Daily review 01/08/2019

Written By: - Date published: 5:52 pm, August 1st, 2019 - 68 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

 

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

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

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

68 comments on “Daily review 01/08/2019”

  1. Sacha 1

    The Audit Office notes the Parliamentary Service's gentle wet bus ticket for MP Maggie Barry using (public-funded) staff time at her (public-funded) electorate office for (private) political party business: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1908/S00025/response-to-parliamentary-services-report.htm

    The Service's investigation miraculously excluded some other allegations:

    The former employee also noted they had seen:
    – The member’s Channel magazine column being used for Party messaging.
    – The use of the out-of-Parliament office to host Party events.
    – The storage [of] National Party material at the out-of-Parliament office.

  2. Rapunzel 2

    Who needs Whaleoil when you have Bryce Edwards and his "spin" in a certain direction courtesy of the "Herald" but paywalled
    He says:
    "Will New Zealand have its first Māori Prime Minister next year? That's what Simon Bridges is suggesting, and despite scepticism from critics and commentators, there's good reason to take him seriously. The National Party annual conference in the weekend went well for the party, and there are other signs to suggest the chances of "Prime Minister Simon Bridges" are looking stronger than ever."

    He goes on: "In his keynote speech in the weekend Bridges seemed to relish the fact that his ordinary background"

    No mention that another of one of the higher up MPs Guy announced he was leaving just two days later? 
    Other quotes "rapture in the auditorium"
    "It looks as though the ongoing low-key leadership challenge to National Leader Simon Bridges has fizzled out"
    "National's announcement of a new cancer agency policy has been judged to be very successful." (no mention that it was a farce and will go to few"
    "David Cormack welcomed the policy as a sign that National wasn't going too rightwing under Bridges: "it's a particularly good thing when you consider that New Zealand's largest right-of-centre party is wanting to put more money into socialised healthcare. "

    Is it me? Ok I suppose this is a different leader than the one that National had when they did none of the tings they now claim an interest in? Bridges is just not fit to be put forward as a viable PM of NZ. From Ross onwards they act with self-interest all the time. I'm not saying the coalition are "saints" but collectively they will put NZers first (not a pun) in a way I would not trust National or Bridges to ever consider doing.

    • ianmac 2.1

      Bryce is biased in his reporting because he is probably looking forward to a Knighthood from his mate when Bridges becomes the first maori PM. Though I haven't heard Bridges doing anything for Maori let alone visit the  Ihumātao protest site.

      • mickysavage 2.1.1

        He does not like this site after lprent gave him a hard time in a post.  He has stopped referring to us ever since.  He should get out more often …

        • I seem to remember Micky,  that we had a discussion on this journalist and his tendency to promote the National view and selectively twist the supposed Labour left view,  by omitting  facts. Bryce Edwards is the new Armstrong in many ways.

          • Sacha 2.1.1.1.1

            He works for a university, so is not a journalist. Not that it matters much these days..

      • Rapunzel 2.1.2

        I get the around 40% for National in the polls but that leaves a good chuck of NZ with wider interests. Nothing in Edwards syrupy summation indicated anything more than preaching to the converted.

        • Wayne 2.1.2.1

          Just about all the journalists and commentators at the conference reckoned Simon Bridges's speech on Sunday was the best that he has given to date. It was at prime ministerial level.

          So Bryce Edwards was reflecting a consensus. 

          I done know why commenters on this site seem to think that unless a journalist or commentator is of the left they can't actually be a journalist. What happened to the idea that journalists/commentators should endeavour to be neutral and try and report things as objectively as they can.

          • KJT 2.1.2.1.1

            Maybe because "Journalist's" in New Zealand, gave up being impartial long ago, and took the easier option of regurgitating right wing propaganda.

            The Herald, and TV commentators, in particular, have become National's, "Ministry of Truth".

            • greywarshark 2.1.2.1.1.1

              The ridiculous traitors to our NZ democracy took away the Public Service television we had which was a powerful means of reflecting back to us the good things we had, and also the problems to be sorted.  Then profit came in and celebrities and Hawkesby being paid $8 million for having his nose put out of joint.    Money and advertising is now the main business, the content is built round them whereas in PS it would have remained central on the box.

              Those politicians had our trust, and their smug faces are still around.   I feel like the parent of someone who has been killed, and is grieving the death while the perp has a short time in prison and then can renew his life again.   The conniving perps roam the places that elite people go and we are without our country-with-a-great-future.   Now we must cobble together what we can, if we can, in the time we have got and despite obstacles from the smug elite.

          • Rapunzel 2.1.2.1.2

            Where are these "left" leaning journalists then? Because I am suggesting there are very few of them. Hoskings, Young, Hawkesby, O'Sullivan (the main NZ daily newpaper) and the whole cast of Newshub in the morning, various talkback radio and in particular the "Magic" rubbish all day, Stuff with Grant? Possibly there is Simon Wilson and I won't waste my time reading Marvelly, I probably have other opinions on some subjects, but is OK to disagree or not agree entirely. Obviously you will say Campbell on Breakfast but the others offer balance there. So where are they?

            Name them.

            All I want is the news and getting back to Bridges had Andrew Little been afforded other than derision as the then Opposition leader he may not have stepped aside – to all accounts he is highly respected now, funny that. Bridges has had 18 months and makes one speech that rallies people who saw him as flawed and who could not in my opinion given the true background of how his relationship with his "numbers man" and close "friend" evolved, NZ will never really know. Having to be that patient to see someone show some sort of leadership via one speech just illustrates to me what a poor line-up the National Party expect NZ to accept and the ranks grow even thinner as they leave.

            • Wayne 2.1.2.1.2.1

              I would say the newspapers have a balance with some being neutral.

              Commercial radio is probably more conservative.

              TV, probably has all opinions represented, but they try and be neutral.

              • Stuart Munro.

                They never fail to represent the odious right, the 0.5% or so who support ACT. But en bloc their bias is predominantly failed RWNJ nonsense.

                Oz has borrowed the wretched NZ model:

                No editor I worked for would have put up with the biased anti-Labor rubbish that, shamefully, the papers now produce on a daily basis. Gone is the requirement for balance. One has only to look at the story selection and headlines on the front pages of the papers each day to see that an anti-Labor angle has been taken, however contorted had been the literary gymnastics required to finally arrive at that particular bit of stupidity.

            • Incognito 2.1.2.1.2.2

              One swallow does not a summer make.

          • Stuart Munro. 2.1.2.1.3

            "What happened to the idea that journalists/commentators should endeavour to be neutral and try and report things objectively"

            You might ask partisan hacks like Armstrong, Young, and Hoskings, and the unprofessional editors who select such wretched non-journalists for their vacuous fact-free opinions, Wayne.

            But since you're a spinner too you'll merely cry crocodile tears for the demise of a critical civic function the far right found inconvenient and nobbled.

  3. greywarshark 3

    According to a sociologist in a report some decades back from a very poor area of Naples, when someone gets close and personal with his hand on your shoulder as in the image with Obama, you better watch out because he is going to slide a knife between your ribs.  

    • ianmac 3.1

      I thought that was a subtle form of racism. "You just watch your step boy!"

      • Anne 3.1.1

        He's always been and arm around shoulders type. He was in trouble recently because some silly women whose shoulders he armed got the idea into their heads he was sexually harassing them. 

        • James 3.1.1.1

          So they feel like it was inappropriate and he was sexually harassing them – and your view (based on no real evidence other then what you read in papers, and not knowing the people) is to call them some silly women. 

          Ffs – some people are happy to bash the victim if it suits their political views. 

          • Anne 3.1.1.1.1

            There was a video showing him briefly put his arm around a woman's shoulder and the woman apparently objected.

            I know the difference between a man lightly putting his arm across a woman’s shoulder (as he did) in a gesture of affection and a man slithering his hand around a woman’s back etc. But James doesn't need "real evidence" about anything. He just jumps to conclusions and projects. 🙄

            • James 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Anne – 

              deciding how women feel (after all she saw a clip on TV).

              Next she she will be calling rape victims “silly women” – because she thinks she knows how the victim should have felt. 

            • greywarshark 3.1.1.1.1.2

              You know James is adept at sliding his poison penknife in the ribs of sincere commenters.   Anything anyone says he twists and points back at you.   He probably designed one of those elaborate knots that are shown on boating web pages.

  4. Exkiwiforces 4

    Found this YouTube clip over at the WONZ Fourm site, of the Senior Service/ RNZN (Pirates) attempting to a RAS (Replenishment At Sea while underway) in their haste to get to Kaikoura after the earthquakes.

    It’s a wee bit wet over the pointy bit (I think it’s called bow or  foc’sle) of the Te Kaha.



     

    • I think the guy who says "Holy fuck!" part-way through offers all the commentary required for this video. If I was on board I would have been bringing up internal organs by that point.

      • In Vino 4.1.1

        As a sailor, I have always been wary of being sent up to the bow of a keelboat to do whatever.  It appears that the Navy had 4 or so guys simply standing at attention up at the bow in those conditions. (When they weren't being washed off their feet.)  Can anyone explain?  Why were the poor buggers there at all?  The ship could survive those waves OK…  (Or could it ?)

    • Rosemary McDonald 4.2

      If that were a West coast boat… regularly crossing the Bar….we'd be putting a shit load more weight down the back.  Sacks of cement works.

  5. ianmac 5

    Just read the amendments offered by Maggie Barrie re the End of Life Bill. Wordy but not unreasonable unless they make a person's decision so complicated that no decision could be made.

    http://legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2019/0262/latest/whole.html#LMS234911

    http://legislation.govt.nz/sop/members/2019/0263/latest/whole.html#LMS234924

    • chris T 5.1

      Agree to a degree, but even if they implemented all of them, her and her group of followers still wouldn't vote for it.

      She has turned to just trying to make it take as long as humanly possible.

      Probably to make sure there is no time for a referendum with the weed one at the next election.

  6. Fireblade 6

    Gun lobby trolls.

  7. joe90 7

    Stephen Fry is a gem.
    (do have a close look)

  8. soddenleaf 8

    Greenland icesheet gone, sooner than thought. As the cooler artic shuts down and moves over the interior of northern continuents, does it expose why brexit, why syria, why china trade war, why oz wants less people not more. But it however doesn't explain China's need for monkey human hybrids, can't even see a smigg of connection to climate change!

    • greywarshark 8.1

      Another threat soddenleaf.   After all that struggle to get on a modern path in China, this is the one they choose?    Better refer to the wise people of the past for a guide that illuminates their way – apparently now to the dungeons and the frankenstein labs.   I didn't want to believe the Falun Gong but….

  9. The Chairman 9

    Tobacco taxes resulting in the high cost of cigarettes is leading NZ to be increasingly targeted by international crime syndicates.  

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/08/auckland-businessman-arrested-for-smuggling-over-500-000-worth-of-cigarettes-from-china.html

    I see National have ruled out any further tax increases on tobacco, have Labour?

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/11/simon-bridges-vows-to-halt-sin-taxes-on-cigarettes-or-alcohol-if-national-wins-2020-election.html

    • Drowsy M. Kram 9.1

      Simon promises to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax – bold and beautiful leadership  laugh

      Maybe The lefty” “more left than mostChairman could update readers of The Standard on some more recent National party policies.

      • Incognito 9.1.1

        National’s latest bright idea was to pump $200 million into cancer treatment but do nothing about tackling causes of cancer such as … smoking. They are so conflicted and conflicting but can’t even see it or can they but just don’t give a toss?

        • The Chairman 9.1.1.1

          Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, is Labour going to go after consumers of them next?

          Moreover, with these items being given directly to children, shouldn't Labour be targeting them first?

          • Incognito 9.1.1.1.1

            Don’t mention BBQ or James will be all over you before you can squeeze the Wattie’s on your sausage. Personally, I think children should walk to school in walking school buses. Does Labour have any policies on this? If not, I’d be highly concerned and may have to vote for ACT next year.

            • Sacha 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Act would demand that each child have their own walking bus – for maximum freedom.

          • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.1.2

            Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer…

            That is a straightforward lie.  A smoker's risk of lung cancer is orders of magnitude higher than a non-smoker's.  A processed-meat eater is at fractionally higher risk of cancer than a non-meater, according to some studies.  They don't "rank alongside" each other.

            • The Chairman 9.1.1.1.2.1

              Processed meat is classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

              Tobacco and asbestos are also both classified as carcinogenic to humans and both also sit in Group 1. Thus, they all rank along side – i.e. all sit in Group 1.

              You've put forward a straw man. Rather than assessing the level of "risk", such as your straw man presented, IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer.  

              Therefore, your bold statement that I’m lying is in fact a lie (intentional or not) made by you.

              • Incognito

                Actually, Psycho Milt is correct.

                Are you thinking that all agents in Group 1 are equally carcinogenic? The part in your comment about IARC suggests that you are not thinking this but the rest of your comment implies that you are thinking exactly that! Maybe you are confused about the IARC classification system …

              • Lol, on that basis my son "ranks alongside" Cristiano Ronaldo as a footballer, because they both play football.  

      • The Chairman 9.1.2

        Simon promises to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax… 

        He's too late on that one, Jacinda beat him to it.

        Jacinda, not as left as most thought.

        • Incognito 9.1.2.1

          Do know what most thought? Are you an omni-mind reader by any chance? Do you know what I am thinking right now? Don’t write it here because I’d have to ban you 😉

          • The Chairman 9.1.2.1.1

            I stand corrected. 

            Jacinda, not as left as some thought.

            • Incognito 9.1.2.1.1.1

              Almost but no cigar for you.

              Jacinda, not as left as one thought who is more left than most.

              FIFY

              • The Chairman

                If you believe I was the only one disappointed with Jacinda beating National in delivering on their promise of getting rid of a CGT, then you are simply out of touch.  

                Did you expect Jacinda to be delivering on National's promise in Labour's so called year of delivery?

                And were you not surprised she is no more left than National on this issue? Or did you think she was more left than that?

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  According to your link, Simon 'read my lips, no more taxes' Bridges "promised to get rid of both the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax and the Capital Gains Tax" on Monday 26 November 2018, in “poll position” so to speak.

                  PM Ardern's subsequent promise not to introduce a new CGT took the wind out of Simon's sails – he does seem all at sea. #Let'sKeepSimon

                  • The Chairman

                    PM Ardern's subsequent promise not to introduce a new CGT took the wind out of Simon's sails

                    Indeed. But it was delivering on National's promise in Labour's so called year of delivery that disappointed and caught some by surprise.

                    As for National promising to drop fuel taxes, good. They are non progressive, thus impact hardest on the poor.   

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      And yet the most recent increase in GST (a non-progressive Rogernomics initiative) occurred under a Key-led National government.  Have National committed to no further increases in GST, and would you trust a National government to honour such a promise?

                      "Mr Key went on to say that if a National government was doing "a half decent job" it wouldn't need to either raise GST or raise taxes."

                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3311679/Key-no-GST-rise-video-emerges

                    • The Chairman

                      GST is another tax both Labour and National support, yet it is non progressive. Expected from National. Disappointing for Labour.

                      Yes, National increased it. Haven't seen Labour racing to reduce it.

                      Once again, Labour showing us they are no longer as left as some have hoped.  

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      I was genuinely disappointed by the introduction and subsequent increases in the GST, and by the decision not to introduce a GCT.

                      The election of another National government so soon after the previous kleptocracy would be a disaster – National party ‘principles’ and ‘integrity’ are indistinguishable from "the love of money".

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

                      The optimum course for NZ and Kiwis is to party vote Labour or Green, wouldn't you (a “lefty” who is “more left than most“) agree?

                • Incognito

                  Another disingenuous comment from you to paint Labour and Jacinda Ardern in a bad way.

                  Please explain why the Coalition Government did not take CGT further. Please don’t insult the intelligence of most here by suggesting the reason is that “Jacinda, [is] not as left as most/some thought”.

                  FYI, I rarely am genuinely surprised as I try to limit/lower my expectations as to what others will do or say; it is an exercise in futility that wastes a lot of energy and time.

                  • The Chairman

                    Please explain why the Coalition Government did not take CGT further. 

                    Jacinda claimed New Zealanders didn't support it while a number of polls showed otherwise.

                    NZF claimed they stopped it. 

                    Some believe it was done to take the wind out of Simon's sails.

                    Nevertheless, regardless why she did it, she did it nonetheless (making her no more left than National on this issue) beating National to it in the process. 

                    • Sacha

                      Why is it that some people can only focus on one person in collective decisions? The same mistake was made with Key.

                    • Incognito

                      Jacinda claimed New Zealanders didn't support it while a number of polls showed otherwise.

                      She did? She literally said that or are you ‘paraphrasing’ in your usual disingenuous way?

                      Nevertheless, regardless … nonetheless …

                      Evasive, vague, and waffly to make it look as bad as possible for the PM on this issue or any issue for that matter. In other words, your MO.

    • Anne 9.2

      I see National have ruled out any further tax increases on tobacco, have Labour?

      Ask them.

      • Incognito 9.2.1

        That would be a Gordian knot for The Chairman 😉

        So much rope, so many knots, the mind boggles …

      • The Chairman 9.2.2

        Ironic, isn't it?

        Tobacco taxes are negatively impacting the poor, yet it's National announcing an end to them.

        • Incognito 9.2.2.1

          National is going to end tobacco taxes?? I fully expect that to be a front-page headline tomorrow: The Chairman says …

          • The Chairman 9.2.2.1.1

            National is going to end tobacco taxes??

            Yes, if elected. The headline and story was in the link provided above.

            As for Labour, do they really want to continue to put the boot into Māori?

            One of New Zealand’s most renowned tobacco control researchers is questioning the merit of the apparent Budget decision to keep raising the excise duty on tobacco.

            Budget 2019’s tax forecasts included another 10% increase in tobacco excise on 1 January 2020. 

            New Zealand tobacco control expert Dr. Marewa Glover, director of the Centre of Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty & Smoking believes the annual tobacco tax increases are disproportionately impacting Māori, of whom around 170,000 smoke.

            http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1905/S00543/tobacco-control-expert-questions-budget-tobacco-tax-increase.htm

            Speaking of Labour and Māori, Chris Trotter has put out an interesting read. 

            https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/08/02/endgame-will-winston-peters-blow-up-the-coalition-over-ihumatao/

            And so has Martyn Bradbury

            https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/08/02/who-says-nz-first-and-labour-are-on-opposite-sides-over-ihumatao-plus-the-only-solution-moving-forward/

            • Drowsy M. Kram 9.2.2.1.1.1

              The "lefty" "more left than most" Chairman, still shredding their 'friend of the left' credibility!  The sogginess, it burns!  Here's a selection from this Daily Review – up to readers to decide just how ‘friendlyThe Chairman really is.

              "I see National have ruled out any further tax increases on tobacco, have Labour?"

              "is Labour going to go after consumers of them next?"

              "Jacinda, not as left as most thought."

              "Jacinda, not as left as some thought."

              "disappointed with Jacinda"

              "Labour's so called year of delivery"

              "she [PM Ardern] is no more left than National on this issue"

              "As for Labour, do they really want to continue to put the boot into Māori?"

              The Chairman – “As transparent as a transparent thing.

            • Incognito 9.2.2.1.1.2

              I asked you specifically if National was going to end tobacco taxes and even italicised “end”.

              Your reply:

              Yes, if elected. The headline and story was in the link provided above.

              The headline you linked to used the verb “halt”, not “end”. As usual, you are misleading others into believing stuff that is incorrect and/or non-existent except for in your mind.

              I read the Scoop link (but right now I can’t be bothered with the other two links to your Heroes of the Left).

              New Zealand tobacco control expert Dr. Marewa Glover, director of the Centre of Research Excellence: Indigenous Sovereignty & Smoking believes the annual tobacco tax increases are disproportionately impacting Māori, of whom around 170,000 smoke. [my bold]

              I find the choice of words very odd for a scientist calling for “more science-based approach to smoking cessation and harm reduction”.

              Can you point to where in that piece they referred to the Government or more specifically Labour? It seems to me that once again you take ‘liberty’ to put the boot into Labour. You know full well that we have a Coalition Government and that Winston Peters who is Deputy Prime Minister used to be an avid smoker. Do you know where he stands on this topic?

              I am waiting with bated breath …

              • The Chairman

                The headline you linked to used the verb “halt”, not “end”.

                Really?

                Fuck off clown.

                I'm sick of your fucken bullshit.

                You can all get fucked.

                I’m out of this shit hole so fuck the lot of you.

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  Wherever you're off to Chair, please continue your work to ensure the election of progressive left-of-centre governments – PARTY VOTE LABOUR/GREEN.

        • The Al1en 9.2.2.2

          So the poor should use their fucking brains and stop spending thousands of dollars a year to give themselves cancer, and their offspring through second hand smoking, and spend the money on decent food and shoes so the kids don't have to walk hungry and barefoot to school in the winter as a by product of their parents selfishness.

          I'm all for helping people out of poverty, but giving smokers extra cash per week is like giving a junkie the keys to your safe deposit box and trusting them not to rip you off for a fix.

          Tax the fuckers into common sense, even if they vote national and cheaper smoking over their, and their families best interests.

          Idiots. 🙄

        • Sacha 9.2.2.3

          Tobacco taxes are negatively impacting the poor

          If reducing smoking is regarded as a negative. Guess it would be if you were a tobacco company.

Leave a Comment

Use WYSIWYG comments on next comment (inactive new feature)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago