Daily Review 03/05/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:08 pm, May 3rd, 2018 - 26 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 …

26 comments on “Daily Review 03/05/2018”

    • patricia bremner 1.1

      Heartbreaking, but the Dutch did similar decades back.

      • Pat 1.1.1

        maybe….but then they didnt know about melting ice caps or thermal expansion of the oceans or resource shortage or even possibly marine environmental damage….nobody can realistically claim such now.

        • Bill 1.1.1.1

          but then they didnt know about melting ice caps […] nobody can realistically claim such now.

          The IPCC hasn’t factored ice melt from Antarctica or Greenland into projections for sea level rise this century. And all governments are basing their AGW policies on IPCC reports.

          Jist sayin’.

          • Pat 1.1.1.1.1

            i know…but even without the revision they were projecting a metre in the next 80 years and the associated storm surges…you really do have to question the mentality…and all for what..some poxy condos?

  1. greywarshark 2

    A good example of how people get ‘captured’ so that they don’t perform watchdog roles evenly over time, when pressure to go against the right way
    is against their personal advancement interests.
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018643349/ministry-told-cash-strapped-dhb-what-to-tell-ministers

    Poor old Christchurch. Who was Brownlee supposed to be looking after then?

    • Pat 2.1

      confirmation of what most know to be the case….except they slipped up this time with the paper trail.

    • Rosemary McDonald 2.2

      Sorry grey…I was so busy trying to post the youtube clip down the page on this I missed your post!

      No matter…its a big enough issue to warrant two posts.

      No surprise to me….I have first hand knowledge of how the Misery of Health has manipulated and controlled the narrative over the years….but I’m truly shocked this top dog was so stoopid as to leave a paper trail.

      Well, I’m not really surprised….example comes from the top, and I have OIA acquired emails from lower level MOH bureaucrats that show them in an extraordinarily bad light.

      Someone…and I don’t think it will be Clark….needs to rope this Ministry in.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3

      It’s amazing that a ministry would think that was ok and that the chair also thought it was ok.

      The ministry, of course, works to the minister’s instructions.

      • Rosemary McDonald 2.3.1

        “The ministry, of course, works to the minister’s instructions.”

        Yeah, right.

  2. CHCOff 3

    I see the Greens are wanting to stop the ‘waka jumping’ bill, an anti-democratic position by them in taking away the contractual obligation of a m.p. to represent the party they were voted in by association to represent.

    The Green party, at least it’s hierarchy, are wanting to cash in on the informal pacts made in aiding the fresh faced John Key, which the ‘new’ smart looking Greens made, not long after Rod Donalds passing i would guess – they have in practise been a regressive political sore, de-facto & dependent status quo party since, which Labour for it’s many problems, has not caved into being – a sacrilege thought to make here no doubt.

    • McFlock 3.1

      jeez, that’s a bit harsh, mate.

      What pacts are these, and I reckon they’ve well and truly expired by now, lollol ok, so

      • greywarshark 3.1.1

        What is the Greens point? I thought it is the freedom of the individual to be true to his or her beliefs and change sides if their Party chooses to follow an immoral line. That’s nice – they can keep their purity and go their own way having used their party’s support or brand to elevate themselves to parliament.

        Then they can dismantle the security of numbers the Party has attained and put themselves in a position at the fulcrum. Or they can join another Party more to their taste. I think it is called having your cake and eating it too.

        Frankly I think that the purity of the individual would be better served if they are affronted by their Party’s actions, by stepping down and standing as an individual in a by election. But not being able to rely on the support, as much as is reasonably possible, of people purporting to be part of a cohesive group is essential. Anything else is just being unreliable and two-faced.
        It is a low thing to stab erstwhile friends and colleagues in the back. To object and abstain would be the right thing to do when in violent disagreement, but waka jumping is not on.

        If I have got it wrong, please enlighten me. I’m a Green but I don’t goosestep along with anybody.

        • McFlock 3.1.1.1

          You only get a by-election as an electorate MP.

          I think the Green idea was to have a control in there that the party leadership had to demonstrate that the MP in question was fundamentally breaking with party policy rather than sticking with the party policy while the rest of caucus abandoned it, which seems fair enough. And it’s a compromise from their former blanket opposition to it.

    • James 3.2

      So by keeping to their long standing position (which all know about) is now a bad thing because you don’t like the act?

    • James 3.3

      The irony being labour are doing this because of their pact with NZ first.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4

      I see the Greens are wanting to stop the ‘waka jumping’ bill, an anti-democratic position by them in taking away the contractual obligation of a m.p. to represent the party they were voted in by association to represent.

      I suggest you read their reasons rather than just going off about it.

      he Green party, at least it’s hierarchy, are wanting to cash in on the informal pacts made in aiding the fresh faced John Key, which the ‘new’ smart looking Greens made

      And that’s simply an outright lie.

      The Greens have always said that they will work with whomever supports green policies. They showed this by getting and MOU with National to subsidise insulation. After that they also showed that, after National canned that idea and went full capitalist on the environment, that they won’t work with an anti-environmental party like National

      • JohnSelway 3.4.1

        I would like to see the greens work more with national. Not because I want a national government but because I want environmental politics to become more mainstream and cross party.

        Maybe in another life

        • McFlock 3.4.1.1

          It takes two to tango, and the Greens have been pretty open about being willing to dance with anyone who wants to.

          My main focal issues are around systemic poverty and health, and ISTR that when the nats were in government there was a cross-party group looking at the issue. I got the impression it was a standing invite for any mp to come to a regular venue and chat and find odd issues where everyone could agree on something big or small.

          All parties had MPs turn up, except national and act.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.4.1.2

          The only way to work with National on environmental policies is if they wake up to reality.

          And that won’t happen because they have to support their delusional ideology.

        • millsy 3.4.1.3

          Given that National don’t appear to have any commitment to basically environmental fundamentals, such as clean air and water rules, I don’t see that happening.

  3. Rosemary McDonald 4

    A little bedtime watching….more sterling work from RNZ.

    “The Health Ministry drafted a letter which the chair of the cash-strapped Canterbury District Health board then sent to the government saying it could work with existing funding.

    Information obtained by Checkpoint under the Official Information Act shows that in December 2015, the DHB’s then-chairman Murray Cleverley sent a letter to the health and finance ministers, having received an identical draft of the letter from the Ministry of the Health the previous day.

    The DHB’s chief executive and the Ministry of Health were aware of the letter, but none of the board members knew.

    Board members have told Checkpoint they could not believe it when they learnt what had happened and would have never agreed to the letter being sent.”

    More dirty doings from the Ministry of Health.

    • Cinny 4.1

      !!!!!! Crikey !!! Thanks for posting this Rosemary, much appreciated.

    • greywarshark 4.2

      Rosemary
      It is good to see those faces on the RNZ site (link at 2) – very illuminating. Coleman looks veeerry pensive, and on the RNZ site there is a merry looking fellow who I thought was Cleverley. Such an apt name. Sometimes the meeting of surname and situation are too much!

  4. Philg 5

    Good work at RNZ, better late than never. With Dick G on the way out, just need a Carol H as GM and we’ll be sweet.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts