Every body wants to rule the world

Written By: - Date published: 9:19 am, October 12th, 2017 - 195 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, labour, MMP, national, nz first, Politics, winston peters - Tags:

So today is very likely D day.

One of two things will happen. New Zealand First will accept the offer from National. This will be signed off quickly by the National Party caucus and the Board. After all the retention of power is its raison d’etre. The next Government will be not as bad as the last in that New Zealand First will temper National’s neoliberal bent. But we will continue with the stifling managerialism that we have had for the past 9 years and New Zealand will continue to drift without addressing the big issues we are facing.

The other possibility, a Labour-Green-New Zealand First deal is much more promising but much more complex. Labour’s agreement process is straight forward, get New Zealand Council and Caucus agreement. But the Greens have a really democratic system and the support of 75% of selected delegates is required for a coalition deal. The chances of a leak or early publicity are huge. And fitting each party into Cabinet, if this is to happen, is more difficult.

History also plays its part. It may be that relationships between New Zealand First and the Alliance in 1996 resulted in New Zealand First preferring National even though it had campaigned for change. As noted by Vernon Small in Stuff:

It will also be important that any guarantee of support on confidence and supply from the Greens is unequivocal. An out-clause in the “guarantee”‘ provided by the Alliance to Labour and Helen Clark back in 1996 is often cited as a key reason NZ First opted to back National.

So we will know soon. But unlike Mike Hosking who is confidently predicting a fourth term National Government I am quietly confident of a change of government. I think that the policy synergies are too strong and National’s treatment of New Zealand First over the past decade has been too dire. Peters’s preference will be Labour. And the longer the announcement is delayed the more likely it will be that there is a change of Government.

And to finish this very appropriate song from Tears for Fears …

195 comments on “Every body wants to rule the world”

  1. Nick 1

    Anything hosking says shouldn’t be broadcast. He’s at trump level thoughts.

    • lprent 1.1

      Huh? You rate him that highly?

      Trump may be a dangerous petulant child, but he does have a track record of occasionally achieving something. It is usually bad, but it is, none the less, an achievement (and he wants his gold star every time).

      Mike Hosking? He has only achieved a enhanced level of anxiousness about the polish on his cars as his highest actual achievement. It is impossible to point to anything else that he has ever done that made a difference to the world.

      • Wensleydale 1.1.1

        Does having New Zealand’s most punchable face count for nothing?

        • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1.1

          🙂

          He needs that tacky gelled hair do rearranged by a well placed blow with a rolled up NZ Herald…

          SWAT !!!

        • David Mac 1.1.1.2

          Snotting him one would make him stronger. His black-eye would fill the Sunday papers and show promos. What he says on his show has nothing to do with why he is there.

          He’s where he is because he pulls a large audience that shapes up well when “How much money have they got? is considered.

          The way to beat him is with something better. Something people would rather listen to and watch. A black eye done all legal like.

          Someone mentioned John Clarke, if around I reckon he’d go close to organizing an audience stealing, topical daily show.

          Is it too soon for Fred Dagg’s illegitimate son? A chiseled ram, raised mainly by his Mum, Miss Waihi Beach 1973.

          I think the show Seven Days attracts a large audience. Double their salaries and tighten their format. Not the week’s news, today’s news interpreted their way at 7pm every week night.

          Violence never solves anything. When the bleeding stops the same problem remains. The way to give Hosking a black eye is not with a fist, it’s with a well executed idea.

          • David Mac 1.1.1.2.1

            The slightly delayed screening at 7pm would fill Seven Days stylings with lots of naughty word beeps. This would add audience pull to the 9pm unabridged re-run.

            Chopper’s cheap, killer apartment downtown should do it, he could head up a boof-head pseudo right side of the argument.

            Beat Hosking at his own game.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1.2.2

            Yeah but ,… but ,… just one rolled up newspaper THWACK ?

            C’mon!…

            Even a miscreant puppy dog used to get that in the old days… mind you ,.. I hated seeing a pup treated like that… but Hosking ?!!?

            Give him two THWACKS instead the bloody mongrel !

    • cleangreen 1.2

      100% for nick.

      We should have Winston do what Trump is doing in USA – Taking away the broadcasting rights of errant media that broadcasts lies and propaganda for financial benefit of themselves and their paymasters.

      We could have almost all MSM retired in NZ soon Yes yes yes please!!!!!!!!

  2. roy cartland 2

    “Labour-Green-New Zealand First deal is much more promising but much more complex”
    Exactly. Complex, because actually governing (as opposed to farting around doing nothing while saying you’re so great) is hard. And it should be, for good reason.

    • tracey 2.1

      What is the Green history on leaking?

      • CoroDale 2.1.1

        Still waiting for a Green-NZF talk to decide if they go for a re-election. I think both parties would score better, second round. Labour better cornered, to accept all demands 😉 many in media resigning in the next few months…

  3. BM 4

    The greens have been utterly hopeless, they have allowed Peters to control the narrative and get whatever he wanted.

    Greens actually had an important role to play in the negotiations but unfortunately, they were either too dense or too naive to realise what their role was.

    Hopefully, they learn from that and if they’re still around after 2020 don’t make the same mistake again.

    • Funny you are still attacking the Greens – time to upgrade your lines mate they are yesterday’s views.

      • BM 4.1.1

        The Greens have actually hurt the left coalition by being so weak and staying on the sidelines, what’s really sad is they don’t seem to realise it.

        • marty mars 4.1.1.1

          Whatever they did you’d be there picking on them and calling them names. Transparent and sad.

          And not a bad word about liar bill and his sordid gnats – you’d clean their toilet for free if they’d let you and do it freestyle.

          • Johan 4.1.1.1.1

            Poor BM, he continuously comes across as a flawed National Party/ACT cheerleader and doesn’t have the understanding to realize it.

        • Cinny 4.1.1.2

          Bm you do watch Parliament yes?

        • Wensleydale 4.1.1.3

          It’s not really sad though, is it BM? I mean, it’s not as though you actually care if the left disembowels itself. If they were to engineer their own destruction, I suspect your only reaction would be a triumphant smirk. I admire your dedicated concern trolling, though. At least you’re willing to put in the effort.

        • Steve 4.1.1.4

          I feel perhaps you’d prefer that National would be entering the ring with the Greens.Rather than ever need to see someone like Winston anywhere within the mix.Do you also prefer to see All blacks v Japan games too?

    • left_forward 4.2

      You oxymoron! – the reality is that the Greens are utterly hopeful – for a better future – and they know how to get there.

      • red-blooded 4.2.1

        What do you think an oxymoron is, left_forward?

        • left_forward 4.2.1.1

          I know what an oxymoron is red-blooded – this my little play on words – when you say something obviously contradictory – i.e. the Greens being without hope, then that makes one a ‘moron’ in the context of this thread IMO.

          • red-blooded 4.2.1.1.1

            An oxymoron is a figure of speech which combines absolutely contradictory terms – eg sweet and sour sauce, or to be falsely true. Saying that “the Greens have been utterly hopeless” (is this what you were commenting on?) is not an oxymoron. For starters, “hopeless” here means “pathetic” or “useless”, not “without hope” and secondly – even if we took your reading of “hopeless” there’s no balancing, opposing word being used. Do you see “Greens” as the opposing word?

            Sorry to be pedantic.

            My favourite definition of “oxymoron” is from an old cartoon: “oxymoron – an incredibly stupid ox”.

            • left_forward 4.2.1.1.1.1

              Granted it was a stretch – but the potential of connecting BM to moron was sufficiently attractive to take such a punt – surely some leniency was warranted 🙂

            • Vinnie 4.2.1.1.1.2

              Sweet and sour is not an oxymoron. You are making a category mistake. I

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.3

      The green strategy to date in all this, seems the most likely to achieve some of their policy goals. A game of one-upmanship and brinkmanship with Peters is unlikely to get them as far.

      • BM 4.3.1

        The Greens will be lucky if Winston Peters allows Shaw to clean his toilet.

        • Aaron 4.3.1.1

          Why do you guys bother talking to BM? It’s clear his (surely he’s a guy) only reason to be here is to be disruptive. He’s either part of the National Party Social media team or someone who’s overtly tribal. Either way, baiting people is a pathetic way to spend your life so please don’t encourage him.

          • weka 4.3.1.1.1

            DNFTT doesn’t work here. If people stopped pushing back and ridiculing his trolling he’d just fill the thread up with his bullshit.

            • DSpare 4.3.1.1.1.1

              But BM is so inept at spreading his manure (preferring quantity over quality), that I half suspect that he is really a parody of a troll rather than the genuine article. And that fertiliser does occasionally lead to the growth of some wonderful comment-flowers.

              • weka

                He does a pretty good job of getting the discussion focussed on what he wants it focussed on. I’d call that troll success.

                • DoublePlusGood

                  I’d rather he just gets banned for 5 billion years so we don’t have to look at his bullshit.

          • Johan 4.3.1.1.2

            Why so serious? We all know BM’s end game, so it’s fun to use him as a source of ridicule and entertainment.

          • rod 4.3.1.1.3

            @ Aaron + 100%

      • Bearded Git 4.3.2

        exactly…shaw has played it perfectly…..rocking the boat at this stage by making demands would have played straight into nationals hands

        • BM 4.3.2.1

          Played it perfectly!!!, fucking hell you guys live in a completely different universe.

          It was never about making demands you doofus, it’s about sowing seeds of doubt in Peters’ head getting him to think twice, at the moment he’s the only guy negotiating and can ask for whatever he wants.

          If the Greens even if they had no intention of ever following through had spoken to National. Peters would have been a lot more circumspect in what he was demanding because the Greens could have cut him off at the knees.

          Instead, he’s ruling the roost, asking for whatever he wants and making a mockery out of MMP.

          Thanks, Greens.

          • weka 4.3.2.1.1

            Yes, BM wants the Greens to lie to the electorate, the MSM, their own membership, and their preferred coalition partner Labour in the hopes that Peters would suddenly believe that despite having campaigned on changing the govt the Greens were now quite happy to go with National.

            Not really surprising from someone who votes for a bunch of inveterate liars without principles but with values from the sewer. In that sense it makes sense to want the Greens to give up what they stand for for power. Because that’s all that matters in blue land.

            Otoh, just as likely is that BM is running lines for the right that are designed to undermine the Greens. Far worse than a Labour govt is the Greens with more influence than they already have. So the message has to be the Greens are useless and to blame for everything that goes wrong. Watch that one over the next three years.

            • marty mars 4.3.2.1.1.1

              + 1 yep bm the desperate – i guess we now know the truth of the grassy knoll – the fucken greens were responsible just couldn’t see them cos they were camoed – dirty sneaks.

              • weka

                LOL.

                I guess now that Labour have redeemed themselves the Greens are the target du jour.

              • tracey

                chuckling

              • marty mars 4.3.2.1.1.1
                12 October 2017 at 10:14 am

                + 1 yep bm the desperate – i guess we now know the truth of the grassy knoll – the fucken greens were responsible just couldn’t see them cos they were camoed – dirty sneaks.

                L0L0L0L0L !

                Hilarity !!!

            • tracey 4.3.2.1.1.2

              YUP, BM sees only one paradigm. The bully, macho, win versus lose paradigm. Shades of grey he knows not. When Joyce and English lie as they did in the Election, it is BM’s profile they have in front of the m… and he laps it up.

            • Infused 4.3.2.1.1.3

              You guys are morons. Bm is correct

          • Draco T Bastard 4.3.2.1.2

            fucking hell you guys live in a completely different universe.

            Actually, that would be you guys over on Planet Key.

            It was never about making demands you doofus, it’s about sowing seeds of doubt in Peters’ head getting him to think twice, at the moment he’s the only guy negotiating and can ask for whatever he wants.

            What a load of bollocks.

            Peters could always ask for whatever he wants – if he gets it is another thing.

            Things is, the Greens can also ask for whatever they want.

            It’s called negotiating in good faith.

            But, as you’re a RWNJ, I doubt you truly understand that as you think it’s all about difference in power levels rather than respect.

            • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.3.2.1.2.1

              In the world of rwnjs, there are only winners and losers, and all human interactions can only fall into one of the two categories

              • tracey

                YUP. And it seems that the Nats consider that Peters is holding them to ransom. It can only be because they will give him anything to keep power. Sounds like they have played this a little foolhardy to me by letting their desperation show.

            • Infused 4.3.2.1.2.2

              You dont know how negotiating works. You need leverage

              • No, you don’t leverage at all. Just respect for the other and the will to say no.

                National doesn’t have that will because their desire for power (which is what makes them unsuitable for any leadership position) means that they will do anything for that power including selling their souls and the country to the highest bidder.

          • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.3.2.1.3

            “fucking hell you guys live in a completely different universe.”

            You have never spoken truer words.

          • You_Fool 4.3.2.1.4

            Also to be clear, James Shaw said he would speak with National if they wanted i.e. had actual good faith in some bargaining. National just did all the bluster behind the trolls and others and never put their money where their mouth was… So why would the Greens go cap in hand? Where is the power in that?

          • Steve 4.3.2.1.5

            Bet you didnt give two hoots, when it was National free ride of getting whatever they want?

          • Delia 4.3.2.1.6

            Most amusing but it is not the Greens who will not exist as a party in three years time.

          • mickysavage 4.3.2.1.7

            You don’t get it BM. It is not a pissing competition. It is a negotiation of parties with some similar views on how to form the next Parliament.

    • The Fairy Godmother 4.4

      Wow I never knew you cared so much about the greens. Are you a member? Did you volunteer or donate in the election or did you spend the election skulking under the bridge waiting for the Billy Goats to cross

    • Michelle 4.5

      I don’t agree with you BM. I think if the Greens are guilty of anything its being too honest . I also think at the next election they need to say that they will see who NZers vote for and try to work with whoever they have to for the benefit of our country.
      There is nothing wrong with policy alignment but when you are a smaller party you have to accept that compromise is important. The Greens made a few mistake so what it hurt nobody but them I am referring to Metiria. However unlike the gnats who have shown their true colors as they will lie, bully, intimidate, and buy any one that stands in there way. Being a country that relies on our so called pristine environment so much we need to have a party like the Greens to have a say in how our country is run. The Greens were taken out by the gnats just like they previously took out Winstone , Hone to name a few. And they will continue to do this using our right wing bias media and by any other means they can use if they have to. People like us need to call them out.

    • they have allowed Peters to control the narrative and get whatever he wanted.

      Really? Could have sworn that was the journalists doing that as they ignored every bloody thing except Peters.

      Greens actually had an important role to play in the negotiations but unfortunately, they were either too dense or too naive to realise what their role was.

      I’m sure that they know they’re role better than you do and that it’s not what you think it is.

      Hopefully, they learn from that and if they’re still around after 2020 don’t make the same mistake again.

      From where I sit, the Greens haven’t made any mistakes. After all, they didn’t listen to your advice to go with National which is, I suspect, the only reason you’re upset.

    • tracey 4.7

      I suspect the too thick or dense is you for peddling this line. I have no idea what they are or are not saying and neither do you, but you assume that because they haven’t flexed some muscle, gone all macho and held anyone to ransom that they are stupid.

      Until we know what was offered, what was not etc, it is foolhardy to offer any kind of analysis, let alone such a derogatory one.

      Only a few weeks ago you were championing the greens with National. Then you threw your toys out of the cot when everyone didn’t see it your way. And here you are in Tantrum Part 2.

    • Stupid person , BM,…

      The arrangement always was that Labour was to be the chief negotiator – and that’s always been the case with these coalition type deals.

    • BM * thinks…
      “I’m at a loose end, what to do, what to do???
      I know!! I’ll go onto a Left-leaning blog and insult the political parties they support there!! Brilliant! I’ll be devastatingly witty and they’ll not be able to touch me , no matter how annoyed I make them, ’cause, anonymity and I can just refuse to answer, he he he he he! This is a master-stroke of cleverliness and smartipantsness!
      I am BM: hear me ROAR!!!”

    • Be quiet until you know better , BM .

      Stay silent and let those more experienced in these matters speak , then , – once you have seen all the issues at hand , – offer an opinion. Until then , young man,… learn the ways of the world.

      MWHAHAHAHAAA! ( ever so slightly for your tender years , of course … )

      We do not wish to crush your enthusiastic spirit .

  4. RedLogix 5

    Helpful to keep in mind players such as Shane Jones, Ron Mark and the NZ1 Board. Winston is quite sincere when he says that the party Board will have an important role in the decision; so despite personal histories and resentments, I suspect the preponderant weight of conservatism among these people is likely to prevail.

    And National (aka local front for the CCCP) can afford to play a long game too; it doesn’t matter what concessions they make to gain a fourth term, because they know that once Winston retires they’re pretty much guaranteed fifth and sixth terms.

    • veutoviper 5.1

      With you on this RedLogix. Much as Peters can be a law unto himself, he has made it very clear that the two options – Labour or National – will go to the caucus and the NZF Board and officials in accordance with the NZF Constitution.

      Yesterday, i posted a comment re the fact that the full list of the names of the Board members and relevant officials could not be found on the NZF website, and that Guyon Espiner and the NBR were attempting to get this information. They seem not to have got anything further so far, but the Herald has published an article with a list of people who have recently been involved (but cannot confirm this is totally up to date.)

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932142

      Personally I am none the wiser from seeing the list, but don’t necesarily agree that all NZF members etc are conservatives. I do know that they have had a surge of younger members joining over the last few years. (I am of a superannuate age, and not all of us are conservatives by any means!)

      Shane Jones is the one of interest to me, as to how much influence he is likely to have, despite his eighth place listing in the nine member caucus. It is quite apparent that he was/is not happy with his result in losing Whangarei or the fewer numbers of NZF MPs. Now he is back from his trip to Niue, he seems to be part of the NZF negotiating team but only for some meetings and I understand he does not attend the meetings with Labour. Probably not appropriate for him to do so as an ex-Labour MP; but just what his attitude is to a NZF/LAbour/Green coalition vs a NZF/National one is hard to fathom.

      • Anne 5.1.1

        It needs to be remembered that Shane Jones did not leave Labour under a cloud. Sure, there were past problems and he paid a price for them by being taken off the front bench. But in the end he was lured away by the wily Murray McCully. I’m sure I read somewhere (a few months back) Shane saying something to the effect that: he had been born into a Labour family and he would like to see a Labour/NZ First govt.

        I also think the historical antagonism towards the Greens by Winston Peters and Shane Jones – while it had validity in the past – is now far less of a problem. Parts of the MSM and the Nats are using it to drive wedges in the coalition talks.

        Having said all that my inclination is also that Winston is more likely to favour National because its in his bones. And he will have the overwhelming influence on the decision made by this elusive NZ First board.

        • BM 5.1.1.1

          The board consists of Winston Peters, a guy whose initials are WP, a pensioner, a Maori fella who loves racing and another chap who’s favourite drink is whiskey.

          A good well-rounded bunch who speak for the entirety of NZ First, democracy at it’s finest.

          • marty mars 5.1.1.1.1

            Is there anyone you don’t despise?

          • Johan 5.1.1.1.2

            Poor little fellow, you must hate MMP, seeing Winston is calling the shots.
            Your dislike for anything anti-National/ACT tells me that you are in that “fabulous” born to rule class.

          • tracey 5.1.1.1.3

            Unlike the Zoology major and Literature major ay BM who are really representative of us all.

          • Skinny 5.1.1.1.4

            Haha I got a good laugh at this comment BM.
            The sheer weight of numbers from people closely bonded to those characters you mention says Peters has been yanking National cheerleaders chains.

            The only reservation I have is if Peters wants Grant Robertson replaced for David Parker as Finance Minister and Ardern says no change.

            Other than that it is game over!

            In advance: I would like to congratulate the New Zealand Labour party for successfully negotiating in conjunction with the Aotearoa Green party a new coalition government with the New Zealand First party.

            To the losers the New Zealand National party. May you enjoy wallowing in opposition for many years to come. To Bill English, Steven Joyce, Gerry Brownlee, Chris Finlayson and the many other MP’s set to retire. Know that in the fullness of a very short time, you will forever go down in our nations history as a filthy, low life, greedy bunch of self interest arse wipes like we have never seen before.

            Lastly to John Key, one day karma will get you for selling us out to your corporate mates/ rich scumbags. I await to hear of your sticky end ready to rejoice like other good honest kiwi citizens will no doubt be doing also.

            Ends

          • Bearded Git 5.1.1.1.5

            its whisky

        • veutoviper 5.1.1.2

          I agree that Shane Jones did not leave Labour under a cloud etc, Anne. In fact, I just dug out his valedictory speech to recheck what he said then. More a case of frustration at his lowered placing and the going-ons within Labour at the time, than a turning of his back per se. Obviously a Shearer backer as opposed to a Cunliffe one. Good summary here.
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10067534/Shane-Jones-jokes-and-sings-as-he-leaves-Parliament

          Unless Shane does well out of the coalition with either National or Labour, I can see him seeking other pastures, however. In fact it would not surprise me if he has other options lined up in case. Can say no more on that at present, but understand he enjoyed his role as the Pacific Economc Ambassador …

          On my own experience of Peters over many years (had a little discussion of this with Skinny yesterday on Announcement Delayed thread) , I actually think Peters is very conflicted as to which way to go and the consequences whichever choice he makes. I am hoping he will go Labour/Greens obviously, but we will have to wait and see.

  5. weka 6

    What was the out clause for the Alliance?

    • mickysavage 6.1

      Legend has it that the Alliance had a number of conditions which NZ First felt incapable of agreeing to.

      • weka 6.1.1

        The out clause being that they could what? Leave the coalition? (wouldn’t they be able to do that anyway?) Or vote against Labour?

  6. Stuart Munro 7

    BM is the kind of bluegreen that is responsible for the state of Lake Forsythe. Ordinary Greens find him slimy and toxic.

  7. I get depressed when democracy is presented as a problem here Micky.
    In any case the possibility, suggested on Radio NZ this morning, is that both parties will be asked to ratify a deal by NZ First before the decision and announcement is made.

    The benefit of this for NZ First is that, should the unsuccessful party fail to support legislation or spending that they agreed to as part of a deal, they put themselves in a pretty weak position. Played well this could be a sea change in bi-partisanship and more grown up MMP environment for NZ. That depends though on the ability for selective release of the unsuccessful negotiated agreement which in the past has been confidential I think.

  8. tsmithfield 9

    I think the clincher for a National-NZ First deal will be if National offers to not run in Northland next time to guarantee a NZ First electoral seat.

    The problem for minor parties in coalition is that they tend to lose support. NZ First can’t afford to lose too much more support before dropping below the 5% threshold. So this will be of a concern to NZ First, generally, and specifically to Winston who will want an enduring legacy once he retires.

    Offering up Northland, or a similar electorate where NZ First does well would guarantee the survival of NZ First, even if they were to drop below 5% in support.

    So, don’t be surprised if such an offer ends up sealing the deal.

    • Yep likely.

      High water mark for nzf imo – gonna be downhill from here mainly because of the toxic effects of being too close to the gnats and their do nothing pretend caring politics.

      • tsmithfield 9.1.1

        Another thing is that having lots of areas of agreement between Labour and NZ First may not necessarily be good for a deal. That is because NZ First could then just be seen to be making up the numbers without having had any real effect.

        Whereas, if they are able to force major policy concessions out of National, they would have a lot more scalps to show to justify their presence in the arrangement.

        • marty mars 9.1.1.1

          And the gnats will hand over their grannys to get in, so concessions and confessions aplenty.

          • tsmithfield 9.1.1.1.1

            The thing about handing over a seat is that it doesn’t cost any money either. So still leaves the Nats plenty of headroom to offer other goodies.

            • marty mars 9.1.1.1.1.1

              They do have form for this too.

              • tsmithfield

                I have never worked out why Labour don’t do a similar deal with the Greens for an electoral seat as National has done with ACT.

                They might have to next time as the Greens are looking dangerously close to the 5% threshold themselves. Labour won’t want the Greens vote wasted at the next election.

                • James Brown

                  In the recent election Labour shouldn’t have stood a candidate in electorates that had Greens polling so strongly that they had a realistic chance of winning and similarly Greens should have stood in electorates where it looked like Labour could get over National.
                  As it was there were a lost of ‘wasted’ left votes where Labour and Greens went head-to-head.

                  • tsmithfield

                    Yes. I guess even here, there has to be at least grudging admiration for the way National have handled the MMP scenario over recent years.

                    I think Labour need to learn from that going forward.

                • mickysavage

                  Maybe because the left have standards and refuse to engage in rorts?

                  • tsmithfield

                    I guess thats fine if Labour is happy to spend more time in opposition than not.

                    • You don’t seem to understand that using corruption as a standard operating process always brings about the end of those using the corruption.

                    • tsmithfield

                      Why is it corruption? The Nats are just playing by the rules of the game. Just because the way that the rules can be used doesn’t suit your scruples doesn’t make it corruption.

                    • tracey

                      the rules of the game and yet English is spewing “moral” mandate every chance he gets. I do wish they would make up their minds, and the supporters. Is it morality or playing by the rules?

                    • tsmithfield

                      The rules are the morals.

                    • AB []

                      “The rules are the morals”
                      5 words that explain why right wing ideology is sociopathic.

                    • tracey

                      No, they are not. Pretending to have morals, that might be part of the “game”. Faking sincerity etc.

                      That you glibly intertwine them speaks volumes.

                      Rules and Laws set minimum standards of behaviour. Morality or ethics can reside above this line if people choose.

                      I assume you deliberately confused this to be “clever”? or superior?

                      We tend to judge others by our own standards. So if you would do anything to get power, you assume others will to.

                    • tsmithfield

                      Hence why Labour and the Greens have stayed where they are for the last three elections, and likely will for this one.

                      The sooner they realise that the rules are the morals and start playing the game that way, they might have chance.

                    • tracey

                      Is this how you brought up your children.

                  • James Brown

                    There is a difference between having standards and not making the most of the political tactics that are available to you . . the left can achieve a lot of good for a lot of people and I believe standing one candidate from either the Greens or Labour as appropriate is well within the scope of what is both wise and morally acceptable.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Yup – that’s in fact how Winston got Northland anyway. A coalition that means to last doesn’t present an existential threat to its members.

          • Michelle 9.1.1.1.2

            agree 100% marty mars but would like to add ‘they will hand over their granny and her granny flat’. ( making her homeless cause that is how they roll)

    • Offering up Northland, or a similar electorate where NZ First does well would guarantee the survival of NZ First, even if they were to drop below 5% in support.

      Yes, more rorting of the political system for National’s benefit is really going to go over well.

      So, don’t be surprised if such an offer ends up sealing the deal.

      If this is what ‘seals the deal’ then NZ1st can kiss their arse goodbye because it will be their end.

      • tsmithfield 9.2.1

        Of course Winston will jump at such an offer. You have consider the fact that Winston will probably want to retire sometime soon. He is pretty much all that keeps NZ First popular (IMO). When he goes, I think it is almost certain their vote will tank. Hence, an electorate seat will be the only way they will stay in parliament.
        Winston definitely will not want the party to fold when he leaves.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1

          And if he does it will be the end of NZ1st and I’m pretty sure that Winston knows that.

          I’m also pretty sure that he recalls 1996 and the feeling of the public and how NZ1st lost when they went with National.

          If NZ1st want to survive Winston then they can’t go with National’s corrupt dealings.

          • tsmithfield 9.2.1.1.1

            How can it be the end of them if they have an electorate seat? ACT is continuing to survive with about 0.5% of the party vote or whatever it is.

            If Winston leaves the party without an electoral seat then it almost definitely will be the end of them because he is the face of the party, and apparently why many NZ First voters vote for that party.

            If the party were to fall beneath 5% as a result of Winston leaving then they would definitely be gone-burgers.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.1.1

              It’s not a forgone conclusion that they will drop beneath 5% when Winston leaves. But it is a forgone conclusion if they do such a dirty deal with National.

              • tracey

                I hope not because we need diverse voices. I am going to be interested in if the media and the Editor’s keep courting ACT given Seymour will be in Opposition.

              • tsmithfield

                I guess its possible that they won’t fall below 5%, sort of in the same way its possible I might win Lotto next week.

                But two factors strongly suggest they will:
                1. Minor parties in coalition with larger parties tend to lose support. That would apply to a deal with National or Labour.
                2. The loss of the “Winston” effect, (sort of a geriatric male version of the Jacinda effect) when Winston decides to retire.

                At least if they retain a seat they can rebuild from that position. They can’t if they are out of parliament altogether.

                Anyway, why are you so “afflicted” by the thoughts of “dirty deals”. It is all within the rules, so it is all good.

                • Just because it is within the rules doesn’t mean that it is moral. In fact, such a deal would be immoral and thus should against the rules which means that the rules are wrong.

                  • tsmithfield

                    What you mean is that it doesn’t meet your particular standard of morality. Are you the sole arbiter of morality or something?

                    • It doesn’t meet any standard of morality, Subjectivism is bunk, especially not a democratic system where people are supposed to have the same say as every one else.

                    • tsmithfield

                      In this case, the only morals that matter are the rules of the game. This is what everyone involved understands and agrees to play by.

                      People can hold whatever other morals they like so long as they abide by the rules. Just like in a game of football or the like.

                    • In this case, the only morals that matter are the rules of the game.

                      The rules are wrong because they support immoral action.

                      This is what everyone involved understands and agrees to play by.

                      Actually, it’s only the amoral people who agree – the majority of people think it’s pure corruption.

                      People can hold whatever other morals they like so long as they abide by the rules.

                      And the majority of us can get the rules changed so that they support moral action.

            • tracey 9.2.1.1.1.2

              ACT is surviving. Sitting in Opposition this time. Prebble, Hide and Seymour getting disproportionate media oxygen. Be interesting to see how long that lasts…

            • You_Fool 9.2.1.1.1.3

              I would think that Peters would want more of a legacy than the shadow hologram that being propped up in an electorate on >1%. I think he will want a NZF party that continues to hold sway in the future. Going the way of Act is to go the way of no influence and no relevance.

              • tsmithfield

                They will probably go that way one way or another anyway when Winston leaves. So, they might as well have an electorate seat and stay in parliament.

            • red-blooded 9.2.1.1.1.4

              ACT is not continuing to survive. The one seat rort has seen the party wither away to nothing – he (it wouldn’t be accurate to say “they” anymore) is an empty shell, convenient for the Nats when they need him and dumped PDQ when they don’t.

    • Neil Pye Quotes – Toilet – YouTube
      does anyone know where the toilets are young ones▶ 0:12

  9. Adrian 10

    If Labour had been in contention in 2008, would Winston have gone back with them?
    One would think almost certainly yes, so has anything changed since then for him to think any worse of them.
    I was talking to somebody yesterday who was very close to the action then and they are very confident that Winnie won’t flip to the Dark Side.
    Hope they are correct. Was going to say ” right” but thought better of it, it should be a new unword.

  10. DSpare 11

    MickySavage may have gone with the wrong Tears for Fears song here, although some of the lyrics are apt:

    I can’t stand this indecision
    Married with a lack of vision
    Everybody wants to rule the world
    Say that you’ll never never never never need it
    One headline why believe it ?

    For me, this one seems to suit the negotiations better:

    I’ve been here before
    There is no why, no need to try
    I thought you had it all
    I’m calling you, I’m calling you
    I ask for more and more
    How can I be sure

    When you don’t give me love
    You gave me Pale shelter
    You don’t give me love
    You give me cold hands
    And I can’t operate on this failure
    When all I want to be is
    Completely in command

  11. Antoine 12

    For some reason I can’t explain, once you’d gone there was never an honest word

    A.

  12. Peter 13

    NZF support is largely rural. Sadly, no chance they will go with L-G.

    • savenz 13.1

      But the rural folks are pretty sick of National selling off assets and running down the health and education system.

      If NZ First gets in with Labour then they could position themselves as ‘old National’, and start eroding the National party vote stronghold bought on by National’s hold over the media and fake news and statistics and demographic changes that keep them in power.

      • WILD KATIPO 13.1.1

        I like that idea tbh ‘ old National’.

        Its got a certain Jim Anderton ‘ New Labour ‘ ring to it. Was a big fan of Jimmy Anderton meself.

      • cleangreen 13.1.2

        100& SAVENZ.

        When we know that realestate is being sold over the world wide web to foriegers we dont have privy to even know of now apparently we are in a very sad position, so NZF would stop these sales as they need to be stoped now!!!!!!

    • NewsFlash 13.2

      You need to have a look at Peters Budget reply speech in May, “If National even dream of winning the next election, they need to wake up and apologise”

  13. greywarshark 14

    National government – not decaying toothless; decayed and toothless. And they have bought themselves false teeth, all white and winning.

    • red-blooded 14.1

      If the decision (once announced) is to go with the Nats, that’ll be a valid comment greywarshark. But you don’t know the decision yet – none of us do.

      • greywarshark 14.1.1

        Either way they lie in their teeth – which are false! Probably said by Morecambe and Wise or the like. National have already proved what I have said to the satisfaction of everyone. National supporters don’t care what the Nat Party does as long as the gravy train keeps pumping out the dosh. And the others notice how the soup carts are serving bigger and bigger numbers while the Nats crow about strength and stability as if the state of the country is something to be proud of.

  14. tsmithfield 15

    And just when Jacinda is undoubtably trying to defuse some of Winston’s views about the Greens we get this:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/97718508/green-mp-chloe-swarbrick-shows-support-at-arms-industry-forum-blockade

    Not a good look, especially when some of Winston’s MPs have a military background.
    Jacinda must be face-palming over this.

    • tracey 15.1

      How dare she stand up for what she believes. She should have waited til negotiations were over and then stood outside the centre 3 weeks after the conference was over. That’s what a National person would do, if they cared about anything other than their bank account and could be bothered getting off the couch for anything other than a dinner out.

      • tsmithfield 15.1.1

        Exactly. A National MP would have done exactly as you say. They would have sacrificed the short-term issue for the longer term benefit.

        • tracey 15.1.1.1

          Thanks. They would go for self interest and power ahead of principle or plans. I knew we could agree on something eventually.

          You make it sound like the Party didn’t know she was going to attend. You are a silly billy sometimes.

          • tsmithfield 15.1.1.1.1

            Look, if the Greens want to put principles ahead of politics, then good on them. So long as they don’t complain about the consequences.

            • tracey 15.1.1.1.1.1

              I see you have moved away from discussion the “rules of the game” and the use of “morality” – probably a wise move given the ground was cracking…

              You and BM spend a lot of time worrying about the Greens. Perhaps you could take that compassion and move it to social justice, poverty, health or education?

              • tsmithfield

                It doesn’t worry me in the slightest. In fact, I am quite pleased to see the Greens behaving like this. I just can’t understand it.

                But, hey, if upholding principles over a relatively minor issue are more important than being in government and achieving a broad range of goals, then good luck to them.

                • Selling arms for profit is not a minor matter. It’s a major problem.

                  • tsmithfield

                    Whatever. But the government is going to buying weaponry from somewhere, regardless, and will probably be researching suppliers represented there. So, while weapons are a major problem, in this case, the protest doesn’t achieve very much.

                    • But the government is going to buying weaponry from somewhere,

                      If it produced it itself, which it’s quite capable of doing, then they wouldn’t have to would they?

                      So, while weapons are a major problem, in this case, the protest doesn’t achieve very much.

                      It does something very important – it highlights the immorality of selling weapons for profit and the hooks that that industry has in our governments around the world.

                    • cleangreen

                      National troll watch!!!!!!!

                • David Mac

                  For generations banks have lost money to assist school kids form saving habits. It’s the hardest working promotional $ they spend. Many kids will go on to be lifetime customers of the brand.

                  You are never going to vote for Chloe and her party. She isn’t talking to you. More and more people under 25 are becoming politically aware, I’m guessing the majority of them aren’t wearing ‘Bill for PM’ pins. They don’t care about the same things you and I do Smithy. They’ll be made aware of Chloe’s involvement at the protest in ways I’m never likely to, 10 seconds of video shared in FB and retweeted etc.

                  Chloe is handing out brand new personalized ATM cards to people that are getting their first account.

            • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1.1.2

              Politics needs to be principled else it destroys the society.

              National doesn’t understand that because they don’t have any principles and are actively destroying society for their own personal gain.

              • tsmithfield

                Are you saying that politics needs to have your principles? I don’t quite follow you. Or are you appealing to some omnipresent set of principles that have been sent down by God or something?

                • The Elements of Moral Philosophy fifth ed.

                  1.1. The Problem of Definition

                  Moral philosophy is the attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of usin Socrates’s words, of “how we ought to live,” and why. It would be helpful if we could begin with a simple, uncontroversial definition of what morality is, but that turns out to be impossible. There are many rival theories, each expounding a different conception of what it means to live morally, and any definition that goes beyond Socrates’s simple formulation is bound to offend at least one of them.

                  This should make us cautious, but it need not paralyze us. In this chapter, I will describe the “minimum conception” of morality. As the name suggests, the minimum conception is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point. We will begin by examining some moral controversies, all having to do with handicapped children. The features of the minimum conception will emerge from our discussion.

                  My bold.

                  IMO, Morals should be logical and bring about the betterment of society which excludes anything and everything that National does as they only do stuff that benefits themselves and rich people which inevitably brings about the collapse of society.

                  • tsmithfield

                    Well the principles involved in the negotiations have been around for quite awhile, and last time I looked, society is still here. What in particular about National gifting a seat to NZ First is likely to destroy society?

                    • greywarshark

                      I like my politics with a touch of principles stirred in thank you, it does make the mixture a little more tart, but throw in some off-setting assistance to help out and we can get on better.

                      I don’t see them as necessarily separate. As David Mac advises, principles need to be rationally applied, and have something human about them. Just limit how far the human touch goes.l

                    • It’s corrupt and thus encourages more corruption.

                  • David Mac

                    Contrary to those quotes Draco, I think morals are subjective.

                    eg: I feel anyone that carries passengers in a car with anything less than a 5 star safety rating is seriously endangering the lives of those passengers and should be arrested for their actions.

                    One man’s hate speech is another man’s love song.

                    Of course we need a framework of morals, all social groupings of creatures do. I think it’s hard to get away from the words on the Mount: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’

                    Still entirely subjective, even when we consider variations: ‘Treat others as they wish to be treated.’

                    Beyond the law of the land, our moral compasses are all over the place and viva la difference….morality uniformity…an oxymoron.

                    • tsmithfield

                      I think I agree with you pretty much on everything you say there. The problem with Draco’s argument is that he is arguing that the minimum standard of morality is that it should be top the betterment of society.

                      However, the problem with this line of thinking is that there are societies that it is probably a good thing that they were destroyed. For instance, the society of white South Africans thirty years ago.

                      So, it doesn’t always follow that betterment of society is a good thing. Which means we need to subjectively decide which societies are worth bettering and which aren’t. Which leads us back to the quagmire of subjectivity.

                      So far as morality is concerned, I think it is possible to argue for a “moral g”. That is a deep level of morality that underpins societies generally. For instance, one society might think it is OK to slurp while eating to show approval for food offered. Another might think it is very rude to do so. But in both cases they are trying to meet an underlying moral that it is right to respect a host.

                    • I think morals are subjective.

                      They’re not. Subjectivism really is bunk and there’s a whole lot of information and philosophical stuff showing that.

                      I feel anyone that carries passengers in a car with anything less than a 5 star safety rating is seriously endangering the lives of those passengers and should be arrested for their actions.

                      We actually do that. It’s why we have WoF.

                      One man’s hate speech is another man’s love song.

                      Nope. Hate speech is hate speech no matter what some people will invent to try to justify it.

                      Of course we need a framework of morals, all social groupings of creatures do.

                      yes and it’s no coincidence how societies throughout history have, within reasonable margins of error, developed a similar moral framework.

                      Don’t lie.
                      Don’t cheat.
                      Don’t steal.
                      Treat others as you would wish to be treated

                      etcetera.

                      Beyond the law of the land, our moral compasses are all over the place

                      In some ways and many are wrong because the way we evolved those morals is different to how we’re living:

                      And, finally, it matters just because we’re moral animals.

                      Like almost every aspect of us as a species, our ‘moral instincts’ evolved within a very different set of social arrangements than the ones we find ourselves in today.

                      Which means that we need to update them but we can’t wait for evolution to do it for us and thus we need to use our intelligence and logic.

                    • However, the problem with this line of thinking is that there are societies that it is probably a good thing that they were destroyed. For instance, the society of white South Africans thirty years ago.

                      It got destroyed because the government wasn’t bettering it’s society.

                      So, it doesn’t always follow that betterment of society is a good thing.

                      Non-sequitur as the apartheid government of South-Africa failed to better the society it was a part of. It worked to only better a few within that society – just like National.

                      Which means we need to subjectively decide which societies are worth bettering and which aren’t. Which leads us back to the quagmire of subjectivity.

                      Subjectivity does not produce results and so you can’t use it to decide anything on a societal basis. As I said, it’s bunk.

                    • David Mac

                      “I think I agree with you pretty much on everything you say there. The problem with Draco’s argument is that he is arguing that the minimum standard of morality is that it should be top the betterment of society.

                      However, the problem with this line of thinking is that there are societies that it is probably a good thing that they were destroyed. For instance, the society of white South Africans thirty years ago.

                      So, it doesn’t always follow that betterment of society is a good thing. Which means we need to subjectively decide which societies are worth bettering and which aren’t. Which leads us back to the quagmire of subjectivity.”

                      Yes smithy, but we needn’t be so blind. I’m sure you too wonder at times if decisions are being made that do employ that basic foundation under our variety of what’s ok hues: “Do unto others etc”.

                      That foundation runs into trouble when we meet a man who is being perfectly honest when he says “Yep, if it was me, I’d be delighted to have a mine opening up next door.”

                      Then…as it is when you get anymore than 1 person together, compromises need to be negotiated. The ideal solution leaves all parties with equally broad smiles. We should be chasing more ideal solutions.

                    • tsmithfield

                      Reply to Draco

                      I disagree. I defined that society as the society of white South Africans. They were bettering their own society, quite nicely actually at the expense of the black society. It could even be argued that the white society had morality based around bettering their own society, yet it was destroyed in the end.

                      So, in this case, bettering their own society didn’t stop it from being destroyed. So, your argument does not follow.

                    • McFlock

                      There are still white South Africans.
                      I’d suggest that stopping using race to justify oppressing others is betterment of that society, if you insist on referring to a demographic subsection as a “society”.

                      [edit: accidentally humorous ommission of “stopping” corrected. ]

                    • tsmithfield

                      Draco hasn’t defined what betterment means.

                      In no way do I approve of one society bettering itself at the expense of another society, or race.

                      I am just showing that his argument doesn’t follow. Just because a society seeks to better itself doesn’t mean it is a good thing, or that it will lead to success.

                      Thats if we are able to agree on good or bad in a subjective morality sense.

                    • McFlock

                      So you’re using an amoral definition of “betterment” in order to argue that morality is subjective?

                      The trouble is that the result seems counterintuitive to me. Does oppressing others provide any improvement or advantage to a society beyond material advantage? It doesn’t seem so, from your example.

                      You seem to be proving Draco’s point.

                      I tend to go more for the “well, your personal morals might allow for the oppression of others but they also allow me to oppress the fuck out of sociopaths like you, and my moral code says that for the protection and betterment of civilised society sociopaths shouldn’t be allowed to harm others, therefore both our moral codes are in agreement that I’m perfectly entitled to get your arse imprisoned for what you just did” argument.

                    • tracey

                      Do you accept that lying is ammoral?

                    • Stuart Munro

                      They’re a mixture.
                      The core ones are objective – telling truth, forbidding theft, murder, violence – everyone agrees in general.

                      But when you get beyond that set responses become more equivocal. Tax evasion, gay marriage, recreational drugs, corporate or environmental actions are less than universally endorsed.

                      Literature and case law remain healthy guides however – situated moral judgments that prove to be surprisingly robust in spite of the complexity of the issues.

                  • tracey

                    If you swap ethical decision making for morals the ground under smithfield and macs feet just crumbles away

                • tracey

                  Lying is not a principle. I know you behave like it is but that is in your head

    • Bearded Git 15.2

      @tssmith

      the greens have a long tradition of opposing wars and violence….if winston doesnt like this he can sod off with the corrupt and devious national party….but i think winston is capable of looking at the big picture

  15. Karen 16

    Latest piece on Winston’s desire for a legacy from Gordon Campbell is interesting (and a lot smarter than the reckons from most of the other journalists).

    http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/10/what-does-winston-peters-want-his-legacy-to-be/

  16. Psych nurse 17

    It doesn’t matter who NZ First goes with, it will become a clusterfuck, best it be National and let it happen.

  17. Once was Tim 18

    If I ruled the world – or even just lil ‘ole NuZull (that apparently punches above its weight, ranks among the least corrupt countries, celebrates an ANZAC spirit and ‘closeness’ – even if only once a year, and is egalitarian in nature): After dealing with housing, health and education failures and privatisations, I’d address the more fundamental issues that threaten our democracy.
    – A stifling of academic opinion and research (unless based solely on economic imperatives)
    – A public service that answers to the whims and whispers of Ministers rather than to parliament, and one that operates under business imperatives rather than the needs of the public/people it purports to represent
    – Little or no public service broadcasting operating alongside other media: A voice and image of the people/public operating nationally and regionally
    – Inequities in the Judicial system and structure
    – Underfunding of institutions designed to protect and reinforce democratic processes (such as the Ombudsman/wowan’s Office), or even the Electoral Commission (they quite obviously now need to be given ‘guidelines’ because monopolies/duopolies are apparently OK)
    – Complete disregard for the OIA process and the veneer of transparency that covers a shitload of sins
    – and a few other things

    • Once was Tim 18.1

      Ooops – Electoral Commision – underfunded/resourced as it was should have read Commerce Commission.
      You get that though when approaching dotage

    • Stuart Munro 18.2

      “If I ruled the world, certain people’d have to jack up their ideas…” John Clarke

  18. RC 19

    I think the Greens are going to sink a NZF coalition with Labour. Sorry Guys i cant see it happening when i look at the elected list MPS of Greens and NZF they are so far apart. Believe it when people say NZF voters would prefer a Labour led government by a country mile though so you never know.

    • tracey 19.1

      You might think that but you have no evidence to support it. So, stop torturing yourself.

    • red-blooded 19.2

      And, if this is the outcome, let’s put the responsibility where it lies: not “the Greens are going to sink a NZF coalition with Labour” but “NZF’s attitude to the Greens”.

  19. David Mac 20

    Re: Winston’s Crew, his voters and their longevity, I wonder what the Grandparent to Green voting grandchild numbers look like? Grandparents love their grandchildren to bits. They see the future in them.

  20. Fred H 21

    Nz first has to consult their caucas before agreeing to a coalition, Labour has to seek approval from a committee, Greens have to get agreement from their members and National has to run it past Satan….then the public gets to know😊

  21. Steve Alfreds 22

    I hate to say it, but give Winston a break, it hasn’t even been a month since the polls closed. This week the Dutch announced they have a new coalition government after 208 days of negotiations.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/09/dutch-politicians-ready-form-government-election-coalition

  22. sam green 23

    Over on Kiwiblob GD – Farrar is supporting a medical information privacy breach. What a blog hero he is. Not.

    • Frida 23.1

      @sam green – I read that yesterday and as a health lawyer (and a caring human!) was totally shocked!!!! Where did things get to? Did someone call the guy out on the breach? It was totally appalling

  23. Rowley Birkin QC: Shanghai – YouTube
    Video for rowley birkin qc▶ 1:36

  24. cleangreen 25

    We need to begin believing in NZF as being the winds of real change, as we have seen folks like Smithfield and others are advocating to go with the status quo National but we simply cant afford any more “errosion” of our assets and our land/bussiness’s and other bussiness as our ecomony is now shrinking very quickly, and my suggestion is that we give NZF the chance to reverse the wholesale of NZ by Goldman sachs clingons like smithfield and co.

    Save NZ vote for change keep hope alive “lets do this”

    • tuppence shrewsbury 25.1

      Hahaha, winston the winds of change? You pin far to much hope on the old duffer

  25. tuppence shrewsbury 26

    Maybe both parties are playing a high risk strategy with peters to keep him in check? Maybe labour and national have both agreed to offer to the greens what they offer to winston and they’ve told him that, bringing the greens into play no matter what and forcing peters to hold his demands to a reasonable level otherwise he could be responsible for giving the greens unbridled power

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Federal Communications Commissars say ‘neyt’ to net neutrality.
    The Internet has faced many threats. Dictatorships building cyber walls, a hostile takeover bid by the International Telecommunications Union and states and companies trying to block websites, but last night the U.S. Federal Communications Commission repealed U.S. net neutrality rules. ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    18 hours ago
  • Nga hapū o Ngāpuhi, kōrero mai!
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little continues his Ngāpuhi listening tour throughout Te Tai Tokerau following the announcement of six more hui this weekend.  ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Pike River Recovery Agency advice released
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has released advice on the establishment of the Pike River Recovery Agency, Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau mā Iwa. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • When gaming becomes gambling
    I was really looking forward to playing the new Star Wars: Battlefront 2 game. It looked pretty cool and I liked the first instalment. But when I checked out the reviews online, nobody was talking about the new game; they ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    2 weeks ago