Hatin’ on the left

Written By: - Date published: 8:45 pm, February 10th, 2013 - 432 comments
Categories: Economy, monetary policy - Tags: , , , ,

So Trevor Mallard thinks it’s smart to stick the boot in to Russell Norman for linking to an article about using the printing of money as a tool of monetary policy.

Well it says a lot more about the state of the Labour Party than anything else. It just goes to show what happens when throwbacks from the 1980s like Goff, Mallard, and King are running your strategy.

You get a party that refuses to accept the world has changed, can’t think outside the confines of neo-liberalism and gets outflanked at every turn by the Greens.

That’s why their best answer to the housing crisis has been a public-private partnership targeting middle class voters.

No wonder Labour’s stuck on 31%.

Update: sigh. this isn’t about the merits of quantitative easing. It’s about the merits of senior MP attacking the Co-Leader of his party’s one coalition option in public (the ‘presume this is an intern’ comment is particularly childish). Professionals just don’t pull that shit.

432 comments on “Hatin’ on the left ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    10 February 2013 at 9:07 pm

    You’re using a Kiwiblog post to back up your statement?

    You get a party that refuses to accept the world has changed, can’t think outside the confines of neo-liberalism and gets outflanked at every turn by the Greens.

    It’s not that the world has changed but that the delusion of capitalism is becoming more and more obvious but those in power refuse to accept that.

    • Colonial Weka 1.1
      10 February 2013 at 9:43 pm

      I was surprised about the KB link too, but it is quite a funny post 😉

    • lprent 1.2
      11 February 2013 at 12:09 am

      You’re using a Kiwiblog post to back up your statement?

      I was wondering that myself. Then I read that it was all about twitter feeds. Since they have limits (140 chars) to satisfy even the most neurotic of the anti-intellectual and policy deficient, of course the analysis of the information that they contain is going to come from the right. And that has been the case for many years. Whaleoil seems to spend his life reading them.

      Damn silly way of communicating in my opinion.

  2. Tiresias 2
    10 February 2013 at 9:20 pm

    “Presume this is an intern not@RusselNorman but whoever it is needs to look to future not focus on rear vision mirror.” – Trevor Mallard.

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana.

    And another great Santayana observation which may or may not be apposite – “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

    I’d say 3 – nil to Norman, one a Mallard own-goal.

  3. mike 3
    10 February 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Man why in hell are you continually posting anti-Labour stuff on this site? Your headlines are starting to make this place look like the front page of the Herald. Please go off and start your own party and let prejudiced people continuously throw shit at you – whatever – but please just get outta my face. And don’t give me the bullshit about ‘democracy’ and entitlement to ‘opinions’, neither of those words cover your pontificating – you’re worse that a chauvinist preacher shouting damnation from a pulpit. Crawl under a stone and leave us in peace. Please.

    [lprent: Take your own advice – 2 months ban. Basically arseholes who attack authors don’t deserve my time reading them. This isn’t a “Labour” site – read the about. And you are a fool. ]

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      10 February 2013 at 9:57 pm

      Please go off and start your own party

      Or take ours back.

    • QoT 3.2
      10 February 2013 at 10:18 pm

      A partial list of these self-martyrdom offenses include:-

      … Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site – including telling us how to run our site or what we should write.

      Word to the wise, mate.

    • bad12 3.3
      10 February 2013 at 10:29 pm

      So Labour MP’s like Shane Jones and now Trevor Mallard should just be left to fire off any old anti-Green Party s**t that pops into their obviously empty heads at any point in time and we all should just sit here in silence,

      Better you stick to reading your Herald me thinks…

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.3.1
        11 February 2013 at 10:31 am

        Its politics 101 to oppose a competing partys ideas !!

        After all , Mallard said
        “stop thrashing dead horse and work on imaginative tools appropriate for NZ”

  4. tsmithfield 4
    10 February 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Mallard is right to stick the boot in. Printing money is stupid in an economy with a positive interest rate. The first step would be to drop interest rates. Printing money only becomes sensible if there is no more room to drop rates and an economy is risking deflation.

    Anyway, the main beneficiaries of money printing are the banks who benefit through the carry trade. The experience in the US et al. is that the benefits haven’t tended to flow down to those who need it. So, the implication from experience in the US is that if the left approves of printing money, they also approve of making bankers richer.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      10 February 2013 at 9:58 pm

      Mallard is right to stick the boot in. Printing money is stupid in an economy with a positive interest rate. The first step would be to drop interest rates.

      Nope.

      ZIRP internationally means that lowering our rates will have no effect.

      Anyway, the main beneficiaries of money printing are the banks who benefit through the carry trade. The experience in the US et al. is that the benefits haven’t tended to flow down to those who need it.

      Nope. You don’t follow the US example and give the printed cash to the banks. You have the Government spend the cash directly into the productive economy, bypassing the banks.

      • tsmithfield 4.1.1
        10 February 2013 at 10:25 pm

        “ZIRP internationally means that lowering our rates will have no effect.”

        Completely wrong. Over recent times our currency has proven sensitive to even the potential for the Reserve Bank to alter our interest rates by a few points. So a zero rate policy would have a major hit on our exchange rate, and make imports such as petrol etc much more expensive.

        “You have the Government spend the cash directly into the productive economy, bypassing the banks.”

        The money still ends up in the hands of the banks, even if it is indirectly. So, you can’t avoid that one. Also, printing money would definitely hit our exchange rate big time, so imports would be way more expensive, having a major affect on the poor.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          10 February 2013 at 10:33 pm

          A lower dollar will mean higher fuel prices, higher imported goods prices, more expensive Porshces and pricier world holidays.

          It’s the price of having strong employment prospects for the working class and manufacturers.

          So a zero rate policy would have a major hit on our exchange rate, and make imports such as petrol etc much more expensive.

          I’m not suggesting that WE institute ZIRP, I’m saying that its already happened all around the world.

          Re: your point about an NZD drop. Yes. Imported shit will be more expensive, so we can go to an import substitution strategy.

        • bad12 4.1.1.2
          10 February 2013 at 10:33 pm

          Bull defecation, read my comments below, such printed monies need never go near a bank except via the normal course of business from having reduced unemployment…

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.3
          10 February 2013 at 10:35 pm

          The money still ends up in the hands of the banks, even if it is indirectly.

          Indirectly is fine.

          • Fortran 4.1.1.3.1
            11 February 2013 at 1:42 pm

            In the USA the various international Mafia, and all their connotations, and Drug Cartels are the main beneficiaries from the printing of money.
            More cash more for them to cream.
            So much crime depends upon the Greenback as currency.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.4
          11 February 2013 at 12:33 pm

          The money still ends up in the hands of the banks, even if it is indirectly.

          Probably but they won’t be able to do anything with it.

          Also, printing money would definitely hit our exchange rate big time, so imports would be way more expensive, having a major affect on the poor.

          For a short time until the cheaper NZ products flooded the market.

        • MrSmith 4.1.1.5
          12 February 2013 at 12:32 pm

          “Completely wrong. Over recent times our currency has proven sensitive to even the potential for the Reserve Bank to alter our interest rates by a few points.”

          You have a short memory then ts, I can remember the last housing bubble like it was yesterday, we watched the reserve bank increasing interest rates quarterly to try and cool the property market with little or no effect, then as we know the whole house of cards collapsed. Remember?

          Normans idea of printing money is a good one and in time I suggest he will be proven right, lets hope it will happen. Now the banks will do everything in there power to see this doesn’t happen, because at the moment we basically let them, the banks, print the money, then we let them loan that money and charge interest on that it, which creates a shortage of money because the interest charged has to come from somewhere, not to mention inflation, yes they, the banks take the risk, but what risk? as we have seen they are to big to fail.

    • Lanthanide 4.2
      10 February 2013 at 10:00 pm

      What about the idea of ‘printing’ money to re-fill up the EQC emergency fund?

      • tsmithfield 4.2.1
        10 February 2013 at 10:26 pm

        Maybe. However, the RB would need to consider the inflationary effect of having money in people’s pockets that would otherwise have been paid into the EQC fund.

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1
          10 February 2013 at 10:29 pm

          If inflationary pressures build unduly, just increase savings rates for the top 50% of the population to take money back out, also make it harder for banks to create credit on credit cards and loans.

          However, because we will be using the new money to build competitive and productive capacity in the economy, ensuring that every dollar is used to the maximum, inflationary pressures will be kept low.

          • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 4.2.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 12:02 pm

            CV
            If inflationary pressures build unduly, just increase savings rates for the top 50% of the population
            Would this be done under a compulsory superannuation scheme, which would give the government power to enforce this smoothing of the economy?

            • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 12:08 pm

              many ways of doing it, and that’s one. Make KiwiSaver compulsory for instance, and adjust the % contribution as required. Or increase taxes targetting wealth and higher incomes. Or making term deposit rates for longer terms more attractive, making people lock away their money for longer.

              Driving down property values in the top half of the market also makes people feel poorer so they will spend less and save more.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                11 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

                Or making term deposit rates for longer terms more attractive, making people lock away their money for longer.

                Won’t happen as interest rates will actually fall which, IMO, is why the rich don’t like the idea of the government printing money. It takes away their ability to live as rich parasites.

    • bad12 4.3
      10 February 2013 at 10:09 pm

      I suggest you go back and read your own link, specifically the last couple of paragraphs, you are wrong about printing money,

      There are 3 identified problems in the NZ economy that printing money would alleviate,

      (1), Affordable housing, housing built with printed monies becomes totally affordable whether that housing is State owned rentals or on-sold as home ownership with the Government acting as the mortgage holder,

      (2), printing a ‘sane’ amount of NZ$ into the economy by building affordable housing with the printed monies will dilute the currency and lower the price of the NZ$,

      (3),building affordable housing with printed monies will create employment throughout the economy,

      Printed money is not the inflation devil as the Brit Lord happens to point out, by simply printing and spending such monies into the economy with full regard to the Reserve Bank’s inflation targets band, in my opinion 1 to 2 billion dollars annually of printed monies would be sufficient to lower the NZ$ value over time to 70-75 cents against the US$, and provoke annual inflation lower than 1% while providing ongoing employment to 1000’s,

      Doing the above keeps the banks paws well out of the way of being the main beneficiary of printed monies…

    • Draco T Bastard 4.4
      11 February 2013 at 12:31 pm

      Actually, one of the main benefits of the government printing money with zero interest and spending it into the economy is that it helps stop those with far too much money from getting interest and thus living as parasites.

  5. gobsmacked 5
    10 February 2013 at 9:38 pm

    Going by past experience, it’s only a matter of time before somebody pipes up with “Both sides are to blame” and/or “Don’t criticise Mallard on the Standard you iz John Key fan!!11!”

    So for the record before it gets lost …

    1) Russel Norman is the co-leader of the Greens, and he is simply commenting on his party’s policy. That’s his job.

    2) Trevor Mallard then attacks Russel Norman, and it’s entirely unclear what this has to do with his job.

    But hey, both sides are to blame, Labour know what they’re doing, social media don’t matter, it’s like blogs, and the leader is totally in control of his MPs, blah blah blah …

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      10 February 2013 at 10:01 pm

      Mike already beat you to “Don’t criticise Mallard on the Standard you iz John Key fan!!11!”.

      [lprent: Actually gs didn’t say that. I was rather amused by his analysis. I’m rather interested in where Trevor found his new found expertise in economics myself. But I guess I’ll find that out when I have time to read the links. ]

  6. Jane 6
    10 February 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Sigh, it’s enough to make one weep!!

    • the sprout 6.1
      11 February 2013 at 7:43 am

      Yes. Old thinking from an old man. Not what Labour needs, but all that Labour has.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 12:46 pm

        +1

        Thing is, we’re getting that thinking from all parties. None of them have a vision that removes capitalism despite the fact that it’s failing most people.

        • GeoffC 6.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 6:52 pm

          Clare curran mentioned time for a paradymial change a few times

          • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 12:35 pm

            Next step: ask her to explain what the current paradigm is in her own words, and what new paradigm it needs to transition to, in her own words. You’ll find the experience instructive, I’m sure.

  7. bad12 7
    10 February 2013 at 10:12 pm

    Thanks Trevor, the Green Party vote will certainly be given a boost as this latest s**t hits the fan…

    • blue leopard 7.1
      11 February 2013 at 12:07 am

      @bad12,

      But will they? People might just stick to viewing National as the only “safe” option, seeing as any Left-wing coalition is looking increasingly laughable as Labour fixates their attacks first on themselves and then their potential partners rather than addressing the incredible hash National are making of things

      • bad12 7.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 12:24 am

        The need to survive at some point must have Labour reaching for the light…

        • Rhinocrates 7.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 12:31 am

          No, everyone knows that the Titanic is unsinkable, so having the very best deck chairs is their obsession now – and if it does sink, they’ll hang on to those splendid chairs right until it reaches the bed of the Atlantic, knowing that they deserved them all along.

        • blue leopard 7.1.1.2
          11 February 2013 at 12:34 am

          @ bad12…yeah we can live in hope. Just getting a tad difficult to believe. I just wish they would start attacking the main offender, who really is doing a lot of offending and lay off their own side. This is getting laughable.

          • bad12 7.1.1.2.1
            11 February 2013 at 1:16 am

            Lol, i don’t disagree with you, i was over on ‘open mike’ saying to someone how negative it was to keep on giving Shearer stick when this post went up,

            Such crap from Mallard tho is indefensible and how can a coalition be built on the basis of such contempt,

            It’s not like Russell Norman is proposing anything radical considering what is occurring in economies right now,

            Does Trevor perhaps propose that we all sit here head in sand until the NZ$ hits $1.20c against the US$, watch everything go tits up then including the tourist industry, that would be fun, messy but fun,

            I have the sneaking suspicion that certain heads within Labour would like nothing more than a ‘urgent’ airport type Lange/Douglas meeting where ‘there is no alternative’ than to devalue the NZ$ by regulation,

            Perhaps that’s why Trevor is being openly abusive, its a bit hard to use TINA when someone has been proposing a logical alternative publicly for ages…

            • blue leopard 7.1.1.2.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 1:32 am

              Yes, it was getting a bit repetitive re Shearer criticism, (I do believe this was lobbying re the leader vote, therefore served a purpose) however the Labour caucus’s behaviour is getting even more tedious. Its not like there isn’t a wealth of fodder for criticism with this current Government.

              Your sneaking suspicion is horribly believable. Lots of things are becoming horribly believable with this Government and these antics of the main opposition party. One has to question; what are they on? 😕

              • bad12 …
                11 February 2013 at 4:06 pm

                LOLZ, my lips are sealed by the fear of a law suit should i make a suggestion as to ‘what they are on’, although to suggest ‘another planet’ seems reasonably safe,

                The comments today by Stuart Nash would tend to suggest that Trevor is only the tip of the ice-berg as far as the Labour Party’s decline is concerned…

  8. Stuart Nash 8
    10 February 2013 at 10:34 pm

    I agree with Mike – why all the anti-Labour shit on this site? Astounding and totally counter-productive. Was looking through a couple of old ‘Standard’ newspapers I have, as well as a few of the Labour Party Journals. Surprise surprise, not one anti-Labour comment at all. In fact, it was about spreading the word in a positive fashion. Hmmm. Not a bad idea me thinks.!

    [lprent: It is a “labour movement” site, not a Labour party site. It is in the about. And politics is running under a MMP environment with multiple parties of the left.

    For some reason not being restricted to having a single viable left party in parliament does kind of shift the debate. If you’d lifted your gaze back into the earlier decades of last century before the first Labour government you’d have seen a rather different story. Removing the restriction of forced monolithic governments will cause more parties and more arguments between them and their supporters.

    But you could also ask yourself why there are so few unions and union members now affiliated with the NZLP. I personally know that some of the unionists hold and held some rather strong views on it. ]

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      10 February 2013 at 10:40 pm

      Were those Standard newspapers proclaiming things like the 40 hour work week with penal rates for overtime, compulsory unionisation, government building power stations, forests, railways, roads and houses itself, the importance of the Govt starting and owning the rural bank, state insurance, the societal value of free education for all, etc.

      • geoff 8.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 7:58 am

        Dead right, astounding the number of wallies who think being left is a tribal thing rather than something based on fundamental principles. They can’t fathom that when the leaders of the traditionally true left start acting like right wingers that you’d question them.

    • r0b 8.2
      10 February 2013 at 10:40 pm

      This isn’t a Labour Party blog, Stuart, it’s a labour movement blog, an unruly collection of voices from the left. And historically we idealistic lefties have never been a particularly cohesive force (alas).

      Having said that, yeah I find the Labour bashing a bit over the top a lot of the time too. We’ve built a useful little forum here – I wish we could figure out how to use it constructively.

      • QoT 8.2.1
        10 February 2013 at 10:49 pm

        Honestly, r0b, if you’ve got any suggestions which don’t boil down to “shut up about Labour’s failings”, I would be happy to hear them.

        In the mean time, here we go again with another example of a senior Labour MP dumping on Labour’s most likely coalition partner. I guess next time there’s a poll out and everyone wants to trumpet the impending victory of the “Left bloc” we’ll just pretend this never happened?

        • r0b 8.2.1.1
          10 February 2013 at 10:53 pm

          if you’ve got any suggestions which don’t boil down to “shut up about Labour’s failings”, I would be happy to hear them.

          If half the people who love to endlessly talk about Labour’s failings got actively involved and tried to fix those failings, the world would be a better place, don’t you think?

          • QoT 8.2.1.1.1
            10 February 2013 at 11:03 pm

            Maybe some of us are operating under the ~craaaaaaazy~ assumption that offering free advice on what they’re doing wrong might help. This is the problem, r0b: people keep saying “be constructive” and all I hear is “go through the proper channels! Proper private channels which no one else can see!” which … boils down to “shut up about Labour’s failings”.

            You say people “love to endlessly talk about Labour’s failings” as though we’re doing this for fun, r0b. It’s actually not any fucking fun to watch the Best Great Hope of NZ leftwing politics continually screw the pooch for no greater apparent reason than “because Trevor thinks it’s a good idea, and also a lot of people hate David Cunliffe”.

            Why the fuck am I going to put any effort into getting “actively involved” in a party whose advocates continually make it clear that they are uninterested in critique, refuse to get involved in the online conversation, and only think a person’s opinion is valuable if they’ve coughed up a subscription fee and had the time and resources to stick up some hoardings?

            • r0b 8.2.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2013 at 11:10 pm

              Why the fuck am I going to put any effort into getting “actively involved” in a party…

              It’s more effective to work to change something from the inside than the outside.

              Or then again I guess its much easier to offer free advice, so whatever, carry on.

              I’m turning in my keyboard for the evening – goodnight…

              • Rhinocrates …
                10 February 2013 at 11:12 pm

                It’s more effective to work to change something from the inside than the outside.

                No, actually, it’s not. Ask David Cunliffe.

              • QoT …
                10 February 2013 at 11:15 pm

                Yeah, r0b. You’re really convincing me that Labour is worth my time and energy, what with consistently framing online opposition as petty, insincere, and lazy.

                • IrishBill …
                  11 February 2013 at 7:43 am

                  Inside and outside is a false dichotomy. Many are involved in both. That said, I wouldn’t describe this post as “opposition” to Labour. It’s opposition to Trevor Mallard’s idiocy. I think that r0b and Stuart should ask themselves why they feel the need to turn criticism of Trevor into criticism of Labour as a whole.

                  As I sometimes have to tell the trolls, argue the post, not the author, and not some strawman version of the post. Which is to say let’s hear some of you party stalwarts (and I use the term loosely – my time in the party probably goes back further than most of you) explain just why having Trevor slagging off Russel Norman on twitter is a good idea.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    11 February 2013 at 8:06 am

                    “I think that r0b and Stuart should ask themselves why they feel the need to turn criticism of Trevor into criticism of Labour as a whole.”

                    They didn’t. Green voter Zet did in the second sentence in the post:

                    “Well it says a lot more about the state of the Labour Party than anything else.”

                    • IrishBill …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:15 am

                      True enough. I read that as criticism of the caucus rather than the party as a whole though. And I think it’s a pretty targeted criticism.

                      As an aside, what do you think of Mallard’s twittering, TRP?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:27 am

                      I don’t like his unwarranted smugness and I commented in my usual diplomatic way on his fb site when he made a similar negative posting before xmas. Trevor is part of the problem; I don’t see him being part of the cure.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

                      “I think that r0b and Stuart should ask themselves why they feel the need to turn criticism of Trevor into criticism of Labour as a whole.”

                      Good point Te Reo Putake

                  • blue leopard …
                    11 February 2013 at 7:43 pm

                    Oops that was IrishBill’s point, sorry.
                    Good point Irish Bill!

          • lprent 8.2.1.1.2
            10 February 2013 at 11:37 pm

            If half the people who love to endlessly talk about Labour’s failings got actively involved and tried to fix those failings, the world would be a better place, don’t you think?

            Been there, done that, have tee-shirts. Problem is that it gets rather difficult motivating yourself to keep battering your head against a thick-wall. Trevor’s latest twitter commentary on economics does rather exemplify the problem. Perhaps you could tell me why he thought it was useful?

            I am rather puzzled, even after reading it. What the fuck he was thinking about? It really doesn’t make any sense at a economic level or at a political level. Perhaps Trevor should leave economic arguments to the David Parker?

      • Colonial Weka 8.2.2
        10 February 2013 at 11:49 pm

        r0b, I think all the non-Labour bashing posts of late is a good way for you to redress the balance. But there are many people here who aren’t in the Labour party and who never will be, and I’m not sure what we can do about the situation that is constructive. For GP members it’s like watching a very slow lead up to a train wreck (in 2014).

    • bad12 8.3
      10 February 2013 at 10:48 pm

      Ask yourself that question from another angle, why all the Anti-green Party s**t from Trevor Mallard, it aint like Labour have got a hell of a lot of coalition options to piss off…

      • Colonial Weka 8.3.1
        10 February 2013 at 11:52 pm

        I’m guessing they want Winnie more than Russel.

        • bad12 8.3.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 12:02 am

          Lolz i commented the same thing a week or so ago and got an earful of invective for my troubles,

          I would suggest Trev in His dotage actively pines for the time when, Winston as a pliable Foreign Affairs Minister, Trev sitting as god’s right hand,

          My thought is that the Green Party might want to consider sitting out-side of a minority Labour Government and dictate to them clause by clause on every bit of Legislation that could only be passed by the passing of specific pieces of Green Party Legislation,

          The Green Party sitting round a Cabinet table with the likes of Jones and Mallard in it are asking to get screwed over and then painted by Labour and the media as the baddies in any coalition spills which result…

          • Colonial Weka 8.3.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 11:16 am

            It does seem like the Labour old guard would work with the GP through gritted teeth.

            “My thought is that the Green Party might want to consider sitting out-side of a minority Labour Government and dictate to them clause by clause on every bit of Legislation that could only be passed by the passing of specific pieces of Green Party Legislation,”

            Apparently people don’t like this because it’s an unstable govt, and the GP can be seen to be holding the govt to ransom. Myself, it seems an appropriate response to a Labour Party that is still unwilling to play nice.

            How the GP manages post-election negotiations will be one of the most interesting aspects of the next cycle.

            • bad12 8.3.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 3:51 pm

              The danger for the Green Party is to enter a coalition with Labour getting a couple of ‘token’ Ministerial positions along with some increased budget for the Ministries and this then being used as leverage to gain acceptance of the Green MP’s staying largely silent on alternatives to Labour’s policies,

              That as has been repeatedly shown by the slow death of other political party’s will simply gut the support of the Green Party that is more focused upon Green Party social and economic issues,

              The attitude of first Mallard, and latterly Stuart Nash right here in the pages of the Standard would tend to suggest that the Green Party may have more to lose being ‘in Government’ with Labour than any gains it may accrue,

              The amusement of having the likes of Stuart Nash enter the pages of the Standard to mount an unsubstantiated attack upon the Green Party is that while Labour were definitely not getting my Party vote in 2014 they were pretty much assured of my electorate vote,

              Take a bow Stuart Nash, your reward for such a stellar performance here in the pages of the Standard today means that Labour will certainly NOT even have my electorate vote…

              • Te Reo Putake …
                11 February 2013 at 4:01 pm

                Oooh, hark at the Tory enabler having a hissy fit!

              • blue leopard …
                11 February 2013 at 7:47 pm

                TRP
                I suggest that prior to referring to another commenter as a Tory enabler, you first check that this isn’t what you are doing yourself.

                It is perfectly fine to critique politicians behaviour and express concern over the ramifications of such. It is right-wing spin that turns that into an act of irrationality and some type of crime.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  11 February 2013 at 8:34 pm

                  Tough. As his Bobness says, if dem cap fit, dem wear it. Seen?

                  Voting anything other than Labour in winnable electorate seats is Tory enabling*. That’s a fact. For example: Paula Benefit. If it wasn’t for Tory enabling Greens, she’d already be in the dustbin of history. Same in 8 or 9 other seats. This is a blog written by, commented on and read by intelligent people. They don’t need to be mollycoddled or condecended to, at least as I see it. If a self described lefty chooses an option that helps the Tories, then shame on them and I’ll be fucked if I won’t call that shit for what it is.

                  *Mana excepted, they’re growing on me!

                  • blue leopard …
                    11 February 2013 at 8:51 pm

                    Ah I get your point.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:13 pm

                      Cheers, blue. There might be a guest post in it, dya reckon? It’s going to be an issue in the next election too. The left needs to work together and box clever if we are going to rid NZ parliament of the likes of Bennett, Kaye and Dunne.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      I think that the problem might be that people don’t “get” it, more than any message The Greens were sending out.

                      Prior to the last election I found myself explaining this issue re who to vote for in the electorate vote, quite a few times, to those openly telling me they intended to vote Greens. It took a surprising amount of explaining, yet once they realised the consequences, were thankful that I told them (…and I was thankful I did too!)

                      When I first read your response I was surprised because I had checked out this issue after the election, yet I must have missed a lot, (or the earlier results were different?) because at that time there didn’t seem to be any areas where it would have made any difference (when Green electorate votes are added to Labour there still wouldn’t have been a win for Labour).

                      re guest post I guess the more repeating of the issue the better, and would be interesting to know how many electorates were compromised.

                  • felixviper …
                    11 February 2013 at 8:57 pm

                    Wasn’t it Mana rather than the Greens campaigning in Waitakere?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:07 pm

                      Both did damage, but Mana’s 300 electorate votes were a sixth of the Green vote. However, more people voted for Bradford in the electorate seat than party voted Mana, so, yes, it could be said that long time beneficiaries advocate Sue Bradford is responsible for the worst Welfare Minister in a generation, which would be pretty ironic.

                    • felixviper …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:21 pm

                      I really wish Green voters would sort that out. There’s zero to be gained (at this point) by giving the Green candidate an electorate vote, however good it makes you feel.

                      Not that that means it should automatically go to the Labour candidate either, but ffs I wish they’d at least think through the possible outcomes available.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    11 February 2013 at 9:12 pm

                    For example: Paula Benefit. If it wasn’t for Tory enabling Greens, she’d already be in the dustbin of history.

                    If it wasn’t for Tory enabling Labour, this National Government would already be in the dustbin of history.

                    (See what I did there?)

                  • handle …
                    11 February 2013 at 9:18 pm

                    Paula Bennett would have got in as an MP via her party’s list. Learn MMP.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:24 pm

                      So what?. She is the electorate MP for Waitakere, which means a significant population of workers and beneficiaries have no one to speak for them. If you have anything to say on the wider point I’m making lets hear it. Or just stick to pedantry if that makes you feel better.

                    • handle …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:44 pm

                      “which means a significant population of workers and beneficiaries have no one to speak for them” – what, you think the only person who can do that is their electorate MP? Again, learn how our system actually works.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:13 pm

                      Handle, we are talking about who the MP is. That’s the context in which I made the ‘no voice’ comment. Learn English.

                      KJT I’m not blaming the Greens for anything that is Labour’s own shit to sort. What I’m saying is that green voters have helped National win electorate seats. Which is a stone cold fact.

                      But thank you for explaining CV’s point more clearly. He apparently needs the help tonight.

                  • KJT …
                    11 February 2013 at 9:49 pm

                    Lets be honest here. The “Tory enablers” are a Labour party caucus that makes even National look competent.

                    Blaming the Greens, or anyone else, for Labour’s current lack of vision, competence and the propensity of senior caucus members to ‘shoot the party in the foot’, is self serving bullshit.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    11 February 2013 at 11:59 pm

                    “Voting anything other than Labour in winnable electorate seats is Tory enabling*. That’s a fact.”

                    No it’s not. It’s only true where National and Labour are close and voting for the GP or Mana puts the seat at risk for the left. If it’s a safe Labour or National seat, then electorate voting for Mana or the GP is a valid choice.

        • Murray Olsen 8.3.1.2
          11 February 2013 at 12:45 am

          I wouldn’t be surprised if Mallard wants John Key more than he wants Russel.

    • gobsmacked 8.4
      10 February 2013 at 10:57 pm

      @Stuart

      Rank these in order of importance:

      1) Trevor Mallard.
      2) Zetetic on the Standard.

      You can’t have it both ways. If “nobody reads blogs” or bloggers “aren’t real New Zealanders” (the Labour leader’s view) then you need not worry.

      Nobody on the Standard speaks for Labour. But Labour’s strategist might. (Does he? Who knows?)

      If you’re going to shoot messengers, shouldn’t you be aiming at the one who does the damage?

    • blue leopard 8.5
      11 February 2013 at 12:55 am

      @ Mr Stuart Nash,
      “Why all the anti-Labour shit”

      Seriously?

      Please get out, in disguise if necessary and talk to the people in your area. I think you will be hard pushed to find any that find it a good idea for Labour to focus on either themselves or their most likely coalition partner when it comes to attacks. Are you really that disengaged?

      From where I’m standing, this is yet another in a series of seriously idiotic stuff coming out of Labour.

      If the Labour caucus started paying more attention to their duty as an opposition party ~that is, critiquing the current government~ and resolved to resist the clearly terrific temptation of attacking themselves or their nearest and dearest, then you might find your wish is granted and more praise and less criticism would be forthcoming. This really is a case of a very simple cause and effect relationship.

      How about it?

      • Stuart Nash 8.5.1
        11 February 2013 at 12:26 pm

        You know what, I actually agree. I have been critical of the job Labour has been doing in its role of holding the government to account, and I believe they need to be far more effective. Chippie has been doing a great job recently with education, and now we need others to follow Chippie’s lead and go hard against the govt in a whole lot of areas.

        As for talking to people in my area: that’s what I do (in fact too much – have a real passion for building a better NZ but it doesn’t pay the mortgage) and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important.

        But I suppose if you think the Labour caucus is failing the cause, then sites like this really need to pick up the batan and go very hard (and I acknowledge that this is often the case), but hard against the govt.!

        One thing I would say is that the Greens are endlessly bashing Labour, and they have publicly acknowledged that their votes predominately come from traditionally Labour voters. Yes, they are likely to be Labour’s coalition partner in a 2014 government, however, that doesn’t mean we let them have a free ride at Labour’s expense. Personally, I think a number of the Green’s ideas are nutty and others just plain impracticable, and they need to be held to account along with all parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.

        • Bill 8.5.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 12:37 pm

          Seriously? (again).

          So I (for example) ought not to pen posts that are critical of anything Labour says or does – or that seeks to have them account for themselves. I ought to focus all criticism on the present government. I ought to become a cheerleader for a pack of politicians that, for good demonstratable reasons, I have no faith or trust in.

          But those same people you think I ought to be cheerleading for are quite right to criticise the party they would go into coaltion with if they managed to pull out of their ‘just not looking electable’ nose dive.

          Unreal.

          • Te Reo Putake 8.5.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 12:56 pm

            “Unreal”

            Indeed, Bill, your comment is unreal. It doesn’t seem relate to what Nash is saying and puts words in his mouth. Nash hasn’t asked you to become a cheerleader, or to stop posting about Labour. Nor does he ask you to focus all criticism on the present Government.

            However, Nash makes the valid point that we (the wider TS community) should be putting the boot into National if we don’t feel Labour are up to the job. He’s not wrong. The wailing and flailing about the leadership non issue has been a wasteful distraction and the regular pep talks from Hooten confirm for me that much of the anti-Labour posts here have done nothing for the left and heaps for the Nats.

            • Bill 8.5.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 1:24 pm

              No TRP. When someone writes “go very hard (…) but hard against the government!” [my emphasis] the clear fucking implication is to STFU (again – like anyone is going to pay heed to that b/s) and not be critical of the Labour Party.

              And will you, as in previous threads, now play the role of the deaf, dumb and blind arse who claims there is no such implication? Well yes. You will. You’re already playing that role in the comment above.

              But here you go. In the interests of keeping it simple and politely ignoring the disingenuous content of your previous comment , let me put it this way for you. If ‘that person over there’ isn’t up to the task they’ve taken responsibility for – and if my well being relies on them being up to said task – should I give them a free ride? Or should I give them arseholes and attempt to be shot of them?

              Second option. Every time. Suggesting otherwise is to be offensively insulting.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                11 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

                Point missed, Bill, and your second para is simply not true of me. Or if you genuinely think that, please provide a cite or two. I accept there is an implication that to focus on National might mean less focussing on Labour, but big whoops. It’s about time we moved on from bleating and started getting organised.

                The LP needs to improve, but all stick, no carrot doesn’t work. Now I appreciate that there are some authors to whom the word disengenious might apply, beacuse their posts appear intended to harm Labour while being disguised as concern for t’members. I don’t think you fit into that category, and if I remember correctly, you are at least a paid up member of the LP so you have every right to demand improvement in their performance if you are going to be asked to door knock, telephone or just provide dosh in the next election campaign.

                But continuing to do the Tories work for them is not going to help get a ‘purer’ left Government elected. It’s just going to entrench the awful one we’ve got. It’s also making the Standard a boring read, IMHO. Frankly, TS has had nothing much new to say since conference. Another two years of whingeing about Shearer, Mallard etc isn’t going to do the left any good. Getting stuck into the real enemy might. Unless of course you think the LP is the real enemy, but that would be terribly infantile and imagine you’re not stuck in that particular political silo.

          • veutoviper 8.5.1.1.2
            11 February 2013 at 12:59 pm

            I agree, Bill.

            I have refrained on commenting on the many posts re the Labour Party leadership etc over recent weeks/months because I have had other priorities I have had to deal with. But I have been a reader over that period.

            I have been a Labour voter for many decades – and have recently become a member but I am beginning to reconsider that move now that the Feb vote has been and gone (nowhere).

            While I am pleased to see a few Labour MPs, and some now ex-ones – ie Stuart Nash – finally coming on TS and thank them for that, somehow it is the same old, same old. For example, this from para 2 of Stuart’s comment at 8.5.1

            “… and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important. ”

            I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary” .

            The silence/avoidance in respect of those (other than children living in poverty)who are beneficiaries from Labour is deafening – other than the bene painting his roof and other such examples.

            • Rhinocrates 8.5.1.1.2.1
              11 February 2013 at 1:37 pm

              “… and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important. ”

              As opposed to bad, lazy New Zealanders?

              I find that repeated dog-whistle really, really offensive. From the point of the view of the rich, the poor exist to frighten the middle class, and people come to hate what they fear becoming. It’s utterly shameful that someone representing Labour could consciously exploit that fear and hate.

              I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary”

              I suspect that you may be something like a zombie – previously a decent, respectable person, but now a shambling, repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation.

              However I, like an actor, regularly find myself “resting” between contracts. That means that I’m constantly shifting between “good hard-working New Zealander” and ravening beast, like a werewolf.

              You may look a bit grey, smell bad and have bits falling off, but some makeup, deodorant and glue will have you looking almost normal. I, on the other hand have to spend a fortune on shirts and pants as I rip them to shreds every full moon.

              • blue leopard …
                11 February 2013 at 2:13 pm

                Good call Rhinocrates, sadly very accurate.

                • Jackal …
                  11 February 2013 at 10:15 pm

                  Why is it a “good call” blue leopard? Basically Rhinocrates is again criticizing somebody for what they haven’t written.

                  For instance; If I say I like Vincent van Gogh does it automatically mean I hate Salvador Dalí? Similarly, Stuart Nash saying he supports workers doesn’t mean he has a negative opinion of beneficiaries.

                  Calling it a dog whistle doesn’t change the fact that such an obvious logic failure is an argument from fallacy. Likewise judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.

                  In fact such an argument is dominant throughout this thread, and is more commonly known as a straw man. If the best the anti-Labour faction on The Standard can come up with are ad hominems and strawmen arguments, they certainly shouldn’t gain anybody’s praise, let alone the attention of any MPs.

                  Just to set the record straight… Labour has not exploited peoples fear of becoming poor and saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation” is just as repugnant as Rhinocrates statement that David Shearer should be stabbed in the eye with a screwdriver.

                  There is no humour in such comments.

                  • blue leopard …
                    11 February 2013 at 10:56 pm

                    The good call was the commentary that Rhinocrates makes re being on a benefit, conveys the feeling of what one contends with when on a benefit extremely accurately and the way Rhinocrates has done that is very skillful; figuratively and managing to expose some underlying attitudes going on in society, &/or political.

                    Sorry I didn’t explain myself to the nth degree, yet it was so clear to me, I thought it would be to anyone.

                    …saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation”~Jackal
                    No such thing was said about Mr Nash, I suggest reading comments carefully before attacking.

                    If the best the anti-Labour faction on The Standard can come up with are ad hominems and strawmen arguments, they certainly shouldn’t gain anybody’s praise, let alone the attention of any MPs.

                    Take a good look at what you are trying to achieve here, Jackal, you are playing into right-wing spin in a big way.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:03 pm

                      …saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation”~Jackal
                      No such thing was said about Mr Nash, I suggest reading comments carefully before attacking.

                      Nah, my bet is that the Jackal was being deliberately disingenuous.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      You sure about that CV?
                      It seems to me that the Jackal might simply naturally be that way, without any deliberation required.

                      Anyone who is that easily influenced by rightwing spin doesn’t rate highly with me.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:24 pm

                      lolol
                      resting on the distinction between simile and metaphor to pretend an insult wasn’t thrown is a bit weak.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:26 pm

                      BL. In that case he’s proven fully qualified for a beltway staffing position in Wellington.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:31 am

                      McFlock,
                      I don’t quite understand who you are referring to here, yet if you are referring to my comment:

                      “…saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation”~Jackal
                      No such thing was said about Mr Nash, I suggest reading comments carefully before attacking.”

                      Please read Veutoviper’s comment and Rhinocrate’s.

                      Rhinocrates was quoting Veutovipers “I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary”
                      And thus the bit about a corpse was referring to Veutoviper, not Mr Nash; not an insult, a commentary on attitudes toward people receiving welfare.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:57 am

                      gah! I think now you’re right – I fucked up on that one. Sorry Rhino, on that particular point I did you wrong.

                      And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my cue for bed. It looks like I need it.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 9:25 am

                      Coronial Wiper

                      Nah, my bet is that the Jackal was being deliberately disingenuous.

                      Actually it was an honest mistake and as blue leopard said, I should have read comments a bit more carefully. Trying to skim read comments late at night after a long day is not recommended.

                  • Mary …
                    11 February 2013 at 11:36 pm

                    “…judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.”

                    Labour’s judged on its welfare policy because of all the right-wing legislative changes it made between 1999 and 2008 and its failure ever since, despite being asked time and time again, to say anything to the contrary, whether admit they got it wrong, apologise or distance itself from it even one tiny little bit. You need to read more.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 9:31 am

                      Labours failure to implement better welfare policies since 2008 is because they’re not the government Mary. Just in case you weren’t aware, National won the election in 2008… How exactly is Labour meant to make legislative changes when we have John Keys right wing government calling the shots?

                      Labour has admitted that they got some of their welfare policies wrong… In particular was an apology in 2011 concerning working for families tax credits, which Labour has said they will extend to beneficiaries. They have also said they will increase paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks.

                      But I guess you conveniently missed those press releases eh Mary.

                    • Mary …
                      12 February 2013 at 11:00 am

                      Jackal, I cannot believe your response. You need to read what I said again.

                      Firstly, I said that Labour introduced right-wing welfare reform between 1999 and 2008. Since then they’ve been asked many many times about whether they still subscribe to the ideas underpinning those changes to which their responses have almost always been silence. I did not say that Labour since 2008 had the ability to repeal those changes. I said that they have not in any way resiled from the position upon which those changes were made. That’s still the case today.

                      Secondly, you refer to Labour saying that they’d extend WFF to beneficiary families. You seem to be doing precisely what you criticised Rhinocrates for yesterday: “…judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.” Labour’s so-called change of heart over WFF is just one small blip compared to the raft of nasty, fundamental changes it made to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008. On top of this, of course, is Labour’s track record of flip-flopping on probably every announcement made when in opposition regarding positive change to social security since the benefit cuts in 1991. While it’d be great to know that what Labour says it will do, recent history in the area of support for the poor make the odds pretty low, in fact ridiculously low.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:14 pm

                      Mary

                      I said that they have not in any way resiled from the position upon which those changes were made. That’s still the case today.

                      In that case you’re wrong! Labour has clearly made changes concerning their welfare policies, as you would know if you had bothered to follow the link and properly comprehend the article I provided.

                      Labour’s so-called change of heart over WFF is just one small blip compared to the raft of nasty, fundamental changes it made to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008

                      What a load of rot! The example I provided already proves your statement is incorrect. However there are many other press releases and policy announcements by Labour that also prove you are entirely wrong Mary.

                      Here, please try to elucidate yourself.

                      On top of this, of course, is Labour’s track record of flip-flopping on probably every announcement made when in opposition regarding positive change to social security since the benefit cuts in 1991.

                      Could you give examples of this supposed ‘flip-flopping’ please… Because if you can’t, I will have to conclude that you’re talking bullshit again Mary.

                    • Mary …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:51 pm

                      Jackal, I began wondering about this a day or two ago but now realise for sure that you’re a fuckwit.

              • veutoviper …
                11 February 2013 at 3:05 pm

                ” I suspect that you may be something like a zombie – previously a decent, respectable person, but now a shambling, repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation.”

                LOL!

                Maybe to some people – but not to me! While I have much more time available – and much less money – my brain is not yet dead, my general health is much better, I have many years of experience behind me, and I seem to be almost as busy as I was when I was working very long hours.

                “Busy” means I seem to spend a lot of time putting that experience and knowledge doing things for other people. For example, attending and facilitating WINZ visits for several friends and others who need help with these. Most of them were also “hard working NZers” but are now sickness beneficiaries. Some of them are able to do things like paint their roofs – but only when they are in a good space in terms of their physical or mental health disabilities. However, the nature of their health is such that they could no longer cope with full-time work as their ability to do things changes from day to day. That is why I was so disgusted with Shearer’s painting the roof remarks – and remain so due to the lack of any retraction or apology or focus on improving the situation for beneficiaries.

                • Rhinocrates …
                  11 February 2013 at 7:06 pm

                  Yeah, so much work that really matters is unpaid work, but all the more valuable because of it.

                  My experience tells me that the world is full of “walking wounded” who still keep living, still keep helping people and still keep making things better. They’re the people who the world depends on.

                  Marilyn Waring made the point decades ago with her book Counting for Nothing which looked at the value of women’s work, but it applies to the work done by the unwaged too.

                  Cheers, and all the best.

          • bad12 8.5.1.1.3
            11 February 2013 at 2:41 pm

            Doesn’t this Nash bloke,showing all the signs of having the silver spoon carefully hidden from sight make your blood boil…

            • Stuart Nash 8.5.1.1.3.1
              7 March 2013 at 9:59 pm

              I assume ‘bad 12’ stands for your attitude combined with your age…

        • RedLogix 8.5.1.2
          11 February 2013 at 12:52 pm

          and they have publicly acknowledged that their votes predominately come from traditionally Labour voters.

          Any thoughts as to why Stuart?

          Personally, I think a number of the Green’s ideas are nutty and others just plain impracticable,

          Care to argue which ones and why you think they are nutty?

          and they need to be held to account along with all parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.

          While Labour remains above all criticism?

          • Jackal 8.5.1.2.1
            12 February 2013 at 9:48 am

            RedLogix

            Any thoughts as to why Stuart?

            The obvious answer to that RedLogix is that most Labour and Greens supporters have lots in common because the two parties hold many similar values.

            The issue here is how Labour and the Greens should vie for the same voters, and clearly little twitter arguments are not beneficial to either party.

            Care to argue which ones and why you think they are nutty?

            Personally I think Metiria Turei coming out and saying the public wanted a four year electoral cycle was a bit silly to say the least… Although I don’t think Nash was referring to that specifically.

            While Labour remains above all criticism?

            Isn’t that a false dichotomy? I mean clearly the answer is that all political parties should be held to account by the public and other political parties… Why, in your opinion, should the Greens be above such accountability?

        • Rhinocrates 8.5.1.3
          11 February 2013 at 1:12 pm

          parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.

          ORLY?

          Funny, I thought that the votes belonged to the voters and the voters belonged to nobody.

        • Scintilla 8.5.1.4
          11 February 2013 at 1:20 pm

          Stuart Nash : Why all this fuss over a silly little twitter spat? Why are you even bothering to comment and draw attention to it?

          The Labour Party are the parliamentary Opposition – your leader is the Leader of the Opposition. So get in there and oppose.

        • Colonial Viper 8.5.1.5
          11 February 2013 at 1:32 pm

          One thing I would say is that the Greens are endlessly bashing Labour, and they have publicly acknowledged that their votes predominately come from traditionally Labour voters.

          Maybe if Labour wants “traditional Labour voters” to vote for it, it should consider standing with policies that “traditional Labour voters” will like.

          Traditional Labour voters walked away from Labour in droves through the 1980’s and 1990’s. Check the membership numbers the Labour Party had in 1980 versus 2010. A few came back in the H1 years, but AFAIK the party never made a big effort to bring them back into the fold, choosing instead to chase down the middle class swing voter with strong incomes and property investment aspirations.

          • Te Reo Putake 8.5.1.5.1
            11 February 2013 at 2:17 pm

            “Maybe if Labour wants “traditional Labour voters” to vote for it, it should consider standing with policies that “traditional Labour voters” will like.”

            I thought that’s what the roof painter anecdote was trying to do, CV!

            • Colonial Viper 8.5.1.5.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 2:21 pm

              OK, so did it work? Did the left wing see the appeal of that anecdote? Did Labour Party members cheer when they heard it? Did it bring support back over from the Greens?

            • bad12 8.5.1.5.1.2
              11 February 2013 at 2:36 pm

              Spitting upon and denigrating beneficiaries is now Labour Party policy is it Te Reo…

              • Te Reo Putake …
                11 February 2013 at 2:58 pm

                No, its not, but I’m told that they will be making a sense of humour compulsory.

                • bad12 …
                  11 February 2013 at 3:41 pm

                  Te reo, now your way out on the end of the particular branch you are clinging to, the ‘roof-painter’ was a joke speech by shearer was it…

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    11 February 2013 at 3:48 pm

                    No, my comment in reply to CV was the joke. CV said Labour should look to policies that “traditional Labour voters” would like. I replied that the roofer anecdote was probably an attempt to do exactly that. ie I was suggesting that “traditional labour voters” have moved to the right.

                    Do try and keep up.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      11 February 2013 at 4:03 pm

                      I was suggesting that “traditional labour voters” have moved to the right

                      Have they? Judging by the numbers, instead they stayed at home in the hundreds of thousands.

                      Shearer and the ABCs are just being ashpirashnul in the nastiest way.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 4:19 pm

                      A combination of both, Rhinocrates.

                      It shouldn’t be assumed that Enrolled Non Voters or the unenrolled would all vote Labour, but its likely the majority would be better off under a labour led goverment. Particularly the unenrolled, as they are tend to be on the margins of society.

                      But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that “traditional labour voters” haven’t bought into Dunnokeyo’s aspirational bullshit. Clearly they did, and still do.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 4:58 pm

                      If the roof-painter anecdote was an “attempt to do exactly that” i.e. get “traditional Labour votes, then those working on Labour strategy really are incompetent. Do you realise that is what can be inferred by what you are saying here TRP?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:18 pm

                      Yes, I do realise that people who a) don’t get the joke or b) still don’t get the joke after it’s been explained to them might struggle to quiickly understand the truth at the heart of the humour.

                    • felixviper …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:39 pm

                      “No, my comment in reply to CV was the joke. CV said Labour should look to policies that “traditional Labour voters” would like. I replied that the roofer anecdote was probably an attempt to do exactly that. ie I was suggesting that “traditional labour voters” have moved to the right.”

                      Meh, if that’s what you were suggesting then it wasn’t really a joke. Which may go some way to explaining why no-one seems to have taken it as one.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:56 pm

                      …yes, seems like the ol’ “i was just joking” defense.
                      bit weak if I say so myself….

                    • Puddleglum …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:19 pm

                      “But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that “traditional labour voters” haven’t bought into Dunnokeyo’s aspirational bullshit. Clearly they did, and still do.”

                      I’m not sure how the evidence to judge such a claim could be gathered, but let’s imagine it’s true. The question then becomes, ‘why did it happen?’

                      Part of it may be a change in our economic environment arising from the 80s ‘reforms’. You know, the idea that large numbers of public sector and factory workers all became small business people when the public sector was privatised and when manufacturing was gutted by financial deregulation, dropping of import controls, and the like. They then have shifted their values to ‘aspirational’ ones and their voting shifted to align with these new, perceived interests.

                      It was, of course, a Labour government that did that – changed the economic environment. This suggests that Labour re-engineered the economic environment to deprive itself of electoral support. Not very wise.

                      It would be even less wise for a Labour Party to continue, decades later, to advocate for similar policies, (and to leave such policies in place) as that would simply catch it up in a strangely prolonged act of electoral suicide via starving itself of its ‘natural’ voters.

                      I’m assuming here that Labour stands for more than a particular colour of vehicle in which to achieve a political career – perhaps gullibly, I still think it is more than that.

                      Another part of the explanation may simply be that nature abhors a vacuum. If no powerful narrative that directly challenges the “aspirational bullshit” is being pushed by the major, supposedly left opposition party then what else do struggling working class (in or out of a job) and low income people have to cling to?

                      The failure of the current Labour Party, as I see it, is that no-one appears to have a passionate conviction of the ‘rightness’ of a left wing analysis of the world or confidence in their own ability to project it in a way that will appeal to ‘traditional Labour voters’.

                      If they do have that passion, they appear convinced that the message is entirely unpalatable to a significant block of voters who ‘should’ be voting Labour. But, don’t you see? Thinking that way may well be the problem.

                      In a nutshell, I think Labour’s caucus lack courage and conviction – and/or the ability to articulate, in an electorally appealing way, the underlying values of the left.

                      It may be hard but it is not impossible. What it requires, at base, is an utterly clear and precise awareness of the value, moral basis and truth of a left analysis of this world. When you have that you’d be amazed how the creative ability to make that awareness resonate with ordinary people just follows like night follows day.

                      Then again, maybe it’s just that too many people in Labour today are either educated, middle class people who haven’t actually felt – and don’t feel – the reality of being on the sharp end of the operation of power or they are people (men) too impressed with their blokey manner to ever bother educating themselves about the reality of how power grinds people up, day by day.

                      Where are the self-educated working class people in Labour? You know, the ones who know that what’s needed is more than just strutting about being a ‘bloke’ or, conversely, getting a degree and a house in a nice suburb.

                      The ones who know that this is a fight for what fundamentally matters; a fight for the survival of something very human and very precious. A fight fought so that ordinary people can live lives of dignity and autonomy and, therefore, with the power to hold their own, collectively, against private concentrations of power and wealth.

                      Where are these people?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 February 2013 at 9:30 pm

                      Where are all these people? Looked down on and ignored in the Modern Labour Party, I suspect.

                      My favourite stories are the ones told me by young tradies and school leavers attending Young Labour events for the first time, and made to feel like dumb loser drop out shits by the smartass know it all Young Labour scarfies running the meetings, when they questioned the importance of the discussion at hand which was focussed on the relationship between how removing the monarchy might impact on sexuality/gender issues in modern architecture.

                    • bad12 …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      Keep up with what, a fool dancing upon the head of a pin, attempting to guilt trip me over the a vote for anyone but Labour in an electorate is just plain old Bullshit Te Reo,

                      Even a five year old knows that in an MMP system it is the party vote that counts,

                      FFP primitives like what you appear to be think that by not voting for Labour in an electorate seat i would have supported the National party in some way,

                      It makes not an iota of difference to the numbers of MP’s either National or Labour will have in the House as that number of MP’s is solely determined from the percentage of party vote,

                      The fact that you cannot see that without having to be told just shows how backward you are in thought,

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:20 pm

                      Bad, Waitakere voters have no representative. The same is the case in Ak central and in the other close electorates. They are all stuck with an MP who despises them. This matters, as any five your old could tell you. And Labour candidates who would have been good MP’s miss out. Again, check with that 5 year as to how that’s going to affect his or her future. And have a think about what those missing MP’s might have meant in the rejuvenation of Labour. You’re not only giving John Key a hand up, you’re helping keep Trevor Mallard in a position of influence.

                    • bad12 …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:39 pm

                      Don’t change the conversation as an answer Te Reo, you insult me as a Tory enabler if i don’t vote for Labour in my electorate,

                      How does not voting for Labour in an electorate seat enable a Tory Government to be formed,

                      Here let me answer that for you, it doesn’t and you fucking know it,

                      You are playing a low level intellectual violin that might work on the less aware Te Reo but who is the Rep for Waitakere does not alter by the width of a piece of toilet paper who IS the Government,

                      As Far as the minister of overseas travel for employment goes it matters not an iota if that particular large ball of ugliness is in or out of the Parliament, National still would have done to beneficiaries exactly what National has done and Labour has hardly a proud record to trumpet in their treatment of those people reliant upon benefits,

                      But lets get back to the point of the accusation you made and dispense with all the fudging shall we Te Reo,

                      Exactly how in an MMP electoral system does an electorate vote for other than Labour become an enabler of the National Party when it is the Party vote that counts and we all fucking know that…

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

                      Ok, I tried, bad. But your weasel words don’t change a thing. You’re still an asset National will never want to sell.

                    • felixviper …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:10 pm

                      bad12 is right though TRP.

                      Electorate votes make no difference to whether Labour forms a govt or not.

                      Every one of your comments about “helping John Key” and “enabling tory govts” is entirely erroneous.

                    • bad12 …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:20 pm

                      Answer the simple fucking question Te Reo, you made the accusation that if i were to not vote for the Labour candidate in my electorate i would be a National Party enabler,

                      Weasel words are what you have so far used in reply,

                      Here let me spell it out again for you Te Reo just in case your intellect cannot come to grips with such a concept as MMP,

                      In an MMP election Te Reo it is the PARTY VOTE that decides who will be the Government,

                      IF i vote out the Labour Party electorate MP this will in no way effect WHICH PARTY is the Government as it is the Party Vote which decides who will be the major party which forms that Government,

                      Accusing me of being an asset to National is simply low intellect bullshit Te Reo,

                      You have FAILED to answer in any understandable language how my not voting for the Labour electorate candidate enables National except by blathering a pile of unrelated bullshit that is,

                      Answer this one then Te Reo, most simpletons could get this right,

                      In an MMP election which vote determines the number of MP,s a Party will have in the Parliament, the Party vote or the Electorate vote???…

                    • bad12 …
                      11 February 2013 at 11:36 pm

                      Lolz, yeah felix that one knows it too and has attempted to fudge the issue with all the other unrelated rubbish he/she has used to avoid a direct answer,

                      Stuart Nash’s little diatribes in this post had me ask the question of myself this afternoon over why would i even bother voting for Labour in my electorate,

                      Te Reo simply reinforces that beleif i have formed that i shouldn’t,

                      In 1991 i run a van load of people through the Ohariu electorate and every letterbox got an anti-National Party leaflet, they were not pretty to read believe me and they didn’t advocate that the Ohariu electorate vote for anyone in particular,

                      it would be blowing my ego up far to much to even suggest that this leaflet drop had any effect whatsoever on the voters of the Ohariu electorate, but, since that leaflet drop, a 2 pager, Ohariu has not voted in a National Party candidate,

                      i hope the likes of Mallard, Nash ,and Te Reo keep up the insults because this has got me seriously thinking that a bit of negative campaigning in this electorate might show me whether or not that leaflet drop way back in 1991 had any effect and learn the 3 stooges a valuable lesson…

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      12 February 2013 at 6:53 am

                      Bad, I’ve given the reasons. If you choose not to read or understand them that’s your problem. K?

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 8:49 am

                      Not really TRP. You’ve said it’s better to have a Labour mp as your local rep than a Nat because a Nat doesn’t give a fuck about you.

                      Trouble is it’s not necessarily true that a dickhead with a red car is going to give any more of a fuck about you than a dickhead with a blue one. Depends who it is. Depends who you are.

                      Try being a beneficiary in Shearer’s electorate and see how far out on a limb he’ll go for you. Try being a poor gay woman in Shane Jones’ and see how represented you are.

                      And that’s what the electorate vote is all about, TRP. Whether that person will be able to represent you. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      And nothing whatsoever to do with who forms the govt, which is what you’ve been saying it is.

                    • lprent []
                      12 February 2013 at 9:02 am

                      Try being a beneficiary in Shearer’s electorate and see how far out on a limb he’ll go for you.

                      He has been doing pretty well on that front by all accounts. Certainly, in the cases I am aware of and where it was feasible (ie MP’s are no miracle workers capable of the laying of the hands to remove illness, addictions, and an inability to take meds), he has been an effective local MP.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      12 February 2013 at 9:10 am

                      “And nothing whatsoever to do with who forms the govt, which is what you’ve been saying it is.”

                      Citation needed, felix. I’ve actually been talking about electing electorate MP’s. You may not care who our people have to go to in times of need, but it makes a difference to them. A Tory is going to do nothing, a Labour MP will at least do something. Ask around, the Labour electorate MP’s and their local staff actually work hard for their voters.

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 10:07 am

                      You’ve also talked about the opportunity to use an electorate vote in 2011 to consign a Minister to the dustbin of history.

                      Feel free to renounce that any time you like, but thems what you saids.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 10:10 am

                      bad12

                      How does not voting for Labour in an electorate seat enable a Tory Government to be formed.

                      Here let me answer that for you, it doesn’t and you fucking know it.

                      felixviper

                      Electorate votes make no difference to whether Labour forms a govt or not.

                      Every one of your comments about “helping John Key” and “enabling tory govts” is entirely erroneous.

                      You’re talking about the thousands of voters who ticked the Green party candidate in their electorate, which is a completely wasted vote that the Green’s campaigned against having.

                      If those people had instead ticked Labour in their electorates at the last election, we would not have a National government in power. So it does matter and those people who voted for the Greens in their electorates are in essence enabling National to win.

                      If for instance even a third of the left wing voters had voted for Jacinda Ardern in Auckland central, instead of 2903 votes going to Denise Roche as the Green party candidate, Labour would have gained a seat from National at the last election… Nicola Kaye’s majority was only 717.

                      The same cannot be said for the 149 people who voted for Act instead of National in their electorates… Here’s the data.

                      What was National’s majority again? Electorate or tactical voting as it is more commonly known as can make all the difference.

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 10:21 am

                      “If those people had instead ticked Labour in their electorates at the last election, we would not have a National government in power.”

                      How?

                      It’s still the party vote that determines the share of seats in parliament, which is what determines the govt.

                      Yes, Green voters need to sort shit out because in some cases they could get themselves a better local MP by not wasting their electorate vote, but it won’t change the make-up of the house one bit.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:18 pm

                      Overhang seats.

                    • bad12 …
                      12 February 2013 at 6:15 pm

                      Jackle, that is factually erroneous, if you don’t understand the electoral system i would suggest you study it more,

                      If Jacinda Adhern had of won the Auckland Central seat in the 2011 election Labour would still have the same number of MP’s in the Parliament as what they have got now,

                      It is the Party vote which decides the number of seats in the Parliament,

                      Claiming that Adhern’s winning of the Auckland central seat would have created an overhang is laughable and i would welcome your explanation of how such an overhang would have been created…

                    • bad12 …
                      12 February 2013 at 7:02 pm

                      Here’s one for you Jackal,

                      2011 election Labour won 27.1% of the party vote,

                      27.1% of the party vote entitled Labour to 34 MP’s in the House,

                      2011 election Labour won 22 electorate seats,

                      Had Jacinda Adhern won the Auckland Central seat this would have given Labour 23 electorate seats against an entitlement of 34 MP’s based upon the % of party vote,

                      This place is so humorless at times that i feel like asking you to show us all how there is any chance that within those numbers a overhang could have been created,

                      Please don’t tho you would likely embarrass yourself…

                      Pssst, Labour would have had to win 35 electorate seats, see it now,just a hint…

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 7:57 pm

                      Yes! The Auckland Electorate was used as an example to show that if the people who wasted their votes on Denise Roche had instead voted for Jacinda Ardern, Labour would have gained one electorate seat.

                      However the Auckland Electorate is not the only electorate where tactical voting would have given Labour additional electoral seats.

                      Christchurch Central with a majority of only 47, Ōhariu with a majority of 1392, Waimakariri with a majority of 642, Waitakere with a majority of 9, Tāmaki Makaurau with a majority 936 would all have gone to Labour at the last election if Green supporters had voted tactically… So it does matter.

                      United Future wouldn’t be present and the Maori party wouldn’t have Pita Sharples… Not really any great lose if you ask me. If either Annette Sykes or Louis Te Kana had not stood, it’s unlikely that Te Ururoa Flavell would have won in Waiariki either… Now what is Nationals majority again?

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 8:22 pm

                      That’s 6 seats. Still not enough to create an overhang, Jackal, you need another 6 to get an overhang of 1.

                      AND that’s against the backdrop of Labour’s worst party vote in god knows how long.

                      The only place it really matters – tactically – is where you can knock out someone you want rid of who’s not going to get in on a list, like Dunne.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

                      Yes! Like Peter Dunne and Pita Sharples who wouldn’t be in Parliament if there was more tactical voting by the left in 2011. So that’s two… Now what was the coalition governments majority again? Some legislation is currently passing by only one vote, so to say that electorate votes don’t matter is clearly wrong!

                      That’s in fact one of the main advantages the right wing has at the moment… That the left wing vote is split between a lot of parties.

                    • bad12 …
                      13 February 2013 at 12:00 am

                      Jackal, first it was an overhang now its something else, i am going to take RL’s advice here and not bother with this anymore…

        • blue leopard 8.5.1.6
          11 February 2013 at 1:34 pm

          @ Stuart Nash

          Your response is most appreciated Mr Nash,

          “But I suppose if you think the Labour caucus is failing the cause, then sites like this really need to pick up the batan and go very hard (and I acknowledge that this is often the case), but hard against the govt.!”

          This is interesting, because I have noticed recently that I have less interest in reading the posts on Mr Key and his merry men, (the latest being his failed promise re the P drug.)

          Analyzing this lack of interest I realized that it is absolutely going without saying, for me, these days, that this bunch are entirely incompetent, bumbling goons, in fact seeming increasingly more like saboteurs of NZers interests. In other words, when Mr Key&co lie, try and repress the OIA, make deals that don’t suit NZ interests, undermine our laws, our democracy and our RMA, “forget”, “don’t read”….(the list is endless)…it really isn’t news any more .

          I would prefer to read about how a left-wing party has scored a point on this government’s behaviour. This would give me hope.

          I believe others must be having similar responses and is why the recent focus on Labour. There is at least a remanent of hope that Labour is actually concerned about the real issues and would address them when they got into power. However that hope is dying too.

          The behaviour of “members of caucus” since “two very senior MPs” approached a not-so-friendly member of the media in order to get vitriol written about one of their own, has been absolutely disgraceful, and there doesn’t seem to have been any firm leadership on this, no reprimands…no wait, yes, there was some heavy reprimand, toward one of the members caucus; one who happened to be someone who sent a very clear message on Q&A in the last election-campaign that he was entirely ready and able to take on Mr English and show him up for the worm that he is.

          If a member of the NZ Rugby team misbehaves, why is it that they get reprimanded, or even asked to leave? Its about ensuring the integrity of the whole (or dare I say brand). When one or two members misbehave, don’t get reprimanded, and continue to act questionably, I consider this very serious stuff because it is behaviour that is jeopardizing the ideals, that a lot of us want in power, from getting into power. This is a crux of the criticism.

          We want these left-wing values in power and what message is this behaviour of members of the Labour caucus sending out? And what is the lack of apologies and no reprimands sending out? Is it a free-for-all?

          I’m sure you entirely understand that the issue with the Greens is that left-wing parties need to come across as able to work together stably. Most of the time this is coming across quite well. There is plenty to criticize in this current Government. Focus on that and “you” will give people hope that is not very easy to come by, despite certain spun-&-oh-what-a-surprise-broken-promises of “Brighter Futures”. (Gees, we’re gullible)

          (Is “Chippie” Mr Hipkins? Despite coming across dubiously re the whole Cunliffe debacle, he does do well in holding the government to account in parliament, I agree).

          Thanks again for your response Mr Nash and here’s hoping that Labour gets it together so that people such as yourself will be able to be in Government after the next election.

          • Saarbo 8.5.1.6.1
            11 February 2013 at 10:04 pm

            Spot on BL.

            Nash is on the fringes of the oligarchy running Labour, not willing to take any advice or council from many posts/commenter’s on TS, just trying to see if they can influence the unruly members/people of the left, scoring points so he can get a pat on the back from his wanky mates..mallard, goff, …another condescending wa…..

        • bad12 8.5.1.7
          11 February 2013 at 2:32 pm

          Stuart Nash, lets dispense with all these pathetic calls for blind loyalty you might get that from the party faithful in places like Mangere and Porriua, but here where we dissect everything within the political spectrum you can only expect laughter as the least reactive response to such a call,

          Here on the Standard there is an unwritten rule that those who make an assertion about ANYTHING when called on to do so must provide the proof to the assertion so made or face the risk of being labelled a bullshit artist for having made the unsubstantiated assertion in the first place,

          SO, based upon the Standards unwritten standard i call on you now to provide either the proof or an explanation of your comments attacking the Green Party,

          (1), you claim the Green Party is always attacking Labour, proof please,

          (2), where have the Green Party publicly aknowledged that their votes come from traditional Labour Party votes, proof please, and do you think the Labour Party OWN voters perhaps,

          (3), a free ride at Labour’s expense, don’t bother providing any clarification to that little gem, as i could only expect an increased dose of pathetic invective if you did,

          (4), please supply a list of the Green Party’s nutty and impractical ideas and an explanation of why the Labour Party see’s nuttiness and impracticality in such ideas giving us the specifcs,

          Thanks for coming Stuart Nash, the only thing you have proved so far with your invective is that i was wrong to be last night calling for commenter’s here to be reasonable about David Shearer as Labour Leader over in ‘open mike’…

          • Stuart Nash 8.5.1.7.1
            7 March 2013 at 10:14 pm

            what a tosser: lecturing me about ‘rules’. Know your history and then tell me what the original Standard stood for.

            • just saying 8.5.1.7.1.1
              7 March 2013 at 10:30 pm

              How brave Mr Nash.
              Responding nearly a month after a comment is made – I guess you think you’ll have the last word if you wait long enough.

              Unfortunately for you, here at the Standard – (the one that bad12 was clearly referring to by the way)- there is a side column listing the latest comments, so I doubt this will slide under the radar as you may have preferred.

              But even though you knew perfectly well which ‘Standard’ B12 was talking about, do tell – what did the original Standard stand for. Then maybe we can discuss which party in parliament best represents those values

            • the pigman 8.5.1.7.1.2
              7 March 2013 at 10:47 pm

              *grabs the popcorn*

            • Colonial Viper 8.5.1.7.1.3
              7 March 2013 at 10:49 pm

              – Compulsory unionisation.
              – A 40 hour working week, with penal rates thereafter.
              – The Government as a massive builder of socialised housing.
              – A universal super age of 60
              – The Government as a massive provider of insurance and banking services to the nation.
              – Free education for all, including university education.
              – Massive state employment of apprentices.
              – Full employment.
              – Fully funded public non commercial broadcasting.

              Tell me Stuart, you know your history, how many of these things does Labour stand for today.

              • just saying …
                7 March 2013 at 11:13 pm

                Sadly, (because it would have been fun) I think Mr Nash has left the building, along with whatever beverage so emboldened him.

                I think he wanted to leave some grafitti on our walls, not have a discussion with actual left-wingers.

              • Alanz …
                8 March 2013 at 6:46 am

                “Then maybe we can discuss which party in parliament best represents those values”

                I’d be keen read a discussion about that!

            • Mary 8.5.1.7.1.4
              7 March 2013 at 10:58 pm

              I don’t have the proof bad12 is asking for, although it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find because it’s so bleedin’ obvious. The Greens don’t always attack Labour, but they do so when it’s necessary, and the more neo-liberal market driven disdainful towards the poor Labour become I wouldn’t just expect the Greens to attack Labour I’d criticise the Greens if they didn’t. I don’t know if the Greens have publicly acknowledged that they’ve taken votes from Labour but I’d bet my house on it (if I had a house) because Labour’s become such a right-wing beneficiary-hating bunch of tossers there’s zero chance that the Greens haven’t taken votes from Labour. And bad12’s right – who says Labour “own” what they think is their constituency, anyway. If you think that you’re in fantasy land. A free ride at Labour’s expense? FFS. Does that mean the Greens can’t stand up for their principles in case they hurt poor little Labour? More like nasty bunch of uncaring pieces of poo Labour who deserve everything they get, including for their silence on whether they still believe what they did to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008 was good and correct and proper. If you don’t know exactly what they did I suggest you go learn your history. And if you think what the Greens stand for is nutty then what Labour stands for at the moment is a hundred times nuttier because it believes that people who can’t be actively involved in the “economy” to an “acceptable” level to be somehow not worth looking after. You’re entitled to your opinion about how nutty the Greens’ policies are, and I’m entitled to my opinion on how repulsive Labour’s policies are towards “those who can’t quite cut it”. And if you think I’m only talking about Labour’s welfare policies, I’m not. Your hapless leader’s latest recoil on asset sales or at least his gutlessness refusing to say Labour would renationalise says it all. Labour is fucked.

              • Colonial Viper …
                7 March 2013 at 11:17 pm

                Yep.

                Labour is a centrist political party which is sympathetic to free market and private sector based solutions.

        • karol 8.5.1.8
          11 February 2013 at 2:46 pm

          Labour doesn’t have an entitlement to my vote. I choose who and which party to vote for each election.

          Parliamentary Labour is doing everything that will result in me continuing to criticise them: the soft neoliberal apologism is the main reason. Shearer still hasn’t renounced his roof painter bennie-bashing, and still continues to dog whistle such an attitude. He still hasn’t renounced his support of private armies. His housing policy still looks like one for the middle-classes.

          But, on top of that, all the gender gains under Clark are being turned back. It’s bad enough that Team Shearer has become pretty blokey (reinforced by Mallard saying Shearer’s the kind of guy who you chat with at the footy club). But the idea of resurrecting known homophobe, misogynist and gay-baiter, Tamihere, is way beyond a step too far.

          Thus Team shearer look pretty flaky to me, and the Greens and Mana look more like the left should be in the 21st century.

          • King Kong 8.5.1.8.1
            11 February 2013 at 2:53 pm

            Karol, thanks for confirming the left on left shit fight will continue.

            I thought with the leadership thing put to bed the right would have to get back in the game of showing the left up as the disloyal and incompetent idiots they are.

            Thankfully it looks like the job will continue to be done for us.

            • Mary 8.5.1.8.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 3:35 pm

              It isn’t left on left – it’s left on right.

            • bad12 8.5.1.8.1.2
              11 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

              KK, shut up and f**k off you s**t-stirring bag of pus…

              • King Kong …
                11 February 2013 at 4:07 pm

                Don’t get mad at me. I am just congratulating you on a job well done.

                Isn’t that Shearer a nincompoop and as for the rest of the Labour caucus…

            • blue leopard 8.5.1.8.1.3
              11 February 2013 at 3:40 pm

              @King Kong

              “I thought with the leadership thing put to bed the right would have to get back in the game of showing the left up as the disloyal and incompetent idiots they are.”

              Nah, KingKong, because the right continue to be successfully proving, worldwide, that they are disloyal and incompetent idiots they really must continue in their efforts to sabotage those who could create real improvements for the interests of ordinary people.

              When New Zealanders get to a point of seeing through the spin of the incompetents then we will deserve to have our interests addressed effectively. I call upon all New Zealanders to start informing themselves so that this day comes swiftly.

        • handle 8.5.1.9
          11 February 2013 at 7:31 pm

          “the Greens are endlessly bashing Labour”

          Some examples please to back this up.

        • QoT 8.5.1.10
          11 February 2013 at 9:45 pm

          Chippie has been doing a great job recently with education

          A hamster with a broken wheel could do a “great” job with education if gifted the botched Christchurch school closures and Novopay. Funny how it’s only “recently” that the Labour spokesperson has managed to gain any ground.

        • millsy 8.5.1.11
          11 February 2013 at 11:54 pm

          Nash, the ideas you find ‘nutty’ would have been embraced by your great-grandfather.

          No disrespect, but you will always be in his shadow.

  9. bad12 9
    10 February 2013 at 10:45 pm

    The US Federal Reserve will print US$ 40 billion dollars a month into the foreseeable future, given that our NZ$ should have reached parity with the US$ in about a year, if not sooner,

    Should we not print and spend into our economy somewhere near an equal amount based on both countries GDP the NZ$ will overtake the US$ in value in around 18 month’s,

    Yay let’s all sit here and watch as dairy and other export sectors are destroyed piece by piece, 40 billion by 40 billion…

  10. odysseus 10
    10 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

    Agree with Mike, Rob and Stuart, this site has become incredibly tedious…has converted me to Shearer quite frankly….

    • crying man 10.1
      10 February 2013 at 11:16 pm

      I wonder how long shearer’s staffers will be able to keep up their new strategy of commenting on the standard. Not long I bet.

      [lprent: They don’t read like it to me in their many previous comments (in fact looking at your profile across IP’s, I’d be more suspicious of you). I get irritated with doing fruitless lookups. Use the search before wasting my time. ]

    • Mary 10.2
      11 February 2013 at 1:36 pm

      Guess you’ll be shifting over to kiwiblog, then?

  11. BLiP 11
    10 February 2013 at 11:12 pm

    .

    It does raise the very sensible idea of quantitative easing. Someone should explain it to John Key. Trevor would never get it so just give him a drink and sit him in the corner. Make sure he doesn’t piss in the pot plants.

  12. Anne 12
    10 February 2013 at 11:17 pm

    why all the anti-Labour shit on this site? Astounding and totally counter-productive.

    Would you be saying the same thing if this site was slagging off the Greens? No, you wouldn’t. I think the author of this particular post is a Green voter Stuart. This is not a Labour Party site. It’s a left of centre site. All left opinions are entitled to be aired. What’s more there are right of centre commentators here too and sometimes they also make valuable contributions.

    What is counter productive is the recently unprincipled and silly behaviour of a few members of the Labour caucus. I thought they may have pulled themselves together over the holidays, but it look likes one or two of them still haven’t learned any lessons. They play into the hands of those whose job it is to undermine and discredit and drive wedges between Labour Party members and the caucus MPs – people like Matthew Hooton, David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and throw into the mix a few media journos and talk back hosts. It’s not the people here who provide them with the fodder. It’s your own former colleagues. We simply respond to the fallout.

    If you want to see an improvement then talk to those former colleagues of yours – particularly the ones who are creating the trouble. You know who they are.

    • Stuart Nash 12.2
      11 February 2013 at 12:32 pm

      I acknowledge all you say Anne, and agree with most, but I would just like to see this site as the place where the govt really is held to account for the way it has so badly failed the people of NZ.

      There are some incredibly smart people on here (and I have immense respect for LP, who I have known for a while now) but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key, Banks and the pricks who have driven up inequality to a dreadful level in this wonderful country we are all so passionate about.

      • Anne 12.2.1
        11 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

        Thank-you Stuart and I agree with your desire to see this site as a place where we hold the govt to account. And that is what the vast bulk of Standardistas want to see too. If you look at the posts and comments over a long period of time you will find 90% of them have been doing exactly that – holding the govt. to account.

        But I agree many of us have been distracted in recent times because of the antics of a small handful of Caucus members. It started with the Duncan Garner blog around August last year (where he, in my view, slandered David Cunliffe for supposed disloyalty etc.) and has continued since. It was clear to many of us there was a Judas in the Caucus who was supplying journos with false and/or grossly exaggerated claims about David Cunliffe. It didn’t take us long to figure out who it was – Trevor Mallard. There may have been others, I don’t know, but he appears to have been the prime leaker and, as far as I know, he has never been reprimanded.

        The final straw came when Chris Hipkins described Cunliffe during a TV interview just before Christmas as a “fink”. The definition of a fink is: a contemptible person… someone who informs against another person. Well, from my vantage point it looks to me like the boot was on the other foot. It was Trevor Mallard et al who were acting like finks!

        When we see a tremendously bright and talented person such as David Cunliffe being banished to the back benches because of some tall poppy-like jealousy on the part of a few of his colleagues, then of course the sparks are going to fly. There is only one way to resolve this issue. David C. must be reinstated to his former position. Then we can get back to doing what we really want to do… hold this truly awful government to account.

      • Mary 12.2.2
        11 February 2013 at 1:33 pm

        Stuart,

        In a comment above you say:

        “Chippie has been doing a great job recently with education, and now we need others to follow Chippie’s lead and go hard against the govt in a whole lot of areas”, and “Personally, I think a number of the Green’s ideas are nutty and others just plain impracticable, and they need to be held to account along with all parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.”

        Then you pretty much say you’d like to see The Standard as a place where the real enemy, Key et al, is attacked instead of Shearer and Cunliffe etc who are not the enemy.

        So does that mean we can attack any other party except Labour? On your own logic we need to keep the pressure on Labour, not hold off, especially in, as you say, “a whole lot of other areas”, particularly, as some of us have been saying for a long time now, the social security benefit system. The problem for Labour is that it has gone nowhere near saying anything about it since its latest assault on the Social Security Act in the form of its 2007 amendment, which followed a whole raft of other ant-welfare policies since 1999. For this reason we can only assume that Labour’s position is the same as it was back then, let alone expect an apology from them for getting things so horribly wrong. Those on the Left who have followed the detail of Labour’s attacks on benefits and beneficiaries (which are fundamental, often involving basic cornerstone removing stuff) know that there’s principally no difference between Labour and Nact on their respective approaches, and in lots of ways Labour have shown itself as clearly worse.

        So when people from Labour tell us to stop “attacking” them because they’re really our friends and that we should concentrate on the “real” enemy it just reminds me we need to do it all the more. Attacking more than one political party at the same time is possible, you know, and just because Labour’s copping it from the Left doesn’t mean Key et al aren’t getting it as well – just look at The Standard on any day of the year to see proof of that.

        Importantly though, when it comes to the issue of how a government and a nation treats its most vulnerable, Labour, along with Key and Joyce and Banks and Collins et al, is our enemy. Labour will continue to be part of that group until it proves otherwise. Personally, I don’t think that will ever happen. That is why I despise the current Labour Party, and what it’s become.

      • Scintilla 12.2.3
        11 February 2013 at 1:34 pm

        After you, Stuart.

        Come on – show us how it’s done! Let’s hear an impassioned speech from Mallard on the evils of inequality and what Labour will do to change that.

      • Bill 12.2.4
        11 February 2013 at 1:42 pm

        I think what I detest – not above all, but it’s certainly right up there – is people trying to tell me what the fuck to do and what the fuck to think. And the noble defenders of the lost cause that used to be the Labour Party seem to be one trick ponies demanding silence and obedience/loyalty. There’s just nothing beyond that basic bleat. Whether it’s couched in pleading terms or accusory terms, it’s the same old, same old.

        So to save you some energy and typing time, I’ll simply say this. It’s not happening. I won’t sit down. I won’t sit back. I won’t shut up.

        If the Labour Party wants ‘nice’ commentary then the onus is on the Labour Party to get its shit together and deserve ‘nice’ commentary.

        Capisce?

        • bad12 12.2.4.1
          11 February 2013 at 2:51 pm

          Yeah exactly Bill, i am f**king furious, Mallard and now this bloke Nash have made a fool of me saying on open mike last night that Shearer was it as far as Labour goes so the anti brigade might want to focus upon other things,

          Meanwhile while i am saying that this storm breaks and we now have Labour’s silver spoon brigade in here telling us that THEY own our vote,

          Lolz i would love to say exactly what i think of Mallard, Stuart Nash, and anyone else from the Labour Party that agrees with their attitudes but to do so would simply invite a serious spanking for being abusive…

        • Jackal 12.2.4.2
          12 February 2013 at 10:58 am

          Bill

          Labour Party seem to be one trick ponies demanding silence and obedience/loyalty.

          That’s not the case at all… Perhaps you weren’t aware that The Standard was set up to be the left wings answer to counter the right wings Kiwibog and WhaleOil.

          It appears to me that Stuart Nash is simply wanting this site to be more focused on attacking the right wing instead of the left wing, which is an entirely justified comment.

          [lprent: Almost all of the posts do focus on the right – count them up some time rather than making up your bullshit. There are just a few that have a go at the stupidities in the political parties of the left. But of course there are always people who are so precious that they take any criticism as being personal attacks. You’re one of them. Like you they seem to have this habit of liking to hand it out rather than receiving…

          The bulk of the criticism of Labour in these pages comes from comments and is almost entirely from disaffected members and ex-members. I’m afraid that silly statements that there aren’t issues in the left political parties and the caucuses will simply keep the comments coming. Of course if there was some apparent progress dealing with the long standing issues (I have been pointing them out for decades myself) then the criticism would diminish. But if that is happening then it is as glacial as ever.

          But I’m uninterested in censoring the comments merely because you find it uncomfortable. And I’m starting to consider that your comments are getting rather close to telling us how to run our site. ]

          • felixviper 12.2.4.2.1
            12 February 2013 at 11:06 am

            Stuart just doesn’t like it when we attack the right wing in his party.

            • King Kong 12.2.4.2.1.1
              12 February 2013 at 11:17 am

              What he probably really doesn’t like is Labour being attacked by sneaky Green c**ts pretending they have the parties best interest at heart.

              Good to see that the Greens have stopped crying during drum circles and are prepared to get down and dirty but if they keep it up, the Mallard and Jones attacks will be just the tip of the iceberg and they will end up with a real bloody nose.

              • Jackal …
                12 February 2013 at 11:30 am

                Although neither party has anything to benefit from such squabbles… I think the Greens should avoid criticizing Labour unless Labour first criticizes the Greens and vice versa.

                Funny how KK thinks he can foresee the future by gazing into his own naval.

            • Jackal 12.2.4.2.1.2
              12 February 2013 at 11:25 am

              It’s wrong to attack Labour en masse, and you need to define why the so called ABC is right wing and specifically attack those ideals?

              It’s also wrong for left wing commentators and bloggers to attack Labour MPs like Stuart Nash who are clearly left wing as well… That kind of bullshit only benefits the right wing.

              Personally I think that most of the anti-Labour sentiment is a result of people being dissatisfied with the way things are going under a National government… It’s also a result of right wing agent provocateurs.

              • felixviper …
                12 February 2013 at 11:42 am

                You don’t know what’s “right wing” about trying to pit low-wage workers against unemployed workers?

                You don’t know what’s “right wing” about responding to Key’s divisive racism with “fair enough, we all feel that way” ?

                Who said anything about “ABC”? I’m not involved in your stupid rivalries. I’m talking about attacking right wing bullshit wherever it comes from. Got a problem with that, Jackal?

                • Jackal …
                  12 February 2013 at 11:53 am

                  Not at all… But you need to better define what these relevant right wing Labour policies and press releases are… Because I have no idea what you’re on about?

                  Perhaps you might like to link to some Labour propaganda that is clearly right wing felixviper?

                  I can link to a multitude of Labour policy and statements that are left wing if you like?

                  • felixviper …
                    12 February 2013 at 12:21 pm

                    Ah, so public statements from the party leader don’t count. Sorry Jackal, didn’t realise those were the rules.

                    Here’s another example for you.

                    Left wing policy: The govt builds state houses.

                    Right wing bullshit: The govt contracts out the building of houses on state owned land to the private sector for profit and then privatises them.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:43 pm

                      One statement doesn’t negate the predominant left wing values within Labours policies felixviper.

                      The fact of the matter is that the government alone cannot build houses within the current capitalist system. So unless you think the system can entirely change overnight, the government has to use the private sector to build houses.

                      By privatizing you actually mean increasing home ownership levels, which has a number of social and economical benefits. Ensuring more people have a healthy home to live out their lives in is Socialism, and Socialism is generally thought to be a left wing.

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:08 pm

                      Which “one statement” are you talking about, Jackal? I gave you two. One was about how unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis, one was about how bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis.

                      Pure divisive dog-whistle right-wing bullshit both of them.

                      p.s.selling state-owned assets into private hands is privatisation. By definition. It may happen to be a form of privatisation of which you approve, and that’s fine. But don’t be a fuckwit and pretend it’s not privatisation.

                      p.p.s. have you not been paying attention? I’m not “attacking labour”. I’m not trying to “negate left-wing values”.

                      I’m calling out right-wing bullshit wherever it comes from, something you said you didn’t have a problem with me doing.

                      You changed your mind about that now?

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:21 pm

                      “The fact of the matter is that the government alone cannot build houses within the current capitalist system. So unless you think the system can entirely change overnight, the government has to use the private sector to build houses.”

                      There you go again, more right-wing T.I.N.A. bullshit. A determined left wing govt with a long term plan for the country would set up the necessary departments to source the materials and employ the labour and expertise to build whatever they needed to build.

                      And a determined left-wing opposition would be talking about how they would do that.

                      Instead we get market-oriented, profit-driven, private-ownership-based solutions.

                      And again, it’s fine for you to think that’s a good idea. Argue your points. But don’t patronise me and embarrass yourself pretending market-oriented profit-driven capitalist solutions are in any way left-wing policies.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 1:28 pm

                      felixviper

                      Which “one statement” are you talking about, Jackal?

                      As if it wasn’t made clear, I was referring to the painter on the roof statement.

                      I gave you two. One was about how unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis, one was about how bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis.

                      Where has any Labour MP stated that ‘unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis’… And where has any Labour MP said that ‘bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis’?

                      I can’t actually be bothered debating you felixviper when you’re being so disingenuous!

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 7:54 pm

                      I didn’t say anyone “stated” those things, Jackal, I said that’s what they were about.

                      The first is what Shearer’s “roofpainter” bullshit was about. Carefully crafted, repeated several times to different audiences, never apologised for.

                      The second is what Shearer’s response to Key’s racist bullshit on Waitangi day was about. Only once this time, but to the mainstream media.

                      Please don’t call me disingenuous while you’re pretending you don’t know about either of those well discussed statements, and please don’t put words in my mouth.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 8:11 pm

                      felixviper writes:

                      Please don’t call me disingenuous while you’re pretending you don’t know about either of those well discussed statements

                      After I’ve written:

                      As if it wasn’t made clear, I was referring to the painter on the roof statement.

                      WTF! As previously stated, a single statement does not define Labour’s entire social welfare policy.

                      What Labour obviously want is for able bodied people to be in employment. That’s not a right wing sentiment, and is in fact beneficial to society and those in employment… It’s therefore usually regarded as socialism.

                    • felixviper …
                      12 February 2013 at 8:29 pm

                      Good on you Jackal, you managed to ignore almost everything I wrote and still fill a few paragraphs.

                      To a casual observer it might even look like you hadn’t given up.

              • Colonial Weka …
                12 February 2013 at 11:24 pm

                “It’s wrong to attack Labour en masse, and you need to define why the so called ABC is right wing and specifically attack those ideals?”

                Not sure where you have been the past 12 months, but what I’ve been reading on ts is lots of analysis of why the ABCs are right of where Labour should be, and then specifically criticising those ideals. People shorthand to ‘Labour’ but when you read it in context they’re talking about caucus and advisors, not the party as a whole.

                “Personally I think that most of the anti-Labour sentiment is a result of people being dissatisfied with the way things are going under a National government… ”

                Those silly commenters, don’t know their own minds or politics.

          • Colonial Weka 12.2.4.2.2
            12 February 2013 at 11:26 am

            The left wing isn’t under attach Jackal. The Labour caucus is, but there is a good reason for that. Telling people to stop is akin to telling people not to talk about the elephant in the living room. Putting all focus on NACT won’t solve the problem that is in Labour.

            • King Kong 12.2.4.2.2.1
              12 February 2013 at 11:40 am

              It finally dawned on me. I thought you guys were insane with the mindless infighting but now I see it is part of an incredibly ingenious plan.

              Getting the losers and freaks on the Standard to hate on Labour gives the sensible centrist voters the impression that perhaps Labour aren’t so crazy or extreme after all.

              This allows Labour to reconnect with the centre through the perception that they are a sensible centrist party who’s policy and personnel has angered and disconnected the left wing nutters without having to promise to hang long term beneficiaries and privitise health care.

              Outstanding tactics.

              • RedLogix …
                12 February 2013 at 12:16 pm

                I’d suggest that for a lot of people on the left it’s less about tactics and more about principle.

                For me personally there’s not a lot of point in a left-wing government winning an election if all it does is put a smiley face on top of grim right-wing meanness.

            • Jackal 12.2.4.2.2.2
              12 February 2013 at 11:54 am

              Colonial Weka

              The left wing isn’t under attach Jackal. The Labour caucus is, but there is a good reason for that. Telling people to stop is akin to telling people not to talk about the elephant in the living room. Putting all focus on NACT won’t solve the problem that is in Labour.

              The left wing is always under attack from the right wing… Or hadn’t you noticed?

              Could you describe this ‘elephant in the room’ for me please?

              • blue leopard …
                12 February 2013 at 12:52 pm

                Here’s one of the elephants for you Jackal

                Public displays of work-place violence, undisciplined, bad behaviour of caucus is sending out a very bad message.

                The behaviour of “members of caucus” since “two very senior MPs” approached a not-so-friendly member of the media in order to get vitriol written about one of their own, has been absolutely disgraceful, and there doesn’t seem to have been any firm leadership on this, no reprimands…no public apologies,…no wait, yes, there was some heavy reprimand, toward one of the members caucus; one who happened to be someone who sent a very clear message on Q&A in the last election-campaign that he was entirely ready and able to take on Mr English and show him up for the worm that he is.

                If a member of the NZ Rugby team misbehaves, why is it that they get reprimanded, or even asked to leave? Its about ensuring the integrity of the whole (or dare I say brand). When one or two members misbehave, don’t get reprimanded, and continue to act questionably, I consider this very serious stuff because it is behaviour that is jeopardizing the ideals, that a lot of us want in power, from getting into power. This is a crux of the criticism.

                We want these left-wing values in power and what message is this behaviour of members of the Labour caucus sending out? And what is the lack of apologies and no reprimands sending out? Is it a free-for-all?

                Copied and pasted from my above comment.

                • Jackal …
                  12 February 2013 at 1:39 pm

                  You can’t honestly be comparing Zac Guildford’s actions with anything any Labour MPs have done blue leopard?

                  • blue leopard …
                    12 February 2013 at 3:07 pm

                    Jackal, I am drawing a parallel with the All-Blacks to point out a very basic concept, not making comparisons between any one particular behaviour. This is a very simple point that I am making manifest and I believe I have made myself perfectly clear.

                    You asked for an example of the elephant in the room. I gave you one. It appears you are unable to see it. I suggest you go and get your eyes checked.

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 4:48 pm

                      You’ve said that there’s been “public displays of work-place violence” from Labour, but have failed to link to one verifiable example? So let’s start there eh!

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 February 2013 at 5:37 pm

                      @ Jackal,

                      This is like someone asking for proof that the sky is above and the ground below.

                      Your comments are coming across as increasingly disingenuous.

                      There was a very clear and public example of this over the NZLP conference. You may use all the words in the dictionary to argue a point that this was not the case, however I ask you to consider this:

                      There are many ordinary people who have experienced workplace bullying and once one has experienced this it is very recognisable. It is not in the best interests of any political approach for a party to get anywhere near displaying such for this reason. (That it is so recognisable; even a whiff of it will be incredibly off-putting to ordinary folk).

                      I really question what you are trying to achieve here and ask, again, for you to question yourself as to what you are trying to achieve and how effective your approach is toward that aim.

                      How is this for advertising?:

                      Public display of workplace violence, for The Jackal, care of the New Zealand Labour Party Caucus

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 8:02 pm

                      You’ve linked to an article by right wing propagandist Duncan Garner as proof of a public display of workplace violence by the Labour Party Caucus… Get real blue leopard.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 February 2013 at 11:35 pm

                      If it was a load of tosh, then why did the hounding ensue of Mr Cunliffe, by his own colleagues and the Leader of the caucus? It was the following events that lead me to believe that there must have been truth in it. Please send me the links to the press statement and/or complaint laid by the Labour party for false reporting The Jackal. Its pretty defamatory stuff.

              • Colonial Weka …
                12 February 2013 at 11:32 pm

                Hang on, you want me to quote yourself back to you??

                “It appears to me that Stuart Nash is simply wanting this site to be more focused on attacking the right wing instead of the left wing, which is an entirely justified comment.”

                You said this site attacks the left wing too much. I pointed out it doesn’t attack the left wing, it only attacks parts of Labour. Get it?

                The elephant in the living room would be Shearer, the ABCS, and the too far to the right position of the caucus, were ts commenters and authors to stop being critical of them.

          • Jackal 12.2.4.2.3
            12 February 2013 at 12:59 pm

            You can run The Standard however you like 1prent, just like Labour can run their political party however they want to as well.

            Allowing the law to be breached is not OK. As you don’t seem to be aware of it, here’s exactly what the law states:

            Threatening, conspiring, and attempting to commit offences

            306 Threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm
            (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—
            (a) threatens to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person; or
            (b) sends or causes to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing containing any threat to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person.

            I don’t take attacks on various left wing political parties personally and I’m not merely “uncomfortable” with commentators threatening MPs lives on The Standard 1prent.

          • Bill 12.2.4.2.4
            12 February 2013 at 7:33 pm

            Oi Jackel! Mis-quote and twist what I say like that again and you’re off on holiday if I’m logged in, moderating and notice it.

            The noble defenders; not the Labour Party are the one trick ponies.

      • Polish Pride 12.2.5
        11 February 2013 at 2:58 pm

        and when the left gets in and the inequality still exists….People are still in poverty…
        Then what? What will your solution be then?

        I mean it is not like there haven’t been people living in poverty or the gap between rich and poor expanding during terms of previous Left wing governments in NZ.
        Or are you just happy with some sort of halfway house where some people are better off than they would be if National were still in. Yep sure some people are still in poverty but hey its always been that way and we have done a little better than those other idiots on the right so thats justification that we have done a good job, we can of course at this point give ourselves congratulatory slaps on the back, give ourselves another payrise on the taxpayer and forget about those still in poverty that our policies didn’t solve the problem for.

        Of course all of this has probably been done by expanding the welfare state through increasing taxes here and there and introducing some new ones. Then there will be policies constraining business and investment, increasing workers rights enabling a few arseholes to use the system to their advantage in order to extract payouts from employers who don’t want the hassle of going to employment court even if they haven’t done anything wrong.

        Over time of course you will have pissed off more and more voters and eventually the majority will decide its time for a change and vote National back in who will of course start undoing your welfare policies and replacing them with their own corporate welfare ones…….etc. etc. etc. ……Rinse and repeat over and over and over again.

        But lets get back to part of your original post.

        “but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key”

        So when Shearer – or Cunliffe – or Norman or anyone on the left fail to fix the problems who will the enemy be then or will it just always be the leader of the National party because, hey its just simpler that way and people already have enough to worry about just trying to survive in the system.

        • Mary 12.2.5.1
          11 February 2013 at 3:44 pm

          “but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key”

          Yes, PB, that’s precisely what happened from 1999. The biggest error of the Left at that time was to ease off on the government in the misguided belief that Labour was our friend or at the very least ‘better than the alternative’. That was an almost fatal bad move on our part. I hope we’ve learned.

          • Jackal 12.2.5.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 11:15 am

            No activist’s I know ‘eased off on the government’ under Helen Clark.

            The media surely didn’t and we had week’s and week’s of paintergate for instance like it was the biggest fucking disaster the world had ever seen.

            Meanwhile John Key is given a hospital pass for his multitude of ignorant statements while the country goes down the neoliberal drain.

            Having less poverty is always a good thing and a Labour/Greens coalition is far more likely to increase equality in New Zealand than a National government that’s trying its best to destroy our society.

            We’re now rated as a third world country in many statistics thanks to NActMUF’s policies.

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.5.1.1.1
              12 February 2013 at 12:19 pm

              We’re now rated as a third world country in many statistics thanks to NActMUF’s policies.

              Labour’s as well. Labour was pivotal in implementing neo-liberal and free market approaches in the NZ economy. Then as the housing price bubble expanded extraordinarily rapidly, Labour policies made housing less and less affordable and private debt grew and grew.

              • Jackal …
                12 February 2013 at 12:36 pm

                You’re somewhat correct… But are you saying that an upcoming Labour/Greens coalition government is going to make the same mistakes?

                Some aspects of peoples lives improved markably under the last Labour government.

            • Mary 12.2.5.1.1.2
              12 February 2013 at 4:15 pm

              I don’t know what’s come over you, but you’ve turned into a real plonker. Maybe you always were one but if that’s the case you certainly had me fooled.

              “No activist’s I know ‘eased off on the government’ under Helen Clark.”
              You must only know right-wing activists.

              “The media surely didn’t and we had week’s and week’s of paintergate for instance like it was the biggest fucking disaster the world had ever seen.”
              Yes, definitely right-wing activists.

              “Meanwhile John Key is given a hospital pass for his multitude of ignorant statements while the country goes down the neoliberal drain.”
              And an ignorant and unchecked Labour-led government will continue to do the same thing next time, just like they did between 1999 and 2008, that is, if we let them, which we certainly did last time. I hope we’ve learned from our big mistake, but somehow I think there are too many around who will prove that we’re not yet up to it, people like you, Mr FPP Jackal.

              “Having less poverty is always a good thing and a Labour/Greens coalition is far more likely to increase equality in New Zealand than a National government that’s trying its best to destroy our society.”
              Nice work, Einstein, so let’s just say that no matter what Labour do – no matter how more nasty and more right-wing they become – Labour will always be better than National.

              And that, Mr FPP, is why you’re a fuckwit.

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 February 2013 at 4:24 pm

                I don’t know what’s come over you, but you’ve turned into a real plonker. Maybe you always were one but if that’s the case you certainly had me fooled.

                he became hard aligned with the in-power factions of the Labour Party over the last several months, with an eye on getting a leg up into Wellington, one way or another. The ingratiating is quite something to behold.

                • Mary …
                  12 February 2013 at 6:23 pm

                  Well let’s hope they let him in so that the current Labour opposition’s imminent implosion happens sooner than it otherwise would and brings forward the horrendously overdue total rebuild of the Labour caucus.

                • Jackal …
                  12 February 2013 at 8:28 pm

                  Coronial Wiper

                  he became hard aligned with the in-power factions of the Labour Party over the last several months, with an eye on getting a leg up into Wellington, one way or another. The ingratiating is quite something to behold.

                  Stop bloody lying dickhead! You’re so full of bullshit Coronial Wiper, it’s not funny.

                  I’ve never even met any current Labour MPs, so don’t pretend to know who I am.

                  [RL: I started to find this whole thread very boring and unattractive quite sometime ago. It’s ok and healthy to thrash things through, but given the tone and direction of all this personally I cannot see any further good coming of it for anyone. Time to wrap this up gracefully … before a moderator does it for you.]

                  • Jackal …
                    12 February 2013 at 11:06 pm

                    I don’t believe I’ve breached any rules by saying CV is lying RL, and I’m not responsible for how unattractive this whole Hatin’ on the left thread has become.

                    [RL: I wasn’t directing that moderation solely to you Jackal. The total comments on this post are now over 400 comments long and it’s been flogged to death by lots of people…and at some stage the pointless personal bickering will be brought to an end. It’s not constructive or useful for anyone. ]

    • Rhinocrates 12.3
      11 February 2013 at 1:17 pm

      Excellent, Anne.

  13. Rhinocrates 13
    10 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Ah, Mallard he’s the gift that keeps on giving. Unfortunately he keeps giving to the right, deliberately and otherwise.

    BTW, by “right”, I don’t mean the National Party as an entity, but the right as an ideology – NAct or a corporatist, misogynist, anti-poor and right-wing “Labour” party.

    Does anyone know the exact GPS co-ordinates for his home and access to a Hellfire-armed MQ-9 Reaper? We could claim that the Iranians hacked it >;)

    [lprent: Keep that up and I’ll make a pre-emptive strike on your access here. The only reason that didn’t earn a ban was because it was so abnormal to your usual behaviours. ]

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      10 February 2013 at 11:26 pm

      perhaps that last comment is not in such great taste.

      • Rhinocrates 13.1.1
        10 February 2013 at 11:36 pm

        No, it wasn’t. Taste has never been my forte.

        • fenderviper 13.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 11:30 am

          Well can we just render him housebound with a large pile of horse shit to the appropriate GPS co-ordinates instead.

          edit: probably won’t work as he clearly eats the stuff.

    • Rhinocrates 13.2
      10 February 2013 at 11:35 pm

      As an addendum, I do suspect that some bright spark, between squeezing zits, has said “If we position ourselves in the public’s perception more to the right, we can go into coalition with the Greens and maybe Mana and let them put forward more genuinely ‘Left’ policies” without frightening off all those millions of voters that we’ll suddenly pick up in Remuera.”

      That all looks dreadfully clever, except that for the sake of appearances, PseudoLabour will let a real left bill go through to its second reading and then suddenly stomp on it, and the thicker MPs such as Mallard, and Cthulhu help us, Jones and (gack) Tamihere will have a rush of testosterone to the head and attack it right away and be condoned by the old guard because it will show that PseudoLabour are “responsible” and “moderate”.

      This isn’t just Blairite “Third Way” nonsense adapted for MMP, it’s fucking incompetent Blairism.

      I really don’t think that they see National as the enemy any more. They just see them as rivals.

    • Rhinocrates 13.3
      11 February 2013 at 12:42 am

      Hi lprent, point taken, but I did assume that my hyperbole would be taken as such, rather like Helen Clark’s comment that she’d like to taser him? Who here really would have the ability to hack a drone? I didn’t advocate a “realistic” attack (with a knife or an eggbeater or whatever)… but, yes, I do confess to blurring the lines.

      • McFlock 13.3.1
        11 February 2013 at 12:59 am

        Ah.

        Just more of the gentle levity and familiarity that will encourage caucus members to listen to any opinions, criticisms, or (to use QoT’s description) “free advice on what they’re doing wrong” expressed here.

        • blue leopard 13.3.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 1:16 am

          Oh come on McFlock,

          This is a public forum, and at anytime a member of the caucus can read whatever is written here, on any thread, and if they haven’t done so to prepare, and thus readied themselves for the worst, I really don’t think they are in the right line of work. Whilst I agree that some courtesy be afforded toward our politicians, there is no need to be considering them delicate wee wallflowers. Have you watched the parliament channel?

          • McFlock 13.3.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 10:47 am

            And do you see how much they listen and give reasoned consideration to the opinions of members of other parties?

            That was my point. Merely an observation. A chunk of folk here bitch that labour caucus members don’t come here for the “free advice” enough (of course, the Green and Mana leadership seem to visit here less often than Labour, but what the hey), while one or two nutbars make hyperbolic threats or simply throw abuse without context.

            I’m sorry, but saying they should harden the fuck up simply ensures you are doing your part of any lack of engagement.

            • blue leopard 13.3.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 2:07 pm

              I neither complained that members don’t come here for “free advice” (I think paid members of the Labour party will read these pages, they would be foolish not to; it is free feedback).
              Nor did I say they “should harden the fuck up”.

              Get it together McFlock.

              • McFlock …
                11 February 2013 at 4:51 pm

                While I didn’t attribute the first comment to you, the lack of quotation marks around “harden the fuck up” (a punchline of an australasian comedian) indicates it was not a direct quote, merely a paraphrasing of a position that dripped in sarcasm. Labour MPs should put up with that shit, because they get “free advice” and the House is much worse. You know what, I’m not sure too many MPs joke about killing each other. And the one close case that springs to mind, a number of Labour MPs were quite upset by it. But then that’s the difference between our PM and most Labour caucus members.

                But then of course you demonstrate the blinkers I was talking about, anyway: Labour MPs would be foolish not to come here for the “free feedback”, yet you ignore the fact that some of this “feedback” involves threats. Threats that are not serious, but still unappealing. Not to mention outright abuse.

                How about YOU get it together. Labour might have much to be desired, but engagement takes two to tango, and only needs one person to poo on the dance floor to ruin the night.

                • blue leopard …
                  11 February 2013 at 5:04 pm

                  I suggest that you read a person’s comment prior to responding

                  Whilst I agree that some courtesy be afforded toward our politicians, there is no need to be considering them delicate wee wallflowers.”

                  Just saying, get some perspective.

                  • McFlock …
                    11 February 2013 at 5:19 pm

                    Yeah, I read that.
                    Took it to be sarcasm, given that we were talking about a threat to kill, even if “not serious”. You wouldn’t get a wee twinge of “why bother with these donkeys” if someone said that about you?

                    Or do you think that MPs should put up with that sort of shit, just for the pleasure of our glorious and perfect free advice?

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      11 February 2013 at 5:34 pm

                      And why isn’t our free advice glorious and perfect? Politicians in a democracy are representatives.

                      Also, Miss Manners, a clearly facetious suggestion that Mallard be subjected to a drone strike is terrible, yet saying outright that I support genocide – something I have never expressed and which is a serious slur on my character, is fine. Hypocritical, much?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 5:43 pm

                      That means they should support the policies they were elected on. Not that they’re at the beck and call of self-inflated blogsite commenters.

                      It’s the difference between “public servant” and “personal servant”. And to make things worse, you obviously follow the Naomi Campbell school of personal staff relations.

                      edit: I seem to recall my line of logic was that you preferred doing nothing about a genocide rather than looking at practical solutions. Which seems consistent with your idea of what counts as humourous japes at caucus members who you think should listen to your every word.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      11 February 2013 at 6:04 pm

                      A public servant is a bureaucrat who is expected to perform their task as assigned to keep the mechanisms of government running.

                      A representative is supposed to listen to their constituents who are the electorate itself.

                      Either you do not know the difference or you are being disingenuous.

                      edit: I seem to recall my line of logic was that you preferred doing nothing about a genocide rather than looking at practical solutions.

                      Egregious misrepresentation yet again. One can look at superficially “practical” solutions indeed – and then turn away in horror upon considering their implications.

                      That is NOT “support” for genocide.

                      I suggest that you learn a bit of history. Mercenaries have never made things better. Indeed, they’ve manipulated things to make them worse for the sake of their own profit. It was said of John Hawkwood, a leading mercenary of the Renaissance, that he so arranged things that Italy never saw peace in his lifetime. You should see the massacres his troops committed for money, and the fact that is war is a mercenary’s business, then a mercenary’s business is ensuring that there will always be war. Pay a mercenary in the short term if you like – but then you’ll ensure that they will make sure that you will need them in the long term. You might save a thousand one day, but then you will allow someone to profit from killing hundreds of thousands.

                      I don’t think that you’re a bad person. I just think that you’re an idiot.

                      Which seems consistent with your idea of what counts as humourous japes at caucus members who you think should listen to your every word.

                      As opposed to us, mere plebs, who should tug our forelocks and listen to MPs?

                      self-inflated blogsite commenters.

                      OK, I’m self-inflated. Guess what? I think EVERY voter should be self-inflated. MPs are our servants, no more – and I think that they should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      11 February 2013 at 6:22 pm

                      you obviously follow… I seem to recall … Which seems consistent with

                      Fine: all supposition and projection, with more slurs added for effect.

                      Would you care to provide some evidence, or you really a shit who likes making insinuations instead of arguments?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 6:38 pm

                      What is the main mechanism of public feedback to an elected representative? Easy answer.

                      Clue: it enables MPs to distinguish between the will of the electorate as a whole, and local nutbars whose opinions do not reflect the desires of people who voted the representative in.

                      I reciprocate your opinion: I think you’re an idiot, too. I think you choose to learn (ha – reinforce your own conceits, more like) whatever you want from the renaissance, yet simultaneously ignore what has happened in the last twenty years and instinctively and viscerally (note lack of the word “rationally”) criticise suggested responses. In the same way that you confuse “tug our forelocks” with “hey folks, let’s not facetiously talk about killing named individuals, okay?”.

                      Oh, and MPs aren’t our “servants”, they’re our representatives. You just finished fucking telling me that. Idiot.

                      And for your own personal edification compare:

                      you obviously follow… I seem to recall … Which seems consistent with

                      Fine: all supposition and projection, with more slurs added for effect.

                      Would you care to provide some evidence, or you really a shit who likes making insinuations instead of arguments?

                      with:

                      Also, Miss Manners, a clearly facetious suggestion that Mallard be subjected to a drone strike is terrible, yet saying outright that I support genocide – something I have never expressed and which is a serious slur on my character, is fine. Hypocritical, much?

                      You are a major moron.
                      Or maybe you just don’t like your own medicine: my Naomi Campbell reference was “clearly facetious”, your interpretation of our ‘ways to avoid genocide’ debate is “clearly” or “obviously” a self-serving delusion, with “Miss Manners” tacked on (just added for effect, as if a suggestion that hyperbolic threats to kill might not be conducive to engagement with the people you threaten is some bullshit etiquette prissiness).

                      So, it seems you are a moron or a hypocrite. Either way, I care little for your opinion.

                    • blue leopard …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:07 pm

                      @ McFlock

                      Had you mentioned death threats in your first comment, I probably wouldn’t have responded the way I did, if at all. a. I would agree, violent references are not advisable and off-putting. b. somewhat irrelevant because the issue had been dealt with swiftly by lprent, colonial viper’s comment and rhinoviper themself, by acknowledging the point lprent was making.

                      Now, wouldn’t this be a good example for certain members of parliament on both sides of the house to follow? Swift and firm responses to dubious behaviour by the leaders followed by a quick “point taken” or apology

                      Not only was there no reference to the dealt-with-threat comment, you solely referenced Q0T’s comment re “free advice on what they’re doing wrong”.

                      In my opinion Q0T’s comments to r0b were fair and had merit, that you mentioned this particular conversation in a derogatory light indicated that you were baulking at people giving honest and fair feedback to members of our parliament, and that doing so, would cause disengagement from the caucus. If such is the case there is something very very undemocratic developing in this country.

                      This comment was also made at a time where members of the caucus have made the effort to comment here and from what I’ve viewed been responded to very appreciatively and courteously.

                      Members of the caucus can pick which threads to comment on, and if they wish to be dealing with “happy customers” it is poor judgement to choose one which is illustrating dubious behaviour from a member who has already displayed this before with no reprimand, with the exception that they are writing in to express shame or regret for their colleague’s behaviour.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:37 pm

                      @BL
                      Parliament is all too full of rhino’s point-taken,but-I’m-sorry-they-didn’t-realise-it-was-obviously-hyperbolic-and-took-offense style apologies.

                      “honest and fair feedback” here is sadly book-ended by outright abuse. And then commenters turn around and insist caucus give a shit about what they say. QoT seems to waiver between the two.

                      It reminds me of my days doing venue security, where drunks would call me a bunch of words that even I would blush to say, then two minutes later the same guys would be asking “mate, can’t you let me in?” [edit: the language wasn’t much of an issue, the abuse was]

                      As for “picking threads”, damned near every thread I’ve seen a Labour MP comment on subsequently attracts abuse and similar wastes of time. At least one expects that from tories.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:08 am

                      @ McFlock
                      Hmm my impression and conclusions are quite other than the ones you have drawn. When MPs have commented here recently, I have viewed the responses of people writing in as being very appreciative and courteous. I can’t say this for every comment, yet note that the more vitriolic comments have popped up later, after the MP is no longer responding.

                      It appears to me that those criticizing commenters are fixating on a very few harsher comments and ones which have usually been posted later.

                      In these threads it is also clear that the MP can chose who to respond to. If someone wishes to be harsh, the MP has a choice not to respond.

                      I don’t really understand all this talk about “no wonder the MPs don’t comment here”, because the have done so.

                      The whole increasingly popular theory of blaming people for writing harsh things “is why MPs don’t comment regularly” seems misguided to me, for the above reason (that they do comment) and also there is a much more likely reason that MPs do not make comments regularly, and that is this is a very public place, the media and right-wing spinners have their eyes on the place, and it would be very easy to get into difficulties, look bad and have comments taken out of context.

                      I can well appreciate that politicians have to be very considered with what they say anywhere, and these “conversations” here, can take place in real time, yet remain on the page for days, and years and it would be very easy to end up saying something which could be used at a later date against them.

                      The whole argument, thus, seems like a red herring.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:17 am

                      It’s interesting to me how polarised this debate is becoming.

                      I think the reasons Labour MPs don’t comment here much are because they don’t understand the value of social media that well (esp the increasing role ts is playing); the whole darkened curtains/we’re not real voters thing; and because as you point out, they have to be careful about what they say.

                      However, given all that, if we want them to engage here more and in different ways than the past, how can we make that happen? Having tighter netiquette and moderation is one easy way. If the MPs already have significant barriers to get over (and they should get over them), then why present them with more? Saying they should just suck it up like everyone else is fine*, but only if one believes that it doesn’t matter if they comment here or not.

                      *’cept it’s not really. Labour MPs are going to, by default, attract much more abuse than any other regular newbie. That’s not making excuses for them (they deserve to be taken to task), it’s just an observation of fact.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:23 am

                      I’d actually leave aside a goal of having MPs commenting on The Standard, as IMO it is a bit of a distraction.

                      However I would be in favour of some of the steps you suggest eg. tougher moderation (on some selected posts) in order to attract a far wider and more credible audience across NZ, including many more quotations by the MSM.

                      And guess what. At that stage, every MP is going to be scrambling on to here to get heard.

                    • lprent []
                      12 February 2013 at 7:56 am

                      It is pretty expensive in terms of people’s time to closely moderate. It isn’t something that I can do, nor can most of the authors.

                      The most effective way would be to auto moderate all comments in a single post. Which is something that authors can already do to their own posts.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:25 am

                      There are a number of different pressures here.

                      What I would like to see is MPs from the left, not just labour, coming in and yes, maybe going into a bit more detail or thinking behind policies and statements.

                      But at the moment what happens is an MP (almost always Labour) comes in, addresses one or two points, and then bails before things get too in depth and uncivil. Whether that’s what causes the incivility, or they simply cut their losses when the “why do you hate that NICE Mr Cunliffe, is it because he’s better than you” (or Rhino’s classy comments) start up is basically indeterminable.

                      Frankly a sustained debate on social justice involving MPs from a few parties and with other commenters heavily moderated would do more to show up Mallard’s wee outbursts than anything we can achieve here bickering amongst ourselves. That’d take some fairly heavy coordination from the volunteer authors and a shedload of planning, though.

                    • blue leopard …
                      12 February 2013 at 12:50 am

                      Yes, I like the idea of specified threads with tougher moderation. This needs to be stated clearly at the start of the thread.

                      I really don’t think there is any proof that MPs are bailing due to rudeness. It is entirely possible they do not stick around for long because they are very busy people and more likely being careful not to say anything that could be misconstrued.

                      I hope there are some specified threads created, because I wouldn’t want this place to become stunted or a general stomping ground for political stunts, and I think it could if this nagging for politeness keeps up. If there were specified threads, then this might curb the pressure on other threads.

                  • Rhinocrates …
                    11 February 2013 at 6:46 pm

                    Well, incoherent ranting, and all dodging the issue and I cannot respond to what is incoherent.

                    Or maybe you just don’t like your own medicine: my Naomi Campbell reference was “clearly facetious”, your interpretation of our ‘ways to avoid genocide’ debate is “clearly” or “obviously” a self-serving delusion, with “Miss Manners” tacked on (just added for effect, as if a suggestion that hyperbolic threats to kill might not be conducive to engagement with the people you threaten is some bullshit etiquette prissiness).

                    Good God, could you actually try to make this into a sensible paragraph? As far as I can glean, you are reinforcing my point that you think it is OK for you to make outrageous suggestions and that’s it’s not for others, or something.

                    ignore what has happened in the last twenty years and instinctively

                    You suppose that suddenly in 1993 everything was different, that everything we have learned from history is irrelevant?

                    Again, let’s get to the point that you try so hard to avoid over and over. Do I support genocide? Did I ever say that? Can you prove it? All of your tantrums serve to avoid that point – so answer without theatrics.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 7:59 pm

                      Good God, could you actually try to make this into a sensible paragraph?

                      Turing test fail. Obvious failure to parse common language throws an exception that is caught by “recycle previous bullshit” handler.

                      You suppose that suddenly in 1993 everything was different, that everything we have learned from history is irrelevant?

                      Well, we were certainly facing uncommon geopolitical power structures combined with a post-colonial environment in a nuclear age. Not that many similar circumstances in human history. Doesn’t make all of history irrelevant, but can make some of the lessons less direct.
                      Oh, and it was 1994.

                    • Rhinocrates …
                      11 February 2013 at 8:19 pm

                      And once again you deliberately try to divert from my question.

                      If I must address your “content”, such as it is, then sentence fragments and non-sequiturs are not “common language”. Instead, I would say that rather than using common language, you are using an idiolect.

                      This, for example, is simply “word salad”:

                      Turing test fail. Obvious failure to parse common language throws an exception that is caught by “recycle previous bullshit” handler

                      Andre Breton’s Surrealist “exquisite corpse” technique and William Burroughs’ cut-ups produce results that are more coherent. “The shoehorn refrigerator mocks a golden turkey, leading to despondent mayonnaise” at least has basic grammar and makes more sense.

                      “Throws an exception”? What do you mean?

                      As for the rest, somehow the late Cold War makes mercenaries necessary and good in ways they weren’t for thousands of years before? It would be nice to see how that is the case.

                      It would be nice to debate in good faith in plain English, but all you offer is gibberish that I can only assume is a parody of a programmer’s jargon.

                      In the meantime, can you prove that I advocate genocide, which is what you said that I do, and which you constantly fail to prove?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 February 2013 at 10:17 pm

                      A question answered many times, if you’re asking why I think you’re prepared to do nothing and so let a genocide occur. But your obsession with it is quite funny, given you provide no alternative to standing by and singing songs in the hope that people stop hacking others with machetes.

                      An “exception” is a programming term for an unexpected condition in a computer programme, for example if the machine expects an integer and instead gets “cat”. Rather than breaking, it “throws” an (in this case) invalid return type exception, which is “caught” by an exception handler that, for example, tells the user “‘cat’ is not a number”. As a reference, it’s probably about as relevant as your mentoning Andre Breton – a literary reference that I’m not familiar with, bar wikipedia. But each to their own.

                      For someone prepared to throw around surrealist poets you’re a bit of a dick to express desire for a “debate in good faith in plain English”.

            • QoT 13.3.1.1.1.2
              11 February 2013 at 9:48 pm

              So the “abuse” here is totally so over-the-top that Labour MPs are totally entitled to stay away.

              And Clare Curran guest-posts at WhaleOil.

              What an odd definition of “abuse” Labour MPs must have in your book.

              • Colonial Weka …
                11 February 2013 at 9:56 pm

                I don’t know about entitled. For me it’s more about pragmatics. If I were going to be subjected to abuse everytime I turned up here, I’m pretty sure I would stay away. Life is too short.

                Does Curran guest post at Whale Oil regularly? Still?

              • McFlock …
                11 February 2013 at 9:59 pm

                Anyone, including a Labour caucus member, is completely entitled to stay away.

                The question is: why would they bother coming here?

              • Colonial Weka …
                11 February 2013 at 10:01 pm

                I don’t know about entitled. For me it’s more about pragmatics. If I were going to be subjected to abuse everytime I turned up here, I’m pretty sure I would stay away. Life is too short. So, do we want MPs to come here and engage or not? I think it’s worth a try, and so I think it’s worth making the effort to make that happen.

                Alternatively, we can take the suck it up or fuck off attitude that is the norm here. And risk no MPs engaging here. What is attractive about that?

                Does Curran guest post at Whale Oil regularly? Still?

        • Rhinocrates 13.3.1.2
          11 February 2013 at 1:17 am

          Grow a skin – you and Clare. And remember how she treated CV.

          • Colonial Weka 13.3.1.2.1
            11 February 2013 at 2:13 am

            An eye for an eye, I’m sure that will work.

            • Rhinocrates 13.3.1.2.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 5:51 pm

              Frankly, I’ve dealt with bullies like Curran in a former workplace. They thought that they were wonderful people… because! I walked out with a very large out-of-court settlement because the fact was that they broke the law.

              NOBODY deserves deference because, ooh, they’re important or because they think that they’re soooo cute.

              Curran can suck it up or fuck off.

              • McFlock …
                11 February 2013 at 5:58 pm

                Which option is more likely if we follow your approach of bile and hyperbolic abuse, and which option do we need to happen for the labour caucus to swing to the left and give us a decent chance of a left wing government?

                • Rhinocrates …
                  11 February 2013 at 7:28 pm

                  You seem rather fond of hyperbolic abuse yourself, I might mention. “Genocide” and all that.

                  Now a left-wing government? Well then, there’s the rub. Let me imagine telling Trevor Mallard that he’s such a nice guy and suddenly he sees the error of his ways and swings leftwards.

                  Yes indeed, there might be a Tui billboard in that.

                  • McFlock …
                    11 February 2013 at 7:48 pm

                    “800,000-1,000,000 dead”, and all that.

                    So once again you’re pulling the futility-try-nothing angle? Points for consistency, I guess.

    • Jackal 13.4
      12 February 2013 at 11:37 am

      1prent

      [lprent: Keep that up and I’ll make a pre-emptive strike on your access here. The only reason that didn’t earn a ban was because it was so abnormal to your usual behaviours. ]

      That’s not abnormal to Rhinocrates’ usual behavior at all and is the second time within a week that he’s directly threatened the lives of Labour MPs. Just because you share many of his/her beliefs shouldn’t mean Rhinocrates is let off the hook 1prent.

      In my opinion, with attacks on Labour occurring on a regular basis, The Standard (as in a grouping of articles and comments) is becoming like the main right wing blogs.

      Let’s put it this way… Would a commentator who implied that John Key should be stabbed in the eye with a screwdriver be allowed to continue commentating on Cameron Slater or David Farrar’s websites? The answer to that is assuredly no!

      [lprent: I look at the ones I see. If you want me to look elsewhere then link to it. ]

      • Jackal 13.4.1
        12 February 2013 at 4:45 pm

        Here’s the link 1prent… First fatty says:

        probably stick a screwdriver through my left eye.

        On a post that was specifically concerned with David Shearer in which Rhinocrates had been highly critical of the leader of the opposition, he states:

        I do suggest that you’ve chosen the wrong eye and even the wrong head.

        That is a clear encouragement to do violence on somebody else, and in this case that person is obviously David Shearer.

        306 (1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 is what you should be concerned with 1prent, because by allowing such threats to be published, The Standard’s admin are also liable for prosecution under the current law.

  14. Clare Curran 14
    10 February 2013 at 11:42 pm

    Hi there The Standard. Would like to comment occasionally. Our affordable housing policy and our monetary policy show we have moved a long way and are doing some deep thinking. Our relationship with The Greens is strengthening and mostly good and warm. We work together on many issues. The manufacturing inquiry is a very good example of this. We don’t agree on everything which is a healthy thing. My hope is that we can continue good, honest debates and be moving in the same direction.

    • lprent 14.1
      11 February 2013 at 12:00 am

      Please don’t address the machine. From the policy.

      Attacking the blog site, or attributing a mind to a machine (ie talking about The Standard as if it had an opinion), or trying to imply that the computer that runs the site has some kind of mind control over authors and commentators is not allowed. Making such assertions will often get the sysop answering you, because he considers that those are comments directed at him personally.

      Talking as if there was a “Mass” just pisses me off because it so clearly isn’t the case. You need to view it as if every person here holds their own opinions and is happy to argue with virtually everyone else at the drop of a hat – because that is why people come to places like this.

      The nearest thing there is here to a consensus is whatever I program and the policies that the moderators choose to enforce. Since those policies are mainly orientated to protect the ability of the site’s arguing individuals to carry on doing so, you get me answering.

      Please don’t waste my time… Talk to individuals or to the contents of the post.

      • Jackal 14.1.1
        12 February 2013 at 11:47 am

        Most people aren’t willing to argue with you though 1prent because you’re the admin.

        It was clear that Clare Curran was addressing the people who post and comment here and not the largely autonomous program known as The Standard. To criticize such a turn of phrase seems rather silly!

        Perhaps you might like to instead turn your attention to people who are using The Standard to break the law by threatening other peoples lives?

        • lprent 14.1.1.1
          12 February 2013 at 9:20 pm

          That particular section of the policy has been in there since early 2008. It was put there and is still there because 9 times out of 10 when people start addressing “The Standard” then they are busy constructing a strawmen in their heads that they will henceforth address rather than actually talking to people. It is boring as crap for everyone to read because proponents of the technique never discuss anything with anyone real….. I have found that political agents are particularly susceptible to this strawmen technique and the most indignant when being pulled up about using it (John Pagani being one of my more favorite examples)

          I will have to eventually waste effort on them because they start abusing authors while addressing some mythical figure that exists in their head. They will get indignant because a person (me) intrudes into their personal in headspace and abused the crap out of them for mastubating on our site. But they seldom know how to amend their behaviour before tripping over a policy.

          So I get pedantic and see if they can learn to deal with humans early rather than later. It saves moderator time because we find out early if hey are adaptable enough to change their behaviour.

          Arguing with me, or any other human on site is actually one of the safest things that people can do. Doing the ACToid trick of arguing both sides of the argument by reinterpreting everything into your own strawmen is one of the most dangerous.

          • Jackal 14.1.1.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 11:02 pm

            Fair enough 1prent… Although being able to assert both sides of an argument is not generally a bad thing, reinterpreting things out of context like an Actoid is obviously annoying… It’s actually a technique used by those when their argument is lost, to try and change the premiss of the debate/discussion in the hope that it will bamboozle their opponents.

    • Colonial Weka 14.2
      11 February 2013 at 12:09 am

      Clare, you can instead say “Hi there Standardistas”. Or direct your comment to the author if it’s more specific.

      I think most people can see that Labour and the GP do work together at times. It’s the attacks on the GP done in public that raise eyebrows. Can’t see the point myself, given the two parties will be forming the next government. Or the one after that. It’s just going to make things difficult next year. Will be interesting to see if Mallard, Jones etc pull their head in during the election campaign.

    • bad12 14.3
      11 February 2013 at 12:11 am

      As this post is concerning a ‘twittering’ Trevor Mallard publicly insulting Green Party Leader Russell Norman perhaps you can tell us here at the Standard if such an attack is ‘working more closely, Labour Party policy, or just Trevor mentally masterbating in a public space…

      • QoT 14.3.1
        11 February 2013 at 9:50 pm

        Too late, bad. Clare just wants to comment “occasionally” so expecting her to do anything more than a key messaged hit-and-run is demanding way too much.

        • Colonial Weka 14.3.1.1
          12 February 2013 at 12:00 am

          Softly softly catchy monkey. It’s about building relationship, not making demands.

          • QoT 14.3.1.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 8:33 pm

            I’m not making any demands, I’m just continuing my perennial theme of noting that the Labour Party’s apparent “expert” on online communication isn’t very good at it.

        • Mary 14.3.1.2
          12 February 2013 at 12:25 am

          Just like every one of the few Labour MPs who’ve commented here, especially after being asked a question they know the true left won’t like the answer to – the kind of question that gets you kicked off redalert. Oh, those were the days…

    • Rhinocrates 14.4
      11 February 2013 at 12:16 am

      Oh God, she really is that stupid…

    • indiana 14.5
      11 February 2013 at 12:32 am

      Clare, what chance does Russell have getting Min of Finance in a coalition with Labour?

    • David H 14.6
      11 February 2013 at 2:00 am

      Yeah right Clare, and Trevors just showing warm fuzzies to the greens. He’s a liability and he is costing you votes, as will ALL dumb stunts. Yours included

    • Mary 14.7
      11 February 2013 at 11:40 am

      “We don’t agree on everything which is a healthy thing. My hope is that we can continue good, honest debates and be moving in the same direction.”

      Does Labour want to move in the same direction as the Greens on its social welfare benefits policy? Or does it think that disagreeing with the Greens on this issue is a good thing?

      And the answer is….surprise, surprise…more silence!! Yay, Labour!!!

    • One Tāne Huna 14.8
      11 February 2013 at 12:56 pm

      Clare Curran, perhaps it’s too much to ask for you to publicly distance yourself from Foot-in-Mallard, but someone should. Preferably David Shearer.

  15. handle 15
    10 February 2013 at 11:51 pm

    Until Labour publically disciplines Mallard and Shane Jones for slagging their coalition partner, why should anyone take the party seriously?

    • fatty 16.1
      11 February 2013 at 12:44 am

      FFS, reading those two twits on twitter, I can’t figure out who is more childish…
      We should also remember Russel Norman put the boot into Mana just as they were trying to launch their party to the public.
      I’m not saying Trev is right, just saying the Greens have been responsible for friendly fire too. Hone has launched more than a few as well…but they are never as damaging when its the smaller party questioning the larger. Labour must reflect on this, they have more power and therefore more responsibility.

      Differences between parties are to be expected, but they should be presented to the public carefully. Ramifications to either party must be at the forefront of everyone’s thinking.

  17. Rhinocrates 17
    11 February 2013 at 12:09 am

    OK, I’m going to put on a mask – it’s not me, it’s a fictitious PseudoLabour advisor.

    Here’s the “Labour” voter, one of many millions who will deliver the party to victory in 2014… or 2017… or 2018 if the four-year terms happens, and after that 2022, or definitely 2026!

    He – and you can be sure it’s a “he” – is a “battler”. The sort that supported John Howard, until he ran out of “battlers”, but what the hell, there are plenty left, surely.

    They have a job, they’re preferably self-employed or have a small business, because they’re more ashpirashunul.

    They’re on the knife-edge of unemployment, but not quite unemployed – rather, they have to fear being unemployed, and because they fear that status, they have to hate it – and therefore they hate the unemployed because everyone hates what they fear becoming.

    They might perhaps be Maori, but more likely they know someone who’s Maori, but the Maori they know are reasonable folk, just like them and not those protesting types. It’s probably a good idea to show up at that Ratana place and be seen to be welcomed… but better not overdo it, or you’ll look weird, or radical.

    They’re not feminists, because that’s “identity politics” which is… well, OK… but distracting. They’re not gay either, because that’s… well, a minority, and if they grab the headlines, it looks like a special interest group has taken over (not like middle-aged, middle-class white male folks who are really the people who vote). Civil rights are good, but Damien O’Connor had it… I mean in presenting an appeal… Remember, most of our supporters are.. I mean, they’re salt-of-the-earth types… I mean, moving into the new century… but you know, they don’t necessarily… they still aren’t… well, you know.. Grant? Oh good, I see that you know what I mean.

    Generally they think that they’re reasonable types, and all their complaints are reasonable. We can put up with the homophobia thing for the time being.

    Remember, the election’s going to be decided in Remuera, which is like the West Coast, I suppose. Where the West Coasters want to be, right? With more money.

    Now let’s think about other people, the people people want to be. They donate, remember? Like Owen whatshisname… alright, I’m sorry, we’re not meant tone seen standing too close to him… yes, I know, Banks and Kim Dotcom… well, maybe we can… I mean I’m just suggesting!

    Look, it comes down to this: these are the people you don’t want to upset.

    Ashpirashuns! Remember?!

    And fear. Don’t forget that. We’ve got to present ourselves as reshunabul.

    Look, we just can’t scare people, especially the ones in Remuera, or the hillbillies, coal miners, whatever. Either of them.

    …

    Does anyone actually know any of them, by the way?

    So what do you think, Trevor?

    [lprent: If you haven’t seen my previous note, please read it. ]

    • Rhinocrates 17.1
      11 February 2013 at 12:52 am

      lprent: If you haven’t seen my previous note, please read it.

      Sorry, subtlety is not my forte. In good faith, what I wrote – as I said in the first line – was satire of an attitude that could be attributed to a possible advisor, not my own. It represents or depicts a point of view and a set of attitudes that I despise. If what I wrote was offensive otherwise, then I apologise, but I would like some specifics, so that I don’t repeat the mistake if that’s OK.

      [lprent: Anything that looks like the advocation of violence against an individual is high risk. We’re all humourless bastards on that topic as it starts flame wars. The moderator to particularly worry about seeing it is r0b because when he moderates, he operates a no tolerance policy on it because he doesn’t like it at all. Fortunately that is a point that I am less concerned about, which is why you probably just got lucky. ]

    • JK 17.2
      11 February 2013 at 7:00 am

      I’m not sure what lprent is on about, Rhinocrates – but to get back to your thread – yes, I’ve met a number of those sorts of people, they exist, and they appear to be the “blokey” types the current caucus want to have voting for them. Your fictitious persona and what/who he represents is spot on !

  18. Rhinocrates 18
    11 February 2013 at 1:16 am

    Thanks for that, lprent.

    In future, if I suggest an attack on an individual, it will be of an obviously silly and ineffectual kind.

    I also have to reiterate as a point of honour, that I do not hold the views that my fictitious party advisor expresses. I only put them forward to make them seem ridiculous and offensive.

    • blue leopard 18.1
      11 February 2013 at 1:20 am

      @Rhinocrates

      “I also have to reiterate as a point of honour, that I don’t hold the views of my fictitious political advisor

      Lol This might be a good one for one of our politicians to memorize; could come in handy for them at some point.

      Perhaps what Mr Mallard could say publicly by way of apology for the inept text conversation we are now discussing?

      • Rhinocrates 18.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 1:25 am

        I just edited my last line, so I don’t know if you’re responding to my original version or the current one… but it certainly fits the new version anyway!

      • Colonial Weka 18.1.2
        11 February 2013 at 2:16 am

        ““I also have to reiterate as a point of honour, that I don’t hold the views of my fictitious political advisor

        Lol This might be a good one for one of our politicians to memorize; could come in handy for them at some point.”

        Lol, that explains a few t hings about the Labour caucus for sure.

    • lprent 18.2
      11 February 2013 at 11:47 am

      There are usually between 300 and a thousand comments here per day that we moderate whilst in the midst of our jobs and lives. We don’t read the context most of the time. We moderate mostly looking for *what* was said rather than what people were *thinking*.

      So I didn’t even really red your comment. My eye was drawn immediately to the statement that Trevor should be attacked. If you don’t want moderators crapping all over your comments, then don’t write things that attract them.

  19. Rhinocrates 19
    11 February 2013 at 1:27 am

    Ooh, editing race! What can I add? Bugger, too late!

  20. chris73 20
    11 February 2013 at 6:50 am

    Excellent…

    (To get the full the effect imagine a cross between S. Joyce and Monty Burns speaking)

  21. chris73 21
    11 February 2013 at 7:26 am

    So did Labour signed up to novopay? According to Russell they did…

    • IrishBill 21.1
      11 February 2013 at 7:31 am

      Yes. The contract was tendered and awarded under Labour.

      • Colonial Viper 21.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 11:51 am

        Indeed. Labour must have judged Talent 2 to have been capable of fulfilling the contract and delivering on the end product. Although why a Labour Government would outsource payroll work for NZ teachers to an Australian company is beyond me.

        • Macro 21.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 4:14 pm

          “why a Labour Government would outsource payroll work for NZ teachers to an Australian company is beyond me.”
          Because they thought – mistakenly – that it would be cheaper; no other reason.
          Conclusion – Labour, just as National, have no interest in preserving jobs in NZ, they are happy to export them overseas.

  22. AAMC 22
    11 February 2013 at 10:06 am

    Theu really are going to hand another victory to the Nat’s aren’t they!

    On the QE / Currency War front.

    Steve Keen’s jubilee circumvents inflation, insist it goes first into debt reduction. Although, if we could include Commodities, Wquities and Assets in the CPI, we’d find a) Private Credit creation is inflationary, b) Sonia QE when the cash is handed to Banks to speculate with, cause they ain’t lending it.

    Also, see Venezuela’s devaluation! Getting interesting.

  23. tsmithfield 23
    11 February 2013 at 10:11 am

    Actually, I have changed my mind. I quite like the idea of printing money. We could simply print money for everything we need ad infinitum. Then none of us will need to be taxed. 🙂

    • bad12 23.1
      11 February 2013 at 10:28 am

      Actually you couldn’t print money for everything you want, while you appear with the smiley face to be joking such an idea as you propose in terms of the accounting methods used by the Neanderthalic economic illiterates in charge would simply lead to runaway inflation,

      Obviously money has become a perversion of it’s intended use where the hording of vast sums of it has become the reason for denying more and more of us a fair share of it,

      The capitalist system is obviously bankrupt and only injections of capital both borrowed and printed are keeping it functioning,

      The only means of survival that capitalism has is to constantly remove from the top of the economy the horded wealth redistributing such wealth to those with the least amount of such wealth in an economy,

      Thus those with a desire for wealth will compete to regain a share of such wealth to horde in the process creating production which requires labour…

      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 10:33 am

        Thus those with a desire for wealth will compete to regain a share of such wealth to horde in the process creating production which requires labour…

        Unfortunately in the coming world, both energy and physical resources are going to become extremely constrained. The paradigm of wealth through consumption has to end, preferably before we have no other choice.

        • bad12 23.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 3:07 pm

          Nope, in it’s infancy the ‘new’ technology which allows mirrors to concentrate the energy of the sun upon a ‘processor’ that with the aid of freely available minerals will turn treated sewerage into hydrogen is the energy of the future, both the necessary ingredients, Sunlight and Water are pretty much inexhaustible in supply,

          A miniature version of this type of energy production is already operating in California where the Hydrogen produced is powering the sewerage treatment plant along with the Hydrogen necessary to fuel a small number of vehicles,

          Not sure what you mean by physical resources so i will leave the comment there…

          • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 4:26 pm

            Diffuse energy like sunlight can’t be transformed into a concentrated energy source as potent as a barrel of diesel, and so will never be able to replace a barrel of diesel without severe compromises.

            Not sure what you mean by physical resources so i will leave the comment there…

            rare earth minerals, etc. which our entire modern technology relies on.

            • Rogue Trooper 23.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2013 at 4:35 pm

              Hay, do you, or anybody graze over my links? 🙂

            • Rhinocrates 23.1.1.1.1.2
              11 February 2013 at 5:30 pm

              rare earth minerals

              Exactly.

              Essential for touchscreens. Solution: don’t boy an iPod, right?

              No.

              Try doing without someone or an organisation that doesn’t use rare earths…

              There might well be substitutes, but if so, start thinking about what they might be.

              Saying “we don’t need these things” is bullshit. Once upon a time we didn’t, but there were only a few hundred thousand of us and we could only expect to live to be thirty. Now there are seven billion, and all those people want good, long lives, and who’s to say no?

              The Earth won’t support seven billion hunter-gatherers driving organic hand-knitted Volvos.

            • bad12 23.1.1.1.1.3
              11 February 2013 at 6:03 pm

              According to those working on the conversion of sunlight and water to Hydrogen it can do just that,

              What did our entire modern technology rely upon befor rare earth minerals???, might mean a step backwards to go forward…

          • Rhinocrates 23.1.1.1.2
            11 February 2013 at 5:22 pm

            A miniature version of this type of energy production

            Very nice, but there are major problems. The new energy system has to:

            Be able to replace currently existing systems. That will take time. The technology at least has to be cheap and easily replicable. Can the infrastructure be set up easily and be spread far and wide swiftly? Nuclear reactors are in fact quite simple to make in theory, but expensive in practice.

            Be practical. Hydrogen looks nice as a fuel for cars, but the tanks have to be big because hydrogen has low density and takes up a lot of volume – and it requires extreme refrigeration. So a hydrogen-powered car would be cool… actually it would have to be really cool. It needs cryogenic cooling, actually, and even then the fuel tank will still be big (Have you ever wondered why rockets are so big?) On the plus side, if you crash, the hydrogen will go up rather than spread all over the road and the wreck, and being the most abundant element in the universe, it’ll be cheap.

            Energy density is a major issue: the fact is, a litre of petrol has far less volume than a battery containing the same amount of energy. If you use a battery, then your car has to be bigger, heavier and take more time recharging (hours versus seconds). Also, in winter it will be less effective, since cold batteries hold less charge.

            Be convenient otherwise. Maybe that will come to pass: Elon Musk’s Tesla cars seem to be brilliant according to testers due to their iPod-like functioning (updates over the Internet, not at the garage). Moreover, electric motors give all their torque right away, so acceleration is fantastic and people who like sports cars love that.

            Be economical, meaning that it offers advantages to shareholders and consumers (monetary and otherwise), otherwise it will remain in the lab or on powerpoint and in the publicity videos. Windfarms are nice, but do they actually offer an advantage. More people actually get killed in their construction (as people always get killed in construction projects) than die from causes attributable to nuclear power stations. They’re better than coal, but are they, according to the math, better than everything?

            Meet demand without being worse than the problem (biofuels are an example there – yes, they’re a bit cleaner in use, but require the destruction of rainforest).

            Somehow overcome superstition. That’s my real beef with the Greens around the world – their opposition to fusion, for Cthulhu’s sake, apparently because it’s “nuclear”. The friggin SUN is nuclear, you fools. Plate tectonics are ultimately driven by nuclear energy at the Earth’s core. If plate tectonics didn’t happen, then the Earth would be like Venus. Granite gives you a radiation dose and the whole galaxy itself is awash with high energy particles that cause cancer. Grrr!

            OK,

            Overall, yes, there may be a wonder technology, and certainly new technological developments do change the world. However, there are inevitable trade-offs, compromises and so on that may or may not be show-stoppers, but which in any case will present obstacles to be overcome.

            For example, regarding energy, the real choice might be between nuclear and coal, not coal and unicorns, because unicorns don’t exist or are extremely rare.

            Unicorns might be great, but where do we find them? Can we breed them in sufficient numbers, can we avoid being cruel to them?

            Then we meet the sheer, stubborn stupidity of the world that won’t just see and embrace the goodness, the rightness of a new solution to its problems.

            History isn’t sensible. You are almost certainly using a QWERTY keyboard. Do you know why this happened? Because in the first mechanical typewriters, the keys jammed due to commonly-used letters being close together. If you typed fast, then you were more likely to jam, so the QWERTY format was instituted, which put all of the commonly-used letters far apart. Nowadays. everyone’s used to QWERTY despite the fact that modern keyboards aren’t mechanical and won’t jam. It takes a month’s training at least to learn how to use a keyboard that isn’t QWERTY and produce the same or superior output, so no alternative has become the standard and employer invests in retraining even though in the long term their profitability would improve. Instead we all get OOS, because in the short term it’s cheaper and easier.

            Now, I don’t doubt that some new, revolutionary technology will change everything – consider how the Internet has changed the world, but sometimes, indeed most of the time, the “obvious” superiority of something will not guarantee that it becomes the standard.

            So yes, there might be this new wonder technology, but that won’t save us yet. On the other hand, by all means, work on it because eventually we will need it.

            My guess is that the Internet succeeded because it didn’t replace anything at first – it only replaced things as a result. Energy, manufacturing and cars are something that do need direct replacements but that will be much harder and take longer. It won’t be impossible, but it won’t happen soon or easily.

            In the meantime, we need lesser evils before greater aims.

            (and if anyone wants to make a political analogy, ergonomics is not politics, OK?)

            • Jackal 23.1.1.1.2.1
              12 February 2013 at 12:14 pm

              Rhinocrates

              For example, regarding energy, the real choice might be between nuclear and coal

              You don’t half waffle on Rhinocrates… The choice is between clean or polluting energy solutions.

              Nuclear power is not an option because it remains too dangerous and there are no further technological advances available to make it safer.

              We don’t need to invent new technologies, we just need to implement the energy efficient technologies that are current available.

    • Tiresias 23.2
      11 February 2013 at 12:39 pm

      I have a mild suspicion your suggestion is mean to be flippant and/or sarcastic. However there are economic models that provide for just that.

      One – sorry I can’t point to it as it’s years since I saw it in print – suggests ‘printing money’ through the payment of a universal living allowance, and the sopping up of excess money through a tax on profits.

      Of course it would take a forward-thinking, risk-taking government to introduce such a scheme – much like the ones that introduced universal free education for children, a National Health Service and universal benefits. Haven’t seen one of those for quite a while but I have hopes that the GP might yet break the paralysis.

      • bad12 23.2.1
        11 February 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Yep, it could be done that way, or, simply print the stuff in such an amount that ensures that ‘everyone’ below X amount of income whether renting privately or from the State only pays 25% of their income as rent, and then recoup the monies by taxation upon those who own rental properties, what would be needed to achieve this is simply a data base of all rental properties that identified the owner,

        The ‘problem’ that the working poor have faced over the past 30 years is that thye have been in the main forced out into the private rental market whereas before that they could have expected to have been tenants of the State,

        The end result is that those working poor 30 years on now pay 50%+ of their incomes as rent whereas previously this would have been 25% of that income,

        As that has occurred within the economy gradually over that 30 years the 25% difference in rent’s paid has NOT been spent into the local economy, constraining consumption and employment, and has instead become a direct transfer of NZ production from the economy to foreign owned banks…

  24. George D 24
    11 February 2013 at 12:40 pm

    I think a bit of conflict on the left is a good thing. We should be free to debate the things that matter to us. While it shouldn’t be a daily ritual, a Labour MP (in coordination with the leader and in line with a communications strategy) should have reign to take on other parties where those parties policies deviate from Labour’s, and sufficiently so that Labour considers them harmful.

    What we shouldn’t have to debate are our principles. Those should be clear as day. And the principle of the left has always been that the ‘market’ is a system which has been set up to benefit those who have, at the expense of those who do not. The logic of intervention is a principle we own. We WILL intervene, because it is right.

    This is where Mallard falls down.

    • Mary 24.1
      11 February 2013 at 3:18 pm

      “This is where Mallard falls down.”

      It’s where the whole of the current Labour Party falls down. A quick look at its latest housing plan is clear evidence of that. If they’re relying on the “market” to deliver in such a crucial social policy area as housing then heaven help us.

      • Jackal 24.1.1
        12 February 2013 at 12:17 pm

        The market is not delivering, which is the point. The government needs to step in and correct a problem the market has caused. In conjunction with the Green’s housing policy, Labours housing policy will effectively fix a major problem with our society ie not enough affordable and healthy housing being available to New Zealanders.

  25. Craig Glen viper 25
    11 February 2013 at 2:37 pm

    If Mallard could debate without the smart arse shit that would be fine but just being a dick because he can does not achieve a thing. Labour members should remember this guy headed up the last Labour election campaign which was a huge success just ask Phil. Its time a large number of this Labour caucus moved on instead of trying to cling to power because they offer nothing to Labour/members/voters and certainly wont win back traditional Labour voters.

    • Jackal 25.1
      12 February 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Labour won’t win back traditional Labour voters unless the Labour caucus moves on… What the fuck are you on about Craig Glen viper?

      • Colonial Viper 25.1.1
        12 February 2013 at 11:48 pm

        You’ve never even met any members of the Labour caucus, so what the fuck are you on about?

  26. gobsmacked 26
    11 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Speaking of Twitter and “engaging”, here is David Shearer’s …

    https://twitter.com/DavidShearerMP

    Apart from 2 re-tweets, his last “engagement” was Feb 5, a week ago.

    Twitter is only a small component, of course. But if you look across all media – old, new, whatever – what do you find? David Shearer agreeing with John Key about both a 4 year term and Titewhai, and … what else?

    Every person who comes on here and says “Why aren’t you guys attacking the real enemy?” should copy that comment to the Labour leader’s office. Until then, we have a vacuum, and spats like this (Mallard/Norman) will – inevitably – fill the vacuum. And No, a daily press release written by a staffer won’t cut it.

    Most of the critics (the good faith ones, I mean) would – I think – be willing to give credit where it’s due. To follow the leader of the opposition, when he gets stuck in to the Tories. But what is there to follow?

      • Craig Glen viper 26.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 3:49 pm

        +2

        • Scintilla 26.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 8:15 pm

          Shearer on the Novopay fiasco on One news: here

          ” (Novopay) … Probably too far gone” he says. Probably???

          Is this an adequate response to a highly disruptive fiasco that is costing schools upwards of $8million and counting, not to mention the headaches for admin. staff and the complete failure of the Minister of Education to ensure teachers are paid properly? For six months??!

          To compare – the UK MP Chris Huhne has gone down for traffic fine irregularities ten years ago. Guardian

          What will it take to fire up Mr Shearer? Are teachers and schools not that important? He flapped about education last year but when it comes to walking the talk ……

          • Scintilla 26.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 8:19 pm

            Bugger. That flash “put a link in a comment instruction ” doesn’t seem to have worked for moi. Long versions ….

            http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/schools-demand-compo-over-novopay-5338956

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/nick-clegg-chris-huhne-plea?INTCMP=SRCH

          • KJT 26.1.1.1.2
            11 February 2013 at 9:59 pm

            The sad fact is Shearer, and the Labour caucus is managing to make even National look focused and competent by comparison. Despite some of the biggest fuckups by any NZ Government. Ever!

            Sleepwalking to the last election failed. Why would it work any better this time.

            Or. Maybe Mallard and co are happy collecting their salaries in opposition?

            • Scintilla 26.1.1.1.2.1
              12 February 2013 at 12:10 am

              @KJT
              Yeah, it looks that way. On One news tonight, Shearer was grinning like an imbecile (edited out of the online footage) while he made the startling revelation that Novopay had probably failed.

              A decent Opposition would have ripped the government to shreds last year – I can only surmise Labour don’t want to be in government. Too many precious dweebs, tired old hacks and loose cannons to forge into something competent. And they really don’t want to deal with iwi over water. They still fantasise that the Maori Party vote will come back to them.

              • Jackal …
                12 February 2013 at 12:24 pm

                Scintilla

                On One news tonight, Shearer was grinning like an imbecile (edited out of the online footage).

                Could you link to what News broadcast you’re talking about please as the main channels upload their shows in full… That fact makes me think you’re full of shit Scintilla.

                • Scintilla …
                  12 February 2013 at 2:28 pm

                  Right back at ya jackal.
                  Posting furiously on here I see, replying to everything, stirring it up no end. You are a repugnant advertisement for the Labour Party – a bully boy.

                  • Jackal …
                    12 February 2013 at 5:01 pm

                    I asked for you to provide a link to back up your accusation Scintilla? The fact that you’ve failed to provide one indicates that you were lying!

                    I have no association with the Labour party btw, and if you think that my few comments here are ‘posting furiously’ your clearly deluded!

                    Ad hominems will get you guys nowhere.

                  • blue leopard …
                    12 February 2013 at 5:26 pm

                    @ Jackal,

                    “The fact that you’ve failed to provide one indicates that you were lying!”

                    Not so.

                    Not everyone has broadband and can get to the footage they have seen on television.

                    It is pretty disingenious of you to ask for links for examples of poor presentation from Mr Shearer. There are numerous examples. You said yourself on another thread recently that the media do particularly poor shots of the guy; from observation TV3 is particularly guilty of this, so I suggest that you go to TV3s website. One has to also note that it is not easy to get a good shot of someone who hasn’t got the type of poise that shows up well on footage.

                    Shearer himself admits to a weakness in this area:

                    Perhaps the most glaringly obvious problem for Shearer is his handling of press conferences – an everyday reality when Parliament is sitting – something he himself accepts. He frequently gabbles and seems unsure of his ground, giving equivocal answers rather than clear sound bites, and they dominate his image on the evening bulletins.

                    Who can ever forget: “I do not believe I am not, not connecting.”

                    Shearer says his public face is a work in progress. “I’m not slick, but I’m genuine. There are areas around presentation I agree I can sharpen up on, and I’m working on that.”

                    The Domion Post/Stuff

                    @Scintilla: A suggestion for your response to The Jackal:

                    🙄

                    • Jackal …
                      12 February 2013 at 10:40 pm

                      blue leopard

                      so I suggest that you go to TV3s website.

                      Scintilla was referring to something on One News, which I’ve already checked and haven’t found any footage he/she could be referring to… That makes me believe it doesn’t exist.

  27. VivaciousViper 27
    11 February 2013 at 3:42 pm

    I for one have watched the demolition of the Labour Party now for far too long.
    The recent activities by the caucus in stripping the members rights in the leadership
    issue was one,the second was sending Cunliffe to the backbench, in the manner that
    he was, it was disgusting, the third was CC’s attempt to silence CV.
    Where injustice is seen to be done,there will be a revolt and there will be opinions
    there is nothing that those inside caucus can do to stop it, that is the nature of
    having a ‘supposed democracy’ which it seems the currrent labour caucus has
    no respect for.
    It’s all very well for those in caucus or those who are mp’s to fly the banner of
    the Labour Party, when their actions fly in the face of,fairness,integrity,honesty,
    compassion and believabilty, that they are genuine about the Labour party and
    it’s heart,or is the Labour Party intended to be a personal vehicle for their personal
    aspirations and stufff what the people or members think ?

    • Jackal 27.1
      12 February 2013 at 5:06 pm

      Demolition means something is destroyed… As much as you might wish for such a thing, the Labour Party is far from being destroyed VivaciousViper.

  28. AAMC 28
    11 February 2013 at 4:02 pm

    Made the mistake of joining Labour last year, after talk of a more participatory structure, the Cunliffe debacle and talk on here about the potential to vote around leadership. I thought I would break my promise to myself to never join a political party.

    Post the recent Leadership vote (void of membership) and now Mallards outburst, proving he’s totally out of touch with the global economic debate and is intent on undermining his potential partners, I just resigned my membership.

    I feel much better.

    Now, onward with the future, and the end of any delusions that Labour’s “rear vision mirror” will get us anywhere.

    Speaking of economic debates, why not throw a couple of bucks towards Steve Keen’s Kickstarter, and help him model our economy with the inclusion of Banks, Money & Debt, so we can help encourage the likes of Mallard beyond Econ101.

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2123355930/minsky-reforming-economics-with-visual-monetary-mo

  29. Craig Glen viper 29
    11 February 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Couldnt agree more VViper and if people think that King, Curren, Fenton, Nash and so on are posting here at the Standard because they want to engage with people on the left ,think again all I see is the same tone coming through from these people, they think they know best and that everyone else should be their cheerleading squad. If these people wanted engagement they would have voted at conference for members to have greater say in future leadership selections but they didn’t. Actions speak louder than words and many of us who are regulars at the Standard have their number based on passed actions. To many Labour politicians are great at talking about “Labour Principles “but when they have the opportunity to be inclusive they choose power and control for themselves.

  30. Rhinocrates 30
    11 February 2013 at 4:24 pm

    You know what gives me hope about the Labour Party and caucus?

    Louisa Wall and others like her.

    You want positive? They’re positive.

    Don’t forget them. Those are the ones I want to see contributing here. They remind me that Labour was and should be a progressive party, always applying the principles of fairness, compassion and egalitarianism.

    Not the “realists” like Nash and Pagani and Pagani, or bigots like Tamihere or children like Mallard… or Mallards like Mallard (really, the idiot’s his own trope definer).

    They don’t say, “That’s the way it is as I see it, we have to work with the system.”

    That’s Blairbour.

    Instead, they ask, “How can the world be better?” and then they go and make it better.

    If you’re reading this Louisa and others, then if you see the comments of those who are furious at the Labour caucus, then remember that those people don’t hate Labour – they love what it’s been and what it could be.

    You are the party’s present and future.

    • karol 30.1
      11 February 2013 at 4:27 pm

      Yes. Louisa done good over the last year. May it continue.

    • QoT 30.2
      11 February 2013 at 9:54 pm

      You know what gives me hope about the Labour Party and caucus?

      Louisa Wall and others like her.

      Ah yes, but staunch Labour defenders like Stuart Nash think Louisa should have sat down and shut up because her wildly successful 2-to-1-votes-on-first-reading Bill isnt “things that really matter”.

      (Apols for self-linkage)

  31. Mary 31
    11 February 2013 at 4:35 pm

    Agree there’s potentially a phenomenal politician in Louisa Wall, but who are the “others like her”?

  32. GeoffC 32
    11 February 2013 at 8:45 pm

    I am terribly disappointed that when we have dialogue or receive commmets from our elected members of parliament some commentators take it as an opportunity to use ridicule or simple attack mentality.
    It would appear that for some members of labour there is a desire to engage both voters and commentators in an open manner.
    Time we as commentators of the left get on board, focus and engage in a positive manner.

    • Te Reo Putake 32.1
      11 February 2013 at 8:58 pm

      Comment of the Day, Geoff! You’d have to wonder why they’d bother, eh? I’ve been bugging MP’s and LP leadership for years to accept that the Standard is here to stay and that they need to be part of the TS community too. But, if they are greeted with abuse, then the Standard and its readers are the losers. Hell, its pretty obvious that Green MP’s and Hone won’t dip a digital toe here, so why should Labour MPs bother?

      • QoT 32.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 9:58 pm

        What, you mean Green MPs like Julie Anne Genter?

        If you’re going to make shit up, TRP, at least … well … make it something people can’t disprove in a minute’s basic searching.

        • Te Reo Putake 32.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 10:02 pm

          Ha! That’s the best you can do? One comment from 6 months ago? I’m crushed; I used to rate you so highly, Queeny.

          • QoT 32.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 11:04 pm

            Yes. You aren’t worth any more of my time. Your statement was disproven. And you never used to “rate me”, so don’t try sad little schoolyard digs.

      • MrSmith 32.1.2
        11 February 2013 at 10:14 pm

        Piss off You two, people here don’t need to bow down to anyone, that’s the point!

      • felixviper 32.1.3
        11 February 2013 at 10:21 pm

        “Hell, its pretty obvious that Green MP’s and Hone won’t dip a digital toe here, so why should Labour MPs bother?”

        There’s an obvious difference there though TRP, in that neither The Greens nor Hone seem to have any problem communicating with their members and supporters in a way that the members and supporters are happy with.

        • Te Reo Putake 32.1.3.1
          11 February 2013 at 10:39 pm

          Yes, but TS is not a Labour Party communication outlet. The Standard is from the labour movement and it should be somewhere where the LP can contribute freely. TS is weaker without the LP and vice versa. The LP needs to lift its comms game both in tone and content and having a regular presence here would help. The same also applies to the Greens and mana. They should be here too.

          Why aren’t they, felix? What is it about the Standard that hardly any MP’s want to comment here?

          • Colonial Viper 32.1.3.1.1
            11 February 2013 at 10:57 pm

            Why aren’t caucus here commenting on The Standard?

            They decided that it wasn’t important to reach out to people who sit in darkened rooms hiding behind curtains, and anyways no one reads blogs these days.

          • felixviper 32.1.3.1.2
            11 February 2013 at 11:22 pm

            It’s pretty simple TRP, parties either need to engage with TheStandard or they don’t.

            If they don’t, no matter. If they do, it’s their problem to figure out how to go about that.

            So the question is, does Labour need to engage with TheStandard?

            [lprent: Talk to a machine? Good luck. They listen to humans even less than political parties do. Policy. ]

            • felixviper 32.1.3.1.2.1
              11 February 2013 at 11:55 pm

              Sorry Lynn, I thought it was obvious what “engage with TheStandard” meant in that context and that it had nothing to do with talking to the software.

              • lprent …
                12 February 2013 at 8:07 am

                Oh it was. However I try to always land on that particular kind of statement because it doesn’t reflect the reality of the site. And it is beloved of the idiots who prefer to attack constructed strawmen rather than dealing with actual individuals.

                It is the classic bogeyman strategy beloved by wannabe politicians and small children. So when it is used about this site I always try to make sure I provide the individual in your face bogeyman that people don’t want to see. And to be reasonably consistent I pull up everyone when I can.

          • MrSmith 32.1.3.1.3
            11 February 2013 at 11:25 pm

            “TS is weaker without the LP and vice versa.”

            Once again you miss the point of this place, it’s not about me you or your precious Labour party, the Labour party that is and has been on the rocks for a while now and know amount of huffing and puffing is going to see it floating again any time soon. My opinon!

            People come here to express their opinions, words thats all, you don’t like those opinions, ignore them or piss off, you could of course debate in good faith it you liked, which would make you look stronger in the long run.

            • Colonial Weka 32.1.3.1.3.1
              11 February 2013 at 11:49 pm

              Some people here want Labour MPs to engage, here. Are you against that?

              eta, that’s a genuine question, I’m not having a go at ou.

              • MrSmith …
                12 February 2013 at 8:06 am

                I think the second paragraph of my comment answers your question Weka, but will elaborate.

                Weka: I have know problem with anyone commenting here, just find it a bit rich when people like TRP start saying things like “But, if they are greeted with abuse, then the Standard and its readers are the losers.”. This site has rules that apply to everyone and if they (the politicians) can’t take a little flack then perhaps they should start looking for a new line of work.

                Might be better to remain silent and be thought a fool though than speck up and remove all doubt.

        • McFlock 32.1.3.2
          11 February 2013 at 10:41 pm

          play me a violin.

      • peter 32.1.4
        11 February 2013 at 10:52 pm

        Because TRP, what I actually want from our Labour caucas is a fucken response regarding the shit that went on after the November conference…I won’t re join the party until the whole Cunliffe thing is sorted and he is promoted into a position where he can use his skills.

        Why is it that Mallard the useless wanker make tweets such as these and receives no punishment, why can Jones attack the greens and not receive any punishment. Why dont the labour caucus respond to comments such as Anne 12.2.1. Then they may get some respect.

        I found CC comments patronising and light weight, I dont want to read a comment from her that I could have read from the website, I want a response to some of the tougher questions. D Fenton’s comments have been good. Nash’s comments have been condescending. Thats my opinion.

        • McFlock 32.1.4.1
          11 February 2013 at 11:41 pm

          Why dont the labour caucus respond to comments such as Anne 12.2.1. Then they may get some respect.

          It needed no response.
          It was an extended instruction to reinstate Cunliffe to the front bench based on an accusation of tall poppy syndrome.

          • Anne 32.1.4.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 10:47 am

            It was an extended instruction to reinstate Cunliffe…

            If you are inferring that I was demanding that Cunliffe be reinstated forthwith type of thing, then you have misinterpreted what I said.

            I was pointing out that the only way to bridge the gap between a significant portion of the membership and themselves, was to reinstate David Cunliffe to his former position. That is my considered view and I stick by it.

            • McFlock 32.1.4.1.1.1
              12 February 2013 at 1:21 pm

              That’s as may be, however it still required no response from caucus. There was no request for information or clarification. The portrayal of the parties involved allowed no justification for any alternative to the actions you described. And any explanation as to why Cunliffe might not be such a great guy to work with would simply be slagging off a fellow caucus member in a public forum (for which the responsible caucus member should quit. That’s why, assuming Gower wasn’t making shit up, those who did it did so under anonymity).

              Therefore Peter asking why caucus don’t respond to that and similar statements is a touch naive.

              • Anne …
                12 February 2013 at 5:55 pm

                I’m not sure what that little rant is all about. I was initially responding to a reply to me from Stuart – describing a sequence of events I believed was relevant to what he said to me.

                As for the final sentence of your little rant… address that to Peter not me.

                Now I await your reply with suitable trepidation cos I know you just must have the last word. 🙄

  33. Mongoose 33
    11 February 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Absolutely agree with GeoffC & TRP above. Having strongs views on the way a party should be run is normal and healthy – but the vitriol and personal abuse leveled at some ‘elected’ Labour MPs on this site is astounding – especially from faceless commentors who claim to be members.

    Greens and Labour have differences. Politicians argue – it’s what they do. They position themselves. Russel Norman is quite good at it himself.

    I do wonder if social media is actually tearing us apart instead of bringing us together….?

    • MrSmith 33.1
      11 February 2013 at 10:46 pm

      Mongoose? I’m assuming thats not your real name? so settle down about the faceless commentators bullshit.

      Social media may well be tearing Labour apart, but things are evolving whether the dinosaurs or Labour like it or not, some will be left behind.

      • Mongoose 33.1.1
        11 February 2013 at 11:01 pm

        Perhaps not my real name… but surely you see the irony?

        • Colonial Viper 33.1.1.1
          11 February 2013 at 11:20 pm

          This Viper certainly sees the irony in your “faceless commentators” remark, Mr Mongoose, since Clare, Trevor, and a substantial portion of both the Labour Caucus and NZ Council know exactly who I am.

          And I don’t just “claim” to be a Labour Party member, I’m a Labour Party member, donor, activist, and organiser that the ABCs threatened in person, and then wanted to revoke the membership of via disciplinary proceedings in front of NZ Council.

          But in this incarnation of the Labour Party, this is simply situation normal 😈

          • blue leopard 33.1.1.1.1
            12 February 2013 at 3:41 pm

            Thanks for keeping on keeping on Colonial Viper.
            That was really truly disturbing what went on there.
            “Bloody disgusting”, in fact.

            I thought our representatives were supposed to respect the democratic process?

            [deleted]

            (I did that myself to save the moderators time 🙂 )

            • Colonial Viper 33.1.1.1.1.1
              12 February 2013 at 10:24 pm

              😀 thanks BL,

              The support I received from both yourself and from the huge Viper Squadron here at the Standard really meant a lot. (There were roughly 60-70 unique Viperised handles from what I could tell, including a number of quite lovely Right Wing Vipers ha)

          • Anne 33.1.1.1.2
            12 February 2013 at 6:47 pm

            I’m a Labour Party member, donor, activist, and organiser that the ABCs threatened in person, and then wanted to revoke the membership of via disciplinary proceedings in front of NZ Council.

            I can hardly believe what I’ve just read CV. I’ve been in and around the LP since the 1970s, and that is the worst instance of bullying in the L.P. I have ever heard about. I was aware the NZ Council in effect gave the ‘raspberry’ to a complaint by Clare Curran, but I had no idea it was as serious as that.

            I met Clare Curran once (about 2 and a half years ago) and we had a brief, friendly chat. After the final campaign rally in Auckland in 2011, I bumped in to her again. I gave her a big smile (as one does in such circumstances) and was taken aback by her reaction. She recognised me – although I don’t know whether she knew exactly who I was – and she positively recoiled. My thought at the time (not expressed of course): you little snob, who the hell do you think you are.

    • QoT 33.2
      11 February 2013 at 11:05 pm

      Well if they prove they’re members, Mongoose, then people like Clare Curran have established they’re quite happy to dish out personal consequences for stating opinions MPs don’t like.

      • Colonial Viper 33.2.1
        11 February 2013 at 11:23 pm

        Indeed. But this is a small country and stuff rebounds real quick. Miss Blowback is a bitch, as demonstrated by the den of vipers The Standard became 😈

  34. MrSmith 34
    11 February 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Oh and love the post Eddie.

    Labour are know doubt falling back on the age old policy of finding one or two minority groups then bashing the hell out of them, this will light up the red neck bigots vote of course, it’s worked so well for National with beneficiaries, but Labour can’t go there yet can they! not just yet.

  35. Mary 35
    11 February 2013 at 10:50 pm

    National’s done such a good job that Labour MPs actually believe all that shite.

  36. karol 36
    12 February 2013 at 8:59 am

    On the above discussion on Labour MPs and abusive comments. I am generally not keen on ad hominems by or to anyone online. I think they could put off a lot of non-MP, left people from commenting on TS.

    In the mid 90s I learned it was a basic netiquette thing to attack the comments/issues/topic not the commenter.

    • blue leopard 36.1
      12 February 2013 at 11:40 am

      Whether its an internet discussion or a face to face one, better, more intelligent results encrue out of debates when that basic etiquette is followed. 😀

      • blue leopard 36.1.1
        13 February 2013 at 12:01 am

        …yes, well that’s not a word is it?…ensue….more intelligent results will ensue….
        (the same will ensue when one gets the english correct… 😐 )

    • MrSmith 36.2
      12 February 2013 at 11:54 am

      The other thing Karol is a fair hunk of the population work in public service and until now these people have had to sit quietly by while watching without having a voice, well now they have one because they can speck up anonymously.

      Now is this a good thing, more oversight, I would say yes, but I don’t think a lot of politicians will be at all happy about it, so lets watch then trying to shut it down by ridiculing and belittling these anonymous people, which it looks like is already happening here.

    • RedLogix 36.3
      12 February 2013 at 7:20 pm

      I agree with you completely karol; and you set a superb example that I wish more commenters would learn from. Much better that way than trying to moderate them out.

      A few people would do well to count to ten, or take a short walk before typing …