Daily Review 23/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, September 23rd, 2015 - 28 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Red peak flag
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.

28 comments on “Daily Review 23/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    23 September 2015 at 6:07 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnnNEo_NRBU

    Jacinda Ardern nailed it with her speech today about the Red Peak inclusion bill.

    I thought that the Green’s decision today and agreeing not to vote for Labour’s proposal to have both referenda on the same ballot is somewhat problematic.

    • Anne 1.1
      23 September 2015 at 6:44 pm

      Jacinda’s analysis is spot on.

      • Bill 1.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 9:48 pm

        Analysing the wrong thing; playing the wrong game.

        National are killing parliament (it barely twitches at the best of times) and commandeering the support of the opposition to the process. Parliamentary time given to ‘debate’ flag options when most people are looking at the whole shebang as dog-shit!? The Greens and Labour contributing to it and getting all fucking animated to boot!!?

        Both the Greens and Labour need to stop confounding leading news stories on TVNZ and TV3 with what people actually give a shit about…and then stick to what people actually give a shit about while discounting/ignoring the rest.

        Hmm. That’s part of the problem though, innit? Neither the Greens nor Labour actually have their finger on any kind of pulse that exists beyond ‘focus groups’ and the lead stories of major news outlets.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2
          23 September 2015 at 11:10 pm

          Both the Greens and Labour need to stop confounding leading news stories on TVNZ and TV3 with what people actually give a shit about…and then stick to what people actually give a shit about while discounting/ignoring the rest.

          QFT

          That said, they shouldn’t ignore the rest – they need to say that it’s a waste of time.

  2. maui 2
    23 September 2015 at 8:13 pm

    I think I’ve hit peak red peak.

  3. sabine 3
    23 September 2015 at 8:53 pm

    Both labour and the greens should have stayed out of this farce. but they could not stop themselves form ‘doing’ something.
    This has got to be the most inefficient, and useless lot of opposition ever.

    • b waghorn 3.1
      23 September 2015 at 9:02 pm

      Howis it a loss . key didn’t want red peak now there’s red peak being added .
      Yes its been messy but its another chip of shit keys coating.

      • sabine 3.1.1
        23 September 2015 at 9:34 pm

        i don’t know what key wants. you don’t know what he wants. He is a liar, and i don’t believe a word he says.

        we now have a situations where 1 third of the country will vote for what they belive Key wants, 1 third of the country will be voting for they think Key will hate, and 1 third of the country which will not vbe oting at all or spoiling their vote, if we are to go on the last election results.

        what we don’t have, is an informed discussion about what the old flag represents, what the new flag should represent and how we as a people and a country are going about these changes that we will face in the future. and then maybe change to a constituation, a republic and a new flag.

        for the record, i oppose changing the flag on fiscal reasons. If we don’t have enough money to feed the kids, house the homeless, and heal the sick then we for sure don’t have money to squander on vanity projects that turn into petty revenge projects.

        So in my book, both choices, the bloomn feathers, or the engeneering feat of the triangle are both flawed, and should not be voted in on principle. But then principle is not something that is currently valued in this country , it just does not feel good and there is little entertainment value.

        • Bill 3.1.1.1
          23 September 2015 at 9:56 pm

          The fcking way we’re going…

          …next week’s referendum will be on, in future, what fish should John ask for with his fish and chips. Quite understandably, no-one will really give a fuck. But the opposition will argue that there should be a non-fish option, before agreeing on a fish option that isn’t one of the options on the menu – and then waste valuable time and energy getting all het up about their non-menu fish not being there before securing a landmark victory that sees their fish chalked up on the board.

          It’s enough to drive one to subscription sports channels.

        • weka 3.1.1.2
          23 September 2015 at 10:20 pm

          Spot on sabine.

          If Red Peak gets on the ballot, we’re going to have a competition determined by who has the best media and social media strategy. If Red Peak gets chosen in both referenda, Key saves face. If Red Peak gets chosen in the first but defeated in the second, it’s Red Peak’s fault. etc. They should have just handed the whole thing over to Julie Christie and made it reality tv.

          Meanwhile, oooh look over there, a panda!

          • Mrs Brillo 3.1.1.2.1
            24 September 2015 at 4:05 pm

            I don’t know if it is permitted to repost comments from another website (sure you’ll pick me up on it if I’m wrong), but this very insightful comment from Lynx on the pricey-panda biz in the NZ Herald may have escaped your attention:

            “Panda diplomacy at its best.

            I wonder what we are going to give away to secure the LOAN of two pandas for up to 10 years.

            In France, the panda loan to Beauval zoo coincided with a $20bn deal for nuclear giant Areva to supply China with uranium oxide. In Edinburgh their loan coincided with a £2.6bn contract for Britain to supply China with petrochemical and renewable energy technologies, Jaguar cars and enough salmon to double Scotland’s production. Other panda pairs were loaned to Canadian and Australian zoos in exchange for uranium, oil and minerals. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Macao all got pandas after signing free-trade agreements.

            The $100 million cost does seem high, Edinburgh spent $600,000 building the panda house, spends $200,000 a year on food and $1.2M a year on panda rent.”

            What indeed is going on behind the scenes? Or is it intended as recompense/bribe for having slapped down the Chinese would-be farm buyers?

        • Murray Simmonds 3.1.1.3
          24 September 2015 at 6:44 am

          Absolutely right sabine.

          However what Key wants is whatever his focus groups TELL him to want.

          He has no vision for the country, No grand plan, no policy position, no wish to enact anything important or worthwhile either for the short-term or long-term future of the country, Nothing but a desire to keep National in office and thereby maintain the status quo for his rich buddies.

          Oh, except of course for his desire to see the Pan-Pacific “not about Trade” Agreement through to the bitter end in order to fulfill the promises he made to Obama on the golf course in Hawaii.

      • weka 3.1.2
        23 September 2015 at 10:25 pm

        Howis it a loss . key didn’t want red peak now there’s red peak being added .
        Yes its been messy but its another chip of shit keys coating.

        See my comment to sabine for why it’s a loss. But worse, it’s just agreeing to play a stupid fucking but deadly serious game according to their rules.

        Chipping away at Key’s coating keeps us occupied while the country is being destroyed anyway.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.1.3
        24 September 2015 at 7:33 am

        …and that’s what it’s all about, obv.

        • b waghorn 3.1.3.1
          24 September 2015 at 2:11 pm

          key set the rules to the game the others parties would be fools not to take him on. Its like hunting the hunter can fail many times and it don’t matter but the pray can’t afford to mess up once.

  4. Clemgeopin 4
    23 September 2015 at 10:29 pm

    Some astute observations by ANDREA VANCE :

    “What’s cute, cuddly, vegetarian and suddenly popular with Prime Minister John Key?Green Party MP Gareth Hughes”

    “Hughes found a solution to which no political strings were attached”

    “This is a shrewd move for his party, who are trying to position themselves as Parliament’s new pragmatists, ready to find compromise with any other party”

    “But this is also a handy get-out for Key”

    “So, the Greens find themselves hauling National out of a hole’

    “the Greens recognise they need to look like a party that is ready for power-sharing”

    “Greens have hauled aboard the populist bandwagon and are crowd sourcing policy from Facebook campaigns”

    “But now relations with Labour will be strained, at least in the short term”

    “The Greens sided with Key in the flag feud, handing him another opportunity to publicly flay leader Andrew Little”

    “Rubbing salt into the wound, Hughes struck a deal with National to vote down any Labour amendments”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/72352455/flag-debate-greens-reap-rewards-of-red-peak-move

    • Jenny Kirk 4.1
      24 September 2015 at 8:23 am

      Yeah – Cleamgeopin – what a very silly move by the Greens. They now look like they want to go into coalition with the Nats. And they’ve damaged the growing possibility of a real coalition with Labour. Silly, silly, silly.

      • Clemgeopin 4.1.1
        24 September 2015 at 10:06 am

        I do not understand the strategy/wisdom/stupidity of the Greens to give Key/National an agreement that they would oppose the proposed Labour’s Yes/No amendment.

        What was the need for such an undertaking? The inclusion of Red Peak and the Y/N question are two separate issues.

        Something is dodgy and underhanded here.

      • greywarshark 4.1.2
        24 September 2015 at 11:53 am

        @Jeny Kirk
        I think you are exaggerating the Greens action and thinking. To me they have acted to bring the debate to an end so that we can move on carrying this piece of sh..t stuff from National of the stage, and think about something else. To compound the time spent on discussing it is to give it and Nat more oxygen. I do think they would have been better to stay out of it, but concur with Shaw that doing something does have some value. And it might stop one of those execrable four choices from getting on, if the vote went for change to something – red peak is better than the others.

        But there is another way of thinking, hopefully, that the flag debate would slow up some of Gnats other even more sh..t efforts. However nothing now will stop them, having got into power with the sidestep of Labour from carrying the attack home last elections, thus allowing the Gnats to score both the winning try and conversion. And don’t they love rugby!
        edited

  5. adam 5
    23 September 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Short points.

    The state can be a bloated bureaucratic mess. But, a corporation will double that, charge you triple, and still leave you with way less services.

    I think the state is an ass, that said, the corporations who they said could do it better than the state are more of an ass.

    The state is not to be trusted, but at least with the state you could hold the bastard politicians, and their hangers on to account. With this system, masked men run companies who make the mistakes of the state, pale in comparison. Plus you try finding anyone who is accountable.

    I think people could organise better than a state ever could. It took the corporate takeover of the state to drive that home.

    Nothing to fear nothing to hide, So why do corporations hide behind privacy all the time?

  6. RedLogix 6
    23 September 2015 at 11:04 pm

    For the late night insomniacs take a look at Bill Shorten’s Q&A playing now on ABC’s Iview:

    http://iview.abc.net.au/

    (Sorry no perma linky)

    First of all – it’s a remarkable performance. He turns around my opinion of him.

    Secondly – compare and contrast with anything the NZ media offers.

  7. Draco T Bastard 7
    23 September 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Volkswagen emissions scandal spreads to Europe and threatens to embroil more models and rival carmakers

    The Volkswagen and Audi diesel emissions scandal which has thrown the global car industry into turmoil has spread to Europe and threatens to embroil more models and rival carmakers.

    The chief executive of Volkswagen AG, the parent company of Porsche, Seat, Skoda, Bentley, Lamborghini and Bugatti as well as VW and Audi, was fighting for his career, after it emerged the firm had fitted 11m vehicles worldwide with a “defeat device” designed to cheat emissions tests.

    The headline seems to be misleading as the entire artisle only mentions one company – Volkswagon AG which happens to own all the other car makers mentioned. It’s slips like this that hide the ever increasing monopolisation of the world into private ownership.