone Else’s Country’ advertised on this page if you haven’t already watched it.

                  Cunliffe, on the Nation when speaking after the release of the Monetary policy was speaking pretty strongly on an aim for more jobs – I think he even used the words aiming for 100% employment (this can be used against him because there are people who are not physically able to work, so shows the strength of his intent IMO)

                  and there is this: http://action.labour.org.nz/fair-treatment-hard-times#top

                  Sounds like a party researching the poor treatment people have had when on a benefit to me. What intent do you think most likely for this survey? a. they are doing it because they enjoy reading such experiences, b. they want to find out ways they can treat welfare recipients worse or c. in order to find ways to improve the treatment of welfare recipients?

                  I consider I have provided you with more than the one example of how Labour could be described as a party for those without work.

                  I would be more inclined to vote Mana if you really want a strong voice pushing for the most vulnerable peoples’ rights in this country, however I hear a strong message coming out of Labour that they are taking the issue of lack of jobs very seriously – and intend to take practical steps to address it. As mentioned above – this is a big shift – unemployment has been traditionally, in the last 30 years, only been used negatively as a political football for scoring points and neither left nor right have really been addressing the issue seriously in the way that this Labour party sound like they intend to.

                  • Mary

                    I did see that survey but if you look at the questions carefully it’s very much operational stuff Sue Moroney’s talking about. It focuses on administering the current provisions correctly rather than looking at whether those provisions are fair or not. The survey was a response to recent publicity about Work and Income’s treatment of people. Labour clearly agrees with the current law.

                    The Parker/Cunliffe macro reforms look interesting and I guess the proof will be in the pudding. I just can’t see how it can make a dent when there are so many negative variables at play. We need to reassess how we view the role of employment as the main source from which basic needs are met especially when labour continues to be regarded as a cost that must be reduced.

                    Regardless of all of this, the need to maintain adequate welfare provision will always be with us. Sure, if macro economic factors reduce need for social security that’s great, but a strong and effective safety net must always be maintained in the name of participation and citizenship. This idea is something Labour has abandoned and there is absolutely no evidence that it intends to change its position.

                    • weka

                      Cunliffe, when asked what he will do to for beneficiaries, always talks about job creation. This renders people who are not able to work invisible. The kindest interpretation of that is that if all the unemployed people had jobs, then there would be enough money to pay income support to people who can’t work (ill/disabled people, solo parents etc). But if that were true, why not just say so. Otherwise it looks to me like the new classism.

                      Moroney’s survey scares me. As a long term beneficiary I can see the huge unsafety it creates for many who might fill it out.

                      That they ask for an email address so they can the person to the Labour party lists is highly unethical. If people don’t want to provide an email address, how can Labour contact them about their input? If they don’t intend to contact people why ask for real names and the office they deal with? Do they intend to contact the office, how can they do that legally? Is the survey intended as permission? How will they protect the beneficiary from negative consequences of having spoken out? Who will have access to the information? etc, etc, etc.

                      The whole thing is just very very badly put together.

                      I wouldn’t trust the person who created that survey to do right by beneficiaries even if they have good intent. What it tells me is that Labour and Moroney really have no idea about what is really going on, or how to fix it.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Why has “job creation” become the domain of PhD qualified economists and technocrats? Its like bullshit baffles brains, and the brainier these people are the more the BS sucks them in.

                      I’m actually puzzled what this circuitous route to “job creation” is all about. Changing monetary policy? Changing RBA provisions and the operational tools available to the Reserve Bank?

                      That’s great. But it also feeds the belief that getting the macroeconomic settings just right will, sometime down the track, “create jobs” via market forces.

                      Instead, how about simply spending the money to hire people to do things that the nation needs, and that communities need. More teachers for smaller class sizes. More rest home staff for better carer ratios. Instructors for community arts and culture classes. Buying NZ made.

                      I just wiped 10,000 off the unemployment rolls right there.

                    • Clemgeopin

                      @CV
                      Great!, but where and how do you crate the income or extra wealth to pay for all that?
                      Don’t tell me through ‘taxes’ or ‘borrowing’!

                    • Colonial Viper

                      ?

                      So the reason you’re letting all these Kiwis go to waste, letting all their motivation, talent, skills and innovation sit idle, deteriorating, unrecoverably lost from the real economy day after day after day, is because you can’t figure out where the money to pay for it comes from?

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Weka

                      The kindest interpretation of that is that if all the unemployed people had jobs, then there would be enough money to pay income support to people who can’t work (ill/disabled people, solo parents etc). But if that were true, why not just say so.

                      I would say that is exactly what it is about. It is about addressing the part of the problem that the government has created i.e policies that absolutely don’t address jobs for all and actually create unemployment (take a look at the effect on unemployment rate in response to the neoliberal approach if you want a good example and note how we haven’t recovered from that huge increase in unemployment 30 years later – I do believe you know this anyway). To do this not only allows the government to ‘afford’ the support for people who can’t work – it takes a huge amount of pressure of these people – much less likely that political point-scoring is effective in a culture where welfare costs have greatly lowered. I posit that political point scoring occurred in response to the huge welfare costs that government policies were creating and this point scoring was an effective way to take the heat off the real culprits – the government- by blaming the victims of poor government policy.

                      Unsure why they wouldn’t spell this out. I am guessing it is about framing the matter in a manner that doesn’t bring in all the vitriolic hysteria surrounding welfare, while addressing it just the same. Labour might be harassed by complainers saying that ‘they only wish to help welfare recipients’ whilst I believe they bloody well should help the jobless, considering these are the people that need the most help – there appears to be a pretty loud voice against welfare recipients getting any additional help and therefore to avoid this vitriol as much as possible is not a bad way of getting into a position that they can actually help these people. i.e. they get into government.

                      By playing it in this manner, however, now Labour are being accused of ‘making the unemployed invisible’ sigh, too right, I guess – if this is the only way they can get into power because there are really rather a lot of people in this country in pretty good circumstances who appear to resent any assistance going to those less fortunate than themselves – then I support ‘making the unemployed invisible’ if it is toward the end that I think it is.

                      While stating that, I don’t actually agree that they are making the unemployed invisible – there are far too many references to ‘creating jobs’ and ‘recalibrating the financial flows into productive enterprises’ for me to conclude such – these are direct references to the issue of those without work – how is it that politicians can reference people, acknowledge their problem and still be accused of ‘making them invisible’?

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Clemgeopin and CV

                      I thought Clemogeopin’s ‘Great!, but where and how do you create the income or extra wealth to pay for all that?’ might have been a rhetorical question.

                      Rhetorical because the question is answered: by bringing in the type of policies that Labour are speaking of – policies that direct money into productive enterprises rather than floating around speculating on things and while this money is being used for speculating – it not only is not creating jobs – it is making prices unaffordable for those with less money.

                      It seems likely that when Labour’s polices start taking effect the government will have more income (because there are more people in work, there is less being spent on welfare and those jobs are paying higher), to afford the ideas that you suggest for those still out of work.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Its all empty promises BL. How many more years are we going to let people rot in unemployment, children permanently damaged by poverty, depriving our communities of their much needed input, waiting waiting waiting for market forces to finally deliver?

                      Fiddling around with macroeconomic settings and Reserve Bank policies is the emphasis of a political party still enamoured with delivering results through the market…if only we could get the economic policy settings finely tuned just so…

                      Just hire the damn teachers, nurses, doctors, builders, journalists, artists and writers now.

                      $300B sitting in household bank deposits and managed funds as we speak, foreign shareholders take $15B per year offshore, and much much more around the place. We ain’t short of money, that is just an excuse.

                    • blue leopard

                      I thought the government is currently 60 billion in debt? I don’t understand how you can say ‘there is plenty of money – it is just an excuse’. Genuine question. There is either money there or not – and if there is money there – why are we taking on debt from those dodgy banksters?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Its the debt based money supply system that our entire society, and our entire thinking, is enslaved to. Draco and I have talked about this extensively before. The government can simply issue a dollar totally debt free into the NZ economy by spending that dollar into the economy to purchase local goods and services.

                      One simple way to do it would be have the Reserve Bank credit the Treasury’s account with additional monies every month* (say $50M) and then have the Government spend that into circulation by hiring teachers, nurses, writers, artists, etc. whom in turn supports the local economy by spending that money out into the communities that they live in.

                      *Where does the Reserve Bank get the additional money every month? By crediting the account “ex nihilo”, entering the value required, by keyboard, into the Treasury’s bank account, and pressing return.

                • Murray Olsen

                  Can I be a nutter too? What you’re saying seems pretty sensible to me, Mary.

      • greywarbler 12.8.2

        @ skinny
        That sounds practical guidance – let’s hope that it’s the line taken. I don’t want to hear ringing vows to stick to noble rules that are self imposed and wrong headed. Such as not doing this, – talking to other parties or advising the electorate of likely moves before election – or that, and here unattractive and probably unnecessary super age rise comes to mind.

        In Australia parties handed out preference cards to voters advising them of the best way to vote to advance their preferred party’s position ppp! That was something that arises out of their particular voting system and is a bit too much leading of the electorate to water and trying to make them drink to my mind. What you have suggested is appropriate for NZ and more transparent – more a No Surprises approach.

        • Skinny 12.8.2.1

          Greywarbler thanks I always value your opinion.

          All said and done I see the Left gaining votes, votes that Labour, Greens and Mana may not have otherwise managed to entice. It’s such a pity voting via the Internet/Smart Phones isn’t an option this election. If it was I have no doubts a National lead Government would be absolutely smoked.

          The other positive is the Labour Party will be dragged kicking and screaming further Left than many power players within the LP would be comtable with, that includes Cunliffe and his offsider Mickey.

          The biggest plus would be this Country full of me, myself, and I ‘sheep’ would be snapped the fuck out of the failed Friedman economic’s theory that the like of Key-Joyce and their cheerleaders like Shrillands worship.

          • greywarbler 12.8.2.1.1

            Thanks skinny likewise. Mickey is saying that any deployment of candidates differently than expected or stated will rebound. I am not sure and I think that any ‘tricky’ criticisms would be adequately countered by saying it was done in Epsom and has always been an option for Labour and we have decided that this time we are going for this approach. We have talked to Kelvin and he understands our need to advance our political methods to utilise the options that MMP offers.

            That sort of thing.

            And the on line option for voting. I am freaked out by the possibilities of hacking and shaping rolls and losing voters and accidentally wiping out everyone with a Polynesian name or whatever after hearing about what has happened in certain USA states. Private contractors and partisan and interested corporates can so easily be brought in and the government’s guiding and fairly reliable hand falls off the levers. So what have you to say about that, you sound like a techno-fan and no doubt younger than me. Does caution creep in to your mind or are you gung-ho about it all and see no reason to have a cup of tea.

            • Colonial Viper 12.8.2.1.1.1

              I am not sure and I think that any ‘tricky’ criticisms would be adequately countered by saying it was done in Epsom and has always been an option for Labour and we have decided that this time we are going for this approach

              Gosh this ain’t rocket science. This is what you say.

              Labour is fielding candidates in every single electorate. But we’re not going to be campaigning the same way in every electorate because every electorate is different.

              Why is this?

              Because its an MMP election and Labour is campaigning smart, campaigning to win and campaigning with our friends to make sure that National doesn’t get a third term trying to run this country.

      • weka 12.8.3

        “In summary all Left political party’s need to insist how they want the candidate vote to go i.e. If you want a Left Bloc collation to Govern party vote (our party) but please candidate vote such and such from (the most likely Left contender).”

        And how exactly do you propose to get that message to voters? Many people, especially those that don’t normally vote, aren’t following the election campaign. They’re just turning up on the day and voting for who they want, often from an uniformed place.

        “I will back off in a flash from campaigning for Davis should concessions need to be made for Labour to win in other seats that TIP contest.”

        What? Labour will get its MPs from the LIST vote. It doesn’t need to win in other seats. It needs to up its party vote at the same time as allowing its allies to do well. eg let Harawira win TTT and put Davis up the list. Win/win.

    • Mary 12.9

      Davis has a reputation as being one of the more wise and capable people within Labour. His behaviour displayed on RNZ this morning really does highlight the complete lack of depth within Labour at the moment. If this is the best Labour can give us we deserve another three years of hell. Good one, Kelvin, you’ve really got your priorities right. The only thing you haven’t counted on is that your attitude will backfire because the voters in Te Tai Tokerau will see you for what you are, although my guess is you’re such a fuckwit you wouldn’t care. You’ve lost all respect I may have had for you, not that that matters, but it’s clear there’ll be loads more people who feel the same. Idiot.

      • Clemgeopin 12.9.1

        100

        NOTE : I am an ardent Labour party supporter/voter.

        • Mary 12.9.1.1

          “NOTE : I am an ardent Labour party supporter/voter.”

          You’ve nailed it. And who would’ve thought the problem was there staring you in the face all along, eh? Knock me down with a feather.

          • Clemgeopin 12.9.1.1.1

            Knock me down with a feather.

            Um..,,No, Sorry, not in a mood for that.

    • wtl 12.10

      Kelvin Davis on rnz just now. Labour out to beat Hone.

      Given that Hone is unlikely to be beaten and that voters in Maori electorates have shown time and time again that they actually understand how to MMP works (giving their electorate votes to the MP but party votes to Labour), its actually not a bad strategy from Labour. They can then complain about dirty deals that National is doing with minor parties without suffering any backlash.

      On the other hand, it would be really stupid at this stage for Labour to annouce a deal before National has done any.

      I really don’t get what all the fuss is about.

      • weka 12.10.1

        “(giving their electorate votes to the MP but party votes to Labour)”

        So who did they want in government exactly?

    • David H 12.11

      Dumb as a rock. Time to vote Internet/Mana. Party vote.

    • Murray Olsen 12.12

      I think Labour think NZ Inc is an exclusive club to which only themselves and National are allowed membership. They would rather see National in charge than any radicals upsetting the status quo. I can’t wait for the day when the left gets big enough to be able to forget Labour altogether. That’s all they deserve. I get the impression they’d rather share power with ACT than with Mana. At least ACT also worships the market. Vomit.

      • Kiwiri 12.12.1

        Labour and ACT are pretty much singing the same song in terms of pushing the retirement age further out.

        • Mary 12.12.1.1

          Yes that’s right. I think Labour’s painted itself into a corner on the retirement age by blindly accepting what Diana Crossan had to say. Interesting that the new Retirement Commissioner doesn’t have such an ardent stance on raising the age.

      • Mary 12.12.2

        Couldn’t be put any better. Listen and learn, Clemgeopin, then go back to the Labour Research Unit for a show and tell.

      • Clemgeopin 12.12.3

        What exactly do you mean by saying “Labour” think? Labour is not a person.

        The Lanout strategists are well experienced thinkers and tacticians. They know what they are doing and why.

        Suffice it to say that the main objective is to win the WAR (defeat of Key and this government) for all the progressive parties and not just easily winnable battles that superficially on the surface look like no brainers in order to please some activists for their temporary comfort. (and lose the bigger war as a consequence).

        And the rest of your opinion is pretty disappointingly wrong too.

        None of this is correct:

        “exclusive club to which only themselves and National are allowed membership”

        “They would rather see National in charge than any radicals upsetting the status quo”

        “That’s all they deserve”.

        ” they’d rather share power with ACT than with Mana.”

        The only part that is Ok is this:

        “I can’t wait for the day when the left gets big enough to be able to forget Labour altogether.”
        No problem with that if people vote for that.

        • Murray Olsen 12.12.3.1

          I don’t see how the WAR will be won by (i) doing their best to keep Mana out of parliament,
          (ii) proposing to raise the retirement age,
          (iii) actually, no need for a third. The first two are plenty.

          • Colonial Viper 12.12.3.1.1

            The Lanout strategists are well experienced thinkers and tacticians. They know what they are doing and why.

            Oh yes. This is the team of “experienced thinkers and tacticians” who delivered 27.5% for Labour in 2011, including that tactical master-stroke of keeping Phil Goff’s face hidden off Labour Party signs everywhere except Mt Roskill.

            It’s the age of MMP and the Labour Party is still contesting each and every electorate hard out as if its still FPP.

          • Clemgeopin 12.12.3.1.2

            (1) Labour is NOT doing that. They WANT mana in. Labour does not want to just shuffle the votes among the progressives, but want to GROW the progressive votes by not endorsing the other left parties for the election campaign. I can tell you that in my opinion, Hone, Kelvin, and Sykes will all be MPs! Watch the space.

            (11) That is an economic and modern reality and necessity, not immediately but in the next 20 or so years for which preparation must be made now. But according to Labour’s plan, as I understand it, those who want to retire at 65 as now will still be able to make that choice, but it will be means tested until 67 (if there are no health or special circumstances) At 67, it will become universal super as now.

            • Colonial Viper 12.12.3.1.2.1

              (11) That is an economic and modern reality and necessity, not immediately but in the next 20 or so years for which preparation must be made now. But according to Labour’s plan, as I understand it, those who want to retire at 65 as now will still be able to make that choice, but it will be means tested until 67 (if there are no health or special circumstances) At 67, it will become universal super as now.

              Ahhh that’s all bullshit.

              NZ has over $300B deposited in bank accounts and managed funds, and that is only a fraction of the financial assets of this nation. Who says super can’t be afforded?

              Yet you’re going to force more people to stay in the labour pool for longer, when there are already not enough jobs to go around and youth unemployment is near 30%.

  13. bad12 13

    Hone Harawira: ”This election if we are to get rid of this National Government will require all of us,(on the left), even me to accept that there needs to be a measure of us all behaving strategically” unquote–RadioNZ National,

    Thats a BIG hear here Hone,

    Unfortunately David Cunliffe wants to emulate Winston Peters attitude of ”let the people decide first” which to me sounds like ”snake-oil”

    Hopefully, the Labour PARTY can ”make” the likes of Cunliffe and Kelvin Davis see the light…

    • Tracey 13.1

      The membership needs to, or peolle who would vote labour need to ove their votes to those who wish to see this govt gone.

    • vto 13.2

      That sounds like looonacy…

      cutting off your nose to spite your face

      If IMP can splice another seat or two to the left, even though they may take from other parts of the left, then it is most definitely worth it.

      Why is that not a good idea if it means an end to the Key Toad Family

      • marty mars 13.2.1

        Is this fear that the IMP will take votes from the left justified. My understanding is that both parties will try to get non-voters energised and voting and that is a good thing imo.

        • bad12 13.2.1.1

          Initialy i think such fear is unfounded, you only have to look at the Roy Morgan that appeared after the week long media frenzy surrounding just the proposal of an alliance of Mana/Internet to see this,

          In that poll:
          Labour UP,
          Greens UP,

          Mana UP,
          Internet UP,

          The next Roy Morgan will be ‘interesting’ to say the least, if the same UP occurs across the Labour/Green/Internet/Mana spectrum of the vote it would strongly suggest that voters can see a Government of the left in that mix, and, they like it,

          i will add tho the belief that up to 4% of the vote going to InternetMana probably wont hurt Labour/Green in any way, 5% or over tho is highly likely to drag voters across the spectrum,

          What’s the worry tho its all votes for the left…

        • weka 13.2.1.2

          “Is this fear that the IMP will take votes from the left justified. My understanding is that both parties will try to get non-voters energised and voting and that is a good thing imo.”

          IMP may take votes from Labour (and the Greens), but not from the left. The way for the left to lose seats is for IMP to get 4.9% and no electorate MPs (thanks to vote splitting by Labour and possibly the GP being MMP illiterate).

          • greywarbler 13.2.1.2.1

            weka
            “possibly the GP being MMP illiterate”
            Have they showed evidence of this in your opinion and if so where?

            • weka 13.2.1.2.1.1

              At the last election they wanted both votes, and campaigned on that despite the problems inherent in that for the left. They don’t appear to be doing that this time round.

              • Colonial Viper

                IIRC the Greens candidates I had interactions with in 2011 were clearly seeking the party vote only. That included Metiria Turei in Dunedin North.

                • greywarbler

                  Weka and CV
                  It was my impression that they were pragmatic about voting and knew that the party vote was the important one and I thought made this point emphatically. That would fit with the Greens approach which usually looks for the most intelligent approach offering the best outcomes for the Party and NZ to everything. Which is why I have supported it for decades.

    • ianmac 13.3

      Yes bad12. Yet again Hone speaks well. His call for all the Left to work together is a good call.

    • Mary 13.4

      “let the people decide first”

      Yeah, and if the people don’t decide properly we can just have another election, eh, Mr Cunliffe?

  14. felix 14

    @OAB do you really think there’s anything to be gained by trying to appease Key/Slater/Gower?

    • vto 14.1

      Nope. They should be completely and totally ignored. The left must go its own way …. go its own way … tra la la

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2

      I’m dubious of the claim that people will be more likely to vote tactically because Labour tells them to.

      • bad12 14.2.1

        In reality then OAB you are saying that voters on the right are far smarter than those on the left????…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1

          No, I’m saying they’re quite capable of working out for themselves that you can vote for Hone and get Kelvin too.

          • bad12 14.2.1.1.1

            Fair enough OAB, but, we elect leaders to act in our best interests, even acting only in Labour’s best interests Kelvin Davis winning the Te Tai Tokerau electorate does not stack up as being in Labour’s or anyone elses interests full stop,

            In a tight contest, Kelvin Davis winning that electorate could well mean that Labour cannot form the next Government and you would have to be lacking in something not to see that,

            A Leader by definition LEADS, David Cunliffe’s publicly made statements that Kelvin Davis will fully contest the Te Tai Tokerau and WIN it is the ”Leadership” of David Cunliffe and has me seriously questioning His ability and His intentions as He has previously stated of forming a ”Truly Red” Government,(source:RadioNZ National),

            Disclaimer: i viewed at the time of the Labour leadership contest Grant Robertson as the best choice as Labour Leader,

            Leadership from David Cunliffe i would suggest would entail that when He finds Himself in the Tai Tokerau would be to put Kelvin Davis and Hone Harawira up on the stage either side of Him and instruct the audience on the ramifications of how to get two MP’s out of splitting their votes Party for Davis and Electorate for Hone…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1.1.1

              Mana and the IP don’t need Labour’s help to get that message across, and Labour could lose as many votes in the centre as it gained to the left by getting ‘too close’ to Hone.

              • bad12

                So OAB, you think David Cunliffe could take Labour even lower in the election than what the media polls have so far suggested???…

          • weka 14.2.1.1.2

            “No, I’m saying they’re quite capable of working out for themselves that you can vote for Hone and get Kelvin too.”

            Can we please stop talking as if ALL voters have the same understanding, access to information, MMP-literacy etc? They don’t.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2.1.1.2.1

              That’s probably something the IP’s millions could go towards fixing 🙂

              • weka

                True, hopefully they will do lots of education and information sharing. Not sure how they will reach the people that don’t spend time on the interwebs though.

                • freedom

                  the ‘Rock the Vote’ campaigning that has been mentioned will do a lot towards fixing that.

                  The added bonus of this idea is if the Nats try to counter with their own gigs it will be interesting to see what bands they get to front it.

                  Interesting in so far as many many people will pay a lot of attention to whatever musos decide to publicly support National in an election campaign.

                  Playing at a fundraiser gig is one thing, and many NZ musos have taken that gig as they pay pretty well. Stepping on stage for an Election Campaign however, is a very different job.

                  National’s line up would be little more than a hodge podge collection of X-factor wannabes and Christmas in the Park hacks when compared to the internationally respected headliners that the left would attract.

                  • karol

                    Nats will probably try to get Richie McCaw to front a band.

                    • freedom

                      That would be one media friendly fiasco of an event karol. It would attract some skilled session artists and no doubt the cameos of note that made the bill would tap into all that makes up every cliche demographic the brewery soaked MSM can create. Of course there is the threat that with McCaw having the skills he does, he probably sings just as smoothly as he turns the ball.

                      add a ‘pub tour out of a van’ format and they just might have a winning idea 🙂

                    • Macro

                      Playing the pipes 🙂

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5441416/Piping-hot-Richie-McCaw-wows-charity-bash

                      When the pipers play –

                      I hear the voice, I hear the war
                      I hear the sound, on a distant shores
                      I feel the spirit, of yesterday
                      I touch the past, when the Piper’s play.

                      The pipes get played, for you and me
                      They kept on saying, we’ll soon be free
                      And your soul, will never fade away
                      You live forever, when the piper’s play

                      The piobrach hears, its deadly cry
                      On some will live and some will die
                      And though they fought so far away
                      I feel the presence when the pipers play

                      The pipes kept playing, for you and me
                      They kept on saying, we’ll soon be free
                      And your soul, will never fade away
                      You live forever, when the piper’s play

                      It speaks of love, I have lost
                      Its speaks of my eternal cost
                      It speaks the price I refused to pay
                      Of lives remembered, when the Pipers play
                      We will remember when the pipers play

                      [Pipes Playing]

                      The pipes kept playing, for you and me
                      They kept on saying we’ll soon be free
                      And your soul, will never fade away
                      You live forever, when the piper’s play

                      The pipes kept playing, for you and me
                      They kept on saying we’ll soon be free
                      And your soul, will never fade away
                      You live forever, when the piper’s play

                      [Pipes Playing]

                      But probably more appropriate for the left 🙂

                  • Rosie

                    freedom. RockEnrol?

                    You get into the gig free if you sign up?

                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10081413/Rocking-the-youth-vote

                    • freedom

                      It is really encouraging to see RockEnrol is happening. Enrolment is kind of crucial to the election and a free boogie just for signing up is a pretty good deal.

                      But I am referring more to party focused policy education events concerning the sharing of information and the strengthening of political activism. Music has been a growing yet largely overlooked influence in NZ politics for the past few years. A lot of political ‘stuff’ has been happening at gigs recently, and probably at a gig near you. It is not just in the big centres either, in many rural communities, there have been a bundle of regular events where people have been sharing a lot of ideas, a lot of information but mainly sharing a lot of facts as they build the strong networks required for the challenges this election will present.

                      There is a definite tone in the air this election. One which says music will be a strong contributing factor in the public’s awareness of election issues. Probably more so than any previous election.

                    • Rosie

                      Thanks for the clarification freedom.

                      I don’t get out to gigs like I used to for a variety of reasons, and even with not being on fb I can see and hear the way NZ musicians have been really sharp with their political/social observations of late.

                      Often, the band interviews I’ve listened to on the radio have had a political tone and there is a focus on the importance of voting. It helps when the DJ’s are well educated and aware of the situation – its makes for a lively and positive interview. It’s been very encouraging hearing what musicians have had to say. (EG, a Warren Maxwell interview, last week, week before (?) was one of them.

                      Musicians give, on so many levels. Gotta love them.

                    • greywarbler

                      @Macro
                      Here is the link for the Pipers Play which is great after a little introduction

                  • weka

                    freedom, these are two different thingss. One is to get people out to vote who woudln’t otherwise. The other is whether you can educate specific voters during an election campaign to vote tactically. Those voters include peopel that would be voting anyway. My response to OAB, was that the idea that parties can tell voters how to split their vote is fraught with difficulty. Educating people may go some way to resolving that, but it’s not just the young, disenfranchised vote I am talking about, it’s established voters who think they know what they are doing.

            • karol 14.2.1.1.2.2

              The Greens strongly state, again and again, that they are campaigning for the Party vote. This is a lot different from Davis, as on RNZ this morning, aggressively campaigning for his electoral vote, and slagging off the IMP.

              All left parties need to be educating voters. Plus, that coat-tail provision needs to be removed as soon as….

              PS: The recommendation was that the coat tail provision was removed. The National government ignored it in their own self interest. Now it’s coming back to bite them. Tough!

              • weka

                At the last election, the GP went for BOTH votes. I had this confirmed from Norman’s mouth himself at a public meeting before the election. I don’t know what they are doing this time round, but it bodes well that they appear to not be standing anyone in TTT or Waiariki. Still, as far as I know campaigning in the electorates increases their party vote and so that is what they are doing.

                I’m not sure about the coat-tail thing. I don’t have a problem with what IMP are doing, but I don’t know enough about the proposed MMP changes either.

                • Macro

                  There are some electorates where the Greens will stand strong candidates and push for the Electorate vote – but always the Party vote.

                  • weka

                    yes. That they are not standing anyone in TTT and Waiariki makes me wonder to what extent they have done this strategically elsewhere.

  15. greywarbler 15

    The mono rail link will be revisited if NACTs get in, and used as reason to alter the RMA ‘to stop unnecessary bureaucracy from preventing business innovation that will bring prosperity and employment to the area’. Like the expensive investment-wasting idea of shifting the ferry port from established and profit-earning Picton, the idea of bypassing Wanaka would have the same effect. NZ cannot afford to denude areas of economic activity with good outcomes and employment to favour some individual or corporate’s favoured project.

    The monorail proposal would by-pass established towns, including tourist dependent Te Anau, to go only to the developer’s exclusively placed hotel/restaurant at Te Anau Downs.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-plans-to-build-the-monorail-fiordland-link-experience-and-ruin-world-heritage-area

  16. bad12 16

    Big UP’s to Kim DotCom for being completely honest and up front with exactly how much ‘coin’ He has put into the InternetMana alliance,

    This has allowed me to firm up in my mind my choices for election 2014, here’s my thinking,

    Party vote =InternetMana,
    Electorate vote = Russell Norman,

    Electoral budget once i know the exact spend i can afford, 2–5 hundred =Green Party,

    With the emergence of InternetMana as an alliance and Dotcoms coin as the financial backing for that i can now ”share the love” far further than i previously imagined,

    i will tho stress once again, Green Party voters from 2011 should think long and hard about any intention to switch the vote to InternetMana…

    • Bearded Git 16.1

      Agreed bad12. I laughed my socks off watching tv3 news last night when KDC came on and quietly annouced he was putting $3m into IMP. You could hear the Nats quaking in their boots.

      Chris Trotter is excellent on IMP here-a must read.

      http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2014/05/game-changer-laila-harre-accepts.html

      • ianmac 16.1.1

        Yes BG. Chris has had a renewal of his own.

      • bad12 16.1.2

        Bearded git, well written from Chris Trotter, ”i hear thunder”, it is possible, only that, just possible, that such a ”novel” election vehicle as InternetMana with a smartly spent ”huge” election budget could do to the 2014 election what the ”Hairdo” Dunne and the worm did all those years ago,

        Don’t be surprised if it does exactly that in September…

        • Bearded Git 16.1.2.1

          Agreed bad. I’m predicting IMP will get 7% now. Which means 32+10+7=49%. Game on.

          • bad12 16.1.2.1.1

            Lolz, or on Slippery the Prime Minister’s side of the political spectrum, Loz again, Game Over…

          • bad12 16.1.2.1.2

            Or even better in my humble opinion, 29+13+7, lolz my naked self interest is showing now, that self interest has a name, Marama Davidson Green Party candidate,

            My disclaimer and saving grace being: no i do not personally know Her…

            • Bearded Git 16.1.2.1.2.1

              bad12-that looks good too.

              • Clemgeopin

                I am expecting/hoping party vote of
                Lab+Greens+IMP=36+13+6=55%

                Nat+ACT+UF+CONs+MaP
                = 42+0+0+0+0=42%
                or 42+0+0+2+1=45%

          • srylands 16.1.2.1.3

            You must have been one of the maths failures at school. Where do you think the 7% are going to come from? And don’t say the missing 800,000. It was actually the National vote that suffered as a result of the low voter turnout in 2011. (Or at least that is the hypothesis that best fits the data.)

            So how do you get to 49%?

            • Bearded Git 16.1.2.1.3.1

              I’m a qualified accountant slylands. 49%-take your pick here:

              29+13+7, 30+12+7, 31+11+7, 32+10+7. And your prediction ??

              • srylands

                29+9+3

                You still have not answered my question – where does the 7% come from? IMP can only draw their votes from either non voters or Labour or Green. They are not getting any from National.

                • freedom

                  “They are not getting any from National.”

                  Srylands thus spake and lo did the heavens bend to his will

                  All who heard the words did thrust their hands to the skies and cry aloud the prayers of the immortal propagandist, great words known to all who believe in the glory of John.

                  Boils and blisters did grow onto the skin of the unworthy as they sheltered from the light of malfeasance that srylands did worship.

                  Disbelievers shrank away, humbly recoiling into insignificance when facing the vainglorious truth of the words of srylands.

                  The efforts of the opposition scattered like smoke into the mists of futile imaginings. Suddenly bereft of opportunity to claim the power, the free people of New Zealand huddled like discarded rabble wondering how they ever dared to question the word of srylands.

              • srylands

                and it is “srylands”

                • bad12

                  ”It” is what we label ”it” as SSLands, although i should think that most here would give you some ”choice”,

                  Between two niceties such as dickhead or shithead that is…

            • Pasupial 16.1.2.1.3.2

              Srylands

              What is the dataset from which you derive the conjecture that; “It was actually the National vote that suffered as a result of the low voter turnout”?

              Findings from New Zealand General Social Survey presents reasons people gave for not voting… including their age, feelings of income adequacy, labour force status, and migrant status.

              It seems unlikely that the; young, poor, or unemployed would be more likely to have voted National, though I guess some migrants working for Orivida might have done so. Māori were 26.8% nonvoters compared to European at 16.8% .

              Personal income was also a major factor in nonvoting in 2011, and assuming that the rich are the natural National voters doesn’t support your conjecture either:

              $30,000 or less 22.8%
              $30,001 – $70,000 20.3%
              $70,001 or more 9.5%

              Statistics New Zealand (2014). Non-voters in 2008 and 2011 general elections: Findings from New Zealand General Social Survey. Available from http://www.stats.govt.nz.

              • Tracey

                The right tend to vote in thunderstorms, they are rarely apathetic. Am looking forward to slylands data and source.

              • srylands

                “What is the dataset from which you derive the conjecture that; “It was actually the National vote that suffered as a result of the low voter turnout”?”

                A colleague of Farrar’s did some statistical analysis of the 2008 and 2011 election results. This looks at correlations between variables, e.g “What is the correlation between NZ First in 2008 and the Labour Vote in 2011?

                The results suggest that it more complacent National voters that stayed ta home, rather than complacent left voters.

                The key results are replicated below.

                Variables and correlation co-efficient

                National Party vote in 2008 vs Conservative Party vote 2011 (general electorates) 0.601

                Change in National Party vote between 2008 and 2011 vs change in NZ First Party vote 2008-2011 (general electorates) -0.379

                Change in Labour Party vote between 2008 and 2011 vs change in NZ First Party vote 2008-2011 (general electorates) -0.004

                National Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011 (general electorates) 0.271

                National Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011, (general electorates, excluding Christchurch) 0.379

                Labour Party vote in 2008 vs change in overall turnout 2008-2011, (general electorates, excluding Christchurch) -0.278

                Conclusions:

                Conservative Party votes in 2011 came overwhelmingly from National.

                There is an inverse relationship between the increases in NZ First vote in 2011 and the relative performance of National so the increased NZ First vote was mainly at National’s expense. There was almost zero correlation between the NZ First and Labour vote.

                The higher the National vote in 2008, the bigger the decline in turnout in 2011. In other words, it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home.

                The conclusion was tested by looking at selected electorates where there was a high decline in turnout between the two elections:

                he higher the National vote in 2008, the bigger the decline in turnout in 2011. In other words, it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home.

                The following general electorates had turnout decline between the two elections of greater than 6% (on average, the turnout decline was 5.35%).

                The electorates were: Botany, Chiristchurch Central, Chch East, Clutha Southland, Dunedin North, ECB, Hamilton East, Helensville, Hunua, Invercargill, Manurewa, North Shore, Northcote, Pakuranga, Whangarei and Wigram.

                Of these 16 electorates, 11 had a 2008 National Party party vote greater than the national average for general electorates of 47.3%. With the Christchurch electorates excluded (there being special reasons for turnout decline there) this becomes 11 out of 13 electorates. This is statistically very significant.

                Overall Conclusion:

                With the prospect of a closer election there seem to be a high number of National voters who were absent in the 2008 election who may vote this time. Statistically, the influence of these “missing” right voters is likely to be greater than “missing” left voters, with a high level of confidence.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Missing right voters LOL

                  The higher the National vote in 2008, the bigger the decline in turnout in 2011. In other words, it was National voters (more than Labour voters) who stayed home.

                  Sure, soft one time National voters weren’t impressed with Key and stayed away from the polling booths in 2011.

                  Doesn’t mean they’re going to go back to Key in 2014 if they were already disenchanted with National – more likely the opposite.

                  • srylands

                    OK so where is your statistical analysis?

                    Complete the chain of correlations back to 2002, and you will find they are not one off soft voters – they are core voters.

                    But by all means show me your analysis.

            • bad12 16.1.2.1.3.3

              SSLands as opposed to your abject ongoing failure as a human being, my lack of schooling is legend, the fact tho, that i can ‘see’ and point out your abject Cowardice and Lies shows it hasn’t unduly blighted my life,

              While you’re here SSLands, hows that rental property going, done and dusted on the mortgage is it,

              Be a bit of a worry if that ability to write off losses on the rental against other taxable earnings including wages was suddenly canned by a Government as David Parker has said He intends to do wouldn’t it,

              Oh that’s right, you claim there is no such ability to write of taxes against such income despite the chief economist of the Westpac bank getting on the radio and saying there is,

              i could believe its that little firm of tax lawyers you work for up on the Terrace that has you peddling such Lies SSLands but in the final analysis it is the fact that you are a sub-human piece of excrement that has you doing such…

              • srylands

                Piss off.

                “no such ability to write of taxes against such income ”

                No there is no ability to write off taxes against income – it is a nonsensical statement.

                And I have told you repeatedly I work in Pipitea Street and not for a tax accountant. You are a liar and a rude fool.

              • srylands

                “the ability to write off losses on the rental against other taxable earnings including wages was suddenly canned by a Government as David Parker has said He intends to do wouldn’t it”

                No it would not. My wife, who own the rental property has no other income.

            • Clemgeopin 16.1.2.1.3.4

              I suspect that a large number of well employed, educated, ethical, young and geeks who probably voted for National in the last election may be tempted/attracted to give the Internet party a go. Sure, the other Left block parties combined may lose 1 or 2 % party votes too, but overall the Left block will be able to form a new Labour led government. Key is gone burger. KDC might even buy him a free one way ticket to Hawaii, USA as a parting gift.

          • Tracey 16.1.2.1.4

            If money was all it took to get to 7% ACT would have achieved it regularly… Their best showing was when national polled 20%

        • Pasupial 16.1.2.2

          Sure, Trotter writes well; even back when he was comparing Dunne to Merlin he could still string a sentence together. But he is a bit sloppy on the fact checking with his claims that in response to Harre’s appointment; “the Greens are said to have been incandescent with rage”, and; “when the time came to draw up the latter’s Party List no one in the Green hierarchy considered Harré worthy of a winnable slot”.

          Both these points are addressed in the comment section of the TDB version (though not be Trotter himself):

          http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/29/breaking-game-changer-laila-harre-accepts-the-internet-party-leadership/

          • Bearded Git 16.1.2.2.1

            Pasup-Trotter has never really liked the Greens.

            • Pasupial 16.1.2.2.1.1

              BG

              I don’t like ACT or the CC Conservatives, but that doesn’t mean I make up shit about them and pass it off as fact. Though sometimes maybe as satire…

            • Tracey 16.1.2.2.1.2

              Given she left the employ of the greens some months ago, does anyone think in the ensuing months they had no inkling of this new direction harre was taking? I doubt it, so any “rage”, if existing at all, would have been a number of weeks ago in my opinion.

              In the meatime, the minister of oravida and john key have royally shafted peter dunne, and key says he would feel dirty taking money from dotcom!!!

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.3

        MANA and Internet Party officials out there

        Do NOT blow all those funds this election campaign. Activists get dumb, lazy and uncreative when they have access to too much money.

        You have to play the long game.

        Spend an absolute maximum of $1M of those funds in this campaign, this year. (I would suggest actually $500K plus your normal fundraising efforts). Reserve the remaining $2M+ for building up capacity, infrastructure, and income generating assets aimed at breaking over 10% vote in the 2017 and 2020 campaigns.

        BTW this will also allow you to build financial independence from any single large donor.

  17. Is there a precedent for the Kim Dotcom phenomenon in early 20th century NZ history?
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/05/from-olaf-nelson-to-kim-dotcom.html

    • Clemgeopin 17.1

      Interesting!

      Who do YOU think the following passage is referring to?

      “A tall, heavy man, who spoke English with a thick, northern European accent, he had built a fortune and a fine home by the time he reached thirty. When he became a New Zealand subject, he believed that the government in Wellington would be happy for him to continue wheeling and dealing under its auspices.

      Partly because of its obligations to a distant superpower, the New Zealand state began to persecute the successful young entrepeneur. His businesses were shut down, spies followed his movements, police made unfriendly visits to his home, and plans were made to deport him.

      Infuriated by his treatment, the young businessman began to condemn the New Zealand state as an enemy of liberty. Looking about for allies, he discovered that many of the indigenous people of the islands where he lived were also estranged from the government in Wellington. Using his money, his connections, and his flair for publicity, he helped them build a political movement that changed New Zealand history.”

  18. geoff 18

    This is interesting:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/10102605/All-Blacks-Hitler-attack-by-Samoan-rugby-star

    Former Samoa centre Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu giving the hard word to NZ rugby.

    From the article:

    “There was a time when the United Nations asked all the nations in the world not to have sporting relationships with apartheid South Africa,” he said.

    “They asked the whole world to do that … but there was one country that decided not to listen. That country was New Zealand, and that team was the All Blacks. And the reason was for money.

    “That’s the worst reason ever. The chasing of money.

    • Gosman 18.1

      Great idea. Get the All Blacks to make a pity trip to Samoa by insulting them. Bravo that man.

      • Colonial Viper 18.1.1

        Just telling the truth about a piece of NZ history Gossie. If you’re embarrassed by it you should help make sure that we don’t sell out our nation’s principles for money.

        • Gosman 18.1.1.1

          The reason NZ continued with ties with South Africa after the Gleneagles agreement was to to with tradition and one eyed parochialism rather than money. Money was probably a factor in the Cavaliers tour of 1986 but that was not sanctioned officially.

          • freedom 18.1.1.1.1

            so because NZ was a run of the mill post-colonial outpost full of bigots and hate, the SA tour was all hunky dory and we should just forget it ever happened?

    • Colonial Viper 18.2

      Spot on.

  19. Anne 19

    A change of subject.

    Last night I watched the TV1 documentary about London’s grand old hotel, Claridges. Apart from the magnificent decor, it does no harm to see how the 1% live. The word ‘obscene’ in it’s luxuriousness was almost an understatement. This episode concentrated on the comings and goings of the famous and elite who came from all parts of the world during the 2012 London Olympics.

    Guess who stayed there during that time (courtesy of NZ tax-payers I presume) but the “Attorney General of NZ”. Finlayson is not named or seen in person, but his limo is filmed arriving at the red carpet in front of the hotel entrance with the number-plate NZ1 – the NZ Embassy’s official limo. Later in the programme we see a butler wheeling in “breakfast for two” to the Attorney General of NZ’s suite.

    The average price for a suite of rooms at Claridges runs from about $5000(NZ) per night to $10,000(NZ) plus. That’s a minimum of $50,000 for accommodation only – if he stayed there for the full 10 day period of the Games. And who is to say that over that period there weren’t any extras on top…

    Does everyone remember the fur that flew over the overseas expenses of a Labour Cabinet minister a few years ago? He was also on an official visit somewhere but – and I say this from memory – he took some time off (at his own expense) for a brief holiday with his partner. It transpired his staff bought a bunch of flowers for his birthday (or his partner’s) on the tax-payers’ credit card ($25) and a pair of memento tea cups – no, not gold plated, just ordinary tea-cups. He was politically destroyed by the MSM and eventually forced to resign from politics altogether.

    How about someone with the contacts and resources do a little investigation into the Attorney General’s trip to London in 2012?

    • Gosman 19.1

      Who does the arrangements for this because you are better placed to direct your attention to them in the first instance. If they then state that they were directed to use accommodation that they don’t usually use for high ranking NZ officials visiting London by someone higher up the food chain then you potentially have something meaty. That is what a decent opposition would do anyway.

    • Bearded Git 19.2

      Sounds like a job for Campbell Live.

    • greywarbler 19.3

      Anne
      I remember things like that too. Two different value systems.

    • Colonial Viper 19.4

      Let the masses eat Tarte Tatin

      • Anne 19.4.1

        An interesting aspect to the story…

        The various high-ranking government luminaries were not only filmed arriving in their limos, but walking the red carpet into the hotel. There was only one exception as far as I recall and that was Finlayson. His car was filmed arriving but that is all. I take it from that he requested there be no images of himself in the documentary. He’s never struck me as being particularly shy!

    • Tracey 19.5

      How about doing an oia on it anne?

    • Seti 19.6

      I think you’ll probably find it was the Governor General Jerry Mateparae, not the Attorney General.

      Hansard has Chris Finlayson in the house the day before the opening ceremony, and his expenses for the three months covering the Olympic period was a mere $250.

      • Anne 19.6.1

        In that case the programme makers got the “title” wrong or my hearing is worse than I thought. 🙁

        It was mentioned a couple of times too…

  20. Blue 20

    “He was politically destroyed by the MSM and eventually forced to resign from politics altogether.”

    Not really, it was this:

    “On 29 July 2010 Carter was suspended from the Labour Party caucus for allegedly being behind an anonymous letter sent around the Press Gallery claiming there was a leadership challenge against Phil Goff; a charge he has since admitted.”

    • Anne 20.1

      Oh yeah? So you’re saying its a serious offence to anonymously tip off the Press Gallery? If that was the case there would be few Nat MPs left in parliament including John Key. Admittedly they use more subtle methods, and we now know Carter was under considerable strain at the time and took temporary leave of his senses.

      • Blue 20.1.1

        It was clearly a serious offence to the Labour leadership at the time. Personally I couldn’t give a rats arse. You attempted to frame it as a Media caused sacking. The truth is somewhat different . If his ego hadn’t taken over he’d probably still be an MP . So… Yeah.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1

          The MSM smelled blood and made its own cuts to add; its disingenuous of you to ignore that, and to ignore the blatant double standards they hold (and you hold) with regards to letting Tories getting away with thousand dollar rorts on the tax payers credit card.

          • Tracey 20.1.1.1.1

            It is a pre requisite for those supporting this govt to have double standards and no ethics. Its what makes it possible.

          • Blue 20.1.1.1.2

            God, you’re an idiot CV, no wonder the voters never bought your drivel. No double standards, if you mess up, bugger off, I dont care which party you’re in. E.g. Banks, see you later. You seem to think that others view indiscretions on party lines, not always the case. “Smelled blood”. Ha, what facile hysteria.

            • Pasupial 20.1.1.1.2.1

              Blue

              You must be positively slavering for Collins scalp too, then. After all it would be rather xenophobic of National to forgive actions of a Pakeha (Collins) that parallel those which caused a Tauiwi (Wong) to resign.

              That is, if you are actually sincere about the statement; “No double standards, if you mess up, bugger off, I dont care which party you’re in”?

  21. Clemgeopin 21

    PATRICK GOWER HAS GONE COMPLETELY MAD!!!
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#comment-1411057726

    AMAZINGLY AND UNUSUALLY, THE READERS TELL GOWER OFF LIKE NEVER BEFORE!
    Read the comments under the above report.

    GOWER DISPLAYS HIS INTEGRITY/LOYALTY HERE:
    http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1054/9408/original.jpg?w=600&h

    • srylands 21.1

      Seriously? If ACT had managed to attract a $4 million donation from a German criminal, the Left would say that was cool?

      • bad12 21.1.1

        Seriously SSLands??? the fact that we do not give a shit what the particular flea is that scratches at you mind should have at least registered by now…

      • framu 21.1.2

        your not even trying – did you read the article?

        if you did then serious questions about your literacy need to be asked

      • Tracey 21.1.3

        Seriously? They probably have we just dont know. You also forget the act board selected a criminal and gave him a seat in our parliament.

        • McFlock 21.1.3.1

          You also forget the act board selected at least one criminal and gave him a seat in our parliament.

          Soon be a verdict on whether that number increases 🙂

          • bad12 21.1.3.1.1

            Lolz nah Mac, He who awaits the judges verdict, a nice long week to sweat it, has already been convicted in a criminal court, albeit for a crime against civil aviation regulations…

            • The Al1en 21.1.3.1.1.1

              Hopefully Banks get a stretch next week forcing him to resign. If that happens and the nats lose their majority, does that mean they could lose a confidence vote?
              That would probably not be a disaster for them would it? Bearing in mind mip wouldn’t have had the chance to build up the support base.

              Would make the early election result anyone’s guess.

              • McFlock

                ISTR he’s out if he gets convicted, regardless of whether he gets a sentence, because the offence carries a decent term.

                Could be wrong though.

                • The Al1en

                  Either or, good stuff.

                • Colonial Viper

                  You’re right McFlock. If found guilty on a charge where the maximum sentence is 3 years or more, you’re no longer eligible to be a Parliamentarian. IIRC.

                  • Penny Bright

                    Wrong.

                    Where the maximum sentence is TWO years or more.

                    Am VERY much looking forward to Justice Wylie giving his verdict on the John
                    Banks trial for electoral fraud:

                    2.15pm
                    Thursday
                    5 June 2014

                    Auckland High Court

                    I predict that history will be made and John Banks will be convicted and sentenced to a short jail term.

                    We shall see…..

                    Penny Bright

              • ianmac

                Maori Party will keep the Government going until the Election.
                Andrew Geddis thinks that on balance Banks will not be convicted. The finer points of Law around the “knowing” is hard to prove.
                Balance would be on “Not Guilty” – I think that is what Andrew means.

                • The Al1en

                  That’s a shame, though facing a wipeout, itcould be Flavell’s only chance of getting anything out of the 6 years if he’s the one who brings down the government, though sadly, as you say, probably not.

                • McFlock

                  I agree that’s most likely if the judge doesn’t decide that “lalalalanotreading” doesn’t count as wilful ignorance. If the judge thinks it was a wind-up, banks is probably screwed.

                  I’m in hope because companies law is leaning towards directors having to actually check what they sign, rather than just rubber-stamping. But we’ll see.

                • Penny Bright

                  Did Andrew Geddis hear the two hour interview where the Police questioned John Banks, which basically put his case in the blender?

                  (‘Nothing to hide – nothing to fear?’ So – why did John Banks not take the stand? )

                  I have been at the Auckland High Court every day for this case.

                  Did John Banks know the identity of the donors (Kim DotCom and Sky City)?

                  http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94742.html

                  Why – yes – I believe that the evidence proves that he did.

                  For goodness sake – he personally went to Sky City to pick up the Sky City cheque from CEO Nigel Morrison, and asked for the envelope to be given to his Treasurer, Lance Hutchison.

                  Pity Banks told the Police he had no knowledge of the cheque from Sky City ….

                  Did all these ‘experts’ correctly predict that this case would go to trial?

                  Will it has – and I predict that history will be made ……

                  Penny Bright

                • Clemgeopin

                  Isn’t it an offense to eat during a court session?

              • Draco T Bastard

                If that happens and the nats lose their majority, does that mean they could lose a confidence vote?

                Not as I understand it – confidence only applies to passing a budget and NAct have already done that this year.

                • The Al1en

                  Okay, I thought it was anytime, anywhere, if you have the numbers.

                  • McFlock

                    budget is confidence and supply (supply of $$$ – what turned everything to shit for Charles I).

                    Not sure on the rules for calling a confidence vote, but I think it’s possible at any time if the caller has the numbers.

                    • The Al1en

                      “what turned everything to shit for Charles I”

                      And just us leftists in 2014, a New model army – “Many of its common soldiers therefore held Dissenting or radical views”

            • McFlock 21.1.3.1.1.2

              gosh, forgot about that.

              So how many ACT mps did NOT have a criminal conviction of some sort? 🙂

    • ianmac 21.2

      Clemgeon. And the discussion re Gower under Danyl’s blog is fascinating and informative.
      http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/all-in-the-game/#comments

      • Clemgeopin 21.2.1

        Thanks for the link. Just confirms once again that Paddy Gower is just a childish, sensation seeking, stupid journalist.

  22. greywarbler 22

    Here is some glamour and an appeal for funds to make something beautiful which is also fat female affirming. Aquaporko is the tongue-in-cheek name these swimmers have chosen. They are great and healthy and positive – good role models to set against that haunted look that many fashion models wear. They can look really confrontational glowering at you as they show off their hair or clothes as if thinking damn you I’ve suffered to look like this, and you have to too if you want to look fashion right.

    Theres gallery shots and a short video clip too. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon

    10:05 Fat activist, model, performer and film-maker Kelli Jean Drinkwater
    Documentary-maker, model, performer, and fat activist Kelli Jean Drinkwater discusses her new documentary, Aquaporko that tells the story of a fat femme synchronised swimming troupe. Kelli Jean is a founding member of Aquaporko, a self-identified group of radical fatties who reclaim their bodies in public space through the art of water dance. Kelli Jean’s work in dance, modelling and activism is concerned with challenging representations of bigger bodies and trying to encourage fat positive visibility. Her practice uses confrontational humor and irony to give audiences a first-hand insight into living as a fat person, while also creating complex and empowered images of people of size. Her modelling work has featured in fashion magazines worldwide. Aquaporko is screening at the Outtakes Reel Queer Film Festival.

  23. Philj 23

    It’s a long, long way to the GE John. I remember how tired you looked before the last GE! A holiday would do you good. A few rounds of golf …. in Hawai’i?

  24. greywarbler 24

    A bemused man eating an ice block was loud hailered, had to walk backwards to the police car behind, and was handcuffed. Somebody had said that someone was in a car with a firearm and this chap’s car looked like the one reported. There were guns drawn and other police sheltering behind car doors. How exciting, you go for an ice block and find yourself starring in horrible tv news as from the USA. Tom Lehrer comes to mind as he gargles ‘ Makes you glad to be a soldier’ (civilian).

    WTF are we coming to? And does a report that is vague from the public have to get followed up like this? And does that person then get arrested and handcuffed for false reporting – why shouldn’t they suffer as well as their unintended victim? Two miscreants on the one crime report – choice!
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Video-Iceblock-in-the-car-hands-on-your-head/tabid/423/articleID/345963/Default.aspx

    I phoned local police with the info that a boy racer was operating speeding squealing around corners and making loud engine farts, on the basis that they could keep an eye out for this car. I was questioned for about two minutes for details that I didn’t have, it was a momentary glimpse. Then two days later I got a call from another station for more info. It almost seems that there are too many police officers in the cities if they have to respond at full power to every little report, every traffic offence. And look for offences with bloody road blocks in the name of preventing crime. It’s a wonder people don’t feel provoked and get out and punch them then police can get to supply the full taser treatment. What about sending police to the country so the rural crims don’t overwhelm the lone or overworked officers there?

  25. Chooky 25

    From Martyn Bradbury

    “The potential for a Labour-Green-Internet-MANA majority….This will become a game changer if Internet MANA pull the don’t knows to their flag

    …..My fear is not that we lose, my fear is that the Left are going to win by accident. Strategists within the Left need to start working on what the first 100 days looks like or else MMP could simply beat National at the ballot box and the Left trip into Government with no clear vision of change other than management.

    A Labour-Green-Internet MANA majority is a unique opportunity for genuine progressive change, such opportunities rarely come by and when they do they must be risked.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/30/the-potential-for-a-labour-green-internet-mana-majority/

    .

    • Penny Bright 25.1

      Sorry folks – yes – I do want to get rid of this SHONKEY John Key National /ACT Government, (in fact, I intend to stand against John Key in Helensville to keep the BLOWTORCH on corruption) but my ‘bullshit barometer’ is going through the roof!

      Please folks – keep your eyes and minds wide open – and ‘seek truth from FACTS!’

      As a politically independent ‘Public Watchdog’ – I will continue to TELL THE TRUTH and BLOW THE WHISTLE.

      This doesn’t usually make you popular – but truth is truth and FACTS are FACTS.

      Here is my (yet unpublished) comment on Martyn Bradbury’s ‘Daily Blog’:

      PENNY BRIGHT says:
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      MAY 30, 2014 AT 5:39 PM

      I think as the enormity of what has just occurred is slowly starting to sink in, the oxygen for “sell out” by some on the Left has been sucked from the lungs by Laila’s appointment. –

      See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/30/the-potential-for-a-labour-green-internet-mana-majority/#sthash.ZhSON8zE.4x53LmON.dpuf

      Really Martyn?

      Have you forgotten the role Laila Harre played in helping to set up the Auckland Supercity, when she was appointed to the ATA (Auckland Transition Agency).

      I remember, once upon a time – YOU were supposedly VERY opposed to the corporate takeover of the Auckland region – which Laila Harre helped to implement?

      ‘Left’?

      I don’t think so.

      Don’t ask me to have a frontal lobotomy.

      PS: The Internet Party supports privatisation via Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs).
      (For which there is now far more scope in Auckland – thanks to the ‘SuperCity’ which Laila Harre helped to set up?)

      Do you, Martyn Bradbury support PPPs?

      Penny Bright
      – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/30/the-potential-for-a-labour-green-internet-mana-majority/#comment-222532

  26. Draco T Bastard 26

    Digital democracy is upon us

    Systematically, those with the deepest pockets win, and these are simultaneously the people with the least interest in equality and fairness. In some countries, this vicious cycle has been propagated for hundreds of years with predictable results: increased inequality which makes a mockery of democracy’s promises of freedom and opportunity.

    Loomio: open-source tools from young New Zealand techies to make the dream of practical, efficient, sexy cooperatives come true

    PROGRESS! SOMEONE ARGUING FROM HANDS-ON EXPERIMENTATION …We have found the biggest plus of being a cooperative to be the sense of equality amongst our crew stemming from a democratic-based decision making process and a path to membership (as a co-owner) available to all (assuming performance and cultural standards are met).

    Digital democracy isn’t just coming to govern our countries but also the businesses we work in. We will be able to remove the oligarchy that has taken over.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1

      “Digital democracy” is a PR farce until the security and surveillance state can be wound back and defunded.

      • Draco T Bastard 26.1.1

        Have you ever considered that we may need to do both at the same time?

  27. Cancerman 27

    I hope this hasn’t already been answered but I couldn’t see it.

    Question?

    Let assume, as it is probable, that Laila Harre is elected to parliment under the InternetMana Party.
    This means she is a list MP.
    Assuming the parties separate as they have indicated is possible, perhaps likely, it will be the Internet Party with Laila Harre and perhaps a couple more MP’s of this party, yet to be named.
    My question, assuming my previous info is correct, is can Laila Harre be removed as an MP from the Internet Party by the membership or the “leadership” of the Internet Party and replaced with someone else?

    I asked this as I know Dotcom won’t have any control over Laila but could he be manipulating her and just get rid of her once she has served her purpose?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.1

      In what universe are people here to answer your “concerned” questions?

      • Tracey 27.1.1

        Surely the term is in the agreement in case only one seat is one and no other mps get in

        • Tracey 27.1.1.1

          Oops… Won

          If only sykes or hone won their seat and the party doesnt get above the party vote threshold, it would be logical for mana to go alone after that.

      • weka 27.1.2

        “My question, assuming my previous info is correct, is can Laila Harre be removed as an MP from the Internet Party by the membership or the “leadership” of the Internet Party and replaced with someone else?”

        Not as far as I know. They can kick her out of the party, but they can’t take her seat from her.

        Brendan Horan would be a current example – list MP for NZF, got kicked out of NZF, still an MP (independent).

        • Cancerman 27.1.2.1

          I had thought of the Brendan Horan example but wasn’t sure if waka jumping laws were put in place since then, as I know they had been discussed.

          Also would be interesting to know the Internet Party’s constitution in that regard.

  28. srylands 28

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10103862/Pam-Corkery-joins-Internet-Party

    “Pam Corkery joins Internet Party”

    Wow the moon bats are coming out.

    • thatguynz 28.1

      Really shitlands? I could have sworn you’ve been here a while?!?!

    • Pasupial 28.2

      Srylands

      I have a soft spot for Corkery myself, but I think that you flatter her overmuch by equating her with George Monbiot!

    • Skinny 28.3

      You Wingnuts will be so disappointed Cunliffe has announced there will be no deals with Mana/The Internet Party post the election. Of course that is for the public’s ears to hear. McCarten will be tasked to do the behind closed doors deal.

      Once TIP flush out enough voters to reach 3% look for a twist. You heard it here first Shrillands!

  29. Draco T Bastard 29

    Meanwhile, the latest puerile attack on IMP by the RWNJs is that they’re all old.

    Screenshot

  30. karol 30

    Roy Morgan update on issues important in the NZ election:

    CEO Roy Morgan says:

    “Less than four months before New Zealanders vote in this year’s Election Economic issues are clearly the most important set of problems for candidates to be focusing on to connect with their electorate. Nearly half of New Zealanders (44%, up 2% since February 2014) mention Economic issues as the most important problems facing New Zealand.

    “The most important Economic issues facing New Zealand include Poverty/ The gap between the rich and the poor/ Imbalance of wealth (18%, up 2%), Economy/ Financial crisis/ Recession/ Inflation/ Exchange rate/ High dollar (8%, down 2%) and Unemployment/ Job security (8%, up 1%).

    “Other important problems mentioned by New Zealanders include Government/ Politicians/ Leadership/ Government spending (6%, down 2%), Housing shortage/ Housing affordability (5%, up 2%), Drugs/ Alcohol issues/ Drink driving (5%, up 1%) and Social Apathy/ Lack of Values/ Lack of Empathy towards others/ Intolerance (4%, down 1%).

    • Colonial Viper 30.1

      Wait…housing affordability is “most important” for only 5% of voters? Someone is wrong here…

      • karol 30.1.1

        Housing affordability is strangely included as a “Government, Public policy, Human Rights Issue” and not an economic one.

        But many might include it as part of the inequality gap.

        NZers on ave rate environmental issues as less important for NZ than for the world in general.

        • swordfish 30.1.1.1

          There’s often quite a gap between what poll respondents see as the most pressing issues facing New Zealand and the most important issues to them personally. As research by Nigel Roberts/Stephen Levine et al has shown, people (more specifically floating voters are more likely to cast their vote as a result of the latter.

  31. JAK 31

    Peter Dunne, ex State Bureaucrat
    Russel Norana, Organic Farmer
    Pete Sharples, ex University Teacher
    Hone Harawira, ex ????
    John Key, ex Currency Trader
    Davis Cunliffe, ex Business Consultant
    Laila Harre, ex Lawyer

    Not many voters do these sorts of jobs or know people who do. So of course it takes big money and a big mouth to get those votes. Hone is the mystery man (unemployed or unemployable – who the fuck knows ?).

  32. karol 32

    Tomorrow evening Russel Norman will make a policy announcement, to be on Livestream.

    Sat May, 31 2014 9:15 PM EDT — Sat May, 31 2014 10:15 PM EDT

    Wait – what time is that in NZ? The count down clock says it’s in
    1 day 18 hrs 55m

  33. Morrissey 33

    How’s Jim Mora’s exciting new Panel coming along?
    (The news isn’t good, I’m afraid)

    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Friday 30 May 2014
    Jim Mora, Jane Clifton, Michael Moynahan

    Now you may well have thought, as did this writer (i.e., moi), that when Jim Mora was stripped of two and three-quarter hours of his afternoon show, it would be reasonable to have expected a dramatic improvement of the remnant he was allowed to keep, viz., the chat segment The Panel. Surely, we eternal optimists and well-wishers believed, without the strain of having to feign enthusiasm for the ghastly choices on “Best Song Ever Written”, or engage in banter with the likes of Jules Older, or interview moral reprobates like Dame Lesley Max on “Eight Months to Mars”, Jim and his producers, finding themselves blessed with hours of extra time every day, would use that time productively. They would use that extra time to cogitate, to think seriously and creatively about improving that one and a quarter hours of prime time radio. Surely they would come up with an exciting revamp of the program, maybe even ditching the insultingly puerile emphasis on trivia, celebrities and commercial surveys, and even purging some of the more inane regulars.

    Surely. After all, according to Radio NZ National’s frequent station promos, The Panel features “leading opinion makers”, who discuss the news and “help to make sense of it all”. That’s a mission statement implying a serious agenda if ever there was one. Surely.

    Sadly, however, after a month or so of listening to these “leading opinion makers” helping to “make sense of it all”, I have to conclude that The Panel is actually getting worse.

    The obsession with dull, trivial non-stories straight off Google News or Ana Samways’ dismal Herald column continues, as does the never-ending laughter, which ranges from sycophantic (Jeremy Elwood, Michael Moynahan, Tim Watkin) to menacing (Graham Bell, David Farrar, Chris Trotter) to utterly vacuous (Dita Di Boni, Lisa Scott). The introductions—to guests who have been on regularly—continue to be painfully drawn out and boring. Today, Michael Moynahan carried on about how wonderful his recent holiday in Bora Bora was, and Jane Clifton burbled about the foibles of cats. Mora tried to show he was interested, in his usual fashion.

    Another thing that has not changed is the blatant bias toward the National-led government, and a steady ridiculing of “left” or liberal parties. This was illustrated clearly in the treatment of the first topic up for discussion today—-the appointment of Laila Harré to the leadership of the Internet Party. Far from engaging in any attempt at serious analysis of the appointment, Mora and Clifton immediately began to repeat the Government’s mantra that the Mana-Internet alliance is “bizarre” and “cynical”. Clifton claimed that Mana-Internet has nothing of substance to offer young voters. Michael Moynahan did not seem to have thought about the issues at all—not even for even a few minutes—but that didn’t prevent him from hooting his approval. At no time during today’s program was there any warning or disclaimer given about Jane Clifton’s political allegiance: not only is she a snide, continual denigrator of Labour and Green policies and politicians, she is the de facto wife of Government minister Murray McCully. In fact, this is rarely, if ever, mentioned when Clifton makes her frequent guest appearances on this show.

    Next up was a brief interview with Professor Paul Spoonley about immigration. After mentioning that he was actually in London when the 7/7 bombings occurred—“it was really terrifying”—Spoonley managed to repeat the standard line that the young men who carried out the attacks did so for economic reasons. They were “angry” and “alienated” because they lived in ethnic enclaves. Spoonley knows it is just not acceptable to mention the fact that the bombings in London were a response—however murderous and wrong-headed—to Great Britain’s participation in the bombing, shooting, torture and mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spoonley knows better than to mention that the bombings were a political act, that they didn’t just come out of nothing. We saw the same careful avoidance of the issue last year, when two young men of Nigerian descent killed Lee Rigby on a Woolwich street.

    To compound Spoonley’s lack of integrity, Mora wheeled out one of the nastier right wing saws. “Immigration in the U.K. has been holus-bolus, hasn’t it,” he said, with the faux-sincere, faux-serious tone of a UKIP candidate.

    After the 4:30 news comes the “Soapbox” segment. This is an opportunity for the guests to deliver a prepared speech on anything they like. One would have thought the guests would make the most of this chance by preparing something interesting….

    MORA: Jane, what’s been on your mind?
    JANE CLIFTON: Well, I need to know this: why is it still impossible to get pantyhose that won’t ladder?
    MICHAEL MOYNAHAN: Ah, hyah, hyah, hyah, hyah, hyah!
    JANE CLIFTON: We’ve got really tough fibers for industry, but not for pantyhose. It just seems crazy!
    MORA: The ones that are as thick as horse blankets: are they called “leggings”?
    JANE CLIFTON: They’re called, diplomatically, “opaques”.
    MICHAEL MOYNAHAN: Hyah, hyah, hyah, hyah, hyah! [Snort]

    A little later…..

    MORA: Our next topic is the so-called “obesity epidemic”. Waikato Hospital will ban sugary snacks and drinks from its vending machines. Any comments on this?
    JANE CLIFTON: Yeah, there’s a real fad in being down on sugar…. Again it’s a little bit like banning smoking in the park. It’s just a little bit overweening. It just strikes me as a little bit faddy.
    MORA: Michael?
    MICHAEL MOYNAHAN: Yeah, I guess what I think is there’s actually an insidiousness with packaged foods.
    MORA: According to this survey, British women are the fattest in Europe.
    JANE CLIFTON: [Snorting] Ha!….
    MORA: “Overweight” and “obese”. This is a bit of a weasel category isn’t it?
    JANE CLIFTON:They’re overstated their case. I’m just inclined to discount everything they say now. We’ve been lied to, bullshitted.

    et cetera, ad nauseam…..

    • Anne 33.1

      I’ve missed your frequent updates on the Panel Morrissey. But one small(?) error. Unless there has been a very recent reunion, the McCully/Clifton relationship ended up on the rocks a long time ago. My understanding is it’s the Mallard/Clifton coupling now – although I might also be out of date on that one.

      There was a brief refreshing difference yesterday. During the introductions Joe Bennett informed us “he’s done nothing” recently. However he was expected to talk about “something” so he spent 5 minutes regaling listeners with the joys of chopping firewood. I enjoyed every moment of it.

      • Morrissey 33.1.1

        Thanks for the update, Anne. I have to update my secret files, and hire better agents. I heard the Joe Bennett paean to chopping firewood too, and I enjoyed it.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts