Daily Review 24/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:13 pm, September 24th, 2015 - 83 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

TPPA protest-16

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.

83 comments on “Daily Review 24/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Clemgeopin 1
    24 September 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Winston Peters blasts the Greens as naive and stupid in doing their backroom deceptive deal with Key.

    He claims that even the Green supporters on Facebook are dismayed by this dumb move by the greens to help Key out of his hole.

    And I agree.

    Listen to his speech here (9 minutes):

    http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/39875

    • Anne 1.1
      24 September 2015 at 7:08 pm

      Why did they do it? Does anyone know?

      It came out of the blue and on the face of it smacks of opportunism. If there is another more substantive reason I should like to know what it was. I don’t really buy the “we wanted the voters to have a better choice etc.” line which James Shaw has been peddling.

      • Clemgeopin 1.1.1
        24 September 2015 at 7:31 pm

        “Why did they do it? Does anyone know?”

        May be Shaw and Hughes think they are clever! Too clever by half!

        “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity” Martin Luther King, Jr.

      • maui 1.1.2
        24 September 2015 at 7:44 pm

        This seems to be what Shaw wants to bring to politics is parties working together, finding consensus, not always at each other’s throats. He thinks it turns people off politics and he’s probably right in that. This is what he’s trying to do for the climate change debate is to get cross party agreement on what should be done. We can only wait to see if this approach does anything in the poll results. I don’t think they’re going to lose voters over this, they’re still against the whole flag debate. But if it pulls in new voters, a lot of green voters will want this approach to carry on.

        • weka 1.1.2.1
          24 September 2015 at 8:08 pm

          That’s my reading of it too. I don’t like what they’ve done re Red Peak, and I’m in two minds about doing any kind of working together thing with such a corrupt govt but something has to change or we’re screwed and maybe this is part of that change.

          • mickysavage 1.1.2.1.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:00 pm

            National was not interested in working collaboratively. It was interested in getting out of a situation it created all by itself.

            • weka 1.1.2.1.1.1
              24 September 2015 at 9:29 pm

              True, and despite my reservations about what the GP have done I am curious to see how they will make this work for the party. I don’t think they’re under any illusions about what working with National actually means (it’s not like they’re going to believe that National are their friends all of a sudden).

          • Clemgeopin 1.1.2.1.2
            24 September 2015 at 9:20 pm

            ” I don’t like what they’ve done re Red Peak”

            By itself, putting a motion to include the Red Peak is not the main issue.
            The issue is (a) They did it secretly with Key behind Labour’s back (b) Blind sided Labour (c) Gave a helping hand to Key to get out of the muck that Key created himself (d) Promised Key that they would vote against Labour’s proposed Y/N amendment. What was the need for that? What game are the Greens playing here? (e) Enabled Key to play the Greens against Labour (f) Helped Key to falsely paint Labour as the bad guys (g) Put Labour and Little in a bad spot (h) Greens played dirty politics here to make the masters of dirty politics look good.
            ————

            You also wrote:
            “people are just ignorant of how the GP functions (hint, the exec can’t just do what it likes)”

            So, are you saying the exec consulted all the MPs and their members to play this disgraceful tootsie behind close doors with Key in this Red Peak case? Was there a consensus or majority support for this dirty move? Were YOU informed or consulted?

            • Jenny Kirk 1.1.2.1.2.1
              24 September 2015 at 9:31 pm

              I think you’ve put it very clearly, Clem. And of course the members were not consulted – how could they have been? Nor, probably, all the Green Caucus MPs. The Greens are suddenly playing a dirty game, when up til now they’re been very principled and clean…….. this is not a good look for the Greens.

              • weka …
                24 September 2015 at 10:04 pm

                FFS, what party consults with the membership on day to day issues? I’m a member and I don’t expect the be consulted on something like this.

                What evidence do you have that the GP caucus didn’t discuss this?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  25 September 2015 at 10:19 am

                  I’m a member and I don’t expect the be consulted on something like this.

                  For something like this I do expect to be consulted. It’s actually a fairly major move to go and work with a party that continuously attacking you and to do it in such a way as to help that party out of the hole that it’s dug for itself.

                  • weka …
                    25 September 2015 at 11:36 am

                    The exec/MPs already have a mandate from the members to work on policy with any party, within the kaupapa of the party. That’s what they did (I still disagree with it myself, but I don’t see them as having done the dirty on the membership).

                    For the GP to consult the membership on this particular issue (Hughes’ flag bill), it would take weeks if not months of work. Ideally I’d like to see internal processes set up and streamlined so that there was better democracy and representation within the party. But I just don’t think it’s possible the way things are now, certainly now with the timeframes involved here where things were changing quite rapidly.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      25 September 2015 at 12:30 pm

                      For the GP to consult the membership on this particular issue (Hughes’ flag bill), it would take weeks if not months of work.

                      Nope. A simple email asking if they should work with National to get Red Peak included in the referendum and describing how they would do that with a link to a response web page. Send the email out in the morning with a close time of around 22:00.

                      Taking months for this type of feedback only occurs if you’re using paper methods and has been outdated since last century.

                    • weka …
                      25 September 2015 at 12:41 pm

                      I doubt that the GP would consider that good consultation. What you propose would reach certain sectors, mostly the people who spend alot of time online or who happened to be online that day. It would actively exclude other sectors, eg people who are online intermittently or only every few days. If you wanted to get a sense of what group A thinks, it would work. If you want to consult with the membership, it wouldn’t.

                      As I said, the GP could improve its ability to consult on more day to day matters, but those processes aren’t in place currently. I doubt that you could ever get a 1 day turnaround, although they could set up feedback groups that people could join with the proviso that this was about feedback from activists rather than the membership.

                      “Taking months for this type of feedback only occurs if you’re using paper methods and has been outdated since last century.”

                      The GP have led the way in NZ for using IT to reach people so I really don’t think it’s that (they don’t contact me by paper and haven’t for years).

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      25 September 2015 at 1:55 pm

                      What, there’s people in the Green Party that aren’t online all the time? I seriously doubt that.

                      The Greens have been the party using and promulgating high tech since they started which is why Nationals cries of Luddite about them has always rung false.

                      Ideally I’d like to see internal processes set up and streamlined so that there was better democracy and representation within the party.

                      And the way to do that is to do it online.

                    • weka …
                      25 September 2015 at 2:55 pm

                      Not sure if that’s a joke, but I know quite a few GP members and they’re not online all the time. They use the internet as a tool, they don’t live there.

            • weka 1.1.2.1.2.2
              24 September 2015 at 9:40 pm

              “By itself, putting a motion to include the Red Peak is not the main issue.”

              It is to me. Havng RP on the referendum creates as many problems as it solves IMO.

              Labour have had ample opportunity to form a sold working relationship with the GP (years in fact). If Labour were blindsided by this they migh want to reflect on the number of times they’ve declined to work with the Greens (I’m being polite). My feeling is that at any time that Labour steps up and builds that relationship with the GP, then the GP will be willing and keen. But as long as Labour keep hedging their bets, the GP are free to treat Labour as competition.

              I haven’t followed the process this week that closely, but ‘dirty politics’ in NZ has a fairly specific meaning and I doubt that that is what the GP has done, despite how you feel about the treatment of Labour. One thing I did see was the GP being very clear in the media that this whole thing was National’s fuck up, with the clear implication that it wasn’t Labour’s fault.

              You also wrote:
              “people are just ignorant of how the GP functions (hint, the exec can’t just do what it likes)”

              Please don’t selectively quote me out of context, and please don’t edit my words and misquote me (you deliberately took out meaning in your quote). Here’s what I actually said,

              People who think that the GP can form govt with National the way it is now are just ignorant of how the GP functions (hint, the exec can’t just do what it likes).

              That is clearly about formation of coalitions, and equally clearly doesn’t apply to the flag process. Get a grip.

              • Clemgeopin …
                24 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

                “(hint, the exec can’t just do what it likes). That is clearly about formation of coalitions, and equally clearly doesn’t apply to the flag process. Get a grip”

                Why does it not apply to this secret flag deal with Key? Do you know if the ‘executive’ had the backing of their MPs (If not the members) for it?

                Or was it the brilliant brain fart of just Shaw and Hughes?

                • weka …
                  24 September 2015 at 10:01 pm

                  I’m not an active member, so I have no idea what happened at that level. But are you really suggesting that the GP go back to the membership each time they want to do something? Seriously? They don’t have any processes in place for that for things that need to be done quickly. No party does afaik.

                  “Do you know if the ‘executive’ had the backing of their MPs (If not the members) for it?”

                  Um, given Shaw and Hughes are both MPs and have been speaking on this publicly this week I think it’s safe to assume they knew. Honestly, I’m not sure what you are on about here.

            • mickysavage 1.1.2.1.2.3
              24 September 2015 at 9:54 pm

              Good analysis.

        • Anne 1.1.2.2
          24 September 2015 at 8:25 pm

          Well, I applaud him for that maui – especially over Climate Change. It makes a lot of sense. The trouble is, he’s up against a cynical sleaze-bag in John Key who I suspect has used Shaw and the Greens to get him out of a hole of his own making.

          It looks to me the ‘about face’ was going to happen anyway because Farrar would have been polling 24/7 on the issue and it would have become clear Key was on the losing side. Instead Shaw gave Key the opportunity to do it without egg on his face and, at the same time, rub the egg in Little’s face as if he was the culprit. Not the sort of thing you do to an ally.

          • Jenny Kirk 1.1.2.2.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:19 pm

            I agree Anne, and MS – what the Greens have just done, is NOT what you do to an ally. And if Maui is right and the Greens under Shaw want to work more collaboratively with other political parties, then they’re going the wrong way about it. Working collaboratively surely means talking and working together ?NOT sticking it to one potential ally while pandering to the panda-like needs of a trumped-up self-satisfied American puppet – who just happens to be our PM.

            • weka 1.1.2.2.1.1
              24 September 2015 at 9:46 pm

              I wouldn’t see Labour as an active ally of the GP, so I can understand why the GP wouldn’t put that up there as a priority. I’d love for Labour to form a solid working relationship with the GP, but they haven’t, despite attempts from the GP to make this happen. I was a bit surprised at how Labour got thrashed in this process, but I’m not surprised that the GP chose to not make Labour’s wellbeing their own priority. Given how Labour have treated the Greens historically I think it’s unrealistic to think that the GP should relate with Labour as anything special until Labour step up in that relationship. The ball is in Labour’s court on that one.

              • Anne …
                24 September 2015 at 10:05 pm

                Yes weka. I know there was bad blood between Labour and the Greens in the past and I have no doubt a lot of the fault lay with the then Labour caucus. But those days have gone and those involved have gone too. Even so, I think the Greens also have to take some of the blame – especially over the fact the Clark government did a coalition deal (or something similar) with NZ First and not the Greens. The Greens failed to take into account they didn’t end up with sufficient MPs to make such a deal strong and viable in an MMP environment. That wasn’t Labour’s fault. That was the fault of the voters.

                If I remember correctly Winston Peters held a gun at their heads too. He refused to sign any agreement that included the Greens. What was Labour supposed to do? Stand down and let the Tories form a government under Don Brash?

                • weka …
                  24 September 2015 at 10:10 pm

                  Sorry Anne, but it’s not in the past. It’s the current situation. At the last election the GP tried to work with Labour and Labour rejected that. I don’t see anything has changed since then except some vague noises from Little occassionally. The two parties aren’t working together in a way that promotes them as a govt in waiting. I don’t think that’s down to the GP despite what they’ve done this week.

                  I don’t agree with what the GP have done here, but I also don’t believe that the GP should be kind to Labour out of some sense of fairness or duty when Labour still shows no real sign of wanting to work together. I’m gobsmacked that so many people here think that the GP should put Labour’s wellbeing ahead of their own.

                  • Anne …
                    24 September 2015 at 10:23 pm

                    All I can say weka is the Labour members I know have no quarrel with the Greens and see them as a natural coalition party. I have also spoken to a few MPs and they have never shown any aggro towards the Greens so it’s hard for me to reconcile what I’ve encountered… and what you are saying. There does seem to be a difference in perception but maybe it’s a regional difference. Certainly in Auckland there seems to be generally good vibes between most Labour and Green members. That’s my experience anyway.

                    • weka …
                      24 September 2015 at 10:44 pm

                      that’s good to hear Anne. I’m talking about the parties not the members. If we want a left wing govt, then Labour and the GP have to work together publicly. That’s not happening. Why not?

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      24 September 2015 at 10:50 pm

                      ” If we want a left wing govt, then Labour and the GP have to work together publicly. That’s not happening. Why not?’

                      There are very good strategic, electoral and political reasons for not going too gung go together. That does not mean they, ie, all the opposition, including NZF, should not work together on several issues with reasonable commonalities. I know you are intelligent enough to figure it out yourself.

                    • weka …
                      24 September 2015 at 10:58 pm

                      Fine, just don’t expect the GP to give Labour concessions while that’s the case.

          • weka 1.1.2.2.2
            24 September 2015 at 9:48 pm

            “The trouble is, he’s up against a cynical sleaze-bag in John Key who I suspect has used Shaw and the Greens to get him out of a hole of his own making.”

            My concern is the sleaze-bag factor and the risk of the GP being tainted. Not so sure that the GP were victims to Key’s using them so much as they’re using the situation to build political capital. Dangerous, but I am curious to see how that plays out.

        • Karen 1.1.2.3
          24 September 2015 at 9:43 pm

          I don’t buy this.

          Shortly after he was elected leader of the Greens Shaw claimed he wanted to do this but couldn’t tell Guyon Espiner who Labour’s climate change spokesperson was. Now I would have thought if he was really interested in doing this he’d have noticed Megan Woods, who is one of the better Labour MPs. The recent working paper he produced on climate change was not impressive and showed no signs of cross party consultation.

          This latest deal with National was unnecessary and damaging to the relationship between Labour and the Greens. It is hypocritical, unprincipled politics, and I am very disappointed in the Green Party leadership..

          I also don’t like the way Metiria seems to have been sidelined. I thought initially she was allowing Shaw to get a higher profile, but it is going on too long. Why was it Shaw representing the Greens in the Nation debate last weekend? On the anniversary of women getting the vote, party leaders get to discuss the last election and the Greens send their male co-leader who was a backbencher at the last election.

          • weka 1.1.2.3.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

            “The recent working paper he produced on climate change was not impressive and showed no signs of cross party consultation.”

            Please link to Labour’s response to the discussion paper. Really, I’m quite curious.

            The GP have been waiting a long time for Labour to be willing for the two parties to work together. Still waiting, but not putting their own agenda on hold. Sorry, but I’ve run out patience with this. If Labour are being sidelined they’ve no-one to blame but themselves in this instance.

    • Tommo 1.2
      24 September 2015 at 9:37 pm

      Agree,the Greens demonstrating a distinct cavalier responce to the rule of law.Showing this pathetic Govt the path to Urgency for such a trivial flag issue when other important matters are left alone.

  2. Red delusion 2
    24 September 2015 at 7:00 pm

    Good on the greens, possibly a sign they can and are happy to look at coalition with national, actually achieve something vs hanging around with perennial losers that call themselves labour, here come the blue greens

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      24 September 2015 at 7:06 pm

      Yes! Here they come! Any day now! You’re pathetic.

    • Clemgeopin 2.2
      24 September 2015 at 7:25 pm

      That idea may be the thinking of their simple silly brains, but I suspect this move they have done behind the scene with Key, without first signalling it to Labour and blind siding them will back fire on the Greens. I think Winston and NZF will end up reaping the benefit of this dodgy dirty move. By this the Greens have shown to be untrustworthy and undependable and have lost some of their dignity, integrity and mana.

      • BM 2.2.1
        24 September 2015 at 7:38 pm

        Maybe they’ll go into coalition with national.

        There seems to have been a changing of the guard with the greens representing a younger urban demographic, not the old hippies and anarchists.

        • maui 2.2.1.1
          24 September 2015 at 7:46 pm

          Maybe you should go in a coalition with National, that’s right you’re already in one.

        • weka 2.2.1.2
          24 September 2015 at 8:10 pm

          “Maybe they’ll go into coalition with national.”

          The only way that the GP can go into coalition with National is if National changes and becomes more like the GP (ie the GP has a mandate to work with any party where there is sufficient common ground on policy). Is that what you are suggesting?

          People who think that the GP can form govt with National the way it is now are just ignorant of how the GP functions (hint, the exec can’t just do what it likes).

          • Jenny Kirk 2.2.1.2.1
            24 September 2015 at 9:22 pm

            Looks to me like the GP exec have actually just done what it likes re Red Peak and flag issue, Weka – and to heck with the GP charter or mandate or whatever it is you think they’re working to. The Red Peak flag would not have been in the GP Charter !

            • weka 2.2.1.2.1.1
              24 September 2015 at 9:28 pm

              Not following you there Jenny. The rules around coaltion formation are clear, and the membership has voted on what it wants the party to do for a number of years now. Day to day running of the party and taking stances on various issues can’t go back to the membership each time, for what I would have though were obvious reasons.

              I’m curious which bits of the charter you feel have been compromised by the flag legislation or process.

              • Jenny Kirk …
                24 September 2015 at 9:36 pm

                And I’m curious too – Weka – as to how Green-supporting voters are going to take this dirty kick-in-the-back to Labour over the Red Peak flag when so many of them have been talking a Labour-Green coalition for the future.
                There’s a fair bit of disappointment and shock coming thru on the Green Facebook page at the moment – I wonder if it will last, or fade away.

                • weka …
                  24 September 2015 at 9:55 pm

                  I’m not too happy about it myself, although I’m more concerned about the RP thing than the Labour thing. Exactly how long should GP members wait for Labour to show any real sign of wanting to work with the GP? As fas as I can see Labour still aren’t committed. Should the GP wait another election cycle, see how things work out after the 2017 election? Or what?

                  The GP have been trying for a very long time to work with Labour. It’s on Labour that that hasn’t happened.

                  As for GP voters, calcualted risk I’d say and I’ll be interested to see how it plays out. Main problem is that the last Roy Morgan was probably a rogue number for the GP (15%) so we’re not really going to be able to tell directly.

        • Clemgeopin 2.2.1.3
          24 September 2015 at 9:37 pm

          “Maybe they’ll go into coalition with national. There seems to have been a changing of the guard with the greens representing a younger urban demographic, not the old hippies and anarchists”

          May be. Who knows? One thing is clear to me. At the moment, they are thinking through their arse on this issue. Dumb nincompoops.

  3. Muttonbird 3
    24 September 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Interesting…

    As his company axes hundred of jobs, dairy giant boss now earns about $1500 an hour.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/72361647/fonterra-boss-theo-spierings-gets-up-to-18-per-cent-pay-rise

    18% seems a lot more than the rate of inflation. 🙂

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1
      24 September 2015 at 8:58 pm

      Rich people are worth more because they’re rich.

      /sarc

    • b waghorn 3.2
      24 September 2015 at 9:01 pm

      That is a snap shot of every thing that is wrong with how big business is run.
      I just read on a face book post that farmers are ditching fonterra flat out in the south island ,might be more trouble ahead for fonterra.

      • In Vino 3.2.1
        24 September 2015 at 10:23 pm

        Farmers without the brains to reject this kind of economic feudalism deserve to be reduced to serfdom.

  4. Paul 4
    24 September 2015 at 7:29 pm

    This makes me question the Greens.
    Why help Key?

    • Clemgeopin 4.1
      24 September 2015 at 7:35 pm

      They must have reckoned it is a brilliant idea to join Henry and Hosking in sucking on Key’s jowls.

    • half crown 4.2
      24 September 2015 at 7:59 pm

      I don’t think it is the Greens helping National, I think the Greens have been hi jacked like the Labour party was by Douglas by electing an opportunist bit of shit like Dung, and the Greens are going to regret it.

  5. marty mars 5
    24 September 2015 at 8:32 pm

    “Despite that rolling controversy, Ms Tolley has said she would still be open to Serco – which is looking at running child services in the UK – being contracted to provide more social services.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11518395

    yeah I’m sure she’s still open after all that was the agenda in the first place.

    be very afraid

    • Jenny Kirk 5.1
      24 September 2015 at 9:26 pm

      Of course< MM : the CYFs report just gives Tolley the excuse to dump CYFs as a real government service/department and to bring in privatisation to make it more efficient, more business-like, more profitable ….. and to hell (because that's where they'll go, if they're not already there) with those poor little kids.

      • AmaKiwi 5.1.1
        24 September 2015 at 10:49 pm

        Paula Bennett is responsible for this CYF disaster. She was Minister of Social Development for SIX years: 19 Nov. 2008 to 8 Oct. 2014.

        Bennett ruined CYF by forcing them to cut budgets and services.

        I am no fan of Tolley, who was previously the Minister of Education but has no university degree! Amazingly, Tolley would not have met the minimum qualifications for working in the ministry she was in charge of.

        I want Bennett held to account for screwing up the lives of thousands of young people during her six years at the helm.

  6. TTD 6
    24 September 2015 at 9:54 pm

    Labour have been outplayed by the Nats again
    The Greens have been pragmatic and will be seen as such.
    Sterling stuff from James Shaw

    • Clemgeopin 6.1
      24 September 2015 at 10:04 pm

      Yep, that is just about what Key said! A crook endorsing the idiots.

    • CC 6.2
      24 September 2015 at 10:16 pm

      Selling one’s soul for Key’s vanity project isn’t smart, especially when most don’t seem to overmuch care about the flag issue anyway. One’s view might change if the Greens secure public transport instead of more highways, all kids going to bed with a full stomach and the country’s sovereignty is not sold off to the TPP rort as a payoff but of course, none of those will happen.

  7. Pat 7
    24 September 2015 at 10:51 pm

    as i see it both the Greens and Labour have shot themselves in the foot over Red Peak….if they had left National out on a limb over this debacle rather than giving it oxygen then the Nats would have been solely responsible for an expensive waste of time in the publics eye and now theres enough blame to spread around….mugs the lot of them

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      24 September 2015 at 11:21 pm

      +1

    • Clemgeopin 7.2
      24 September 2015 at 11:23 pm

      Andrew Little, after Key initiated overture, made very wise, very reasonable and very statesman-like suggestions regarding the inclusion of the Red Peak and the referendums to make the process more democratic and sensible.

      Key rejected those, even after little publicly showed willingness to discuss the issue again without any pre-conditions to find a solution. Then the Greens secretly played dirty behind Labour’s back. Those are facts. So, don’t unfairly blame Labour here.

      Blame Key and the two, literal and figurative, Greens, Hughes and Shaw.

      But you are right in a way. Key is a poisonous snake with a forked tongue. The Greens have been foolish pea nuts here pulling Key out of his own hole.

      Labour did not fall for Key’s cunning.

      • Pat 7.2.1
        24 September 2015 at 11:30 pm

        dear God …and they call Cantabrians one eyed

      • Chris 7.2.2
        24 September 2015 at 11:37 pm

        “Labour did not fall for Key’s cunning.”

        Really? Why were Labour MPs openly supporting red peaks? Why didn’t Labour have a wee think about its strategy and come out swinging 100% against the whole process? Because, like on many issues, it didn’t think, that’s why.

        • Clemgeopin 7.2.2.1
          24 September 2015 at 11:47 pm

          Labour MPs have different views on it. The referendum is an individual vote, not a party vote. Some want to change, some don’t want to, most think that Key has manipulated and poisoned the issue, some want the Red Peak, some don’t.

    • Chris 7.3
      24 September 2015 at 11:41 pm

      Yes, totally. Why can’t Clemgeopin and those of his or her ilk see this?

  8. Pat 8
    24 September 2015 at 11:46 pm

    more to the point why cant their strategists see this?

  9. Pat 9
    25 September 2015 at 12:11 am

    well I guess you wont be able to tell us what Andrew Little hoped to gain then….if it was to highlight how inept the government are they dont need any help highlighting that

    • Clemgeopin 9.1
      25 September 2015 at 12:30 am

      “well I guess you wont be able to tell us what Andrew Little hoped to gain then’

      I think he hoped to make the terribly flawed process a little better, a little more democratic, a little more fair, a little more worthwhile and a possibly a little less expensive under the circumstances.

      As you know, Key started this very important process as a National party and personal stunt when the public had NOT actually shown any inclination or demand for change through a series of public media polls.

      He then manipulated the whole issue as HIS personal ego trip project at great expense of time, resources and money.

      The flag selection panel did NOT have ANY design experts. Two referendums were unnecessary. One would have sufficed if worded smartly. Leaving that point aside, they could have held the referenda along side a general election to save money and also to get better participation.

      The extremely well paid stupid panel (at reportedly $600 per day each?) and the completely biased and dumb Key’s cabinet poodles choose and offered us FOUR ferns as our choice to pick one!

      Don’t you see that this whole thing has been just shit?

      • Pat 9.1.1
        25 September 2015 at 12:33 am

        “Don’t you see that this whole thing has been just shit”
        indeed it has been….and that is why both Labour and the Greens had nothing to gain by getting involved

        • Clemgeopin 9.1.1.1
          25 September 2015 at 12:58 am

          I think Labour got involved because Key specifically offered that he would include a fifth flag if Labour supported it. Labour said yes but publicly made its position clear. Not so the gormless Greens.

          • Chris 9.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2015 at 2:30 pm

            What’s so hard about understanding that supporting adding a fifth flag to the final choice involves giving tacit support to the process?

      • Chris 9.1.2
        25 September 2015 at 2:28 pm

        “I think he hoped to make the terribly flawed process a little better, a little more democratic, a little more fair, a little more worthwhile and a possibly a little less expensive under the circumstances.”

        So he tried to make the process a little less terribly flawed? Wow, that’s certainly setting your sights high. What a winner!

  10. gsays 10
    25 September 2015 at 12:28 am

    i just dont get it.
    a rudderless, clueless regime, headed to the rocks of tppa, bent ex copper mp going to court, $100B and climbing, mccully sheep ventures…..

    the money manager plucks a flag change out his backside and tonight on the news we get labour mps outside parliament proudly with red peak flags celebrating when they should be railing against the whole distraction charade.

    man, i am out of touch.

  11. Lorraine 11
    28 September 2015 at 3:55 am

    Re interview with Madam Fu Ying made my blood boil. Does nobody get that there is an elephant in the room here re investment in NZ when she criticises NZ for not wanting investment of the type that buys up huge farms Ie. great chunks of NZ land for the benefit of providing food sources for china and which employs mainly Chinese workers.
    Does she forget that no foreigners can buy land in China? Does she forget the disgusting human rights abuses her country perpetrates daily? Does she forget the sweat shop work force that is making China rich? Does she forget the pollution problems created in Chinas get rich economy? Does she forget the corruption in her country and the counterfeit industry that is probably the biggest in the world ripping off patented products that people in other parts of the world have put in huge amounts of time and money into? Does she live in LaLa Land. I think she does. Backed herself into a hole when she blamed all other asian countries for conflicts over territory. Of course she saw it all the other countries as the aggressors. Also when China was being compared to the US, she said how China of course is fair and treats everyone equal. Vomit. What a load of rubbish. Yes and getting back to investment in NZ she compared the farm deals to business deals in the US. Well hallo, buying shares in a company is quiet different than taking over our land by stealth by buying up huge amounts of land that is the best food producing land in the country and basically shutting us out of the profit chain. Go back to where you come from you arrogant woman. Do you think we are completely stupid? I am so sick of the bowing and scraping to the Chinese investors that is going on. I have not seen any great benefit to Kiwis! So far investment in NZ by Chinese investor is all about benefiting Chinese investors at the expense of Kiwis. Maybe a few Kiwis at the top who are mates with the big wigs in the government are getting rich off it but ordinary Kiwis are getting shafted. It’s not racism it is the truth. I’m sick of people claiming it’s racist when people are disadvantaging ordinary Kiwi for their own greed. Why should the overseas investor in our land be reaping the benefits while Kiwi’s quality of life is getting worse and worse. Overseas investment in our companies is ok but not in our land. Get the message Madam Fu Ying and that is not being racist. You might look at the fact that your country is racist by not letting foreigners buy up huge amounts of land in China or for that matter any land in China. Racist racist China.

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-10-14T10:23:47+00:00