Daily Review 12/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, July 12th, 2017 - 57 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 …

57 comments on “Daily Review 12/07/2017”

  1. adam 1

    We have freedom but we are not free. She called Princess Nokia.

  2. James 3

    Will the greens force another election should a labour – nzf government happen ?

    http://buff.ly/2u78tss

    • Why do you ask, James?
      You say you are 100%, ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that National will win the election; you say so, ad nauseum,
      so, knowing in your heart of hearts, as you say you do, that there won’t be a “labour – nzf government”, why do you ask?
      ’cause you’re a troll, that’s why.
      A hypocritical troll (the worst kind)

      🙂

      • James 3.1.1

        You come across as unhinged in your constant stalking.

        It’s boring.

        Try discussing the substance of the article if you wish.

        • BM 3.1.1.1

          Robert fancies you, James.

          He requests to be on top and wants to wear spurs.

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.2

          Nope Robert’s comment was perfectly appropriate. Like it or lump it this is MMP. Deals will have to happen. National will not be able to rule with its puppet parties.

          So it is good that you post this comment but it displays a high degree of trolling …

    • weka 3.2

      Don’t be daft. That’s written by a conservative Labourite who would resist a strong Green govt any way he could. Including making shit up about the Greens as a way of stirring fear. This is the vanguard of old centrist Labour who would rather lose an election than have the Greens in power and/or pulling us left.

      Think it through. If the National can’t form a govt, and afaik as the incumbent they get first crack at it, then it comes down to Labour. If NZF refuses a deal with L/G, why are the Greens to be blamed for that? If NZF has the bigger numbers, and chooses Labour over Nact, then it’s on them if they won’t accept the Greens. How come Trotter isn’t exploring that scenario? Because he has an agenda.

      What the Greens said on the weekend, was that there will be no deal that doesn’t include the wellbeing of families and the environment. That’s perfectly reasonable given their values and reason for being in parliament. There is no guarantee pre-election of any party giving C and S. Are you really suggesting that parties should agree to such a thing before voting?

      • James 3.2.1

        Just to correct you weka. What the green mp said was:

        “The memorandum of understanding with Labour is the foundation for building the next government. However, if we were not part of the coalition, we would not accept a Labour-New Zealand First government and certainly not a National-New Zealand First government. Neither will be acceptable to the Greens. ”

        So he is very clear they won’t accept a labour – greens government.

        So what happens if Winston says he won’t go with labour should the greens be in the government? Could be part of his consequences from the other day.

        • weka 3.2.1.1

          not sure what you are meaning James. Why would Labour do a deal with NZF that excluded the Greens but expected them to provide C and S?

          “So what happens if Winston says he won’t go with labour should the greens be in the government? Could be part of his consequences from the other day.”

          I don’t think Peters would do that either. I can’t think of any NZ politician that would hold the country to ransom that way if it meant forcing a new election. But if Peters did do that, how is that the GP’s fault? (that’s what Trotter is implying).

          Peters the other day was just his usual bluster.

          I have to wonder too if Trotter is trying to make things dirtier than they already are.

        • McFlock 3.2.1.2

          If the nats stay in government because nz1 couldn’t work with the greens, that’s not the fault of the greens.

          If the greens are need[ed] for a lab-involved government, they should be part of government just as much as nz1.

          • weka 3.2.1.2.1

            I don’t know why that is so hard for people to get their head around. Probably 2 decades of Peters playing stupid games with MMP, some people now think that’s the only way it can be done.

      • Wayne 3.2.2

        “wellbeing of families and the environment”, just about any party could say that. What matters is the actual policies.

        For instance, are the Greens insisting on a reduction of dairy herd by 20%, or on a more positive note, the effective removal of GST on electric vehicles (presumably by way of a grant to purchasers)? In short do the Greens have actual bottom lines in terms of policy, or not.

        • weka 3.2.2.1

          Why are you asking me rather than the Green Party Wayne? I suggest you watch the launch videos. Turei was clear that there would be compromises in policy but not values in order to be part of a Labour led govt.

        • mickysavage 3.2.2.2

          “wellbeing of families and the environment”, just about any party could say that. What matters is the actual policies.”

          Agreed.

          A neoliberal approach to the economy and a reliance on poisoning our waterways so that intensive dairying can occur are not consistent with this goal.

      • Andre 3.2.3

        I’m not sure there’s any kind of “first crack at it”. Hopefully someone with actual NZ constitutional expertise will clarify. I was under the impression that after the election the previous government kept the necessary functions ticking over in a caretaker capacity until someone fronts up to the Governor General and says we’ve got the numbers to form a government. Then the GG does whatever it is needs to be done to get the ball rolling.

        No idea what the constitutional situation would be nor how it would play out if Little had to say I can’t form a government coz Winnie and the Greens won’t play together, and English had to say I can’t form a government coz none of the other parties will play with me. Anyone know who gets to call for a new election and what the conditions are to make the call?

        • weka 3.2.3.1

          I honestly doubt it would come to that, but I expect much would depend on who did the framing and how, including what the MSM did. Blame is a big part of NZ culture currently. We’re seeing it already in Trotter’s pre-emptive piece.

          The big advantage the Greens have this election is they’ve been able to say exactly where they stand on coalitions. Not to National and Act. Enthusiastic yes to Labour but the Greens still need max MPs for a truly progressive govt. Yes if we really have to to NZF. Everyone know where they stand.

          NZF on the other hand is tied into its historical bollocks re not saying beforehand what it will do. I really hope that one bites them hard. But as always, it’s going to depend on whether Labour step up.

          Re first crack, it would be good to clarify. I understood in the UK that the Conservatives got first crack but technically nothing would stop Corbyn from also putting forward a proposal to the Queen. So maybe it’s convention rather than law. But I have a feeling from past elections here that there is something similar.

      • swordfish 3.2.4

        This is the vanguard of old centrist Labour who would rather lose an election than have the Greens in power and/or pulling us left.

        Geez Louise ! – You think that’s an accurate description of Trots ????

        Shouldn’t have thought so

        I’d suggest he’s
        Left-wing on the Economic spectrum
        Liberal – but not Uber-Identitarian – on Moral-Social spectrum

        .

        Including making shit up about the Greens as a way of stirring fear..

        Trots was responding to the words of Green MP Barry Coates in a recent post to The Daily Blog

        • weka 3.2.4.1

          yes, I followed the links. Coates didn’t say what Trotter thought. They were Trotter’s thoughts not Coates’.

          “You think that’s an accurate description of Trots ????”

          When we’re talking about a shifting spectrum I guess it’s relative. He doesn’t strike me as socially liberal in the context of the left. So conservative Labour makes sense to me. Maybe I’m talking about his behaviour more than his beliefs /shrug.

    • Wow, Trotter’s really got it in for the Green Party – his latest couple of posts (this one from the other day is just as irrationally anti-Green) suggest he really, really doesn’t like them. Still, given it’s Trots, his opposition might well reassure them they’re on the right path…

      • RedLogix 3.3.1

        If the sixteenth century Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre (later to become the very Catholic Henry IV of France) was willing to concede that “Paris is worth a mass”, then Metiria Turei should be willing to concede that the Ninth Floor of the Beehive is worth biting her tongue over Winston’s shortcomings.

        Quite lucid in my book PM.

      • In Vino 3.3.2

        But Coates’s words imply exactly what Trotter concludes. Has Coates misspoken and the other Greens not yet realised? Or because he is not a party leader they think it will not be noticed? This will probably blow over because few will be bothered to look into it deeply enough. But I think some sort of clarification might be needed if it becomes widely publicised. (It probably won’t.)

        • McFlock 3.3.2.1

          No they don’t imply Trotter’s conclusion at all.

          Let’s take it simply:
          There are a number of likely governing options after the election:
          Nact
          N/NZ1
          Lab/grn
          lab/nz1/grn
          lab/nz1.

          According to Coates and other comments the greens will not support nact, nat/nz1, or lab/nz1.

          Their response to the immigration policy means that they will be looking for NZ1 to compromise on that more than they compromise on it, if a lab/grn/nz1 govt will happen.

          If lab/nz1 need the support of the greens to govern, the greens will be at the cabinet table.

          The question arises as to whether nat need only nz1 to govern, and in that case will nz1 play nat and lab/grn against each other? Of course they will. Whether this means they’ll prioritise their immigration policy over baubles for peters and shane jones? That’s anyone’s guess.

        • weka 3.3.2.2

          “But Coates’s words imply exactly what Trotter concludes”

          No, Trotter is making that up (I say making it up, unlike others, because he’s a very experienced political commentator who is quite capable of understand what the GP are doing).

          If you listen to what the Greens have been saying in the past week, they’re laying out boundaries. If you want them in govt, there are limits. They’re not going to prop up a govt they fundamentally disagree with. Before it was National. Now it’s National or NZF/L. That doesn’t mean a government *can’t be formed. Why would you assume that?

          If Nat or Nat/NZF or NZF/L can form without the Greens, that’s on them. But don’t expect the Greens to offer C and S to a govt that isn’t progressive. Lefties who want to vote NZF now will be under no illusions as to what that means. Peters/NZF also have choices here. NZF aren’t being ruled out of a L/G coalition.

          This shit just got real.

          • In Vino 3.3.2.2.1

            OK, possibly true as you and McFlock put it, but it is asking a lot for all the public to get it. Luckily, few people are probably thinking about it at this stage.

            • weka 3.3.2.2.1.1

              Yes, this is why I am so unimpressed with Trotter. Zero commitment to telling the truth there. And he is widely read, I just hope this doesn’t go out in his newspaper column 🙁

    • Gabby 3.4

      Nup.

  3. adam 4

    Anyone else seen this – just came up on a feed I follow. Another shady Key deal. Even gone this man keeps on giving. By definition is this not liberalism supporting liberalism.

    If this is true our media has to admit – epic fail.

    http://accmag.com/13-7m-nz-taxpayer-funds-pledged-to-shady-clinton-charity/

    • Ed1 4.1

      From the article:
      “It has been revealed that millions of New Zealand taxpayer dollars have been donated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to Hillary Clinton’s charity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), a non-profit organisation created from the Clinton Foundation with the stated goal to reduce HIV/AIDs in Africa.

      An MFAT spokesman confirmed to the NBR that between January 2010 and June 2016, $7.7 million of taxpayer funds had already been donated and another $6 million was to follow, keeping to a pledge to donate $13.7 million made by the government organisation in 2013.”

      So the donations were to a charity that is not the Clinton Foundation that is trying to reduce HIV/AIDs in Africa. Charitable projects can be bedeviled by fragmented donors all wanting different publicity – as I understand it the Clinton initiative is the only effective way of getting into some countries – they are large enough that is is best to work with them that try and run alongside. Whether it is better than some of the National aid programme initiatives – effectively we will donate money for you to buy these goods from us that may not otherwise be a top priority for you” is another issue entirely, but there is no evidence that speaking fees are even linked to the Clinton Foundation (apparently one of the “cleanest” charities in America) – and this is a separate charitable fund.

      I don’t know anything about Accmag, but as far as I am concerned the case is not proven.

  4. Gabby 5

    The important thing to note is the Trotsker used many important sounding words and is clearly more cleverer than the oiks who are ignorant of Greek history.

    • RedLogix 5.1

      And the founders of WEA all just did a collective roll in their graves. Richter 4.1 I’d guess.

  5. weka 6

    How many here know what 420 means in relation to cannabis?

    • Macro 6.1

      Wiki is your friend 🙂
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture)

      420, 4:20, or 4/20 (pronounced four-twenty) is a code-term in cannabis culture that refers to the consumption of cannabis, especially smoking cannabis around the time 4:20 p.m. (or 16:20 in 24-hour notation) and smoking and celebrating cannabis on the date April 20 (which is 4/20 in U.S. form)

      • weka 6.1.1

        I wasn’t asking for an explanation, I was wanting to find out how many people here were familiar with the term 🙂

    • McFlock 6.2

      Excuse to be smelly.

      Rumours abound as to it’s origin in California (either because stoners would meet after school – 4:20pm- or because it was [allegedly] a police number code for disorderly group of youths).

      In Dunedin it was(is?) an event to smoke up in a crowd as a “protest”. Generally ignored until they started being dicks about it and claiming that the police weren’t doing their job (as well as kids turning up in school uniform), at which point the cops arrested a couple of hippies who then complained that the cops were doing their job.

      Dunno whether they still do it. Complete freak show. I know a few normal people who smoke mj – done it myself on occasion – it’s a pity the most visible legalisation activists are dickheads or a freak show.

    • I knew about it

    • joe90 6.4

      An Americanism that arrived perhaps ten years ago…and never heard before, I reckon.

  6. Nice not

    “And then Winston gets all high and mighty when called on his racism? Please. Nazis know a racist when they see one, and that’s why they support Winston. But the result is that no-one else should.

    (Not that this is any great surprise: the National Front – actual, open Nazis – publicly endorsed Winston in 2005, and in 2011, and in 2014 reminded him that “We have had NF supporters working hard for NZ first from its beginning”. So alt-right support for NZFirst is absolutely consistent with the positions of both groups).”

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2017/07/winston-supported-by-nazis.html

  7. Pat 8

    Mr Trotter would appear to have company (of a sort)….

    “Trust the Greens to be the only ones to ripple the pond. With good reason, they’ve concluded the return of Jones has put a sizeable crimp into the Greens’ plans to enter into formal coalition with Labour. With nothing much to lose – and with the related need to fire up its own base – Greens co-leader Metiria Turei has chosen to take New Zealand First head on. To all intents, we’re watching a re-run of 2005, when Helen Clark chose Peters ahead of the Greens. Back then, Labour decided to form a coalition partner of the centre, instead of heading leftwards. Anyone voting Labour this year needs to be aware of the potential for history to repeat itself.”

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2017/07/11/gordon-campbell-on-winston-peters-sitting-pretty/

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