Daily Review 13/03/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:39 pm, March 13th, 2017 - 25 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 …

25 comments on “Daily Review 13/03/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The decrypter 1
    13 March 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Nick announces “Bills scratch and win and an apartment lotto”

  2. mickysavage 2
    13 March 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Big ups to the young people who organized the anti sexual violence rally at Parliament right now. Looks like there is a huge crowd there including many older people in support.

  4. joe90 4
    13 March 2017 at 6:55 pm

    Sounds familiar….

    Trump pledged to donate his presidential salary.We asked White House for proof that he's doing that.Report on #ThePoint at 5pm et @msnbc pic.twitter.com/kZ9VGCm9E8— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) March 12, 2017

  5. marty mars 5
    13 March 2017 at 9:42 pm

    Little should stfu. Calling the Māori Party ‘poodles’ is dumb – unless you’re going for a certain type of voter – and certainly is imo embarrasing for mahuta. Little is really illustrating arrogance and misguided machoness. Put your fucken glasses back on mate.

    I just think he is on a hiding to nothing. He needs to focus on the gnats not the MP. Ffs there is an election to win off the GNATS not the MP. Focus on the shit rivers, the housing crisis, the people being left behind, low incomes, unemployed, infrastructure and managing immigration and refugees.. and climate change – that elephant anit going anywhere.

    • weka 5.1
      13 March 2017 at 10:17 pm

      I agree calling them poodles is stupid. I still think they should be willing to work with the Mp and wonder how this approach works if Labour need them after the election to form govt. Is it all kiss and make up at that point?

      But the Mp are a threat to Labour, and possibly the left too. It’s a big ask to expect Labour to bet on the Mp choosing them over National come Sept. Which is to say I understand the strategy of going for all the Māori seats even though I disagree with how they are doing it. Rock and a hard place, but could be handled way better.

      MMP is a mess in NZ, I blame Peters 😉 Or get rid of the 5% threshold.

      • marty mars 5.1.1
        13 March 2017 at 10:30 pm

        Yep agree 100%. The MP are a threat and there has to be a better way for labour to sort it – there does seem to still be some bad blood there which is related to f&seabed and also seems a bit nasty and personal. I can guarantee the MP can’t stand littles idiotic kaupapa patheticness. Why he seems to hate their guts im not sure – seems to be coming from fear of losing the seats. Little will not win this election if he focuses on the Māoru seats – he needs to go bigger than that, it really seems like an alll or nothing election coming up.

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          13 March 2017 at 11:04 pm

          I’m kind of looking forward to the election campaign proper, just to see what they come up with and if they have their shit any more together. I think Little probably has done some good in house work in terms of sorting out the caucus etc. But it does look like the Māori seats are going to be a focus, and that they will go hard 🙁 The nasty stuff is unnecessary (looking at Davis there too).

          Hope Harawira gets in! Hope we get some better media coverage of Māori politics!

          • Muttonbird 5.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2017 at 11:20 pm

            This is a problem. It’s quite clear the Maori Party, while shackled to the National government, have done nothing at all for most Maori, only batting for elite Maori.

            So too Harawira. Sure, he’s a real belligerent leftie but seemingly all his energy is taken up by trying to stay relevant rather than helping those who he claims to represent. This wasn’t the case when he was relatively independent pre-Internet Mana days.

            This fight in the Maori seats has been set up by the National Party and is designed to split Maori the way they have split the rest of the country on a range of issues.

            I’m confident Maori voters will see through the 9th floor/Tuku Morgan bullshit and do what’s best for Maori, and that is vote Labour.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1
              13 March 2017 at 11:31 pm

              “It’s quite clear the Maori Party, while shackled to the National government, have done nothing at all for most Maori, only batting for elite Maori.”

              It’s a common accusation, I don’t see much to back that up though.

              “I’m confident Maori voters will see through the 9th floor/Tuku Morgan bullshit and do what’s best for Maori, and that is vote Labour.”

              Voting numbers suggest you are wrong. Māori spread the vote across the spectrum as far as I can tell. Plus the Greens are really stepping up for the Māori vote this election, so there is even more choice.

              • Muttonbird …
                13 March 2017 at 11:36 pm

                “It’s quite clear the Maori Party, while shackled to the National government, have done nothing at all for most Maori, only batting for elite Maori.”

                It’s a common accusation, I don’t see much to back that up though.

                Surely it’s the job of the supporters of the Maori Party to provide the evidence for their lifting the prospects of ordinary Maori.

                And further, to state how an alliance with a Labour government would be worse for ordinary Maori, because that is the line they are taking right now.

                By mounting this National Party backed challenge in the Maori seats and involving the naive and pliable Maori King in their stunt, they are stating that they are with National and I think Maori voters will see this with great clarity.

                After all, what National Party candidates are their in the Maori electorates apart from all the Maori and Mana Party ones?

                • weka …
                  13 March 2017 at 11:42 pm

                  Any time I’ve seen someone start to present a different view they get shouted down that the Mp are just after the limo, or are just Nact poodles etc. I think in a Pākehā dominant space like TS the onus is on all of us to seek and understand the truth and the perspectives of Māori rather than only projecting our own politics onto the situation.

                  “And further to say how an alliance with a Labour government would be worse for ordinary Maori because that is the line they are taking right now.”

                  Who is arguing that? Citation for the Mp saying they will support National and not Labour please.

                  • Muttonbird …
                    13 March 2017 at 11:52 pm

                    Citation? King Tuheitia’s Maori Party backed recent pronouncements, of course.

                    Also, there is a difference between accusing the Maori Party of being ‘after the limo’, and being Nact poodles.

                    It’s not fair that you equate these criticisms because one is from the racist right and the other is from the socially conscious left.

                    As for seeking the truth, and the perspectives of Maori, I can only go on what I see the Maori Party do, which is to support National in government, and to fight Labour in the Maori seats at election time.

                    • weka …
                      14 March 2017 at 12:07 am

                      “Citation? King Tuheitia’s Maori Party backed recent pronouncements, of course.”

                      Please link to exact statements. I’ve seen a lot of stuff said about that, but like I say, it’s always with additional politics in it and rarely is it positioned within Māori understandings of what is going on.

                      “Also, there is a difference between accusing the Maori Party of being ‘after the limo’, and being Nact poodles.

                      It’s not fair that you equate these criticisms because one is from the racist right and the other is from the socially conscious left.”

                      I’ve seen both those accusations made by lefties on TS. Many times.

                      “As for seeking the truth, and the perspectives of Maori, I can only go on what I see the Maori Party do, which is to support National in government, and to fight Labour in the Maori seats at election time.”

                      Since the Mp were formed, there was one term where Labour were govt. How many times did the Mp vote with Labour on legislation, and what were the bills?

                      Since 2008, the Mp have never had the opportunity to support a Labour govt. So the argument you make there seems disingenuous to me.

                      Of course they’re going to fight Labour over the Māori seats, that’s their core constituency.

                      This is interesting,

                      Going into the election, Labour had assurances of support from the Greens (six seats in 2005, down three from 2002) and from the Progressives (one seat, down one). This three-party bloc won 57 seats, leaving Clark four seats short of the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 121-seat Parliament (decreased from the expected 122 because the final results gave the Māori Party only one overhang seat, after it appeared to win two overhang seats on election night). On 5 October the Māori Party began a series of hui to decide whom to support. That same day reports emerged that a meeting between Helen Clark and Māori co-leader Tariana Turia on 3 October had already ruled out a formal coalition between Labour and the Māori Party. Māori Party representatives also held discussions with National representatives, but most New Zealanders thought the Māori Party more likely to give confidence-supply support to a Labour-dominated government because its supporters apparently heavily backed Labour in the party vote.

                      Had Turia and her co-leader Pita Sharples opted to join a Labour-Progressive-Green coalition, Clark would have had sufficient support to govern with support from a grouping of four parties (Labour, Green, Māori and Progressive). Without the Māori Party, Labour needed the support of New Zealand First (seven seats, down six) and United Future (three seats, down five) to form a government. New Zealand First said it would support (or at least abstain from opposing in confidence-motions) the party with the most seats. Clark sought from New Zealand First a positive commitment rather than abstention. United Future, which had supported the previous Labour-Progressive minority government in confidence and supply, said it would talk first to the party with the most seats about support or coalition. Both New Zealand First and United Future said they would not support a Labour-led coalition which included Greens in Cabinet posts. However, United Future indicated it could support a government where the Greens gave supply-and-confidence votes.[9]

                      Brash had only one possible scenario to become Prime Minister: a centre-right coalition with United Future and ACT (two seats, down seven). Given the election results, however, such a coalition would have required the confidence-and-supply votes of both New Zealand First and the Māori Party. This appeared highly unlikely on several counts. New Zealand First’s involvement in such a coalition would have run counter to Peters’ promise to deal with the biggest party, and Turia and Sharples would have had difficulty in justifying supporting National after their supporters’ overwhelming support for Labour in the party vote. Turia and Sharples probably remembered the severe mauling New Zealand First suffered in the 1999 election. (Many of its supporters in 1996 believed they had voted to get rid of National, only to have Peters go into coalition with National; New Zealand First has never really recovered.) Even without this to consider, National had indicated it would abolish the Maori seats if it won power.

                      The new government as eventually formed consisted of Labour and Progressive in coalition, while New Zealand First and United Future entered agreements of support on confidence and supply motions. In an unprecedented move, Peters and Dunne became Foreign Affairs Minister and Revenue Minister, respectively, but remained outside cabinet and had no obligatory cabinet collective responsibility on votes outside their respective portfolios.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2005

                    • Muttonbird …
                      14 March 2017 at 12:22 am

                      I feel you are being deliberately ignorant of the recent statements of King Tuheitia. It has been well documented, and to say that all those who think he’s stepped outside his role ‘don’t know Maori’ is wrong. It is quite exclusive and divisive in fact which I’m sure is not what you want.

                      Sure you’ve seen ‘after the limo’ comments from TS posters, but you haven’t seen them from me.

                      Not interested in what the Maori Party did in 2005 to be honest. This is 2017.

                    • weka …
                      14 March 2017 at 12:33 am

                      “It has been well documented, and to say that all those who think he’s stepped outside his role ‘don’t know Maori’ is wrong.”

                      I”m not saying that. I’m saying that if you want to use his position to back up your argument then you either need to link to specific statements so I know what you are meaning specifically, or risk me seeing your use of that argument as self-serving. And for the reasons I have outlined about the nature of TS, I think it’s reasonable to expect you to be more clear and specific rather than general.

                      “Sure you’ve seen ‘after the limo’ comments from TS posters, but you haven’t seen them from me.”

                      I wasn’t talking about you.

                      “Not interested in what the Maori Party did in 2005 to be honest. This is 2017.”

                      Fine, you just can’t make the claim that the Mp only support National or will never support Labour. They’re not in a position to support a Labour govt in 2017.

  6. joe90 6
    13 March 2017 at 9:51 pm

    Trump peace dividend.

    /

    The Trump administration is exploring how to dismantle or bypass Obama-era constraints intended to prevent civilian deaths from drone attacks, commando raids and other counterterrorism missions outside conventional war zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/us/politics/trump-loosen-counterterrorism-rules.html?_r=0

  8. Muttonbird 8
    13 March 2017 at 10:52 pm

    Can’t link it but there was a photo of a Tui Ad sign being held up (presumably at this event) saying “It’s just locker room talk”.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/326507/'we-will-not-put-up-with-rape-culture-any-longer‘

    It reminded me that Farrar posted a guest-post by rape apologist Ben Nettleton yesterday. As is Farrar’s lazy cut and paste style of blogging, he concluded by saying only, “a very good post”.

    This makes Farrar a rape apologist too, imo, because they both attack these school students who are brave enough to speak out about something which concerns them, at the steps of Parliament.

    • weka 8.1
      13 March 2017 at 11:33 pm

      I couldn’t bring myself to read it, but that’s the conclusion I came to about Farrar too. Useful to see where he stands, and probably not a surprise for such an amoral person.

  9. millsy 9
    13 March 2017 at 11:22 pm

    Most of the fathers of these boys would probably be about my age (36), and most likely would have spent the last 15 years in front of their sons with their mates (with some Tui’s) saying the same thing. Yes, I do blame the fathers, as I know my generation only too wellm

    • Muttonbird 9.1
      13 March 2017 at 11:33 pm

      It’s worse because they’d be older than that (I’m picking 45-55), but they’d still have been taking inappropriately in front of (not to) their teenage sons for some time.

      Also, these fathers are emotionally awol because they can’t find the time to father on these issues, or they don’t know how, or they don’t give a shit, or they too are rape apologists.

    • james 9.2
      14 March 2017 at 8:37 am

      Perhaps you should choose your friends better. Im only a few years older and my mates dont carry on like that.