Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:51 pm, February 10th, 2020 - 95 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Looking good for Sinn Féin. Left wing populism winning – who would have thought it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51432660
Great news.
Seems a direct (if partial) rejection of Ireland's medium term history of accomodating tax-dodging multinationals. Where those multinationals find a cheap haven, the poor in other tax jurisdictions suffer. Pretty selfish behaviour from Ireland’s right wing governments but who is surprised?
Also heartening is the increased support for Sinn Fein's mission – Irish reunification. Hope to see this in 5 years.
Soon Britain will consist of just England and Wales!
Your problem is a lot of the people in your dream united Ireland don't.
Yay. Back to the troubles and rioting
It only takes a majority. The pendulum seems to be swinging in that respect.
Momentum is a wonderful thing. And I think England's decision to Brexit accelerated that momentum.
Seriously though, Ireland should be united. The circumstances behind the partition simply do not apply now.
Not if the united Ireland retained a NI parliament and allowed people to retain a British passport.
They only fielded 42 candidates in the 40 multi-member seats out of a possible 160 TDs in the Dail. So while they have a higher primary vote than either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil they won’t have as many TDs when it’s all counted.
Nothing wrong with getting the most first preference votes. But they cannot form a government if they have less than 40 seats and need 81 to have a majority.
Only Fianna Fail (most elected) can form the next government, they have 3 choices for coalition Fine Gael, Sinn Fein or everyone else (Greens, Labour, Social Democrats and a lot of independents – a lot of cats to herd together).
Farrar watch:
This clown is losing it. He's asking for the Prime Minister to suspend Winston Peters, "as he is now under Police investigation."
A bare-faced lie.
Actually – you are the bare faced liar.
Hes not asking for the PM to do anything
He asked "Will the Prime Minister suspend the Deputy Prime Minister as he is now under Police investigation? Of course not."
You cant even lie well – fakenewsMcMutton
He is by asking the question, of course.
Farrar is claiming Winston Peters is under Police investigation.
That is a lie for political gain.
Try spin your way out of it if you must.
Nope he’s not asking for the prime minister to do anything.
you rant and rave and lie – but it’s there for all to see. Your a liar.
just like you were happy to call a guy who never raped anyone a rapist.
you should try being more honest.
[a bit less of the abuse please. There’s plenty of politics to address instead – weka]
There has been a curious development in right wing social media campaigning led by the likes of Topham Guerin who assisted with Scomo's and Bojo's campaigns.
One of the tactics is to dumb down their social media posts and memes, deliberately using poor or overly simple grammar, and employing the dreaded comic sans font.
It's been suggested that this is a way to pit working class left-wing folk against the so called liberal elite. It’s a way to appeal to under-educated people.
I have wondered in my own way (and been suspended for it) whether you deliberately employ this practice also.
Do you deliberately mis-spell and post dumb stuff for effect?
Or is that just you?
mod note for you James.
Got it. Thank you weka.
Cheers James.
I suspect that Muttonbird @ 2.1.1.1.1 has a good point. James is not as semi-literate as he looks ('Your a liar') Watch carefully for this, please, Moderators.
It's also the behaviour of many people posting online from a phone, which is what James' comments look more like to me, but thanks for the general headsup.
Farrar is claiming the PM will not. Speculation. Designed to undermined the PM's credibility.
"Will the Prime Minister suspend the Deputy Prime Minister as he is now under Police investigation? Of course not."
My bold.
Who knows she might. She wouldn’t answer is she trusted Winston this afternoon instead saying that they had an excellent working relationship (or words to that effect).
wonder why she won’t say if she trust him ?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/02/jacinda-ardern-refuses-to-say-she-trusts-winston-peters-amid-new-zealand-first-donation-allegations.html
Jacinda refusal to say she trust Winston.
Why would she be trusting Peters at this point?
If the prime minister does not trust the deputy prime minister or finds him I trustworthy- we have a problem.
ita telling she does not have the courage or conviction to answer the question.
At some point sure, but at this stage it seems reasonable to let due process happen (police/SFO). All her not answering tells me is that she's smart enough to choose to wait for the full picture. It's not like our macho political system allows for her to be bluntly honest.
Wouldn't you say she has learned to be cautious from Winnie's previous dance with Helen Clark?
She doesnt have to trust him dummy . She has to work with him it's an mmp government in a real democracy. She didnt choose nzf the people of nz did .
He said that Peters was under police investigation.
The investigation is over the NZF party’s handling of donations.
The police investigation did not last long, however.
No, the police do not do rich people – unless the money itself is from the proceeds of crime.
The wrong rich people.
Yes, very nice.
Which is untrue.
“The Commission does not have the investigative powers to form a view about whether this failure to transmit and the non-disclosure means offences have been committed.”
Not quite. They clearly said:
so they are clear they believe their actions were not in keeping with the act
so it looks like they are investing who had knowledge and the intent. There could be some very worried Nz first people.
thinknof all those ex insiders who are happily going to throw Winston under the bus.
Yet Farrar, and yourself dutifully following him, is claiming already Peters had knowledge and intent and that he is under Police investigation.
The SFO has set itself a very high bar indeed when they refused to charge Simon Bridges over an identical situation.
Refused to charge bridges over an identical situation??
really. Back it up – I tell you what – I’ll bet you a months ban you can’t back that up.
Edit – just seem weka’s comment. I won’t edit comment as we know how much you like that.
Hey muttonbird – you seem to have gone quiet.
to help this is what NZFirst are accused of – can you show where They refused to charge bridges for the identical situation?
”Based on the information available, we have formed the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party. In the Commission’s view, the donations were not properly transmitted to the Party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993.”
[you’re in premod until I see links for quotes in two comment now, as requested below. Long term commenters shouldn’t need reminding about this, and my patience is wearing thin having to spend moderator time on this and putting out a flame war. – weka]
Why oh why won't the SFO listen to David Farrar??
Why????
another mod note.
I had thought that you were asking quotes where muttonbird was making claims that are demonstrably false. I offered him to back them up with a bet of a months ban but s/he seems to have gone quite when asked to back it up.
as for backing up my quotes. Apologies for not putting the link https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
both came from the same statement. I did not link it as it was the statement specifically being discussed. Where I was replying to SPC who also quoted from here (without linking).
Thanks. I’m basically at the end of my patience with this stuff, and pretty fucked off that the time spent on various moderations last night could have been used to put a post up. Making notes in the back end so that if regulars do this stuff again, I’ll just be issuing short bans. Everyone knows what the deal is with quoting and linking, Incog and I have been giving direction on this for months. The onus is on commenters to read through comments and check what is going on so we don’t have to. Commenting here is a privilege, not a personal argument platform.
If you're going to quote, you have to provide a link. Please do so now for both quotes.
They certainly did not categorically say that there had been a breaking of the law – given they were not sure that offences were committed
Which does not establish the legs of an offence under that dratted law, including intent.
Nice try on Farrar's part though. Must have been some foaming Natbois out there today splunking all over their keyboards.
I made a bit of a mess on that blogpost. I felt it a public service to prevent them from getting their hopes back up after the latest poll … .
If you're going to quote, you have to provide a link. Please do so now for both quotes.
Quotes seem to be from the Electoral Commission's brief media release: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2002/S00073/statement-on-donations-enquiries.htm
The first was from the DPF Kiwiblog post Muttonbird was referring to.
The second was from the EC's media statement (quoted in the said blogpost) – which should have informed anyone reading it carefully not to presume too much from their referring the matter on for investigation.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/winston_first_party_referred_to_the_police.html
thanks. In future, please put links with your quotes.
SPC did not supply the quotes. James has not supplied the links.
Ah, I see you have added a mod note for him above.
SPC's comment at 2.2 has quotes in it.
Oops. My apologies.
Their biggest crime seems to have been being explicit in modelling it on the nats' fundraising mechanisms.
Bit difficult to argue you weren't trying to dodge the law when you're copying the nats:
We know how the nats love to meet their legal and ethical obligations, lol. "legally sound" or merely "pretty legal"?
Pretty sure the Nat one only passes interest on donations to the party (thus thwarting the electoral law), whereas Winnie's one even seems to pay party expenses directly from what we've heard so far. One party has the luxury of not needing immediate cash, perhaps?
As I understand it any donation to the Nats foundation is treated as a party donation and declared as such. That's likely the key difference.
Good point. One party is being way more careful than the other – about this, anyway.
interesting – so that's their dodge.
And there it is on Day 1. The 'some of my best friends are Maori(s)' line.
Could this walking skeleton be any more unaware? Any less relevant?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409187/sir-bob-jones-maori-gratitude-day-column-clearly-tongue-in-cheek-lawyer
Total dick move. What a stale arsehole.
And answer me this. Why is Mr Bob Jones allowed to use emotive language in his testimony, yet the defendant is constrained to official lawyer terms (at this point)?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409187/sir-bob-jones-maori-gratitude-day-column-clearly-tongue-in-cheek-lawyer
As for the reference to attention-seeking, what has Mr Bob Jones done absolutely all his life?
To me this is and open and shut case for the defence but the justice system is heavily weighted in favour of the powerful…
Jones has a good record in defamation cases.
His connections are impeccable.
I always think of all the investors he stiffed in RJI and the ludicrous excuses he offered.
As for philandering…well …best we wait till the litigious old hypocrite tips over before we ..expand.
I might be a little naive but the court of public opinion may indeed have a part to play in this.
Not sure Mr Jones has taken on the New Zealand public before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Party
"Despite my life-long involvement with writing, I have enormous difficulty expressing the sheer degree of anger I feel about Maihi's unforgivable and disgraceful, personal attention-seeking efforts at my expense."
And yet, he believes in free speech.
Why is Simon wearing a cycle helmet with feathers stuck on it?
How on earth would..he..know!
Is he showing what the serious fraud office will do over Winston's dodgy donations.
Kind of a tar and feathered reference?
Presumably he is now for gay marriage and gay pride cos he might get some press coverage (having voted against it in 2012 or whenever it was).
Yep. Simon's a try-hard hypocrite.
https://www.twitter.com/ProgressAoteroa/status/1226326267646996480
Is it what he was wearing at the Big Gay Out?
I'm guessing he rode a bike there in some sort of lame attempt to upstage The Greens?
Trying to avoid a head injury when he trips over his tongue?
@ weka
i have answered one of your comments on the offending comment of mine.
I stated that it was my comment, and that i had no idea where the 2 came from. It is clearly a comment of mine considering the tone and comment. 🙂
i will not wait several days for the reply system to work to show me where you have left three comments as that would be a bit much.
essentially you can leave my comments in moderation or you can release them.
Sabine, you're not causing offense, it's just that there are two different Sabine comments going on, from two different email addresses and IP addresses. I need to know if you are the other one i.e. are you also commenting from a different device using a different email and internet access. Please see here (link was missing from my last comment sorry).
https://thestandard.org.nz/will-bernie-sanders-unseat-donald-trump/#comment-1683703
In the meantime, because this is driving me nuts, I will amend the other commenter to Other Sabine, so we can all tell the difference.
You can also see that the gravatars (coloured design beside your name) are two different colours. The system is recognising two different IDs because of the email addresses.
again Weka, it is me. It is my comment. I wrote it. and for some reason there was a 2 next to my name and i have no idea how that happened.
This is exactly what i have already told you.
And fwiw, i suggest that next time rather then put a commentator in moderation simply leave your questions as to the person under the comment and allow for a public answer – after all you are publicly commenting. Also you should be able to check IP adresses and email addresses if you suspect foul play.
Last, The tap 'reply' that allows us to see if someone answered does not always show replys in real time and thus it can be a hard time finding several comments of several thread by a moderator as we are all aware as this is often enough discussed.
As for the gravatars i have no idea i don't pay attention to them.
And yes, sometimes i comment from home and sometimes i comment from work and these are the only two devices i have and thus you should have two IP adresses with my name and one email address – and even if there is a second email address i would guess that one two starts with ‘Sabine’.. Good Grief.
I have used this name here ever since i started, it is my name and sometimes accidents happen, but this is no reason to keep a poster who is not accused of an infraction in purgatory just because not enough mea culpa and chest beating has been given.
[Snip. Peace and mungbeans to you all. Sabine the machine automatically puts comments into moderation if it detects a change in the email or commenter’s name – MS]
I’m pretty unwell this week, I don’t have the energy to read that sorry. It’s a pretty simple request: are you using two different email addresses to comment on TS or not? If so, this caused some problems because we can’t initially tell if it’s a new commenter using the same name. We don’t allow two people to use the same commenting handle. My request is a routine moderator request trying to sort that out.
Moderation for many of us basically comes down to not having to spend time on moderation. You ended up in premod because I was spending too much time in the clunky back end system on my slow internet connection trying to figure out what was going on.
My suggestion is people start taking moderation seriously. I don’t take moderation action lightly and I’m pretty good at explaining what is going on for those that ask. When people do that things can get cleared up quickly. Reacting against something that isn’t happening and having a go at me just prolongs things and makes me way less likely to spend the time helping someone out.
This isn’t personal to you and wasn’t any kind of punishment. I am however getting increasingly frustated at the long term regulars here thinking that somehow moderation or the site rules don’t apply to them. My tendency atm is to moderate to lessen the work for moderation.
Ok, it looks to me like you are the same person. I'm going to link and show you what I mean. Please choose ONE email address and stick to it. If you need help with that, ask, but it looks like you are commenting from two different devices that have the different email addresses pre-loaded.
Lavender Sabine,
https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-10-02-2020/#comment-1683954
Marine Sabine,
https://thestandard.org.nz/will-bernie-sanders-unseat-donald-trump/#comment-1683501
Latest (text-only) summary from RNZ News on Concert FM saga: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/409210/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-frustrated-by-rnz-concert-proposal-timing
Ends with lawyer Chris Finlayson citing those well-known NZ musicians Brahms and Amy Winehouse.
I'm enjoying seeing Minister Fa'afoi growing in stature and responsibility, but this is a real bad'un. I'd like to blame it on Stiassny's involvement, since he was the one who precipitated the ongoing tragedy at NZTA as Chair.
Ardern is moving fast because RNZ is the loyal older segment with a massive collective voting base … and we are pissed.
RNZ and TVNZ have been working with the Minister on several reviews including one big Cabinet options paper last year, and another one this year.
So there is utterly no excuse for RNZ to make a massive programming change while the terms of the review are getting clarified, and the business case for (whatever it is) is just getting underway.
IMHO this must necessitate the RNZ Chair being called to the office for a Please Explain, followed by a public You Are On Notice.
The whole of RNZ and its Board must surely see what is at stake at the moment.
If they don't understand that, then it's time to remove and refresh the lot of them.
Nope. He was brought in to clean up the mess.
Nope he made it far, far worse and it's still only starting to recover. Very slowly.
Worse than years of not performing their regulatory function?
Yes. 3 CEOs in 3 years. 0 senior management remaining through that. Perpetual and fast and violent restructures. Spectacular waste of decades of I.P.
And to "solve" the regulatory issues, NZTA are now fully captured by Meredith Connell. They can't get rid of them. Meredith Connell were personally required to come in by Michael Stiassny.
The only place public transport has improved in NZ in this entire term as far as I'm aware is the Queenstown Airport-Queenstown bus. Otherwise it's become more expensive and no more reliable.
And yes, that's this term.
Sounds rough. Was he there for 3 years?
No. He made that amount of mess in an even shorter time.
He was brought in as a saviour and just fucked things up.
I would agree RNZ's Board are skating on thin ice.
A more corporate RNZ – broken in by funding restraint under the last government, aware of possible merger with the commercial TVNZ and thus armed with a focus on the future/youth market (another cutting back of historical RNZ) and presenting themselves ready and competent for the BRAND new world to come – just imagine the added value to their CV if they are in at the ground floor of this merged MEDIA giant.
If they noticed the Labour manifesto, they must have thought they and Cabinet were above petty partisan politics – they were GOVERNMENT media.
To prepare for merged services with TVNZ they also need to move more operations to Auckland – such as a new youth channel team, just up the road from TVNZ's recording studios!
Supposedly radio and tv will remain separate entities.
But like you I'm deeply suspicious.
The government has taken so long to gets its shit together on this and being just 7 months from election and 5 from its campaign, and taken two goes at Cabinet for it already, and will need to come back to Cabinet for a couple more.
So no wonder people are already up in arms generating petitions.
If they've got 20,000 on a petition just for Concert FM, imagine the beast they will awaken if they dick around with RNZ proper.
My bet this whole idea gets well and truly kicked to the next government.
If National gets in, it's dead as a doorknob.
If Labour get back in, it will stay last on the legislative agenda for a fair old while.
Thanks, Clare Curran.
"If Labour get back in, it will stay last on the legislative agenda for a fair old while."
Labour did not "get in" at the last election without two other parties – we do have three parties in Government. I believe that it has worked remarkably well, largely due to enough Leaders and MPs working hard to make it work. But when something controversial is put forward, it must satisfy three parties. That sometimes makes things a little slower than some would like, but it has been said that it is not just a "feature"of MMP, but is an advantage, as the need for discussion and compromise means that we get legislation that is more likely to represent the balance of views of New Zealanders. National lost support parties as they could not handle negotiations for support – they still think the largest party has a right to govern. Perhaps the words should have been "If Labour / NZ First / Greens get back in, it will stay . . ."
Like you, I'm pleased to see Faafoi gain in stature as you suggest. Being charitable though, it's possible he's had a bit too much on his plate – like a couple of others and/or doesn't have that good a bullshit/trust detector.
I'm not sure as far as broadcasting in general goes, the can can be kicked down the road for much longer especially when there are some viable solutions.
At the back of my mind I'm wondering whether Jane Wrightson (formerly NZonAir) chose to get the hell out of it while the getting is good.
Yesterday, I also came across a couple of other life-long Labour suppotas considering jumping ship over this whole debacle. The change in language/spin didn't go unnoticed either. 'Age' will be replaced by 'life-stages' for example, as either the back-peddling or doubling down begins
I'm pissed and I don't even listen to CFM. My parents do though, and I expect the optics of replacing the oldies with the young 'uns isn't going to play well for many either, nor dumping that shit into the generation war. Mindboggling that the board or management thought this was a goer.
Toby Manhire on smells that linger: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/10-02-2020/as-sfo-probes-nz-first-donations-ardern-is-visited-by-the-ghost-of-scandals-past/
http://alugy.com/news/mr-beans-doppelganger-refuses-to-leave-wuhan-and-becomes-an-internet-star/
Mr Pea is now an internet star in China