Espiner becomes RNZ Morning Report host and Pagani criticises the Standard

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, December 31st, 2013 - 177 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags: ,

alternative-vs-mainstream-media-450x250

There were a couple of interesting stories yesterday relating to the mainstream media and the blogs.

Firstly it was announced that Guyon Espiner will become the new host on Morning Report.  This has caused some comment.  His appointment from the Mediaworks stable is unhelpful.  Radio New Zealand has always been part of the public service independent media model and an influx of people from private media, especially those being shown preference by the current government, has the potential to undermine the principle of independence.

Bomber Bradbury jumped into the debate and described Espiner’s appointment alongside that of Mike Hosking on TVOne’s Seven Sharp and Paul Henry replacing Nighline on TV3 as “the 3 broadcasters of the apocalypse” giving a hard right view of news just in time for the next election.  His criticism of Espiner may be a bit harsh although his comments about Hosking and Henry are appropriate.  But Espiner has come from the hard corporate edge of the media and you have to wonder if there was not someone within RNZ’s ranks who could have stepped up to the job.

And Josie Pagani has jumped into the debate describing Bradbury as abusive, in part for calling her a “Fox News Democrat”.  But she also took the opportunity to criticise the Standard despite Espiner’s appointment not even being commented on until this morning.

She states:

Martyn Bradbury’s unreasonable aggression has produced a truckload of ugly incidents lately, but the pattern of reprehensible abuse and aggression is not restricted to him.

Check out the tone of comments on The Standard nearly any given day.

I have no problem with argument – it’s why we are here. The contest of ideas is vital to progress and the only way we can tell good sense from bad.  So therefore it is important to distinguish argument from bullying, from hatred and denunciation, and from the politics of exclusion.

There is something wrong with a version of the left that despises people. The fundamental principle of the left is our compassion, our belief that no matter where you come from, or who you are, you deserve the same opportunities as anyone else. Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.

She also describes herself as a “pro-Labour commentator”.

She has been vilified in the past in part for her partner John Pagani’s rather bizarre campaign ideas.  His beneficiary on a roof speech written for David Shearer was justifiably ridiculed for its ham fisted beneficiary bashing tone.  And of course Josie should not be criticised for her partner’s actions.

But she has some strange views.  For instance:

The desire amongst activists is that they just want a spokesperson who actually represents what they think, not someone who feeds into right wing spin on what the Labour party stands for.  If the media want someone to speak on behalf of the Labour Party they should, like, actually reflect the thinking of members.

This is not radical.  Nor is it being mean to criticise her every time she comes out with a crazy notion such as support for casualised labour.

What Pagani does not appear to understand is that her views are at odds with those of most of the Labour Party’s activist base.  Her use by the media to present a Labour Party view of matters jars because she does not do that.  The media would be much better off using Queen of Thorns to provide lefty comments.

Rather than criticise commentators on the Standard Josie should consider her own views and wonder whether she is actually reflecting the views of progressives.  And if not she should question what her media role actually is and whose interests she is serving.

177 comments on “Espiner becomes RNZ Morning Report host and Pagani criticises the Standard ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. John Williams 1
    31 December 2013 at 11:11 am

    Nicely summed up Micky.

  2. Kevin Welsh 2
    31 December 2013 at 11:14 am

    It’s Guyon Espiner, Mickey.

    [Thanks mass change applied, brain obviously in holiday mode – MS]

  3. RedBaronCV 3
    31 December 2013 at 11:14 am

    Any chance of shifting earlier comments on this from open mike?.

    [I would but my technical skills are not up to moving a set of comments LPrent?]

  4. irascible 4
    31 December 2013 at 11:17 am

    Interestingly, I’ve never heard Josie Pagani comment on anything vaguely left or Labour. I’m left wondering why she might be thought of as being Labour or Left of anything?
    What are her “credentials” to present herself as a spokespersomn for the Labour Party or of Labour? Why do the mediagive her air or page space?
    Please help me underrstand this “commentator”.

    • weka 4.1
      31 December 2013 at 11:21 am

      Didn’t she used to work for the Labour party?

      • QoT 4.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 11:43 am

        She was the Labour candidate for Rangitikei in 2011. That’s where her ridiculous “we shouldn’t extend WFF to beneficiaries” anecdata comes from.

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 11:55 am

          Funny how she just said this then

          There is something wrong with a version of the left that despises people. The fundamental principle of the left is our compassion, our belief that no matter where you come from, or who you are, you deserve the same opportunities as anyone else. Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 1:34 pm

            It’s the same Bill Clinton-esque “I feel the pain of those doing it hard” bullshit which he spouted at the same time that he was cutting welfare to US children.

            • swordfish 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 January 2014 at 6:41 pm

              The Paganis have moved in a (not-entirely-untypical) right-wing trajectory over the last 12-15 years – slowly but surely co-opted into the neo-liberal establishment.

              I mean, they were founding members of the New Labour Party for fucksake !!! You know, the Left-Wing conscience of the Labour Party. They became prime movers in the Alliance in the 90s, moved with Anderton to become his Progressive Party spin doctors after the big bust-up. (Anderton promoting the Progs as Left of Labour economically and to the (conservative) Right on moral issues). From there they continued on their relentless rightward journey to become key advisors to Goff and Shearer, generally credited with encouraging the latter in a Right-leaning direction.

              And then the final neo-liberal coup de grace, John Pagani becomes a lobbyist for the mining industry in 2012, while Josie takes over some of his media gigs, her “right-wing opponents”, Hooton, Coddington, Farrar and Slater apparently often being complimentary about her views (according to the highly sympathetic daughter, sister and sister-in-law of various National Party Politicians, Audrey Young). Here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10847238

              They’re probably best seen as upwardly mobile opportunists these days.

  5. QoT 5
    31 December 2013 at 11:17 am

    The media would be much better off using Queen of Thorns to provide lefty comments.

    *applauds*

    Seriously though, my major beef with Josie Pagani is that she’s a terrible writer. That latest post about religion on Pundit which Sanctuary linked to? I have literally no idea what she was trying to say. Shelley Bridgeman is the soul of incisive commentary in comparison.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30122013/#comment-750832

    • Cemetery Jones 5.1
      31 December 2013 at 1:40 pm

      “Shelley Bridgeman is the soul of incisive commentary in comparison.”

      Nice. Now this, my friends, is how you deal a sick burn.

    • Tim 5.2
      31 December 2013 at 3:45 pm

      mmmmm! No, it’s not JUST that she’s a terrible writer, it’s that she’s a total fucking fake!

      By the way …. Can one grow grapes in Rangitikei? Olives perhaps? If so, expect a gorgeous Chardonnay, or very exclusive Pagani Olive Oil to be ‘marketed’ soon – perhaps even in this “2014 Boom Year” that confronts us all.
      Gorgeous Darling

  6. veutoviper 6
    31 December 2013 at 11:22 am

    Excellent summation, MS. I cringe every time I hear Josie Pagani described as representing the left, or pro-Labour. She certainly does not represent my views, and IMO her views are all over the place, as you have pointed out. I assume that she no longer has any standing, position in the Labour Party; and IMO it is time (indeed, past time) that this is pointed out publicly.

    PS – being a pedant, Guyon’s last name is spelt “Espiner” not Espinar”.

    EDIT – hadn’t seen any other comments when I wrote this.

  7. karol 7
    31 December 2013 at 11:28 am

    micky, you have laid out well the problems with Josie Pagani’s views as they relate to Labour and the wider left.

  8. captain hook 8
    31 December 2013 at 11:28 am

    whjy is morning report going to auckland?
    being in wellingotn gives some distance and objectivity to the huddling masses of the metropolis.
    cozying up to the mavens is not good for democracy.

  9. captain hook 9
    31 December 2013 at 11:30 am

    and Mickey dont worry about the pedants and their spelling.
    they are just red herring experts who cant sem to manage the challenge of sticking to the point.
    dig?

  10. weka 10
    31 December 2013 at 11:36 am

    I don’t know what Pagani’s background is, but she strikes me as the epitome, the flag-bearer even, of the parts of Labour/the left that have dragged the left to the right and are very happy to stay there. The parts of Labour described on ts as Chardonnay-drinking, middle-class liberals who have fucked the working class. She attracts ‘abuse’ from parts of the left for that continual betrayal, and because she fails to recognise how much she abuses whole swathes of people by using her positions of power in society to prop up neoliberalism all the while pretending to be on the left. For me it’s the dishonesty part that I find disgusting, that she has privilege from that whole sorry story of Labour’s part in neoliberalism and that she doesn’t want to give it up.

    I’ll also note that the middle classes really don’t like rudeness, and sometimes tend to experience it as abuse. I haven’t looked too closely at what her actual claims are, and am more than willing to accept that abuse is going on at times, but I also think it’s likely that there are very real class, and political, differences in perceptions of what is abuse and what is not.

    There is also this middle class, we’re all reasonable people here, thing that everyone is entitled to their opinion and being able to express it without being subjected to harrassment (there was a classic example of that with Rhinocrates on Public Address a few weeks ago). However some opinions and actions deserve ridicule and probably eventually abuse where the reactions are not being taken seriously. Pagani probably doesn’t differentiate much between her beliefs and how she acts on them in the world in ways that affect others, because in the world where you have all your needs met, ideas are just ideas, not tools and weapons.

    (CV, Pagani is one of the people you should be targeting for boutique politics, not your natural allies here on ts).

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      31 December 2013 at 1:37 pm

      +1 good comments weka

      also important to recognise that the right wing of the Labour caucus have definite right wing membership and institutional support…

      Here I’m broadening the term “Right Wing” to include anyone who continues to buy into the globalised neoliberal economic framework as something which will deliver prosperity, happiness and long life to most, if not all.

      • karol 10.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 1:41 pm

        the right wing of the Labour caucus have definite right wing membership and institutional support…

        can you elaborate on tat, CV?

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 2:15 pm

          As a concrete example, the Affiliate unions supported an increase in the retirement age. At Conference other members spoke up in support of the benefits of free trade and the TPP.

          In terms of institutional support – I would look at the example of the US Democratic Party. Which under Obama built on trends from Clinton days and exceeded even Republican corporate fundraising levels.

          The genius of Bill Clinton in cosying up to Wall St and the big banks was that he understood that workers and unions had no other party to turn to, anyway.

          Further, I’m pretty sure that those in Treasury and the Reserve Bank view Labour as being a safe pair of hands vis a vis the dominant neoloiberal economic framework.

          • karol 10.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 2:19 pm

            OK. Good examples,. thanks, CV.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.2
            31 December 2013 at 5:24 pm

            Further, I’m pretty sure that those in Treasury and the Reserve Bank view Labour as being a safe pair of hands vis a vis the dominant neoloiberal economic framework.

            Yep and maintaining the present banking system which will ensure that NZ will continue to be in debt and that NZers will be working to make the banksters richer rather than NZ better. It’s a system we need to change and we won’t get that change from Labour as David Cunliffe has already said.

            • Macro 10.1.1.1.2.1
              31 December 2013 at 6:44 pm

              exactly.. the Banking system which is the basis of the economic policy of today is nothing more than theft, sucking the wealth from the many to the control of the few. Local monies and systems of “barter” based on localised markets offer the possibility of people again gaining control of their lives and destinies, while providing the basis for building a sustainable economy.

              • aerobubble …
                4 January 2014 at 12:37 pm

                Capitalism started off nice, finding needs and supply them. Then every so often Governments get lazy, stupid, or a both and start printing money. In fact they did this initially by loosening finance, and so started the printing in the private sector. The printing now is to bring the excess onto the books. You see capitalism goes bad from time to time when instead of supplying demand, it creates demand as there too much money around and the unnecessary necessity to keep citizens busy. More pointedly, we have a plague of artificial self creating distortion driven capitalists, instead of distortion meeting capitalists who are merely a small part of the economy.

          • Jill 10.1.1.1.3
            1 January 2014 at 8:04 am

            The Affiliates did not support an increase in the superannuation age at the recent LP Conference.Nor did we support the TPP.

            • Jim Nald 10.1.1.1.3.1
              1 January 2014 at 3:21 pm

              Please excuse my ignorance or lack of knowledge or background about the issues. As an observer who is very interested in the issues, I am trying to work it all out.

              CV: “As a concrete example, the Affiliate unions supported an increase in the retirement age”

              Jill: “The Affiliates did not support an increase in the superannuation age at the recent LP Conference.”

              I understand the votes on the day gave (delegated?) caucus the discretion to decide on the issue of superannuation age. If the votes went that way, and if it was known to caucus that an increase in the superannuation age would not be supported, then there are two questions:

              – why did caucus vis a vis Parker announce the increase in the superannuation age, while knowing what the voters really wanted?
              – what did the voters expect would happen by giving caucus such a discretion, and did voters not factor in the implications of caucus exercising the discretion against the preferred position held by voters?

              As I said at the outset, please pardon my ignorance or any errors in understanding about the issues. I would really like some clarification about this. As well, another question that arises is what would the voters have done differently (or need to do differently, if there is a next time)?

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.3.2
              1 January 2014 at 3:22 pm

              IIRC, at the policy session the Affiliates supported a change to the super age remit which said that caucus would look at what age increase, if any, was appropriate. The remit did not state a specific age that super eligibility would be increased to, but left it up to caucus.

              When it went to the Conference floor vote, I recall no more than a handful of voters against the motion, which would have been far more had the affiliates stood against the motion.

        • felix 10.1.1.2
          1 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

          “can you elaborate on tat, CV?”

          lolz 😀

    • Macro 10.2
      31 December 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Hear! Hear!

      There is still unfortunately a strong faction within Labour who are still deeply entrenched in the failed economics of neo-liberalism and who think that all that is needed is a bit of “humanitarianism” liberally applied. They cannot see that the economic woes that beset this country are largely as a result of the policies adopted by Douglas and to a lesser extent the Clarke Government (I’m thinking Free Trade “deals” here and the opening of our boarders to all and sundry.) These actions may have seemed good sense at the time, but the result is an erosion of our ability to fend for ourselves, to the extent that like the recent post on the decline of the USA to 3rd world status, so too can the same be said for NZ.

      The policies of the past 30 years must be reversed if this country is to have any future. In the words of Dylan:

      “get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand – for the times they are a’changing”

  11. tinfoilhat 11
    31 December 2013 at 11:39 am

    In my opinion her views on many of the comments at this blog are pretty much spot on.

    • weka 11.1
      31 December 2013 at 11:49 am

      The only thing she says in that link about ts is this –

      “Check out the tone of comments on The Standard nearly any given day.”

      Pretty vague. What was it you agreed with exactly?

    • lprent 11.2
      31 December 2013 at 1:04 pm

      Talking about your own comments tfh?
      I usually just spam them because they are so full of bile and zero actual content.

      • tinfoilhat 11.2.1
        31 December 2013 at 1:29 pm

        QED from one of the worst offenders.

        • karol 11.2.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 1:33 pm

          Glad you admit to the proof of your, offending, tfh!

        • fender 11.2.1.2
          31 December 2013 at 1:39 pm

          TFH, can you confirm who this comment was directed at?

          • tinfoilhat 11.2.1.2.1
            31 December 2013 at 3:14 pm

            BM

            • fender 11.2.1.2.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 3:32 pm

              Oh that’s good, ’cause it looks like an uncalled for attack on our (in less than a year) next PM.

              • tinfoilhat …
                31 December 2013 at 3:48 pm

                No, not at all………. but on that note I’m not sure if you saw Cunliffe and Key delivering their respective XMAS messages on TV ?

                I couldn’t help wondering if they were the best we could do for prospective PMs after the next election…….. both very uninspiring… a bit like the two main contenders for the Auckland mayoralty race.

                • fender …
                  31 December 2013 at 7:49 pm

                  No I missed the TV messages, but I’m confident Cunliffe was speaking from the heart and meant what he said, whereas Key no doubt was just going through the motions as usual while considering whether the holiday home windows have been cleaned as per instructions.

                  Cunliffe is far above the shonKey fake as well as the Auckland mayoralty candidates, you will see this in time if you doubt it at present.

                  • phillip ure …
                    1 January 2014 at 6:24 pm

                    @ key/cunnliffe speeches..

                    ..sorry fender..i saw both..

                    ..(i was stuck in a moose-trap..couldn’t get to the remote..)

                    ..and it was neck and neck for ‘shudder!’/retch-reaction..to both..

                    ..both were exercises in cloying-embarrassment..

                    ..leaving you sobbing ‘please.!…god..!..no..!’..

                    ..and wanting to drive hot-needles into yr eyes..

                    ..just to make it all stop..

                    ..phillip ure..

          • sockpuppet 11.2.1.2.2
            31 December 2013 at 5:26 pm

            Oh what wit Karol methinks you might be the next Morrisey.

  12. greywarbler 12
    31 December 2013 at 11:46 am

    The fundamental principle of the left is our compassion, our belief that no matter where you come from, or who you are, you deserve the same opportunities as anyone else. Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.

    This sounds like the theory of Christianity (the practice does not always follow). It could be said that Labour has a desire to implement this, but if it is following these Christian principles then it could be said to be up against the evil Devil of wilful neglect of those principles, even hate of ordinary society. With that to contend with, Josie Pagani’s idea of Labour brings to mind a spongey shoe inner-sole that eases the upwards thrust for financial runners and social-climbing athletes rather than the pressures on the souls of the lower-income classes underneath.

    • karol 12.1
      31 December 2013 at 11:55 am

      Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.

      Except when it comes to TS.

      • greywarbler 12.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 1:08 pm

        Martyn Bradbury’s unreasonable aggression has produced a truckload of ugly incidents lately, but the pattern of reprehensible abuse and aggression is not restricted to him.

        Check out the tone of comments on The Standard nearly any given day.

        I have no problem with argument – it’s why we are here. The contest of ideas is vital to progress and the only way we can tell good sense from bad. So therefore it is important to distinguish argument from bullying, from hatred and denunciation, and from the politics of exclusion.

        I don’t come to TS to drink tea with my little finger extended. I get information, ideas, feel the pulse of thinking, intelligent people and get chided, encouraged, damned, whatever. People here are exercising their intellect, not just passing time till the End of the Universe.

        We are concerned about our own future, our children’s future, or our neighbour’s children’s future, etc. and we are afraid of the direction that leaders the politicians the powerful and their sycophantic offsiders are taking us in. While the populace watches bemused, or anaethestised, or stupified by dopey mendacious media and smiling bonhomie or competent confident delivery of misleading irrelevancies that are merely propaganda. That’s what we are concerned about Josie. What is your passion, that great in word with the chattering class! If you find it is too raw and uncouth, you could always take up gardening, or write a new book for the post-modern PC person on how to behave suitably in interesting times.

  13. tricledrown 13
    31 December 2013 at 11:52 am

    Pagani and Williams are trying to get Nationals soft middle class vote by pandering to their predjudices.
    Labour would be better served by getting the 800,000 who didn’t vote out to vote.
    That requires the membership to get out and door knock pamplet and help on election day.
    Does Labour have this membership.
    Or are they stuck with the Pagani Williams solution of targeting soft National support.
    With a strengthening economy
    Populist PM.
    I Doubt many soft National voters will change sides.
    So that leaves labour having to work buttsoff and have policy aimed at the 800,000 who are angry disenfranhised.
    If Pagani and Williams had any brains they would push Left instead of right.

    • Naturesong 13.1
      31 December 2013 at 12:13 pm

      I would suggest that soft National voters won’t change away from National because of Pagani / Williams, but because of GCSB/TICS, Pollution and obvious corruption in the Beehive.

      I know several voters who previously voted National who will now not be voting National this election because of those issues. However, most are simply abstaining from voting since they don’t trust Cunliffe (Herald; Job done)

      • aerobubble 13.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 12:42 pm

        National voters are not being served by Key’s government, selling assets when they don’t have the spare cash, supporting the big end of town while ignoring the small (Hobbit gets money while the industry gets nobbled by dithering), numerous economic issues can be shown to harm core national voters.

        What I never got about the Goff election was how concentrated they were on asset sales alone.

        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 13.1.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 1:50 pm

          National voters are not being served by Key’s government

          Growth up, business confidence highest since 1994, terms of trade highest since 1974, unemployment down, country on track for a Budget surplus, crime down, child mortality down, would you like me to continue? Pick up a newspaper or open a NZ news site.

          NZ is in the best shape it has been for decades. National voters are fucking LOVING this Government.

          • Naturesong 13.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 2:18 pm

            Thats why so many National voters I know won’t be voting National next year?

            The disconnect is strong in this one

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 13.1.1.1.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 2:24 pm

              So you know lots of National voters do you, class traitor?

              • Naturesong …
                31 December 2013 at 3:12 pm

                Class traitor? Rofl.

                Yes, I know quite a few. I’m middle class, both sides of my family are, and I grew up in Epsom. Academics on one side, engineers, lawyers, accountants on the other.
                I was even in the same class as Cameron Slater at intermediate (he was a nice kid back then – no idea what happened to him since).
                I can most easily be described as a social democrat, and am arguably the left most leaning of my family (although my cousin, who earns something in the region of 1/2 mil per year did marry a real socialist – he’s very cool, scary bright, and is able to make you question the very ground you walk on – he did his doctorate in pure mathematics – bring your “A” game to the annual christmas political conversation, er smackdown).

                My point of view is not because of ideology, or some esoteric liberal caring about the downtrodden while sipping Riesling, it’s pure self interest

                I like to swim in rivers, eat fresh shellfish and fish that I’ve caught. I enjoy unpolluted beaches. I grew up in a community. I know that institutions, democratic or otherwise are prone to corruption if sharp eyes are not kept on them.
                I know that a higher standard of living is measured in quality of life, not how much money you can count behind the walls of a gated community. In the health of a nations population. In ensuring all New Zealanders have the opportunities I took for granted growing up.
                I don’t like to be spied on by my government. I want the right to have my voice heard, to assemble peacefully, to democratic representation, to know that the people I vote for will act in the interests of the majority of the population whilst ensuring that they do not disadvantage any other section of the population.
                I want my government to ensure I am protected from rapacious corporations, not enable or collude with them, or just give them great wads of my tax money.
                I want the government to be cost effective, not let staff go because it looks good politically, and them have to hire those same people as consultants for twice as much.

                I wish all of these things for the children I am yet to have, as well as for the children of my siblings and cousins, irrespective of who they vote for.

                At it’s most basic level the choice is between the following:
                a) Walls, Prisons, Pollution and Corruption or
                b) Quality public services, Education and Welfare

                New Zealand is one of the very few countries that still has the potential to be paradise on earth. Socially, economically and environmentally. And we’re blowing it.

              • Lanthanide …
                31 December 2013 at 3:16 pm

                Unfortunately, right-wing thinking is almost like a mental illness, in that it pervades many levels of society. I say like a mental illness because those in the low-middle class would generally be better off voting for a left-wing party, but they vote for National instead.

                • McGrath …
                  31 December 2013 at 3:49 pm

                  The same could be applied to the Left in its efforts to punish success.

                  To see Socialism in action, just look at the paradise that is now France. Their economy is performing badly. There is also the other postcard for socialism, Venezuela. Again another country who is plummeting despite significant natural oil reserves. These countries are failing their lower class

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    31 December 2013 at 3:54 pm

                    Don’t be a fucking dork.

                    France is sucking because their banks, including BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole and SG are in the red with hundreds of billions in off balance sheet derivatives.

                    Add to that their signing away of currency sovereignty and you get the situation you have now.

                    Venezuela has been under constant economic attack by the USA and by transnational corporate interests.

                    Basically, you are pointing at the economic explosions, yet quietly ignoring who is firing the artillery. Dick.

                    • McGrath …
                      31 December 2013 at 6:31 pm

                      CV. All the world is a conspiracy theory for you it seems, yet you miss the bleeding obvious. NZ is doing a lot better economically then most OECD countries. Nothing to do with class wars, corporate conspiracy, illuminati, or anything else you’ve been smoking. Far-Left Wing economies do worse off overall.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:54 pm

                      How can it be a “conspiracy” when it’s a fact out there in the open? Do you use the word “conspiracy” because having those facts out in the open make you uncomfortable? If so, that’s quite understandable.

                      Of course NZ continues to do OK. Which country wouldn’t, borrowing tens of millions of dollars a week just to keep things ticking along.

                      And now you want to give Bill English and National credit for putting the tab on our sovereign credit card? You really are a dick.

                    • MaxFletcher …
                      1 January 2014 at 2:00 pm

                      “Don’t be a fucking dork.”
                      “Dick.”
                      “You really are a dick.”
                      “LOL fuck off.”

                      Aren’t you running (or did run) for a seat in parliament?

                  • Naturesong …
                    31 December 2013 at 4:54 pm

                    Or, for an actual example, see Red Vienna

                    • greywarbler …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:55 pm

                      That’s so interesting Naturesong. The city advances, and the countryside becomes more conservative. It seems a regular thing. Afghanistan – Kabul and the country under local leaders or warlords etc.

                  • greywarbler …
                    31 December 2013 at 5:48 pm

                    Mcgrath
                    I can smell RWT on your breath. You have to learn past economics 101 to talk on this blog. Or breathe through your nose and read fast. Don’t talk about other economies or indeed this one before you can bring a holistic financial viewpoint to the site. Every country is doing badly. Just some more than others. And no-one to bankrupt them to bring them some quiet moments to break their feverish activity that is snowballing towards us, or some say. Others burn paper effigies in a fire and watch the ashes blow away, turning their problems to lighter than air.

                    • McGrath …
                      31 December 2013 at 6:50 pm

                      I just disagree with the extremes, be it left wing or right wing. For me Centre-Right is the best position, Centre-Left the 2nd. I could quote more than Economics 101 (being an Honours Major in Economics), however I fear that would be missed on most.

                      I worry (though I suspect I’m in the minority here) that Labour is lurching too far left. Labour will get into power eventually, and I don’t want them fucking things up with extremes.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 December 2013 at 7:14 pm

                      I just disagree with the extremes, be it left wing or right wing.

                      No you don’t, you believe in extreme right-wing ideology. This is proven by your support of this extreme right-wing government and what it’s doing to the economy, the environment and the people who live here. None of it is very good or sustainable.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      31 December 2013 at 7:19 pm

                      Honours Major in Economics

                      Ah yes, but do you have a degree in astrology or phrenology to make that look more respectable?

                      Cherry-picking France is not argument (as Grumpy in another thread should learn about a trapped ship).

                      Matthew Arnold called economics the “dismal science”. He was right about the first word, but wrong on the second. It fails the most basic empirical criteria used by real sciences. A recent letter to New Scientist hit the nail on the head:

                      “Science, which aims to describe the real world, is based is based on the laws of physics and chemistry with defined units of measure. Economics, in the artificial world of money, is based on questionable and unreliable assumptions about human behaviour, and uses undefined and variable units of measure. There’s no science in it.”

                      The crucial thing is that in the real sciences, all units of measure are transferable – joules, newtons, metres, kilograms can all be transferred and translated… except in the cargo cult of economics which only superficially imitates science.

                      So you have a piddling graduate enrolment in an embarrassing pseudoscience – but how fluent in Klingon are you?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2013 at 7:23 pm

                      lol

                      dude, you’re extreme right – and puffing yourself up because you’re an undergrad for a degree in religion impresses nobody.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 December 2013 at 7:45 pm

                      rhino – finely flambeed topped with an indelicate sauce. 🙂

                      majQa’

                    • Kevin Welsh …
                      31 December 2013 at 7:51 pm

                      Funny how equality, fairness etc, are now considered extremes.

                    • McGrath …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:35 pm

                      I never knew that getting a university education and doing well for yourself makes me an extreme right winger. I apologise to you all for my success. Given that the amount of tax I pay probably funds a significant number of benefit lifestyles on this blog, I definitely apologise for that as well.

                    • karol …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:47 pm

                      Hahahahaa….McGrath.

                      You’re making some assumptions there @ 8.35pm. You may surprised by how successful some here are in their chosen fields. We have people here who have been through Uni education, and have a very good grasp of what it’s about – and we have people here who have learned way more than some graduates, from life experience, reading, discussion etc. Great thing about the net and pseudonyms is you stand or fall on the arguments you make here, not on paper credentials.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:27 pm

                      McGrath, when your claim to intellectual authority is something that’s not commonly achieved by people in their very early twenties, you might not be such a laughing stock.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      31 December 2013 at 9:50 pm

                      I never knew that getting a university education and doing well for yourself makes me an extreme right winger.

                      It does when that education is in “economics” and thus has absolutely nothing to do with the real world. We know this because every time we listen to the economists and implement policies based upon their sayings the economy collapses, we get more poverty but a few people make out like bandits.

                      The economics taught at uni is nothing more than a justification for capitalism.

                    • alwyn …
                      1 January 2014 at 1:50 pm

                      rhinocrates at 7.19pm.

                      You tell us that “Mathew Arnold called economics the ‘dismal science'”

                      Well he didn’t actually. The person who DID say that was Thomas Carlyle.

                      Is the rest of your comment equally erroneous?

                    • phillip ure …
                      1 January 2014 at 6:34 pm

                      heh..!..to rhino..and others..

                      ..mcgrath..you have been so ‘owned’..

                      ..eh..?

                      ..v. funny..

                      ..economists grumping to be accepted as serious thinkers..

                      ..is always a bit of a hoot..

                      ..but the howls of derision directed at the pretensions of mcgrath..

                      ..do have a satisfying odour of sulpher about them..

                      phillip ure..

                    • Puddleglum …
                      1 January 2014 at 7:20 pm

                      Hi McGrath @ 6:50pm,

                      I’m interested in fleshing out your descriptors of ‘Centre Right’ and your declared aversion to political (and economic?) extremes.

                      Which of the economic policy changes instituted by the fourth Labour Government and by the National Government in 1990-1993 do you consider to be extreme and which do you consider to be ‘centrist’ (‘Centre Right’ or ‘Centre Left’)?

                • Harriet …
                  31 December 2013 at 3:49 pm

                  So under the 9 years of a Labour government compared to the current 6 of National – who then were they better off under?

                  I’ll answer that – National. Why? – because no one is complaining that they ‘lost stuff’ under national that they ‘owned’ under Labour.

                  The current situation is just the ups and downs of a market economy in a turbulent international enviroment – with the added misfortune of an earthquake. everyone sees that.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    31 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

                    LOL fuck off.

                    • greywarbler …
                      31 December 2013 at 5:52 pm

                      CV
                      Peace man.
                      Don’t let the troll or trolless settle. A little dimp will do it. Maybe he/she has enough blood and it’s stopped raining. It’s interesting that tsmithfield stopped when harriet started harrassing. Do you think it’s a tag team.

                    • Anne …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:10 pm

                      What’s H talking about? 😕

                    • karol …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:13 pm

                      Anne, just a randian looking vainly for her lost morality in a turbulent market economy.

                    • rhinocrates …
                      31 December 2013 at 8:28 pm

                      “turbulent”?

                      I thought it was “dinamick”.

                  • Francis …
                    1 January 2014 at 1:59 am

                    I can’t figure out whether you’re serious or not…

                    • phillip ure …
                      1 January 2014 at 6:37 pm

                      @..is she serious..?

                      ..that’s harriet..and yes..she is ‘serious’..

                      ..and is considered a rightie..

                      ..by the righties on kiwiblog..

                      ..best to just laugh at her..

                      ..do a ‘mcgrath’ on her..

                      philip ure..

                  • newsense …
                    3 January 2014 at 8:54 pm

                    err….

                    I do remember owning a lot more in the way of power companies, our national airline, etc etc…

              • McGrath …
                31 December 2013 at 3:37 pm

                Class Traitor! What is this, North Korea?

                • McFlock …
                  31 December 2013 at 7:27 pm

                  I love it when tories believe each others’ bullshit

                  • Tim …
                    1 January 2014 at 12:40 pm

                    You know … once upon a time in a past life when I was a sysprog in the banking sector (oft providing support to banks’ dealing rooms and elsewhere) … we used to monitor these economic ‘sages’ – many of who you now see pop up on MSM television screens, and most hons and masters grads.
                    We logged their ‘predictions’ against the reality. Fuck me! Quelle surprise! – Most times a frikken dart board would have been more accurate. It all became boring and ended up being a syndicate whereby we’d take turns at placing bets at the TAB.
                    (And strangely enough, though I’d never placed a bet in my life before and had to be educated on how to fill out the necessary – it was definitely a more profitable exercise for all concerned).
                    Pardon me Mr or Ms McGrath if I don’t take your credentials seriously.

          • aerobubble 13.1.1.1.2
            3 January 2014 at 1:18 pm

            The talking points. Key delayed the rebuild so the economic spurt occurs in the election year. China’s demand for milk will shrink as they innovate new dairy methods. Crime was already going down (though violet crime is up), child poverty has risen as housing costs have hit.

            National are not serving Kiwis, especially National voters by getting out in front of disasters, or Chinese growth, while ignoring the huge long term problems from ignoring the tail. Small business owners need the young to replace the older consumers of their products and services, when one young person will be tax to sustain three older people its a huge waste of manpower to shove the young into overcrowded under heated, moldy leaking over priced rentals and store up a tsunami of health woes in the future workforce.

            Key dithers on the pressing problems, intervenes to quickly for the top end, and claims credit for stuff he had nothing to do with.

            And we still haven’t gotten to the elephant, that the US will end printing of money and the world economy will then need to deal with the over supply of huge calls of value (money).

    • phillip ure 13.2
      31 December 2013 at 12:17 pm

      “..If Pagani and Williams had any brains they would push Left instead of right..”

      ‘fuck-the-poor’ and ‘i agree with matthew’ can’t do that..they are both neo-lib true-believers..

      ..it worked for them…eh..?

      ..phillip ure..

    • Olwyn 13.3
      1 January 2014 at 11:31 am

      Tricledown: “Pagani and Williams are trying to get Nationals soft middle class vote by pandering to their prejudices.”

      That is the justification they made for supporting David Shearer; “We need the middle class if we are to win.” However, I think they are skirting around a deeper problem, which is that the current economic consensus increasingly conflicts with Labour’s stated principles. Given that this same economic consensus has removed many of the service-oriented, upper middle class footholds, working for the Labour Party is now among the last of the cool jobs. Hence I suspect the “appeal to the middle class” is more about “the right to a cool job for people like me” that any broader thesis.

      It is a very big problem for the left. Those inside the magic circle want their cool jobs. Those on the outside want representation, which the economic consensus effectively rules out. And with each turn of the screw the two positions get harder to reconcile.

  14. Ad 14
    31 December 2013 at 12:09 pm

    Invite her to blog here. Lprent to moderate.
    See if she’s up to it.

    • karol 14.1
      31 December 2013 at 12:11 pm

      I think Pagani has never gotten over the fact that Mr Pagani was banned from here.

      • Anne 14.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 12:40 pm

        There is something wrong with a version of the left that despises people. The fundamental principle of the left is our compassion, our belief that no matter where you come from, or who you are, you deserve the same opportunities as anyone else. Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.

        Like others, that post gave me the best belly-laugh of the day. But I object strongly to the above segment. It smacks of arrogance and stupidity. I have seen more compassion, caring and a general humanitarian attitude towards our unluckiest citizens expressed here on a daily basis… than has ever come from MSM personnel and journalists in an entire month. They don’t have the time because they’re too busy patting each other on the backs and telling one another what great guys and gals they are. Pfft! Most don’t seem to have a clue what they’re talking about, and every time Josie bursts into print she verifies it.

      • Tim 14.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 5:07 pm

        I think Pagani has never gotten over herself – what’s the buzz? FIFY maybe.
        Ekshly, I suspect she’s in training to become the next Rosie McLeod.
        Down with the trendy bros and lefties in her heyday, now content with a limo-like ride to the RNZ studios when the nicest man on Earth summons her.
        Kind of like a poor man’s BBC gig

    • lprent 14.2
      31 December 2013 at 12:56 pm

      Or I could reply on Nat radio.

  15. Will@Welly 15
    31 December 2013 at 1:06 pm

    This commentary has gotten side-tracked by a soft case of middle-class woes, in this case, Paganitisms. The real concern should be the appointment of Espiner, and what appears to be an obvious shift in the near future of Morning Report, and National Radio to Auckland. Simon Mercip and Jim Mora are already stationed there.
    National have hated National Radio for years, and if they could, this is the one institution they would sell off and privatize. Dick Griffin was essentially appointed to oversee the privatization of RNZ, there is no doubt about that, the agenda is plain for all to see. Shifting RNZ to Auckland makes it more marketable long-term.
    Once again, democracy is under threat by this National-led administration, and they and their cronies are stacking the decks so that the voices of opposition are silenced in the year of Parliamentary elections. F**K the Tories, take a leaflet out of Bomber Bradbury’s and rise up.

    • Jesus Wept 15.1
      31 December 2013 at 2:05 pm

      Agreed Will. Josie just wants to be loved.
      More importantly I’m old enough to remember the Listener with Gordon Campbell doing the Politics rap – not the present Pamela Stirling crap. And Public TV – now that was an idea. Must have been unbalanced – called a tory spade a shit shovel. So yeah – what’s our Guyon gonna do? More than a worry.

  16. Tracey 16
    31 December 2013 at 2:11 pm

    I guess she has ignored all the posts in poverty to be able to write this

    “There is something wrong with a version of the left that despises people. The fundamental principle of the left is our compassion, our belief that no matter where you come from, or who you are, you deserve the same opportunities as anyone else. Ours is the politics of redemption, forgiveness and humanity.”

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      31 December 2013 at 2:18 pm

      Don’t you know, the wealthy plutocrat class (many of whom are white and male) are an under siege minority who deserve our special compassion and sympathy…don’t we realise how tough life is at the top, dammit?

  17. Tracey 17
    31 December 2013 at 2:14 pm

    When espiner first entered my consciousness I though he was even handed if not left sympathetic. He says he never felt comfortable in commercial tv. Perhaps to keep a job he had to start leaning to the right?
    Maybe he has got out to return to why he became a journalist?
    Will listen with interest. BLiP might want to email his thread to guyon at th end of april.

  18. Tracey 18
    31 December 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Greywarbler way up there… bravo and bloody well expressed. Thanks for writing my thoughts so clearly.

  19. Tracey 19
    31 December 2013 at 2:31 pm

    Lol cv…

    labour need to ask national when the so called good news will reach the 50% of kiwis earning below 29000… they have been tightening their belts since 1984. Some have died waiting for the promised benefits of such good news. Trot out median incomes not averages… if good times mean half the population are on under 30k we must be on the wrong path.

  20. greywarbler 20
    31 December 2013 at 2:52 pm

    I haven’t read everything on this thread so might be repeating. But I looked up info on current CEO at Radionz. And found Frank Macskasy blog with good comments and info. He’s been watching a lot of things and Radionz is among them. Here’s a bit of background.

    http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/peter-cavanagh/
    15 June 2013
    Radio NZ’s new CEO –
    Paul Thompson is currently the Group Executive Editor of Fairfax Media in New Zealand and a former award winning editor of the Christchurch Press and the Nelson Mail.

    There was concern that he was too close to corporates.
    I read the funding hasn’t gone up since 2009 when it was $31 million per annum approx. A very good read from Frank with further useful links.

    Then on Peter Cavanaugh who came from OZ SBS and was praised for holding the line on quality and resisting government attempts to find other funding streams. This apparently didn’t please gummint.

    This is about one unsettling happening resulting from a comment on Mora’s show.
    10 October 2011
    Bradbury’s comments are highly critical of the Prime Minister’s actions on the day of the “Balcony Jumper”, and describes Key in unflattering terms.
    So because Bradbury has criticised John Key’s actions, CEO Peter Cavanaugh has banned him from participating in Radio NZ again, and has removed Part Two of the Panellists Hour.

    Martyn Bradbury explains the situation here.
    If this doesn’t smack of Big Brother, then what does? In effect, Cavanaugh accepts right wing critical comments – often directed at the Greens or the Labour Party – but balks at criticism of the Prime Minister?!
    Since when has it been a bannable offense to criticise the Prime Minister?

    • Will@Welly 20.1
      31 December 2013 at 3:29 pm

      Look/listen to many of Jim Mora’s panelists. There has been an incremental swing to the right over recent years. Also there has been a lightening in the tone of the show, a lot more triviality, rather than any real indepth discussion.
      As for criticism of John Key, trying standing up in any of the various religious sects and denouncing the head of their religions – it’s called heresy. The same with criticizing our dear leader, unbecoming to those who worship at the alter of the almighty dollar, and every corrupt politician and crony who follows in their wake.
      Perhaps we need to re-write the western calendar, B.C., A.D., and now N.O., and so we are in approx. year 29 N.O., the 29th year of the Neo Liberal era. Over half my life has existed in the era of purgatory. What a f**ken abomination.

    • xtasy 20.2
      31 December 2013 at 10:44 pm

      Greywarbler, you are coming up with some great comments here, and I as now mostly just TS reader, feel once more prompted to put in my voice.

      Radio NZ is already so much compromised, and has moved towards the “right” as the whole of the NZ establishment and society have. Listen to this, where one “Simon Mercenary” presents a supposedly “independent” program on the housing and property issues, mainly in Auckland and Christchurch.

      Listen to the “experts” and panel members he or RNZ chose. They are:
      The CEO of the Real Estate Institute, Helen O’Sullivan,
      the Westpac Chief Economist Dominic Stevens and
      the Property Investors Association member Anthony King!!!

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/outspoken/audio/2580670/outspoken-for-31-december-2013-property

      What a fricking joke!. We get this more and more, and you must ask, what is going on? Now Guyon Espiner, one of the greatest and smartest “spin-meisters” for this government, will join “Simon Mercenary” to host the “Morning Report” show, to tell people what to think and how to vote. That is in addition to Radio Live and 1 ZB hosts already openly telling people that Labour and the “left” are “shite”, and that they should trust John Key.

      Indeed, still now, after the leadership change, much of Labour is “shite”, because there are too many in Caucus manipulating the outcome of the last conference, and the whole program. The ones like Pagani and Williams, and the latter one I heard with Hooton, either on RNZ or Radio Live a few weeks back, saying, Cunliffe would not be “that left”, they should be THROWN OUT of the Labour Party!

      Sadly though, apart from these issues, the whole society has been totally brain-washed and compromised, and the traditional Labour voters have all been forced into individual employment contracts, or into contracting self employment over the years. There is little solid Labour voting basis now. The unions are weak and hardly make a mark. The public are totally corrupted, divided and brainwashed into endless consumerism, self serving ideas, by commercialism, by falling for all the kinds of trappings and seductions there are. And re the latter, Key is the master of seduction. I went to Sylvia Park Shopping Centre in East Auckland today, and I saw, the GREATEST TEMPLE in the country, full of “worshippers” of consumption, of material goods on offer, and it all was so “clean”, “organised”, “safe”, “accommodating”, “convenient”, “nice” and catering for everyone who just wanted to be away from anything “bad”, it was like a “temple” of seduction, which it is. Most ‘escape” into this kind of environment, as the day to day routine is dull, depressing and leaves them as nothing but numbers and commodities. But with their addictive “replacement therapies” (e.g. shopping), most do not realise they are caught, manipulated and trapped, kept into dependence by corporations, that control all their wants and needs.

      There is NO labour movement left in New Zealand, because this evil system has corrupted the majority of the populace, and they party tonight, like there is no tomorrow, fooling themselves that this ritual will set them free. Thinking and true awareness only exists still in a minority, and unless the “addiction” to this lying, consumerist, manipulative life style imposed on us, is stopped, we will not see any real chance for a left win this coming year.

      Most will follow the piper Key, into the abyss, as all seems so nice, for most, they do not even comprehend anymore what goes on. They are all led and misled, ill informed, do not even bother informing themselves anymore. Modern day manipulated slaves and idiots, I am afraid, they make up too large a percentage of the population and voters. Even beneficiaries forced into draconian conditions, rather try to do all to please their case manager, than to stand their ground and unite.

      I wish it was different, but I cannot see any improvement on the horizon. Pour another drink to keep the people drunk that is more or less how this government has most hooked!

      To take control, people have to revolt and occupy, but you will find only one in a thousand ready to do so. Forget the “revolution” in one of the most brain washed countries on earth, it is called New Zealand!

      • greywarbler 20.2.1
        1 January 2014 at 1:46 pm

        xtasy
        I think your critique is spot on. Depressing though. So I think the only way is to push it towards back of mind and keep doing positive things to deal with the stand-out concerns. I apologise to you in advance if in my critical comments in this year I speak against a matter that is important to you. I am getting anxious to see the paradigms change so there is pragmatic facing of what Labour is up against and we have to focus.

        The thinking that will help that I read in CVs comments. I am impressed by CVs thinking on just about everything. He makes good sense and is wise and thoughtful beyond his years. He makes me a bit hopeful that some good will arise in Labour this year, and lots more if the dragon can wake from its sleep and breathe some fire – and not at beneficiaries. I’ll never forget Shearer coming out with that roof comment. A death-stone tied around his neck that is.

        • greywarbler 20.2.1.1
          1 January 2014 at 1:58 pm

          Guy McPherson thinks we may only have 17 years to go before the big E. Let’s think about that and stop scrapping over whose human rights are the top priority.

  21. Tracey 21
    31 December 2013 at 3:25 pm

    But u can call the leader of the opposition a liar???? As long as you pretend u r sorry later.

  22. tricledrown 22
    31 December 2013 at 3:27 pm

    Since National gained power in
    2008.

  23. chris73 23
    31 December 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Now now Labours a broad church so Pagani is as Labour as anyone 😉

    • Anne 23.1
      31 December 2013 at 6:18 pm

      Naughty, naughty 73. 😛

    • Tim 23.2
      1 January 2014 at 12:56 pm

      Pagani is hoping Labour’s church will be getting broader too – so broad its principles will become meaningless. (Much as it is now unless they wake the fuck up – and sooner rather than later. It’s why many of us are hoping Cunliffe will actually use that toilet brush now that he’s had it handed to him – and NOT without a struggle. Of course there are STILL one or two stubborn stains that are clinging to the porcelain like little fleks of shit – each with a trendy name)
      Of course the likes of Pagani, Williams, a Parker or two, amongst others aren’t worried – if only because they don’t shit, and those stubborn little stains can’t possibly be down to them

  24. Tracey 24
    31 December 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Your leader still has no clothes chris lite. Trouble is you are dragging so many down with your delusions.

    • Tim 24.1
      3 January 2014 at 10:50 pm

      I really hope @ Tracey that you don’t want to see Key in the nuddy.
      Just believe me when I tell you he’s like a knock-kneeded blubbery boi [ a booooyee, a bwaaaah – basically an Emperor that’s pretty fucking ugly when disrobed] (as in camp as with a flabby bum the size of a bus) – but the campness as an attempt at displaying manhood, and smiling as a gittus.
      It’s ekshly no wonder he travels with his pathetic lying DPS (doing their best to come acrsoss as all macho and impartial)
      Thank Christ for Armarni aye?
      Sincere commiserations to Bronagh as well – it’s ne a cnut of s situation to have to contend with (especially with those loving chillun doing their ‘thang’) in the background.

  25. Psycho Milt 25
    31 December 2013 at 3:53 pm

    She … opposed WFF being extended to those on benefits.

    Well, duh. It’s called an In-Work Tax Credit and was created specifically to increase the gap between welfare benefits and full-time wages. It’s not hard to figure out that a policy of extending that in-work tax credit to those not in work would be extra-strength voter repellent.

    • QoT 25.1
      31 December 2013 at 11:12 pm

      It’s called the In-Work Tax Credit for a reason, PM. The reason is: Labour wanted to give something nice to the middle classes but not beneficiaries.

      Of course this was a really shit thing to do and bought into bullshit ideas about the “deserving” poor, and at some point pre-2011 Labour had a change of heart.

      I don’t disagree with providing equivalent payments to beneficiaries. But it was the height of political naivete for Labour in 2011 to suddenly see the light and say “oh, we’ll extend it to beneficiaries” after spending many years and Crown Law dollars defending the idea that it was for “working” families.

      And I laugh my ass off at numpties like Josie Pagani who to this day don’t understand that they painted themselves into a stupid corner.

      • Psycho Milt 25.1.1
        1 January 2014 at 7:06 am

        They painted themselves into a stupid corner when they decided to use the social welfare system to assist people whose wages weren’t enough to live on, rather than actually addressing the issue of low wages. But at least, having gone down the extremely ill-advised path of subsidising low wages, they tried to at least minimise the stupid by targeting the subsidies to maintain relativity between wages and benefits.

        At some point, minimising the stupid seems to have fallen out of favour. In 2011, among all the other ways in which Goff-led Labour was bereft of a clue, it decided that actually the party’s policy should be to continue subsidising low wages, but to make sure that it also subsidises social welfare beneficiaries as much as people who work for a living. If Pagani recognises this as doubling down on the stupid, she’s smarter than most Labour activists.

        • QoT 25.1.1.1
          1 January 2014 at 3:12 pm

          Nope, her argument is:

          The hardest week to door-knock was when we were telling people – who had just come home from a day’s work earning the minimum wage – that it was a great idea to extend their Working for Families tax credit to beneficiaries. “So what’s the point of working my guts out all week while someone sitting at home on the dole gets the same tax credit as me?”

          There’s a reason we’re called “Labour”: We have always represented people who work.

          • Puddleglum 25.1.1.1.1
            1 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

            There’s a reason we’re called “Labour”: We have always represented people who work.

            Given the context of her previous paragraph, that is an appallingly cruel, inhumane sentiment. The notion that a Labour Party should not and would not support those workers who cannot sell their labour in the capitalist market has to be one of the most wrong-headed understandings of the history of the labour movement ever promulgated.

            Pagani should read this biography of Michael Joseph Savage to get some sense of what it means to advocate for ‘Labour’ under capitalism. This bit in particular might be of interest for her:

            “The onset of the economic depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s and the deprivation and suffering that many people, especially the unemployed and the elderly, experienced put tremendous pressures on members of Parliament. Savage was distressed by the hardship he encountered”

            Pagani could no doubt have eased Savage’s conscience with her insight about who the Labour Party represents, had she been around at the time.

            And then there’s the interesting implication that, for example, a Labour Party does not represent people who spend their days raising children (as they do not ‘work’ in Pagani’s sense).

            That would be a winning slogan – ‘Labour – Proudly not representing non-working parents’.

            • newsense 25.1.1.1.1.1
              3 January 2014 at 8:58 pm

              you can’t talk about Michael Joseph Savage! Don’t you know he’s a socialist! think of how the vote would plummet if it got out that Labour listened to socialists!!!!!!!!

        • phillip ure 25.1.1.2
          1 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

          pm..do you accept the concept of osmosis..?

          ..as in..hang with rightwingers for too long..

          ..and you start parrotting their neo-lib/tina-bullshit..?

          ..i thought in the past you claimed to be ‘left’..

          ..but fuck the poor!..eh..?

          ..so a correction there..

          ..you are giving every impression of being a neo-lib apologist..

          ..and i think we already have enough of them..eh..?

          ..phillip ure..

  26. thechangeling 26
    31 December 2013 at 3:56 pm

    I’ve listened to Josie Pagani several times on the radio and met her twice and the conclusion I came to is that she is an air head that talks about things and around things but never gets down to the core of the idea so as to come close to solving it. She was just another Labour Party wannabe politician with firmly ingrained neo liberal beliefs and is well off enough to be completely disconnected from the pain of ordinary kiwis and would not be out of place in the National Party. That being her truth (as I see it) she could be deployed quite successfully as a political decoy that would confuse a lot of people who don’t quite know what they believe in a political sense either.
    Josie’s replacement for Labour in the Rangitikei electorate, Deborah Russell is a similarly endowed neo liberal with elitist centre right beliefs but which are cloaked under the leftist appearance of a feminist hell bent on bullying any male that has something constructive to say. Suffice to say I’m rapidly becoming disenfranchised with the reality of the Labour Party and some of the candidates who appear to be egotistical maniacs that use brown nosing, manipulation, deceit and bullying as weapons to plot their own future political paths and as a result are detached from reality. I was warned, and now I’m seeing just how things really are.
    Espiner on National Radio is disappointing too as he is just another neo liberal who won’t investigate and challenge the right with enough hard questions in an election year that demands ruthless analysis and deconstruction of policy if National are to be successfully dethroned.

    • Colonial Viper 26.1
      31 December 2013 at 4:00 pm

      Man you can’t say that shit about QoT’s good friend.

      Don’t you know, you can be a privileged neolib and be an identity politics champion at the same time! There’s nothing philosophically inconsistent about supporting gay marriage and pay equality at the same time as stripping out and selling a nation’s industries, for instance.

      • weka 26.1.1
        31 December 2013 at 4:05 pm

        “Man you can’t say that shit about QoT’s good friend.”

        Or you can, but you will get asked for evidence. How about 3 examples of Russell being hell bent on bullying men with anything constructive to say, and some evidence that she is NACT in disguise. I’m not saying you are wrong, just would like to see some actual evidence.

        • thechangeling 26.1.1.1
          31 December 2013 at 4:17 pm

          That’s not my primary beef with her. She’d be great at attacking the National Party in parliament. An absolute terrier in the making. It’s the ‘pretending to be left when really not’ that does my head in. I’m trying to understand so many things but can’t assimilate them all.

          • weka 26.1.1.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 4:24 pm

            I don’t know Russell other than what I have seen online. So if you are going to slander her I am naturally curious what you mean. Leave aside the man bullying thing and just give some examples of her being NACT in disguise. I am genuinely interested.

            • thechangeling 26.1.1.1.1.1
              31 December 2013 at 4:38 pm

              It’s not my intention to slander anybody. Critiquing would be a better option and more reflective of what I’m about. Apologies if it came across that way. I’ll edit my original post if I can. I get wound up sometimes when trying to express stuff. A belief in private education demonstrates elitism quite clearly to me.
              Another of my beefs was Labour Party Policy hubs where the ‘winner’ was the person who said the most, the fastest, and the most often, and was not an environment conducive to developing a deeper understanding of the issues and solutions that face us all. Is this the right format for those discussions as usually they are held in universities right?

              • weka …
                31 December 2013 at 4:46 pm

                I’d be interested to hear you find the Greens then. Different communication processes and values around that, although less democratic than they used to be.

                Thanks for the example of private education, that makes it easier to understand what you mean.

                • phillip ure …
                  1 January 2014 at 6:54 pm

                  “..although less democratic than they used to be…”

                  bloody hell..!..really..!

                  .they paid lots of lip-service..back then..

                  ..but the realities were..’nah!’..

                  ..more clique and control..

                  ..and now they are worse you say…?

                  ..whoar..!

                  ..’holy pretend-green-democracy..!..batman..!’

                  ..phillip ure..

      • thechangeling 26.1.2
        31 December 2013 at 4:11 pm

        CV: Whose QoT? I’ll figure it out eventually hopefully anyway. I can’t tell sometimes if you’re sarco or not. Mind bending and informative either way. After saying what I did I, think I’m joining the Green Party now.

      • rhinocrates 26.1.3
        31 December 2013 at 6:55 pm

        identity politics

        Christ CV, it seems like every second post or more has that unsupported phrase and you’re starting to look really defensive about it.

        I’m really starting to find it offensive – and stupid. I don’t know what’s going to get through to you since so many have tried to explain it, but “identity politics” is not the enemy or a “distraction”.

        By some criteria I’m a majority, by others I’m a minority “identity”. Someone who distinguishes between the two is a fairweather friend, and I’m afraid that that is what Labour has been too well for too long.

        Whatshisname Nash made an absolute dick of himself opposing Louisa Wall’s marriage equality efforts and you’re only going to make yourself irrelevant by broadening your opposition to anything that isn’t core anti-capitalism as you define it.

        Yes indeed, evil, nasty, smelly people will indeed see no contradiction between supporting marriage equality and corporate raiding, but that doesn’t taint marriage equality as a cause.

        The “identity politicians” are in fact multiple lines of defence against the tyranny of the market.

        I suggest that you read Pastor Niemoller’s poem

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

        First they came for the Communists,
        and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.

        Then they came for the Socialists,
        and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Socialist.

        Then they came for the trade unionists,
        and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

        Then they came for me,
        and there was no one left to speak for me.

        Paraphrase “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a…” to “I silenced them because they were a distraction” and think about what that implied, please.

        You talk about “identity politics”, but I’m thinking of fairweather friends and I’m getting sceptical.

        Hmmm, I wonder if my roof needs painting…

        • RedLogix 26.1.3.1
          31 December 2013 at 7:19 pm

          Yeah. I definitely agree with CV’s big analysis. He’s right when he says uncomfortable truths about how the 0.1% treat the bottom 90% as utterly disposable, and the 10% they need to run the machines as interchangeable grey goo.

          If you’ve been around corporates long enough you’ll know that one of the basic maxims is “no-one is irreplaceable”. It only has one meaning, ‘stick your neck out far enough and you will be replaced’. And on occasion I’ve personally witnessed the utter contempt that the really wealthy and powerful hold us ordinary people in.

          And he’s right when he says that the left was allowed to dissipate it’s energies on a worthwhile skirmishes just so long as they did not threaten all-out war on the economic order. And it would be good if a few people had the humility to acknowledge that.

          But telling fine battle-worn troops that the beatings will continue until moral improves is leadership fail 101.

          The fact is that the left has seen nothing but defeat against the neo-liberals for forty years now, and other than the potential Cunliffe represents, not much else is looking pretty at the moment.

          The left in NZ is at it’s Ruweisat Ridge moment.

          • weka 26.1.3.1.1
            31 December 2013 at 11:26 pm

            You make it sound as if CV is the only one with a good analysis of those things. He’s not.

            • RedLogix 26.1.3.1.1.1
              1 January 2014 at 12:14 am

              Sorry no I didn’t mean that either. It’s an analysis that comes from real hodge-podge of places, and lots of people far smarter than me. And I’m prone to being rather po-faced about it – it’s hard to find anything other than a bitter, black humour in the rape of the planet by the elites.

              What bugs me is that while we expend energy sparring over this very insider debate – we still have no fecking clue how to really demolish the neo-liberal machine.

              Ever noticed how very ‘on message’ the right is? And this despite their widely disparate interests? Ever wondered why?

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 January 2014 at 12:44 pm

                They target the next immediate concrete step that they want, while preparing the ground work and personnel for the next concrete step after that.

                They are not afraid to push for frankly radical and revolutionary change, under the guise of morality, rationality and necessity. They have a far better feel for what will be popular, what will be topical, and how to use that to ‘manufacture consent.’

                And then they resource their campaign, with big bucks, powerful organisations and very smart people.

                • weka …
                  1 January 2014 at 12:59 pm

                  I would say the core difference between the left and the right is that the right want power for its own sake, irrespective of ethics, and so have developed many strategies and skills for getting it. Once they have it, they can then use it to get the other things they want (right wing values).

                  The left, esp those namby pamby greenies, believe that power is at worst the root of evil or at best a tool that can be used within the context of ethics. At the core of the left is the idea of fairness for all, and how can you play the power game and still be fair. This is the essential dilemma in all human endeavours. Once you have a power-over system in place, how do you replace that without becoming a bunch of oppressive fuckers like the ones you want to get rid of.

                  One of the strategies I see as crucial is building strong collaborations across difference. So Red, where you say “we still have no fecking clue how to really demolish the neo-liberal machine.”, I think we need to be focussed as much if not more on what we want than what we don’t want. Going into an election, by all means use tactics that bring down NACT (the dilemma of fairness and ethics still exists of course). But beyond that we need to know what we are aiming for, and I don’t think we have that sussed.

                  I also think that as well as rallying the missing 800,000, building working relationships with the old school conservatives who are also unhappy with the way things are turning out would be smart. When the shit hits the fan, I want the right to be dominated by them not by the ACT and greedy-fuck-like-Key crowd.

                  • RedLogix …
                    1 January 2014 at 1:21 pm

                    Once you have a power-over system in place, how do you replace that without becoming a bunch of oppressive fuckers like the ones you want to get rid of.

                    The basic principle is to separate the individual from the point of authority. In other words it’s important not to allow personal power and institutional power to be combined.

                    The second idea is to redefine power as ‘the capacity to be of service to others’.

                    • weka …
                      1 January 2014 at 1:40 pm

                      “The basic principle is to separate the individual from the point of authority. In other words it’s important not to allow personal power and institutional power to be combined.”

                      Can you please expain what you mean, I didn’t understand that. Some examples would be good.

                      Then, how you separate the powers without using force or power-over.

                      “The second idea is to redefine power as ‘the capacity to be of service to others’.”

                      Yes, this in line with my suggestion of building bridges with the old conservatives who by and large don’t have such a selfish ethic as the libertarians and power-mongers.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2014 at 4:37 pm

                      All organisations require decision making; without which they quickly cease to be organised.

                      I’ve done a lot of trip leader on tramping trips. They way I run it is to take account of the stated goal of the trip ( where do we want to go), they resources (whose with me, how strong are they, what gear and food do we have) and what are the problems (weather, terrain, etc). For little decisions, like where to have lunch – I make the call. For bigger decisions, like do we press on into unknown terrain in dodgy weather, I get everyone elses’ input because this choice can be complicated trade-off.

                      But ultimately trip leader’s job is to ensure a decision is made and everyone else has to obey them.

                      Which brings up the question of rules, like if someone decides they don’t like a decision in the middle of fecking nowhere – they are not allowed to just piss off on their own. Causes bloody havoc.

                      That’s ‘strong, experienced indivdual’ model of leadership. Works well over the short-term like a trip, but in very prone to corruption over time. But it does point out the essential features required.

                      Then there is the committee method of decision-making, little committees for small, short-term problems and big ones for the big, existential issues that must be determined. And committees can delegate their decision making if circumstances demand an on-the-spot, immediate response.

                      Membership can be selected and rotated by any variety of means, preferably some form of non-partisan democracy that emphasises merit over ideology, and balanced participation.

                      The key here is that serving on the committee confers no special privileges whatsoever on the individuals involved. It has to be clearly understood where the source of decision-making lies, with the committee in consultation, not the individuals who compose it.

                      Outside of a meeting, it’s members do not discuss or back-channel committee business.

                      Outside of a meeting, it’s members are not entitled to any privileges other than an ordinary respect and courtesy for the service they are assisting with.

                      While it is still necessary to be vigilant against corruption, this basic model is reasonably resistant to it.

                    • weka …
                      1 January 2014 at 4:46 pm

                      Ok, but my question still stands. How do you get people to behave like that without using power over? Esp people that have been born and bred in a system that tells them that their wellbeing is dependent on having power.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

                      It’s not all that hard karol. Lot’s of church and community groups get somewhere near this model.

                    • weka …
                      1 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

                      Red, I’m familiar with many groups that have great internal processes. I’m talking about how you make a change at a societal level. You said that we still have no plan for taking down the right. My point was that once they’re ‘taken down’ you still have to find a way of organising and the left’s problem is how to do that society-wide (shit, we can’t even do it within our own ranks), without using a domination model that we are trying to replace.

        • QoT 26.1.3.2
          31 December 2013 at 11:15 pm

          Christ CV, it seems like every second post or more has that unsupported phrase and you’re starting to look really defensive about it.

          Isn’t he just?

      • QoT 26.1.4
        31 December 2013 at 11:14 pm

        Oh, go fuck yourself. I never said “you can’t criticise my friend”. I offered links to her writing so people can draw their own conclusions.

        You, on the other hand, think that flinging unsubstantiated shit around about someone is a relevant, clever argument.

        I will once again leave it to the readers of The Standard to make up their minds.

    • Psycho Milt 26.2
      31 December 2013 at 5:23 pm

      Josie’s replacement for Labour in the Rangitikei electorate, Deborah Russell is a similarly endowed neo liberal with elitist centre right beliefs but which are cloaked under the leftist appearance of a feminist hell bent on bullying any male that has something constructive to say.

      I was tossing up whether describing her as a “neo-liberal” is funnier than describing her as “bullying” (oh, it’s “bullying” by a long way) but really neither one comes up to the Kiwiblog standards of “shrill, hectoring left-liberal” and “useless communist oxygen thief.” Welcome to politics…

  27. Pictish 27
    31 December 2013 at 3:57 pm

    The “WFF should not be extended to beneficiaries” quote can also be attributed to another person. Helen Clark.

  28. tricledrown 28
    31 December 2013 at 4:06 pm

    SHG terms of trade facts
    Worst trade deficit in NZ history.ok Defence Helicopters one offs but in the many years I have been reading our stats we always have gone offs ie plains for Air NZ.

  29. Tracey 29
    31 December 2013 at 4:14 pm

    Is the 50+b debt ok??

  30. Tim 30
    31 December 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Geez! This is turning out to be a real slag-a-Pagani thread huh?
    I wonder why tho’ – ekshly, no I don’t, but there’s enough to spread around Brethren!
    Oh yay!!!!
    Mike Williams
    yay I say unto thee:
    Ken fucking Douglas
    yay,,,,
    Mike Williams

    etc.

    Better to just ignore the cnuts

  31. Philj 31
    31 December 2013 at 11:29 pm

    Xox
    Why so flaming Pagani and not Mike Williams?

  32. Philj 32
    31 December 2013 at 11:57 pm

    Xox
    @Xtasy
    I find myself agreeing. Good post. A deathly non response from the TS brigade. Curious eh? I wonder whether this left /right discussion thingy is passe, a distraction, an unhelpful cul-de sac? We are talking housing, health and quality of life for all Kiwis. The present system is failing throughout the world, Right and Left.

    • RedLogix 32.1
      1 January 2014 at 12:25 am

      Not so much a deathly non-response phil, as tired acceptance. Mostly I agree with xtasy as well.

      And yes the traditional left/right divide isn’t very useful anymore. To my mind the more interesting divide is between the authoritarian and non-authoritarian mind-set.

  33. xtasy 33
    1 January 2014 at 1:38 am

    With the state of the “media” in this brain-washed country, there is only one solution, that is to raise awareness by attacking and occupying the MSM offices, repeatedly, and to expose the lies and crap they serve us up. I suggest “true socialists” take action, as you are the core elite, and few and far and between activists, that still bother. The wider populace is lost and dares nada.

    But there is hope, in spirit, to learn:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpVV27CPfE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyL13TyFUQc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpf4zCPbpvY

    Mas de cultura y diversification, enjoy!!!

    • xtasy 33.1
      1 January 2014 at 1:49 am

      As for the situation, if activists take it that far, challenge the remnants of so called “journalistic profession”, who pays them, what they are there for, what their job is, what the hell they expect the tax payer or private enterprise to pay them for what they deliver, and what they actually bother to fucking “deliver”?!

      Hey, come trespass notice, charge and more, and they all run, the so-called “activists” that may be left, or their “slip/porters”, I am afraid this will come.

      What a damned state of affairs, I wish I could wake more up, but hey, it is New Years, so enjoy your beer, wine and else, we will catch up later.

      Things may be ok for the night, but the issues will still be there once all others sober up. Forgiveness, and enjoy your New Years celebs.

      FUCK DA POLICE AND DA NAZI NZ SOCIETY THAT LIES TO US ALL!

      X

  34. xtasy 34
    1 January 2014 at 1:53 am

    La revolution es la lucha de el pueblo:

Links to post