Little: Labour to Defy TPPA

Written By: - Date published: 8:58 am, January 8th, 2016 - 717 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, democracy under attack, greens, International, labour, leadership, nz first, Politics - Tags: , ,

Andrew Little has made it clear that the Labour Party in Government will defy provisions in the Trans Pacific parrtnership agreement that weaken NZ’s sovereignty.

Interviewed on Radio NZ this morning, the Labour leader spoke out about the pisspoor negotation that has led to the current National Party Government meekly accepting clauses that limit our right to determine who buys our land. Little revealed that three countries, including Australia, succesfully fought for exemptions to this onerous and oppressive clause. Australia will retain it’s ability to control its own borders, NZ … not so much.

It’s great to see Labour making it’s opposition to this secret sellout so very clear. This lines them up with both the Greens and NZ First, making the formation of an alternative Government a lot easier. Certainly, if Kiwi voters want to retain our country’s independence, a vote for any of those three parties is now a sensible option.

One last thing. Little has said that it’s understood the agreement will be signed here in NZ, just before we celebrate our nationhood on Waitangi Day. The cynicism of the Key Government apparently knows no bounds.

 

717 comments on “Little: Labour to Defy TPPA ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Macro 1
    8 January 2016 at 9:15 am

    Ohhh! whooopie shit! Good ol’ Labour.
    Is that it?

    I’ve lost hope in Labour – I cannot see how there could ever be any coalition on the “left” at this stage.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:59 am

      +1

    • whateva next? 1.2
      8 January 2016 at 3:36 pm

      “I’ve lost hope in Labour”
      and so you will do what?….keep supporting the divide and rule of National, their successful and only plan to keep neo-liberal politics going.
      Thanks mate

      • Macro 1.2.1
        8 January 2016 at 5:03 pm

        I haven’t voted Labour in a long time. But I have always hoped that sometime in the future they would rediscover their roots which they lost long ago in 1984. They are still embedded in that errant philosophy, and Little’s announcement today simply reinforced the fact that they are more concerned about “growth” than “people” or the environment. They are simply National Lite end of story. You vote for them if you must – but don’t think that they will ever gain much more support than they have at the moment with wishy washy policies such as they now profess.
        I prefer a much more constructive, people, and environmental policies found elsewhere.

        • whateva next? 1.2.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 5:07 pm

          Like National Party? as that’s the logical conclusion to what you are saying.
          I agree left leaning people may not vote Labour, but constantly flaying the Labour party, rather doing something constructive to build alliances on the left means we all lose?

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 5:58 pm

            The Labour Party isn’t of the left-wing but is of the right-wing.

            • whateva next? 1.2.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 11:04 pm

              wouldn’t “left of the left wing” be communism, and who decides where the “left wing begin and end ? I am “left wing” but also believe there is range, and to divide that range is divisive and goes against the basic tenants of “strength in unity”

              • Draco T Bastard …
                9 January 2016 at 2:42 pm

                “left of the left wing”

                WTF are you quoting?

              • Grant …
                9 January 2016 at 3:26 pm

                Both Left and Right wings divide themselves into groupings called *Parties*. This is because they have what are called *ideological differences*(your “tenants” (sic)). Neither the Left nor Right wings are united and they never have been. Even within Parties there are wings or factions. No-one seriously disputes this or if they do they risk calling forth derisive laughter and hooting from the gallery. ‘Splitting’ is a natural thing in politics and patching up differences across ideological divides seldom leads to stable long term alliances. Remember the Alliance Party?

                “Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em, and little fleas have lesser fleas and so ad infinitum.”

                • whateva next? …
                  9 January 2016 at 4:24 pm

                  Cheers Grant, I enjoyed reading your responses.

                  The Right wing look pretty united to me.
                  There seems to be alot of pointless squabbling on the left, and achieves nothing, except to keep the (now far) Right in power.
                  I still don’t see how any equilibrium within society will be restored as National has shifted the fulcrum to the right, and the divide between rich and poor has increased.
                  I understand that in Brazil the poor living so close to the very rich have resorted to kidnapping for ransom, is this where we are going if we cannot unite on the left to restore the balance once more?

                  • Grant …
                    9 January 2016 at 4:54 pm

                    I share many of your concerns and understand where you’re coming from as a fellow ‘lefty’. Where I part company with you is on the subject of uncritically falling into line with a Labour Party which many of us have found wanting in many ways, simply because they happen to be the largest Party opposing the Govt.

                    The minor parties of the Right wing have been decimated by a combination of their own flaky amateurism and National’s hegemony of the political landscape. Many individuals who would prefer to vote Conservative, ACT, UF, because they like the ideological cut of their jib, have been disappointed by the quality of their political management and the deeply flawed character of leadership on display. This has left them with a choice of voting National (to at least keep the left out), not voting at all or supporting NZF. This might look like a great thing for National , but under MMP it’s a potential weakness. Bottom line, the factions still exist, the pressure will build, parties will reform and regroup and the wheel will turn.

                    • whateva next? …
                      9 January 2016 at 6:23 pm

                      “uncritically falling into line with a Labour Party” hmmm, not sure about that, but I do believe compromise is the only way we can all get some of what we want, and without it none of us will get any of what we want.
                      I don’t think I could do any better job than Andrew Little, and wouldn’t have the stamina to even try, so I am prepared to support him in his efforts, having faith that he GENERALLY wants similar things to me, under the large umbrella of “fairness”

        • Marcus 1.2.1.2
          10 January 2016 at 12:19 am

          and Little’s announcement today simply reinforced the fact that they are more concerned about “growth” than “people” or the environment. -You,above comment.
          IF Labour does defy the TPPA, Wouldn’t that include protecting citizen’s rights and the environment?

          • Macro 1.2.1.2.1
            10 January 2016 at 8:31 am

            The point is they don’t defy all the TPPA or even the majority of it just little bits like the right to object to an overseas company buying real estate.
            Make no mistake – Labour want a TPPA – they are just making noises to differentiate themselves from National.

            • Chooky 1.2.1.2.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 9:41 am

              +100…the NZ Labour Party are a pale shade of blue…Michelle Boag thought Andrew Little would make a good leader of the Labour Party and so did Matthew Hooton ( the warnings were there)

              time for a new Left socialist party like the Labour Party was originally set up

              It is worth repeating what savenz said yesterday about the Labour Party

              “And before someone thinks that Labour under Cunliffe was advocating the same as Corbyn and Sanders last election from Labour, think again.

              Labour focused on economic reform of the local middle class, they wanted to introduce a capital gains tax, but not on companies and trusts. There were so many loop holes only the honest would get caught. It did not address immigration, in fact helped it, the locals were taxed when they sold, those with overseas cash and wanting to immigrate here on the property investment criteria were welcomed in.

              Labour wanted to increase pension age for locals, but not have any curbs for the people who never paid any taxes in this country and on social welfare.

              Labour never addressed big business or corporations who pay little or no tax. They did not address the problems with our farms and properties being sold and actually support free trade agreements that do this.

              Labour did not focus on social justice or corruption. Dotcom and the revelations from Hager about dirty politics were ‘a distraction’ and was not pursued on any depth. Even though Goff was caught being manipulated by the SIS they never demanded reform of the organisation and a look at corruption.

              Labour were more interested in fighting against Hone Harawira than the Nats. Hone a guy who they might not like, but at least cares about social justice for the poor.

              Labour fought amongst itself more interested in infighting and personal gain than the country.

              1 million people did not vote. Labour’s focus on economic austerity of the middle and lower class while championing global neoliberalism Lite, big business and global foreign investment did not resonate with voters.

              I wonder why?

              Labour are still in denial about what happened.”

              (In other words the NZ Labour Party will go with the TPP…no matter how much people protest….because the NZ Labour Party is really a pale violet version of Nactional under jonkey )

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 January 2016 at 11:48 am

                In other words the NZ Labour Party will go with the TPP…no matter how much people protest….because the NZ Labour Party is really a pale violet version of Nactional under jonkey

                QFT

                Labour are as much against the people governing themselves as National. Both think that governing the national should be left to the politicians who do as the rich tell them.

                • te reo putake …
                  10 January 2016 at 12:01 pm

                  Surely you jest? Labour has moved left both structurally (democratising the party) and at leadership level (Andrew Little being the most left leader since Clark, possibly since Kirk). Externally, the party has worked to sow the seeds of a future government, now enjoying excellent relations with both the Greens and NZ First. This anti-TPPA announcement clearly shows that Labour are more than prepared to tell the rich to take a running jump. I expect more good stuff from Labour in 2016. Especially so as it’s the 100th anniversary this year and the party will be reminded of its history pretty regularly.

      • Kaya 1.2.2
        9 January 2016 at 8:48 am

        Well maybe labour could grow some balls and actually oppose this whole dog of an agreement? Half hearted attempts at keeping some of the people happy some of the time is pathetic.

        • whateva next? 1.2.2.1
          9 January 2016 at 12:08 pm

          well that might take some people with them, and loose another lot of people, getting us nowhere as usual, do you have a suggestion that may actually expose the National Party, rather than blame the left?

          • Naturesong 1.2.2.1.1
            10 January 2016 at 9:29 am

            I read the complaint as being against labour, not the left.

            There is a valid argument that argument that labour contains many left wing people but to characterise left wing as being labour, not so much.

            I view the left wing of the labour party as an opportunity cost. Because the executive has so much power that any real left wing policies simply get blocked.

            Free education?
            Free healthcare?
            No fault unemployment benefit or UBI*?
            Managing fisheries, particularly spawning grounds as a common good?
            Increase number of marginal tax brackets (40% at 150k, 45% at 250k) to pay for education, health etc?

            * yes I do know UBI is actually a right wing policy setting.

            • whateva next? 1.2.2.1.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 9:59 am

              “Because the executive has so much power that any real left wing policies simply get blocked.”
              Interesting, as a practical person, I view it as the opposite. With so many people wanting their ideas carried, it seems to create chaos, and nothing is achieved, there has to be some degree of discipline, and we elect those who we see as able to negotiate ideas into reality. We all have to accept reality is not ideal, and not then attack the person elected.
              I am not supporting blind obedience, but active involvement and responsibility, and a group not valuing money, but people who work hard.

              “I read the complaint as being against labour, not the left”

              It was, but if you truly support the left, you surely do not attack people who are heading in the same direction??????? I see why National keep getting in now, nothing to do with their skills, more to do with self destruction on the left

              • Naturesong …
                10 January 2016 at 10:07 am

                I self identify as a social democrat, which is the exemplar of centre left.

                Labour doesn’t appear to be travelling in this direction.

                If the labour membership has so many ideas that it creates chaos and nothing is achieved then that is a sign of poor governance.

                It also supports my argument that left wing people caught up in the labour party are an opportunity cost.

                • whateva next? …
                  10 January 2016 at 10:33 am

                  Are there enough social democrats willing to vote for ? (sorry, I am not sure where you cast your vote) at the next election, so that we can ensure we don’t go any further right?
                  Or, are you willing to stand by and watch National win for a principle?

                  Do you imagine any government can give everyone what they want? I don’t, even a truly social democratic government would be too busy trying to work out how stop people bickering!

                  • Naturesong …
                    10 January 2016 at 10:42 am

                    I vote for the Green party. Their policies are pretty solidly social democratic.

                    And I talk about social democratic values, which nearly everyone I speak to agrees are a good thing. but heres the weird bit;

                    If you talk about the policies, people really embrace them. If you tell them the policy can be described as left wing or social democrat, they don’t.
                    The disconnect is a social one. The result of the relentless demonisation of the left I’ve watched my entire life,

                    Me: Tax the highest marginal rates a bit more and have a truly world class free education system for every child.
                    Friend at party: That sounds great. Who has that policy.
                    Me: the Green party.
                    Friend at party: Why would I vote for a bunch of commie hippies?

                    • whateva next? …
                      10 January 2016 at 11:20 am

                      “Me: Tax the highest marginal rates a bit more and have a truly world class free education system for every child.
                      Friend at party: That sounds great. Who has that policy.
                      Me: the Green party.
                      Friend at party: Why would I vote for a bunch of commie hippies?”

                      Welcome to my world as a Labour Party supporter, and BTW, Labour are pretty keen on free quality education and varying the tax rate???

            • Grant 1.2.2.1.1.2
              10 January 2016 at 11:32 am

              Hi Naturesong. I’m a little puzzled as to why you think a UBI is a right wing policy setting. I always thought it had a pretty solid background in left wing intellectual development and this is backed by the wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income#Basic_income_and_ideology

              I s’pose it depends on how a particular UBI is designed and delivered and what it’s ideological intent is, but I’ve seen precious little evidence of right wing enthusiasm for the idea in NZ or anywhere else for that matter. Although, if it was reconfigured enough it could probably be made to suit the agenda of a particular type of ACT supporter who manages to mash Libertarianism and Neoliberalism together to compel individual responsibility and freemarket participation in a mind bending way which probably only Jamie Whyte could explain.

              • Naturesong …
                10 January 2016 at 11:53 am

                It pairs with a flat tax.

                Although it’s not originally a neoliberal idea (Islam iirc), it was espoused by Hayek and his disciples, among them Roger Douglas.

                I assume it would be to ensure that the unemployed, which are a permanent fixture under neoliberalism, can continue to be good consumers.

                A UBI’s effectiveness with depend on how it works within the context of other policy settings.

                I’m not for a flat tax.

                And I support a UBI in order to give people autonomy, to give them the choice to start a business, or spend their life as an artist, or any of the wondrous and varied things people do when they’re not enslaved by the requirement to work at a shit job for shit pay while being told by the political classes that they are shit.

                • Grant …
                  10 January 2016 at 2:20 pm

                  “It pairs with a flat tax.”

                  That’s only one model. I see G. Morgan’s version suggests a Comprehensive Capital Tax which is flat but includes all forms of wealth so is re-distributive and therefore ( I’m not an economist so struggle a bit here) possibly progressive in nature??

                  There are also socialist / leftist versions of UBI which treat it as a Social Dividend on publicly owned assets, resources and enterprises.

                  Others propose a modified flat tax with exclusions and additions which in effect make it progressive / redistributive and the Greens, in Europe at least, have suggested funding a UBI with ‘green financing’ , environmental taxes etc.

                  The main proponents for a UBI seem to be a mainly leftist coalition.
                  http://www.basicincome.org/about-bien/affiliates/

                  Just suggesting we don’t hand all the credit for a good idea to the right wing merely because the libertarians have produced a blueprint for their version of it..

    • Chris 1.3
      8 January 2016 at 3:57 pm

      The thing with Labour saying the right things is that they have a track record of flip-flopping. So while we might welcome what Little’s saying we need to take it with a grain of salt until Labour starts repairing the damage it’s done to its credibility. And that’s likely to take longer than the time it took to destroy it in the first place.

      • whateva next? 1.3.1
        8 January 2016 at 3:59 pm

        “The thing with Labour saying the right things is that they have a track record of flip-flopping” Could you explain what you mean?

        • Chris 1.3.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 4:10 pm

          Saying things it will do that are good but then turning around saying it will not do those things.

          • Michael who failed Civics 1.3.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:14 pm

            Concur. We’ll have to watch Labour’s actions very carefully before we can trust them again. FWIW, I’d rather have a strong and principled Labour-led opposiiton than a flaccid, National-lite government. Right now we don’t even have that.

            • whateva next? 1.3.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:24 pm

              …and we will continue with the current far right government if we don’t stop flogging the left.
              Media are doing a great job for the far right by ripping apart even the most intelligent, thoughtful statements by Labour Party, so why would Labour put out any responses to something they do not have verified facts for?
              I am glad Andrew Little doesn’t respond to the baying wolves that represent media these days.

              • Chris …
                8 January 2016 at 4:42 pm

                “…and we will continue with the current far right government if we don’t stop flogging the left.”

                It’s not about flogging the left. It’s about making sure Labour have at the front of its mind that the left is not going to accept Labour’s abandonment of left principles and pandering to the neo-liberal agenda it believes will get it elected. So when Labour does suggest a position on an issue that might reflect left principles the left isn’t going to rejoice in forgiveness until it sees real change, earned over time, and that trust in a party that stands for a fair and caring society has been restored. At the moment there’s no evidence of that happening apart from words.

                • whateva next? …
                  8 January 2016 at 4:52 pm

                  What about focusing on getting into government first? arguing from the cross benches is pointless, and how long can decent people be expected to have to sit and look at the fat cats across the way? I am sure they could find easier jobs, and my concern is Labour/Left wing parties don’t need to be looking behind them all the time aswell!

                  • Chris …
                    8 January 2016 at 5:08 pm

                    “What about focusing on getting into government first? arguing from the cross benches is pointless, and how long can decent people be expected to have to sit and look at the fat cats across the way?”

                    Focusing on getting into government doesn’t mean you can’t keep putting the pressure on Labour to be a true party of the left. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Second, “arguing from the cross benches” is unavoidable if you’re an opposition party and in fact it’s the duty of the opposition to do this. It’s also the duty of the left to do everything within its power to ensure Labour gets its house in order regardless of whether its in government or not, probably more so when in opposition. Again, there’s no mutual exclusivity here.

                    • whateva next? …
                      8 January 2016 at 5:13 pm

                      “The two aren’t mutually exclusive” that’s where we differ! and maybe we have to agree to disagree on this occasion?

                  • Naturesong …
                    10 January 2016 at 9:32 am

                    What about focusing on getting into government first?

                    A: 1984, Roger Douglas

                    • whateva next? …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:04 am

                      could we learn from this and ensure that a people we elect are not actually ACT party in disguise? and not suspect EVERYONE of being a wolf in sheeps clothing?

                    • Naturesong …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:26 am

                      Yes, but the thing is, if you are “ … focusing on getting into government first?” with policies that are National lite, then that’s the government you will get.

                      Personally, I don’t care what you call it.
                      I want a govt that governs for the benefit of all NZ that views governance in terms of generations rather than quarters, or election cycles.

                      If a party does not have fully costed practical policies with which to address both the short and long term issues facing NZ then I don’t have time for them.

                      From labour I see a lot of waffle, and it appears from the outside to be because they are shit scared of the power ranged against them; Nationals funders and their stranglehold on the media.

                      They wasted a lot of time with the “Shearer experiment*” and those that care more about their own ambitions rather than making the party stronger.

                      * labours very own John Key; the everyman, non-politician with a good back story and parachuted into Clarks old seat.

              • Macro …
                8 January 2016 at 5:05 pm

                Labour is not left – is just not as right wing as National.

                • whateva next? …
                  8 January 2016 at 5:11 pm

                  It is left, just not as far left as you would like maybe. I prefer cooperation/cohesion amongst the broad left, rather than competition, which plays right into National’s hands. I am sure your stance is exactly what they would hope for to keep widening the wealth gap until all the rest of us can get a living in is slave like industries.

                  • Macro …
                    8 January 2016 at 6:28 pm

                    I prefer cooperation/cohesion amongst the broad left, rather than competition,

                    Huh! Labour supporters should know better than to say that!
                    I could list the many times and ways Labour has shafted the Greens, and other parties on the left in the past 15 years or more – but quite frankly it would be water off a ducks back. Labour consider themselves to be the true, and only, bastion of left wing politics when in reality they abandoned left wing principles many years ago.They have seldom if ever thought of working cooperatively with others apart from when it suits them.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 January 2016 at 6:45 pm

                      +111

                    • whateva next? …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:33 pm

                      ..”they abandoned left wing principles many years ago….”
                      Who hasn’t had to adapt to life over the years, over 35 years in my career I have had to keep up with enormous change and adapt. Maybe are you talking of the dark days when assets were sold off? I agree that was no Labour Government as far as I am concerned. Would the current government do that? can we focus on what “left wing principles” WE are all talking about? or perhaps you prefer the idea of a federation of separatist factions, which will get us precisely nowhere?

                  • Magisterium …
                    10 January 2016 at 2:21 am

                    I prefer cooperation/cohesion amongst the broad left, rather than competition

                    Translation: “Greens should do what Labour wants”

                    Fuck right off.

                    • whateva next? …
                      10 January 2016 at 9:47 am

                      Not at all, and with your level of reactivity and presumption, hardly surprised there is a divide, and lack of any cohesion on the left.
                      Explains alot to me, and rather than waste time, will wait and see how much further right we have to go before people do actually get their shit together and stop wanting ALL THEIR OWN WAY?

            • whateva next? 1.3.1.1.1.2
              8 January 2016 at 11:07 pm

              Michael, who do you trust to get actually shift the direction of government back to socialist values, who is it that will unite the broad range of people who are not happy with current government?

              • Michael who failed Civics …
                10 January 2016 at 3:25 am

                I don’t think “socialist values” are worth pursuing now or at any time, since the entire project was discredited by communist tyranny. However, I believe passionately in what I think are principles of social democracy and justice, and that these have always been the real principles of the Labour movement in New Zealand, for most of us at least. What we’ve got to do is work out how those principles can be applied to the problems of government and society in the early half of the 21st century. Then we’ve got to persuade people to join us and work towards our goal of a fair and just society, with our Party in its proper place as a trusted and respected partner in our communal enterprise. I realise that all sounds highfaluting (and it is) but I think these are the first steps in a long, painful journey. But if we can’t earn the people’s trust, we’re never even going to get started.

          • Leftie 1.3.1.1.2
            8 January 2016 at 5:34 pm

            @Chris
            “Saying things it will do that are good but then turning around saying it will not do those things.’

            That describes the flip flopping key National government perfectly, doesn’t it?

            • Chris 1.3.1.1.2.1
              8 January 2016 at 6:01 pm

              What good things has Key’s government announced that they’ve done a flip-flop on?

              • Leftie …
                8 January 2016 at 6:45 pm

                @Chris
                Can you answer your own question? given that key’s flip flopping government haven’t done any good and have broken practically every promise they have made.

                • Chris …
                  9 January 2016 at 12:55 am

                  I’d say Key and National have probably only announced nasty things and then carried on to implement them. No flip-flopping involved. Think you’re heading down your own cul-de-sac.

                  • Leftie …
                    9 January 2016 at 4:54 pm

                    @Chris
                    “probably”? Don’t you know? Haven’t you been paying attention over the last 7 years?
                    You are obviously already roaming around mindless in your own cul-de-sac.. What you have posted is bs and a bold faced lie.

                    • Chris …
                      9 January 2016 at 11:37 pm

                      So you’re saying Key et al probably haven’t only announced nasty things and then implemented them? Learn how to fucking read, you fucking imbecile. It’s idiots like you that prop up a dysfunctional opposition. Fuckwit.

                    • Leftie …
                      10 January 2016 at 1:45 am

                      @Chris
                      You obviously feel like you are losing the argument with all that unnecessary abuse, and no, I am not the one saying that, you are. Don’t you have any understanding of your own comments that you write? Maybe you should follow your own advice and learn how to read, particularly when it comes to your own comments.

              • Michael who failed Civics …
                10 January 2016 at 3:31 am

                Your question is wrongly constructed. Key’s government haven’t done anything good. Their “flip flops” are more in the nature of chaotic, ad hoc maneouvering whenever unexpected events bite them because they’re too incompetent and lazy to look ahead and forecast the likelihood of particular outcomes. This is a failing common to all right-wing governments, IMHO.

            • Magisterium 1.3.1.1.2.2
              10 January 2016 at 2:23 am

              “Saying things it will do that are good but then turning around saying it will not do those things.’

              That describes the flip flopping key National government perfectly, doesn’t it?

              No.

              National says what it intends to do, and then convinces the public to allow them to do it, and then does it.

              • Leftie …
                10 January 2016 at 2:42 am

                @Magisterium
                Nope, your wrong.

                “National says what it intends to do, and then convinces the public to allow them to do it, and then does it.”

                The sly key National government doesn’t operate like that.

                • Naturesong …
                  10 January 2016 at 9:38 am

                  Yes it does.

                  Dirty Politics revealed one of the tool sets they use to implement the strategy.

                  On the less nasty, but more troubling side, National have been relentless in their pursuit of media dominance since 2005.
                  They know that people are motivated by the stories they tell themselves.
                  If you can make sure your message and your framing is dominant in a world that is saturated in media, you win.

                  • Leftie …
                    10 January 2016 at 7:54 pm

                    @Naturesong
                    Did you take note of the word “sly” in my comment? Dirty politics actually proves my point. National do not like telling the public what it intends to do, and only present a PR version to the public, (pushed by their media mates), when they have to. How many times has National rammed through urgent legislation without due process or informing the public? Most of what National do is clouded in veils of secrecy behind closed doors. No one could ever accuse the Key National government of being democratic, transparent or of being upfront.

                    • Naturesong …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:49 pm

                      I did.

                      My point being one of manufactured consent, rather than bald-faced dishonesty with regard to intentions*

                      * there is bald-faced dishonesty in some of the statistics that are used to help manufacture consent. And outright lies about some of the effects of their policies. But their intention has been clear from the start.

          • Tee 1.3.1.1.3
            9 January 2016 at 2:50 am

            You mean like the time John Key said he would not raise tax?

            • Leftie 1.3.1.1.3.1
              9 January 2016 at 5:00 pm

              @Tee
              Exactly. That was one of many flipflops John Key made that’s been added to his extremely long list of lies.

              • Chris …
                9 January 2016 at 11:47 pm

                Lies and flip-flops aren’t the same. Labour’s first u-turn following the mother of all budgets was promising to restore basic benefit rates to pre- 1 April 1991 levels. Now, do some fucking research.

                • Leftie …
                  10 January 2016 at 1:36 am

                  @Chris
                  Lies and flip flops, the MO of the Key National government, are very much the same.
                  Obviously your bs is making you ill tempered and rude. How about you do some research and provide citations.

          • dave 1.3.1.1.4
            9 January 2016 at 10:05 am

            could please provide specific example rather than a general statement so we can judge the creditability of your statement as national party fan boys tend to be pathological liers like the beloved leader fjk

        • adam 1.3.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 4:21 pm

          Head in the sand much? Plus what the point in having national light in government, just a pause before they roll us again?

          • whateva next? 1.3.1.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:28 pm

            “Head in the sand much? ..”
            You mean “business as usual” mantra of Crosby Textor is working for you?

      • Leftie 1.3.2
        8 January 2016 at 5:31 pm

        @Chris
        The previous Labour government kept every promise they made. That cannot be said of National, so what credibility does the current government hold? Any thoughts on the all lies, all the broken promises, flip flops and the ultimate betrayal from the key National government?

        • Macro 1.3.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 6:55 pm

          The previous Labour government kept every promise they made.

          Which wasn’t much.

          As for the “aspirational” (if I can use that term) to be Carbon Neutral by 2012 –
          well we see how well that went.

          • Leftie 1.3.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 11:14 pm

            @Macro
            You think Labour keeping all their promises “wasn’t much” ? What do you call the dismally poor performance of the Key National government then?

            • Macro 1.3.2.1.1.1
              9 January 2016 at 5:29 pm

              If you don’t promise much its very easy to keep them.
              The Key Government promised not privatise until the second term and they did and are still at it – an easy promise to keep as well. Oh! and Tax cuts for the rich – Yep we have those. See its easy to make promises you intend to keep. The one Key didn’t keep was not raising GST. The one Helen didn’t keep was NZ becoming Carbon Neutral, and introducing a Carbon Tax. Now our emissions per capita are the 5th Highest in the developed world – well done!

              • Leftie …
                10 January 2016 at 2:55 am

                @Macro
                John Key has made many election promises that he hasn’t kept and reneged on, it is not just “one” like you seem to think.
                “Carbon neutral” an election promise? it was a hope that Helen Clark had…

                “I believe that in the years to come, the pride we take in our quest for sustainability and carbon neutrality will define our nation, just as our quest for a nuclear free world has over the past twenty three years.

                More than any other developed nation, New Zealand needs to go the extra mile to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase sustainability.”

                <a href="http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/prime-minister%E2%80%99s-statement-parliament

                How is the key National government, who have been in power for 7 years, going on that front?

        • Chris 1.3.2.2
          9 January 2016 at 1:00 am

          Well, if introducing nasty welfare policies and then carrying on down the same road when in opposition by voting with the government for further attacks on the poor was something Labour promised then that’s a promise I wouldn’t want Labour to keep. You’re getting confused.

          • Leftie 1.3.2.2.1
            9 January 2016 at 9:07 am

            @Chris,
            It is you who is confused. Labour didn’t promise attacks on the poor. Under the Labour government people were better off than what they are now under the Key National government. National introduced those so called “welfare reforms” that are nasty and designed to punish, and Labour have opposed National on a number of issues.

            • Macro 1.3.2.2.1.1
              9 January 2016 at 5:35 pm

              Leftie Labour introduced WFF which helped low to middle income earners with families – not the really poor ie benefitaries
              Essentially the 5th Labour govt left the benefit cuts of Ruthenasia in place throughout their administration, and they are still in place with a minor top up each year in line with the CPI.

            • Chris 1.3.2.2.1.2
              9 January 2016 at 7:53 pm

              “Labour didn’t promise attacks on the poor.”

              Really? Well, if they didn’t promise those attacks then I guess that means that when they delivered those attacks it was another flip-flop, eh?

              • Leftie …
                10 January 2016 at 2:04 am

                @Chris
                There was no “another flip flop” there wasn’t a flip flop to start with. Labour never promised an attack on the poor, neither did they deliver one. I guess you have nothing to say on your beloved National government’s war on the poor over the last 7 years, do you?

        • alwyn 1.3.2.3
          9 January 2016 at 6:20 pm

          Wow, you really open yourself up don’t you?
          You claim “The previous Labour government kept every promise they made”.
          That only requires a single example to prove your statement is a lie, doesn’t it?

          Well just up from here Tee said “said he would not raise tax” which immediately reminded me of the fact that Cullen promised tax cuts during the 2005 election.

          Then after the election he cancelled them didn’t he? What do you call his pre-election statement if not a lie? Or is it somehow called a different thing if Labour do it?

          • Chris 1.3.2.3.1
            10 January 2016 at 1:40 am

            Leftie hasn’t got a clue what’s being talked about – treating “lies”, “betrayal” and “flip-flops” as the same thing regardless of the issue or the party and reflects an inability to critically analyse that comes from the same place as blind support for the Labour party.

            • Leftie 1.3.2.3.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 3:08 am

              @Chris,
              Your blind support for National is showing. If anyone here doesn’t have a clue, it is you. All you do is abuse. Meanwhile, you are exceptionally quiet on providing any “critical analysis” of the Key National government. In fact, not a peep. Afraid to upset your master perhaps.

          • Leftie 1.3.2.3.2
            10 January 2016 at 2:18 am

            @alwyn
            Funny how no one was interested in tax cuts until Don Brash started mouthing off and it was National who promised the big tax cuts that the then “Finance Minister Michael Cullen described the promise as “reckless and unaffordable”.
            Got anything to say on John key’s lie and flip flop of the GST hike after he said he wouldnt increase it? It effectively wiped out the tax cut for most, and only his wealthy friends benefited, and now it costs the tax payer over a billion dollars a year to fund tax cuts to the rich.

            • alwyn 1.3.2.3.2.1
              10 January 2016 at 12:26 pm

              I’m afraid, Leftie, you have the same problem with John Key as most people on your side of politics. He is much, much smarter than you are or are willing to give him credit for. That tends to drive you into a frenzy when you cannot pin on him things you think he said, You say “of the GST hike after he said he wouldnt increase it”. The problem you have is that he never said, or at least I have never seen it anywhere, a statement that he wouldn’t increase GST.

              He probably said that a Government he led wouldn’t increase taxes, but that is just a generic claim which he can claim to keep if he puts up one tax and reduces another. That is what he has done.

              He is clever enough to say things in such a way that you think he said something else. You may not approve of it but you can’t just pretend it doesn’t work and that it doesn’t leave you with a target to aim at.

              Chris Trotter said once that Key was the smartest (or cleverest) politician New Zealand had ever had. It doesn’t mean Chris liked him, or his policies. He did recognize however that the left were never going to beat him unless they could come up with a match for his ability, and so far no one they have tried has come close.

              What Trotter actually said was

              “UNDERESTIMATING JOHN KEY is a serious mistake. Helen Clark did it in 2008, and Key knocked her out of the ring. He did the same to John Campbell last night.

              When is the Left going to come to terms with the fact that John Key is National’s toughest, smartest and most dangerous leader – ever? Defeating “The Candidate from Central Casting” was never going to be easy, but our consistent failure to grasp the brute reality of Key’s clear superiority – when compared to just about every politician the Opposition can throw at him – is turning his defeat into a near impossibility”

              That was back in August 2013 but nothing has changed.

              • Leftie …
                10 January 2016 at 8:24 pm

                @Alwyn
                ROFL… you really did open yourself up with that one, didn’t you? Either you weren’t paying attention, or you are a liar, or you are you just plain stupid, which is it? or is it all of the above? And a lot has changed. But John Key’s lies and broken promises haven’t. Like you Chris Trotter is a suck up fanboy of John Key’s, and the Northland by election showed to all that John key can be beaten and overwhelmingly so.

                “Prime Minister John Key has come under fire in Parliament this afternoon after a Herald video revealed he had ruled out a GST rise during his election campaign in 2008.”

                “But Mr Key’s 2008 comments didn’t end there; the idea of a GST increase was dismissed not once, but twice.”

                “If we do a half decent job growing the economy then that won’t be happening,” he said in 2008 regarding GST.”

                PM defensive after video reveals GST flip-flop
                <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10625326
                <a href="http://www.3news.co.nz/general/key-denies-flip-flop-over-gst-increase–2010021017#axzz3wp7132Uv

              • Tautoko Mangō Mata …
                10 January 2016 at 9:30 pm

                @Alwyn
                “He is clever enough to say things in such a way that you think he said something else.”

                DePaulo et al. (2003:74):

                We define deception as a deliberate attempt to mislead
                others. Falsehoods communicated by people who are
                mistaken or self-deceived are not lies, but literal truths
                designed to mislead are lies.

                Clever, maybe, but ethically bankrupt!

        • Chris 1.3.2.4
          10 January 2016 at 1:47 am

          See if you can understand this: Labour said, for example, it’d introduce a CGT and raise the age of NZS to 67. They then flip-flopped on both of these announcements. That doesn’t make the announcements lies but it shows yet again how, certainly at the moment, we can’t trust that Labour will follow through with what it says it will do. However, while I’m not happy with the flip-flop on the CGT, I am glad about the flip-flop on raise the age of NZS. Again though, because we can’t trust Labour to do what it says it’ll do, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did a further u-turn and again tried to raise the age of NZS.

          • Leftie 1.3.2.4.1
            10 January 2016 at 2:34 am

            @Chris
            Your stupidity holds no bounds. Labour didn’t win last year’s election, and in a review Labour have every right to adjust their line of policy. Andrew Little said those policies were clearly disliked by the public, so Labour won’t run with them. You have a problem with that? Funny how after the election, everyone began crying out for a CGT to cool the inflamed property market, so your beloved National did a flip flop and introduced a watered down version to appease the masses. You have no problem with that do you? after John key previously stamped his foot with an emphatic NO to a CGT. So you trust the lies and flip flops of your beloved National then?

            • Chris 1.3.2.4.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 3:44 pm

              “Andrew Little said those policies were clearly disliked by the public, so Labour won’t run with them. You have a problem with that?”

              I disagree with abandoning the CGT and agree with retaining the eligibility age for NZS. What I have a problem with is Labour’s abandonment of left principles in favour of a populist approach to policy making. It’s this approach you say you’re in favour of which is proof your views (if you assume they’re capable of reaching the status of a “view” – non-sensical, repetitive and unprincipled rote-learned rants is more accurate) are not “left” at all. I suggest you change your pseudonym. Perhaps to ‘Labour or Die’, or something along those lines. Yes, ‘Labour or Die’, I’ll go with that.

              • Leftie …
                10 January 2016 at 8:43 pm

                @Chris
                What a angry man you are, and that’s a non-sensical, repetitive and unprincipled rote-learned rant if there ever was one. No surprise then that you are still unable to answer the questions. BTW, you can keep your suggestions to yourself, as always, they are pointless and useless.

                I never said I was in favour of it or not, I just stated the reasons Andrew Little put forward, and disagreed with you that it was a flip flop, since Labour were not elected the government.

                • Chris …
                  10 January 2016 at 11:33 pm

                  So a party being in opposition means they’re incapable of policy u-turns? Your analysis is unique. I feel another cartoon coming on.

    • Jena 1.4
      8 January 2016 at 11:14 pm

      So, the National, Maori Party and Act is the “alternative”?
      How disabled is your brain because in my eyes, you are a total sell out merchant on everything NZ treasures most

      • Macro 1.4.1
        9 January 2016 at 1:57 pm

        You might have read my later comments to see that there is a very viable alternative party to the three you list. Labour is not the only party of the left. But Labour’s continual attitude that it is the “Big Brother” ,and all others who are on the left must kowtow to them, is unhelpful and the latest shillyshallying from Little over the TTPA – “ie we oppose part by not all” where the Greens and NZ first are completely opposed, is just the latest example.

    • David H 1.5
      9 January 2016 at 11:13 am

      I just don’t believe them. Little will fold like a piece of paper when the pressure comes on.. So no vote there. And as for the Greens? Well with what Shaw has been saying it looks like No vote there either. So that leaves NZF NO. National NO. ACT NO. And there lies the quandary I want the NATS gone, BUT I don’t trust the so called left anymore. And that leaves no vote for the first time since the 1970’s. We need a party that can Walk the talk. Not just Bullshit their way through parliamentary terms, like the current bunch of Megalomaniacs.

      • Macro 1.5.1
        9 January 2016 at 2:04 pm

        What has James Shaw said with regards the TTPA that gives you cause for concern?
        Is it this video clip?. Where he says that whichever way you look at it the TTPA is a bad deal and the Greens have the slogan TTPA NO WAY at the front and end.

      • Naturesong 1.5.2
        10 January 2016 at 9:48 am

        The Greens membership writes the policy and decides the direction of the party.

        The executive (MP’s and party leaders) are there to implement that policy and direction.

        That said Green MP’s and the co-leaders do have pretty much a free hand on how they implement the wishes of the membership.

        It’s also worth noting that the Greens leaders serve at the pleasure of the membership and are well aware of that fact.

    • Expat 1.6
      9 January 2016 at 7:52 pm

      Having read all the comments above, I now understand why National is in government, and I would go on to say that probably still will be till 2020.

      Getting even half of what you want out of a government is still a hell of a lot better than getting nothing at all.

      Life is a compromise, if you fail to understand that then I’ll be reading your comments of complaint against the current govt for another six years here, and that is disappointing.

      We live in a democracy where the the majority will hold power, if you’re in minority, then you’ll have to support the parties that oppose the party you disagree with strongly, if you don’t, you may as well vote for the status quo, and I doubt very much that that is an acceptable option.

      People on the LEFT, stop trashing one another.

      • Macro 1.6.1
        9 January 2016 at 9:20 pm

        “Life is a compromise”
        I used to think that too. But now I realise that the road to hell is paved with good intentions compromises.
        Furthermore the compromises with Labour all fall to the right. It’s appeasement after appeasement. The Carbon Tax became an ETS – and look what that has done. A tonne of carbon for a cup of coffee.
        Help for families with low incomes becomes becomes WFF – a direct subsidy to poor employers who resist paying a living wage.
        The student loans – introduced by Labour.
        But underpinning all of Labours policy is their hell bent addiction to a “growth” economy, based on Capital market fundamentalism. While they try to put a human face upon it, the undeniable fact is that you cannot serve two masters. Either you worship the god of the hidden hand, or you work to provide an equitable society where everyone has an equality of freedoms the two cannot exist together.

        • Expat 1.6.1.1
          10 January 2016 at 3:47 pm

          I don’t disagree with what you say, but I don’t necessarily support all of the policies of any of the left parties, I don’t know which party you support on the left, as the Greens have displayed some unusual behavior recently which would question just how far to right their prepared to go, the resignation of several high profile Green members is one clear example, and the unbelievable support for the liquor law change during the World Cup, Mr Shaw is complicit in all the things you describe, I admire your purist attitude, but, unfortunately the reality is that NZ will never vote in a party that demonstrates these qualities, sadly, that is the reality, and you can stand by your commitments for rest of your life, but that won’t change the current Govt, which for most on the left is the highest priority, so some sort of compromise is necessary, life it’s self is full of compromises, if you don’t agree with that statement, then you must be living in isolation to rest of the world.

          Your argument about the ETS, at least it is still an ETS, rather than “Direct Action” where the govt pays polluters with Tax payer funds, and I realise in NZ at the moment it is a wrought, but what else can you expect from a RW Govt, Rome was not built in day, we need to learn how to walk before we can run, as I have said, “your” alternative will see JK there for another 6 years, I need to ask you if that is what you really want, because if you can’t compromise on the things you dislike about left parties and support things you do agree with, then we all will be stuck with the status qou.

          Student loans is one of the best ways to improve the education of our people, and the future of our nation, sure it would be great to go back to the old days where it was free, and it probably could be if there were sufficient funds to do so, but we need a strong, productive economy to do that, you know, get rid of the Bludgers stealing our wealth, reduce inequality, make sure corporations pay their fair tax, the list goes on and on, but we can only make those changes if we are represented in Govt, and change would still be slow, as it will take some time to correct the ills introduced by this F*** wit govt.

          My argument is quite simple, choose one of these colours, red, black, or brown, you may not like or support any of them, but these are your only choices, you need to choose the one you can have some common ground with.

          • Sacha 1.6.1.1.1
            10 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

            “Student loans is one of the best ways to improve the education of our people, and the future of our nation, sure it would be great to go back to the old days where it was free, and it probably could be if there were sufficient funds to do so, but we need a strong, productive economy to do that”

            Ongoing higher education is a major ingredient of such an economy. Can we really afford to make it dauntingy expensive for many?

            • Leftie 1.6.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 8:53 pm

              @Sacha
              IMO… NO, higher education should not be dauntingly expensive, when only those with money have access to it, it should be affordable and available to all.

            • Expat 1.6.1.1.1.2
              10 January 2016 at 10:15 pm

              Hi Sacha

              I wish we could all have free tertiary education like they used to, the benefits to NZ would be immeasurable (as you stated above), education is one of the key planks to a prosperous, successful future for NZ, the danger of it costing too much for students results in an elitist outcome, where only the wealthy gain the opportunities of higher education, perpetuating the existing economic position, all kiwis should be given the opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of their economic status, that’s where NZ’s future lies, an inclusive society, not exclusive, but we still need to be able pay for it, my view is to reverse the ridiculous tax changes introduced in 2010, GST is the most regressive, lazy tax ever devised, that only harms low income earners, and benefits the well off.

              I personally gained a tertiary qualification in 2004, with a student loan, which I promptly paid back in the first year at work, financially it was not easy, but it was worth it.

              Can we really afford to make it dauntingly expensive, I hope not.

          • Leftie 1.6.1.1.2
            10 January 2016 at 8:48 pm

            @Expat +1000
            totally agree

      • Leftie 1.6.2
        10 January 2016 at 3:12 am

        @Expat
        +100

  2. Anne 2
    8 January 2016 at 9:19 am

    It leaves me flabbergasted. NZ never even sought an exemption to the foreign ownership provision. So, John Key and co. WANT to hand over our sovereignty to another country. What’s in it for them eh?

    • Sacha 2.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:11 am

      Approval from the US. Never send weak little boys to negotiate anything. Too easily bought off by a bit of ego stroking.

      • Stuart Munro 2.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 2:34 pm

        I’m not sure Key craves approval – I imagine he has found a way to profit from it. Foreign sales support the property prices – like most MPs he has both trotters in that trough.

    • weka 2.2
      8 January 2016 at 10:44 am

      me, I’m not surprised so much. These sociopaths have no interest in sovereignty. The concept of the Crown is only interesting in so far as it allows them the power to do what they are doing. There is no New Zealand except as a brand of their choosing on a fucking teatowel and as a set of resources to be plundered.

    • Leftie 2.3
      8 January 2016 at 2:37 pm

      @Anne

      Yep agree, and doesn’t that information show that John key and his National government are bold faced LIARS? Will the msm run that?

    • Tautuhi 2.4
      9 January 2016 at 9:18 am

      I don’y understand what Key and National are up to, or am I missing something?

      • alwyn 2.4.1
        9 January 2016 at 6:25 pm

        The main thing you are missing is that there are a number of contributors to this debate who are quite immune to anything except a strong belief that John Key is Beelzebub in disguise.

  3. cogito 3
    8 January 2016 at 9:26 am

    “The cynicism of the Key Government apparently knows no bounds.”

    What’s needed this year is a full force concerted push by all opposition parties to absolutely demolish Key and this government on all fronts. Key needs to be shown up once and for all as the manipulative self-obsessed two-bit lying fake that he truly is.

    • Sacha 3.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:12 am

      Ignore Key, just attack the government for its behaviour. Making it personal has not worked for 7 years so why repeat the tactic?

      • Anne 3.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 10:44 am

        Yep. That’s why I always say Key and co. or the Key government or just government. Don’t sheet all the blame back on him because it doesn’t work. He’s kidded the masses into believing he’s the good guy.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 10:47 am

          I agree about focussing on the governemtn, although I think the pressure should be kept up where he is acting as Prime Minister of NZ and bringing that into disrepute, especially internationally. More and more people are uncomfortable with that, and the more the focus can be on the office instead of the man the better. He may be a good bloke but he’s not a fit PM.

        • indiana 3.1.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 11:54 am

          Are you calling the people who cast a vote stupid?

        • The Fairy Godmother 3.1.1.3
          8 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

          Also it gives him publicity. Dont even mention hid name refer to him as the current prime minister or the national party leader.

          • rodel 3.1.1.3.1
            8 January 2016 at 8:10 pm

            TFG agree.Or just refer to ‘Bozo’

          • rodel 3.1.1.3.2
            8 January 2016 at 8:17 pm

            TFG. Yes don’t use his name. Just repeatedly refer to ‘Bozo’ .

          • Rodel 3.1.1.3.3
            8 January 2016 at 8:28 pm

            TFG.Yes If we can’t ignore him we should just refer to him as ‘ Bozo’
            e.g. Andrew Little has more qualifications, intelligence, integrity and dignity in his little finger than the entire political (and financial) career of Bozo..

        • RedBaronCV 3.1.1.4
          8 January 2016 at 1:05 pm

          i’ve tried the ‘won’t it be interesting when Key goes line- will it be Paula, Steven, Crusher?” The look on some faces when they realise this is their voting choice is priceless.

          • James 3.1.1.4.1
            8 January 2016 at 3:54 pm

            Try the same thing with labour… When little goes he’s replaced with …. (And try to name anyone with a shits show )

            • b waghorn 3.1.1.4.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 5:20 pm

              Given a few more years Kelvin Davis or the darling of those in Auckland Jacinda Ardern spring to mind. Both have more integrity in their little finger than the three horrors RedBaron CV mentioned.

      • cogito 3.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 10:53 am

        So you believe that NZ’s #1 political criminal should be given a free ride because the populace swallow his lies? Get a grip.

        • Sacha 3.1.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 10:58 am

          You’re giving him way too much credit.

          • seeke 3.1.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 3:09 pm

            @sacha10.58am
            Credit where credit is due.

          • red-blooded 3.1.2.1.2
            8 January 2016 at 4:15 pm

            Hey, the man’s a manipulative, amoral arsehole, but he’s not a “political criminal”. Let’s remember, plenty of people like and trust this man; they’re going to shut their ears and tune out the rest of anything you’ve got to say if you undermine your argument with comments like that.

            • cogito 3.1.2.1.2.1
              9 January 2016 at 10:23 pm

              @red-blooded

              “Let’s remember, plenty of people like and trust this man;…”

              What about all the others who have come to despise Key as much as I do but are too scared to say so? Or those who are too disillusioned to even vote?

              ….And it needs to be personal, because we have a political system that focuses on personalities.

              • Magisterium …
                10 January 2016 at 2:27 am

                What about all the others who have come to despise Key as much as I do but are too scared to say so? Or those who are too disillusioned to even vote?

                ….And it needs to be personal, because we have a political system that focuses on personalities.

                That’s the sound of National winning another term in government.

                • cogito …
                  10 January 2016 at 9:46 am

                  Really? And your rationale, Lord Haw-Haw?

                  • Magisterium …
                    11 January 2016 at 6:02 pm

                    Because when you make an election “personal” and one of the parties is led by New Zealand’s most popular politician, that party wins.

                    • te reo putake …
                      11 January 2016 at 6:11 pm

                      “Because when you make an election “personal” …”

                      That wasn’t something NZ voters got to choose. It was a deliberate strategy in 2008 to offer minimum policy, maximum John Key. The National Party itself is not electable, obviously.

                      One of the great things about Andrew Little is that he is not trying to win on personality, but he is instead focussing on policy. He seems determined not to repeat the mistakes of Goff, Shearer and Cunliffe who all tried to out smarm Key to one degree or another. And failed.

                    • cogito …
                      12 January 2016 at 10:10 am

                      In that case his popularity needs to be destroyed. Get to it and stop being an apologist.

      • Alz 3.1.3
        9 January 2016 at 10:41 am

        Sacha : Dangerous to ignore Key & Co, its painfull but must watch.
        Agreed that personal attacks are not the way, If you look around you will see a
        large number of people who are obviously interested in politics but when they try to communicate on it, all that comes out is personality hate and insults and
        emotional reaction.
        This makes them “politically irrelevant”, a win for divisionism ( a taught method of political power wielding along with how to misinform, redirect, deflect, propagandize, character assassinate etc etc etc ).
        Probably the majority of the population, having been disappointed in the
        political systems outcomes have turned away believing rightly that they make
        very little or no difference by voting and it no longer matters who for.
        (voter numbers have been in decline for decades).
        Abandoned by every party that gets office, in stunned awe at international influence on our peaceful nation through national debt, “Free trade agreements” and the corrupt banking nightmare, etc.
        Many simply cant understand whats going on, so vote only when they have to
        (a chore, like tax returns), dont discuss it with anyone for fear of conflict and the frustration it brings and dont trust anyone involved in it to tell it straight.
        Consequently politics is for the intellectual elite who are closely aligned with the wealthy / power elite who serve knowingly or unknowingly some shadowy overlords agenda hiding in shadows of the UN, IMF, G20, etc.
        Democracy looks feeble in the face of the corporate onslaught.
        The apathetic voter and the intelligent got off the couch and went to protest the TPPA in the streets, with no real effect. No logic, patriotism, legal challenge or ombudsman petitioning can change the path they have chosen for us and we being respectful, peace loving people will not revolt and they know it.
        We need a new system of politics, this one is not ours.

    • Manuka AOR 3.2
      8 January 2016 at 11:55 am

      “What’s needed this year is a full force concerted push by all opposition parties”

      I agree. Winston and the Greens should be speaking our right now about the TPP signing . Now is the time, and through this year, for the opposition parties to find their common ground and start presenting a united front. If they want change in 2017, now is the time to begin.

    • Richard Foulkes Jnr 3.3
      8 January 2016 at 2:03 pm

      Yes a unified political haka with Andrew Little as Leader, other parties backing him 150% a majority behind him in the electorate will see a change in government. All for the consensus of retaining NZs sovereignty, which includes Maori and Moriori rights to sovereignty in the years to come. No use bitching about politics if you ain’t prepared to do the unified haka of a Labour Led Government. This will require All Black like devotion to THE LEADER Andrew Little….end of story. United WE stand Divided WE Fall….consensus,unity,discipline, love for the downtrodden,middle trodden,untrodden.Go Labour Green NZ First Progressive, Independents,Cross the Floorers.”…includes All races, philosophiesmall Rastas,teetotallers,parolees,remanded,Crimson,reformed crimes,MPs,All religions,vegans,lacto vegetarians,Muslims,Christians,tree lovers,hare kts as,meat eaters,tree fellas, gays,straights,bicurious,transgenders,outsiders,drug addicts,alcoholics, All of New Zealanders who want to see A decent society, a fairer, society, for people too long neglected, mentally ill, aged rest home dwellers.
      Can Labour led Coalition of a United Green NZ First and OTHERS Parties make it work? Why not Helen Clark made a fist of it for 9 years, Go Andrew for 12!

      • Expat 3.3.1
        10 January 2016 at 10:24 pm

        Good on ya RFJ, something most on the left don’t realise is that a “Left coalition” would be supported by a MUCH broader group of interests than the status quo of Greed at all costs.

  4. Ad 4
    8 January 2016 at 9:33 am

    Good red meat.

    • amy 4.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:57 am

      Hi and sorry for not replying to you Wednesday in other thread, but no time.
      These are references to your dispute about what I say. Please read and learn. And maybe next time think and read a little before you try to dominate from a position of rank ignorance:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/world/asia/china-invests-in-xinjiang-region-rich-in-oil-coal-and-also-strife.html?_r=0

      http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=4412&t=1

      And so on and on. Not hard to dissolve your ignorance. Just open eyes and read!

      [lprent: Ad points out your fallacy about this ‘dispute’ in his comment below. Making assertions of fact without backing them with some substantial links or at least explaining where your source of knowledge is is tantamount to being viewed as just another lying bullshit artist. You are liable to be treated as such by other commenters and authors.

      Moderators are liable to treat you as being a flamewar starter and to simply ban you from writing comments because of that. If you can’t substantiate an assertion of fact at the time you make the comment, then make sure that you express it as being your opinion.

      You should address your own ignorance – read the policy. ]

      • Ad 4.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 12:05 pm

        Tone it down. That same top link was provided by another commenter at the time, since you were too lazy to back yourself up.

        If you call a simple request for links to back up your assertions ‘domination’, you’re simply weak-minded. Let me introduce you to the actual policy of this site:

        “We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.”

        So when I say back yourself up with some proof, that’s the policy position of the site.

      • Amy 4.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 12:51 pm

        This is did. But seems this policy only apply when view, and links, do not support the anti american hate speech of this site. Guess that why such poor readership numbers here. Maybe too why labour fails so miserably in polls. I not waste time again with one sided misogynistic haters.

        [Get a grip, Amy. This site is not anti-American. Actually, the site is just bits and bytes. But putting that technicality aside, I think most writers, commenters and readers here probably have empathy with the American people, the same as they do for their fellow citizens here in NZ. However, the conservative, militaristic and anti-worker politics of the US government affect us all, as do the decisions of many monopolistic American corporations, so criticism tends to be aimed at those targets.

        The policies of the site are applied pretty evenly handed, despite your claim. If you stick around, you’ll see that for yourself.

        As for the readership numbers, the Standard is the best read left blog, by a considerable distance. We’re not far behind the leading right site, Kiwiblog. There is no way of knowing the actual readership of the allegedly most read blog, Whale Oil, because it’s numbers are grossly inflated by click capturing.

        Lastly, the Standard is not a Labour Party website. It’s a labour movement blog. There is a difference. TRP]

        • Leftie 4.1.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 1:11 pm

          @Amy

          The Labour Party has nothing to do with it, this is NOT a Labour Party blog site.

          • Karen 4.1.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 1:27 pm

            And I’d put money on Amy not being the immigrant Chinese woman she claims she is.

            • Anne 4.1.2.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 3:43 pm

              +1

            • weka 4.1.2.1.1.2
              8 January 2016 at 4:14 pm

              How so?

              • Karen …
                9 January 2016 at 9:22 am

                Weka, I am a bit wary of getting into this because commenting on the Standard while remaining anonymous is a right that many of us (including me) value. I don’t want to get into any further debate about this but wanted to explain my comment because you have asked.

                I do not know who “Amy ” is and do not care, but I was annoyed at her/him claiming to be a immigrant Chinese woman in order to deflect criticism of ideas. Have a look at the comments on Open Mike on 6/1 – the lack of definitive articles or pronouns are a typical way that non-Chinese mimic Chinese people learning English. Here they seem designed to suggest Amy is Chinese, while the bulk of the material, comprising of the usual anti-Labour Party rhetoric expressed by concern trolls, is written in perfect English.

                However, I could be wrong, and it doesn’t really matter.

                • Naturesong …
                  9 January 2016 at 9:28 am

                  Sock puppet is the word I think you’re looking for.

                  I wouldn’t be leaping to that conclusion myself.
                  At this point I’m accepting Amy for who she says she is.

                  After all, I could be a sock puppet …

                  It’s one of those things that come with being pseudonymous.

                  And, even if Amy is a sock puppet, her arguments (*cough*) are still able to be addressed.

                  Also, I’m not too worried about sock puppets here is because LPrent administers the standard and he seems pretty good at picking up people who use multiple pseudonyms.

                • weka …
                  9 January 2016 at 9:57 am

                  Thanks Karen.

                  “However, I could be wrong, and it doesn’t really matter.”

                  Accusing someone of pretending to be a race or ethnicity on a political blog is pretty problematic though. I think that matters.

                  I don’t see any reason to doubt her (and without a link I’m not going to look. Pretty sure there are other explanations for what you observed). She’s been commenting here for a while now, if there was a visible pattern of deceipt wouldn’t it be more obvious?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.1.1.3
              8 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

              I wouldn’t.

        • ropata 4.1.2.2
          8 January 2016 at 9:19 pm

          So anti-TPPA is now Anti-American is it?

          I don’t get why some people are so desperate to genuflect before their corporate overlords

  5. BM 5
    8 January 2016 at 9:38 am

    Stamp duty

  6. maui 6
    8 January 2016 at 9:46 am

    Agree the timing looks to be rubbing our faces in it. The 5th of February is going to be a particularly shit day this year sandwiched between two massive loss of sovereignty days.

    • cogito 6.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:02 am

      I bet that Key will use 5th Feb as a nationhood building tea towel promo day.

    • Naturesong 6.2
      9 January 2016 at 9:40 am

      Yup, he’ll have to deal with TPP signing for single news cycle before Waitangi kicks off and buries it.

  7. Sacha 7
    8 January 2016 at 10:09 am

    Way too late for anybody to be “defying” a trade agreement. Defiance needed to be before it was negotiated. And I believe it will take longer than 4 Feb for countries to be ready to sign it.

    • weka 7.1
      8 January 2016 at 10:52 am

      Little is saying that a Labour government will break the treaty. Is that not significant? Do you think they won’t when it comes down to it?

      He’s also saying that they’re signalling to the other signatories what they will be doing so that there are no surprises and that what is what he did on his overseas trip late last year. I agree it would have been better if they’d been more staunch pre and during the negotiations, but I don’t think what they are doing now is nothing either.

      • Sacha 7.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 10:59 am

        I believe they won’t.

      • Macro 7.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 11:02 am

        Little is saying far too little – there are many more fishhooks and traps in the TTPA than just the rights for ownership of land. (Maori land is not the govts to be signing away either by the way).
        I am underwhelmed by his response.

      • Incognito 7.1.3
        8 January 2016 at 11:22 am

        My take on it is that Little and NZLP (and everybody else!) had very little to go on pre and during the negotiations due to the secrecy shrouding everything from clear view. To go on the leaked information was (too) risky particularly after the ‘Moment of Truth’ debacle that badly back-fired. You don’t shoot when you haven’t got your target clearly identified & marked.

        • Sacha 7.1.3.1
          8 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

          Fair point.

        • Naturesong 7.1.3.2
          8 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

          I would have expected them to read the wikileaks publications.

          Yes, they were out of date by the time they were released, but they were a valuable resource for seeing what was on the table and monitoring progress.

          Or they could have gone along to one of Professor Kelseys lectures, even spoken to her, with questions and such 😯

          The moment of truth clusterfuck is when you have too many agendas trying to obviously wring advantage out of a single event. And promoting the shit out of it building expectations to unrealistic levels. It was always going to be a disappointment.

          Shorter moment of truth: Dotcom does not know how to politic.

          • Incognito 7.1.3.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 10:53 pm

            They undoubtedly read the WikiLeaks documents on TPP and most likely followed the work by Professor Kelsey on this and may even have communicated with her (although Prof. Kelsey was also frustrated by the secrecy and lack of information). However, none of that would have been a good basis for an official party line and position at the time. In addition, Prof. Kelsey would probably like to protect her independence and credibility as an objective neutral academic; once she’s seen publically or suspected to form ‘links’ with NZLP she’ll become an even bigger target for the attack dogs and we all know that these bastard have no respect for anything or anybody and certainly not for partial academics.

            • Naturesong 7.1.3.2.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 11:16 pm

              Thats fair

            • Naturesong 7.1.3.2.1.2
              9 January 2016 at 9:49 am

              I re-read your comment.

              Still think it’s fair from a Labour party point of view. Though it leads me to believe that they either lack courage or the brains to think up an alternative workable strategy.

              However I think your characterisation of Prof Kelsey as a partial academic is not only wrong but does a disservice to her and every other academic who understand that a core part of their job is as critic and conscience of society.

              • Incognito …
                9 January 2016 at 10:53 am

                Dear Naturesong, it seems I may have caused some confusion; I hold Prof. Kelsey in high regard as an impartial academic and public intellectual. In my view she’s also very courageous but that comes with the job and responsibility she’s willing to take on; it is not for everybody to do this and do it well.

                My point was that an academic who ‘links’ him or herself publically to a political party will not be seen as impartial anymore. I think this is a reasonable assumption, don’t you think?

                The related point was that even if there’s a hint of such ‘link’ or a perception of such this will open up for further criticism and personal attacks of the ‘shoot-the-messenger’ kind. The ‘attack dogs’ are very good to first create such perception (e.g. the “little henchmen”), which then gives them the reason to attack the person.

                I hope this helps but quite possibly I, in turn, may be misreading your comment.

                PS I don’t know whether Prof. Kelsey has aligned herself with a NZ political party

                • Naturesong …
                  9 January 2016 at 11:13 am

                  Ahh, that makes sense.

                  Your description of Prof Kelset as a partial academic was in fact a typo.

                  However if a political party speaking to an academic results in a PR campaign against said academic by the usual gang (WO, Carrick, 9th floor et al) you may have missed the fact that attacks on academics who speak out are already happening, and have been ongoing without pause since before 1984.

                  As you were.

                  • Incognito …
                    9 January 2016 at 11:33 am

                    Typo or not, I apologise for the confusion.

                    Indeed, academics are in an increasingly difficult position; on the one hand they have been told to get down from and out of their Ivory Towers and do stuff that is more (!) relevant to society and on the other hand they becoming targets for attack when they do so. Most (!) academics can’t handle this – they have not received any formal media training – and only very few can stand the heat of public debate and all the shit that comes with it (and some lap it up!).

                    I think our society wants academics to become more involved in public and societal issues and to provide (academic) input; society certainly needs it IMHO.

                    • Naturesong …
                      9 January 2016 at 12:06 pm

                      Increasingly difficult with Joyce’s ongoing vandalism of the tertiary sector; gutting of courses, outsourcing of jobs, employment insecurity, the list goes on.

                      And then there’s the PR campaigns against anyone who may question govt or commercial interests.

                      Not to mention the attitude of the police toward academics that we saw recently with Dr Jarrod Gilbert.

                      Simply telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion.

        • whateva next? 7.1.3.3
          8 January 2016 at 3:39 pm

          Exactly

        • Anne 7.1.3.4
          8 January 2016 at 3:46 pm

          You don’t shoot when you haven’t got your target clearly identified & marked.

          You don’t shoot until you’ve got your target clearly identified and marked.

          Fify. 🙂

        • plumington 7.1.3.5
          9 January 2016 at 7:35 am

          IMO Anything done in secret isn’t democratic but business corporates do many things in secret for advantage
          Just goes to show who is really running the the democratic process
          Left or Right?
          Words are cheap, actions will tell you who’s in charge

          • Incognito 7.1.3.5.1
            9 January 2016 at 11:45 am

            I tend to disagree with your comment.

            Secrecy, AKA confidentiality, has its place in (our) society. Even in a democratic process. Case in point: the polls.

            At the moment ‘the right’ is the dominant voice in both running the democratic process as well as in influencing this through the MSM; it’s a double whammy, depending on what side of the fence you like to position yourself.

    • Anne 7.2
      8 January 2016 at 11:06 am

      Labour and Little initially took a cautious approach because nobody knew what was in the agreement but they did make it very clear from around mid-year that any attempt to tamper with our sovereign rights would be vigorously opposed and they would not abide by any provisions in the agreement that endangered that sovereignty. I see Little’s latest comments as confirmation of this commitment. His tone of voice came through as determined – no ifs or buts.

      • weka 7.2.1
        8 January 2016 at 11:22 am

        If they reneg on this no-one will ever trust them again. Not that it will happen in a huge way, but that will be the end of Labour ever being seen as trustworthy, no matter who leads them.

        • Leftie 7.2.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 1:48 pm

          @weka
          And yet voters still vote in the deceivers, the untrustworthy National Party.

      • Manuka AOR 7.2.2
        8 January 2016 at 11:24 am

        That’s how I heard it too, Anne. I feel reassured and relieved.

      • Leftie 7.2.3
        8 January 2016 at 1:45 pm

        @Anne

        +100

    • Leftie 7.3
      8 January 2016 at 1:21 pm

      @Sacha
      It wouldn’t have made any difference what anyone said beforehand, the Key National government’s intention to sell us out was a foregone conclusion, and they were going to do it, regardless. New Zealand should punish John Key and his treasonous National government by overwhelmingly voting them out in the next election, but will they?

      • Macro 7.3.1
        8 January 2016 at 1:53 pm

        “ overwhelmingly voting them out in the next election, but will they?
        Not while their house prices continue to escalate.

      • Stuart Munro 7.3.2
        8 January 2016 at 2:42 pm

        I’d like to see something a bit more assertive than that myself. Public property being diverted for private interest is fraud. Everyone involved in the asset thefts owes New Zealand big time. I’d quite like to see the asset thieves imprisoned until they’ve paid their debt to our society – on the same deterrent logic that is used to justify speed cameras. If it requires retrospective legislation, well it’s nothing the Gnats didn’t do.

  8. Andre 8
    8 January 2016 at 10:50 am

    What happens if the 12 sign, and then it fails to pass in the US Congress? Or did it slip through and I didn’t notice?

    • Manuka AOR 8.1
      8 January 2016 at 11:19 am

      “What happens if the 12 sign, and then it fails to pass in the US Congress? “

      This is the preliminary stage, I think. “Stage One”.
      Then there are 2 years during which the various nations, including the US, ratify this.
      Then it becomes fully effective with legal consequences, with corps able to sue for whatever they don’t like about the signatory states.

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      8 January 2016 at 11:30 am

      Hasn’t gone through the US yet.

      There’s nothing in the treaty that means the US has to sign – the other countries can just keep up the agreement between themselves.

      But ever since the US got involved, they’ve been the 800lb gorilla that everyone wants to sign up a FTA with. So if the US backs out, the other countries may re-consider the situation, and decide that if they want a deal between themselves that excludes the US, that they can do a lot better deal than what the TPPA gives them at the moment.

  9. Bill 9
    8 January 2016 at 11:12 am

    Certainly clear from the interview that Andrew Little opposes at least some provisions of the TTPA. But remember Helen Clark being rolled out to take the wind from the sails of opposition to the whole shebang? Not saying the NZ Labour Party had a hand in that, but still…

    And I wouldn’t call Little’s answer to the question about Goff and Shearer at the end of the interview unequivocal. Seemed to be saying his position was ‘a’ and there would be ongoing discussions with others.

    Last thing. If defied, what penalty through those ISD settlements? And will Labour defy no matter what? Or will Labour defy and then back down if onerous financial penalties are handed down?

    • weka 9.1
      8 January 2016 at 11:20 am

      Little went round all the signatories last year and said that Labour will be passing foreign ownership laws when they become government, so they’ve been warned. Is there a precedent for ISDS in that kind of situation?

      I took his answer about caucus to be the only way he could answer. Obviously Shearer and Goff still believe in free trade against Labour’s own policy, and Little can’t come out and say that. I did take it as somewhat of a tightening up on discipline though. Let’s see if that works.

      • Wayne 9.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 11:50 am

        Weka,

        Why do you believe Labour is against free trade? Sure they had some caveats about TPP, but at no stage did they actually oppose it.

        So Goff and Shearer’s statements have been consistent with Labour policy and Little does not look like he has turned his back on free trade, and neither is he likely to do so.

        In fact if Labour did come out against free trade, as per the Green and NZ First policy, I would say they would have made easier for National to win the next election.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 12:03 pm

          Actually, I’m pretty sure that if Labour came out against free-trade they’d probably win in a landslide. IMO, a lot of people understand how much damage has been done under the present FTA system, even if they don’t know the precise reasons, as they’ve watched their incomes decline and their children with reduced opportunity.

          The problem that they have is that the politicians aren’t listening to them. Instead, the politicians just listen to the rich which will, inevitably, bring about the collapse of our society.

        • Naturesong 9.1.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 12:08 pm

          Dr Mapp,

          I’ve had a look through the Greens policy and can’t find any opposing free trade.

          I do see they support a vote in the house on trade deals. Which is understandable given govt conduct with regard to the TPP agreement.
          And that they do not support the TPPA, which given the final form, is also understandable – it’s a shit deal.

          And they do support free trade agreements that ensure New Zealanders aren’t competing with producers who use slavery, child labour or prison labour.

          But I may have missed something.

          Could you link to the speech or policy that the Greens released that opposed free trade please?

          Because at the moment, it kinda looks like you’re just making stuff up*.

          * I’m happy to retract and apologise if proven wrong.

          • acrophobic 9.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 3:31 pm

            The Greens opposed the FTA with China. This interview with Meteria Turei (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00058.htm) implies the Greens oppose CER. You can make all the excuses you like, but the Greens give at the very least the indication of being anti-free trade.

            • Naturesong 9.1.1.2.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:12 pm

              Have you read the objections to the Chinese FTA?

              They are pretty specific.

              The Greens don’t give the indication of being free trade.
              Everyday political pundit John Key says so. As does man on the street Bill English.

              And from your interview

              Guyon: Can we return to this agreement though because there are some real Green issues here in this China Free Trade Agreement and I want to talk to you about one of them, because the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise says areas like the health supplements in Manuka Honey are a great area for expansion of our exports, and in fact your own Super Fund has quite a large shareholding on Konvita New Zealand which has 18 branded stores in China and is actually doing very very well out of this China Free Trade Agreement, would you deny them that opportunity, because you opposed that agreement.

              Metiria We just need to be very careful about the settings within these agreements to make sure that New Zealand can retain its decision making power. Now this is why the Green Party opposed the Trans Tasman Therapeutic Agency because it was going to give to Australia the right to regulate those kinds of products in New Zealand, and we don’t believe that’s appropriate, New Zealand needs to be in control of the regulatory processes for those kinds of products in our own country, to benefit our own manufacturers and our own small New Zealand businesses.

              So they are not against free trade. They are against trade agreements that impinge on our ability to govern ourselves.

              It’s a democracy thing

              • acrophobic …
                8 January 2016 at 4:18 pm

                “Have you read the objections to the Chinese FTA?”

                Yep. It was the usual left wing puff, disguising their deep distaste for free trade generally. They opposed a deal that has added $bn’s to the NZ economy. I wouldn’t trust them to run a bath.

                • Naturesong …
                  8 January 2016 at 4:26 pm

                  So, you havent bothered to listen or understand their position.

                  They disagree with your tribal leader so they are bad!. No need to make a rational informed decision.

                  • acrophobic …
                    8 January 2016 at 4:32 pm

                    Oh I listened and understand. It’s waffle.

                    • Macro …
                      8 January 2016 at 7:03 pm

                      No you don’t understand. But that is because you don’t want to understand, because if you actually did understand, you would have to change your way of thinking – and that is something that you are reluctant to do.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 9:37 pm

                      No, Macro. Listen very carefully: the Greens attract 10% of the popular vote. They are an afterthought. Yet I do take the time to read what they say and it is more often than not bs. Their objections on human rights grounds alone demonstrates just how stupid they are.

                    • Macro …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:12 pm

                      The Greens have attracted more than 10% of the popular vote for some time, which suggests that there is a solid and growing core of voters who understand that people and the environment are more important than things. If you think that opinion is BS then that’s your opinion; and that tells us all we need to know about you.
                      Good bye.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 11:00 pm

                      “The Greens have attracted more than 10% of the popular vote for some time, which suggests that there is a solid and growing core of voters who understand that people and the environment are more important than things.”

                      Green Party election results:

                      1999 5.16%
                      2002 7%
                      2005 5.3%
                      2008 6.72%
                      2011 11.06%
                      2014 10.7%

                      If by ‘more than 10%’ you mean a rounding margin, then so be it. Continue to live under your illusions. Most of the left wing do.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:22 pm

                      acrophobic: the last thing banksters and transnational corporations want is true competition. They prefer to have a lock on ticket clipping monopolies where they have strong pricing power.

                • joe90 …
                  8 January 2016 at 4:30 pm

                  Yep.

                  Really.
                  /

                  I would like to say in relation to some of Tim Groser’s comments that the Green Party is not against trade with China, and it is not against trade agreements with China per se, but that we believe it is very bad timing for us now to be signing a preferential trade agreement that gives the Chinese regime advantage at the very time when it is so violating the human rights of its citizens and international attention is on China around the time of the Olympics. It is our view that if enough pressure goes on to the Chinese Government during this period, we might be able to give extra leverage to the many millions of Chinese who are trying to achieve greater freedoms. For this bill to go through at this time is a betrayal of the international movement that is pressing for greater democracy in China.

                  http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/48HansD_20080722_00000915/new-zealand-china-free-trade-agreement-bill-%E2%80%94-second-reading

                  • acrophobic …
                    8 January 2016 at 4:33 pm

                    Actions speak louder than words. They voted against the China FTA. Thank goodness they weren’t the deciding vote.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 January 2016 at 9:15 am

                  disguising their deep distaste for free trade

                  Or perhaps the “deep distaste” doesn’t exist, and you are simply repeating other people’s well-worn(out) attack lines. Again.

                  • acrophobic …
                    11 January 2016 at 10:45 am

                    The evidence (eg their voting record) suggests otherwise.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:15 pm

                      No, it doesn’t: it suggest objections based on principles relating to human rights, not “deep distaste for free trade”. That’s simply yet another lie that someone else made up and you rote-learned.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 4:47 pm

                      No, it suggests an irrational fear of trade. Something that is about as silly as using homeopathy to treat Ebola.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 January 2016 at 5:31 pm

                      In your worthless, rote-learned opinion.

          • Wayne 9.1.1.2.2
            8 January 2016 at 5:02 pm

            Naturesong,

            The Greens have either voted against or spoken against every single free trade agreement that New Zealand has entered into. I was in Parliament long enough to know that.

            Now of course the Greens do say they support fair trade, which as far as I could tell was trade with numerous restrictions, such as tariffs against imports to support favored industries, tariffs against trade that was deemed not environmentally sustainable, tariffs against trade that did not meet NZ labour conditions, and many other similar restrictions. In short not free trade at all.

            So when the Greens vote against or speak against all free trade agreements it is not unreasonable to say that they are opposed to free trade.

            • Naturesong 9.1.1.2.2.1
              8 January 2016 at 5:33 pm

              I do see your point.

              However I think there is some mischaracterisation going on here as well.

              The Greens haven’t called for tariffs.

              They did advocate regulation to ensure NZ producers didn’t have to compete with industries who had abusing labour practices (child slavery, convict labour et al).

              And any issue that a private company may have with a nations government, be tried using that nations justice system instead of the ISDS.
              We’ve already seen the effect on our government’s ability to regulate tobacco here.
              And we weren’t even the ones being sued. Australia was!

              As far as protecting NZ industry. I think most most would agree that it be prudent to have in NZ the capability and capacity to produce the majority of the things that we use on a day to day basis.

              It would enable us as a nation to be more resilient to economic shocks and allow for a much broader manufacturing and technology base. Which in turn would provide opportunity for crossovers of different technologies.
              Do you want value add or shall we just keep selling logs and milk powder?

              The Greens haven’t said how they would achieve this but you are likely right that some low level tariff would be the most efficient method.

              This goes both ways. Unless you think free trade agreements should be used to undermine other signatories’ economic decisions preventing them from being able to provide for themselves without trade with us?

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.2.2
              8 January 2016 at 11:55 pm

              Now of course the Greens do say they support fair trade, which as far as I could tell was trade with numerous restrictions, such as tariffs against imports to support favored industries, tariffs against trade that was deemed not environmentally sustainable, tariffs against trade that did not meet NZ labour conditions, and many other similar restrictions. In short not free trade at all.

              Actually, that is free-trade. Conditions need to be the same in both countries and practices need to be sustainable to ensure that all costs are properly taken into account. Not keeping those means that countries will cheat in one way or another to ‘lower costs’ ensuring unsustainability and that full costs are not taken into account.

              NZ’s biggest cheat is, of course, allowing farmers to pollute without being held accountable.

              • Once was Tim …
                9 January 2016 at 9:50 am

                “Actually, that is free-trade. Conditions need to be the same in both countries and practices need to be sustainable to ensure that all costs are properly taken into account……”
                You beat me to it – pointing out the bleeding obvious – i.e. that the term ‘Free Trade’ is bandied about at every opportunity, whereas we don’t actually have free trade at all. The conditions never seem to be bi-directionally equitable or without some sort of condition. Whilst NZ has had one of the freest policies there’s been more protectionism usually on the side of the trading partner.
                What fucking fools we’ve been. We make next to nothing and are making less and less (e.g. railway workshops closing, increasing reliance on imports of needs and ‘wants’, exporting raw logs with no added value, etc. etc.)
                It reminds me of the Republicans in the late 80s and 90s on programmes like CNN’s “Crossfire” talking about ‘that great sucking sound of jobs leaving the country’ – to places like Mexico and China.

                We’ve fucked it up royally under the neo-lib’s agenda and made ourselves vulnerable.
                There IS NO ‘Free Trade’. We’ve succeeded in wealth, wellbeing and sovereignty transfer from the periphery to the core, and it seems to me the only reason Koiwois aren’t up in arms is that they see us as being COMPARITAVELY better off than others in vulnerable positions.

                Like ‘MAKE IN INDIA’, let’s also MAKE in NZ. By all means promote our IT and Movie industries (hopefully with stories that represent NZ culturally and not just Wellywood style shite), but let’s also make our own railway wagons and buses and furniture and many many other things.
                Free Trade my arse – I really wish people would stop using the term – it’s a corruption of reality

                • Once was Tim …
                  9 January 2016 at 10:29 am

                  Ekshly, just as an aside, I find it sad and amusing that our compassionless hard right rail against the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and the disabled being ‘dependent on the state’ for their welfare and well being, yet they seem to have no problem with their entire country becoming more and more dependent on OTHER state(s) for its welfare and wellbeing. They also want to continue to claim ‘1st World’ status yet seem quite happy with people working under slave labour conditions or without a wage that people can sustain a living on.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    9 January 2016 at 11:45 am

                    +1

                    • Once was Tim …
                      9 January 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      (Little and Robertson to Shearer: We’ll hum it – you strum it! … Bugger me …. if it ain’t PG Tips [definately NOT part of a Darjeeling Cooperative providing a sustainable living in a third world environment])
                      But there ya go – there’s something for them to aspire to.
                      It’s all a bit pathetic really – especially since they’re so completely unaware that the natives are getting restless.
                      Amongst the Labour Party loyalists (as I once upon a time was), we seem to have this namby pamby bullshit artist, better in the tent pissing out, brigade – it’s probably based on their relatively minimal longevity in terms of their life’s experience.
                      The detractors would BRAND a return to a principled stance as being ‘RAD’.
                      It all just makes me think (after a lifetime, AND even amongst my offspring nex generation), they’d better get their shit together pronto or it’ll spell their demise – actually I think I made comments on sites like this pre-Shearer; pre-Cunliffe.

                      Hopefully, third time lucky tho’ the signs are not yet there.
                      (And as the natives – Chinese Stock Market Crash; Muddle Class having to begin to even consider their assets versus liabilities and Net Present Value – as they get restless ……… who do you think they’re going to BLAME …. it couldn’t and will not be themselves – and that’s something no amount of CT/Hooten spin will be able to spin positively)
                      I spose the best they’ll be able to offer is “well be shouldn’t be trying to apportion BLAME” blah blah fuckn blah.

                      I see distinctly feral options ahead if we continue with this agenda …..

        • lprent 9.1.1.3
          8 January 2016 at 12:32 pm

          I support Free Trade. It is a pity that the TPPA isn’t a free trade agreement for NZ.

          For NZ it appears to be a restraint of trade agreement in the short to long term. It constrains the freedom of trade that we already have across a number of areas from buying generic medicines to having to suffer the imposition of the ridiculous US style copyrights and patents law on everything from books to software development. Those will cause a great deal of cost to both our nascent industries and to consumers.

          Sure over the next few decades there MAY be a loosening of some agricultural trade barriers in some nations – almost all of which will happen in the long term and won’t be a lot even at 15 years after full ratification.

          But penalizing the rest of the economy in the next year or so largely for the benefit of a few farmers in a decade sounds like a classic case of some idiot politicians trying to help their constituency while pissing on every one else. Hardly a case for free trade

          • Poission 9.1.1.3.1
            8 January 2016 at 12:55 pm

            Sure over the next few decades there MAY be a loosening of some agricultural trade barriers in some nations

            Doha and Dodo are concomitant.

          • Sacha 9.1.1.3.2
            8 January 2016 at 2:28 pm

            “It is a pity that the TPPA isn’t a free trade agreement”

            Exactly.

          • Rosemary McDonald 9.1.1.3.3
            8 January 2016 at 2:57 pm

            Free trade? Who mentioned free trade?

            Oh…..Wayne.

            Where’s he gone? Dropped his little ‘free trade’ bomb and buggered off?

          • Rodel 9.1.1.3.4
            8 January 2016 at 8:31 pm

            Nice succinct analysis. I’ll use that.Thanks.

          • Rodel 9.1.1.3.5
            8 January 2016 at 8:32 pm

            IP-Nice succinct analysis. I’ll use that.Thanks.

          • Chooky 9.1.1.3.6
            9 January 2016 at 10:18 am

            +100 “It is a pity that the TPPA isn’t a free trade agreement for NZ.”

          • Expat 9.1.1.3.7
            9 January 2016 at 9:29 pm

            Iprent

            “But penalizing the rest of the economy in the next year or so largely for the benefit of a few farmers in a decade sounds like a classic case of some idiot politicians trying to help their constituency while pissing on every one else. Hardly a case for free trade”

            Yeah, It’s called a Banana Republic.

        • Macro 9.1.1.4
          8 January 2016 at 1:36 pm

          The Green Party are not opposed to Trade per se what the Green Party want in any Trade agreement first and foremost is Fair Trade that respects the people of all nations, promotes the well being of both parties involved, protects the environment, and is sustainable. Regrettably most “Free Trade ” agreements are concerned with none of these things.

          • Chooky 9.1.1.4.1
            9 January 2016 at 10:22 am

            +100 Macro…Fair trade as opposed to ‘Free’ trade ( ‘Free’ trade which is usually a misnomer…for something which is often most unfair and unequal on smaller, less powerful or third world nations)

        • weka 9.1.1.5
          8 January 2016 at 2:05 pm

          Wayne, I didn’t say that Labour are against free trade, go back and read it again. I said that Goff and Shearer held different beliefs than Labour’s policy. From what I understand Labour want some restrictions on free trade eg opposing the TPP, and that Goff and Shearer don’t. Does that fit your understanding?

          • Wayne 9.1.1.5.1
            8 January 2016 at 5:06 pm

            Weka,

            I disagree with your analysis. Goff and Shearer properly reflect Labour Party policy. Labour did not oppose TPP, they had some caveats against it, the main one being the land sales issue. All their other concerns were in fact covered off in the agreement.

    • alwyn 9.2
      8 January 2016 at 11:37 am

      I don’t think Helen Clark’s comments had anything to do with the NZ Labour Party or that she has the slightest concern for their problems or interests. She has moved on and her only concerns are her own career.

      As long as she manages to maintain her dreams of another job at the UN she will do whatever John Key wishes. She is only too aware that he can kill any chance she may have in an instant. Nobody at all has the slightest chance of any significant position at the UN without the support of their own Government, and she won’t go against anything the current Government supports.

      It is called “realpolitik” I believe.

      • Bill 9.2.1
        8 January 2016 at 12:36 pm

        I agree that the Helen intervention was probably a happy coincidence for some within Labour; that she was probably being urged by, not the National Party, but by other potential sponsors in her bid for whatever new position within the UN she fancies. I guess the US among others would have been kind of keen to see opposition to the TPP tempered?

        Remember India getting access to nuclear tech that could be adapted for weapons use? And how NZ dropped its veto (much to the pleasure of the US) after a phone call from Goff to Helen? And how she then landed her current UN job immediately after Labour’s election defeat and the incumbent, who had just begun his second UN term, resigned for ‘family reasons’ but immediately took up another similar job within the private sector? And how Goff boy got shoulder tapped for leadership on Helen’s departure?

        I believe Gordon Campbell wrote a somewhat puzzled piece at the time of the Goff phone call and concluded that the veto was dropped in return for talks on a US trade deal. Given the info he had to hand, that was a reasonable conclusion, but I wonder what he’d write now if he was to do a retrospective piece?

        • Leftie 9.2.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 1:29 pm

          @Bill
          Provide citations please to back up your wild claims.

          • Bill 9.2.1.1.1
            9 January 2016 at 10:02 am

            No claims made, wild or otherwise.

            What bits can’t you find verification for? Search through Gordon Campbell’s pieces of the time for the India, Goff phone call and trade deal analysis.

            Google search Helen’s predecessor for the circumstances and timing of his departure. If that doesn’t produce anything, go to the wikileaks dumps on NZ – that’s where I originally found the relevant cables.

            Is this another case of a pustular eruption not liking where my questions lead and so reckoning I should give a fuck or dance to their squeaky leaky whines of protestation?

            • Leftie 9.2.1.1.1.1
              9 January 2016 at 5:12 pm

              @Bill
              It was a simple question to provide citations to back up your wild claims, and despite your blustering response, you cannot do it.

              • Bill …
                9 January 2016 at 8:05 pm

                Aw bullshit. You assert I’m making wild claims when all I’m actually doing is pointing to some dots that you may or may not be comfortable joining up. Not my fucking problem.

                I’ve told you where to look for the info that forms the basis of the questions I posed. But I’m not about to dance around the net searching out and providing old links just to satisfy a pathetically loyal piece of pustulence like yourself.

                You don’t have to like that and I don’t have to give a fuck.

                • Leftie …
                  10 January 2016 at 3:23 am

                  @Bill
                  I asked you to provide citations and you still haven’t provided any, despite posting 2 lengthy rants. You obviously cannot back yourself up, so you got abusive instead.

                  • Bill …
                    10 January 2016 at 1:25 pm

                    You asked. I told you I can’t be arsed, but gave you pointers on where to look. That is not the same as ‘cannot back yourself up’.

                    Try pretending that google is your friend. Search in the directions I’ve suggested (Campbell’s archive, wiki leaks)

                    If there is any specific piece of info you really can’t find after making a genuine effort to find it, get back to me with precise details of the specific info you can’t find and I may either a) find you a link b) trawl through the historical stuff sitting on my computer for the info or c) neither a) or b).

                    • Leftie …
                      10 January 2016 at 9:04 pm

                      @Bill
                      Why should I do your homework for you? You made the statements and obviously you cannot back them up. Instead you are wasting so much time and effort making a series of comments in a dodging exercise, when you could have easily provided the requested citations that you yourself say are available and that you have access to ie your computer. Maybe you should follow your own advice and make google your friend or better still, don’t make accusations and wild claims that you cannot back up. (C) is a dead giveaway).

                    • ropata …
                      10 January 2016 at 9:24 pm

                      That is weird stuff Bill and some quick searches didn’t find anything to back it

                    • Bill …
                      11 January 2016 at 1:23 am

                      Today’s papers (Jan 9th) report that United Nations Development Program Administrator Kemal Dervis said he would quit his post on March 1 instead of July 31. Responding to a question whether he would be a candidate for the Istanbul Metropol Mayorship from CHP, Dervis said “I did not resign to be involved in politics. My duties at the UN would end next summer. I could ask for a four year extension but for family reasons I decided to quit now and become engaged in academic work on global and Turkish economics.”

                      https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ANKARA35_a.html

                      Strobe Talbott announced that Derviş joined the Brookings Institution on 30 March 2009 as vice president and director of the Global Economy and Development program.[8]

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemal_Dervi%C5%9F

                      Helen Clark became the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme on 17 April 2009,

                      http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/leadership/administrator/biography.html

                      The 2008 New Zealand general election was held on 8 November 2008 to determine the composition of the 49th New Zealand parliament. The conservative National Party, headed by its Parliamentary leader John Key, won the largest share of votes and seats, ending nine years of government by the social democratic Labour Party, led by Helen Clark.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2008

                      On NZ dropping its veto

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10531026

                      and

                      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00145.htm

                      Find the Campbell piece yourself – the site’s a dog to search.

                      No claims made by me, just dots you can draw lines between, or not, as you please. But for essentially calling me a liar, wasting a fuck load of my time with your bullshit and nonsense and repeatedly asserting I was claiming shit I obviously wasn’t stating…well, I’m away for now and will be going through this wee bit of discussion tomorrow in (as is said) the cold light of dawn. I strongly advise some form of apology from you “lefty” lest you anxiously and joyously anticipate the prospect of a lengthy holiday from this site.

                      Good night.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2016 at 6:32 am

                      tribal loyalty to Labour at all costs is an interesting, though increasingly rare, phenomena. Lets get real here. No one advances that high in the UN hierarchy against US objections. On the contrary, one could probably safely assume that active American support – and active support by the NZ government of the day – are prerequisites.

                      That’s politics.

                    • greywarshark …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:19 am

                      I noticed a similar response from Leftie as Bill has, and which he appears to have lost patience with. I feel that Leftie only receives from the posts here what suits his own mindset.

                      He likes to question and demand background sources on comments but I believe not for his edification and elucidation but to make commenters jump hoops and spend time trying to meet an apparent desire to be informed which is not genuine.

                    • Chris …
                      11 January 2016 at 8:03 pm

                      Yes that’s right I think, greywarshark. It’s also become apparent I think that Leftie’s not too bright so humouring her/him could be a good way of dealing with that (although banning her/him for being a fuckwit’s probably equally appropriate).

                • Leftie …
                  11 January 2016 at 11:53 am

                  In response to your comment further down @bill
                  ROFL Nothing you have posted backs up your accusations, wild claims and made up dots whatsoever. There are unflattering words to describe people like you. You have wasted your own time by creating speculations that you can’t actually back up.
                  BTW Instead of trying to fabricate a scenario that didn’t exist, if you had of done proper research you would have seen that Dervis was in trouble and left under a cloud.
                  Example:
                  UNDP’s Dervis Backtracks on Transparency, Promises Accounting of Funds, Denies Role in Uganda Abuse
                  <a href="http://www.innercitypress.com/undp122106.html
                  While Dodging Africa Questions, UNDP Builds Breakaway Ethics Regime, Conceals Audits
                  <a href="http://www.innercitypress.com/undppr101607.html
                  UNDP’s Dervis Says, “I Am Not Answering Any of Your Questions,” on Audits and Head of Budgets
                  <a href="http://www.innercitypress.com/dervis061807.html
                  And to CV, shame on you for a number of comments you have made that promote the bs RWNJ line. Isn’t it time you stopped pretending and resign from the Labour Party to join the National Party where you really belong? And greywarshark, still got the pip I see.

                  [I see you’ve made your decision “leftie”. You should know better than to put words in the mouth of a site author, waste their time and accuse them of deliberate falsehoods. Banned until the autumnal equinox.] – Bill

                  • ropata …
                    11 January 2016 at 12:14 pm

                    Leftie may have overstepped by being abusive, but Bill’s conspiracy theory is still unconvincing.

                    • Bill …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:50 pm

                      What conspiracy theory is that ‘ropata’?

                      I asked ‘alwyn’ if they remembered India getting access to nuclear tech due to NZ dropping its veto on the decision.

                      I asked if it was remembered how speedily Helen Clark went from a cold start to top UN position in five months.

                      I asked if it was remembered that Goff was more or less appointed as leader by Helen on her departure from Labour.

                      I asked if there was knowledge or memory of Kemal Dervis resigning for family reasons but taking up a leading public sector position.

                      I also made mention of a Gordon Campbell piece on the Indian nuclear deal where he postulated the veto had been dropped in return for talks about free trade talks with the US.

                      How anyone joins or doesn’t join those pieces of info is entirely up to them. I stated nothing that wasn’t entirely factual. I claimed nothing.

      • Leftie 9.2.2
        8 January 2016 at 1:42 pm

        @alwyn
        ROFL you have been living on planet key way too long, and have overestimated John key’s supposed influence by a long way.

        • alwyn 9.2.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 2:47 pm

          Do you really believe that
          (1) A person could get a senior position at the UN despite the disapproval of his/her Government?
          (2) That Helen Clark would be so confident of her popularity that she would risk upsetting the Government of her own country while campaigning for a job?
          (3) That Helen Clark really cares about New Zealand signing or not signing a TPPA in comparison to her desire for a new job at the UN?

          • Leftie 9.2.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 3:26 pm

            @alwyn
            1. It wouldn’t have made a difference. Helen Clark didn’t need John Key’s approval or that of his National government. Clark was a successful PM, she has a good track record and got the position on her own merits.

            2. I don’t think Helen Clark gives a stuff about John key and his National government. It is John Key that goes mincing and sucking up to her UN office every chance he gets.

            3. Helen Clark has moved on and is no longer involved in NZ politics for the past 7 years. In regards to the TPPA she said only if it is good for NZ and she also wrote that she is not responsible for the way people frame what she has said.

            • Anne 9.2.2.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:01 pm

              Spot on Leftie.

              And I once knew Helen well enough to have a reasonable idea how she thinks.

              And you are dead right @ 1. She was essentially head-hunted by no less a person than Ban Ki moon for the job. That’s what I was told anyway. Her reputation as someone of considerable strength, commitment and integrity had long been noted by many world leaders/movers and shakers.

              • alwyn …
                8 January 2016 at 5:39 pm

                “That’s what I was told anyway”.
                You innocent thing you. Believe anything you are told by, or about, a politician? In that path lies madness.
                As for “movers and shakers”. I realise the Shakers were led by women, of which Helen would no doubt have approved, but I never realised she was a member of a Fundamentalist Christian Sect.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

                • Leftie …
                  8 January 2016 at 7:01 pm

                  Rubbish Alwyn. Not only are you a shocking hypocrite, you believe, without question, every lie that comes out of John Key, his National government and their spin merchants, you are pathetically desperate to try and pull that one.

                  • alwyn …
                    8 January 2016 at 8:18 pm

                    Good God! Where did I go wrong?
                    How could the individual known as “Leftie” have got these illusions about me?

                    Believe a politician without question he/she says? I don’t believe any politician in that way. I believe that they will all lie if it suits them. The difference between John Key and his predecessor and her followers in the remains of a once proud Labour Party is that those on Lefties side of the fence seem to lie instinctively when questioned.

                    Key will lie, I am sure but it isn’t the first thing he will do.

                    Look at the leaders of the Labour Party he has vanquished. Clark, Goff, Cunliffe. Ratbags the lot of them. Not a single shred of honesty in their makeup.

                    The only one I thought was honourable was Shearer and they stabbed him in the back. I had hopes of Little but he simple doesn’t have the character of a PM. The name, unfortunately, seems only too representative of his character.
                    Please, for God’s sake can’t you get someone intelligent, knowledgeable and honest. No Government should do more than four terms but unless the relics of a disastrous era can be cleaned out it will probably happen.

                    • ropata …
                      8 January 2016 at 9:27 pm

                      Are you Jason Ede or what?
                      What a torrent of twisted delusion.

                      Please read the Hollow Men, Dirty Politics, and this

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 January 2016 at 12:05 am

                      Key will lie, I am sure but it isn’t the first thing he will do.

                      Actually, it’s the first, second and third thing he will do as the documented evidence shows.

                      Everything else you said there also had no acquaintance with reality.

              • Sacha …
                8 January 2016 at 7:12 pm

                whereas the current PM will be sought out by international financiers attracted by his loyalty to their cause and his flexible ethics on all other matters.

                • ropata …
                  9 January 2016 at 12:22 am

                  +1
                  No doubt his banker pals will keep the revolving door going, the nest will be nicely feathered, and the mansions and golf courses of Hawaii beckon.

                  Given his narcissistic displays of “leadership”, I can’t see FJK putting his hand up to help mankind after his adventures in politics.

            • Naturesong 9.2.2.1.1.2
              8 January 2016 at 4:33 pm

              Helen Clark is also the administrator of the UN Development Programme and has more important things to do now than get involved in NZ’s tawdry domestic political scene.

              I think her answer reflects that.

  10. fisiani 10
    8 January 2016 at 11:42 am

    It really does not matter what claims Little makes about breaking signed deals. He is only making up this nonsense to feed a bit of raw meat to the hungry disillusioned troops. Do you really think he can beat John Key in 2017? When will he get Labour polling over 42%.

    • lprent 10.1
      8 January 2016 at 12:42 pm

      Not really the right question. It shows an idiotic reliance on FPP politics. We have had MMP since 1996. Surely you have learnt something about it over the last two decades.

      1. Can National do something they have never done – get more than 50% of votes cast? Because they are running out of votes in their compliant coalition parties.

      OR

      2. Can National manage to get a coalition with Winston Peters and NZ First? Especially with John Key and Steven Joyce at the helm – the two architects of the false accusations against NZF in 2008. National have been spectacularly bad at maintaining coalition partners as anything apart from quiescent clients that they can dismember vote from. It seems unlikely that NZF hasn’t noticed it.

      The 2017 election isn’t Labours to win. It is Nationals to lose their possible governing coalition MPs fall below the number required to maintain control of the treasury benches. That is looking increasingly likely as it has kept falling for the last 7 years.

      At present a Labour / Green / NZ First coalition is looking pretty viable, especially if they wind up with close cooperation on opposing the TPPA.

      But in the context of the very few bits of legislation that the TPPA requires will be put in front of the house, it looks increasing likely tat the Maori party and even Peter Dunne are going to oppose parts of them. Hardly a coherent support within the government.

      And what happens if they do? If they are still around in 2018, they are likely to vote for the types of legislation that Labour et al are likely to put up to repeal any enabling legislation and regulation.

      • ropata 10.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

        true, the Nats tend to rely on turning their voters into a hegemonizing swarm.
        a functioning democracy is a hindrance to their goals.

        • Naturesong 10.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 4:36 pm

          Not wanting to pick a fight or anything, but that specific type of rhetoric makes me really uncomfortable.

          • whateva next? 10.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:46 pm

            “Not wanting to pick a fight or anything, but that specific type of rhetoric makes me really uncomfortable.”
            ….and that type of response makes me really uncomfortable, considering this site is to express thoughts and opinions about politics of the day.
            Ropata’s response makes perfect sense to me. Could you explain what your problem is with it, so that I can make sense of what you are saying, which may then lead to a constructive discussion please?

            • Naturesong 10.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:57 pm

              OK.

              I feel uncomfortable when I see in public forums language that is commonly used as a device to dehumanise people.

              National voters are not insects.

              • whateva next? …
                8 January 2016 at 5:01 pm

                Thanks for that, I agree National voters are not insects, but I do think they are being manipulated by National, and the people of NZ are not being treated as humans by National in any way.

                • Naturesong …
                  8 January 2016 at 5:43 pm

                  Yes, depending on where you look in the govt there seems to be at least one or more of the following; incompetence, heartlessness, paranoia, ignorance or avarice.

              • ropata …
                8 January 2016 at 7:43 pm

                National Ltd™ is imposing a hegemony on NZ

                The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry Eagleton’s words, “Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates”. In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony “is hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its common sense”

                And the subservience of Nat voters to the cult of FJK is very concerning.

                (also, the phrase “hegemonic swarm” is a tongue-in-cheek scifi geek reference to grey goo, from the Culture novels)

              • greywarshark …
                11 January 2016 at 11:49 am

                It’s interesting, the point you make that people are not insects, in particular National voters. Recently I have been thinking about our styles of behaviour and comparing them to those of insects. Leaf cutter ants and termites are great builders, working together as do many of the successful insects. Bees are devoted to their task of gathering nectar and pollen to maintain the hive and their procreative hub and are beneficial to the world as well as their own species. Individuals go out and forage, but are totally committed to their hive home and central queen bee.

                It seems to me that our primitive brains have very insect like behaviours on which further brain development and intellect has grown. But that extra mindpower is too often over-ridden by the primitive brain and instead of building a superior human community using our intellect and learning the old primitive expedient behaviour rises and triumphs over reason and we sink below bees and other community based insects in behaviour and conditions that are negative to satisfactory living.

                Now we are in 2015, one hundred years after the huge WW1 followed two decades later by the huger WW2, which took intelligent humans to a new low, unknown to insects. Our intelligence seems to be diseased so that every advance carries some new problem, virus with it. For instance every great imaginative breakthrough is studied by the military to see how it can be added to their arsenal of weapons to attack or undermine other humans.

                • ropata …
                  11 January 2016 at 9:52 pm

                  I look at it as part of our evolutionary process. As individuals we grow and learn through facing difficulties. Similarly for our species and collective consciousness, human thinking has emerged from primitive ways and our culture has progressed a long way over the last 5000 years. Our species’ last existential threat was probably during the Ice Age, now we will face another stern test in the deindustrial, low carbon, global warming, mass extinction future. If we survive, humanity should have learned some very important lessons about living together on this finite planet.

                  Although tragedy and death is part of the story it’s not the final chapter, and I believe that there is a purpose in our existence on the Earth.

                • Naturesong …
                  13 January 2016 at 11:10 am

                  As a keen bee keeper I’ve often wondered about applying the bee hive model to human society.

                  The Queen binds the hive with her scent, the hive is home because she is there.
                  But she is controlled by the bees that nurse her, pushed and prodded to lay relentlessly, starved when her court decides it’s time to swarm. And when she gets old and can’t produce enough scent or lay quickly enough, a new queen is made to supersede her. On the birth of the new queen, the old queen is quietly disappeared. No easy retirement or social security for the queen mother.
                  Reward for her years of work without respite.

                  For the workers; “work will set you free” is the most apt description as they literally work themselves to death. Life expectancy of a worker bee in the summer is 6 weeks.

                  The drones, they have it sweet, Chill out, as much honey and pollen as you can eat. No work for these guys – women’s work becomes a tautology.
                  Nothing to do but cruise around during the day looking to get laid.
                  Of course copulation results in the drone’s penis getting ripped from their body.
                  But my, what a glorious death! For the good of the Hive!
                  And when winter arrives, and the girls boot all the lazy bastards out. Feminazis!

                  The bee colony is truly a fascist nirvana 😈

      • Leftie 10.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 1:35 pm

        @lprent
        +1

        Answer to questions 1 & 2… No.

      • fisiani 10.1.3
        8 January 2016 at 2:17 pm

        I like your optimism. Under MMP National are still in the top spot. Voters like picking winners. If Labour do not get above 42% they would not be seen as a possible winner. You can fantasise about 35%+ 8%+7% making 50% but it seems that Labour and the Greens are nibbling away at each other. As one rises the other falls. Labour or Greens or NZF need to attract National voters and given how well the economy is doing and how well off people feel I see no evidence that this likely. National could even garner more than 50% of the vote and if Winston does not make it to late 2017 that is even more likely. The Greens want to be in government or a least have some influence.
        There could even be a National/Greens/ACT/UF/MP/NZF government with 72% of the vote leaving Labour as the sole opposition with just 28%.
        That is the tactical genius of John Key

        • Leftie 10.1.3.1
          8 January 2016 at 3:00 pm

          @fisiani
          It’s not optimism, I just answered the questions with a fact… that you cannot deny.
          You live in cuckoo land mate and must be completely deluded if you think that that scenario of your fantasy would ever happen. Will remind you also, that National couldnt even get 50% with Key’s dirty politics.

      • acrophobic 10.1.4
        8 January 2016 at 3:14 pm

        I is a sign of the desperation of the left that the only way to cobble together a centre left Govt is to include an inherently conservative (socially and economically) party founded by an ex National Party Minister. A Labour/Green/NZF government would, IMHO, be unworkable, and most likely unstable. Which is why it will not happen. A National/Green or National/NZF coalition is far more likely.

        • weka 10.1.4.1
          8 January 2016 at 3:56 pm

          NACT/NZF yes. National/GP isn’t possible. I challenge you to prove otherwise, but as it stands the party has taken a position on not forming government with National.

          • acrophobic 10.1.4.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:06 pm

            It’s a bit difficult to ‘prove’ something is a future possibility, other than to state it like this:

            1. The Greens are a political movement. Political movements seek power. Power comes from being in Govt.
            2. Labour have disregarded the Greens over and over in Govt. This, coupled with their repeated electoral mediocrity, has kept the Greens out of Govt.
            3. National have always welcomed partners in Govt. They reached out to the Maori Party when they didn’t need to. They have comfortably included ACT and UF in Govt, despite some obvious differences.
            4. National will be looking for future partners, and they are brazen in their pursuit for power.
            5. If the Greens were offered a stake in Govt by National, my belief is they would be sorely tempted.

            Finally I am not convinced a National/Greens coalition should be dismissed. It may anathema to some within the Greens, but given their own playground (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense), the Greens may well feel making a mark in power is more attractive than the impotence of opposition.

            • weka 10.1.4.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:09 pm

              That’s not what I meant. Have a read of this and then tell me how the GP could form govt with National at the next election given the party rules and position. Most people seem to think that the MPs or leader can just decide, but they can’t.

              http://thestandard.org.nz/green-politics/

              The only person I’ve seen seriously suggesting that the GP reconsider their position was Vernon Tava, go look at how well he did in the co-leadership election last year. So how would the GP choose to go with National when virtually no-one in the GP wants to or thinks it’s a good idea?

              The GP don’t want power they want change.

              • acrophobic …
                8 January 2016 at 4:16 pm

                …and they can’t affect change without power.

                “Most people seem to think that the MPs or leader can just decide, but they can’t.”

                Not once did I suggest it was solely the domain of the MP’s to decide such a thing. My points related to how such a event could come about. Unless there is a rule in the Greens constitution that prevents a coalition with National, and that cannot be over-ruled, you simply cannot rule such a possibility out. After all, the Nats partnering up with the MP was a surprise to many.

                • weka …
                  8 January 2016 at 4:21 pm

                  “…and they can’t affect change without power.”

                  Of course they can, and have done the whole time they’ve been a party.

                  “Unless there is a rule in the Greens constitution that prevents a coalition with National, and that cannot be over-ruled, you simply cannot rule such a possibility out.”

                  Actually I can, which is why I wrote a post on it (did you even bother to read the link?). I can see two possible ways technically that the GP could allow itself to form govt with National and both are fairly preposterous.

                  “After all, the Nats partnering up with the MP was a surprise to many.”

                  Did National have internal rules that made that extremely unlikely? I don’t think so. You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. Read the link and come back with some argument against it, otherwise I will assume you are making shit up. Nothing in what you have said so far is supported by the facts.

                  • acrophobic …
                    8 January 2016 at 4:30 pm

                    “Of course they can, and have done the whole time they’ve been a party.”

                    Actually the Greens as a political movement have achieved nothing of note. They enjoy far more support that ACT, yet wield less power. It’s impotent.

                    “I can see two possible ways technically that the GP could allow itself to form govt with National and both are fairly preposterous.”

                    Yet they are possible. And you obviously can’t cite a prohibition.

                    “You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. ”

                    Well not that you’ve cited.

                    • weka …
                      8 January 2016 at 4:33 pm

                      read the link. From now on I will call you a liar direct unless you can back up what you say. I’ve cited, you haven’t.

                      “Actually the Greens as a political movement have achieved nothing of note. They enjoy far more support that ACT, yet wield less power. It’s impotent.”

                      The Greens have achieved a huge amount in their time. I’m not surprised you are ignorant of this though because you obviously have ideological blinkers on. Try starting with reading the history of MMP in NZ.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 4:41 pm

                      “You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. ”

                      That’s what you said. Now I’m calling bs on you. Cite the specific rule that prohibits the Greens forming a coalition with National, or apologise and withdraw. (PS The only link you’ve posted is an opinion piece.)

                      “The Greens have achieved a huge amount in their time.”

                      Yet you name nothing.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 4:46 pm

                      Weka…here’s more to show you are spouting bollocks.

                      “Dr Norman joined Firstline this morning after the Green party’s annual meeting over the weekend to discuss his coalition options and how the party’s shaping up ahead of the November election.
                      He says that while the party will “work with National where we can find common ground”, the prospect of a coalition between National and the Greens is “highly unlikely”.”
                      http://www.3news.co.nz/general/greens-national-coalition-highly-unlikely-2011060708#ixzz3wcZB92ae

                      How can something be ‘highly unlikely’ if it is prevented by the Greens rules?

                      Then there’s this:

                      “Now both Green and National voters are saying the two should enter a formal coalition deal.”
                      http://www.3news.co.nz/general/video-green-party-coleader-metiria-turei-on-national-coalition-deal-2011100508#ixzz3wcZkscJh

                      This sows that at that time (Oct 2011) Green Party voters WERE entertaining the idea of a coalition with National.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 6:16 pm

                      Something can be highly unlikely because it’s prevented by the Greens’ rules, to whit: Green Party members would have to forget that the National Party is a slow civil war upon New Zealand in order to go into coalition with them.

                      I expect you to fail to understand that, like a:

                      a: failure or,
                      b: liar.

                      Which is it?

                    • weka …
                      8 January 2016 at 6:26 pm

                      I have named one thing, specifically one thing. Are you not reading my comments properly?

                      Yes, it’s an opinion piece, like most posts on TS. Also like most posts on TS it links to evidence. Read the thing properly or fuck off.

                      Green party voters have zero say in what the party does unless they are members. I’ve already presented you with some actual evidence that suggests that most members don’t want a National/GP coalition.

                      The post I linked to explains what ‘highly unlikely’ means in the context of this conversation. Basically the position in the remit means that the GP will consider a coalition with National when National have changed enough so that the two parties have policy in common. There is virtually no chance that National will do that, which is why the GP say ‘highly unlikely’ and I say anyone who thinks that the GP will consider a coalition with National in 2017 doesn’t know what they are talking about.

                      Now, I suspect you haven’t bothered to read teh post properly and haven’t followed the links, so off you fuck until you do. I’ve given you ample opportunity to back up your position and you haven’t. Which is fine. I just get to call you a liar each time you try and pretend that a Nact/GP is likely. If at any point you can explain how the GP could move from its current position to one where they could consider a coalition with National, feel free to share.

                    • fisiani …
                      8 January 2016 at 8:17 pm

                      The Greens could easily jettison the Marxist elements of their current policies and emphasive their environmental policies just as the German Greens did. Or would they rather spend another 20 or more years flailing away in opposition linked inexorably with a dying Labour Party. I do mean dying. Have a look at a graph of Labour support over the last 40 years. It is on a declining trajectory. Nowhere in the Green’s constitution does it state that could not go into coalition with National.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 9:38 pm

                      “because it’s prevented by the Greens’ rules, to whit: Green Party members would have to forget that the National Party is a slow civil war upon New Zealand in order to go into coalition with them.”

                      That’s not a rule, it is an opinion. I ask again, cite the rule that prevents the Greens entering a coalition with National.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 9:43 pm

                      “I have named one thing, specifically one thing. Are you not reading my comments properly?”

                      Yep. You said “You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. ” You lied.

                      “I’ve already presented you with some actual evidence that suggests that most members don’t want a National/GP coalition.”

                      So? That’s not what you claimed. I will remind you what you claimed: “You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. ” You lied.

                      “Basically the position in the remit means that the GP will consider a coalition with National when National have changed enough so that the two parties have policy in common. ”

                      Wow, that’s a long way from “You seem to have failed to grasp that the GP’s actual rules prevent what you are suggesting. ”

                      You lied Weka. Admit it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 9:45 pm

                      Yes, by removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different.

                      Are these sort of Kindergarten pratfalls the best you can do?

                      Yes, they are.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:47 pm

                      “Yes, by removing the first part of my comment, you can produce a quote that makes it look as though I said something different.”

                      All I removed was “Something can be highly unlikely because…”. Weka didn’t say ‘highly unlikely’. He/She said the rules prevent it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:54 pm

                      Misrepresenting what Weka said too, eh Wormtongue.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 11:13 pm

                      Cite?

                    • weka …
                      8 January 2016 at 6:27 pm

                      It’s alright, done now. I just wanted a pixel trail to show that on this subject they have no credibility.

    • ropata 10.2
      8 January 2016 at 12:46 pm

      Or perhaps it’s smart policy that 82% of Kiwis happen to agree with

  11. greywarshark 11
    8 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

    When Chile tried to do something that the USA didn’t like, they were seen to. And had a terrible time for how long afterwards?

    It might be politic for Labour to say, but how much is it, to do such things. Why not come out at the time of TPPA and object like real people with foresight would.

    Why not Labour falling over with eagerness to win the last election, whenever was the year of living dangerously, using every legal means possible?

    Maybe then the whole TPPA shithouse thing could have been prevented – too many conditions that we weren’t prepared to cave on – instead we are cheer leaders for anything-goes, shitty little bootlickers sitting beside the shitty big bootlickers. Just another bunch of ugly colonials in the blue paradise of the Pacific.

    • Leftie 11.1
      8 January 2016 at 3:08 pm

      Greywarshark, O why did the key National government, with the aid and support of mainstream media, use dirty politics to win elections?

      • whateva next? 11.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 5:17 pm

        “O why did the key National government, with the aid and support of mainstream media, use dirty politics to win elections?”
        they have nothing else to use? have they ANYTHING to be proud of at all?

        • Leftie 11.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

          @whateva next?

          No, they don’t.

        • acrophobic 11.1.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 6:04 pm

          Well they got us out of Labour’s recession.

          Steered the country through the GFC.

          Fixed the debacle that was the ACC.

          Are gradually making the welfare system sustainable.

          Reduced crime rates.

          Streamlined the public service.

          But here’s the thing. They are the most popular Govt in the history of MMP, and have won 3 elections with an increased vote each time.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 6:13 pm

            🙄

            Too funny: fish, meet barrel.

          • te reo putake 11.1.1.2.2
            8 January 2016 at 7:15 pm

            Dude! Where to start …

            1) No recession under Labour. 9 years of budget supluses though.
            2) Borrowed a record amount so that future generations can pay for the GFC.
            3) Tinkered with ACC and made it less useful for Kiwi workers.
            4) Welfare is not sustainable. It’s not meant to be something that self sustains. Though National have managed to grow the number of Kiwis in poverty whether working or not.
            5) They’ve changed the definition of crime, particularly as it applies to their own staffers.
            6) Bloated the civil service with consultants.
            7) Helen Clark led the the most popular MMP government in 2002. National’s support actually dropped slightly in 2014, and the Government has a razor thin majority in Parliament. Not actually signs of the “most popular Govt in the history of MMP”, but rather the results of a party doing just enough to get over the line.

            All your other points are 100% accurate. Oh wait … you didn’t make any other points.

            • Sacha 11.1.1.2.2.1
              8 January 2016 at 7:24 pm

              1) Treasury projections about ‘decade of deficits’ get righties foaming.
              2) Despite a huge headstart due to zero net govt debt left to them by previous govt, still managed to borrow like no tomorrow.
              3) Tried hard to sell ACC to Australian insurers who decided it wasn’t an attractive deal after all.
              4) Would be way more sustainable without an engineered unemployment level of around 6%.
              5) Crime rates declining around wolrd due to demographic factors (boomer bulge echoes).
              6) Firing public servants is not ‘streamlining’.

            • acrophobic 11.1.1.2.2.2
              8 January 2016 at 10:17 pm

              1. “The New Zealand economy entered recession in early 2008, before the effects of the global financial crisis set in later in the year.”
              http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2010/04.htm

              2. Yep, and prevented a full blown depression and massive social dis-location.

              3. Nope, ensured the long term sustainability of ACC.

              4. Not ‘self-sustainable’, financially sustainable.

              5. Nope, official data shows crime down.

              6. Nope.

              7. “Helen Clark led the the most popular MMP government in 2002.”
              Where do you dream this stuff up?
              2002 Labour 41.26%
              2005 Labour 41.1%
              2008 National 44.93%
              2011 National 47.31%
              2014 National 47.04%

              • te reo putake …
                8 January 2016 at 10:57 pm

                Still stuck in the FPP thinking, huh? MMP Governments are coalitions. Their popularity is collective, not singular.

                • acrophobic …
                  8 January 2016 at 11:11 pm

                  No, because we don’t have STV, therefore we don’t vote for coalitions, we vote for a preferred party. MMP is FPP in drag, particularly as not all parties declare coalition preferences prior to the election.

                • alwyn …
                  9 January 2016 at 7:19 pm

                  How do you come to the conclusion that the Clark led Government of 2002 was the most popular MMP Government?

                  The 2002 Government comprised Labour, The Progressive Party and United Future. That was all. Neither the Green Party nor New Zealand First were part of the Government They had a total percentage of the vote of 49.65%, by my calculation using the official election results.

                  The highest for a National led Government would appear to be in 2008 When National, ACT, United Future and Maori totalled 51.84%. They also got 50.43 in 2011, again above the Labour led result in 2002.

                  What is your claim actually based on?

                  • Sacha …
                    9 January 2016 at 7:29 pm

                    Interesting.

                  • te reo putake …
                    9 January 2016 at 10:49 pm

                    Labour had the support of the GP and NZF giving them, from memory, a ten point margin over the Bill English led Nats.

                    • alwyn …
                      10 January 2016 at 1:02 pm

                      I have noted it a little further down but I will repeat it here.
                      The Green Party said they would vote against, not with, the Government on a Confidence vote in the 2002-2005 term.

                    • te reo putake …
                      10 January 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      I’m assuming for the sake of charity that what you say is correct. But did they actually do it?

                    • alwyn …
                      11 January 2016 at 10:25 am

                      @Leftie at 9.16pm
                      You state “2002 the worst defeat ever for the National party with only 20.93%”. What on earth does that have to do with anything relating to the popularity of the Clark led Government?

                      As TRP says are you
                      “Still stuck in the FPP thinking, huh? MMP Governments are coalitions. Their popularity is collective, not singular.”

                      You then rabbit on as if that figure for National means something to you and, as is your wont, accuse me of being a liar. Do you actually understand what I have said or even what the meaning of liar is?

                      Some time ago I decided that there was no point in taking any notice of anything you say. I let myself be tempted to try and debate with you on this topic. I have been reminded why I decided there wasn’t anything sensible in your diatribes and I shall revert to the more accurate view that you are just an idiot with nothing to contribute to civilized society.

                  • swordfish …
                    9 January 2016 at 11:00 pm

                    Greens gave confidence and supply support to both the first term and third term Clark Governments, albeit (like ACT at the moment) without Ministerial portfolio.

                    1999
                    Lab+Alliance = 46.48
                    (+Greens C&S) = 51.64

                    2002
                    Lab+Prog = 42.96
                    (+UF C&S) = 49.65

                    2005
                    Lab+Prog = 42.26
                    (+NZF+UF+Greens C&S) = 55.95

                    2008
                    Nat = 44.93
                    (+ACT+UF+Maori C&S) = 51.84

                    2011
                    Nat = 47.31
                    (+ACT+UF+Maori C&S) = 50.41

                    2014
                    Nat = 47.04
                    (+ACT+UF+Maori C&S) = 49.27

                    So, current Government has least support of any since 1999.

                    • Leftie …
                      10 January 2016 at 3:28 am

                      @swordfish
                      +100

                    • Acrophobic …
                      10 January 2016 at 4:05 am

                      what magnificent spin! Voters vote for a single party, not coalitions. C&S arrangements are not known by the public prior to an election,so they are irrelevant in determining popularity. In which of the arrangements above were the Greens a formal coalition partner?

                      National’s popularity is unparalleled in the MMP era.

                    • alwyn …
                      10 January 2016 at 9:24 am

                      @swordfish
                      I am afraid that you are living in a world where your memories have little relationship to the one that everyone else inhabits. You claim
                      “Greens gave confidence and supply support to both the first term and third term Clark Governments”
                      I refer you to a speech by Jeanette Fitzsimmons who was there.
                      https://home.greens.org.nz/speeches/constitutional-nature-green-partys-relationship-government

                      It is rather a long speech but it includes the following about the 2005 Government.
                      “two other parties have ministerial positions and confidence and supply agreements, giving the government a larger majority than it needs, and our support on confidence was not sought”
                      The Green Party did not provide support for the Government. They weren’t even asked for it.

                      You give a set of numbers that agree with my own except that, to try and make Labour’s numbers look better you have come up with a definition of “Government” that no-one else seems to follow. If you read right through the speech you will see that JF did not see herself as part of the Government.

                      TRP claimed that the 2002 Clark led Government was the most popular under MMP. Our figures do not seem to confirm that do they?

                    • te reo putake []
                      10 January 2016 at 10:07 am

                      The results of the 2002 election do seem to confirm what I wrote, Alwyn. National and Act had 36 seats between them. Labour and the Progressives had 54. That’s 18 seats difference. HC also did a deal on confidence and supply with Peter Dunne. So, if you add in support from UF, the margin grows to a whopping 26 seats.

                    • Ad …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:24 am

                      Great to see you back Swordfish.

                      Looking forward to your coverage of the US election, once it starts getting real.

                    • alwyn …
                      10 January 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      @te reo putake at 10.07am
                      Thank you for that.
                      It does tend to be a rather selective calculation doesn’t it?
                      You have added up the parties who committed to provide votes on Confidence and Supply. Then, instead of adding up all the other seats you have chosen a couple of the parties and treated that number as if it were the rest of Parliament.
                      You didn’t even count the Green Party in that subset. The Greens not only wouldn’t support a Labour Government in that term, the said they would vote against the Government in a Confidence vote.
                      I’ve no idea what anyone else said.

                      I really thought you would have something with a bit more substance than this. Evidence for such a wild claim that “Helen Clark led the the most popular MMP government in 2002”?
                      You have got to be joking.

                    • te reo putake []
                      10 January 2016 at 1:13 pm

                      Sorry the facts offend you so much, alwyn. But there it is, the most popular Government under MMP was the 2002 Labour led coalition. Even without needing the formal support of either NZF or the Greens they had total control of Parliament. And even then, both the Greens and NZF regularly gave them further support, for example, on the Cullen fund and Kiwibank. Can’t find any references, but I don’t recall the Greens voting against C&S. Perhaps they abstained? Like it or not, National/ACT had only about a third of the seats in Parliament in 2002 and the gap between them and power was enormous. Compare that to Key’s majorities; a couple of seats in the most recent general election, now reduced to one following the Northland by-election rout. Nah, Helen has a lock on it. Key is never going to even get close to her acheivement, assuming he’s even around for the next election.

                    • alwyn …
                      10 January 2016 at 6:44 pm

                      @te reo uptake
                      Facts don’t offend me as it happens.
                      What does disappoint me is that you don’t actually have any. You start with a rather strange version of “popular” and then justify your arguments with an approach that is, basically, “It is so because I say so”.

                      I understood, from people I knew who were close to the political action during the time of the Clark Government that every contentious bill required an enormous amount of negotiation to get a supporting majority. They did it very well and put the majorities together but it wasn’t because she, or her Government was “popular”. They got it done because they would concede enough to other parties to be able to get the votes. Total control of Parliament you say. Don’t be silly.

                      I’ll be willing to bet that Helen would have happily given up support from any other party if she could have had 62 Labour seats in a 120 seat Parliament. By your criteria it would mean she wasn’t popular but I would be willing to bet she would have killed for it.

                    • Leftie …
                      10 January 2016 at 9:16 pm

                      2002 the worst defeat ever for the National party with only 20.93%

                      Alwyn what a idiot you are, confronted with facts, you deny it, and have shown yourself up as a liar and a hypocrite, and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, whatsoever.

                    • swordfish …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:51 pm

                      @ alwyn

                      (1) “swordfish I am afraid that you are living in a world where your memories have little relationship to the one that everyone else inhabits.”
                      I got a good laugh – well, at least a bit of a smirk – out of that line, alwyn. Cheers. See, Tories can be funny if they really try !!!

                      (2) “You give a set of numbers that agree with my own except that, to try and make Labour’s numbers look better, you have come up with a definition of “Government” that no-one else seems to follow.”

                      I’ll put aside the minor fact that you’ve got the 2011 figure slightly wrong – I’m prepared to overlook it (I’m good like that) – and point out that, since 2008, we’ve had a National minority Government, which is supported on confidence and supply by United Future, the Maori Party (with Cabinet positions) and ACT (without Ministerial portfolio since 2014).

                      If you consider ACT as part of the current Government (as you seem to do), then you’ll have to accept the Greens as part of the first and (possibly) third Clark Governments.

                      (3) (2005-08) “The Green Party did not provide support for the Government. They weren’t even asked for it.”

                      First thing to say about Fitzsimons speech is that it confirms the Greens had a formal confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-Alliance Government 1999-2002.

                      On the third term Clark Administration, I’m prepared to accept they weren’t quite a formal component of the Government, but – as Fitzsimons makes clear – the resulting arrangements and agreements between Labour and the Greens constituted a highly “unusual situation.”

                      The Greens agreement with the Clark Government gave them input into the budget (albeit of a somewhat limited nature) and they received broad consultation on policy. Both Green Party co-leaders were essentially appointed as government spokespeople outside cabinet.

                      Immediately after your quotation, Fitzsimons tells readers “Yet we have a co-operation agreement which defines two areas where Green MPs will act on behalf of ministers.” and “Hence the arrangements for a close relationship on those issues where we had a direct role in implementing the policies.” Fitzsimons was to “provide leadership on (specific) government initiatives…” Through Ministerial Services, Clark provided advisors and a liaison manager, located in the Green Party office and working on a daily basis with the Green MPs.

                      As Fitzsimons argues, these Level one relationships of 2005-08 went “beyond” those of the previous Clark Government.

                      It’s very convenient to exclude Green support from the figures – they’re a comparatively large “minor” party of the Left and by excluding them, you’re essentially throwing them into the National-led Opposition basket in 2005-08. And that won’t wash – given not only the Greens campaigned in the run-up to the 2005 General Election to be part of a Labour-led Coalition (and ruled out supporting a National Government) – as Fitzsimons makes clear, but also because the New Zealand Election Study of 2008 revealed an overwhelming majority of Green voters preferred a Labour to a National-led Government.

                      And that’s really the heart of this little debate – how much voter support did each Government have ?

                      The overwhelming majority of Green voters clearly supported the third term Clark Government of which their Party was a (let’s say somewhat informal, but still tangible) component.

                    • swordfish …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:19 am

                      @ Acrophobic National’s popularity is unparalleled in the MMP era

                      If you’re talking poll support then, No.

                      Labour used to regularly poll above 50% (particularly in the run-up to the 2002 Election), just as National used to occasionally hit 60% and frequently 55% a few years ago (these days, despite having absorbed the collapse of Colin Craig’s Conservatives, the Nats just occasionally manage to top 50%).

                      If you’re talking Election Day Party-Vote then, yeah – but it really doesn’t mean all that much. All you’re saying is the Left/Oppo Bloc is more divided in its support, while Right/Govt support coalesces much more tightly around just the one Party. Whoop-de-bloody-do !!!

                      As far as the Greens go …
                      … take 2005 – the Greens openly campaign to be part of a Labour-led Government (explicitly ruling out support for a National one) and the New Zealand Election Study of 2008 shows an overwhelming majority of Green voters prefer a Labour to a National-led Administration. What’s more, all NZES surveys over recent elections have shown that Green voters place themselves to the Left of Labour and all other party supporters on the ideological spectrum. The notion, then, that Green supporters weren’t voting for a Labour-led Government and would have been just as happy with a National one is – to employ your own favoured phraseology – magnificent spin !

                    • greywarshark …
                      11 January 2016 at 2:29 pm

                      Swordfish
                      Thanks for your 10.51 pm and 12.19 am comments, really easy to read, well explained of what could seem a confusing agreement to those like myself who often don’t read the fine print.

          • Macro 11.1.1.2.3
            8 January 2016 at 7:28 pm

            Streamlined the public service. lol
            Have you any idea how big the PM’s department is now? I’ll give you a hint – its twice the size of what it was when you hero took office.

            • Once was Tim 11.1.1.2.3.1
              9 January 2016 at 7:08 pm

              “Streamlined the public service”
              I had to read that twice too. I wonder if he/she understands those two words (i.e. ‘public’ and ‘service’)
              Unfortunately though, there are quite a few snr management in the public service that don’t seem to understand what it is they are supposed to stand for either.

              • Macro …
                9 January 2016 at 9:28 pm

                Unfortunately though, there are quite a few snr management in the public service that don’t seem to understand what it is they are supposed to stand for either.
                Especially it seems in our spy agencies the GCSB and SIS

                It became apparent through discussions that there was a significant proportion of staff who did not think of their organisations as a government department. This was more apparent by staff within GCSB but was evident in the NZSIS. This perception was perpetrated by staff that had significantly long careers in intelligence or had not worked in external government agencies, and did not see the work being performed
                as a “public service”. it was often mentioned by these employees that they did “not see the point of reflecting the outside community” because of this.

          • Leftie 11.1.1.2.4
            8 January 2016 at 7:47 pm

            To add to others who have responded…@acrophobic
            Labour did not cause the recession.
            National exploited the GFC for itself at the expense of everyone else.
            National lied, ACC wasn’t broke. It is certainly quite a mess now.
            “sustainability?” National do not know the meaning of the word. National’s line of policy is increasing the numbers requiring assistance, and they are also punishing people for it.
            Changes in govt data gathering and fudged stats = Crime has not reduced.
            Public service is in a mess and has not been streamlined. “Consultants and private purchased advisers” are a substantial drain on the public purse and has increased the Beehive wage bill.

            But here’s the thing, you are deluded and pathetic. Labour have won 3 elections under MMP too and National, who have lost support, are not as popular as you and the spin suggests.

            • Anne 11.1.1.2.4.1
              8 January 2016 at 7:56 pm

              Hey you lot… don’t mess up the phobic one’s brain with facts! He/she doesn’t know what ‘facts’ are…

              • Jenny Kirk …
                10 January 2016 at 9:33 am

                + 100% Anne, and a giggle !

              • Expat …
                10 January 2016 at 4:27 pm

                Hi Anne

                I found this piece which admirably describes “acrophobia”

                “Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.

                The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.

                “These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information,” Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. “And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive.”

                More worryingly, Logsdon said, “As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful.”

                An exert from a post by Micky Savage, Jan 2/2016, The myth of drug dependency and poverty.

            • acrophobic 11.1.1.2.4.2
              8 January 2016 at 10:19 pm

              “Labour did not cause the recession.”

              “The New Zealand economy entered recession in early 2008, before the effects of the global financial crisis set in later in the year. A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008 as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.”

              http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2010/04.htm

              Yep, they caused it.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 January 2016 at 10:23 pm

                Labour controls the weather. You need to get out more.

                • Acrophobic …
                  10 January 2016 at 4:08 am

                  The Govt has a significant impact on inflation and interest rates.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 January 2016 at 10:45 am

                    Low levels of public debt allow freedom to look through short-term cyclical fluctuations and there is room to adjust monetary policy to support demand.

                    Treasury department 2008. Link below.

                    Answer the questions: why the lies? Why the plagiarism?
                    It’s because propaganda has no value without parrots, eh.

                    Polly wanna cracker?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 January 2016 at 10:55 pm

                    Cullen’s ridiculous fixation with taking money away from households and businesses so that his own books could be in surplus, was a major contributor to NZs economic slow down.

                    • ropata …
                      10 January 2016 at 11:00 pm

                      Or maybe he was strategically taking the heat out of a crazy pressure cooker economy so that we didn’t explode like others did in the GFC.

                      Keynesian monetary policy 101: public spending in recessions, public thrift in boom years

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2016 at 11:19 pm

                      sure that would work if Labour hadnt gifted power to National after sucking all that money out of households and small businesses.

              • Leftie …
                8 January 2016 at 11:31 pm

                @acrophobic
                Labour did not cause the recession. You are a deluded fool, and that is putting it politely. You were banging on with that rubbish on another thread awhile back, and you got trounced then too. No matter how many times you repeat your BS, it will never make it true.

                • alwyn …
                  9 January 2016 at 7:21 pm

                  People must remember when reading this blog.
                  There are lies, damn lies and Leftie’s BS.

                • Acrophobic …
                  10 January 2016 at 4:10 am

                  Read the Treasury cite. Labour stuffed up.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 January 2016 at 6:45 am

                    Meanwhile, on Earth, under the heading “Current NZ Situation”, Treasury makes it clear that…

                    A stable macroeconomic environment gives investors confidence in the New Zealand economy as a place to invest. It gives New Zealand businesses a degree of certainty for making business decisions. Successive governments have done a good job of getting the New Zealand economy in a position where it can respond well to economic shocks. Low levels of public debt allow freedom to look through short-term cyclical fluctuations and there is room to adjust monetary policy to support demand. However, the recent sharp revisions to the economic outlook have resulted in projections of an extended period of fiscal deficits.

                    Why do you tell so many lies?

            • Expat 11.1.1.2.4.3
              10 January 2016 at 5:47 pm

              +1

          • reason 11.1.1.2.5
            9 January 2016 at 8:47 am

            1) Helen Clarks labour government pulled us out of the mess that Ruth Richardson/Bolger/Shipley slash and burn shambles had left the country in…

            2) The GFC was caused by the greed and lack of morals of the financial industry …. We elected one of the participants as prime minister ……A phrase about foxes and hen houses comes to mind.

            3) Nationals handling of ACC has been a shambles …..They want to privatise it and we’re probably lucky they didn’t give it their ‘solid energy’ touch.

            4) They have done nothing about the largest by far and also fastest growing expenditure in welfare http://thestandard.org.nz/superannuation-and-government-forecasts/ …… but they have put the screws on cancer sufferers and other sick people who need welfare assistance ……

            5) New Zealand is the world leader in domestic violence crime ………. The nats can take a lot of the credit for that in partnership with the alcohol industry. There even seems to be a ‘roastbusters’ clause in our laws under national which works like a get out of jail card. Helen Clark would never have allowed for that kind of bullshit ……… being a proper journalist was not a crime in her time either…………

            6) The Nats are stuffing up the public service just like they did under Shipley/bolger, they prefer the private sector way as delivered up by fay richwhite serco etc ….. Dropping us from 7th down to below 20th in the world education rankings is just how well they really perform in running our public services. The equally dramatic decline in our river water shows how they ‘manage’ the environment ………. at least we can say they are consistent.

            The TPPA has been written by lawyers for the benefit of corporations…… The higher medicine costs New Zealand WILL have is u.s.a driven and everyone knows what a disgrace their expensive private health care system is.

            Why do the Nats always follow failed u.s.a right wing experiments like charter schools/private prisons and ignore the evidence of what works in other countries where they have free education and are closing prisons???

            6000 pages is an absurd amount of paper work for a supposed free trade agreement.

            A bit like the number of acrophobics post in this thread …….. 😉

      • greywarshark 11.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 8:58 pm

        Leftie
        I suppose you have a point to make, obscure as it is.

        I was bemoaning that Labour didn’t win and didn’t try hard enough to pull all the levers available. The advent of dirty politics should have been a wake-up call but discussion I have read leads me to believe that many in the electorate are so cynical or so cast in their thinking rut that the Hager controversy was beyond them and they just voted as previous with a BAU shrug.

        • greywarshark 11.1.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 9:03 pm

          My comment at 11.1.3 above was to Leftie at 11.1 which seems light years away in the thread. In case anyone tried to find the connection.

        • Leftie 11.1.2.2
          8 January 2016 at 11:26 pm

          @greywarshark
          What levers were available to them? and I think you got my point well enough.

          • greywarshark 11.1.2.2.1
            9 January 2016 at 11:53 am

            Leftie
            The matter of what Labour could have done has been well traversed here. If you want an answer to your question read the wide and diverse comments for yourself.

      • Magisterium 11.1.3
        10 January 2016 at 2:36 am

        why did the key National government, with the aid and support of mainstream media, use dirty politics to win elections?

        Because they knew that Cunliffe’s Labour would walk right into it and play along.

        • Leftie 11.1.3.1
          10 January 2016 at 3:37 am

          @Magisterium
          Wrong again.

          • Chris 11.1.3.1.1
            10 January 2016 at 5:08 pm

            Because Labour can do no wrong? I can see you now, at about 11.30 on election night 2017, crumpled in a pathetic heap crying uncontrollably, just making out through gooey dribble oozing out of your mouth the words “but Labour hasn’t done anything wrong … but Labour hasn’t done anything wrong … but Labour hasn’t done anything…” A great theme for a cartoon. I formally give the idea away right now to anyone who wants it.

            • Leftie 11.1.3.1.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 9:30 pm

              @Chris
              I never said Labour can do no wrong, and your attitude is showing that you are in need of some medical assistance. You must think the sun shines out of National backside, you never discuss the wrongs of the current Key National government, who have been in power for the last 7 years. Why is that?

              • Expat …
                10 January 2016 at 10:58 pm

                Hi Leftie

                I haven’t seen a single positive description from RWNut’s on Nact’s efforts since in power, the only argument put forward is the popularity (of JK), I’m going to suggest that that is the only thing they have to boast about, the rest speaks for itself, being fair to them, I think that there is some positive changes introduced, albeit the’re derived from POPULARITY, not smart, thoughtful, or economically beneficial for all, just popular.

              • Chris …
                11 January 2016 at 12:02 am

                “…you never discuss the wrongs of the current Key National government, who have been in power for the last 7 years. Why is that?”

                Because it’s more important that the left gets its arse into gear and until it does Key and his greedy and uncaring mates will succeed in 2017. And there are plenty of others doing that anyway. It’s Labour that needs constant tuning up if you want a left government.

                And as far as your reference to my need for medical assistance goes, all I’ve got to say about that is “hey, hey, hey!!!”

  12. heather 12
    8 January 2016 at 1:52 pm

    The insult to New Zealanders is obvious with the choice of February 4th. Someone must be telling porkies – Chile and Peru would not have suddenly made up the date they were coming to New Zealand.
    I am very pleased that Andrew Little has spoken out strongly, there is no no doubt in people’s minds what he is thinking. I hope that NZ First and the Greens can all reach common ground.
    I like the idea that some have mentioned of referring to the National Government, they are the people responsible for the so many fronts we are failing in New Zealand. It is not Key alone.
    Fancy the chief Doctor for the Cancer Society having to write to the Herald about the dismal failure of the National Government not to fund the cancer drug Ketruda.
    The recent poverty in children world stats put New Zealand a long way down the list, fancy the Children’s Commissioner having to beg the National Government to try and raise New Zealands place in the world.
    The list goes on and on, every day another insult to New Zealanders from this National Government to families and older people trying to live a fair life for themselves and their families.

  13. Murray Simmonds 13
    8 January 2016 at 2:03 pm

    OK, so assuming the “deal” is signed, sealed and delivered sometime within the next couple of years.

    Assuming also that some Saudi or US Congressperson or whatever puts in a bid to buy up the North Shore, and Prime Minister Andrew says “No!”

    So what happens?

    Why of course the Investor States Disputes Tribunal process will be invoked and little old bankrupt NZ will be slapped with a multi-billion dollar fine, which we, the taxpayers, will be forced to pay.

    isn’t that EXACTLY what the ISDT is there for?

    Sorry, Andrew: Too Little too late.

    • weka 13.1
      8 January 2016 at 2:10 pm

      Can you provide some examples of where there has been a clear and explicit expression of intent by a political party before the signing of a trade deal that they would enact such legislation once in government and where a subsequent ISDS has been successful?

      • joe90 13.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 2:32 pm

        Canada. Mulroney went to the polls with a clear intent to sign NAFTA and won.

        Subsequently Canada has become one of the most sued countries in the world.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney#Free_trade

        http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/23/naftas-isds-why-canada-one-most-sued-countries-world

        • weka 13.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 3:53 pm

          Not following you there joe. Are you saying that an opposition party in Canada stated clearly to signatories before NAFTA was signed that it would enact a specific piece of legislation despite NAFTA and then Canada got sued once the opposition party was in power and enacted the legislation?

          • joe90 13.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:17 pm

            Yeah, got the wrong end there although during the 1993 campaign Chrétien and the Liberal party opposed NAFTA and promised to try to renegotiate the deal. They reneged.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Chr%C3%A9tien#The_1993_election

            • weka 13.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 4:34 pm

              That’s actually pretty interesting, esp the bit about Clinton and the US saying they could always just pull out of the treaty.

              Any reason why Labour couldn’t do that if it needed to?

              • Pat …
                10 January 2016 at 9:25 pm

                apparently there is no reason any of the parties cannot withdraw with suitable notice (how that would impact current ISDS rulings I have no idea)….but that is not what Andrew Little has proposed, he states Labour may defy some provisions, not withdraw….a curious cake and eat it position which I can see no benefit from for them.

                • alwyn …
                  11 January 2016 at 1:37 pm

                  He is merely following in the steps of a previous leader of the Labour Party.
                  At the time of the 1951 waterfront dispute the then leader Walter Nash came out with a truly fence-straddling position. As Wikipedia expresses it
                  “……. Nash saying that “we are not for the waterside workers, and we are not against them”. Labour’s neutral position merely ended up displeasing both sides, however, and Nash was widely accused of indecision and lack of courage”.

                  Little had better remember the last part of that extract. He is already copping flak here for his “on the one hand …on the other hand …” attitude isn’t he?

                  • te reo putake …
                    11 January 2016 at 4:52 pm

                    Bullshit, Alwyn. Labour’s position is clear; I would have thought the title of the post might have hinted at that. As for ‘already copping flak’, you’re dreaming. A couple of comments out of hundreds on this post appear to be willfully ignorant about what Little has said, and those have been from the usual Labour haters. So, nah. mate, this definate, defiant positioning has gone down very well indeed.

        • acrophobic 13.1.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 3:55 pm

          Thanks for presenting a warped and one sided opinion of NAFTA. For the record Canada has enjoyed huge benefits from NAFTA:

          http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp
          http://schools.yrdsb.ca/markville.ss/history/honours/travis.pdf

          Today 69% of Canadians surveyed believe NAFTA has had a positive or neutral effect on Canada (http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/20-years-on-canadians-warming-to-nafta-poll-shows).

          ISDS provisions are common sense ways of investors protecting their investment against future Govt policy that contravenes the free trade agreements. They are the same as ‘no-harm’ clauses in any common contract.

          • Macro 13.1.1.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 7:42 pm

            lol Go talk to a few Canadians about NAFTA.
            and from your link: (which is from a “financial magazine” so not exactly unbiased)

            Now, 20-plus years after the signing of the historic pact, Canadians remain divided on its benefits, although the gulf has narrowed, according to Angus Reid Global, which conducted surveys on the country’s mood then and now.

            ie more still oppose NAFTA
            Not exactly the whole hearted support that you say it is.
            Now the fact that Canadians middle class have overtaken the US middle class in wealth terms has infact nothing to do with NAFTA – but more to do with the extreme right wing policies of the US (eg their pitiful Health Care) which have constantly exacerbated inequality and hamstrung social development and progress.

    • Sacha 13.2
      8 January 2016 at 2:39 pm

      Won’t be ISDS unless a large corporate wants to buy our land.

      Pressure would come from other government signatories on behalf of their citizens we would be blocking sales to. They may also act in other ways to punish us for upsetting the ‘order’ of international agreements and setting a bad example for others.

  14. b waghorn 14
    8 January 2016 at 3:16 pm

    It will be interesting to see what Winston has to say about labours stand , to my untrained eye it lines labour up nicely with one of winnys favorite causes.
    Its hardly surprising the nats didn’t ask for an exemption for land ,as its one of keys economic plans to prop the economy up with overseas money.

    • Tautuhi 14.1
      10 January 2016 at 11:01 am

      John Key and National views overseas land and house buying as investment in the NZ Economy?

      Fuzzy logic in my mind?

      Bring back Winston NZ First

  15. acrophobic 15
    8 January 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Most of the left wing commentary around the TPPA is bordering on hysterical, and I remember much of the same irrationality over the China FTA, which has delivered billions of $ of benefit to NZ.

    The nonsense being spouted over the cost of medicines is particularly humorous.

    The TPPA will not INCREASE the cost of medicines by a single cent. Increasing the lifetime of patents may mean certain medicines remain at a set cost for longer, but that cost will not INCREASE, it will just not drop. Further the cost will continue to be covered by Pharmac, so any differential (which will only be for the added length of the patent life anyway) will be paid principally by high income earners through their taxes, something the left should be celebrating.

    But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story…

    • Anne 15.1
      8 January 2016 at 4:09 pm

      But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story…

      How about you follow your own advice. Then we might bother to read your diatribes.

      • acrophobic 15.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 4:11 pm

        How about you debate the points. No?

        • Anne 15.1.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 4:31 pm

          I’ve committed six comments on this post debating points and expressing my view plus a few on yesterday’s TPPA post. As I said… how about you check your [facts] before bursting into print.

          • acrophobic 15.1.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 4:38 pm

            You haven’t debated the points I made you were commenting on. Just ad-hominem.

            • Sacha 15.1.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 7:29 pm

              TPP is not a ‘free trade agreement’. China one was. You’ll recall who negotiated that one.

              • acrophobic …
                8 January 2016 at 10:25 pm

                The China FTA has strings attached, just as does the TPP. Labour negotiated most of the China FTA, before they lost their bottle and went al silly on trade.

            • In Vino 15.1.1.1.1.2
              8 January 2016 at 8:34 pm

              Ad hominem stultissimum.

        • red-blooded 15.1.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 4:58 pm

          “Increasing the lifetime of patents may mean certain medicines remain at a set cost for longer, but that cost will not INCREASE, it will just not drop.”
          …Which, compared to the current situation (Pharmac buying in cheaper versions) will require an INCREASE in funding or a DECREASE in buying power. Both of these possibilities have real consequences. As someone who depends on medication to control a lifelong health condition, I get worried by any threat to Pharmac’s buying power.

          “Further the cost will continue to be covered by Pharmac, so any differential (which will only be for the added length of the patent life anyway) will be paid principally by high income earners through their taxes, something the left should be celebrating.”

          People on the left don’t rejoice at high taxes as a way of punishing the wealthy. Don’t be so facile. Plus, we all pay tax, not just the wealthy. And let’s remember that NZ doesn’t rely solely on income tax. GST provides 37% of government revenue. And yes, I know rich people pay GST too, but with property exempt there are some design issues with this tax that advantage the wealthy.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_New_Zealand

    • Stuart Munro 15.2
      8 January 2016 at 4:26 pm

      “which has delivered billions of $ of benefit to NZ”

      Do you have a cost benefit analysis or is this your unsupported opinion?

      • acrophobic 15.2.1
        8 January 2016 at 4:36 pm

        “Between 2009 and 2014, total goods trade between New Zealand and China doubled to NZ$20 billion. New Zealand goods exports to China grew 50% in the year ended June 2014.
        We have traded more with China since the FTA entered into force in 2008 than in all our previous history, and growth is faster with China than any of our other major trading partners. The growth in New Zealand’s total global exports since 2008 is largely because of the growth in our exports to China.”

        https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-in-force/china-fta/

        • Stuart Munro 15.2.1.1
          8 January 2016 at 6:02 pm

          Yes, that’s a projection – no hard numbers that can be used to determine whether or not NZ has in fact benefited.

          • acrophobic 15.2.1.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 10:26 pm

            These are not projections, they are actual numbers.

            • Stuart Munro 15.2.1.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 11:33 pm

              They are numbers devoid of the detail that would allow them to be analysed effectively. Any FTA is a mixture of benefits and costs. (Even the TPPA seems to have achieved the deportation of that colossal waste of space Tim Groser). Greater trade flows between NZ and China are good if they stimulate rather than displace economic goods like employment.

              Good trade relations are easiest maintained between parties that cannot readily produce each other’s products – as in the case of NZ sheep and Saudi oil. Dairy access to the US is comparatively silly – the US can readily meet its own dairy production needs.

              Your link projects increased trade as a positive – it needs a breakdown that provides evidence to support that supposition. The rise of big box retail in NZ is not driven by local suppliers – it is a trend that is probably negative overall.

              • Acrophobic …
                10 January 2016 at 4:16 am

                Oh so first you claimed they were forecasts (you were wrong), now you claim they lack detail. Which is it?

                • Wisdumb …
                  10 January 2016 at 6:40 pm

                  Sorry for the late comment but I thought it better to put it forward because the same argument has been pushed in favour of the TPP elsewhere.

                  It is fatuous to say that the FTA with China is responsible for the doubling of NZ’s goods trade with China between 2009 and 2014. It is even more fatuous to say that the TPP will be the same.

                  All other nations trading with China, including the USA, increased their trade similarly over this period and most of them, particularly the USA, do not have China FTAs.

                  For example: in Whole Milk Powder, NZ’s greatest export to China and in which we are by far the world’s largest exporter, we increased our sales tonnage by 390%. Australia, with no FTA until the 2015 trade year, increased its sales by 200%. (Uruguay increased its sales by Infinity %, from 0 to 12,500 tons – beat that all comers FTA or not.)

                  In butter, NZ was also the largest exporter to China and increased sales by 300%. However, France and the USA, neither with an FTA with China, increased their sales by 300% and 1400% respectively, though from a much smaller base than NZ.

                  In Skim Milk Powder, NZ was also by far the greatest seller into China. Our sales increased by 250%. USA increased sales by 820% and Australia increased sales by 168%.

                  In Bulk and Packaged Milk NZ increased its exports to China by 1300% but Germany increased their exports by 8,360% and sold nearly four times as much as NZ. Australia increased its sales by 2,670% on sales that were 33% greater than NZ’s.

                  Master link: http://www.clal.it/en/?section=stat_cina

                  The actual data comes from the red sub-links in the first data column.

                  It was not so much our FTA that increased NZ’s dairy trade with China but the fact that China has been going through a huge demographic-economic transformation that is unlikely to occur ever again. This has benefited all trading nations.

                  It follows that to imply that the TPP is a good thing because it will similarly increase NZ’s trade with the other member nation is utter nonsense. We have been trading our guts out with Australia, the USA, Japan, and so on for decades, our trade levels are already high, and there is no possibility of huge gains from a once-off transformation similar to China.

                  Finally, I understand that there is no ISDS under the China FTA. Disputes are to be settled at a state to state level, and do not infringe our sovereignty, a fact that people like acrophobia should remember.

        • Macro 15.2.1.2
          8 January 2016 at 7:55 pm

          And how many NZ jobs have been lost (ie exported to China) because of the “FTA”?
          I’ll give you a hint
          Timber milling
          Glass products
          Boat building
          to name a few.

          • acrophobic 15.2.1.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 10:29 pm

            …and then there’s dairy, seafood…

            • ropata 15.2.1.2.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 11:13 pm

              Our value added industries have been gutted and we’ve reverted to being a primary producer of raw commodities. NZ has been deliberately excluded from the value chain and the Nats are even facilitating the sale of our primary resources!! (forestry, farms, and probably fisheries next).

              Not that neolib arsewipes give a crap, as long as they can make a quick buck.

              • acrophobic …
                8 January 2016 at 11:24 pm

                What utter nonsense. Our tourism industry is booming, as is our tech industry, even manufacturing is growing. What country do you live in Ropata?

                • Stuart Munro …
                  8 January 2016 at 11:40 pm

                  NZ fisheries are among the worst developed in the world. We have roughly the same littoral area as Japan – but 1% of the return and 1% of the jobs. Kiwis eat fish on the average not more than once a month. Our per kilo returns are also among the lowest in the world – chiefly due to the predominance of the mussel trade. The QMS established a real monopoly, blocking new entrants and innovation and imposing a large additional capital cost that makes NZ fish extremely pricey even in the local market. It’s a bulk commodity industry – 1960s style, like everything the Gnats do.

                  • Sacha …
                    11 January 2016 at 5:03 pm

                    Drying milk into powder counts as ‘manufacturing’. Remove that basic stuff and NZ manufacturing has been in decline for many years now. Real ambishus.

                • ropata …
                  9 January 2016 at 11:02 pm

                  I live in a country that has seen the most astonishing growth of inequality and poverty in the OECD. Do you live on Planet Key or something?

                • Macro …
                  11 January 2016 at 7:39 pm

                  Manufacturing – growth! Yeah! Right!

                  • acrophobic …
                    12 January 2016 at 1:06 pm

                    Wow…thanks for making my point! That’s healthy growth over the past 3 years or so.

                    • Macro …
                      12 January 2016 at 1:50 pm

                      Are you actually able to read a graph?
                      Obviously not from the above response.

                    • Macro …
                      12 January 2016 at 1:56 pm

                      The graph clearly shows that under National manufacturing (ex dairying – ie turning milk into powder) has declined.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      The line in question is light blue. It rises from 85 in Q1 2010 to between 90 and 95 in Q1 2015. But why would you exclude meat and dairy? I notice that is becoming a Labour Party meme, which doesn’t surprise me because they’re finding it so difficult to criticise the Govt they’ll manipulate any data.

                      You’ll also want an update on your year old data:

                      “Today’s release of the Economic Survey of Manufacturing by Statistics New Zealand showed solid growth in the manufacturing sector, with all manufacturing sales values increasing 4.2% on the previous quarter, and sales of manufacturing excluding meat and dairy growing by 3.0% in the same period, say the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA).”

                      http://nzmanufacturer.co.nz/2015/12/manufacturing-shows-growth/

                      Manufacturing is growing, even excluding meat and dairy. Yahoo!

  16. whateva next? 16
    8 January 2016 at 3:49 pm

    “Most of the left wing commentary around the TPPA is bordering on hysterical, …”
    Evidence? or just spin?
    “The TPPA will not INCREASE the cost of medicines by a single cent…”
    Evidence? or just spin?

    • acrophobic 16.1
      8 January 2016 at 4:12 pm

      If you read my post, you’ll have your answers.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 16.2
      8 January 2016 at 4:17 pm

      The TPP gives what is called data protection to drug manufacturers. That means the data from clinical trials, from which drug approval is based, won’t be released for five to eight years. The result is that cheaper, generic drugs will be more difficult to manufacture in countries that sign the agreement.

      “[And] without competition from a generic provider, the prices will be higher for everyday drugs,” says Tim Fernholz, a writer for Quartz.

      The TPP’s data protection is specifically for a new class of drugs called biologicals, which are considered the next wave of medications — medications that could help treat cancer and be used to develop effective vaccines. Biologicals are basically any treatment derived from natural substances, like most vaccines, as opposed to most drugs which are created using chemistry in a lab.

      http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-21/new-trade-agreement-may-export-high-us-drug-prices-third-world-3

      • whateva next? 16.2.1
        8 January 2016 at 4:26 pm

        That’s more like it, some substance at last, cheers

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 16.2.2
        8 January 2016 at 4:59 pm

        @Acrophobic
        ““The TPP will not INCREASE the cost of medicines by a single cent…”

        First, this statement is ambiguous: You have successfully argued that the cost of an individual medicine will not rise, but in doing so have admitted that the (overall) cost of medicines will rise. You also ignore the fact that the burden falls on all of us. May you or one of your loved ones never get a disease that requires a new biologic that may have been affordable prior to the imposition of increased costs on PHARMAC as a result of the TPP.

        There are four areas of potential impact on PHARMAC:
        (i) A reduction in the degree of flexibility and autonomy available to PHARMAC to prioritise and re-prioritise its assessment of applications;
        (ii) New and unnecessary administrative costs: in addition to one-off establishment costs, PHARMAC estimates that it will cost $910,000 annually to administer the consideration of funding applications within set timeframes;21
        (iii) Potential for increased lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry for shorter
        timeframes; and
        (iv) Requests for consultations from other Parties, especially the US, under Para 26-A.4.

        http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Gleeson-Preliminary-Analysis-Transparency-Annex-12-Dec-2015-1.pdf

        • acrophobic 16.2.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

          “…but in doing so have admitted that the (overall) cost of medicines will rise. ”

          No. The overall cost will not rise. Some medicines will remain at their current cost for longer. That is not a ‘rise’.

          “There are four areas of potential impact on PHARMAC:”

          Perhaps, but this is all largely speculation. I’m particularly suspicious of the first claim, but overall they are irrelevant to my point which addressed the hysteria over the allegations that drugs will increase in cost. There is no evidence that they will.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 5:19 pm

            Of course there isn’t, you dimwit, since the TPPA is not in force all we have to go on is informed opinion (which doesn’t include yours).

            The lying Prime Minister says the government (ie: taxpayers – again not you, you’re a drain on society) will fund the extra costs to keep the retail price of medicines unchanged.

            If you had a clue you’d know that, and you don’t.

            • acrophobic 16.2.2.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 5:23 pm

              Well there is an awful lot of fearmongering going on considering you don’t seem to have a clue what is going to happen.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 January 2016 at 5:30 pm

                I have plenty of clues, moran, not that you’ve provided any. For example, Northshoredoc is a better source on this subject: a better wingnut than you’ll ever be.

                • acrophobic …
                  8 January 2016 at 5:32 pm

                  Then post some actual hard evidence. Where is the actual evidence that someone will pay one cent more for a medication after the TPP is signed?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 January 2016 at 5:38 pm

                    Are you dense as well as dishonest? What part of all we have to go on is informed opinion are you having trouble with?

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 5:46 pm

                      Yet you continue to support the fearmongering…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 6:03 pm

                      You can call it what you like, and that says something about you. You Tory wankers want to restrain my trade to satisfy your Yankee crush: do it on your own dime, shitheel.

                    • acrophobic …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:31 pm

                      “Restrain your trade’??” Not likely. Care to give an example?

                      “to satisfy your Yankee crush” Ah, I wondered when the anti-US xenophobia would surface.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:38 pm

                      Criticising National Party sycophancy is not xenophobia.

                      If you don’t know how the TPPA restrains trade you haven’t been paying attention.

                    • Acrophobic []
                      10 January 2016 at 4:19 am

                      The expression you used showed your true bias OAB.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:40 am

                      What, “yankee crush”? A colourful turn of phrase to describe the National Party’s obscene and corrupt attitude to political donations and policy, and you can detect an entire system of predetermination from it? I think you’re being far too PC.

                      In any case, since when does the flailing of neo-Liberal fucktards constitute “the US”? Some of the best critiques of their incompetence comes from the same source.

          • whateva next? 16.2.2.1.2
            8 January 2016 at 5:20 pm

            ” The overall cost will not rise. Some medicines will remain at their current cost for longer. That is not a ‘rise’”
            ummmm, and making inaccessible for longer……..? doesn’t that equate to making a difference?
            It’s probably wasting both of our time continuing with this debate as you seem to be operating within a different paradigm altogether, I hope you are right and I am wrong

            • acrophobic 16.2.2.1.2.1
              8 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

              The cost remaining the same is not the same as the cost increasing. This is unambiguous. As to making generic alternatives inaccessible, that is conditional on the life of the patent, and the availability of generics.

              • mickysavage …
                8 January 2016 at 9:19 pm

                Either the total cost goes up or the quality goes down. Either way Kiwis miss out.

                • acrophobic …
                  8 January 2016 at 9:30 pm

                  1. The cost doesn’t go up. It stays the same for longer, but it doesn’t go up.
                  2. There is no evidence the quality goes down.

                  • whateva next? …
                    9 January 2016 at 12:16 pm

                    We wait the 3 years until the license expires, then buy a cheaper version of the same medicine, we don’t buy it at it’s vastly inflated price,
                    “The cost doesn’t go up. It stays the same for longer, but it doesn’t go up.”
                    we will wait alot longer for medicines which can significantly benefit people.

          • Sacha 16.2.2.1.3
            8 January 2016 at 7:33 pm

            The government reluctantly admitted during last year that Pharmac’s budget will need to be increased because of TPP. Gee, why would they do that if total med costs wouldn’t be going up?

            • acrophobic 16.2.2.1.3.1
              8 January 2016 at 10:32 pm

              Simple. Some drugs will cost the same as now for longer.

            • Sacha 16.2.2.1.3.2
              9 January 2016 at 11:31 am

              The modest new administrative costs cited by Groser are a red herring.

              For the benefit of others (not our dense troll), Pharmac will have a longer wait to use savings from cheaper generics to help buy other drugs, so their overall budget will need to increase – by tens or hundreds of millions per year. This becomes more pressing given the increasing use of costly biologic drugs, which is why those were a feature of the late negotiations.

              However the biggest risk is that global big pharma will use the clauses they specifically inserted in TPP to apply legal pressure on Pharmac’s decisions, increasing prices or reducing access. They have long resented Pharmac’s ability to negotiate in the interests of NZ citizens rather than pharma shareholders.

        • acrophobic 16.2.2.2
          8 January 2016 at 5:53 pm

          Meanwhile…

          “Groser said Kiwis will not pay any more for medicine as a result of the TPPA and the “cost of the subsidy bill will not go up [by] any large extent”.

          It will cost roughly $4.5 million in the first year to set up the software to provide the additional information that negotiating partners wanted.

          After that operating costs will be about $2.5m a year – a “tiny rounding error” on what is a large health budget, he said.”

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72688061/No-increased-medicine-costs-under-TPPA

          • mickysavage 16.2.2.2.1
            8 January 2016 at 9:18 pm

            So kiwis are paying more, in their taxes rather than in their prescription charges.

            • acrophobic 16.2.2.2.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 10:33 pm

              The cost of some drugs will stay the same for longer. I know of NO drugs that will cost more.

      • acrophobic 16.2.3
        8 January 2016 at 5:19 pm

        Please explain how this has anything to do with whether prices will go UP.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.3.1
          8 January 2016 at 5:24 pm

          Please explain why you’re contradicting your lying Prime Minister. Do you think the lying Prime Minister is lying, or are you:

          a: Lying or,
          b: Running off at the mouth in incompetent ignorance for which you will demonstrate no personal responsibility.

          Which is it Glibertard?

          • acrophobic 16.2.3.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 5:29 pm

            I am not John Key. I am voicing my own opinion. If you evidence I am wrong, debate the issues.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.3.1.1.1
              8 January 2016 at 5:33 pm

              I am, liar.

              Why do you tell so many lies? Can we charitably assume that you tell so many lies because you’re utterly devoid of original thoughts or opinions, or are you in fact a mendacious wretch, like the Prime Minister?

              • acrophobic …
                8 January 2016 at 5:45 pm

                No you aren’t. You can’t quote one single lie I have told, because I haven’t. Yet you won’t debate the issues…

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 January 2016 at 6:24 pm

                  Your rote-learned lies (all of them) on the Greenhouse Effect are lies. Your rote-learned lies on Lab5’s economic competence are lies (note that I’m not saying Lab5 were economically competent, just that the rote learned lies you tell on the subject are lies). Your rote-learned lies about poverty, are lies.

                  Your rote-learned lies about the TPPA, are lies.

                  Even Bill English contradicts your rote-learned lies. Even the lying Prime Minister contradicts your rote-learned lies when it suits him.

                  Why is that?

                  • acrophobic …
                    8 January 2016 at 10:34 pm

                    It is very convenient that you quote not a single example, just a wave of the hand. If there are so many, quote one specific example. Just one.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 January 2016 at 10:44 pm

                      I already have, multiple times, on multiple threads. “This is the rainy day the government has been saving up for” ring any bells?

                      Your lies about welfare have been debunked so many times by so many people – check out Werewolf’s ten myths about welfare and see how many boxes you tick – pretty sure it’s all of them.

                      Your lies about the Greenhouse Effect come straight from the list of denier lies, as can be seen by cross-reference with Skeptical Science.

                      I’m inclined to be charitable and assume that you believe these lies because you’re biased and stupid, rather than that you’re deliberately mendacious, but really, who cares: kids are still dying while you tell them.

                    • Acrophobic []
                      10 January 2016 at 4:24 am

                      So still not a single example then.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 January 2016 at 10:24 am

                      There’s an author search function, you know. I’ve caught you lying multiple times on multiple threads, often about your very own links (willful and deliberate, for example), on every subject from the Greenhouse Effect to poverty to economics to recent New Zealand history.

                      Anyone can check the veracity of this statement by using the aforementioned author search.

                      Why do you lie so much? Why are all your lies copied from pre-existing lies told by other people?

                    • acrophobic …
                      10 January 2016 at 12:44 pm

                      “There’s an author search function, you know. ”

                      Yep, used it. Still you haven’t provided a single example.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 January 2016 at 12:59 pm

                      “Willful and deliberate”, for example. Bad choices, for example. No anthropogenic competent to warming despite isotope ratios, for example. Treasury says Labour did it, for example.

                      Each one of these lies has been thoroughly rebutted every time you or some other dull grey zombie parrot squawks them out.

                      What I’m really interested in, however, is the fact that none of the lies you tell are original: every single one of them is borrowed from third parties.

                      Is it bad faith: cynical malice, motivated by hate and denial, or are you a genuine Hodson-Busseri archetypical dupe?

                      Perhaps it’s both.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:20 am

                      They aren’t lies, in some cases they aren’t even what I said! (where did I say “No anthropogenic competent to warming”??). In the case of the Treasury comments, I posted the actual citation!! Come back with real examples OAB. You’re just making a fool of yourself.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:22 am

                      Acrophobic, honestly mate you’re not worth the effort. Go away and live as a minion in your little plutocratic dream land.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:43 am

                      It seems like you’re the one who made the effort.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:26 pm

                      You gave yet another example of a citation that contradicted your lies. Except they aren’t yours, you just rote-learned them.

                    • Paul …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:34 pm

                      cv, we have a choice.
                      We can allow these rwnj trolls to derail these threads or we can ignore them.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 4:48 pm

                      “You gave yet another example of a citation that contradicted your lies. ”

                      Another unsubstantiated claim.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      You think that because the link is on the page in another comment, rather than in the comment you’re replying to, you get to pretend it’s “unsubstantiated”.

                      You were shown then to be lying, and everyone can see by simply searching for the term meanwhile, on Earth, under the heading “Current NZ Situation”…

                      Stop being a tiresome cretin. Stop repeated rote-learned lies.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 12:58 pm

                      Your comment was “You gave yet another example of a citation that contradicted your lies. ”

                      What was the citation? What was the contradiction? You’ve made the claim, and now you can’t substantiate it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 January 2016 at 1:08 pm

                      Then I suggest you either learn to use the search function at the top of the page, or develop a better memory than a goldfish.

                      The citation in question is from the Treasury department. If you can’t find it, you either aren’t looking, or you’re as stupid and incompetent as whoever made up the lies you repeat ad nauseam.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      “Then I suggest you either learn to use the search function at the top of the page, or develop a better memory than a goldfish.”

                      It was your claim OAB. “You gave yet another example of a citation that contradicted your lies. ”

                      I ask again. What was the citation, and what did it contradict.

                      One last chance now to stop looking like an idiot.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 January 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      You cited a Treasury document in support of your (plagiarised) claim that Lab5 caused the 2008 recession. In fact, your cite showed that Treasury put it down to drought, high interest rates and the price of oil.

                      Further, Treasury in 2008 said that successive governments had left the country in good shape to weather the GFC storm.

                      So your own source – the Treasury department – contradicts the lines you learned.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 5:33 pm

                      “In fact, your cite showed that Treasury put it down to drought, high interest rates and the price of oil.”

                      “Further, Treasury in 2008 said that successive governments had left the country in good shape to weather the GFC storm.

                      So your own source – the Treasury department – contradicts the lines you learned.”

                      So when we get down to it, you are simply a dishonest troll. You are, in fact, so dishonest, you can neither cite my actual comment, the Treasury cite, or the thread on which it my comment appeared.

                      Now I will show conclusively what a dishonest little puppy you are.

                      The Treasury document I cited is available to everyone at http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2010/04.htm.

                      The actual quote is as follows:

                      “The New Zealand economy entered recession in early 2008, before the effects of the global financial crisis set in later in the year. A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008 as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.”

                      I make the following points:

                      1. Treasury do NOT blame the drought for the recession. Indeed the country has suffered worse droughts since, (http://www.3news.co.nz/business/drought-caused-economic-slowdown–treasury-2013093015#axzz3x06D1FgW) and while they may slow the economy, there is no suggestion the drought of 2008 caused the recession.
                      2. Treasury goes on to state specifically that throughout 2008 there was a “slowdown in domestic activity as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption, while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.” This is the part that Labour screwed up. They ran a high inflation, high interest rate economy, largely due to poor fiscal restraint and poor quality spending. This pushed up inflation and interest rates, which would have been key drivers throughout other areas of the economy. In particular investment value was eroded.

                      So, OAB, you are a liar. My claim that Labour were behind the early slide of our economy into recession is absolutely borne out by Treasury, just as the ‘decade of deficits’ showed what incompetent’s that were at running the nations finances.

                      But then I guess a party who paid 1bn for a train set, who tried to steal over $400k from the taxpayer, and who are having to plead for funds to continue to be solvent should never have been allowed in charge of the economy in the first place.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      They ran a high inflation, high interest rate economy, largely due to poor fiscal restraint and poor quality spending.

                      So milk production and global food prices were under the control of the Labour government, then? High interest rates were the domain of the Reserve Bank.

                      The housing market is an issue because it has two economies (auckland and everywhere else) and only one real setting, the OCR. Treasury did say in 2008 that NZ was well set to face the event now known as the GFC.

                      Your link says that drought slowed the economy, fuel prices slowed the economy, and food prices slowed the economy, and then the GFC began to be felt in september 2008.

                      That’s not blaming Labour.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 6:24 pm

                      “So milk production and global food prices were under the control of the Labour government, then? High interest rates were the domain of the Reserve Bank.”

                      Interest rates rise when Govt spending is out of control and poorly targeted.

                      “Treasury did say in 2008 that NZ was well set to face the event now known as the GFC.”

                      Indeed they did, but that was no credit to the Clark Labour party, more like the Douglas one.

                      ‘Your link says that drought slowed the economy, fuel prices slowed the economy, and food prices slowed the economy, and then the GFC began to be felt in september 2008.”

                      Drought always slow an economy, they don’t always put it into recession. Internal prices are very much impacted by Govt policy.

                      “That’s not blaming Labour.”

                      Yep, it is.

                      Good attempt to rescue OAB, but no cigar.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2016 at 6:42 pm

                      “Interest rates rise when Govt spending is out of control and poorly targeted.”

                      Bullshit.

                      The world’s hierarchy of central banks determine where interest rates should be, and they can hit the rate they want every single time.

                      It’s like the USA wasting $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan and keeping interest rates under 1%. Easy.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2016 at 7:26 pm

                      You misread my motives: OAB doesn’t need rescuing.

                      I just wanted to see how far you’d go to argue that a drought in concert with rising fuel prices in concert with rising food prices were all irrelevant to NZ slowing down into a recession that Labour, apparently, “were behind” because of… well, nothing that National has changed fundamentally since then.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 7:30 pm

                      “The world’s hierarchy of central banks determine where interest rates should be, and they can hit the rate they want every single time.”

                      The decisions of central banks are impacted by the prevailing and anticipated inflation rates, which are in turn influenced by govt spending patterns. It’s simple economics.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 7:32 pm

                      “I just wanted to see how far you’d go to argue that a drought in concert with rising fuel prices in concert with rising food prices were all irrelevant to NZ slowing down into a recession that Labour, apparently, “were behind” because of… well, nothing that National has changed fundamentally since then.”

                      It’s not hard to grasp. And you’re not reading what I’m saying are you? The rising prices are, at least in part, the fault of poor govt spending decisions. National has had to cope with worse droughts, yet we’ve still recorded growth that puts us in the ‘rock star economy’ boat according to some.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2016 at 8:12 pm

                      And you’re not reading what I’m saying are you? The rising prices are, at least in part, the fault of poor govt spending decisions.

                      Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if it weren’t part of a global trend at the time.

                      National has had to cope with worse droughts, yet we’ve still recorded growth that puts us in the ‘rock star economy’ boat according to some.

                      According to fuckwits who think the best sort of economy is one where money is funnelled from ordinary citizens into the pockets of NZers into the pockets of corporates and the already rich, via skyrocketing national debt and asset sales.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 January 2016 at 8:45 pm

                      Successive governments have done a good job of getting the New Zealand economy in a position where it can respond well to economic shocks. Low levels of public debt allow freedom to look through short-term cyclical fluctuations and there is room to adjust monetary policy to support demand.

                      According to a certain parrot, this analysis comes from the same crew who says it was all Lab5’s fault because “poor spending decisions”.

                      Won’t someone please rescue me 😈

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 8:47 pm

                      “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if it weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”

                      That’s pretty lame. NZ was one of only a very few countries to be heading for recession before the GFC. AND we got a decade of deficits.

                      “According to fuckwits who think the best sort of economy is one where money is funnelled from ordinary citizens into the pockets of NZers into the pockets of corporates and the already rich, via skyrocketing national debt and asset sales.”

                      No, according to the vast majority of economic commentators, with the currently ruling party returned by substantial majorities over the also ran in each of the past 2 elections.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2016 at 9:02 pm

                      “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if it weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”

                      That’s pretty lame. NZ was one of only a very few countries to be heading for recession before the GFC. AND we got a decade of deficits.

                      You said inflation in food and fuel caused the interest rates that caused the early recession. But the inflation happened across the globe. So it wasn’t the result of NZ government policy. We went in early, but we were also better placed to deal with it. And cite the decade of deficits.

                      “According to fuckwits who think the best sort of economy is one where money is funnelled from ordinary citizens into the pockets of NZers into the pockets of corporates and the already rich, via skyrocketing national debt and asset sales.”

                      No, according to the vast majority of economic commentators,

                      The terms are largely interchangeable
                      with the currently ruling party returned by substantial majorities over the also ran in each of the past 2 elections. “substantial majorities” – you’re a fucking liar. 48% and a couple of rotten boroughs bought off is not a “substantial majority”, even if a third of voters weren’t so alienated from thesystem they refused to participate.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 9:21 pm

                      “Successive governments have done a good job of getting the New Zealand economy in a position where it can respond well to economic shocks. Low levels of public debt allow freedom to look through short-term cyclical fluctuations and there is room to adjust monetary policy to support demand.”

                      Absolutely, when referring to debt. But not when referring to the quality of spending and control over internal costs. Then there’s the decade of deficits…

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 9:30 pm

                      “You said inflation in food and fuel caused the interest rates that caused the early recession. But the inflation happened across the globe. So it wasn’t the result of NZ government policy.”

                      Nonsense. In 2007 the US inflation rate had declined from 3.4% to 2.5% (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/). For the same years Australia’s inflation rate dropped from 3.5% to 2.3% (http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/australia-historical-inflation-rate). Your just making stuff up.

                      “We went in early, but we were also better placed to deal with it. And cite the decade of deficits.”
                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10536181

                      ““substantial majorities” – you’re a fucking liar. 48% and a couple of rotten boroughs bought off is not a “substantial majority”, even if a third of voters weren’t so alienated from thesystem they refused to participate.”

                      No, you are just ignorant. My comment read “currently ruling party returned by substantial majorities over the also ran”. In 2014, National won 47.04%, Labour 25.13%. In 2011, National won 47.31%, Labour 27.48%. They are huge majorities.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      12 January 2016 at 10:26 pm

                      the quality of spending and control over internal costs

                      🙄

                      Vacuous drivel.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2016 at 10:29 pm

                      So global food and fuel inflation does not always mirror US CPI. Slow clap.

                      You have successfully demonstrated that you don’t realise that MMP requires coalitions: 60 out of 121 seats isn’t a “ruling party”. Allies need to be counted too. Another slow clap.

                      “decade of deficits” – lol, aren’t you the one who bitches about “opinion pieces” and “scant evidence”…

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 11:12 am

                      “So global food and fuel inflation does not always mirror US CPI. Slow clap.”

                      You said increasing inflation happened across the globe. You were wrong.

                      “You have successfully demonstrated that you don’t realise that MMP requires coalitions: 60 out of 121 seats isn’t a “ruling party”. Allies need to be counted too. Another slow clap.”

                      You have successfully demonstrated you didn’t read what I wrote before commenting.

                      ““decade of deficits” – lol, aren’t you the one who bitches about “opinion pieces” and “scant evidence”…”

                      Brian Fallow is referring to a Treasury forecast. That was labour’s legacy of incompetence.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 January 2016 at 11:33 am

                      You just can’t resist being dishonest, eh. You have failed (it’s because you’re a plagiarist failure) to provide anything to back up your feeble drivel. The Treasury documents you cited say the opposite.

                      Why are your lies all so transparently rote-learned?

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 12:28 pm

                      The Treasury document says we went into recession before the GFC. The Treasury document says the economy had high internal costs which were to blame. Labour was running the economy. Or should that be ruining the economy.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2016 at 1:16 pm

                      The Treasury document says the economy had high internal costs which were to blame.

                      Yawn. Bored now.
                      The treasury document said there were high food prices, high fuel prices, and a drought that hurt dairy production were to blame. Global indices show that the food and fuel cost increases were not limited to NZ. And Labour doesn’t control the weather. That leaves the high interest rates (set by the reserve bank) – falling house prices are actually a good thing.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 2:14 pm

                      “The treasury document said there were high food prices, high fuel prices, and a drought that hurt dairy production were to blame.”
                      I note that no-one on the left has indulged the National government with any excuses around droughts.

                      “Global indices show that the food and fuel cost increases were not limited to NZ.”
                      I’ve already provided a cite that shows inflation was declining in the US and Australia.

                      “And Labour doesn’t control the weather. That leaves the high interest rates (set by the reserve bank) – falling house prices are actually a good thing.”
                      You’re right about the weather, but that’s about it. Interest rates are most definitely influenced by Govt policy, specifically Govt spending. And Govt policy certainly impacts inflation, which is another driver of interest rates.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      13 January 2016 at 2:21 pm

                      Government spending accounted for precisely the same percentage of the economy in 2008 than it did in 1999.

                      Where does Treasury mention poor spending decisions? They don’t.

                      This new accusation is backed by your worthless plagiarised opinion and nothing else.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2016 at 3:26 pm

                      “The treasury document said there were high food prices, high fuel prices, and a drought that hurt dairy production were to blame.”
                      I note that no-one on the left has indulged the National government with any excuses around droughts.

                      That’s because national’s economic mismanagement is more significant than any drought.

                      “Global indices show that the food and fuel cost increases were not limited to NZ.”
                      I’ve already provided a cite that shows inflation was declining in the US and Australia.

                      What you haven’t provided is anything related to food and fuel prices – you know, the things Treasury actually mentioned. Food and fuel. Not including cheap clothes, bluray players and anything else in the CPI basket. Whereas I actually linked to global food prices and Brent oil rates.

                      “And Labour doesn’t control the weather. That leaves the high interest rates (set by the reserve bank) – falling house prices are actually a good thing.”
                      You’re right about the weather, but that’s about it. Interest rates are most definitely influenced by Govt policy, specifically Govt spending. And Govt policy certainly impacts inflation, which is another driver of interest rates.

                      Inflation overall wasn’t a problem, according to Treasury. Just inflation in food and fuel prices that slowed down the economy. The criterion for interest rate adjustments is CPI inflation.

                      Labour wasn’t perfect, by any means. But your claim ” Labour were behind the early slide of our economy into recession is absolutely borne out by Treasury” does not match what Treasury said in the slightest.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:09 pm

                      “That’s because national’s economic mismanagement is more significant than any drought.”

                      Good luck with providing any evidence for that!

                      “What you haven’t provided is anything related to food and fuel prices – you know, the things Treasury actually mentioned.”

                      The data I provided was about inflation rates. This was in response to your comment about Inflation rates. (“Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.” My emphasis added.)

                      “Inflation overall wasn’t a problem, according to Treasury. Just inflation in food and fuel prices that slowed down the economy. The criterion for interest rate adjustments is CPI inflation.”

                      Inflation was indeed a problem. NZ’s inflation rate in 2006 (when the first signs of slipping growth occurred) was 3.8% (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nz&v=71). That compared unfavourably with most other nations (http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/cpi-inflation-2006.aspx), and with the OECD average of 3.3% (http://www.indexmundi.com/new_zealand/inflation_rate_(consumer_prices).html).

                      “But your claim ” Labour were behind the early slide of our economy into recession is absolutely borne out by Treasury” does not match what Treasury said in the slightest.”

                      Yes, it does. Labour were too slow to deliver tax cuts, and too greedy with the income it did receive.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:21 pm

                      The data I provided was about inflation rates. This was in response to your comment about Inflation rates. (“Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.” My emphasis added.)

                      The data you provided was about Consumer Price Index inflation. Not the food price index or fuel prices, you know, the things that measure “inflation in food and fuel prices”. The things Treasury mentioned. That’s why I linked to the global FPI and crude prices.

                      Fuck, you’re a waste of space.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:23 pm

                      “Government spending accounted for precisely the same percentage of the economy in 2008 than it did in 1999.”

                      1. Why the cherry picking of the dates? Why go backwards? In 2004, government spending was 34.1% of GDP. By 2007 that figure was 40%, and by 2008/09 this had risen further to 45.8! (http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/99f91186d74.pdf). Govt expenditure as a % of GDP fell under the previous National govt, and then began rising almost immediately from the early 2000’s after (yes you guessed it) the election of a Labour govt. (http://ips.ac.nz/publications/files/99f91186d74.pdf). This graph http://www.pwc.co.nz/nz-budget-2014/government-spending/ shows in very simple terms the spending records of Labour and National.

                      2. Here’s an indication of how poorly NZ fared globally when govt spending (as measured by ‘public consumption’) was measured in 2005 – http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/tp/govtsize/13.htm

                      “Where does Treasury mention poor spending decisions? They don’t.”
                      The link is obvious. Poor spending = high internal cost = high inflation = high interest rates. There’s no shortage of Labour’s election bribes, btw. Interest free student loans, WFF (middle class welfare). And then there’s the $1bn train set.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

                      “The data you provided was about Consumer Price Index inflation. Not the food price index or fuel prices, you know, the things that measure “inflation in food and fuel prices”. The things Treasury mentioned. That’s why I linked to the global FPI and crude prices. Fuck, you’re a waste of space.”

                      I’m simply calling you out. Your claim was about inflation (“Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”), not just those components. You were wrong, as my citation showed.

                      Not only that, but Treasury were actually generous to Labour. They could have mentioned the overall cost increases within the economy, but concentrated on those most readily identifiable. National has kept the CPI very low, which is far better for businesses, and certainly far better for those on low incomes.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:37 pm

                      For the last time: treasury (and I) talked about food and fuel price inflation. Not CPI inflation. Otherwise they would have mentioned CPI, rather than just food and fuel.

                      You’re either a moron or intentionally confusing the issue. Sadly, there’s no bullshit index to indicate whether your discharges are inflating or deflating. Maybe you’ll link to PPI or indeed left-rear tyre inflation in an attempt to “call me out” on the claim.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:45 pm

                      “For the last time: treasury (and I) talked about food and fuel price inflation. Not CPI inflation. Otherwise they would have mentioned CPI, rather than just food and fuel.”

                      But it was YOUR comment I was replying to. YOUR comment mentioned inflation.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 5:58 pm

                      “A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008, as high fuel and food prices dampened private consumption, while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.”

                      http://www.nzdmo.govt.nz/publications/nzefo/archive/pdfs/nzefo-10.pdf

                      There’s something else you need to consider. The Treasury comment relates to activity in 2008. Let’s assume for a moment you’re correct, that none of these factors can be blamed on Labour. An absurd notion, but let’s assume you’re correct. Why then was growth declining from 2006 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp-growth), including a sharp decline throughout 2007, eventually into technical recession?

                    • McFlock …
                      13 January 2016 at 9:15 pm

                      No, you weren’t responding to my comment.

                      You’re the one who conflated “food and fuel” with “CPI” in direct response to your own quotation of treasury (my boldface):

                      2. Treasury goes on to state specifically that throughout 2008 there was a “slowdown in domestic activity as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption, while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.” This is the part that Labour screwed up. They ran a high inflation, high interest rate economy

                      You’re the one who brought CPI inflation into the discussion. Not me, not Treasury. Everyone else was talking food and fuel price inflation. I would accuse you of strawman arguments, but really you’re just a stupid fuckwit who can’t follow his own comments. Your ego’s writing cheques that your simply IQ can’t cash. You’re a corrupt and incompetent apologist for a corrupt and incompetent government.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 January 2016 at 6:01 am

                      The link is obvious.

                      The “link” is in your worthless plagiarised opinion. The quality of the spending decisions you cite is likewise, a matter of opinion, and your opinion has no value, because it’s twisted by hate and dishonesty.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 10:20 am

                      McFlock your comment was unambiguous. You referred specifically to Inflation. “It” you called it. You were proven wrong. Get over it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 January 2016 at 10:46 am

                      What McFlock actually said was “the inflation”.

                      English comprehension 101?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 10:50 am

                      Humans derive meaning of words from the context in which they are used. The context in this case involves a Treasury quote about food and fuel inflation.

                      I was not referring to the inflation of the universe, CPI inflation, or inflation of my car tyres. You might have picked whatever definition suited you at the time, but that was purely to forestall deflation of your unearned self esteem,

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”

                      The IT was inflation.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”

                      The IT was inflation.

                      the “it” was inflation in food and fuel prices. Not CPI (which is a different measure that is not restricted to food and fuel prices), you stupid, stupid, stupid piece of shit.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:30 pm

                      How can ‘fuel and food priceS’ be an ‘it’? You’re getting desperate.

                      But now the final cut.

                      Here is NZ’s food price index since 2006. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/food-inflation. Select “10 yr” on the variables.

                      Then do the same for Australia: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/food-inflation

                      You’ll see that NZ’s food price index was increasing rapidly from 2006-2008, whereas Australia’s declined.

                      Whichever way you look at, you’re making shit up.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:42 pm

                      How can ‘fuel and food priceS’ be an ‘it’? You’re getting desperate.

                      “desperate” is having to split the subject of a sentence in half in order to maintain your confusion regarding a point a three year old would have understood by now.

                      The subject was “inflation in food and fuel prices”. Similar use of the word “inflation”: “inflation of my front and rear tyres was quick. It only took a couple of minutes”.

                      Only a complete fucking moron would assume that “inflation in food and fuel prices” refers to inflation of a seperate index that extends well beyond food and fuel. Didn’t your teachers ever explain to you that if you were confused about something, you should ask for help?

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:42 pm

                      Do you want to see the US? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/food-inflation.

                      Their index went from just under 3 to just over 6. NZ’s went from just over 2 to just under 11!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      So whichever way you look at it, you’re just plain wrong.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:45 pm

                      “The subject was “inflation in food and fuel prices”. ”

                      No, because “food and fuel prices” are not an ‘it’. You stuffed up and now your running.

                      Besides, my posts on food price inflation show you’ve been talking shite.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      FINALLY you provide a relevant link, like with like.

                      Now, explain to me how the australian graph counters my claim that there was a global trend in rising food prices? Especially as my claim related to the global food price index?

                      Or is the next english language lesson you receive going to be on how the word “trend” does not mean “without exception”?

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

                      “Now, explain to me how the australian graph counters my claim that there was a global trend in rising food prices? Especially as my claim related to the global food price index?”

                      The Australian trend is DOWN. Australia is a similar economy, and a close trading partner. But then you’re just scrambling now.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 1:22 pm

                      You really have a very limited number of tricks in your repertoire:

                      1: split sentences, statements in comments into meaningless fragments that you can then intentionally misunderstand: “food and fuel prices” are two subjects, food prices and fuel prices. “Inflation in food and fuel prices” is one subject. Just as “inflation of tyres” is one subject.

                      2: obsessively hold onto that misinterpretation until it is spelled out in small words for you.

                      3: when finally forced to provide relevant comment or sources, immediately declare victory and move on to the next misinterpretation. The weaker your misinterpretation, the more frequently and loudly you claim victory.

                      for example, your latest comment:

                      “Now, explain to me how the australian graph counters my claim that there was a global trend in rising food prices? Especially as my claim related to the global food price index?”

                      The Australian trend is DOWN. Australia is a similar economy, and a close trading partner. But then you’re just scrambling now.

                      1) split statements:
                      you omitted my sentence “Or is the next english language lesson you receive going to be on how the word “trend” does not mean “without exception”?”. This allows you to move on to:

                      2) misinterpret: the Australian trend is not global trend (see the sentence you omitted). Argue proximity, but ignore the fact that our international trade profiles are very different – food was related to over half our exports in 2008, but less than 10% of Australia’s. Obviously our food prices would be much more sensitive to global conditions than Australia’s.

                      3) claim victory: “But then you’re just scrambling now.”.

                    • Paul …
                      14 January 2016 at 1:27 pm

                      mcflock, we have a choice.
                      We can allow these rwnj trolls to derail these threads or we can ignore them.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 1:32 pm

                      @paul
                      or we can learn their tactics and responses

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 1:57 pm

                      “You really have a very limited number of tricks in your repertoire:”

                      I don’t have any ‘tricks’. Just hard data that shows you were wrong.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 1:59 pm

                      “We can allow these rwnj trolls to derail these threads or we can ignore them.”

                      Calling someone a ‘troll’ is your way of avoiding the debate. Try refuting the material I present. If you can’t, feel free to ignore me.

                    • ropata …
                      14 January 2016 at 2:20 pm

                      It’s interesting to read the myths that rwnj’s trot out to support their cracked view of history and economics. Go round kiwiblog or yournz and see that this is a real problem in the political discourse in NZ.

                      These myths need to be punctured by somebody somewhere or acrophobic and his crew of nasties will continue blathering unanswered and blaming Labour for the GFC.

                      Black Hole Budget fiasco: the 2015 budget was a huge broken promise and calls into question the basic competency of the Nats. Andrew Little called it: “One of the biggest political deceptions of a lifetime”

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 2:26 pm

                      “One of the biggest political deceptions of a lifetime”

                      Because he’s a plonker. The budget projected a tiny deficit after previously forecasting a small surplus. In the end the Govt achieved it’s surplus and Little was left looking like the prat he is.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 2:35 pm

                      I don’t have any ‘tricks’. Just hard data that shows you were wrong.

                      Note the claim to victory based on acro’s essential misunderstanding of the term “global trend”. The previous conflation of CPI inflation with other kinds of inflation has been quietly dropped. Also note that “data” is an irregular noun – when acro presents the data he calls it “hard”, when people present opposing data it is “scant” or its existence is simply ignored outright (e.g. my initial linking to the global food price index).

                      I suspect the claims to victory are an attempt to provoke indignation, but they are also possibly just the product of a delusional worldview: acro might claim victory simply because failure is inconceivable, so even if they don’t understand how they’ve ‘won’ their participation in the discussion must therefore mean it has happened. Equally, acro might be trying to provoke a response that enables them to blush like an antebellum debutante and walk away from such rude discourse with pride intact. SSlands was a great one for that, too, as I recall.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 2:45 pm

                      “The previous conflation of CPI inflation with other kinds of inflation has been quietly dropped.”
                      No, I’m just sparing you ay further embarrassment. You’re the one who made the claim about inflation, then tried to run a mile when I proved you wrong.

                      “when people present opposing data it is “scant” or its existence is simply ignored outright (e.g. my initial linking to the global food price index).”

                      I’ll call it data when it has any relevance.

                      “e.g. my initial linking to the global food price index”

                      Yet, and tellingly, you have not cited any data. So I’ll assist. Check this out http://www.fao.org/3/a-i0854e/i0854e01.pdf. The FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008. By comparison, NZ’s food index increased 5 fold. Your claims don’t stack up.

                      Your diverging into third person dialogue is weird. I doubt anyone’s paying any attention…you lost credibility ages ago.

                    • te reo putake …
                      14 January 2016 at 2:56 pm

                      Ah, yes, Srylands. You may be on to something there, McFlock. However, from memory, when he wasn’t claiming to live across the ditch, he was claiming to be intimately familiar with the Terrace, Wgtn. The implication being he was a Treasury wonk. From acrophobic’s contributions it’s pretty certain he doesn’t know his abacus from his equity.

                      http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumerpriceindex.asp

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 3:21 pm

                      The FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008. By comparison, NZ’s food index increased 5 fold. Your claims don’t stack up.

                      Still lots of bluster, but he’s gone into outright lying.

                      According to statsNZ infoshare the NZ food price index in 2005 to 2008 had a low of 966 and a high of 1164. The biggest possible change from low to high was 20%.
                      Acro provides a link for their claim that the FAO index doubled, but purely coincidentally fails to provide data for his assertion that the NZ FPI “increased 5 fold”. In fact, global food prices increased at five time the rate of NZ prices. If food price inflation is government responsibility as acro asserts, then Labour seems to have done well compared to other governments, by acro’s own argument. Oh, and the biggest possible change in Australian Index Numbers ; Food and non-alcoholic beverages was ~19%.

                    • acrophobic …
                      14 January 2016 at 5:35 pm

                      “Acro provides a link for their claim that the FAO index doubled, but purely coincidentally fails to provide data for his assertion that the NZ FPI “increased 5 fold”.”

                      Oh, I did. 14 January, 12.30pm. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/food-inflation.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 6:35 pm

                      The FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008. By comparison, NZ’s food index increased 5 fold

                      So your defense is that you compared the FAO index value with the NZ food index rate. Apparently you believe that comparing valueX with rateY is somehow not complete bullshit. However, comparing the FAO fpi rate of inflation with the NZ FPI inflation rate, the FAO inflation rate increased ninefold while NZFPI inflation rate increased fivefold. Even comparing apples with apples you’re full of shit – nz food prices increased at less than 2/3 the rate of global food prices.

                      To recap, acro’s process is:
                      Confuse the consumer price index with the food price index.
                      Confuse global FPI rates with individual national FPI rates
                      Confuse values of FPI indices with the inflation rates of those indices.
                      All so he can confuse the effects of the global environment and the weather with the effects of Labour economic management.

                      Quite the Confusion philosopher.

                      I thought he might change tack into Baby’s First Cartesian Doubt or linkbomb a Deluge of Complexity, but this little fishy is just a never-ending spiral of idiocy. Quite funny – doesn’t understand basic English, basic economic indicators, basic language skills, basic math, basic graphs.

                      I suppose that’s what they have to do to support blinglish over cullen as an economic manager: turn off all brain function and wear incredibly dense self-esteem to hide their shame at being such an imbecile….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      14 January 2016 at 7:43 pm

                      @McFlock: personally, I think they exhibit signs of still feeling humiliated after being “let go” from Treasury in c.2004 or so.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 January 2016 at 9:07 pm

                      lolz

                    • acrophobic …
                      15 January 2016 at 9:11 am

                      “So your defense is that you compared the FAO index value with the NZ food index rate. Apparently you believe that comparing valueX with rateY is somehow not complete bullshit. ”
                      I am doing no such thing. I am comparing like for like, something you don’t seem to understand.

                      “However, comparing the FAO fpi rate of inflation with the NZ FPI inflation rate, the FAO inflation rate increased ninefold while NZFPI inflation rate increased fivefold. Even comparing apples with apples you’re full of shit – nz food prices increased at less than 2/3 the rate of global food prices.”

                      Now you’re just obfuscating. The links I provided show clearly that NZ’s food price inflation was substantially higher than the global average. You’re running, and now telling lies.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 January 2016 at 7:54 pm

                      I am comparing like for like

                      I must have misunderstood something then. Let’s go through it slowly, and you can tell me where I went wrong:

                      1) you made the comparison “The FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008. By comparison, NZ’s food index increased 5 fold.” Am I incorrect here?

                      2) I took that to mean that you were comparing the values of each index. Am I incorrect here?

                      3) your source for the FAO fpi was this pdf. Am I incorrect here?

                      4) your source for the NZ fpi was this website. Am I incorrect here?

                      5) Regarding your FAO fpi source in (3) charts match your claim of “FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008”. Those charts’ X-axes are labelled “Index (2002–04 = 100)”. I understand that to mean that those are values of the index, not the proportional change from value to value (i.e. a rate). Am I incorrect here?

                      6) Regarding your NZ fpi source in (4), the chart matches your claim of “NZ’s food index increased 5 fold”. That chart is titled “NZ Food Inflation”. The information underneath the chart does say “actual values”, but the unit is “percent”. Percent is a rate measure. I understand that to mean that those are values of the inflation rate of the index, not the nominal value of the index in each year. Am I incorrect here?

                      7) if the NZ fpi source shows the nominal values of the index, why does this differ by both magnitude and pattern to the data available from the StatisticsNZ Infoshare tool?

                      Feel free to tell me on which step(s) I have been incorrect.

                      Now you’re just obfuscating.

                      I’m trying to make it as simple as possible for you, honest.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 6:31 pm

                      “2) I took that to mean that you were comparing the values of each index. Am I incorrect here?”
                      No.

                      “3) your source for the FAO fpi was this pdf. Am I incorrect here?”
                      No.

                      “4) your source for the NZ fpi was this website. Am I incorrect here?”
                      No.

                      “I understand that to mean that those are values of the index, not the proportional change from value to value (i.e. a rate). Am I incorrect here?”

                      The graph represents the price index, ie these are values of the index. I quote “The FAO food price index1 rose by 7 percent in 2006 and 27 percent in 2007, and that increase persisted and accelerated in the first half of 2008.”

                      I understand that to mean that those are values of the inflation rate of the index, not the nominal value of the index in each year. Am I incorrect here?
                      Mmmm. I have viewed the graph by selecting the “10 Yr” button, and assumed the data is actual values based on 2006 as a base year. I am prepared to stand corrected if this is wrong!!

                      “7) if the NZ fpi source shows the nominal values of the index, why does this differ by both magnitude and pattern to the data available from theStatisticsNZ Infoshare tool?”
                      Which subject category are you using to access the data?

                    • McFlock …
                      17 January 2016 at 7:28 pm

                      OK, so we’re both talking about the same sources.

                      [5) Regarding your FAO fpi source in (3) charts match your claim of “FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008”. Those charts’ X-axes are labelled “Index (2002–04 = 100)”.]
                      “I understand that to mean that those are values of the index, not the proportional change from value to value (i.e. a rate). Am I incorrect here?”

                      The graph represents the price index, ie these are values of the index. I quote “The FAO food price index1 rose by 7 percent in 2006 and 27 percent in 2007, and that increase persisted and accelerated in the first half of 2008.”

                      Indeed, the total change in the period 2005-08 basically doubled (100 to 200). So when you said that the “FAO index rose from just over 100 to just over 200 from 2005 through 2008”, you were definitely referring to the values of the index, not the percentage change?

                      I understand that to mean that those are values of the inflation rate of the index, not the nominal value of the index in each year. Am I incorrect here?

                      Mmmm. I have viewed the graph by selecting the “10 Yr” button, and assumed the data is actual values based on 2006 as a base year. I am prepared to stand corrected if this is wrong!!

                      see below.

                      7) if the NZ fpi source shows the nominal values of the index, why does this differ by both magnitude and pattern to the data available from theStatisticsNZ Infoshare tool?

                      Which subject category are you using to access the data?

                      Economic Indicators, in a subset of Consumer Price Index. You can select NZ FPI monthly values, or percent change from previous minth orsame month previous year.
                      Percent change for same month from previous year does go from roughly 2 to 10, so that’s your “5 fold” increase. However, the infoshare “Table: Food Price Index for New Zealand (Monthly)” has the actual values of the index being adjusted to 1000 for 2006month6, ranging from 968 to 1162 in value. A 20% increase, certainly not “5 fold”.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      Hi McFlock…based on the InfoShare data, you are indeed correct. The FAO index is difficult to reconcile to the Trading Economics data, but on the comparison of NZ food prices v global food prices, I’m happy to agree with your data. Thanks for our patience! I am happy to be corrected!

                    • McFlock …
                      17 January 2016 at 9:34 pm

                      Okay, so I think that takes us back up to here, where I pointed out that blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if it weren’t part of a global trend at the time. We’ve since demonstrated that not only was NZ food inflation not worse than the global trend, NZ food inflation was actually significantly lower than the global trend. Cudos to Labour, I guess /sarc

                      So the rising food prices (and fuel prices, which are also globally determined) were not really under government control. Nor was the drought. Basically, the only factor Treasury identified as slowing the economy and that might be related to government policy was the housing market – and National have done fuck all to address that problem, and apparently we’re all in a brighter future despite that inactivity.

                      So your claim that “Labour were behind the early slide of our economy into recession” has not only not been “absolutely borne out by Treasury”, at least three of the five factors Treasury attributed to the slow-down were completely out of the Labour government’s control.

                      You owe me an apology for your ego getting in the way of recognising your incompetence.
                      You owe OAB an apology for calling them a liar.
                      And you owe everyone else an apology for your being equally incompetent in damned near every other thread you’ve commented in.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:17 pm

                      Haha McFlock, good try. You seem to have forgotten that your claim was about inflation generally, and on that score I proved you wrong. NZ’s general rate of inflation was high by global standards.

                      As to the Treasury commentary, you are, again, simply wrong. Let’s look at that quote again:

                      “A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008 as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.”

                      There are five issues listed here, drought, rising fuel prices, rising food prices, high interest rates, and falling house prices.

                      There have been worse droughts since that haven’t put the economy into a spin.

                      Fuel and food prices are still partly controlled by factors within the local economy, including domestic cost pressures that were spiralling.

                      And interest rates were absolutely in the domain of Govt influence.

                      You seem to be under the illusion our discussion on food prices was somehow significant in the greater scheme of things. You are deluded. By 2008 Labour had all but stuffed the NZ economy. In the final analysis, Treasury were polite.

                      Exposing your errors doesn’t earn you an apology, McFlock. Exposing OAB’s lies doesn’t earn him one either.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:32 pm

                      Haha McFlock, good try. You seem to have forgotten that your claim was about inflation generally,

                      [headdesk]
                      Right, I’m done with this fucking liar.

                      Apparently the routine is now to recycle his previous idiocy, in this case bringing up CPI when people mention food price inflation. Just for the record, Treasury never had a problem with CPI as a whole, just food and fuel price inflation”

                      A drought over the 2007/08 summer led to lower production of dairy products in the first half of 2008. Domestic activity slowed sharply over 2008 as high fuel and food prices dampened domestic consumption while high interest rates and falling house prices drove a rapid decline in residential investment.

                      CPI mentioned nowhere there. We’ve been through this before.

                      Fuck off you stupid piece of shit. Even a schoolkid knows to not compare rates with raw numbers.

                    • acrophobic …
                      17 January 2016 at 10:54 pm

                      “Apparently the routine is now to recycle his previous idiocy, in this case bringing up CPI when people mention food price inflation. Just for the record, Treasury never had a problem with CPI as a whole, just food and fuel price inflation””

                      A temper tantrum won;t work McFlock. Your comment was “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.” The IT was inflation, and that is what we were discussing.

                      On the whole you just don’t seem to grasp the extent of economic chaos we had in 2008. The NZ economy had high interest rates AND high inflation, (in itself a remarkable achievement in incompetence), the economy was in a rapid slowdown (prior to the GFC), and the forecasts were for a ‘decade of deficits’ ahead. Labour had committed close to 1bn for the dog that was kiwirail, had pumped investment into Kiwibank (that paid it’s first dividend in 2015, 14 years after being established), and was running huge balance of payments deficits (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/current_account/).

                      You really have to be a particular type of masochist to keep trying to defend that lot.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 January 2016 at 11:09 am

                      Your comment was “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.” The IT was inflation, and that is what we were discussing.

                      Ok fucko, if you insist on repeating the methodology that led to you failing Year 8 Basic Graph Reading, we’ll do it by the numbers again. But because it’s a rerun I’ll be less polite.

                      Which of the following points is incorrect?

                      1) The sentence in question:”Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if it weren’t part of a global trend at the time. ”

                      2)the meaning of “it”: “it” is a pronoun “used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.”

                      3) Things previously mentioned or easily identified in the sentence in question: “inflation in food and fuel prices”, “NZ government spending”, “global trend at the time”.

                      4) Things tortuously identified if you remove them from the rest of the sentence: “inflation”.

                      5)Things not mentioned or referred to at all in the sentence in question: “Consumer Price Index”.

                      6)Things just as relevant to the sentence in question as CPI inflation was: “inflation in your mothers BMI” (possibly relates to food prices).

                      7) things not related to “global trend at the time”: “Australian or US CPI inflation”

                      8) Difference between NZ CPI inflation and US CPI annual inflation 2005-2008 (negative means NZ smaller), according to the OECD: -0.35 0.14 -0.47 0.12 2.48, Average difference 2005-08 = -0.14%

                      9) Difference between NZ CPI inflation and Australian CPI annual inflation 2005-2008 (negative means NZ smaller), according to the OECD: 0.35 -0.19 0.05 -0.39 0.35 Average difference 2005-08 = -0.045%

                      10) ifference between NZ CPI inflation and OECD CPI annual inflation 2005-2008 (negative means NZ smaller), according to the OECD: 0.44 0.73 -0.12 0.28 1.6, Average difference 2005-08 = -0.3325%

                      11) in 2008 NZ CPI was the 28th highest out of 43 countries, according to the OECD. So Labour was doing better than most by the measure that you made up all by yourself. You said Labour ran a “high inflation” economy by 2008, whereas by 2008 CPI inflation was lower than in most OECD countries.

                      I really don’t know why you exist: I can’t believe that someone could really be as arrogantly stupid and you pretend to be, but similarly I can’t fathom why anyone would put so much effort into pretending to be so arrogantly stupid as you apparently are.

                    • te reo putake …
                      18 January 2016 at 2:36 pm

                      “On the whole you just don’t seem to grasp the extent of economic chaos we had in 2008.”

                      Acrophobic, now.

                      “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”.

                      Bill English, then.

                      The thing is that Labour managed the economy extremely well, at least in terms of the Government books. In addition, inflation was relatively low, as were housing interest rates. Add in to that the lowest unemployment in a generation and rising wages, you have possibly the the most economically and socially stable leadership that this country has seen in a couple of generations.

                      Or, to put it another way, acrophobic is up to the tip of his tongue in the brown stuff.

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 January 2016 at 3:32 pm

                      You need to settle down, McFlock, it will help you to focus.

                      “Blaming inflation in food and fuel prices on NZ government spending would be more realistic if IT weren’t part of a global trend at the time.”

                      “2)the meaning of “it”: “it” is a pronoun “used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.””
                      EXACTLY!! A THING!!! Food AND Fuel prices are not a THING. Inflation, on the other hand, IS a thing. You really are thick, aren’t you. Or is it just plain dishonest?

                      I also note you haven’t addressed ANY of the other economic indicators mentioned. I wonder why?

                    • Chris …
                      18 January 2016 at 3:53 pm

                      I like how acrophobic started out on here trying to come across as the cool voice of reason from the right, willing to engage in “proper” debate with the left. Saying how caring she/he is for the poor and that while essentially poverty is a choice that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold the cup of water. Then as time goes on her/his true colours begin to show, the vitriol begins to emerge, turns of phrase used regularly by the nasty fucks at whaleoil ooze through the cracks then all of a sudden it becomes clear that acrophobic’s not the saint she/he held themselves out as at the start. acrophobic’s disingenuous core is showing more and more. Nasty hateful fuck.

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 January 2016 at 3:55 pm

                      “The thing is that Labour managed the economy extremely well, at least in terms of the Government books. In addition, inflation was relatively low, as were housing interest rates. Add in to that the lowest unemployment in a generation and rising wages, you have possibly the the most economically and socially stable leadership that this country has seen in a couple of generations.”

                      What country were you living in?

                      Mortgage interest rates reached 11%. And low inflation? Yeah, right http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10486519. House prices ballooned under Labour, a factor we’re still paying for today. And then there’s the economic incompetence of election bribes, such as WFF and interest free student loans. Add to all that we had a ballooning BoP deficit, and the legacy of years of internal deficits ahead.

                      You think that’s a pretty picture?

                    • acrophobic …
                      18 January 2016 at 4:00 pm

                      “Nasty hateful fuck.”

                      Good to see the rational voice of reason from the left.

                      [lprent: It is the type of pointed comment that is permitted on the site. Chris was pretty clear about what they didn’t like about your behaviour. If you don’t like it, then perhaps you could address Chris’s points rather that making implied comments about the site rules.

                      You’ll find that comments implying behaviour in violation of policy tend to attract my attention. See the policy to figure out why. But remember that I don’t like wasting my time with checking out idiotic whining. ]

                    • McFlock …
                      18 January 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      “2)the meaning of “it”: “it” is a pronoun “used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.””
                      EXACTLY!! A THING!!! Food AND Fuel prices are not a THING. Inflation, on the other hand, IS a thing. You really are thick, aren’t you. Or is it just plain dishonest?

                      Meaning of "inflation": “2.
                      Economics
                      a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. “

                      Obviously I needed to make it even simpler for you.
                      The issue is not the definition of “inflation”. The issue is why you “assumed” that it referred to CPI inflation rather than anything that had been mentioned in the first half of the sentence. Just as you “assumed” that a chart referred to index values rather than percent changed, even though it was clearly labelled.

                      What happens is that after you “assume” whatever happens to be convenient, your completely undeserved ego convinces you that your completely random assumption is the only possible meaning that was intended, so correcting even an incredibly basic error takes forever. A normal person would ask a grownup to explain something you didn’t understand. Sadly, you’re decidedly abnormal, that’s why you thanked me for my patience in explaining basic math to you and then immediately repeated the bullshit behaviour that led to your mathematical incompetence. Without even the merest blush. That’s why my patience is nonexistent – you wasted it.

                      I also note you haven’t addressed ANY of the other economic indicators mentioned. I wonder why?

                      Because it’s quite obvious you can’t even handle one simple thought at a time, so I have to educate you in nibble-sized chunks. Oh, and the only person who mentioned CPI was you, you lying piece of shit.

                      So let’s get this straight before we move on to something else: Labour did NOT run a “high inflation” economy in 2008. CPI inflation was in the lower half of OECD measurements, FPI inflation was at a fifth of the rate of the global average, and fuel prices are not the responsibility of government. By any measure in 2008, NZ inflation in food prices, fuel prices and even the completely irrelevant consumer price index were either similar to or substantially lower than global trends. Do you agree with that point?

                    • te reo putake …
                      18 January 2016 at 5:08 pm

                      In reply to accuraphobic:

                      The Clark years started with mortgage rates at 6-8%. When her 9 years was up, lo and behold, mortgage rates were … drum roll … 6-8%.

                      As for inflation, well, did you read your own link? 3% or there abouts. ie healthy under the standard developed capitalist country economic model.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 January 2016 at 3:08 pm

                      Heh.

                      Another half dozen comments from our wee lion yesterday evening and today, and yet this thread has again been ignored. Must be another rare oversight.

                      Ever get the feeling acrophobic is having difficulty keeping up with their own bullshit? 🙂

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 January 2016 at 10:04 pm

                      So McFlock, you still won’t address the other issues. OK, act thick. Now back to inflation. 1. Fuel and Food price inflation is not an IT. 2. “By any measure in 2008, NZ inflation in food prices, fuel prices and even the completely irrelevant consumer price index were either similar to or substantially lower than global trends. Do you agree with that point?”
                      No. The annual inflation rate of a number of countries is listed here http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/cpi-inflation-2008.aspx.

                      Unless you are content with being compared to Iceland, Russia and Turkey, NZ’s inflation rate (5.1% to Sep 2008, 3.4% for the 2008 calendar year) is HIGH.

                    • acrophobic …
                      19 January 2016 at 10:11 pm

                      “The Clark years started with mortgage rates at 6-8%. When her 9 years was up, lo and behold, mortgage rates were … drum roll … 6-8%.”

                      Ah,no.

                      http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/mortgage_rates/

                      Interest rates climbed substantially under Labour. They have fallen, and remained low, under National, even as the economy has recovered.

                      It is an extraordinarily incompetent government that has an economy going into recession, with high mortgage interest rates and high inflation.

                    • te reo putake []
                      20 January 2016 at 6:21 pm

                      Check your link, you muppet. It confirms what I wrote.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 January 2016 at 11:18 pm

                      1. Fuel and Food price inflation is not an IT.

                      Yes it is. Otherwise you would have written “Fuel and Food price inflation ARE not an IT”.
                      You stupid fuck.

                      2. Again, read your fucking links. When the link is “annual inflation (dec vs. dec)”, why would you bother giving me the Sept:sept NZ data? Oh, wait, it’s because you cherry-picked a dataset that didn’t include nZ for comparison, so you hoped I wouldn’t notice that once again you were not comparing like with like.

                      Anyway, your 3.4% places NZ at tenth equal in your latest source. Tenth out of 39. Again, not “high inflation” compared to three quarters of the countries in your latest source. Even the september quarter CPI result is only 0.4% higher than the OECD average. But even if you think 0.4% is a case of tragic mismanagement, as you demonstrated just now CPI has always been irrelevant to the discussion.

                    • acrophobic …
                      20 January 2016 at 7:42 pm

                      “It confirms what I wrote.”

                      You dishonest toady.

                      The graph shows interest rates at just over 6% in 1999, rising to just over 10% in 2008, reaching 11% before dropping to under 6% under National, and staying there.

                      This link http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2008/3376920.html shows the OCR at 8% in July 2008. Are you seriously suggesting the trading banks were lending at below the OCR? Or did you think I wouldn’t check your reply?

                      [The link is there for all to see and the facts remain the facts. 6-8% at both ends of the Clark years. And don’t resort to author abuse, because you know how that ends. TRP]

                    • acrophobic …
                      20 January 2016 at 8:59 pm

                      “When the link is “annual inflation (dec vs. dec)”, why would you bother giving me the Sept:sept NZ data? ”

                      Can you read? My full comment was “NZ’s inflation rate (5.1% to Sep 2008, 3.4% for the 2008 calendar year) is HIGH.”

                      “…your 3.4% places NZ at tenth equal in your latest source. Tenth out of 39. Again, not “high inflation” compared to three quarters of the countries in your latest source. ”

                      Oh dear, you really can’t read. Of the 38 countries listed in my cite, only 14 have inflation rates higher than NZ (to 1 decimal place). That means NZ is 15th HIGHEST out of 39. Some of the countries with higher inflation rates were Brazil, Iceland, Indonesia, Russia and Turkey. And that’s ok with you?

                    • McFlock …
                      20 January 2016 at 11:23 pm

                      1: this is all irrelevant because you yourself referred to food and price inflation in the singular. You’ve spent days injecting CPI into the debate based on the use of “it”, but you couldn’t even keep your own lie straight.

                      2: Nice rounding up to 1dp, and placing NZ at the top of the list. But a calendar is january to december. Your cherrypicked “3.4% for the calendar year” isn’t december to december, is it. It’s the column “average inflation” to 2008. See, misunderstandings like this are what happen when you use datasets that don’t include all the variables you want to look at.

                      3: Even if 3.4% were NZ december to december,(and it isn’t), that’s still within half a percent of South Korea, Britain, Israel, and Finland. I’m ok with NZ being in that ballpark. Iceland is around 14% worse than NZ, Russia 10%. Lumping NZ in with them is just more of your bullshit. You can find as many different datasets as you want, but at the end of the day you use them to lie.

                      4: but of course CPI is irrelevant (see 1) to what Treasury said caused the 2008 slowdown: drought, high fuel and food prices, high interest rates, and falling house prices. Interest rates are set by the reserve bank to curb inflation. Falling house prices are a good thing, as it helps ppeople afford their own homes. Everything else is globally-affected or the result of Labour’s inability to control the climate. The idea Treasury said CPI was responsible is bullshit that you invented because you don’t care if what you say is accurate as long as it seems to suit your purpose at the time. But you’re dumb, so you forgot that your errors in basic grammar matched your errors in math, economics, chart reading and performing as a normal human being.

                      5: Your claim that “Labour were behind the early slide of our economy into recession” is absolutely refuted by Treasury.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 January 2016 at 7:25 pm

                      I guess that when your lies and hypocrisy are eventually nailed down and exposed, you just abandon the thread. No apology for wasting everyone’s time.

                      Or maybe you just sow so much bullshit around that you never have to finish what you start, calling a lack of response a “rare oversight”.

                    • acrophobic …
                      24 January 2016 at 8:47 pm

                      “The link is there for all to see and the facts remain the facts. 6-8% at both ends of the Clark years.”

                      You’re confused. The discussion is about MORTGAGE rates, not the OCR. If the OCR is 8%, how can mortgage rates have been 6%?

                      http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/mortgage_rates/

                    • te reo putake …
                      24 January 2016 at 9:02 pm

                      Are you entirely right in the mind? You keep posting the graph that proves my point. Have you actually looked at that graph? Really looked at it? By which I mean, studied the numbers. Go on, the penny will drop eventually.

  17. Paulm 17
    8 January 2016 at 3:56 pm

    These threads will become a lot more interesting to read if everyone does not feed trolls like acrophobic

  18. Paulm 18
    8 January 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Can everyone stop responding to acrophobic’s bait please?

  19. Murray Simmonds 19
    8 January 2016 at 7:33 pm

    Well said, Paulm.

  20. reason 20
    8 January 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Dr Mapp would sign an agreement with the devil himself as long as it was called a free trade agreement………

    He supports ‘free trade’ with the head chopping Saudis or any other corrupt murdering ‘governments’ …… free trade does not come with human rights for ‘realists’ you see ……….

    The Greens believe in fair and sustainable trade……. which to the Nats probably means anti-trade as its outside their way of thinking.

    On evidence the Nats believe in more cows …. way way more cows .. and greed……. For ‘free’ they give us rivers and lakes that will make your children sick if they swim in them

    The TPPA will accelerate the industrial scale exploitation which has lead to our rivers being full of shit …………

    Kids not being able to swim in rivers that I did when I was young makes me feel poorer not richer ………..

    I guess that makes me anti the 6000 page TPPA corporate charter con

    When wayne says ‘free trade’ he means it in the National context of 100% pure and green …

  21. Mark 21
    8 January 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Easy to tell when [deleted] has been proved a liar…it gets very abusive.
    Good on you acrophobic..no doubt you will get slapped with a ban shortly for a few inconvenient truths however.
    ☺

    [You’re a sad wee misogynist, Mark. People don’t get banned here for inconvenient truths, and even if they were, I don’t see much truth in anything acrophobic has written anyway, so if a ban comes, it won’t be on those grounds. TRP]

    • Mark 21.1
      8 January 2016 at 9:02 pm

      Misogynist…really?
      You have some assumption about a word I used?
      OAB gets to abuse anyone exposing his/her/it’s nastiness & lies, anyone else gets a petty little telling off.
      The utter failure, nastiness, hypocracy & dishonesty of the Left exposed in just a few comments.
      Pfft…

      [Two words, Mark. I left the word “it” undeleted, just so the readers can get an idea of how you see women. TRP]

      • ropata 21.1.1
        8 January 2016 at 9:14 pm

        projecting much?
        try actually engaging the debate instead of pure ad hom attacks…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.2
        8 January 2016 at 9:27 pm

        My challenge to Acrophobic is very simple: to produce evidence – not personal anecdotes or assertions – of the right wing dogma they have learned so well.

        Where Bill English and the Prime Minister contradict their assertions, I feel confident in calling them lies. Where the academies of science of every country that has an academy of science contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies.

        When Epidemiology contradicts the right wing dogma they have learned so well, I feel confident in calling them lies too.

        If you don’t like that, get some personal responsibility and rebut my criticisms. Why am I obliged to tolerate or be polite in the face of lies in politics?

        • acrophobic 21.1.2.1
          8 January 2016 at 10:44 pm

          So:

          1. You think lied because I apparently contradict something John Key says yet you call John Key a liar?
          2. You think I lied because I question some notion you have of scientific consensus. You do realise that challenging scientific theory is not only an exercise in free speech it is also part of the scientific method? Would you have accused Galileo of ‘lying’ for opposing the prevailing consensus that the earth was the centre of the universe?

          If you made any criticisms of worth I would be happy to engage. Instead you resort to ad-hominem almost from the get-go, accompanied by a flurry of irrational diatribe.

          My challenge to you is simple. Quote a single instance where I have lied. Just one.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.2.1.1
            8 January 2016 at 10:48 pm

            For example: “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

            All you’ve offered in support of this vile hate speech is to confess your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve turned to you for help.

            Lie number one. I’ve referred to others above.

            • Acrophobic 21.1.2.1.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 4:27 am

              That’s not a blue, indeed it is a statement of fact. Any more?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                10 January 2016 at 10:12 am

                It is a lie, as shown by the fact that you can produce no evidence (not your opinion or personal anecdotes) to support it, and there is plenty of research to the contrary.

                Stop telling lies.

                • acrophobic …
                  10 January 2016 at 12:48 pm

                  Your cite doesn’t even address the subject! Did you make this up thinking I wouldn’t check it? If you want evidence that “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices” work with people in poverty. You’ll learn a lot.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 January 2016 at 1:11 pm

                    As previously mentioned, your disgusting betrayal of people who’ve sought your help says something about you and nothing whatsoever about people.

                    Your low character is on display and you don’t even realise it.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:14 am

                      Have you ever worked with the poor? I have. I have seen children go without food for days because their parents spent their days at the TAB or playing the pokies. I distribute food parcels to families and have the door opened by pre-schoolers because mum is passed out drunk on the couch and dad is no-where. I am angry and disgusted with these people and yes that may come out in my comments but the ignorance of people like you to the situation is embedding welfare dependency and hopelessness in the children of these people and That I will not tolerate.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:18 am

                      acrophobic – why don’t you do some real work to help the poor and stop shilling for the plutocracy.

                    • acrophobic …
                      11 January 2016 at 11:30 am

                      “why don’t you do some real work to help the poor…”

                      You mean like budgeting advice, delivering food parcels, mowing peoples lawns for free, volunteer on a transport roster, volunteer at a low decile ECE centre…oh that’s right, I’m already doing those things.

                      Based on most of the comments here, I am confident in saying the majority of posters know nothing of real poverty. It is the chardonnay socialism of Helen Clark…all talk and no trousers. Get your hands dirty folks. You’ll find there is a mixture of genuine people who want to get out of the trap they are in and out and out bludgers. I just have the experience and courage to know the difference.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 January 2016 at 12:42 pm

                      that I will not tolerate

                      This low-life thinks it’s all about them.

                      Hey, low-life, have you read the link “further reading” – the liar whose lies you rote-learned has cause and effect back to front.

                    • Adele …
                      11 January 2016 at 7:08 pm

                      Kia ora acrophobic

                      “many living in poverty do so because of poor choices”

                      Many people do become poor because of poor choices. Over 30,000 New Zealanders lost their life savings when our financial institutions collapsed. Many hard working New Zealanders lost their livelihoods when PSA decimated the kiwifruit industry. Many farmers are broke because of the dramatic fall in dairy prices. So yes, bad choices can make for bad consequences.

                      In terms of righting the wrong, context is everything as generally the rich can buy a favourable outcome; the well connected can sycophant a sweet solution; and the well educated can pontificate a better position.

                      As for the poor, the people without power, prestige or privilege, well, they get to enjoy a smorgasbord of disgustation and sanctimony on a regular basis – served up by people much like yourself.

                      I also hang with the poor and I see the same things as you but in a different light. I see fourth generation poverty, I see systemic and institutional racism, I see denied opportunity, I see parents who themselves were abused and misused as children; I see abused women, and men, I see mental and physical ill-health and I see spiritual malaise.

                      There are, however, many wonderful people working for and on behalf of our vulnerable citizens. They do so with compassion and without judgement. Why not seek such people out for yourself so that they can assist you to make better choices in life. You too can be a better person.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 6:05 pm

                      Thank you, Adele. I agree with much of what you say.

                      “Why not seek such people out for yourself so that they can assist you to make better choices in life. ”

                      I’m content with my choices, thanks. Much of my time is now spent helping others. As for ‘judgement’, I judge no-one. But I do observe. On this blog there is a select group who seek to lay the blame for the plight of all poor at the feet of the rich, the government, global economics, the milky-bar kid, who knows who else. The reality is there are many whose bad choices go beyond where they’ve invested their money to the more fundamental ways of life, choices that place their own children at serious risk.

                • Korero Pono …
                  11 January 2016 at 9:42 pm

                  @Acro

                  At last the extent of your ‘investment’ and ‘assessment’ is clear…

                  “Have you ever worked with the poor?”

                  Yes

                  “I have. I have seen children go without food for days because their parents spent their days at the TAB or playing the pokies”

                  How do you know they were spending money at the TAB or the pokies? I doubt very much they would admit that to you given your attitude! What children have you seen “go without food for days”? If what you say is true what steps did you take to ensure the safety of said children?

                  “I distribute food parcels to families and have the door opened by pre-schoolers because mum is passed out drunk on the couch and dad is no-where”

                  If that is true I hope you have encouraged the mum to get support – not just used it as another excuse to cast your judgement and blanket stereotype everyone else across a particular ‘class’ of citizen based on your small world view. Moreover if Toddlers are being left unsupervised, what steps did you take to ensure the safety of said toddlers? The dad probably ran off and left her to cope on her own.

                  “I am angry and disgusted with these people”

                  Which is more reason you should not be working with them, you clearly have boundary issues that need addressing, you clearly cannot work without casting judgement based on your narrow experience, this impacts on your ability to work effectively with said families.

                  “and yes that may come out in my comments but the ignorance of people like you to the situation is embedding welfare dependency and hopelessness in the children of these people and That I will not tolerate”

                  How is this so called ‘ignorance’ “embedding welfare dependency and hopelessness in the children of these people”? Where is your evidence to support this assertion?

                  “You mean like budgeting advice, delivering food parcels, mowing peoples lawns for free, volunteer on a transport roster, volunteer at a low decile ECE centre…oh that’s right, I’m already doing those things.”

                  The problem with budget advice, the training is mediocre at best, the recruitment process does not sift out people like you who think they can ‘save’ the poor from themselves, while you cast judgement over those you are supposed to ‘help’ – there are some really terrible budget advisors out there whom should not be allowed to work with people, you appear to be one of them. The supply of food parcels does nothing more than act as a buffer for those who live their days in poverty, with no hope wondering from one day to the next how they will manage. In consequence people living with such stress become unwell, they suffer depression and over time mental illness is problematic. Some people resort to alcohol and drugs (but most don’t) to alleviate the feelings of hopelessness that they experience.

                  Given your general attitudes, lack of morals (you lie constantly) and your judgemental personality, you probably shouldn’t be allowed near children.

                  “Based on most of the comments here, I am confident in saying the majority of posters know nothing of real poverty”

                  Actually I probably know a lot more about poverty and the impact of poverty than you do – I imagine those ‘posters’ who spend a significant amount of their valuable time calling you out on your lies, misinformation and judgements also know a lot more about poverty than you do too. You think you know about poverty but that is based on the very narrow ideological view that you have. This narrow ideological view will never change because you appear to be incapable of thinking beyond the concrete beliefs you have – these are based on stereotypes that you have formed from your limited experience with “these people”.

                  You are dangerous, the time you ‘invest’ with “these people” and your ‘assessment’ of “these people” are dangerous and damaging – if, in my line of work, I came across someone who openly behaves in the manner you do while working with vulnerable families, I would personally put a stop to your investment – if you are a volunteer with the NZFBA, then your general attitudes would be cause for significant concern and reinforces my belief that the training and recruitment are completely inadequate when it allows people like you to ‘invest’ any time with vulnerable and hurting families.

                  “It is the chardonnay socialism of Helen Clark…all talk and no trousers”

                  Whatever that means, if it is in reference to people receiving benefits, then your ignorance is showing – there is no chardonnay lifestyle on a benefit.

                  “Get your hands dirty folks”

                  What does that even mean? You think working with the poor is getting your ‘hands dirty’? Further verification of how dangerous and incompetent you are.

                  “You’ll find there is a mixture of genuine people who want to get out of the trap they are in and out and out bludgers”

                  Yet you label them all with a broad brush that they all need helped out of their ‘dependency’, you think your job is to save them? If you haven’t noticed there are barriers to employment. Enough jobs for everyone (unemployment is at 7%), jobs that are stable and pay well enough, jobs that have decent hours so that mums can work, jobs near enough so that women can get to them and still take care of their obligations to children.

                  Moreover there is robust research that shows the detriment of forcing mothers into work that does not pay sufficiently to meet the families needs, in fact doing so can increase the risk of infant mortality.

                  50% of families living in poverty come from working families – they are not lazy, they are not bludgers – but given your predictable ‘rote learned’ response is to deny the numbers living in poverty well it is pointless telling you this. It is also pointless reminding you about UCTs and how these will immediately have positive effects on children, parents and communities who live in poverty (a poverty that you argue does not exist), which proves my point that you are probably a useless budget advisor because if you were any good, you would see that crunching the numbers for beneficiaries is extremely difficult (unless of course you are one of those ones that resort to NAPs, for every solution to budgeting problems in which case you are probably causing more harm).

                  I just have the experience and courage to know the difference.”

                  Your experience is narrow and has affected your ability to think outside of the indoctrinated belief systems that you cling to so desperately. To the point that you are dishonest and manipulative to keep the lie alive.

                  You also flatter yourself to think you are displaying courage…you are displaying nothing more than the attributes of a mendacious, hostile, judgemental and pompous arsehole who should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people.

                  • acrophobic …
                    12 January 2016 at 6:12 pm

                    “How do you know they were spending money at the TAB or the pokies?”

                    That’s easy. When you’re trying to work out where peoples income goes, you uncover all sorts of seedy little gems.

                    “If that is true I hope you have encouraged the mum to get support…”

                    Yes. I have alcohol dependency in my own family, and while it disgusts me, I will never turn away.

                    “You think you know about poverty but that is based on the very narrow ideological view that you have. ”

                    My experiences have informed my opinions. That may a foreign concept to someone steeped in left wing ideology, but that’s what it is.

                    “You are dangerous, the time you ‘invest’ with “these people” and your ‘assessment’ of “these people” are dangerous and damaging…”

                    Actually my attitudes are what is bringing relief to many beneficiaries. I call a spade a spade. I urge people to help themselves, to break the cycle of dependency they are often in, and to seek self reliance.

                    Finally I doubt you know anything about the poor. I doubt you’ve ever met anyone in real need. Your attitudes are simple too theoretical, too sanitised, to be informed by real experience.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      12 January 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      “That’s easy. When you’re trying to work out where peoples income goes, you uncover all sorts of seedy little gems”

                      So you take pleasure in uncovering “all sorts of seedy little gems”? You think it is a “gem” when people spend their money on pokies and TAB? Most normal people would not consider those things gems, most normal people would consider these issues a symptom of a much wider problem…but your attitude does not surprise me at all. Actually, it is very difficult to “uncover” situations where money is going where it is not supposed to, you can guess but unless people tell you, you will never know…unless of course you follow them around to ‘uncover’ your ‘gems’.

                      I noticed that you failed to mention how you secured the safety of the children that you claim were left unfed for days or the toddler who was unsupervised.

                      “My experiences have informed my opinions. That may a foreign concept to someone steeped in left wing ideology, but that’s what it is.”

                      Having worked with people living in poverty for a number of years (in a number of capacities and across a broad range of sectors), it has reinforced my belief that until poverty is addressed in this country, the negative social statistics across a number of areas will continue to rise (as they have done for the past 30 years) – for example child abuse and child deaths have increased significantly over that time (of course you will attempt to inflate this fact as another reason to think that a certain class of people are inferior)

                      “Actually my attitudes are what is bringing relief to many beneficiaries. I call a spade a spade. I urge people to help themselves, to break the cycle of dependency they are often in, and to seek self reliance”.

                      I fail to see how denigrating people is helpful, in fact your type of ‘help’ disempowers families, reinforces their oppression and leads to feelings of inadequacy, depression, loss of esteem (just to mention a few of the damage that you and people of your ilk do to vulnerable people). In your twisted opinion how do people “seek self reliance”?

                      “Finally I doubt you know anything about the poor. I doubt you’ve ever met anyone in real need. Your attitudes are simple too theoretical, too sanitised, to be informed by real experience”

                      The difference between my attitudes and yours is that I am not an ignorant arsehole. I know the damage that poverty does to people because I have seen and experienced it first hand, which is why I have an understanding that someone like you will never have. If my attitudes appear “too sanitised” that is because I do not look at ‘poor’ people with disgust, I do not feel disgust when I work with them – I see human beings that need support, need to be empowered and assisted to overcome the systemic oppression that has added to the misery of poverty (and a number of issues, abuse, violence, gang rapes, victims of crime – for example did you know that if you are poor, a woman and Maori you are more likely to be a victim of crime – So as well as having to deal with some pretty serious trauma in their lives, unable to get treatment because it is not affordable or within easy distance, these people are being scrutinised and vilified by people like you, by media and politicians, leaving those affected feeling more worthless – but of course you don’t see that because you don’t understand what happens to the human psyche when subjected to systemic violence and oppression – and I doubt you really care. Meanwhile you go hunt your ‘gems’ to reinforce your negative stereotypes, spread your hate speech to all and sundry but for Christ’s sake if you are going to be a arsehole at least be honest about it (oh that is right your not capable of honesty). Meanwhile I have no problem labeling you as an abuser, a liar and a dangerous individual who has no business working with vulnerable families.

                    • acrophobic …
                      12 January 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      “So you take pleasure in uncovering “all sorts of seedy little gems”? ”

                      No. What a stupid question.

                      “I noticed that you failed to mention how you secured the safety of the children that you claim were left unfed for days or the toddler who was unsupervised.”

                      That’s a whole different and sad story.

                      “(of course you will attempt to inflate this fact as another reason to think that a certain class of people are inferior)”

                      I don’t consider any ‘class’ of people inferior.

                      “…in fact your type of ‘help’ disempowers families…” etc etc

                      All bollocks. The work I do empowers people. It provides fish in the short term and teaches people to fish long term.

                      “Meanwhile I have no problem labeling you as an abuser, a liar and a dangerous individual who has no business working with vulnerable families.”

                      Then it;s just as well you remain in your bubble and let practical people like me get on with helping those who genuinely want help. Because I care enough to help people out of the doldrums, not spout left wing mantra about victims.

                    • Korero Pono …
                      13 January 2016 at 3:22 pm

                      Acro, you are seriously a waste of space, time and effort. Your lack of understanding about systemic cause and effect is astonishing. Every time you spout your diatribe, regardless of evidence that refutes your lies, you are perpetuating oppression against those you ‘invest’ your time with. I would wonder if those organisations that allow you within the same breathing space of any of these vulnerable people even have an inkling at the diatribe you spout so openly when your anonymity is assured.

                      You claim not to be judgmental, instead favouring the term ‘assess’, yet on TS most of your assertions about the poor are judgmental, laced with a significant level of ignorance and hatred – your ‘disgust’ of ‘these people’ is a very very good reason that you should not be allowed to work with them or their children – lest you further disenfranchise them with your verbal diarrhea!

                      In your view there is only one way of thinking about these people, anyone elses opinion is simply dismissed as ‘leftist’ – try thinking critically for a change, it may enhance your life. Meanwhile you go dig for your ‘gems’, I am sure you take some pleasure when you find them, if for no other reason than to reinforce your bigotry.

                    • acrophobic …
                      13 January 2016 at 4:56 pm

                      Korero, your assessment of my opinion is, in itself, highly judgemental. I also note that you, also, post anonymously.

                    • ropata …
                      14 January 2016 at 6:49 pm

                      Thankyou Korero for spelling out some realities and writing with real humanity.

  22. Mark 22
    8 January 2016 at 9:25 pm

    Yeah..keep digging, keep defending.
    Anything but confront reality.
    FYI precious soul, I use the term Bitch to describe anyone who is obviously full of rancid shite – my use of “it” saves a few words that some PC twat may get offended by as gender specific.
    Great example of diversion & labelling to avoid the point however..well done in your books I’m sure.

    [lprent: Fuck off flamestarting dipshit. I’d suggest that you took lessons from phobic about how to argue your side without having a bigot pole stuck up your arse to keep your brain alive, but you are obviously too persistently stupid to comment here. I’m tired of banning you for being a repetitive diversion idiot. ]

  23. Scott M 23
    8 January 2016 at 11:24 pm

    The TPPA is a stark example of how politically illiterate the NZ electorate has become. No voter should even consider accepting a trade agreement which seeks to bind future governments and prevent them implementing the will of the people. Have people of the right not heard of feudalism? It was a pretty bum deal for most prior to the Magna Carta.

    • Wayne 23.1
      9 January 2016 at 1:39 pm

      Scott M

      By definition all international agreements bind future governments. That is why they they are legally binding. Otherwise international agreements would be no more than statements of intention. They are entered into on behalf of the nation of New Zealand, not on behalf of a specific government. And the government has that power because they are duly elected.

      In this particular instance National actually had an explicit campaign commitment in the 2014 election to enter into TPP. So they are fulfilling their electoral mandate.

      The option for future governments is to withdraw from the agreement. Virtually all international agreements, including TPP, have specific withdrawal provisions.

      Good luck to labour if it campaigns on withdrawing from TPP (not that they will do so).

      • weka 23.1.1
        9 January 2016 at 1:52 pm

        Wayne, can you please link to where it says future governments can withdraw and what the conditions are?

        “In this particular instance National actually had an explicit campaign commitment in the 2014 election to enter into TPP. So they are fulfilling their electoral mandate”

        Except the electorate didn’t know what the agreement entailed, so I’m not sure that holds.

        • Scott M 23.1.1.1
          9 January 2016 at 2:23 pm

          Wayne – not sure other agreements specifically set out to limit the ability of governments to regulate in the future, as the TPPA does, for fear of being sued! This “agreement” is like no other that came before it. The sheers brazenness of it is astounding, and that the majority of the NZ populace are sleepily going along with it is the reason for my conclusion above.

          Put another way, why is consolidating the wealth of multinational companies an international imperative?

          • Pat 23.1.1.1.1
            12 January 2016 at 9:44 pm

            “Put another way, why is consolidating the wealth of multinational companies an international imperative?”

            because they can….and we let them, Some, like Wayne actively assist them.

      • RedBaronCV 23.1.2
        9 January 2016 at 2:52 pm

        The left of Nact parties will withdraw from TPPA after negotiating linked bilaterals with the other countries involved to preserve any good bits and leaving out all the US corporate dominated rubbish but strenghthening the agreements to incorporate labour & enviromental rights and also signed UN declarations.
        Well they can do all this and lets hope they do.

        • Scott M 23.1.2.1
          9 January 2016 at 4:10 pm

          Good Plan

          • RedBaronCV 23.1.2.1.1
            10 January 2016 at 12:48 am

            Thank you. Lets hope that is a viable thought that maybe goes to the action stage -every little bit helps ???????

        • Michael who failed Civics 23.1.2.2
          10 January 2016 at 3:51 am

          That’s not a bad idea at all, RedBaronCV. I thought more on the lines of negotiating side agreements into TPPA (on labour and environmental standards for example), as occured with NAFTA (not that successfully, but better than nothing, which is what we have with TPPA). What makes you think bilateral deals are a better way to go than TPPA renegotiation?
          And another thing: Acrophobic – while I disagree with just about everything you’ve posted in this thread, I admire you for sticking to your guns and presenting your side of the argument. You must have a hide like a rhinoceros – your name isn’t Rodney, is it?

          • RedBaronCV 23.1.2.2.1
            10 January 2016 at 11:27 am

            I mentioned bi laterals because I imagine:
            – it would be easier to tailor the exact details between two countries
            – the negotiations can be done in parallel at different speeds and start at different times depending on their government.
            – if there are countries that are in the “too hard or sod all benefit to us basket” they can just be bypassed.
            – it’s likely to adhere more closely to the original TPPA ideas before the US decided to muscle in and change it to their rules
            – the full TPPA agreement goes ( which I can see as possibly the biggest benefit)

            I felt that TPPA, if it had not come to some sort of conclusion this time, would have keep coming back and back in some form or another because it was just too attractive to the corporates to leave alone.
            If we renegotiate the agreement it will still be there ( and up for further negative renegotiation) but if it is replaced by bilaterals (which may be attractive to other countries) then it erodes any further interest in us coming together again with that group of countries.

  24. savenz 24
    9 January 2016 at 10:26 am

    Little’s voice is a move in the right direction but NOT the firm NO and CLEAR voice against the TPPA that is required.

    The TPPA agreement is an outdated, unsustainable assault on the environment, equality, wages, workers, locals and social welfare. It supports the global mega rich while lowering minimum standards for all fought for over the last 100 years. There is zero morality in these agreements.

    Already we have companies wanted to take legal action against the council in Wellington for example for having a ‘living wage’. Imagine what is going to happen when TPPA comes around with money to burn, buy up everything, asset strip it and then leave the husks behind. That is capitalism and neoliberalism championed under these agreements! Profit is more important than people.

    Why Labour is only concerned about property clauses in it, I do not know. The whole deal is a disaster!

    Look at what is happening to most Kiwis under the current free trade environment with more unemployment, higher costs of living and decreasing environmental standards.

    What we have got in this country that is going to become increasingly more valuable and sought after, such as clean air, water, healthy food and a safe environment without corruption (and is being decimated under National and these trade agreements that want to go back to a 19th century industrial system of destruction).

    It is like the golden goose, the government can’t wait to kill the goose and get those short term gains ASAP!

    But Labour are not really clear where they stand on TPPA. “Sort of, maybe, property, ” is not the clear opposition they should be pursuing.

    • Wayne 24.1
      9 January 2016 at 1:30 pm

      savenz,

      Labour will not follow your lead. In fact they have a different ideology to you, which based on the posts you made over the years, seems to be traditional socialism (as opposed to social democracy.

      Your beliefs are better served by the Greens, though Mr Shaw is moderating them somewhat.

      • Andre 24.1.1
        9 January 2016 at 1:38 pm

        Wayne, what’s your thoughts on TransCanada suing the US for $15 billion under the ISDS provisions in NAFTA?

      • Naturesong 24.1.2
        9 January 2016 at 1:43 pm

        Reading through the Greens policies they look like the epitome of a social democratic party.

        But I may have missed something.
        Could you point me to the bit where the Greens advocate for the state to own the means of production?

        Btw, NZ does have an actual socialist party.
        In my entire life I’ve only met a handful of socialists in NZ. They’re pretty rare.

        • weka 24.1.2.1
          9 January 2016 at 1:54 pm

          Yeah but how can you scare voters off the Green Party if you say that?

          • Naturesong 24.1.2.1.1
            9 January 2016 at 3:19 pm

            There are better ways to marginalise the Greens in the minds of voters.

            Obvious mistruths result in the question; Is Dr Mapp a liar, or simply ignorant about the most basic of political terms?

            Neither reflects well on him.

        • Grant 24.1.2.2
          9 January 2016 at 1:57 pm

          Wayne has form as a liar who calls centrist social democrats ‘hard left’.

  25. savenz 25
    9 January 2016 at 10:32 am

    Welcome to lawsuits by private sector attorney’s and judges by corporations bigger than NZ…. already happening in the US… when Obama said it could not happen.

    “PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: ‘Critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation, food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. This—they’re making this stuff up. This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.’”

    “LORI WALLACH: ‘Well, first of all, the making stuff up comment is going to have to get shelved, because not only is this attack by TransCanada on our domestic, democratic government decision not to have a pipeline the exact kind of case he said couldn’t possibly happen—well, it just did, $15 billion being demanded by a—from a tribunal of three private sector attorneys, because this investor-state system, it’s not judges.
    “There are no conflict-of-interest or impartiality rules. These are folks who rotate between one day suing a government for a corporation and the next day being the judge. And they all hear cases amongst themselves.
    “They call themselves ‘the club.’ And there’s no outside appeal, and there’s no limit on how much money they can order a government to pay. And if a government doesn’t pay, by the way, the company has the right to seize government assets—seize government assets—to extract our tax dollars. So, number one, this case is exactly the kind of case President Obama said folks were making things up when they were worried about this. Well, now it’s happened.’”
    TRANSCANADA FILES NAFTA CHALLENGE & FEDERAL SUIT
    “On Wednesday, TransCanada Corporation filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court alleging President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution. TransCanada also filed legal action under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, claiming the pipeline permit denial was ‘arbitrary and unjustified.’ It’s seeking $15 billion as part of its NAFTA claim.”

    LORI WALLACH ON DEMOCRACY NOW!: bit.ly/1Z8rWxh
    Lori Wallach is the Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
    ____________________

  26. Alz 26
    9 January 2016 at 11:06 am

    Divided, Emotional, Aggressive………yup there methods work.

  27. vto 27
    9 January 2016 at 11:50 am

    Great stuff. My vote follows the party/s that are looking to ban foreign ownership of our lands.

    Foreign ownership of land brings no benefit.

    This applies to all peoples of the world.

    Simple

    so simple

    so significant

    think people think

  28. millsy 28
    9 January 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Wayne,

    Can you please provide a detailed explantion as to why you think it is OK for multinational companies to have veto over NZ lawmaking, and whether you belive that the TPPA will harm our ability legislate labour laws and environmental protections,

    • Reddelusion 28.1
      9 January 2016 at 5:08 pm

      Here’s a starter, To put a break on stupid laws and confiscation of private property,

      • Scott M 28.1.1
        9 January 2016 at 5:20 pm

        Yeah ok… When was the last time a NZ government “confiscated” property?

        • Michael who failed Civics 28.1.1.1
          10 January 2016 at 3:55 am

          Under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981? Aren’t these compulsory acquisiitons announced every week in the “New Zealand Gazette”?

          • Scott M 28.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2016 at 1:48 pm

            Yawn. Those people are paid market rates for their property.

            • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2016 at 10:41 pm

              as a side note, the NZ government took over and broke up all the huge land holdings which existed in the 1880s. The result was the creation of thousands of successful farming families working thousands of small farm blocks.

              • Ad …
                11 January 2016 at 5:30 pm

                Ah Vogel! What a mensch.

                And don’t forget breaking up Bell into all the Baby Bells.

                I think it’s time Fonterra was split up into separate companies for bulk production and for retailing. Kind of like Telecom.
                (Although for that I think we’d need a water price regulator in place. Sigh).

        • weka 28.1.1.2
          11 January 2016 at 5:30 pm

          Foreshore and Seabed Act.

          Plus as mentioned the public works act which should be reserved for critical issues but now gets used loosely.

          Pretty sure that’s not what red delusion is referring to though 😉

      • Andre 28.1.2
        9 January 2016 at 5:25 pm

        Reddelusion, what are your thoughts on TransCanada suing the US for $15 billion using the ISDS provisions of NAFTA?

      • millsy 28.1.3
        9 January 2016 at 8:57 pm

        stupid laws eh?

        Like those governing what you can and cant put into our streams?
        Or those stopping you from discharging toxic waste into the air?
        Or perhaps those thatdictate the minuimum that you can pay a worker?

      • ropata 28.1.4
        10 January 2016 at 10:54 pm

        stupid laws like tax requirements, accounting standards, or regulations stopping monopolistic or fraudulent behaviour?

        i can see why sociopathic corporations would find that inconvenient.

  29. Tautuhi 29
    10 January 2016 at 11:12 am

    Does anyone really comprehend the TPPA as it is a 6000 page document written up by US Corporate Lawyers, obviously Jane Kelsey has spent a lot of time studying and understanding the document. Being a qualified academic surely her opinion must carry some weight?

  30. Colonial Viper 30
    10 January 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Is a Little led Labour Government going to withdraw NZ from the TPPA?

    Or keep us in the TPPA?

    I can’t actually tell.

    • Pat 30.1
      10 January 2016 at 10:31 pm

      I think that is as its intended….an ambiguous position that can be interpreted as you wish

      • Colonial Viper 30.1.1
        10 January 2016 at 10:37 pm

        its a PR position which has Grant Robertson’s fingerprints all over it.

        • Pat 30.1.1.1
          10 January 2016 at 10:52 pm

          well whoever devised it I suspect it will achieve nothing except perhaps the opposite of what they hoped

    • te reo putake 30.2
      11 January 2016 at 5:16 pm

      CV, I included the radio interview in the post. Have a listen and I think all your confusion will disappear. But in short, it’s neither. Little has said the next Government will reject at least some of negative aspects of the TPPA. How that plays out will depend on the reaction of the others who signed up for it. With a bit of luck, they’ll cop it sweet. If not, then I think we are going to have an interesting debate in NZ about what is more important, the rights of the foreign rich or the self determination of us Kiwis.

      • Ad 30.2.1
        11 January 2016 at 5:33 pm

        A real task for this new TPPA secretariat will be refining these ISDS mechanisms.

        If states can see themselves potentially liable for sqa-billions of dollars, it’s just not going to work.

  31. Alan Burke 31
    12 January 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Anyone remember when supporting communism would have got U ostracized? NOW however the “BIG DOUGH DUDES” Have invested heavily in Chinese Companies & shipped millions of jobs from around the World to CHINA! YES,they,re in bed with COMMUNISM! Targeting all our jobs,& delivering shit products,shirts where cotton unravels& buttons fall off,socks that must have been made with people having bean-pole ankles in mind,mens u/wear obviously really womens,because everything hangs out both sides of what should be a pouch! So resign from World Trade Organization,re-introduce tariffs & get back our industries & High quality goods,what do U reckon?

    • cogito 31.1
      12 January 2016 at 1:56 pm

      I never buy anything made in China if I can help it.

      I was recently really disappointed when I bought some Tussock Creek trousers from Farmlands. The last pairs I bought lasted for years, always fitted perfectly and were good solid kiwi made items, made in Mosgiel. The new ones, to my utter disgust are made in China….. and the quality is absolutely nothing like the originals. Stupidly I didn’t check the label until I got home. I was very disappointed. Should never have bought them.

      I suppose there were “good” business – ie cost – reasons for Tussock Creek to relocate production to China, but what did they get in return? Inferior quality and a devalued brand, not to mention the likely loss of experienced and loyal NZ workers. This is not the way forward.

  32. Paul 32
    12 January 2016 at 6:25 pm

    The TPP to be signed on 4th February – 2 days before Waitangi Day.
    Taking the mickey, aren’t they?
    Mentioned on the Daily Blog a couple of days ago. Now confirmed by our duplicitous corporate media .

    ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) free trade deal will be signed in New Zealand early next month, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed.
    News of the signing leaked out last week when Andres Rebolledo, director general of Chile’s economic relations bureau, confirmed the 12-nation free trade agreement would be signed on February 4, the International Trade Daily reported.
    While the Government said at the time details were still being finalised, Mfat has now confirmed that New Zealand is set to host the TPPA signing event in Auckland, some time in early February.
    An Mfat spokesman said specific arrangements were yet to be finalised, as “each country has a different process in relation to domestic requirements to be able to sign a trade agreement”.’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/75833624/tppa-trade-deal-signing-confirmed-for-new-zealand

    • Colonial Viper 32.1
      12 January 2016 at 6:39 pm

      “The TPP to be signed on 4th February – 2 days before Waitangi Day.
      Taking the mickey, aren’t they?”

      Yep like Peter Jackson’s cronies organising a protest on Labour Day.

  33. Muttonbird 33
    13 January 2016 at 4:59 pm

    Apologies if this has already been covered but I’m sure I remember the government saying the TPP would be debated in parliament and that was where the “public would have their say” as it were.

    Did I miss the debate already?

  34. Wisdumb 34
    14 January 2016 at 12:45 am

    Response to acrophobic at 1.22 pm, 12 January, just before 15.2.1.2

    No, acrophobic, it is about time you explained how countries without an FTA achieved similar major export gains to China in dairy goods as NZ did. Feel free to guess.

    I am happy with the success of the China-NZ FTA but critical of arguments of its origins that ignore the epochal demographic changes within China, and global changes in trade patterns well outside NZ’s influence.

    Thanks for the article on ISDS by Gabrielle Chan of the Asian Trade Centre. It is well informed, well argued, and succinct – everything that all the pundits, ex MFAT poohbahs, trade lobbyists, and MSM journalists in NZ have proven incapable of writing.

    For all that, it is essentially a lament on behalf of giant multinational corporates against expected bullying by small nations deviously concerned about profit-sucking matters like human health, the environment, and natural resources. Some process for protecting cross border investments might nevertheless have value, but not one created without democratic involvement. Ms Chan ignores this issue. Expropriation insurance is apparently available too but no mention of this either.

    Ms Chan advises that ISDS clauses are continually being improved, but the protections in the TPP for governments are expressed in the conditional “may” while the rights and entitlements for corporates and the obligations of governments are expressed in the imperative “shall.” In any case, thinking in terms of upgrading the text is narrow and outmoded. The clear-thinking EU has decided to avoid the inherent faults of the ISDS regime by replacing it with a proper international commercial court system.

    The data purporting to show low risks of ISDS lawsuits merely says, “Trust me, it won’t happen here,” which is worse than guessing This is the same blinkered complacent camp-following thinking that gave the world the GFC. This won’t save TPP governments from increasingly intrusive and high-cost ISDS suits.

    • Wisdumb 34.1
      14 January 2016 at 8:48 am

      Blooper Alert. I now see that Gabrielle Chan did not write the Asian Trade Centre article that I analysed. This article was authorless whereas Ms Chan wrote an article in the Guardian that the Asian Trade Centre article criticised. My references to Ms Chan should be read as references to the Asian Trade Centre.

Links to post