Dear Herald you can do better than Rodney Hide

Written By: - Date published: 9:15 am, September 25th, 2016 - 248 comments
Categories: act, making shit up, Media, newspapers, rodney hide, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Don Brash Rodney Hide the ACT asylum

I don’t know what is happening within the ranks of the Herald but can I urge them to get a left wing commentator to write columns on Sunday in the interests of balance?  Because Rodney Hide’s latest column is the sort of fact free diatribe I would expect from Cameron Slater and cries out for an opposite view to be expressed.

Hide claims that the left now suffers from closed minds and moral smugness. That we are moribund and backward-looking.

I presume he is referring to climate change although his column is an example free mess.  He does think that climate change may not be occurring despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.  If this is what he is referring to I prefer to be part of a movement that is acting on a strong scientific consensus rather than continuously critiquing that which has already been proved.

And you get the feeling he has two eye patches on when he claims that Labour has no policies or new ideas.  He could consult the party’s policy platform for a start, or read up on the party’s future of work commission, or its package to address the housing crisis if he wanted to educate himself on what the party is thinking.

He is correct that some opposing policies distress the left.  The continuous adherence to trickle down and neo liberal policies I personally find particularly distressing in part because they have been shown over and over again not to work.

He complains about how the left gang up on dissenters on social media.  Clearly the circumstances of Dirty Politics are something that he missed.  He should buy the book and have a read.  And then cast judgment.  It would also help if he understood that many of the twitterati he is complaining about are not members of the Labour Party.  It is like criticising National for something that members of a tiny extremist organisation like the ACT party do.

He claims that National is now the vibrant party looking to the future and open to diverse views.  It is true that their PR is way better now than it used to be but deep down National is still the same old vested interest party it always was.

Can I invite the Herald to find a left wing columnist to counter Hide’s ramblings.  To provide some balance as in coherence verses incoherence?

248 comments on “Dear Herald you can do better than Rodney Hide ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    25 September 2016 at 9:30 am

    Dear Standard
    You can do better than a whole post on Hide.
    This will encourage his clickbait.

    • Manuka AOR 1.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:36 am

      No, It needed to be said!

      • Unicus 1.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 5:32 pm

        It also needs to be said that the sole parliamentary “achievement” of this execrable fool was to ponce about as the frontman for ACT’s demolition of Auckland Local Government .

  2. Garibaldi 2
    25 September 2016 at 9:36 am

    The Herald has had many good left wing columnists over the years but has fired them all because the owners of the paper bow to the directives of their paymasters.
    We cannot expect a conservative , right wing run rag to print opposing viewpoints.

  3. vto 3
    25 September 2016 at 9:38 am

    He sounds like Donald Trump

  4. marty mars 4
    25 September 2016 at 9:42 am

    Hide is herald clickbait. Cant stand him – amazing how many truely unlikable, hypocritical, ugly worded prats and pratesses end up down the ubend at ACT.

  5. Wensleydale 5
    25 September 2016 at 9:42 am

    Hide has no interest in the truth, so fact-free diatribes are very much his stock-in-trade. His role is simply to parrot the neo-liberal narrative like the faithful spaniel he is. It’s his last desperate attempt to remain relevant.

    Routine inanities include, but are not limited to, the following:

    1. The left are a moribund collective of flailing no-hopers who couldn’t navigate their way out of a wet paper bag if you gave them comprehensive directions and a GPS.
    2. The Greens are a motley assortment of dangerous lunatics who will bankrupt us and run the country into the ground. They advocate smoking copious quantities of marijuana and having sex with fish.
    3. John Key is the second-coming of Christ.
    4. David Seymour is not a smug hologram. He’s a very nice man.
    5. Pay attention to me! Hey! Over here! It’s me, Rodney! I’m still alive! Oh God, why don’t you care anymore?!

    He’s by turns sad and comical in equal measure. I’m surprised anyone takes him seriously.

    • Blade 5.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:49 am

      Wensleydale, your commentary is best directed towards voters. Hide doesn’t care what the Left think and do…but voters care. And the truth is: voters aren’t happy with the Left at the moment. So you need to stop offering a similar menu to Rodney , and give us a balanced critique. If the Left does that across the board voters will start to notice. At the moment they aren’t interested, and posts like yours show why.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 11:09 am

        There are a few basic propositions with negative campaigning that are worth knowing about. It lowers turnout, favours right more than left as the right continue to turn out, and drives away the independents. Voting then becomes more partisan,”

        Simon Lusk.

        National Party candidates employ this dogshit, but it’s posts like Wensleydale’s that are the real problem. 🙄

        Are you deliberately cynical and dishonest, or are you just too stupid to tell the difference?

        • Blade 5.1.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 11:20 am

          The defence rests… and I dare say the voters too.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 11:54 am

            I put Lusk’s behaviour, and the actual National Party MPs who employ him, up against any number of blog posts by voters. Apparently you’re too unbalanced to see the difference.

            As for the political parties, I note that their websites offer a “different menu”, which is perhaps why right wingers have to pretend that blog posts by voters are all the Left ever does.

          • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.1.2
            25 September 2016 at 1:05 pm

            I love the way that right-wingers celebrate less people voting and therefore their side getting the majority of those who did vote as some sort of victory for democracy, and then fall back on polling every time, even when such polling shows they would not be in government if the numbers are taken literally.

            Less people voting is a loss for democracy, and it happens every time we get a right-wing government. If you can’t win while expanding the electorate, you deserve to lose.

        • Wensleydale 5.1.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 11:56 am

          I’m also personally responsible for the conflict in Syria, the emergence of the Zika virus, and male pattern baldness. I’m a terrible human being and I feel nothing but a profound sense of shame.

          • alwyn 5.1.1.2.1
            25 September 2016 at 2:17 pm

            There, there.
            I am sure your teddy bear loved you very much, and a puppy would do so unconditionally if you had (have?) one.
            That is as long as you fed it regularly.
            On the other hand, guilty as you may be of all those dreadful sins we don’t blame you for the Ebola virus outbreaks.
            Not yet, anyway.

    • keepcalmcarryon 5.2
      25 September 2016 at 12:16 pm

      You are bang on Wensleydale. what the hell is wrong with us that you get turned upon for being honest about the attack lines run by the right?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 12:23 pm

        Nah, Blade “turned” on the Left, conflating a blog post by a voter (Wensleydale) with a broad movement, as though “the Left” is a hive mind, and then proceeded to make exactly the same “mistake” about another voter – me.

        All Blade has established is their hostility towards the Left, coupled with arrogant and hypocritical dismissal of what a couple of voters think.

      • Wensleydale 5.2.2
        25 September 2016 at 3:49 pm

        Oh, it’s totally fine. This is just business as usual here at The Standard. There are people who enjoy intelligently debating the pressing issues of the day. And there are people whose daily contribution is pretty much the equivalent of Nelson Muntz’s “Ha ha!”, with a side of snark and spiteful gloating. It’s all part of what makes frequenting TS such a joy.

        I’ve found that if you’re a delicate wee flower with a tendency to take things personally, you’re probably in the wrong place.

  6. Andre 6
    25 September 2016 at 9:47 am

    Does the Herald actually pay Rodney? Or does someone else pay Rodney and the Herald runs it coz it’s free clickbait?

  7. Rae 7
    25 September 2016 at 9:51 am

    I thought exactly the same when I saw that drivel. So incensed I was, I went to the Herald’s fb page and messaged them, asked them to restore comments for the more extreme of opinion makers. I did include Lizzie Marvelly in my request, as while I almost 100% agree with her, I understand that she is quite confronting for some in her views, and that others might like to respond to her.
    But Hide is just ridiculous in some of his views, although why would he even care whether Labour does or doesn’t have policies as the guy is a self-described anarchist. If he thinks Labour has no policies then he should be cheering them loudly and long. Just sayin’, would like to say it to him via an open comments section in the NZH.

    • Red 7.1
      25 September 2016 at 2:55 pm

      Suggest you all go buy the herald as and entity or start your own paper and you can have what ever columnist you want

      • Rae 7.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 3:24 pm

        Happy for him to have his say, just would like to be able to comment, especially some of the garbage he comes out with. Of course the right have become afraid of the level of the left’s pissed offedness, so no surprise there I guess.

  8. AmaKiwi 8
    25 September 2016 at 9:59 am

    I’m not complaining to the Herald. Better a vacuous right-winger void of facts than an intelligent one who can write.

  9. vto 9
    25 September 2016 at 10:03 am

    Hide’s views, philosophies and policies led directly to the death of 29 men at Pike River.

    So sorry you scum bastard cunt

  10. Richard Rawshark 10
    25 September 2016 at 10:04 am

    I say let the Herald carry on. Over the last decade the Herald has dropped all pretence in quality reporting and has turned into a political voice piece for the right. Click bait and shockingly poor foresight into competing in a rapidly changing to online market.

    With the internet and faster data speeds our older ways of gathering information and news is declining so fast, hard copy information will be gone in the next 5, I suspect or 10 outside years.

    Retrieving quality international news will become better with al jazera RT BBC etc becoming more available to more kiwi’s as they connect to the internet.

    National News will end up far more competitive, instead of the herald as our main source of National news Nationwide, we can all log in and read many newspapers, blogs and get whatever opinion we like.

    If the Herald cannot feed quality information to it’s online readers they will just go elsewhere their is no subscription.

    It’s like watching an old dog die slowly. Do we take it to the vet or shall we just nurse it through with sympathy.

    One way to circumvent National and it’s domination of the lower economic demographics and the news and information they are brainwashed with, would be a national campaign to get a pc with internet in every home, thus, enabling the people themselves to hear the truth. Find the truth and learn the truth.

  11. Paul 11
    25 September 2016 at 10:05 am

    Hide’s views, philosophies and policies led directly to the death of 115 people in the CTV building.

    • Chuck 11.1
      25 September 2016 at 10:19 am

      You do understand that you have just proved Rodney Hide correct on a couple of his points?

      Hey maybe start a social media campaign to teach that nasty Mr. Hide a lesson or two…

      • Richard Rawshark 11.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 11:07 am

        so.

        all elephants are pink and they fly around the air so elegantly it’s wonderful, and if you haven’t seen them your not looking with an open mind and are closed to others points of view.

  12. Psycho Milt 12
    25 September 2016 at 10:11 am

    Hopefully Labour won’t be rushing to take advice from a guy whose party support totally collapsed under his leadership.

  13. Richard Rawshark 13
    25 September 2016 at 10:25 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/84520736/nigel-latta-we-need-to-move-beyond-commodities

    like I say, you can get better views and news, remember Rodney can only harm people who take him seriously, he’s preaching to one bloke who’s actually listening and the Heralds just lost the plot, whoever controls that media outlet..well.

    Now Stuff countered the Herald with a far more thought provoking and clever article from Latta, who is not seen as politically aligned. That’s powerful. Good on Stuff, well done. A quality professional piece I want to read, and know it rings home truth.

  14. Keith 14
    25 September 2016 at 10:33 am

    Although it was well and truly on life support at the time, the Herald unofficially died in 2014 with its bullshit expose on the $100,000 bottle of wine donation to take out David Cunliffe. Never ever let the facts get in the way of a good smear eh NZ Herald.

    And from that day I ceased my subscription of decades, stopped buying it at all and have not looked back. In fact its entire election coverage right down to the last day before polling day sporting National Party page borders on its internet version told us plain and simple who the Herald supported.

    If only the media in this country could cut the partisan shit and realise that there are plenty of us who do not like the National Party and its cling on’s but are still a very worthy target audience for advertisers. I mean the God awful right of right Newstalk ZB is part of that rotten stable too nowadays.

    Trouble is I suspect rather strongly that the rich men who own the likes of the Herald are in a business relationship with the National Party as well and National have made it a policy to ensure their donors are never revealed.

  15. Guerilla Surgeon 15
    25 September 2016 at 11:26 am

    I once wrote to the Herald and offered to do his job at half the price, and still offend just as many people. Now in theory if neoliberal economics was correct, they would have jumped at the chance. But no.:)

  16. Brendon Harre 16
    25 September 2016 at 11:28 am

    Rodney Hide is a failure. His biggest opportunity to shape the governance of NZ was to reform Auckland to make it a better and more affordable city. His Super City reform completely failed to do this. It wasted years arguing over planning alignment to create the Unitary Plan. Time Auckland didn’t have -now the city is plagued with equity problems -some of the most unaffordable houses in relation to workers incomes in the world, a homelessness problem we have not seen for almost 100 years and an economy teetering over a huge property bubble.

    There was a simple reform -a housing affordability national policy statement for the RMA. This could have been implemented at any time in the last 8 years to make the housing market work more equitably. Something that even now the right refuse to implement -voting against it in parliament. Julie Anne Genter explains the conditions which the Green Party would accept this policy proposal and David Parker explains the policy.

    Julie Anne Genter http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/45200
    David Parker http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/45201

    For Hide and ACT/Seymour this exposes their lack of principles. They do not want market reforms which would increase equity. For ACT market tools are only useful if it benefits the wealthy elite.

  17. Muttonbird 17
    25 September 2016 at 11:52 am

    Rodgers seems to be advocating a world free of criticism!

    I suspect he is hurt that some people don’t share his ideas on the evilness of worker representation and is worried about the firm message teachers sent the government last week.

  18. Draco T Bastard 18
    25 September 2016 at 12:08 pm

    The continuous adherence to trickle down and neo liberal policies I personally find particularly distressing in part because they have been shown over and over again not to work.

    They were known not to work when they were put in place in the 1980s. It was pretty much conclusively proven with the Great Depression. The general failure of capitalism was proven by the 1970s when the financial system began to fail which was why those neo-liberal policies was put in place resulting in the GFC.

    What we really needed in the 1970s/80s was to go further to the Left instead the Labour parties of the world led us further to the right at the behest of the rich.

  19. mosa 19
    25 September 2016 at 12:25 pm

    I dont waste my time reading that paper, he is bloody irrelevant like the rag he comments in and another reason not to read the John Key daily express.

  20. Sanctuary 20
    25 September 2016 at 12:42 pm

    It is fair enough to question Hide’s ability to be regular columnist at the Herald. Whatever you think of the opinion pieces, they are meant to offer an insight or different view from a personal perspective. Hide’s pieces are far to often merely fact free party-political diatribes that could be knocked out in twenty minutes by any vaguely literate partisan hack.

    Hide, it seems to me, lacks the talent to be a good columnist. He lacks insight, he lacks any sort of self-reflecting objectivity, and he churns out uninteresting sloganeering attacks more suitable to the comments section than a column itself.

  21. Steve Alfreds 21
    25 September 2016 at 12:45 pm

    In response to Richard Rawshark. The article by Nigel Latta is good, but he didn’t do himself any favours with his crap documentary the other week on immigration. There was no balance and it just relied on the likes of Paul Spoonley to say how great immigration was for the economy. There was no mention of cheap labour being used to drive down wages, etc. It seemed to be based on the argument that all immigration is good and anyone who criticises the status quo must be a racist xenophobe. Here’s a critique of it:

    https://croakingcassandra.com/2016/09/12/hard-stuff-or-mbie-puff-piece/

    • mosa 21.1
      25 September 2016 at 1:19 pm

      Of course not Steve it was directed at a MSM audience why else would you leave out important truthful facts that hides the real facts about immigration.

    • Keith 21.2
      25 September 2016 at 3:34 pm

      Yes, I was rather put off any further Latta doco’s after that one. It was naive at best and misleading otherwise and was a feel good National spin piece.

  22. Old Tony 22
    25 September 2016 at 12:49 pm

    As an aside to the main argument but something that interests me, could readers show proof that any recent NZ government has believed in trickle down economics? For the purposes of the debate the definition might be that it is the idea that giving higher salaries to wealthy people benefits all solely because their wealth circulates through the economy and therefore such a policy is followed with that consequence in mind.

    Of course there are always policies that modify the incomes of different groups (usually in the context of general changes to tax rates for all) but I cannot ever remember anyone in recent NZ history advocating or implementing changes to the incomes of the wealthy solely on the above assumption.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      25 September 2016 at 1:00 pm

      Our economic growth is forecast to be one of the highest in the developed world in 2014.

      That means wages will keep growing, more jobs will be created and living standards will improve right across the country.

      The lying Prime Minister.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.1.1
        25 September 2016 at 3:06 pm

        A perfect example of assumed and implied Trickle Nonsense.

      • Groundhog 22.1.2
        25 September 2016 at 4:51 pm

        Not sure where you can see the lie.

        In recent years NZ has enjoyed a period of economic growth that has coincided with precisely those outcomes.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.1.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 6:16 pm

          ….says the 40% of the population with 3% of the country’s wealth

            • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 6:59 pm

              Yes, that must be it: if you completely ignore the people who are being treated like shit, everyone is ok!

              What creative ethics.

              • Groundhog …
                25 September 2016 at 7:17 pm

                I’m not ignoring anything. But your comment that the PM lied is demonstrably wrong.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 September 2016 at 7:22 pm

                  Because homeless people aren’t “right across the country”, and in any case they don’t own any land to speak of so technically they’re not even in the country.

                  Is that what you mean, or are you more of a signpost with “I agree with Dear Leader” written in crayon?

                  • Groundhog …
                    25 September 2016 at 7:51 pm

                    Based on your quote, the PM made the claim that our high level of growth will resulting the following three outcomes:

                    1. Wages will keep growing.
                    2. More jobs will be created.
                    3. Living standards will improve right across the country.

                    1 and 2 seem not to be in dispute. 3 is derived from 1 and 2.

                    You seem to be arguing that because there are poor and homeless, that that infers the benefits cannot be widespread. That argument is simply nonsense.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:02 pm

                      The argument is that Key’s statement indicates support for trickledown (let’s be charitable) delusions. It manifestly does so.

                      As for what you say you think I “seem” to mean, is your comprehension failure genuine or simply dishonest rhetoric? Are you actually pretending that levels of poverty and homelessness have not increased, so that you can lie that they are “normal”?

                      That’s a very shit argument. Lift your game: it’s crap.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:10 pm

                      “The argument is that Key’s statement indicates support for trickledown (let’s be charitable) delusions. ”

                      It doesn’t matter how you label (or mis-label) the comment. What matters is you said he lied. He clearly did not. Items 1, 2 and 3 are logical and demonstrable effects of growth. Nothing you have posted counters what is self evident.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:14 pm

                      Too funny: I call him the lying Prime Minister to remind you what he is. I quoted his statement in answer to Old Tony’s question, not as an example of his dishonesty: after all, in this case he may simply be genuinely delusional.

                      Get some remedial English comprehension lessons, and learn about context before wasting my time any further.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:20 pm

                      “I quoted his statement in answer to Old Tony’s question, not as an example of his dishonesty:”

                      No, that’s not true. You finished your post with ‘lying prime minister’. It seems you were wrong.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 10:11 pm

                      “Hmm, groundhog, seems you have been living under a rock
                      http://polity.co.nz/content/truth-about-gap-between-rich-and-rest”

                      That link is about income inequality. Where have I made claims that contradict it’s findings?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 September 2016 at 10:17 pm

                      No, dickhead, you cannot read my mind. I was responding to Old Tony.

                      Learn to read.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 10:35 pm

                      “I was responding to Old Tony.”

                      So? You posted a quote allegedly from Key and claimed he lied. You then tried to justify that claim in your response to me in 22.1.2.1.1.1. Who you were responding to is irrelevant, although it is a good attempt at evasion.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 8:41 am

                      Obviously you cannot read, or you would know what the phrase “not an example of his dishonesty” means.

                      Here is a Google search for the phrase “lying Prime Minister” at The Standard.

                      As you can see, I use his title a lot, whether or not I also include a quote.

                      QED.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 9:34 am

                      “Obviously you cannot read, or you would know what the phrase “not an example of his dishonesty” means.”

                      You’re post didn’t include those words.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 9:37 am

                      I suggest you read all my comments. This is called “context”.

                      context ˈkɒntɛkst
                      noun
                      the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.

                      synonyms: circumstances, conditions, surroundings, factors, state of affairs;

                      More: the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

                      You’re reminded that your remedial English lesson is free.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 10:44 am

                      “I suggest you read all my comments. ”

                      Ah. So you’ve gone from what you said, to who you said it to to now inventing some context. Good sidestepping. The quote you allege Key made contained no lies. You’ve confirmed that by your evasion.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:04 am

                      Nope, I confirmed what I meant when I said he could just as easily be delusional. Your inability to understand that is because you’re illiterate.

                      I note that the first response to my original comment recognises it for what it is: “A perfect example of assumed and implied Trickle Nonsense.”

                      You can’t argue with that, so you attempt to twist my meaning instead. What a loser.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.2.2
          25 September 2016 at 6:42 pm

          …living standards will improve right across the country.

          I’m not sure how even privilege can blind you to the obvious.

          • Groundhog 22.1.2.2.1
            25 September 2016 at 6:51 pm

            Living standards have improved right across the country. That doesn’t mean everyone’s better off, but real wages have increased and there are more jobs. Things are far from perfect, but compared to most countries in the west we’ve done very well.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1.2.2.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 6:56 pm

              “Right across the country”, except those particular parts of the country occupied by homeless children.

              Being dishonest and callous about it won’t make it go away.

              Or are you saying tenants in their own country don’t count?

              • Groundhog …
                25 September 2016 at 7:14 pm

                There are areas that contain homelessness where most people are better off. Not everyone shares equally in the benefits of growth, that is a regrettable but inevitable fact of life. But the benefits to the majority are undeniable.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  25 September 2016 at 7:19 pm

                  inevitable

                  Not everything is shared equally, therefore the existence of homeless working families is completely natural? Yeah nah.

                  the benefits to the majority* will not excuse this disgusting mark of shame. FIFY

                  *whoosh! go the goalposts.

                  • Groundhog …
                    25 September 2016 at 7:58 pm

                    The existence of homeless families is very, very sad. But homeless people exist in every society, in every political system. Surely we should strive for a system that improves the lot of most, while providing as best as possible for the few? Our system isn’t perfect, but under the current rules of the game, our system is near the top of the world.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:07 pm

                      Apart from the massive increase in homelessness and poverty that only a callous shithead could attempt to normalise.

                      Are you that callous shithead?

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:11 pm

                      Pfft – our system has been going backwards for thirty years.

                      Homelessness has ballooned together with house prices – the economy no longer works for a rapidly increasing number of residents.

                      This is the government’s job – to govern and fix such things.

                      We have at present the worst government in NZ history.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:13 pm

                      “Apart from the massive increase in homelessness and poverty that only a callous shithead could attempt to normalise.”

                      Your argument is simply failing, hence the slide in language. The comment you allege Key made referred to living standards improving “right across the country”. You’re trying to allege he said everyone’s living standards will improve. He didn’t.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:18 pm

                      “our system has been going backwards for thirty years…
                      …This is the government’s job – to govern and fix such things…”

                      I disagree, on both counts. Our country is a far better place to live that 30 years ago. Our economy is open and competitive, we have a far wider range of goods and services available to us. We have access to medical advances we could only dream of 30 years ago. We are free to purchase overseas funds, free to purchase what we want, when we want.

                      It is not the governments job to fix every problem. It is the governments job to create an environment in which individuals, through their own enterprise, can thrive, and to provide a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot do so. We are far closer to that today than we were 30 years ago.

                    • ropata …
                      25 September 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      Apparently it is also the governments job to do a nasty tax switch and help their shithead mates (like groundhog) cream capital gains at the expense of thousands of others.

                    • Macro …
                      25 September 2016 at 9:05 pm

                      “I disagree, on both counts. Our country is a far better place to live that 30 years ago.”

                      My word you are so right! The cars of today have much more cosy seats than a 1970’s Holden. Far better to live in.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      25 September 2016 at 9:49 pm

                      What a pathetic standard you set:

                      “Our economy is open and competitive,”

                      Rubbish – NZ has utterly failed to produce the productivity attributed to competition elsewhere.

                      we have a far wider range of goods and services available to us.

                      Mostly unnecessary and undesired.

                      “We are free to purchase overseas funds,”

                      Why on earth would we want to do that?

                      I pay my government to work for me on the problems I consider pressing. This one is the worst in NZ history – lazy, venal and corrupt. It’s not doing it’s job, it’s not doing any of its jobs. I have shat better governments. We are paying these useless fuckers – lord knows what for.

                      They are not creating an environment of possibility – that is why they have to use spurious statistics and import foreigners who are unaware of what a truly useless pack of hosers runs NZ.

                      The Key government has set NZ back twenty years. There has been no real growth – there has been capacity loss. Standards of living have plummeted. Suicide is through the fucking roof. Don’t come back on here until you are ready to face the facts.

                    • Groundhog …
                      25 September 2016 at 10:05 pm

                      “Why on earth would we want to do that?”

                      To trade. To travel. To purchase/sell good overseas. It beggars belief you even had to ask that.

                      “It’s not doing it’s job, it’s not doing any of its jobs.”

                      Yes, it is. In fact we have been reasonably well served by successive governments over the past 30 years. If you want evidence, here it is:
                      http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living.aspx

                    • ropata …
                      25 September 2016 at 10:58 pm

                      At last you found a link groundhog! Good for you! Here’s a few more

                      Prof. Tim Hazledine: Tim Hazledine: Greedy warriors of privilege threaten our Decent Society

                      Te Ara, Encyclopedia of NZ:

                      Overall, New Zealand has become slowly more prosperous, albeit with setbacks in the 1980s and 1990s. The gap between rich and poor widened from the 1980s. In the year ending March 1996 the top 10% of households had just over a quarter (25.8%) of all income. In 1982 they had possessed about a fifth (20.1%). The lowest 10% of households had just 3.6% of the income. This widening gap was due in part to income-tax changes of the late 1980s and social security benefit cuts of the early 1990s, along with higher unemployment. During the same period the real incomes of 8 out of 10 people fell, in part because of the weak performance of the economy.

                      Many people in the lowest deciles are in considerable hardship, especially those with children.

                      Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor

                      According to the OECD, New Zealand had the biggest rise in inequality among member nations in the two decades starting in the mid-1980s. The country’s economy emerged from recession in the second quarter, but with growth of just 0.1%, the central bank is likely to keep interest rates low until well into 2010.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 9:26 am

                      “At last you found a link groundhog! Good for you! ”

                      Your links refer to inequality, not whether or not NZ is a better place to live. Inequality of wealth or incomes does not mean most are not better off.

                      Not only that, but if you look at this graph (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx) you’ll see that income inequality has barely changed since the early 1990’s.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:55 am

                      “Inequality of wealth or incomes does not mean most are not better off.”

                      Actually it does. But why take my word for it. Perhaps you should read “The Spirit Level” by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

                      Wilkinson, a public health researcher of 30 years’ standing, has written numerous books and articles on the physical and mental effects of social differentiation. He and Pickett have compiled information from around 200 different sets of data, using reputable sources such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the US Census, to form a bank of evidence against inequality that is impossible to deny.

                      They use the information to create a series of scatter-graphs whose patterns look nearly identical, yet which document the prevalence of a vast range of social ills. On almost every index of quality of life, or wellness, or deprivation, there is a gradient showing a strong correlation between a country’s level of economic inequality and its social outcomes. Almost always, Japan and the Scandinavian countries are at the favourable “low” end, and almost always, the UK, the US and Portugal are at the unfavourable “high” end, with Canada, Australasia and continental European countries in between.

                      This has nothing to do with total wealth or even the average per-capita income. America is one of the world’s richest nations, with among the highest figures for income per person, but has the lowest longevity of the developed nations, and a level of violence – murder, in particular – that is off the scale. Of all crimes, those involving violence are most closely related to high levels of inequality – within a country, within states and even within cities. For some, mainly young, men with no economic or educational route to achieving the high status and earnings required for full citizenship, the experience of daily life at the bottom of a steep social hierarchy is enraging.

                      The graphs also reveal that it is not just the poor, but whole societies, from top to bottom, that are adversely affected by inequality.

                      my bold

                      But then this data is based upon official figures taken for the World Bank, Treasuries, and other credible sources, so I guess it is just another example of “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 12:29 pm

                      “Actually it does. ”

                      No, it doesn’t. Logically everyone can become wealthier, yet some be wealthier than others. In fact that is the case in most western nations. I would also highlight the difference between data and the interpretation of that data. In your post you quote the following from your link “America is one of the world’s richest nations, with among the highest figures for income per person, but has the lowest longevity of the developed nations, ”

                      That is patently false. The US is 31st out of 183 nations for life expectancy. Of more relevance is that NZ is 17th.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.2
      25 September 2016 at 2:54 pm

      Policies to favour the rich over the poor are abundant in NZ (scrapping gift tax, raising GST, reducing top tax rates, avoiding capital taxes, avoiding inheritance tax, ending free education, destroying collective bargaining, eliminating overtime rates, prosecuting benefit fraud while going lightly on tax evasion etc) but maybe the rich and powerful don’t need to bother with the fake justifications (such as trickle down) anymore – they may now be bold enough for simple raw exercise of power.

      The reality of course is that what we have is “flood up”.

      • jcuknz 22.2.1
        25 September 2016 at 3:28 pm

        Since the ‘poor’ are given much more than they pay in GST it is merely evening up the balance somewhat. That is one of the facts of life in a responsible society which National continue to support in this area if sadly lacking in others.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.2.1.1
          25 September 2016 at 4:11 pm

          The poorest 40% of NZ own 3% of the country’s wealth – how does this situation persist if we are transferring so much wealth to the poor, as you allege?

          Perhaps because the real wealth transfer in NZ is actually going from the poor to the rich, silly.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 22.2.1.2
          25 September 2016 at 6:47 pm

          “…evening up the balance…”

          This comment demonstrates exactly how low your character is and you have no chance of understanding why. Get a moral compass, trash.

        • Lloyd 22.2.1.3
          25 September 2016 at 6:53 pm

          jcuknz your comment that the ‘poor’ are given more than they pay in GST needs substantiating.
          Lower income persons pay more of their income proportionally than those with above average incomes.
          GST is a regressive tax.
          If we want an economy that isn’t dying we need as many people involved in it in an economically productive way as possible. A government that taxes the rich and spends on the poor or gives to the poor will ensure that the economy is not going into recession. “Balancing ” the tax taken against the benefit given is a really stupid way of looking at how an economy should be run. It is the sort of attitude that will be guaranteed to produce inequality, social disruption and may end with you and your family up against the wall. You might avoid that wall by agitating for an aggressive, progressive tax structure.
          Have a nice day!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 22.2.1.3.1
            25 September 2016 at 7:01 pm

            But who will jcuknz be able to hate if you insist on basic respect and human rights?

      • Groundhog 22.2.2
        25 September 2016 at 8:06 pm

        That is an impressive list…but an artificial one. For example overtime rates have not been ‘removed’; overtime is still paid by many companies. Free education has not been ‘ended’, there have been direct contributions by parents towards education for decades. But those obvious errors simply accentuate the wider misrepresentation in your post.

        NZ has a more redistributive system today than we had 8 years ago. In that time there have been a number of changes that have penalised what you may consider ‘the rich’, including removing the tax deductibility of depreciation on rental property and the introduction of the 2 year ‘brightline’ test.

        I’m not quite sure what your problem is with current economic policy, but making stuff up isn’t a great way to make your case.

        • Macro 22.2.2.1
          25 September 2016 at 8:59 pm

          “NZ has a more redistributive system today than we had 8 years ago.”

          Not True!

          “IRD data shows that the richest tenth of taxpayers got one-third of all taxable income in both 2008 and 2014. Within that, the richest 1%, about 34,000 people, got over 8% of taxable income.

          In contrast, the poorest tenth got just 0.4%.”

          Thank God it’s not more redistributive!

          • Groundhog 22.2.2.1.1
            25 September 2016 at 10:07 pm

            Do you not understand the difference between private taxable income and income redistribution via taxation policy?

            “New data indicates New Zealand’s income tax and support system continues to provide significant income redistribution, with households earning more than $150,000 a year forecast to pay 74 per cent of net income tax in 2014/15, compared with 58 per cent in 2008/09.”

            “The Treasury estimates that this year households earning over $150,000 a year – the top 15 per cent of households by income – will pay 49 per cent of income tax.

            But when benefit payments, Working for Families, paid parental leave and accommodation support are taken into account, these 15 per cent of households are expected to pay 74 per cent of the net income tax. And that is before New Zealand Superannuation payments are counted.

            It also excludes the impact of other aspects of the tax changes in 2010, including tightening property tax rules and compliance, and increasing GST.

            By contrast, households earning under $60,000 a year – which is just under half of all households – are expected to pay 9 per cent of income tax.”

            https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/significant-income-redistribution-after-tax-reforms

            • Macro 22.2.2.1.1.1
              25 September 2016 at 10:25 pm

              Indeed I do!
              You might also note the the spike around the $70,000 mark for the 2014 tax year in this graph. hmmmm seems like the well heeled (and I mean heeled as in heels) are ensuring they indulge in their own form of “redistribution”.
              And I also note that despite this “redistribution” of $25 per week for some “lucky ones”, food banks are now overwhelmed and 300,000 children live in relative poverty.

              • Groundhog …
                25 September 2016 at 10:37 pm

                That graph is taxable income. You know…before tax!

                So you don’t understand the difference. Thought not.

                • UncookedSelachimorpha …
                  26 September 2016 at 12:35 am

                  “Taxable Income”, you know, the thing that rich people often have very little of, getting a large proportion of their income from capital gains n’all, and being able to pay to restructure their ample affairs in a “tax efficient” manner.

                  https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/business/only-half-of-nz-s-most-wealthy-paying-top-tax-rate-6200604

                  • Groundhog …
                    26 September 2016 at 9:33 am

                    Being rich doesn’t necessarily mean one has a high taxable income. There are retired people who have what you may consider a high net worth, but it may all be tied up in their family home. You are conflating two issues that are actually seperate and different.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:03 am

                      *separate

                      If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, remedial English is a must.

                    • UncookedSelachimorpha …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:18 pm

                      I agree that income and wealth are not the same thing. That was partially my point.

                      Wealth (not just income) is also important to your well-being – and wealth is even less equally distributed than income.

            • Macro 22.2.2.1.1.2
              25 September 2016 at 10:34 pm

              You don’t actually expect me to swallow govt propaganda bullshit do you? That sort of manipulation of statistics and window dressing would make even Disraeli blush.

              • Groundhog …
                25 September 2016 at 10:37 pm

                Actually it’s official Treasury data.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  26 September 2016 at 2:50 am

                  Treasury is a nest of neo-libs. Has been since the 1970s. And they have a tendency to interpret the data in favour of their ideology. They’re almost as bad as National in ignoring all the data that proves their ideology wrong.

                  • Groundhog …
                    26 September 2016 at 9:19 am

                    It’s not an interpretation of data, it is the data. If you have another way of interpreting it, let’s hear it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 September 2016 at 9:47 am

                      That would be why they always over-egg what National’s policies do for the economy and down-play what Labour’s do. In fact, they consistently get it wrong (Can’t find link ATM). Those forecasts are, of course, based upon the data.

                      The only way to get it wrong the way that they do is to misinterpret that data. The fact that they always over-egg National’s policies shows that it’s an ideological misinterpretation.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 10:04 am

                      Spot on DtB. If Treasury had no bias their mistakes would not show a pattern. A good example is how Michael Cullen forced them to face the truth about minimum wage rises.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 10:38 am

                      “That would be why they always over-egg what National’s policies do for the economy and down-play what Labour’s do.”

                      Examples? Sounds little more than a bias on your part.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 10:41 am

                      “A good example is how Michael Cullen forced them to face the truth about minimum wage rises.”

                      Oh yeah, he really changed their mind on that one eh? Not.
                      http://www.infometrics.co.nz/industry-effects-of-minimum-wage-increases/

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 10:59 am

                      Will you please do something about your functional illiteracy? I said he forced them to face the truth.

                      They even paid attention briefly. Their backsliding is yet another example of their bias.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:49 pm

                      Examples? Sounds little more than a bias on your part.

                      Chart of the day, but only if you’re already having a pretty slow day

                      Or, to put it another way: when Labour were in government the economy grew faster than Treasury predicted, and under National it under-performed their forecasts.

                      So, that would be proof of ideological bias on Treasury’s part.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 6:02 pm

                      “Chart of the day, but only if you’re already having a pretty slow day”

                      Those are predictions, not commentary on policy.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      “I said he forced them to face the truth.

                      They even paid attention briefly. Their backsliding is yet another example of their bias.”

                      No, it is an example of how you were wrong.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 11:29 am

                      The balance of probabilities is that a higher minimum wage does not cost jobs.

                      Treasury 2011.

                      QED.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 1:24 pm

                      “The balance of probabilities is that a higher minimum wage does not cost jobs.”

                      3 years after Cullen left the job. He really showed em, eh. Not.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 1:49 pm

                      Keep telling yourself that, Maninthemiddle Groundhog.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 2:59 pm

                      “Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.”

                      Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. So let’s look at NZ.

                      Here is a graph showing NZ historical crime stats
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_Zealand

                      Here is a graph showing income inequality in NZ
                      http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx.

                      Between 1982 and 1986, income inequality dropped, yet crime rose steeply.

                      Between 1970 and 1984, when you argue there was less inequality, crime rose steeply.

                      These realities contradict your narrative becasue they are hard data, not opinion pieces reproduced without a critical eye.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 3:11 pm

                      No, I find the World Bank and OECD to be more credible and convincing than you. For one thing, your analysis knee-jerk reckons fail to account for the removal of lead from petrol.

                      The only thing you can do is wail denial on a blog. 😆

                    • Groundhog …
                      3 October 2016 at 10:48 pm

                      “No, I find the World Bank and OECD to be more credible and convincing than you. ”

                      So yet again you ignore the evidence. Ah, so simple.

                • Macro …
                  26 September 2016 at 9:16 am

                  Of course it is dear! I’m not saying that it is incorrect – all I’m saying is that it is selected to produce a favourable appearance rather than the reality. They do it all the time.

                  • Groundhog …
                    26 September 2016 at 9:36 am

                    You described it as ‘propaganda bullshit’. Sounds like you were claiming it was incorrect to me.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:41 am

                      As Disraeli said; “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
                      And he would know.
                      As I say – they use this tactic all the time to convince gullible, but useful idiots, such as yourself, to the “correctness” of their policies.
                      One has to be very careful indeed when quoting “official figures” from any government.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 11:55 am

                      “One has to be very careful indeed when quoting “official figures” from any government.”

                      One also has to be careful not denying official data simply becasue it doesn’t fit their particular view of life.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      “One also has to be careful not denying official data simply becasue it doesn’t fit their particular view of life.”
                      Indeed!
                      But when that official data flies in the face of other evidence that is real and apparent to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear – then one really has to question the motivation behind it.

                      So taking The Spirit Level data as an example do you accept that the data used truly does represent the reality of the Western economies or not? Is it not true that the most wealthiest of countries, USA, and also the country with one of the highest inequalities, is also the country with one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world?

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

                      “But when that official data flies in the face of other evidence that is real and apparent to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear – then one really has to question the motivation behind it.”

                      Then you’ll need to provide examples of such ‘evidence’. And not anecdotal, because your benchmark is hard data.

                      “So taking The Spirit Level data as an example do you accept that the data used truly does represent the reality of the Western economies or not?”
                      I accept that the data relates to NZ, and is accurate.

                      “Is it not true that the most wealthiest of countries, USA, and also the country with one of the highest inequalities, is also the country with one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world?”
                      Not sure, but here’s the thing. During the depression of the ’30’s, people were far poorer than they are today, yet crime was not at the same levels. Perhaps the change is moral, not financial?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 12:53 pm

                      If you take the time to read the relevant material, you will find that increased inequality damages moral values like trust and respect.

                      Not to mention being told “there is no such thing as society” by people who owe society their entire existence.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 1:47 pm

                      The death of the Middle Class is staggeringly worse than many people realise.

                      A new report from the McKinsey Global Institute, with the chilling title “Poorer than their Parents: Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies,” shows just why this is the case. According to the paper, the trend in stagnating or declining incomes for middle class workers is not just confined to the United States, but is a global phenomenon hurting workers across the wealthy world.

                      The report found that as much as 70% of the households in 25 advanced economies saw their earnings drop in the past decade. The study tracked income brackets, not individual households, from 2005 to 2014. That compares to just 2% of households that saw declining incomes in the previous 12 years.

                      The authors estimate that this means that “while fewer than ten million people were affected [by flat or falling incomes] in the 1993-2005 period, that figure exploded to between 540 million and 580 million people in 2005-2014.”

                      To put it bluntly: A huge swath of the world’s population, one that had been taught to expect their material wealth to grow through their lifetimes and across generations, has learned that this promise was a lie. No wonder voters in the rich world are being seduced by radical politics and specious solutions to their economic problems.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:37 pm

                      “If you take the time to read the relevant material, you will find that increased inequality damages moral values like trust and respect.”

                      Mmm, not sure you can make that case. Historically you’d have a lot of trouble. You also need to understand that Income inequality has remained largely the same for the past 25 years or so.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:46 pm

                      Are you always this disingenuous? Perhaps you need to go back 30 years or so rather than cherry-picking a date that suits “your” “argument”.

                      So mmm, not sure you can make that case. Me, I don’t have to, because the likes of James Gilligan, Uslaner & Brown, Pickett, Wilkinson, have done so with far more rigour and detail.

                      That’s why I suggested some reading.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:52 pm

                      “The death of the Middle Class is staggeringly worse than many people realise.”

                      The commentary is based on cohort comparisons covering only 10 years, and covered the period of the GFC. On both counts I’d question it’s validity as a meaningful insight. If you have concerns for the middle class, then I’d recommend you read http://oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3681/An_emerging_middle_class.html, which includes this quote:

                      “The increase in average incomes and the fall in levels of absolute poverty, in particular during the last decade, suggest that an increasing proportion of the world’s population is neither rich nor poor by national standards but finds itself in the middle of the income distribution. “

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:55 pm

                      “Me, I don’t have to…”

                      No, because you are satisfied with an appeal to authority. I’m not. The one claim cited (that the US population longevity is low by international standards) has been debunked.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 2:56 pm

                      25 years takes us back to….
                      Oh yes! the “mother of all budgets”…..
                      God Bless Ruth
                      ““Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favour.””

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 3:05 pm

                      “The commentary is based on cohort comparisons covering only 10 years, and covered the period of the GFC. On both counts I’d question it’s validity as a meaningful insight. ”

                      Ok so you admit to being biased.

                      Well we knew that already.

                      Thanks for the discussion but I see there is little chance of you ever gaining any understanding of the reality facing a growing proportion of the population and the rise of poverty within this country – particularly over the past 7 years.

                      You might like to visit a few food banks and emergency shelters to see what the situation is actually like now for a large proportion of the NZ population. That might open your eyes.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 3:28 pm

                      You aren’t satisfied with an appeal to authority, but you still aren’t going to read said material. Your self-confessed ignorance renders your opinions moot.

                      That’s why Gilligan et al have influenced the OECD, World Bank, NZ Treasury department, and a host of others, and you, um, haven’t.

                      The serious players are working on solutions and you’re still denying the problem. 😆

                    • ropata …
                      26 September 2016 at 3:33 pm

                      I will probably not be able to afford a house after working 100 years so you can stick your pro National propaganda bullshit up your arse.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 4:57 pm

                      “Ok so you admit to being biased.”

                      No, I admit to showing you’re material is not that valid.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 4:58 pm

                      “You aren’t satisfied with an appeal to authority, but you still aren’t going to read said material. ”

                      You misunderstand. I’ll investigate the validity of what you refer to when you can demonstrate you can do more than name drop.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:00 pm

                      “I will probably not be able to afford a house after working 100 years…”

                      I’m not sure that’s relevant. Or true.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:08 pm

                      Having already demonstrated that you’re not even in the room, let alone at the table, I don’t particularly feel the need to explain anything to you. I’m willing to have fun at your expense though.

                      Let’s see if you can figure this out: humans are a bunch of cry-babies, obsessed with status and terrified of real or perceived slights. Inequality exacerbates these tendencies.

                      Please note that this hyperbolic rhetoric is no substitute for you actually reading the material it’s based on.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:11 pm

                      “Inequality exacerbates these tendencies.”

                      Another unsubstantiated claim. Therein lies your problem. Your explanations contain nothing of evidential worth, just assertions with a taste of ad-hominem. On the other hand I did take a look at The Spirit Level, and found an obvious false claim almost immediately. Your arguments are weak, hence the personal invective I suspect.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:14 pm

                      The increase in a “middle economy” as reported in that article does not debunk the fact that in developed countries the Middle Class as it once was is rapidly loosing ground.
                      Economists on the right like to use the metric of average income, which when examined closely, in no way represents the central tendency of income spread in a population. That measure is best represented by either the median income (the figure sitting precisely in the middle of the income spread), or even more representative – the mode ( the most frequent level of income received by the population. The median is almost always lower than the average, and the mode – the income that the largest proportion of a population have to survive on is even lower still. You can see that represented in this graphic of the income distribution as reported by the ird for NZ here.
                      As can be seen the most frequent income level for NZers in 2014 was around $17,000 to $20,000.
                      Not withstanding the attempt to obfuscate the reality that the middle class is loosing ground rapidly in developed countries by those who have a vested interest (for whatever reason) to maintain the status quo; the fact remains that the reported figures by the article Groundhog refers above, to do not debunk the reality of a declining Middle Class in developed countries. Why? Because the figures include the rising middle class in the emergent economies of China and India; the two most populated countries on Earth! All this demonstrates is that the developed countries are now in decline having shifted their manufacturing base (and in doing so their economic power) to China and India. Incomes world wide may well be increasing, but the increases in China and India are at the expense of incomes in the developed world.
                      Now that may or may not be a good thing. It depends on your world view. But what the developed world has to do is to wake up to this reality and to adjust their economies accordingly, or they will eventually end up undeveloped – with a high proportion of their citizens living in poverty – and unable to support themselves.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:27 pm

                      The claim is substantiated in part by Gilligan on violence. I’ve already suggested you read this and related material, so we can add dishonesty and bad faith to functional illiteracy.

                      Why not submit the ‘mistake’ you found in the Spirit Level for publication? Then you’d be one of the footnotes in the room 😆

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:32 pm

                      “The increase in a “middle economy” as reported in that article does not debunk the fact that in developed countries the Middle Class as it once was is rapidly loosing ground.”

                      Two claims have been represented here, one on the middle class one on life expectancy in the US. Both have been debunked.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:34 pm

                      “Why not submit the ‘mistake’ you found in the Spirit Level for publication? ”

                      Why would I waste my time? You’re the one quoting it for authority. I’ve shown it made a most basic of error. But keep on believing.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      You are functionally illiterate. You have to demonstrate that you understand the material before you can debunk it. Start with the separate meanings of “your” and “you’re” and work your way up.

                      Meanwhile, as noted previously, the discussion at the big table has moved well beyond denial. I realise that your ego won’t let you grasp the implications of that fact. so I’ll just keep on rubbing your face in it.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      Where the fuck has anyone here claimed that life expectancy in the US is declining??
                      And your article from the OECD does not debunk the fact that the middle class in the US is in decline. Your “say so” that it is not , nor (as I pointed out) the article you referred to above, does not constitute a debunking.
                      Now I have more important things to attend to.
                      Good day.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:44 pm

                      “You have to demonstrate that you understand the material before you can debunk it.”

                      What you need to explain is why you continue to utilise material that contains not one but two such basic errors.

                    • Groundhog …
                      26 September 2016 at 5:48 pm

                      “Where the fuck has anyone here claimed that life expectancy in the US is declining??”

                      Ah, YOU did. 11.55 this morning. In your quote from the Spirit Level.

                    • Macro …
                      26 September 2016 at 6:33 pm

                      🙄

                      a. That wasn’t a quote from the Spirit Level it was a review of it, and

                      b. “America is one of the world’s richest nations, with among the highest figures for income per person, but has the lowest longevity of the developed nations,”
                      does not equal
                      “life expectancy in the US is declining”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      26 September 2016 at 7:33 pm

                      That wasn’t a quote from the Spirit Level…

                      You see? An entire thread munted by your English comprehension issues. Oh, and Gilligan didn’t write The Spirit Level. Please learn to read.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 10:16 am

                      “That wasn’t a quote from the Spirit Level it was a review of it, and”

                      So? You quoted it in your proclamation about the Spirit Level. And you didn’t even remember doing so.

                      “b. “America is one of the world’s richest nations, with among the highest figures for income per person, but has the lowest longevity of the developed nations,”
                      does not equal
                      “life expectancy in the US is declining””

                      Yes, it pretty much does. And it is false, as my reference showed.

                      You’re protestations are mildly humorous, but also dishonest. The references you have used made two blunders.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 10:17 am

                      “You see? An entire thread munted by…”
                      Your reliance on material that contains demonstrably incorrect informationtion.

                      “Oh, and Gilligan didn’t write The Spirit Level.”
                      Where did I say he did?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 10:35 am

                      Meanwhile, at the World Bank…

                      nations with a widening gap between those who can and cannot access opportunities in life have difficulty sustaining economic growth and social stability over time. To date, no country has managed to transition beyond a middle-income status while maintaining high levels of inequality.

                      And all Maninthemiddle Groundhog can do about it is to scream denial on a blog.

                      😆

                    • Macro …
                      27 September 2016 at 12:30 pm

                      As OAB noted your comprehension skills are severely lacking.

                      “America is one of the world’s richest nations, with among the highest figures for income per person, but has the lowest longevity of the developed nations,”
                      does not equal
                      “life expectancy in the US is declining””

                      Yes, it pretty much does. And it is false, as my reference showed.

                      🙄

                      do you understand what longevity is?

                      longevity noun
                      long life: the greater longevity of women compared with men.

                      lets call it ” life expectancy” :
                      The fact is that USA has one of the lowest life expectancy of in OECD countries 26= with Chile out of 34.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_OECD_.282013.29
                      Or if you want to compare life expectancies of all countries USA is 31st just ahead of Cuba according to the WHO in 2015.
                      So yes – the country with the highest income per capita but one of the highest rates of inequality (4th after Mexico Turkey and Chile)
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality has one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the developed world.

                      Please engage your brain before replying.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 1:20 pm

                      “do you understand what longevity is?”

                      Longevity is life expectancy. Check the context, and stop the evasion.

                      “The fact is that USA has one of the lowest life expectancy of in OECD countries 26= with Chile out of 34.”

                      You reference said it was THE lowest. Not one of the lowest. And even that claim is wrong. Seriously, you aren’t that smart.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 1:23 pm

                      “Meanwhile, at the World Bank…”

                      Meanwhile, in NZ income inequality is virtually unchanged since 1992.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 1:32 pm

                      Meanwhile, at the OECD…

                      The New Zealand economy would have been 10 per cent larger in 2010 were it not for the steep rise in income inequality which occurred between the late 1980s and mid-1990s…

                      …and all Maninthemiddle Groundhog can do about it is to scream denial on a blog.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 2:16 pm

                      “Meanwhile, at the OECD…”

                      Now you my be on to something with that, but what evasion! This entire discussion has been about unsubstantiated claims about crime and longevity. Nothing about economic performance. Your dishonesty is alarming and yet mildly humorous.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 2:48 pm

                      Meanwhile, at the World Bank…(pdf)

                      Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.

                      …and…

                      …a widening gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor.

                      ..and all you can do is wail your denial 😆

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 3:02 pm

                      “Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.”

                      Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. So let’s look at NZ.

                      Here is a graph showing NZ historical crime stats
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_Zealand

                      Here is a graph showing income inequality in NZ
                      http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx.

                      Between 1982 and 1986, income inequality dropped, yet crime rose steeply.

                      Between 1970 and 1984, when you argue there was less inequality, crime rose steeply.

                      These realities contradict your narrative and yet they are hard data, not opinion pieces reproduced without a critical eye.

                    • Groundhog …
                      27 September 2016 at 3:04 pm

                      “…a widening gap in life expectancy between the rich and the poor.”

                      Again, you are being dishonest. The comment I challenged was a blanket claim about longevity in the US. One that I showed to be false.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      27 September 2016 at 3:13 pm

                      Wah wah wah! Deny deny deny!

                      😆

                    • Groundhog …
                      3 October 2016 at 10:45 pm

                      “Wah wah wah! ”

                      All you have is dishonesty and evasion.

        • ropata 22.2.2.2
          25 September 2016 at 9:40 pm

          http://polity.co.nz/content/truth-about-gap-between-rich-and-rest

          Top income earners (over $150,000 a year) have been creaming it, with their nominal incomes up 60% in just three years, increasing by over half even once inflation is taken into account.

          The massive majority of the population earning under $100,000 a year have been virtually standing still. As a group, their nominal incomes have out-paced price rises by a meagre 0.9% per year.

          And if you dig further to look at those earning under $50,000 a year, which is still most of the adult population, their incomes have not even kept pace with inflation. Their nominal incomes have risen by only 5.9% over three years, while prices have gone up 7.7%.

          The wording of Key’s claim that he is tackling inequality in New Zealand is very, very careful. He is dancing on the head of a pin. And, as these figures show, any gains to everyday New Zealand families are wafer thin at best.1

          New Zealanders know that National is misleading them. They know that National’s economy, fuelled by a global recovery, has delivered massive income gains to very high earners, and delivered next to nothing for everyone else. That drives inequality up, not down. And his own Treasury’s figures say so.

          • Groundhog 22.2.2.2.1
            25 September 2016 at 10:08 pm

            You seem to be confusing private income with government tax policy. But then you aren’t alone in that.

          • Chuck 22.2.2.2.2
            26 September 2016 at 10:40 am

            Of course “New Zealanders know that National is misleading them”…that is why after 8+ years of being in Government they are still polling around the 45% to 48%.

            Dam if New Zealanders thought National were NOT misleading them, then look out!…National would be flying high on 70% – 80% of the vote 🙂

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 22.2.2.3
          26 September 2016 at 12:28 am

          Tertiary fees have grown while student allowances have reduced, had increased means-testing and are replaced with debt:

          http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/nzpc-rn-2016-1-history-of-tertiary-education-reforms.pdf

          Unpaid overtime on the rise:
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/279064/unpaid-overtime-on-the-rise

          …but much more if you compare now with say the 1970’s I expect. Here’s an interesting link from 1998 – looking at the first effects from the ECA 1991:

          http://www.catholic.org.nz/news/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=51&id=107

          • Groundhog 22.2.2.3.1
            26 September 2016 at 9:29 am

            If you want to return to 1970’s NZ, good luck to you. But you’ll have to the UK to buy all our dairy and meat products, accept higher prices for just about everything due to protectionism, and accept a narrower range of goods and services. Or you could emigrate to North Korea?

        • The New Student 22.2.2.4
          26 September 2016 at 3:30 pm

          All this and still no living wage. Hmm…

          • Groundhog 22.2.2.4.1
            26 September 2016 at 5:02 pm

            A living wage calculated by whom? At what level? Paid for by whom?

            • Richard Rawshark 22.2.2.4.1.1
              27 September 2016 at 5:16 pm

              You still here, you clever thing you. Ahh Mr Groundhog, a wonderfully upset person who thinks his depth of knowledge in politics will expose these losers here for what they are.., Losers. Abracadabra isn’t he wonderful, oh the right are so cool, and you know without him coming here I would never have realized how stupid and wrong I’ve been. Wow Groundhog, your mazing!!! ? SARCASM ?

              I read your posts, time you popped off with your twisting things and talking people down. I class it no better than common bullying, just because your savvy with a KB and a dictionary for a gob, doesn’t mean your right, just clever at twisting things,

              Few points,

              You butted into someone elses conversation, bad internet manners, then started twisting what he said.

              You used selective facts to prove your point on a few things equality trickle down, homelessness was a good one, where you try to say it’s been happening since Adam basically. I don’t think working homeless is a thing I’ve heard in 51 years, but in the 30’s in the dustbowls of the US where they had to travel for work I suppose there was?

              Your arguments have been with hindsight analysis just the ravings of someone who thinks themselves and their thoughts are supperior to others.

              John Key by the way is a Lair and I clearly got the context of OAB’s post, you still have not, I can only assume your not as smart as you act, or your deliberately avoiding admitting it because you started a fight to satisfy your sick fkn mind.

              Either way, I think it’s possibly time you moved on. This is not what many of us are about.

              • Groundhog …
                3 October 2016 at 10:43 pm

                Did that make you feel better?

                I didn’t but into anything. I asked a simple question about the Living Wage. If those questions can’t be answered reasonably, the LW is a pipedream.

  23. The Pink Postman 23
    25 September 2016 at 1:34 pm

    The answer to Hide’s rubbish and in fact he other tripe the Herald prints is to not buy or comment on these articles.Hit them where it hurts ,in their pockets.Get your political news from the Standard ..

  24. jcuknz 24
    25 September 2016 at 2:57 pm

    I find it quite amusing how Rodney got to all you lefties .. proving some of his points which of course apply to bloggers of the right and I recognise some in myself 🙂

    I guess it is a sign of one-eyed conviction of ‘true believers’ which I largely escape because I can see both good and bad in both sides.

    • ropata 24.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:21 pm

      You haven’t escaped bias, you have been sucked in to FJK’s persona of being a reasonable bloke. But the actual outcomes of his leadership are a cancer to society.

      • jcuknz 24.1.1
        26 September 2016 at 8:56 am

        Sorry Ropata but I am not in the JK fan club as my numerous comments here should prove. But when I read an excellent summary of human characteristics which apply to both left and right I can recognise their validity.
        The ‘true believers’ are a serious problem for the world.

        • ropata 24.1.1.1
          26 September 2016 at 10:56 am

          OK, well I hope you have *some* values, unfortunately many current politicians don’t

          • jcuknz 24.1.1.1.1
            26 September 2016 at 5:06 pm

            Since I am not one and do not hobnob with any I wouldn’t know but I suspect that they all have them but probably not those that we go by.

  25. infused 25
    25 September 2016 at 3:25 pm

    Pretty sure the standard is going to be the last place the hearld takes advice from.

  26. Incognito 26
    25 September 2016 at 4:58 pm

    I used to read Hide’s column in the NZH but I’ve long stopped giving it the time of day; life is too short to waste it on useless garbage.

    Hide is full of puffery and disingenuous criticism; he belongs in Once Were Wannabes and like many of those he hangs by a bare thread of relevance and peer esteem that was largely, and larger (!), in his own mind in the first place – the self-delusional soul.

    His ‘analyses’ are neither witty nor insightful or informative; they are as ‘interesting’ as racists’ rows on NZ TV and as thought-provoking as Kim Kardashian wearing next-to-nothing at yet another non-event; in fact, Hide’s diatribe is as thinly-veiled and see-through as Kim’s flimsy clothes.

    Enough time wasted on this already!

  27. Muttonbird 27
    25 September 2016 at 5:56 pm

    In Rodder’s mind no doubt the ‘good ideas’ Labour used to have were the ones they had 1984-1987.

  28. herb 28
    25 September 2016 at 6:28 pm

    This column and responses simply prove Hide is right.
    Somebody makes comments the left disprove of , then collectively pile in to the messenger , never debating the points of contention.

    It simply smacks of a lack intellectual ability in building an argument , and what can you say of somebody who brings in female body parts to express his disgust.

    If you want to run a country you first need to prove to the majority , you have the emotional and intellectual ability to do so.

    Anyone reading this site will see there is a way to go.

    • Draco T Bastard 28.1
      25 September 2016 at 6:36 pm

      Hide just went on the fairly standard ad hominem attack of the Left-wing that RWNJs engage in all the time. You’re here doing the same thing.

    • Paul 28.2
      25 September 2016 at 6:38 pm

      Hide lacks original ideas.
      Actually, he lacks ideas. Full stop.

    • fender 28.3
      25 September 2016 at 8:44 pm

      I had no idea people commenting here were wanting to run a country, thanks for the heads-up. It’s got me worried now though because surely it means commenters at whalespew and kiwiblog are actually running the country. We’re in bigger trouble than I realised.

    • ropata 28.4
      25 September 2016 at 9:29 pm

      Hide’s points of “contention” were a fact-free mess. You are doing the same thing, ignoring all the detailed policy work done by the actual Left parties in Parliament, instead coming here to cough up abuse, with an embarrassingly Trump-like lack of basic English.

    • Psycho Milt 28.5
      26 September 2016 at 6:21 am

      It simply smacks of a lack intellectual ability in building an argument…

      Could you point us to where Hide makes an argument in that column? I didn’t see any in there.

      …and what can you say of somebody who brings in female body parts to express his disgust.

      That’s terrible, only a dumb cunt would do that.

  29. Lloyd 29
    25 September 2016 at 7:07 pm

    Unfortunately Rodney believes in the neo-liberal bullshit and any time he runs into logic that shows the error of his ideas, he comes out with the reply that ‘this has been disproved’. Such facts as global warming, Keynesian economics or the non-operation of the trickle-down theory cannot be accepted by Rodney, otherwise he might be faced with the fact that almost everything he has argued for throughout his political career is wrong. Its bloody scary admitting you’ve been paid by the New Zealand taxpayer for years for being worse than a dole bludger.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 29.1
      25 September 2016 at 7:14 pm

      The low-waged and unemployed represented by the hate-speech phrase “dole bludger” are well above National Party values as it is anyway, and since ACT are below even the National Party…

    • b waghorn 29.2
      25 September 2016 at 7:24 pm

      it would take a big person to admit their core beliefs are wrong , and neither hide nor douglas are capable of it. That’s why they will go down with the ship.

  30. thechangeling 30
    25 September 2016 at 7:25 pm

    It’s funny you know cos the Manawatu Evening Standard has a right wing nut job (RWNJ) called Liam Hehir who writes an uninformed ‘free’ column for them each week yet a left wing blogger called Peter Wheeler is not allowed to have his column published in the same paper. Bias anyone?

  31. ObserverTokoroa 31
    25 September 2016 at 8:11 pm

    Auckland is Rubbish

    . The greater part of New Zealand wants to know only one thing from you Rodney Hide and that litter tray called the Auckland NZ Herald – Why is Auckland such a total mess ?

    . Auckland has had well over a century to get its act together. But it keeps going in the same old direction: Backwards.

    . I mean, you couldn’t plan a more pitiful mess if you tried. Crime; Fraud; Dishonest former politicians; super city crap. High powered motor vehicles going at snails space. Financial firms littering the sides of the roads. Foreign Corporations refusing to pay tuppence worth of rent.

    Now listen Rodney, New Zealand has had enough of you. New Zealand is tired of funding you again and again. We cannot think of more hopeless town in the whole of Aotearoa.

    Get yourself fixed son! Do it now.

    .

  32. Rodney Hide 32
    25 September 2016 at 8:32 pm

    I might be all of the things alleged above. But in the post and comments you demonstrate the point I was making in my column perfectly.

    It’s attack and abuse. Never an argument why an idea is wrong. You present the left as a very unattractive and very narrow sect.

    I know that’s not how you see here see it. Clearly. But I suggest you allow the possibility that’s how all this comes across.

    You appear not at all confident in your ideas. Is that perhaps because they are wrong and you can’t defend them?

    Just a suggestion.

    Rodney Hide

    • mickysavage 32.1
      25 September 2016 at 9:18 pm

      Thanks for dropping by Rodney.

      Can you detail which ideas you are talking about? Is it that climate change is not happening or that neo liberalism is better for the poor? If so then let’s have that debate. But your claim the left has no fresh ideas is strange when I see the work that is being put into important issues.

    • Macro 32.2
      25 September 2016 at 9:28 pm

      Never an argument why an idea is wrong.

      🙄
      You obviously have never read The Standard!
      Debates here can be quite heated at times, but then I’m sure you have experienced more than one or two lively exchanges before.

    • Draco T Bastard 32.3
      25 September 2016 at 11:26 pm

      I might be all of the things alleged above. But in the post and comments you demonstrate the point I was making in my column perfectly.

      The former is correct which means that the latter doesn’t apply.

      But I suggest you allow the possibility that’s how all this comes across.

      That’s an outright lie.

      We do have detailed ideas and arguments. The RWNJs just ignore them and tell everybody that we don’t while not having any ideas at all never mind detailed arguments.

      You appear not at all confident in your ideas. Is that perhaps because they are wrong and you can’t defend them?

      And that is another lie. We do have ideas and we’re quite confident in them and we can defend them with actual physical results. Unlike the RWNJs policies that have always proven to be a failure and yet you people keep sprouting the delusion as if it was real.

    • Psycho Milt 32.4
      26 September 2016 at 6:31 am

      It’s attack and abuse. Never an argument why an idea is wrong. You present the left as a very unattractive and very narrow sect.

      Funny you should write that Rodney, as it’s a near-perfect description of your column the OP refers to.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.5
      26 September 2016 at 8:56 am

      Telling lies about the Left gives people the impression that you are a liar, Rodney, although I already got that impression when you bludged my taxes to take your fuck-buddy to the UK.

      I suspect “the Left” would be better to ignore the advice of a fraudulent hypocrite with 0% support.

    • Chuck 32.6
      26 September 2016 at 10:54 am

      “But in the post and comments you demonstrate the point I was making in my column perfectly.”

      Yep it sure does, and pointing it out to our hardcore lefties only makes them more savage. I do note the increased personal attacks further down this thread.

      But look on the positive side, the herald would of had a few more clicks as word got around the Politburo and the order was released to nuke the writer!

    • Richard Rawshark 32.7
      26 September 2016 at 12:15 pm

      Rodney, your full of it, I mean completely full of it. Your ideological beliefs are ok and neolib that’s failed us all miserably over the last 30 years works well. I mean isn’t jobs and life style so much better than it was…., but us on the left you non stop attack. Then you post we have closed minds.

      I think our point is made, and quite well by your Herald column, it’s either, isn’t john key and National wonderful, then 4 weeks of slagging the left off.

      Any common sense is chucked aside, it’s us or them a game.

      You stuffed Auckland with your super city and then freely get to preach on the Herald, you never, ever, were that popular, your political leaning to the right and ACT are thrust in our face by MMP and licking Nationals arse, and you sit there holier than thou telling the left what’s wrong with them?

      How arrogant of you.

      If someone had a hit list in NZ I recon you’d be somewhere right up there kid.

      Keep fucking NZ and interfering in actual peoples lives, in some delusion that your immune from real life and the consequences of your actions, and I might make my own list.

      Because you , you piece of shit have damaged more lives than a psychopath. Time you pulled your head in and disappeared. When your voted out, or off the island, it means you Rodney are the weakest link, tarrah.

      • Richard Rawshark 32.7.1
        26 September 2016 at 12:53 pm

        Oh and BTW, just a little insight into your own personality Rodney if I may since arrogance and judging others is flavour of your judgemental day , did the fact the Herald closed all it opinions, to public opinions leave you kind of empty so much so that you had to come here to get your fix of having upset people and reading there anger. Because deep down you probably get a pleasurable experience when it happens.

        if so deep down you know your a sick fuck.

    • Richard Rawshark 32.8
      26 September 2016 at 1:08 pm

      I also find this rich, ever been to parliament lately Rodney and seen National slagging off labour, every single time, On TV every time labour did it, under labour, the last labour government, or in parliament when under privilege he really lets loose on being a twerp then the labour guy just gets up and tries to ask the question again and again to replies that are more wriggly than a wiggles in mid song.

      then you say “It’s attack and abuse. Never an argument why an idea is wrong. You present the left as a very unattractive and very narrow sect.”

      It’s infuriatingly hypocritical to the max, my god man, what are you on.

  33. Cinny 33
    25 September 2016 at 9:03 pm

    An irrelevant far right failed ballroom dancers comments about the left. ‘Has-been’ creating controversy in a desperate attempt to capture peoples attention for a moment.
    Propaganda includes his choice of photo

    Hey Roddy did you have a fall out on the social media with a left winger? Were your feelings hurt? Did they find your weakness Roddy? Are you fighting back now feeling a bit smugger in the knowledge that you would have been paid for this short piece. Feeling more empowered now?
    Did you know left wingers are more active on the social media and more knowledgeable in using it than right wingers? Oh dang that must turn your tyres. Care to comment on the behaviour of the young Nat’s or Slater in contrast?

    Lolololz you know the right are in trouble when they start bagging the left and their supporters flat out.

    Meanwhile on the Listening Post, so relevant re Rods problem with lefty social media users…

    “Venezuela: The battle over news coverage

    With pressure intensifying for Venezuela’s government, President Nicolas Maduro is tightening the screws on the media yet again. He is also encouraging his supporters to take their message online, but the battle to control the cyber narrative is not easier.”

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2016/09/venezuela-maduro-fighting-losing-media-war-160924071815615.html

    • ropata 33.1
      26 September 2016 at 2:20 am

      Nothing annoys the CT spin merchants more than losing control of the narrative.
      They had gained control of the old media but are still trying to get rid of those pesky online lefties and their inconvenient facts

  34. Henry Filth 34
    26 September 2016 at 3:06 am

    Back in the dim gloom that was the 1970s, even “Truth” made a vague stab at even-handed political opinions, with weekly columns by Messrs Muldoon and Rowling. Just fancy that.

    Any suggestions as to who the NZ Herald could or should put up as the left wing commentator?

    However I rather think that it won’t happen, as I suspect that the NZ Herald doesn’t actually see Mister Hide as “politics” in any meaningful way, but rather as just a body who can generate enough clicks on the website.

  35. illuminatedtiger 35
    26 September 2016 at 4:21 am

    Does Rodney have some perverse kind sexual infatuation with the Labour Party? I cannot recall him writing anything on a different subject.

  36. Observer Tokoroa 36
    26 September 2016 at 9:01 am

    .
    Thanks – and no Thanks Rodney Hide

    . You see Rodney you are good with your feet. But not so hot in the brain department. You are in fact the ideal scribe for a punk monolithic inkwaster like the Herald. You have all the sad credentials.

    For far from voting for a particular party I like to vote for good policy. Policy which benefits the wider community. The Common Man.

    But with your rampant testosterone squishing between your toes you accused me of being from the Left. I am not. Nor am from the Right. Hidebound parties are not my thing Rodney.

    But you rushed in, and as predicted you got it wrong again. You are so Auckland.

    Having communicated with me I will be bold and ask you to do me a favour please ? I would like you to get word to our very busy Prime Minister and congratulate him for increasing the number of Pokies at Sky City. I know, the Auditor frowned at the illegitimate deal. Auditors do that sought of thing.

    I value the pokie increase , because it is the only thing the PM and his patsies has achieved in 8 long years Rodney. (the trails could be a good idea when finished and publicised).

    Keep your feet on the ground mate. Good Dancers don’t fall.

    .
    .

  37. Richard Rawshark 37
    26 September 2016 at 12:21 pm

    “Dear people, you can do better than the Herald”

    Seriously.

  38. ropata 38
    28 September 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Seems the Herald editors read TS 🙂
    Canon-award winning journo Rachel Stewart will shake things up

    Very pleased to announce my column kicks off with the @nzherald next Wednesday. So cool to be given a shot with a major NZ newspaper.— Rachel Stewart (@RFStew) September 27, 2016

  39. James 39
    2 October 2016 at 12:36 pm

    Ummm…How about some opposing viewpoints to the countless third wave feminist drivel that gets thrown about in this paper on a weekly basis? You need a bloody balance, Herald is so consistently liberal you are crazy if you think there is any right wing/conservative bias.