A cutting review of National’s lineup

Written By: - Date published: 8:51 am, December 15th, 2016 - 240 comments
Categories: national, useless - Tags: , ,

An account of the long list of Nats abandoing ship is all over the news this morning. Jay Kuten writing in the Wanganui Chronicle has a rather cutting review of what’s left:

‘Snow White has left the building’
…
Let’s look at the epigoni. With Bill English as accidental PM – 59 votes – and Paula Bennett as deputy, we have the bland being followed by the blind.

Bill’s default appearance is funereal but he started his term as treasurer in the devil-may-care mode of costing taxpayers $2 billion in the Canterbury Finance debacle. Anyway, who’s counting?

Bennett, who played the Hillary card to get the number two spot, said in her campaign: “I’m a woman.” Great.

She had been in the Key regime’s “kitchen cabinet” […]. Bennett admits she has a big mouth. She was a teenage single mum and, aside from a few months of real work, has been at the public trough ever since. She famously climbed with governmental largesse and then pulled up the ladder.

Bennett’s is nothing but grasping ambition, having fulfilled the Peter Principle in her role as social housing minister.

The rest of the National bench is also lacklustre. Imagine Judith Collins and her blogger buddy, the cetacean lubricant. No, I can’t. Gerry Brownlee – Finland’s favorite punching bag? It goes downhill from there.

Most of these folks couldn’t reliably run a bath. Novopay anyone? In Spanish it means the pay ain’t going anywhere. …

Kuten is no less forthright in his review of the Key “legacy” earlier in the piece.

240 comments on “A cutting review of National’s lineup ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. rsbandit 1
    15 December 2016 at 8:58 am

    “epigoni” , “cetacean lubricant” , “Novopay anyone? In Spanish it means the pay ain’t going anywhere”. Dear God – swallowed a thesaurus? “aside from a few months of real work, has been at the public trough ever since” – careful, are many Labour and the Green MPs at the trough, too?

    Back on topic, Labour should not get complacent. As Audrey Young noted in the Herald:

    “It might soothe a few impatient backbenchers. But English has a compelling New Zealand story to tell and an ability to tell it well.English could be a harder target for Labour than it thinks.” : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11765491

    This is a different Bill English to Bill circa 2002. Little needs to get a story and get it out there.

    • Wensleydale 1.1
      15 December 2016 at 9:05 am

      The name Bill English and the word ‘compelling’ should never be used together in the same sentence. Suspension of disbelief only stretches so far.

      • rsbandit 1.1.1
        15 December 2016 at 9:13 am

        Keep thinking that and Labour will make the same mistake they made with Key. And lose. English has proven himself capable as Finance Minister and familiar to voters, Little is largely unknown.

        • Wensleydale 1.1.1.1
          15 December 2016 at 9:28 am

          I didn’t vote for Labour in the last election, and I’m largely ambivalent about voting for them in the next one, given their seeming inability to organise a piss-up in a brewery. Little has made some headway, and the MoU with the Greens was a smart move, but he faces an uphill battle and an obviously hostile media. Having said that, if Labour can’t orchestrate a victory over Dreary Bill and his conniving menagerie of self-serving schemers now that Captain Smarm has left the building, many, myself included, will spend the subsequent months face-palming so hard we’ll likely inflict catastrophic brain damage.

          • rsbandit 1.1.1.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 9:32 am

            The MOU was a stupid move and here is why.

            It has robbed Labour of the ability to fight for the centre and get the swing voter. This voter is conservative enough to switch to National. They are not going to accept the Greens, who they see as radicals.

            Labour should ditch the Greens (officially) and position centre. Leave the more left policy initiatives to the Greens and get them through post-election. Keep a distance pre-election.

            • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.1.1
              15 December 2016 at 10:24 am

              Yeah, after all, look at how association with those universally acknowledged loonies from ACT crippled National’s election chances.

              • rsbandit …
                15 December 2016 at 10:54 am

                “ACT” are “one person” and, yes, any larger they are a political risk for National, and would likely cause bleed of swing voters to the left. ACT are seen as benign but the Greens are an unknown quantity for this group.

                Labour has spent far too long preaching to the choir. It should spend not one minute preaching to the choir. The choir are not going anywhere and will never vote National. It’s lazy. It’s stupid. It’s wasting time and money.

                It’s hard going after the swing voters. That group are *all* Key ever talked to and the reason why he got the results he did. He didn’t waste his time talking to entrenched National voters.

                • Richard Christie …
                  15 December 2016 at 1:21 pm

                  Like it or not, the “swing voter” is largely led by whatever paradigm the media feeds them.

                  What you are essentially calling for is for the left to satisfy the interests of the corporate owned media.

                  Dressing it up as satisfying the centrist voter is glib.

                  Edit: the msm’s influence may well be numbered, as events in US and UK attest, NZ’s sleepy hobbits may yet wake up to how they too are being manipulated.

                  • rsbandit …
                    15 December 2016 at 1:58 pm

                    The swing voter is driven by self-interest.

                    The media can bang on about poverty, climate change, privacy, dirty politics and various other left-wing preoccupations, as they do, until they are blue in the face, but it is not influencing the swing voter. National rides high.

                    MMP is won in the middle. You can be as ideologically pure as you like, up on your high horse, and everyone here will cheer. Everyone here cheering is a very bad sign, because it is not ideological purity that wins. Pragmatism wins.

                    The aim is to win. Isn’t it?

                    • Richard Christie …
                      15 December 2016 at 2:33 pm

                      The swing voter is driven by self-interest.

                      Here you make the mistake of projecting what motivates yourself.

                      The media can bang on about poverty, climate change, privacy, dirty politics and various other left-wing preoccupations, as they do

                      umm…as they don’t.

                      These issues are given only cursory attention and almost no analysis in the MSM, particularly on television which is relied upon by a significant sector of the populace.

                      It is in the right wing interest to stifle public discourse.

                    • rsbandit …
                      15 December 2016 at 3:06 pm

                      “Here you make the mistake of projecting what motivates yourself.”

                      Yes, I am the only person alive driven by self-interest, and not one swing voter is motivated by self-interest.

                      I think you’ll find Clinton had a handle on it “it’s the economy, stupid”.

                      “umm…as they don’t.”

                      They do. Non-stop, almost daily, for the last decade. Go look those themes up on Google Trends. To say they don’t analyse them doesn’t mean much – they don’t analyse anything, including right wing talking points.

                      >>It is in the right wing interest to stifle public discourse.

                      May as well give up, then.

                    • Marcus Morris …
                      20 December 2016 at 8:26 am

                      I was listening to Kathryn Ryan and her weekly “connect” with Matthew Hooten the other day and Hooten made a startling comment which no one seems to have picked up on. He reported that John Key actually said to him that the defining moment of the last election was the so called “Moment of truth”. Until that time he felt the Nat’s were in serious danger of losing the election. Certainly the polls were indicating a Labour Green government. I for one followed the event with increasing anxiety and the outcome was just as I feared. Dotcom’s antics sabotaged the election and he has acknowledged this. In my view his self serving behaviour robbed the country of one of the better Prime Ministers we have never had, cost the Mana party any chance of participation in the current government (while they ever signed up to Dotcom’s support I will never understand, and they are probably still asking why) and allowed this current shower a further three years of mismanagement.

            • Guerilla Surgeon 1.1.1.1.1.2
              15 December 2016 at 11:29 am

              Labour has been positioning centre for some years now. How has that worked out for them?

              • saveNZ …
                15 December 2016 at 12:11 pm

                @Guerilla Surgeon – Labour have not been at the centre for years. They have been schizophrenic with neoliberalism with more taxes. Sounds good for the middle?? NOT!

                Example, Believe like Tony Blair in war, spying and more money less transparency for Defence. (Style – right wing).

                Believe in more taxes (except for the 1% and global citizens and companies), such as higher PAYE rates for larger earners, longer retirement age, capital gains taxes on property not including the family home (most capital gains taxes can be avoided by the rich by making their taxable income zero, or not selling just buying more property and renting them out, or just speculating on the family home by buying and selling and living in it, or having each family member own their own house etc etc, if you want to tax property get a stamp duty at least because at least it will hit those with more money to spend on property the hardest and is difficult to avoid). (Style – outdated 20th centuary left wing)

                Believe in Free trade and embrace globalism (right wing) – but enriches the 1% the most, ensures corporate welfare due to ISDS clauses) – has been expanded beyond goods to actually limiting governments ability to govern in particular with pollution, climate change and social good, and has lowered jobs and conditions in richer countries while creating a cultural and economic colonisation of those in poorer countries.

                Middle class are saying, no, no, no,

                They don’t hate Labour in many cases voting for them as an electorate candidate, but their party vote has not gone to Labour. Or they don’t vote at all.

                I voted for a Labour ABC candidate for my electorate vote even though I did not particularly like him so National did not get it, but did not give Labour my party vote last election due to the above policies. Once they change their policies (which in my view they have under Andrew Little) Labour will get the middle voters back.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  15 December 2016 at 1:21 pm

                  Yeah this is the issue with aiming for the centre instead of sticking to your values and finding the things about them that voters support most. Sometimes you end up overshooting to be “reasonable,” and over time you can drift away from said values and end up standing for nothing.

                • Richard Christie …
                  15 December 2016 at 1:46 pm

                  Labour have been aiming for centre since 1990 (’84 to ’90 they were surreptitiously well right of centre. ).
                  This has allowed a paradigm shift inwhere the centre appears to lie.

                  The traditional Labour voter understands this, but the Party seemly doesn’t.

                • rsbandit …
                  15 December 2016 at 1:51 pm

                  You could not be more wrong, SaveNZ.

                  Middle voters are aspirational. Middle voters couldn’t care less about the ideological concerns that occupy your waking hours, and those of The Standard commenters.

                  They care about their back pocket.

                  Unless you reassure them that their lifestyle is secure (a bias towards the status quo and not rocking the boat) and that they can aspire upwards, they will not hear you. That is why the themes of climate change, asset sales and poverty get nowhere, and why hooking up with the wild card Greens is a significant mistake.

                  • saveNZ …
                    15 December 2016 at 2:50 pm

                    Partially agree with you there rsbandit – about voters ensuring their lifestyle is secure, but not about the hook up with Greens which is a good thing because it shows where the Labour ideological leadership has led. Agree more with Richard Christie on that front.

                    Labour were even worse than right of centre last time, they had schitzophrenic messaging from right to left to right. Nobody wanted that. Also they had massive self hate and internal rift.

                    Without that, they would have won.

                    Kiwis still like Labour, but they need to understand that Rogernomics will not happen again or that they will not be stripped of their little remaining assets (normally property related) and benefits like super, before getting their tick.

            • The Chairman 1.1.1.1.1.3
              15 December 2016 at 11:44 am

              “It has robbed Labour of the ability to fight for the centre and get the swing voter.” 

              It’s illogical to assume swing voters can’t be won-over by left-wing solution/policy that tends to benefit the larger voter majority.

              Voters that are open enough to swing are generally open enough to consider, thus potentially be swayed by a left-wing alternative.

            • AB 1.1.1.1.1.4
              15 December 2016 at 10:00 pm

              Bollocks. Labour are already centrist or even centre-right.
              Their job is (or should be) to reset the political centre to the left. Only doing that will undo the radical right-wing experiment we have all been living inside for the last 30 years.
              See Overten’s Window.

          • red-blooded 1.1.1.1.2
            15 December 2016 at 11:08 am

            Two responses:
            1) Wensleydale – If you think Labour face an uphill battle, and you see National as a “conniving menagerie of self-serving schemers”, then get active in either the Labour or Green Party and make sure you turn out and vote for whichever one you choose. You say your ambivalence comes from what you see as Labour’s inability to get organised, then go on to say that actually since Little’s been on the job they are getting organised. Has it ever occurred to you to pitch in and help? Do something positive – be an organiser. Labour (or the Greens) would welcome any help, I’m sure.
            2) rsbandit – So basically what you’re saying is that Labour should follow the same strategy re the Greens that has worked so well for the last few elections. Smart! The MoU isn’t a marriage or even a coalition agreement – it’s an agreement to work together prior to the election. It allows for disagreement and different policy positions. Labour and the Greens aren’t merging into one party! Labour used to work in alliance with The Alliance, and while they didn’t last too long as a political force, Labour wasn’t seen as “too left” because they were working with a party that was further to the left than them. So long as Labour is the larger party, they have significant independence from The Greens.

            • rsbandit 1.1.1.1.2.1
              15 December 2016 at 11:37 am

              Labour haven’t positioned centre. Their positioning has been incoherent.

              Their position is perceived as more coherent now – wedded to the Greens. That is bad. The swing vote won’t understand the nuance you describe and all they’ll see is “Vote Labour, Get Greens”. They don’t want Greens. If they did, Labour and the Greens vote would have increasing consistently for the past three years.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                15 December 2016 at 1:30 pm

                Actually last time they were polled, most Labour supporters wanted the Greens in a coalition government. I’d be very surprised if that’s changed.

                Sure, there are some Labour supporters who don’t care for the Greens at all, but they’re in the minority, and they have to be realistic about needing coalition partners. It’s between the Greens, New Zealand First, and whoever ends up winning the Māori seats. (which probably includes the Māori Party, but may even include Mana too)

                As for the MOU, remember that it was a move from the left wing of the Green Party to prevent its more centrist wing from proposing a resolution that the Greens wouldn’t go into coalition with anyone. Can you imagine what Labour’s chances would be if that resolution had passed at the Green AGM? They would have been campaigning on a sub-30% party vote without even a guarantee of any votes from the Greens. Labour were wise to sign.

                • rsbandit …
                  15 December 2016 at 1:45 pm

                  Do not ask Labour voters.

                  You already have their vote. They will not vote National. Do not waste one minute on them.

                  The voters you want are current National voters who can swing to Labour.

                  • The Chairman …
                    15 December 2016 at 3:54 pm

                    While Labour require National voters who can swing to Labour, they can’t afford to do so at the cost of losing their core support, hence require to do so while remaining left.

                    • rsbandit …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      The core support isn’t going anywhere. They’ll tick Labour even if you replaced every MP with a goat. At worst, you lose some of the fringe left to the Greens, but that doesn’t matter as post-election you get the Greens onboard.

                      You gain the people you need to win. The swing National voters.

                  • The Chairman …
                    15 December 2016 at 5:13 pm

                    Labour’s core support has already dwindled, hence there is no guarantee the rest will remain, or even bother to vote.

                    Along with the Greens, there is also Winston, Mana and Maori all competing for a chunk of that vote.

                    Moreover, securing the Maori vote (which is part of that core support) is expected to be vital this election.

                    Therefore, Labour are losing core support, thus can’t afford to lose any more.

                    The goal for Labour is to win more support while not being counterproductive shedding their core support at the same time.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    17 December 2016 at 9:49 pm

                    Actually the voters you want are the most persuadable voters who aren’t already solidly in your coalition. (ie. there’s nothing to be gained from Labour gaining at the expense of the Greens or vice-versa)

                    Those voters might be National voters. They might be non-voters. They might currently be NZF voters. (As NZF hasn’t committed to supporting Labour, it makes absolute sense for Labour to try to eat their lunch) Soft National voters might respond to a more neoliberal centrist policy. They could also say, “why vote National Lite when I can have full-strength National Party?”, in which case, wasted effort, and you’ve probably lost left-wing support at the same time, so net loss. There is only so far right that it’s practical for Labour to move, and arguably, they’re already at that point. Labour can appeal to centrists with left-wing policy, too, it just has to be populist left-wing policy that speaks to ordinary kiwis. In fact, that’s the sort of thing that’s most likely to steal soft NZF voters back to Labour, too.

                    Labour can afford to lose some left-wing voters to the Greens, but there are a lot of the the left who don’t identify with the liberal environmental policies of the Greens, but do want a solid left-wing policy platform and left-wing ministers in key positions. Labour has been losing those voters, either to radleft movements like NewLabour/The Alliance or the Mana Party, or simply to the “missing Million” since before MMP came in, as they’ve never really regained credibility as a party opposing neoliberalism since they allowed Rogernomics to happen.

        • Chris 1.1.1.2
          17 December 2016 at 11:55 pm

          English is a respected engine room worker. He ain’t leader material and the voting public saw that in 2002. And any traction he could get, which would mostly come from the back of Key’s coat-tails anyway, will evaporate the longer he leaves an election date, and whatever’s left over Bennett’s clown-like narcissism will sort out. All Little needs to do is refrain from saying he’s sorry for being a man. He could also declare Labour will go into the Pike River mine, just make sure, of course.

          • lprent 1.1.1.2.1
            18 December 2016 at 1:31 am

            The problem on 2002 was that he offered more of the 90s National. It didn’t fly then because people remembered the 90s massive dislocations and blatant unfairness.

            But this isn’t 2002. This is more of the same of the Key government and steady as she goes from the steadiest person in that government. Labour have to offer a better path than English and his government can provide or to show significant instability from retaining them. So far they haven’t been notable for communicating either.

            The greens have been better at the future to people who sometimes vote. Nz first better at the communicating problems to the people who always vote.

            Labour hasn’t done well on either getting people to flip from National nor getting non voters to vote.

      • Chris 1.1.2
        18 December 2016 at 2:05 am

        Young’s story seemed so compelling I almost believed it.

    • esoteric pineapples 1.2
      15 December 2016 at 11:40 am

      “careful, are many Labour and the Green MPs at the trough, too?”

      That’s the kind of shallow mindless cynicism that gets you Donald Trump as President of the United States.

    • WILD KATIPO 1.3
      15 December 2016 at 2:35 pm

      rsbandit

      You claimed a day or two ago you were a Labour supporter.

      Garbage.

      Everything you say denigrates Labour and the other half presents National in glowing colors despite them being a vicious , useless govt. If there’s two things I cant stand the first one is a hypocrite and the second one is a liar.

      And not necessarily in that order.

      • rsbandit 1.3.1
        15 December 2016 at 4:11 pm

        What a bizarre comment, Wild Katipo.

        If I think Labour is going wrong in their positioning and PR, I’m supposed to say “yay team”? Meanwhile, National showed how to win and I’m supposed to ignore those lessons because “they are National”?

        If there is one thing I can’t stand it’s unthinking obedience.

        • WILD KATIPO 1.3.1.1
          15 December 2016 at 4:26 pm

          You are not a Labour party supporter.

          Stop lying.

          • rsbandit 1.3.1.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 5:03 pm

            You know, you’re right.

            With poll results this good, the brains trust behind this strategy are to be congratulated. Labour are doing just great, National are terrible, The Greens are just great, and ACT….pffft….bastards!

            Don’t. Change. Anything.

            Yay team!

            Whoop!

            • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.1.1.1
              17 December 2016 at 10:08 pm

              Is anyone here actually arguing for no-change Labour? Even people inside the Labour Party who comment here generally want to see a lot of change from Caucus compared to the last two elections, even if some of them are confident in the current team.

              The thing is, there’s only one time since the 1980s that Labour has actually tried running to the left to any degree, and we can’t draw any bloody conclusions about whether it worked because we had Caucus running a chicken coup where they threw the election away in order to get rid of Cunliffe.

              Most centrists want a government that will kick the opposition in the teeth until they agree with them. (ie. they’re left-wingers who want the right-wing to be saying nice things about their ideas, or vice-versa) There’s an amount on top of that don’t care about economic policy but are die-hard conservatives (most of that group go to NZF) or die-hard liberals, (these are likely your soft national supporters) and then there are a few genuine centrists (your UF core supporters, lol) and your low-information voters, who are a large group but very difficult to predict because they largely don’t care about the anything substantive. They want to vote for someone with charisma who they can identify with, and in the coming election, many of them simply won’t vote, or may grit their teeth and tick Labour because Little is less boring than Bill.

              Of the centrists, Labour should probably let the Greens try to peel off the liberals, (we’ve got a fair number of them already tbqh) and they should grab the left-wingers who want the right-wing defeated and saying nice things about left-wing ideas, and the genuine centrists. They then need a hard personality sell to the low-info voters. The best way to do that IMO is to bring out “angry Andy,” which is the most persausive version of the Labour leader. I’d rather have an angry PM who cares than a robot like English.

    • Anno1701 1.4
      15 December 2016 at 3:58 pm

      “This is a different Bill English to Bill circa 2002”

      yes, 14 years older

      dynamic……..

  2. Carolyn_nth 2
    15 December 2016 at 9:02 am

    there’s no link to the Kuten article. It’s here.

    The Pike River mine tragedy was on Key’s watch, compounded by failure to prosecute anyone. The fiasco of the Christchurch rebuild is still going on – and 25 per cent of our kids still live in poverty.

    Key looked prime ministerial except when looking downright silly (cf. pulling ponytails, going Gangnam Style, mincing cat walks etc). His achievement as long-running PM is reminiscent of the portrayal by Roberto Benigni in To Rome With Love of the man who was famous for being famous.

    Pulling ponytails is worse than looking silly – it’s downright nasty.

    • rsbandit 2.1
      15 December 2016 at 9:19 am

      Pike River was a miserable failure and haunts National still. Good.
      Christchurch rebuild will take a generation. Silly statement.
      25% in poverty. Again, a silly statement that over-eggs the problem, and because of that, doesn’t resonate with swing voters.

      All this stuff is lapped up by the converted, but is inaudible to the only group we should be talking to in 2017: swing voters.

      In order to do that, we need to forget Key, forget English and focus on the good points of the Labour movement and get a personal Andrew Little story out there. The public have no idea who he is or what he is about.

      • Stunned Mullet 2.1.1
        15 December 2016 at 9:24 am

        Careful rsbandit you’re talking a great deal of sense and will soon be group trounced by all and sundry.

        • crashcart 2.1.1.1
          15 December 2016 at 11:18 am

          I love how you are one of the best examples of confirmation bias available SM. The moment someone says something you agree with they don’t need evidence or even coherent argument (not saying rsbandit isn’t coherent, he has a very easy to read style) there you are to jump on board telling them how good it is to see someone else who makes sense and that they will soon be slapped down. Follow very rarely by someone slapping that person down.

          Perhaps you would benefit from some time being self critical and looking at the simple lines you throw out there and seeing if you can find any evidence to back them up. I’m not saying it will change your view but at least when you come back you will actually add informed and intelligent debate.

      • Richard Christie 2.1.2
        15 December 2016 at 1:39 pm

        All this stuff is lapped up by the converted, but is inaudible to the only group we should be talking to in 2017: swing voters.

        Of course its bloody inaudible, that’s no accident either, quality public discourse over such matters has been extinguished by the right wing – and replaced with what? Hosking, NZ Herald (aka Slater’s drop box) and, those creepy morning hosts/political editors on TV3 etc.

        • rsbandit 2.1.2.1
          15 December 2016 at 2:06 pm

          No use blaming the messenger. Find the story. Labour have not found the right story.

          The media is chock full of the chardonnay set. Give them better stories.

          • Stunned Mullet 2.1.2.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 2:25 pm

            ..or better chardonnay ..

          • Richard Christie 2.1.2.1.2
            15 December 2016 at 2:26 pm

            No use blaming the messenger.

            (facepalm)

            The point is the messenger isn’t doing its job , instead, it is either non existent or presents a distorted and partisan message as impartial.

            • rsbandit 2.1.2.1.2.1
              15 December 2016 at 3:55 pm

              The media messenger is running left-wing talking points non-stop. Day in, day out. Look at this thread topic, for one.

              The problem is these stories don’t resonate with anyone who isn’t already voting left.

    • r0b 2.2
      15 December 2016 at 9:20 am

      Oops – fixed – thanks.

    • Bob 2.3
      15 December 2016 at 1:03 pm

      “The Pike River mine tragedy was on Key’s watch, compounded by failure to prosecute anyone”
      No, but they changed the law so that if anything like this happened in future the companies directors would be prosecuted.

      “The fiasco of the Christchurch rebuild is still going on”
      So is the Japan rebuild even though the Japan earthquake was offshore so they didn’t have to worry about 3 years of significant aftershocks!
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/08/5-years-later-japan-still-struggles-recover-tsunami-disaster/81431884/

      “and 25 per cent of our kids still live in poverty.”
      Down from 28% at its peak

      Do you believe everything the MSM tell you? Or just the things that fit your preconceptions?

      I notice no mention of a near 50% reduction in cases if SUDI, approx 40% drop in deaths from conditions with a social gradient, >50% reduction in deaths from assault, neglect or maltreatment, and an approx 20% reduction in hospitalisations due to assault, neglect or maltreatment…funny that
      http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/

  3. adam 3
    15 December 2016 at 9:09 am

    I look forward to the trolls trying to point out the talent.

    Should give loads of good laughs.

    • irascible 3.1
      15 December 2016 at 9:14 am

      I notice that Patrick Gower and Vernon Small are predicting that the distinctly lack lustre, over reaching and taltentless and recipient of largesse from Dong Hua Liu the Bagman of Botany will be elevated under the English-Bennett cabal. The barrel bottom is certainly visible if these predictions prove true.

    • Red 3.2
      15 December 2016 at 9:36 pm

      Don’t need to, the only real measure is contrasting national to labour talent vacuum angry Andy, Wobbo et al , hardly daunting

  4. Carolyn_nth 4
    15 December 2016 at 10:55 am

    john Campbell’s very good op ed piece on Key’s term as PM, and what follows.

    Brand John: The Key to National’s success

    Mr English will consider the surplus, debt, mixed Treasury projections, an ageing population, low unemployment figures but relatively low wages and high housing costs, and the situation of New Zealanders who “face material deprivation and multiple barriers to economic and social participation”, some of whom have jobs and some of whom are children. And then, without Key’s extraordinary personal popularity to package his responses in, he will act.

    • Karen 4.1
      15 December 2016 at 11:45 am

      It’s okay but this really annoyed me:

      “But in the 2015 Budget, the government increased benefits by $25 a week for families with children. It was the first benefit increase, beyond adjustments for inflation, since 1977. That has weight.”

      Journalists keep repeating this as if every beneficiary family did get $25 a week. They did not. Very few families got the full amount and payment did not start until mid 2016. Meanwhile housing costs have gone up nearly 50% since National got in and the Accommodation Supplement has not kept pace. Very disappointed that Campbell, of all people, has bought into this.

      I am not excusing the previous Labour Government by the way. The worst two things that the last Labour government did while in power IMO were to fail to reverse the benefit cuts and passing the Seabed and Foreshore legislation.

      • weka 4.1.1
        15 December 2016 at 12:03 pm

        +1

        And the subtext is let’s assist people with kids because kids are valuable (or more likely, we want to tinker with the child poverty stats), whereas other dependents i.e. adults on benefits aren’t. If they wanted to actually help they would have give the increase across the board, for everyone.

      • wellfedweta 4.1.2
        15 December 2016 at 12:24 pm

        Karen

        1. Housing affordability declined sharply under Labour, and has actually improved slightly under National.http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/housing-affordability.aspx
        For example, during the Clark government, the proportion of households spending more than 30 percent of disposable income on housing rose from 22% to 27%. The latest data is just under that.

        2. The only thing that delayed the current shortages from occurring under Labour was that NZ’ers were leaving the country in their droves; today they are staying home or returning home.

        • Karen 4.1.2.1
          15 December 2016 at 12:33 pm

          Oh dear. Do you only read National Party propaganda? Oh, I see by your comment at 4.2 you also read Whaleoil.

          Maybe you should stop feeding yourself and do a bit of real research.

          • wellfedweta 4.1.2.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 12:46 pm

            Maybe you should learn to read actual data. It’s there in the reference I gave. Department of Statistics.

            PS…not a WO fan. But the net migration data is publicly available. I’ll help you with a link if you like.

            • wellfedweta 4.1.2.1.1.1
              15 December 2016 at 12:48 pm

              Just an aside…Karen is not the first poster here to deny official data, from any source, when it contradicts their talking points. Is that a universal trait of the left?

              • DoublePlusGood …
                15 December 2016 at 4:15 pm

                We deny data when you misrepresent it or make up bullshit about it.
                Net migration of New Zealand citizens is not what is driving the housing crisis, well, unless you like lying about things.
                If you don’t want people to call you on bullshit, instead of decrying that we are denying official data, try instead not bullshitting.

                • wellfedweta …
                  15 December 2016 at 4:18 pm

                  “Net migration of New Zealand citizens is not what is driving the housing crisis”

                  Oh it’s not the only reason, but let me help you out here. When the population increases dramatically because of a massive turnaround in net migration of NZ’ers, demand for houses will go up.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 December 2016 at 4:57 pm

                    …and competent governance to ensure that doesn’t result in an increase in homelessness. Not to mention those ghost houses.

                    What a pity this government is philosophically opposed to governing.

            • Paul 4.1.2.1.1.2
              15 December 2016 at 12:49 pm

              The weta so well fed because he has so much money because of John Key’s tax cuts for the rich speaks.

          • Paul 4.1.2.1.2
            15 December 2016 at 2:23 pm

            He does.
            Don’t waste your time debating with him.
            He’s a robotic, virulent and prolific troll.

        • Pat 4.1.2.2
          15 December 2016 at 1:23 pm

          “The findings are based on data from sample surveys – this means that it is not wise to read too much into year-on-year changes which can be affected by statistical uncertainties because the original data is from a sample not a full census. Looking at trends over several surveys or longer gives a more certain picture.”

          When discussing housing affordability it is important to distinguish between high purchase prices and high ongoing rent or mortgage servicing costs. The Incomes Report has figures only on the latter type of affordability.

          21 It is also important to distinguish between trends in national averages and what is happening in different regions. The Incomes Report only has figures for national averages for different income groups.

          22 Around 40% of households in the lower two income quintiles have housing costs of more than 30% of their income. 25% of these low-income households have housing costs of more than 40% of their income.

          23 The steady rise in housing stress for lower income households seems now to have stopped, albeit at an historically high rate. This is a finding for national average figures.

          2014 report ….what do you think the trend may be now 2 years on with record house prices, lowest ever interest rates and record immigration?

          • wellfedweta 4.1.2.2.1
            15 December 2016 at 4:22 pm

            The current housing ‘stress’ was created under Labour. The affordability index proves that. Read the graph.

            “what do you think the trend may be now 2 years on with record house prices, lowest ever interest rates and record immigration?”

            A few posts up, doubleplusgood is trying to suggest immigration has NO effect! Oh, and record low interest rates HELPS affordability.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.2.1.1
              15 December 2016 at 4:32 pm

              What is it with this “Labour did it too” cowardice? You trash pay all this lip-service to responsibility but when it comes down to it you have the responsibility of a five-year old child trying to shift the blame.

              So what if Labour did it too? Not that I’d take your dirty trash words for it. In case you haven’t noticed, trash, National has been the government for eight years, the problem is worse, and juking the stats is your version of competence.

              Eight years and all you have to offer is impotence: you’re paralysed by the spin you put on the actions of the last government? Fucking pathetic.

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 4:43 pm

                I’ll tell you exactly why ‘Labour Did It’ is a valid response.

                1. Labour is the party of favour by most posters here.
                2. I was a supporter of Labour for the first 6 years of Clark’s government. By the third term, they lost the plot and started spending like drunken sailors, mostly poor quality spending. National inherited that spending, a huge deficit in 2009, and a long period of deficits forecast thereafter.
                3. Housing affordability today is at least in part the result of Labour inaction. RMA reform being just one example.

                National is fixing the problem, and the flattening of house prices in Auckland (bizarrely signalled as some kind of omen by a post here recently) is evidence of that.

            • Pat 4.1.2.2.1.2
              15 December 2016 at 5:50 pm

              “…and record low interest rates HELPS affordability.”

              Im glad you at least understand that much….and what were the interest rates averaging under the previous government (making the situation worse) and what is the only direction they can now go (and have begun to do so) on property values that have increased approx 30% since 2014?

              so again I ask, knowing, that what do you think the trend is likely to be post 2014?

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 7:44 pm

                Interest rates (mortgage) toward the end of the last government peaked at around 11%. That is not 30% higher than today, it is 600% higher.

                • Pat …
                  15 December 2016 at 7:46 pm

                  that hole just keeps getting deeper…..keep digging

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 7:57 pm

                    Answer the point, Pat. Because your comment reads like evasion.

                    • Pat …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      isn’t it curious that you should ask me to answer some non existent question when you yourself haven’t yet answered the one posed to you twice….its a bit like calling yourself Honest John the car dealer because its the exact opposite of what you are in fact are….believe theres a term for that condition.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:10 pm

                      Quote the question I haven’t answered. If I’ve missed one, I’ll happily address it.

                      In the meantime, address the change in interest rates.

                    • Pat …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:11 pm

                      “so again I ask, knowing, that what do you think the trend is likely to be post 2014?”

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:19 pm

                      “so again I ask, knowing, that what do you think the trend is likely to be post 2014?”

                      I answered that in 4.1.2.2.1, but I’ll have another go.

                      Interest rates have dropped further since 2014. With the initiatives underway in Auckland, house prices are flat-lining. My view is housing affordability will improve further.

                      Late edit – housing affordability improved by 9.9% to the year to September 2016 http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Business/School%20of%20Economics%20&%20Finance/research-outputs/mureau/home-affordability/188814%20Home%20Affordability%20Report%20Sept%202016%20v2%5B1%5D.pdf?1A59E81314251462DA74652749CDEF03

                    • Pat …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:36 pm

                      “I answered that in 4.1.2.2.1, but I’ll have another go”

                      4.1.2.2.1 says..

                      ‘The current housing ‘stress’ was created under Labour. The affordability index proves that. Read the graph.

                      “what do you think the trend may be now 2 years on with record house prices, lowest ever interest rates and record immigration?”

                      A few posts up, doubleplusgood is trying to suggest immigration has NO effect! Oh, and record low interest rates HELPS affordability.”

                      I’m struggling to see any answer there Honest Weta

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:43 pm

                      “I’m struggling to see any answer there Honest Weta”

                      Perhaps I had included a little sarcasm…particularly the comment about doubleplusgood. But my comment about interest rates was an answer, at least in part. Anyway, apologies if I was unclear. I’m happy to stand corrected, but I do try to answer peoples questions.

                • Pat …
                  15 December 2016 at 8:29 pm

                  “Interest rates (mortgage) toward the end of the last government peaked at around 11%. That is not 30% higher than today, it is 600% higher.”

                  in reply to…

                  ‘.and what were the interest rates averaging under the previous government (making the situation worse) and what is the only direction they can now go (and have begun to do so) on property values that have increased approx 30% since 2014?”

                  now it is obvious you struggle with basic mathematics but surely you can read?…property values have increased by roughly 30% (and consequently the sums needed to be borrowed and serviced in most instances) since 2014…not interest rates….interest rates have roughly halved since your quoted 11%….so a 50% decrease, not a 600% increase (god alone knows how you arrived at that figure)

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 8:38 pm

                    My comment was highlighting the flaw in your argument. Property values have risen 30% since 2014, so you say. Interest rates have gone from the 11% to just over 4%. That is a reduction of around 60%. (I typed one extra 0, sorry).

                    • Pat …
                      15 December 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      so we are back where we started…..increased property prices and subsequent increased borrowing and interest rates at record lows and on their way up……what do you think will happen to the currently (or at least current in 2014) relatively static trend line in the affordability statistics you linked?

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      “what do you think will happen to the currently (or at least current in 2014) relatively static trend line in the affordability statistics you linked?”

                      I linked above to the latest data showing further improvements in the affordability of housing.

            • tricldrown 4.1.2.2.1.3
              18 December 2016 at 5:00 am

              House building dropped dramatically when National came to power.
              Gerry built Brownlee had a chance to stop 12,000 builders going to Australia when the earthquake struck.
              But laissez faire is Nationals policy.
              Do nothing the market will eventually catch up but in reality it never does .
              Hence dodgy cowboys cost billions in substandard repairs.
              A repeat of Leakey homes another episode of laissez fair.
              Brownlee and Pike River deregulation 29 lives.
              If National were designing a car it would have no brakes no seatbelts bald tyres etc.
              Cheaper is rarely better.

          • Paul 4.1.2.2.2
            15 December 2016 at 4:24 pm

            You’re wasting your time, Pat……
            The portly weta goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…..

            • framu 4.1.2.2.2.1
              16 December 2016 at 5:55 am

              they are a time wasting troll – im guilty of it in the past, but people should stop feeding it

      • Carolyn_nth 4.1.3
        15 December 2016 at 12:32 pm

        Yes. Very good points.

      • JanM 4.1.4
        15 December 2016 at 1:35 pm

        Yes, that immoral Foreshore and Seabed legislation stopped me voting Labour until the last election, when I reluctantly returned – it still doesn’t feel good, though

        • Leftie 4.1.4.1
          15 December 2016 at 7:02 pm

          The Foreshore and Seabed legislation has been repealed and replaced with John key’s Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, supported by the Maori party. Many saw this as an act of betrayal and it is reason why Hone Harawira walked away from the Maori party.

    • wellfedweta 4.2
      15 December 2016 at 12:19 pm

      John Campbell has zero credibility after his latest gaffe over Tuaine Murray. You need to be very careful quoting him.

      • Carolyn_nth 4.2.1
        15 December 2016 at 12:31 pm

        What gaff?
        If you are talking about the alleged evictions and alleged bad behaviour, that has already been discredited – keep up. And using WO as your source is no guarantee of accurate info.

        • wellfedweta 4.2.1.1
          15 December 2016 at 12:44 pm

          Oh I wasn’t even referring to her evictions (which by the way was only semantics).

          I was referring to her face book posts. You need to read more widely than Whale Oil.

          • wellfedweta 4.2.1.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 12:52 pm

            An aside…thanks Karen…just looked at Whale Oil. He has posted a PDF of a Tenancy Tribunal order regarding terminating her tenancy for rent arrears. Seems the ‘apology’ was over the semantics only. Her ‘bad’ behaviour (drug use, gang affiliations, etc) is undenied. Another Campbell stuff up.

            • Paul 4.2.1.1.1.1
              15 December 2016 at 12:54 pm

              I imagine you regard Hosking and Henry as good journalists.
              They certainly promote a government that keeps you well fed.

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 4:00 pm

                No. Hosking is lightweight. Henry crass.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  15 December 2016 at 4:27 pm

                  ..and both of them embody National Party values.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 4:36 pm

                    And Campbell leftist values. Dishonest. Inaccurate. Lazy.

                    • Paul …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:43 pm

                      Are you deliberately trying to provoke people?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:45 pm

                      “Are you deliberately trying to provoke people?”

                      No. I’m replying to One AB’s trash. On reflection, and given his obvious difficulties, I’ll leave him alone.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 December 2016 at 4:50 pm

                      Obviously that’s true, since in 2007, after eight years of a Labour led government, unemployment had got down to ~3%.

                      According to an MSD acquaintance, that 3% was made up of the genuinely unemployable (force 12 alcohol addiction etc) plus ‘job churn’.

                      What a pity that under National, so many more people (forty-odd thousand at least) made bad choices and decided to be lazy. /sarc

                    • alwyn …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:20 pm

                      Don’t say such nasty things about poor little John.
                      Stick to the Party line.
                      He is a “sanctimonious little creep”.
                      There, short and accurate.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:33 pm

                      “There, short and accurate.”

                      Helen always did have a way of cutting to the chase.

            • Karen 4.2.1.1.1.2
              15 December 2016 at 1:08 pm

              There you go. Maybe you should try listening to Campbell’s story last night and you will find out the real story from an actual journalist who does research.

              And by the way your Statistics link is out of date, not to mention your interpretation of data being rather suspect. A bit like you saying housing is more affordable because of interest rates. Doesn’t really work in Auckland when house prices have doubled – nobody on a median wage has a hope in hell of buying a house. And renting is a nightmare. No security of tenure when landlords are too busy gaming the system.

              For your information I don’t do Facebook. I prefer doing real research (including Statistics NZ) which involves checking sources and verifying info from reputable sources.

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 4:04 pm

                The story is all over the media now. Campbell is a fraud.

                “A bit like you saying housing is more affordable because of interest rates. Doesn’t really work in Auckland when house prices have doubled…”

                Oh so no-one in Auckalnd has a mortgage? 11% under Labour. Under 4% under National.

                “by the way your Statistics link is out of date”
                The last Labour government ended in 2008. The stats covered that period and several years since.

                • Paul …
                  15 December 2016 at 4:06 pm

                  A fraud?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  15 December 2016 at 4:26 pm

                  “All over the media”

                  So I checked both the Herald and Stuff front pages and it turns out you’re lying again.

                  You need to do more homework.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 4:27 pm

                    So Herald and Stuff is the full extent of your reading. mmmm…makes sense.

                    But here is a reality check for you.

                    1. The taxpayer is giving this person $2,300 per week for accomodation because she has twice been asked to leave accomodation.
                    2. This person has been served with papers to attend a TT hearing for rent arrears. She failed to attend. Thanks to Karen(?) I went to WO and saw that he has posted the TT decision.
                    3. This person has…oh bugger it. You can read it all for yourself.

                  • Paul …
                    15 December 2016 at 4:29 pm

                    OAB, he won’t stop.

                    He just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…………………….

            • Anno1701 4.2.1.1.1.3
              15 December 2016 at 4:03 pm

              “Her ‘bad’ behaviour (drug use, gang affiliations, etc) is undenied”

              you mean UNCORROBORATED dont you ?

              sort it out…..

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 4:09 pm

                It is corroborated.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  15 December 2016 at 4:54 pm

                  No it isn’t. You need to do more homework.

                • Red Hand …
                  15 December 2016 at 8:00 pm

                  Hey WFW, pretty sure you’re a drug user (enjoy a drink, smoke a fag) belong to a gang too probably (not a patch, but I bet there’s a little badge or tie you’re proud of).

                  • wellfedweta …
                    15 December 2016 at 8:03 pm

                    I can afford my vices Red. I’m not stealing from the taxpayer and moaning to a so called ‘journalist’. That’s the difference.

                    • Red Hand …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:19 pm

                      Then you can probably afford under current law to minimize your tax. The law changes and your theft becomes actionable. Moaning to a “journalist” equates to moaning here to a labour movement blogsite. Why so reluctant to see how much you have in common with the people you whine about ?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      15 December 2016 at 8:31 pm

                      “Then you can probably afford under current law to minimize your tax. ”

                      No. I am a salaried worker. I pay PAYE. I have other income/investments, all taxed. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

                    • Cinny …
                      15 December 2016 at 9:30 pm

                      WFW
                      ” I’m not stealing from the taxpayer and moaning to a so called ‘journalist’. That’s the difference.”

                      Nah you’re just moaning to all us instead and dude it’s a bizzare way for an adult to get attention, just like a child going mum, mum MUM.

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      16 December 2016 at 5:41 pm

                      “Nah you’re just moaning”

                      Huh? I’m engaging in the discussion. You’re the one having a moan.

          • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.1.2
            15 December 2016 at 10:06 pm

            I was referring to her face book posts.

            Can you clarify how someone’s Facebook posts are relevant to a story about the government handing over shitloads of taxpayer cash to put people up in motels when we have state houses sitting empty? Did she maybe write a Facebook post explaining why the government is wasting so much money?

            • Wellfedweta 4.2.1.1.2.1
              16 December 2016 at 5:43 pm

              Easy. This person reveals a lifestyle in her facebook posts that speaks of someone not in genuine need.

        • Paul 4.2.1.2
          15 December 2016 at 2:24 pm

          Don’t waste your time debating with the obese weta.
          He’s a robotic, virulent and prolific troll.

  5. saveNZ 5
    15 December 2016 at 10:58 am

    What a great journo assessment! Good to see freedom of the press still going in the provinces.

    She didn’t even mention some of their most disgusting and dangerous screw ups Havelock Water and Pike River.

    • Puckish Rogue 5.1
      15 December 2016 at 11:51 am

      But I thought National were hard right and made sure this sort of thing wasn’t published because, like, y’know, they control the MSM

      • wellfedweta 5.1.1
        15 December 2016 at 12:20 pm

        Yes, I have a chuckle every time the alt-left post something supportive from the media and in the same breath call them evil supporters of the alt-right.

        • McFlock 5.1.1.1
          15 December 2016 at 1:19 pm

          🙄

          Another tory so devoid of imagination that they have to appropriate language popularised by their opponents.

          “alt-left”. yeah, right…

          • wellfedweta 5.1.1.1.1
            15 December 2016 at 4:16 pm

            I’ll happily provide you with definitions if you like.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1
              15 December 2016 at 5:01 pm

              No, you can’t: at best you’ll witter some false narrative into the ether, or plagiarise some right wing scriptwriter.

            • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1.2
              15 December 2016 at 6:37 pm

              Oh, I wasn’t arguing the meaning. Merely your lack of creativity.

              • wellfedweta …
                15 December 2016 at 8:00 pm

                So using an established term is a lack of creativity?

                • McFlock …
                  15 December 2016 at 11:51 pm

                  threelol now you’re asking about imprecise terms that have obvious meanings to normal human beings.

                  Standard tory diversion playbook page three.

                  Yes, let’s totally talk about your inability to understand basic English rather than the mediocrity of the nats /sarc

                  • wellfedweta …
                    16 December 2016 at 9:31 pm

                    No, you were saying my use of an established term was a lack of creativity. Stop evading.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      16 December 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      McFlock is right – you just made up ‘alt-left’. It doesn’t exist as an established term. It doesn’t exist at all in fact.

                      This isn’t the first time you’ve been shown up as a complete tool on this forum.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 December 2016 at 11:14 pm

                      Really? My google search gives 218,000 for “alt-left”, which is fuckall compared to the 6.1mil for “alt-right”. Without the quotes, that’s six million vs almost 100mil for alt-right. But that includes a swiss political party, for example. “Alt-left” has only ever been used a couple of times on this site and first surfaced about six weeks ago.

                      According to WaPo the term only began to be pushed by fox, breitbart and trump a few months ago, in response to the alt-right rabid racists being outed.

                      So yeah, unoriginal, appropriated, derivative and only recently circulated defensive reversal of a description of something real: the alt-right crowd.

                      “alt-left”. As if this place is comparable to the literally nazi-level shit posted by the alt-right. Nice invented false equivalence, dude.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:52 am

                      “Really? ”

                      Yep…read the full number of zero’s.

                      “According to WaPo the term only began to be pushed by fox, breitbart and trump a few months ago, in response to the alt-right rabid racists being outed.”

                      Mmmmm…rather contradicts this comment eh ” It doesn’t exist as an established term. It doesn’t exist at all in fact.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:59 am

                      🙄

                      Oh, it exists, if you’re comfortable with adopting KKK slang.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      17 December 2016 at 8:11 am

                      Heh. Those links ask the questions: what is alt left, and does alt left exist?

                      The conclusion, from the Washington Post article, is that alt left is not a thing:

                      “But the difference between alt-right and alt-left is that one of them was coined by the people who comprise the movement and whose movement is clearly ascendant; the other was coined by its opponents and doesn’t actually have any subscribers.”

                      “You can make an argument that the alt-right is being over-applied, but at least it’s a thing.”

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:11 pm

                      “You can make an argument that the alt-right is being over-applied, but at least it’s a thing.”

                      As is the alt left. Based on the references. But I love your sidestep.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      17 December 2016 at 7:20 pm

                      The Klan has spoken.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 December 2016 at 1:29 pm

                      If alt-left is a thing, you misapplied it here, because nobody here is “alt-left”.

                      But you used the recently-coined and derivative term because “alt-right” is indeed a thing, and the comments of several tory bigots here reflect the opinions characterised by the “alt-right”. So you went with the “I know you are but what am I” approach.

                      You’re still a moron without creativity or originality, spraying your bullshit around and pretending it smells like roses.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      20 December 2016 at 11:33 am

                      “If alt-left is a thing, you misapplied it here, because nobody here is “alt-left”.”

                      Oh, I suspect you’re going to have some difficulty supporting that. But thanks for contradicting Mutton Bird and accepting I was right. And going against your own implication earlier.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      20 December 2016 at 11:43 am

                      Lol. It’s a term made up by racists and bigots for people which don’t actually exist.

                      wellstupidweta’s own links describe exactly that.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      20 December 2016 at 11:51 am

                      .”It’s a term made up by racists and bigots for people which don’t actually exist.”

                      Ah, so now you’re saying it’s the ‘people’ that don’t exact, not the thing itself. Good sidestep.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      20 December 2016 at 11:56 am

                      Give up son. You’re making yourself look stupid, not for the first time.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      20 December 2016 at 2:12 pm

                      “Give up son. ”

                      Oh gladly. You claimed ‘alt-left’ was not a thing. This ‘not a thing’ brings literally millions of google search results. It is openly discussed and engaged with on a huge number of levels. I’m happy to have educated you.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 December 2016 at 9:45 pm

                      shit dude, I said “if”.
                      And I don’t need to support it: the website we’re on isn’t “anlt-left-thestandard.org.nz”.

                      You made the claim and brought that sequence of words into the thread. You could always demonstrate it’s a thing (other than the wet dream of some unimaginative neonazis who’ve kept their old newsgroup tree alive), then show that commenters here come anywhere close to that wet dream.

                      Or you could just keep being a fool.

                      Your choice.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      21 December 2016 at 2:13 pm

                      ” You could always demonstrate it’s a thing…”

                      And I did. Many are references from reputable sources. Oh and you understated the hits by a factor of millions. But then given your track record that’s hardly surprising.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 December 2016 at 9:15 pm

                      About as surprising as you ommitting the half of a sentence that you can’t even fake a half-arsed response to.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      22 December 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      “About as surprising as you ommitting the half of a sentence that you can’t even fake a half-arsed response to.”

                      Or as you missing three 0’s off the google search result. Or not understanding words you use…

                    • McFlock …
                      22 December 2016 at 7:25 pm

                      Nope. 218k on google if I use the quotation marks for an exact search, dipshit. Unless you meant that commenters here are parroting lines from aSwiss political party.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 December 2016 at 8:09 pm

                      Three zeros? What, you think even alt-left without the quotation marks gets 218 million hits?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 December 2016 at 8:11 pm

                      Can amygdala-based lifeforms think?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      24 December 2016 at 3:00 pm

                      “Three zeros? What, you think even alt-left without the quotation marks gets 218 million hits?”

                      alt-left = 7,500,500 hits
                      ‘alt-left’ = 7,500,000 hits
                      alt left = 187,000,000 hits

                      Congratulations. You are stupid and dishonest all wrapped up together.

                    • ropata …
                      24 December 2016 at 4:27 pm

                      “alt-left” is insignificant compared to “alt-right”

                      https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=alt%20right,alt%20left&hl=en-US&tz=240&s=1

                      “alt-right” gets 64,700,000 hits
                      “alt-left” gets 7,500,000 hits

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      26 December 2016 at 10:51 pm

                      alt-left” is insignificant compared to “alt-right”

                      Oh you’re right there. But alt-left is a thing.

                    • McFlock …
                      26 December 2016 at 11:29 pm

                      alt-left = 7,500,500 hits
                      ‘alt-left’ = 7,500,000 hits
                      alt left = 187,000,000 hits

                      So now we know that wetas can’t even use google competently.

                      Here’s a quick lesson: simply typing in alt left gives all pages with alt and left in some combination, such as

                      The data to the left of ALT: is the actual present aircraft altitude.

                      Hence 187mil hits by your google. Most of them are completely irrelevant to your fantasy of some sort of “alt-left” political entity commenting here at thestandard.

                      alt-left, i.e. as above but with a minus sign, includes pages like

                      Running 15.10 pre-release builds on my notebook, I fail to use the usual (ALT + cursor-left) key

                      Significantly fewer hits than before, but still lots of extraneous crap.

                      Restricting it to an eight character string alt-left (which is as close as we get to your imagined political edifice) requires “”, not simple apostrophes. This is what we call “punctuation”. The point is demonstrated by your search for ‘alt-left’ (also known as alt-left plus an apostrophe) returning almost as many hits as a completely unrestricted alt-left. Which reduces it to a few hundred thousand computer geek hits like Alt-Left to skip words does not work in terminal emulators and some rabid right wingers claiming that the “at left” exists – they come up the top of your feed because google thinks you’re attracted to insane shit.

                      But anyway, now you know how to use google more effectively.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      27 December 2016 at 12:55 pm

                      “So now we know that wetas can’t even use google competently.”

                      So now we have documented proof McF is dishonest. Mmmm.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 December 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      See?

                      To get back to my initial point, you’re desperately unimaginative and realy quite stupid. Whenever there’s a disconnect between reality and whatever your over-inflated ego tells you reality should be, you can’t come up with a rational argument or even an original insult. You simpy parrot one of the most recent things you’ve seen online.

                      The internet is not meant for you. As one stares into the abyss the abyss stares back, and the internet is a deep abyss. It has devoured your soul, leaving a drooling carcass behind.

                      Go, childling, turn off your computer and try to reclaim your soul. Go outside, meet people, gaze upon flowers and other wonders of nature. Do not meddle with forces you cannot understand (like punctuation). Find a true vocation, an honest profession that your talents can handle. Yes, sadly for you the role of nightsoil carter is defunct, but there must be something that you can manage.

                      A regular gig as “gormless bystander” on Shortland Street, maybe?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      27 December 2016 at 2:02 pm

                      “To get back to my initial point…”
                      Which was defending the notion that I made up ‘alt-left’. You were wrong, McF. Admit it and save some face.

                    • McFlock …
                      27 December 2016 at 2:20 pm

                      Where did I ascribe that level of creativity and imagination to you?

                      I said you were just another tory unimaginatively appropriating the language of their opponents. Which you are.

                      I said that if “alt-left” is a thing, then there is nothing in comments on theStandard that matches that thing. You’ve pointed to some people talking about the thing, but then lots of people were talking about Santa claus recently. Do you still believe in Santa?

                      But even if there were an actual group of people in Wisconsin or wherever who called themselves “alt-left”, and you knew they existed before you made your comment here about “alt-left”, you still only used those words here because other people had used “alt-right” to talk about comments that were characteristic of members of that group, even if not made by submitters to that group.

                      Just to be clear, this is the intended main message of all my comments to you: You’re a mindless parrot. A stupid moron. A waste of space. An incompetent fool. You are everything that is wrong with humanity. A plagiarist who thinks they’re intelligent, yet couldn’t even master an exact match search on google. You’re a fucking idiot.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      29 December 2016 at 10:26 am

                      “Just to be clear, this is the intended main message of all my comments to you: ”

                      McG you seem to think that by posting more and more words you will win the argument. You won’t, because you have been found out. Alt-left is a thing, as is alt-right. You seem not to have heard of it. MuttonBird went as far as to say it wasn’t a thing. You even lied about the number of hits this ‘thing’ received on a google search. I can’t help your dishonesty, but I am making an honest attempt to help your ignorance.

                      http://modernliberals.com/conservatives-alt-right-liberals-alt-left/

                    • McFlock …
                      29 December 2016 at 6:55 pm

                      Did santa get you everything you asked hm for?

                      Don’t show us that tories say there’s such a thing as “alt-left”. We know that, because you do it.
                      Show us that there’s such a thing as “alt-left”, then if you manage that show us the relevance of it to this forum.

                      You claimed “alt-left” is an “established term”. Not around here it wasn’t, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a bigger bunch of NZ political geeks than this forum.

                      You accused me of lying about google results. Given that you can’t even manage an exact match google search, I suspect that you don’t realise that google searches are optimised by individual user, so I’ll just assume you’re being a stupid fuck rather than trying to deflect.

                      I’m not muttonbird. If mb wants to argue their point, they’re more than capable of batting you about like a cat attacking a laser light, but eternally poking the empty shell of an intractable moron isn’t to everyone’s taste.

                      Sorry if I use too many words for your attention span. I like to develop a point, work through it’s justifications, examine it for logical consistency, throw on a halfway decent insult and then give it to a fucking moron for them to choke on. What is subsequently regurgitated is occasionally quite entertaining, if somewhat deformed and geiger-esque.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      29 December 2016 at 7:03 pm

                      “Don’t show us that tories say there’s such a thing as “alt-left”. We know that, because you do it. Show us that there’s such a thing as “alt-left”, then if you manage that show us the relevance of it to this forum.”

                      http://modernliberals.com/conservatives-alt-right-liberals-alt-left/

                      “You claimed “alt-left” is an “established term”. Not around here it wasn’t, ”

                      That, sad to say, is an indictment on you. Ignorance is no excuse.

                      “You accused me of lying about google results.”

                      Because you did. You used only a search based on ” “, which is dishonest. And I’ve proven that.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 December 2016 at 8:35 pm

                      Feel free to make an argument rather than just lazily pasting another link to a tory website.

                      “You claimed “alt-left” is an “established term”. Not around here it wasn’t, ”

                      That, sad to say, is an indictment on you. Ignorance is no excuse.

                      It wasn’t established terminiology on the entire TS website. Are you accusing every single commenter here of ignorance? Like I said, there are lots of NZ pols geeks commenting here, yet you are the first to grow a thread out of the term. Hardly “established”.

                      As for google lies, you’re the one who wants to include page hits from “Operator’s Manual for Army Models C-12A, C-12C, and C-12D Aircraft”. Twin engine turboprops have nothing to do with political comments.

                      But ok. Let’s remove any ability for me to tell a google fib.
                      You do a google search for each of the four following lines (without spaces but with punctuation), and tell me how many hits you get:

                      alt-left
                      ‘alt-left’
                      alt-left’
                      “alt-left”

                      Maybe then you’ll have learned how to do an exact search.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      30 December 2016 at 12:27 pm

                      “Let’s remove any ability for me to tell a google fib.”

                      You’ve already done it, so too late sunshine.

                      And I posted the results previously. Learn to read.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 December 2016 at 3:38 pm

                      Not for “alt-left” you didn’t.

                      Really spell it out for people. Demonstrate that I’m a liar. It’s pretty simple, just in a nice wee column show us that apostrophes gives the same number of hits as actual quotation marks.
                      ‘alt-left’ gives how many hits?
                      “alt-left” gives how many hits?

                      And then try to eliminate the hits that result from instructions on how to switch linux consoles by pressing alt-left arrow

                      Then you might have enough practical skills to demonstrate that “alt-left” is a thing.

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      30 December 2016 at 3:59 pm

                      “Really spell it out for people. Demonstrate that I’m a liar. ”

                      3pm. 24 Dec. in the thread above. You obviously can’t read, but it’s there for everyone else to see.

                    • McFlock …
                      30 December 2016 at 4:04 pm

                      Oh, you mean here?

                      alt-left = 7,500,500 hits
                      ‘alt-left’ = 7,500,000 hits
                      alt left = 187,000,000 hits

                      Read it again: there’s no result there for “alt-left”. There’s ‘alt-left’ and alt-left, but no “alt-left”.

                      Go on, genius, what count do you get for “alt-left”?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      30 December 2016 at 5:10 pm

                      “Read it again: there’s no result there for “alt-left”. ”

                      So? You used just one search…you are dishonest McFlock.\

                      You also said “According to WaPo the term only began to be pushed by fox, breitbart and trump a few months ago, in response to the alt-right rabid racists being outed.” And yet there are references to alt-left going back at least into 2015…that’s just a quick glance. Poor research, or just plain dishonest McFlock?

                    • McFlock …
                      30 December 2016 at 9:13 pm

                      2015 you say? Bloody ancient, then. And not at TS it wasn’t.

                      But you seem to neglected to have included how many hits you got for “alt-left”. An exact search for the name of the thing that you claimed exists. That’s not dishonest. Dishonest is pretending that instructions on how to fly a twin engined turboprop are evidence of an “established” political group or perspective.

                      Or maybe you’re simply too stupid to use google properly. Either is plausible, based on what you’ve written to date.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      31 December 2016 at 3:50 pm

                      “But you seem to neglected to have included how many hits you got for “alt-left”. ”

                      I didn’t need to – you posted that. Which is why you are dishonest, because it is so selective. Or is that stupid? Mmmmmm.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      So I didn’t lie about the number of hits, you just think that any search for a political alt-left merely needs to include “alt” and “left”. And excluding pages on space debris mitigation is somehow unfair.

                      And, incidentally, if I didn’t lie about the numbers then your ‘alt-left’ search is not an exact match search, and you really are too stupid to work google properly.

                    • Wellfedweta …
                      1 January 2017 at 9:18 am

                      “So I didn’t lie about the number of hits”

                      Yes, you lied. You deliberately used a selective search to refute the numbers I quoted. That’s lying. Oh, and just as I found you out when you tried to use a big word you didn’t understand, this time you’re found out on google searching.

                      [Tone it down. You are destroying the thread as well as accusing McFlock of doing something that none of us can comprehend – MS]

                    • McFlock …
                      1 January 2017 at 9:10 pm

                      I’m trying to “selectively search” for the exact name of the thing that you claim exists while excluding linux hotkey commands, turboprop aircraft manuals, and thinkpieces on how to deal with space debris.

                      If you need to include those pages in a google search to demonstrate that “alt-left” exists as a political entity or genre, then you really need to reconsider the validity of your assertion that such a political entity or genre exists.

                      Unless of course the sentence “The data to the left of ALT: is the actual present aircraft altitude.” has some left wing political significance that we’ve all overlooked.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      2 January 2017 at 5:49 pm

                      “as well as accusing McFlock of doing something that none of us can comprehend – MS”

                      Sure thing. So I’ll explain.

                      The discussion is around whether the alt-left is a ‘thing. McFlock, amongst others, denies it is. To support that contention, McFlock has tried to use a single google search criteria (“alt-left”) as evidence. I presented a series of alternative search criteria that a substantially higher number of results (alt-left = 7,500,500 hits, ‘alt-left’ = 7,500,000 hits, alt left = 187,000,000 hits).

                      McFlock is refusing to accept that the quantum of those results is in any way relevant, for no other reasons than it doesn’t suit his narrative.

                      I’ll leave it alone now. But I stand by my comments about McFlock.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 January 2017 at 12:07 am

                      Sigh.

                      I actually started with an open mind that there might be such a thing as “alt-left”, slightly sceptical as to how established it might be if it exists, and very sceptical that it has any tonal commonality with content on theStandard (in the way that some fascist commenters have tonal similarity to the self-proclaimed “alt-right” US white nationalists). It seems you failed at the first hurdle -demonstrating that it even exists.

                      My point about using an exact match search is that you’re grossly padding your google results with hits for pages that have nothing to do with politics, left wing or otherwise. What the fuck does a turboprop aircraft manual have to do with the tone of comments at thestandard? And why are you so reluctant to tell us how many hits you got for an exact match search, using double quotation marks rather than a simple aporstrophe? Bah, forget it, everyone here can see the answers to both questions.

                      Funnliy enough, if you were actually correct you wouldn’t need 187,000,000 hits, 7,500,000 hits, or even 300,000 hits. You’d link to just one page the “alt-left” created when it announced its existence, or someone claiming to be part of the “alt-left” or being there when it was created, or a simple, impartial history of it in an encyclopedia (you might not see it in Investopedia, though). Just one simple, sane, well-referenced and respectable online article. Not 187,000,000.

                      You can stand by your comments all you want. That’s what idiots do when they can’t support their position: look stupid and “stand by” their comments, rather than coming up with a decent argument to support them.

                      How are your school holidays going?

        • saveNZ 5.1.1.2
          15 December 2016 at 1:48 pm

          ALT -right seems to be a media construct – it’s so encompassing it labels those that express concerns about immigration numbers or scams in the same category as the Klu Kutx Klan. In short another way to close off discussion about globalism by creating a new label.

          • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1.2.1
            15 December 2016 at 2:02 pm

            and nothing ever bad happened when a sizable amount of people were ignored and written off…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.1.1
              17 December 2016 at 7:22 pm

              Racists are the natural constituency of the right. If anyone has abandoned them it’s the right. You can’t abide the consequences of your hate speech and fear-based rhetoric standing next to you on the hustings.

          • Wellfedweta 5.1.1.2.2
            17 December 2016 at 7:13 pm

            That is about right. The left love their labels, it helps them overcome their lack of a sound argument on a range of issues.

      • saveNZ 5.1.2
        15 December 2016 at 1:52 pm

        @Puckish Rogue – since dear leader Key announced his resignation there seems to be more of an out pouring of his crimes from the MSM…

        Starting as a trickle, but might get to a deluge in a year…

  6. Pete 6
    15 December 2016 at 11:14 am

    Wanganui Chronicle and didn’t mention Chester Borrows the Minister for Wanganui Collegiate? Borrows who when it came down to t took our money and “gave” it to the supposedly elite private school. Took it and gave it at a time of his Government’s charter school claims, if failing state schools fail they continue, if private schools and businesses fail they close.
    Unless you’re Wanganui Collegiate and you have your own Minister.

  7. Bob 7
    15 December 2016 at 12:52 pm

    “Bennett, who played the Hillary card to get the number two spot, said in her campaign: “I’m a woman.” Great.”
    Jay Kuten clearly won’t be voting Labour or The Greens anytime soon, they actually have this as leadership policy!

  8. Carolyn_nth 8
    15 December 2016 at 2:36 pm

    McCully will not stand for re-election – various journo tweets.

  9. Once was and others etc 9
    15 December 2016 at 2:55 pm

    “most of these folks couldn’t reliably run a bath”
    Course they ken. An if it duzn’t fill, ya jiss blame the lowliest little peon you ken foin in the foo chain.
    Prolly that fuckin lil cnut I saw sucking on a joint that duzzn’t rilly wanna work.
    Me? Why I’m master of the Universe, I don’t need to bathe. I wallow in the glory of my own sweat that smells like perfume and I’m overwhelmed with the trinkets and treats ‘earnt’ from my own hard work.
    Believe me! I did it hard – so why can’t all you useless bastards pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and do the same! Snot rock soyince!
    Get off ya arses ya lazy bludging bastards

    • alwyn 9.1
      15 December 2016 at 8:30 pm

      An honest comment.
      Owaoe is describing himself as he really is.
      Congratulations. You are one of the very few people in the world who are willing to tell the truth about themselves.
      Such attention to detail.
      Are you really a “master of the Universe”?

  10. infused 10
    15 December 2016 at 4:29 pm

    a lot of salt on the left.

    • the pigman 10.1
      15 December 2016 at 8:55 pm

      a lot of salt on the left.

      We just brought it to rub in your wounds. It helps prevent the spread of infections, you know?

      Infections like your right-wing ideology, amirite.

  11. tricldrown 11
    18 December 2016 at 5:12 am

    The Grinch trolls must be getting paid overtime.
    It’s because their master of spin has run off into the sunset (Hawaii) and Left them crying in their beersies.
    Their left with 50 shades of grey boring drawling
    Bill.