Open Mike 01/05/2017

112 comments on “Open Mike 01/05/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Incognito 1

   1 May 2017 at 7:45 am

   George Monbiot will vote Labour despite or perhaps in spite of Jeremy Corbyn and all his flaws.

   http://www.monbiot.com/2017/04/27/the-case-against-competence/

   The contrast between English and Little is perhaps not as great as between May and Corbyn, and there are other factors at play here in NZ, but the same kind of reasoning could be applied to our election this year.

   It also reminds of a discussion yesterday about the competence (or presumed lack thereof) of Phil Twyford to tackle the housing issues in New Zealand:

   I would argue that the record of recent decades suggests that competence in politics is overrated.

   I couldn’t agree more.
   • Gosman 1.1

     1 May 2017 at 12:56 pm

     Why wouldn’t he vote for Corbyn? Like Corbyn he’s about as hard core leftist as you can get in a Social Democracy. The problem for Labour is that Monbiot doesn’t represent to people Corbyn needs to convince in order to avoid a rout.
     • Incognito 1.1.1

       1 May 2017 at 10:14 pm

       Monbiot said he was voting Labour in the first place and gave his reasons why.

       The convincing was done by Monbiot.

       Nice try though 😉
   • Bearded Git 1.2

     1 May 2017 at 12:59 pm

     @Icognito I think you are wrong about English and Little. Little comes over as honest and I like the policies he supports. He is not particularly eloquent; a bit of media training would help here (he needs to cut out the “you knows”). He has a law degree, appears competent (witness the way he is reorganising the Labour Party) and will grow into the job as PM as did Clark.

     English I don’t trust as far as I could throw him. He has presided over a regime obsessed with cutting costs (DOC, Radio NZ, education and health failing to keep up in real terms et al) though not for roading or where his Southland polluting farmer mates are concerned. A regime that has wrecked the RMA so his developer mates can make even more dosh. A regime that has allowed our rivers to become only “Smithable”. A regime that has cut taxes for the better off etc etc

     In terms of personality, neither of them is a Lange, but at least Little has shown a disarming ability to laugh at himself.
     • saveNZ 1.2.1

       1 May 2017 at 1:31 pm

       +1 Bearded Git
     • AB 1.2.2

       1 May 2017 at 1:44 pm

       “Smithable river”
       Definition: A river that can be defined as anything at all depending on how the speaker feels on a given day
       Usage: “I fell out of my kayak yesterday and swallowed a gallon of water but I’m Ok about it because the river so Smithable”
     • Incognito 1.2.3

       1 May 2017 at 10:10 pm

       I don’t know whether you’ve read Monbiot’s piece or maybe missed his point and/or my analogy, which was more about the parties & policies rather than about personalities.

       Please let me rephrase it and bastardise paraphrase Monbiot; hopefully the message becomes clearer this time.

       With the upcoming election we have a choice: a party that through misguided neoliberal ideology and austerity allows kids to go hungry and homeless people to sleep in cars while overseas trusts set up shop here and property speculators getting richer every day and push the dream of owning a home well out of reach for ordinary law-abiding hard-working Kiwis or a party (better: coalition) that keeps on messing up (internally) but at least offers us a glimmer of hope of a kinder, more equal, fairer, more inclusive, and more compassionate nation.
       • KJT 1.2.3.1

         3 May 2017 at 12:24 pm

         To use nationals analogy. A party which is rowing briskly towards the rocks, or, a left wing bunch of parties who are pulling in several directions, but on a course which avoids the rocks.
         • Incognito 1.2.3.1.1

           3 May 2017 at 4:37 pm

           🙂
2. joe90 2

   1 May 2017 at 12:05 pm

   If I may.
3. greywarshark 3

   1 May 2017 at 12:44 pm

   Just to cheer you up. This historical summary of a past period shows a variety of tragedies and disasters that are available for a change from ones we may already have had.

   The period from England’s King Edward I in the late thirteenth century through the end of the Hundred Years’ War in the mid-fifteenth century was an eventful one offering rich material for historical novels.

   It featured:
   * wars with Wales and Scotland that brought these once independent nations under English rule;
   * a century-long war with France in which a young French peasant girl, Joan of Arc, turned the tide of war against England and was martyred for it;
   * a peasant’s rebellion;
   * and outbreaks of the Black Plague.
4. Draco T Bastard 4

   1 May 2017 at 1:11 pm

   Plastic 3D printed rocket

   This wasn’t just a because-we-can experiment. Metal 3D printing is expensive (the printers alone cost hundreds of thousands of dollars). MIT’s printer, a Markforged Mark Two, costs “just” $13,499. That’s not exactly an impulse purchase, but it could give small teams a chance at building rockets that would otherwise be impossible with a relatively modest budget. And while it’s not stated, it’s easy to see larger space agencies using this to keep costs down, especially for rockets that are unlikely to be used more than once or for long durations.

   There’s a lot to accomplish before that happens. The scientists are researching larger, more resilient motors. Eventually, they’re aiming for plastic-hulled rockets powerful enough for flight. Don’t be surprised if you one day see lighter, cheaper rockets that only use metal sparingly.

   Now if our government would get stuck in and do some serious R&D on 3D printing and actually built some factories using that developed tech we’d be on to a good start to developing our economy.
   • Gosman 4.1

     1 May 2017 at 3:15 pm

     Why don’t YOU get some like minded people together and invest in this technology instead of trying to risk OPM ?
     • KJT 4.1.1

       1 May 2017 at 6:19 pm

       Like Dairy farmers, you mean?
       • Gosman 4.1.1.1

         1 May 2017 at 6:42 pm

         Yes. Like Dairy farmers. Don’t use the State to fund your commercial activity.
         • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1

           1 May 2017 at 7:03 pm

           Would you like to retain some shred of dignity and retract that and provide a link to NZ govt funds going to Fonterra research, or are you so pathetic that you’ll maintain the demonstrably false claim until others drop a few links?
       • Gosman 4.1.1.2

         1 May 2017 at 6:42 pm

         Yes. Like Dairy farmers. Don’t use the State to fund your commercial activity.
         • keepcalmcarryon 4.1.1.2.1

           1 May 2017 at 8:15 pm

           I dont recall seeing you speaking out loudly on farmers receiving $400million of taxpayer money for irrigation Gosman but maybe I missed the post.
           • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.1

             1 May 2017 at 8:22 pm

             Don’t forget $85mil of government funding to fonterra research.

             Lol so there’s almost half a billion to draco’s wee rocket lab that gossy would think is okay.
           • dv 4.1.1.2.1.2

             1 May 2017 at 8:26 pm

             And SCF.
           • In Vino 4.1.1.2.1.3

             1 May 2017 at 8:30 pm

             Let alone farmers being excused from their burden regarding climate change.. Face it Gosman – NZ dairy farmers are in fact subsidised by the state. They are not the paragons of private enterprise that you misconceive them for.
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2

       1 May 2017 at 7:36 pm

       The US is where it is because of the massive R&D that the US Federal government has funded (The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato).

       The simple fact of the matter is that private individuals do not have the resources to fund decades long research.
5. greywarshark 5

   1 May 2017 at 1:36 pm

   Radionz this morning on co housing etc

   environment housing
   11:47 am today
   Urbanist Bill McKay
   From Nine To Noon, 11:47 am today Listen duration 12′ :00″
   http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201842110/urbanist-bill-mckay

   Bill McKay talks to Kathryn Ryan about co-living and co-housing – once associated with hippies and alternative lifestylers – now they have gone mainstream, offering affordable housing solutions and a sense of community.
   • Molly 5.1

     1 May 2017 at 2:26 pm

     Denmark have been at the fore-front of co-housing for decades, and have developed a number of models that reflect the adaptability and diversity of living styles and demographics.

     A good article on the history, on a Canadian website.

     They cater from urban to rural, aged-care to young-families. A great model for traditional family based cultures to have a look at – I would think.
   • Molly 5.2

     1 May 2017 at 2:45 pm

     Christie Walk is an example a bit closer to our neck of the woods, in Adelaide.

     Used an irregular shaped urban site of approx 2000m2 to provide for 27 dwellings.

     Incorporates passive cooling systems and alternative energy use, as well as providing common spaces and equipment.
     • greywarshark 5.2.1

       1 May 2017 at 4:38 pm

       You are good value Molly. Thanks for the links, helpful.
6. McFlock 6

   1 May 2017 at 2:11 pm

   Heh.
   Apparently some prospective Labour list mps aren’t happy with their ranking, including Willie Jackson.

   Sucks to be him, but I’m glad they seem to have selected some people who have worked hard for Labour for years if not decades, rather than automatically inserting a late-jumping parachutist into the top ten.
   • DoublePlusGood 6.1

     1 May 2017 at 2:25 pm

     Maybe he should be working hard to ensure that he and the people above him on the list get in, instead of whinging that he was given position 21 – which is pretty darn high for someone that was trying to last-minute parachute into a high list position.
     Plus, would have sent a great message if he was more like ‘Hey, position 21 is excellent, thank you Labour for giving me a go. I’m going to help Labour win enough seats to win the election, which gets me into parliament.”

     Labour will have to pick up about 10-12 seats to get him in, which is what they need to win the election. Whinging about position 21 is therefore pretty defeatist.
     • weka 6.1.1

       1 May 2017 at 2:29 pm

       “Labour will have to pick up about 10-12 seats to get him in, which is what they need to win the election.”

       How so? (my numbers below).
       • DoublePlusGood 6.1.1.1

         1 May 2017 at 4:21 pm

         Labour got 32 MPs last time, getting 27 electorate MPs and 5 list MPs. List place 11 was the last person in off the list (Andrew Little).
         What I missed was the number of people from 11 onwards winning electorate seats. Position 21 (in that case Raymond Huo) would have got into parliament if Labour got 3 more MPs, not 10-12 as I stated.

         So, you’re right, Jackson is not very far away from getting elected in the position he is in – the exact amount Labour need to get him in depends on how many electorates Labour win and how many above him on the list win electorates.
         • lprent 6.1.1.1.1

           1 May 2017 at 5:09 pm

           That is what I would have picked. 4 seats improvement required. It is a good position if he’d had any confidence in his ability to attract votes.
   • weka 6.2

     1 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

     I couldn’t see what the problem is as Labour got 25% at the last election, which equals 32 MPs. Jackson is 21st on the list, so he’s a shoo in surely? But I just looked and see that Labour have 21 electorate MPs, so if the list vote drops far enough, he won’t get in. But if Labour dropped that low, would he really want to be parliament?

     Or someone is shit-stirring with Stuff.
     • McFlock 6.2.1

       1 May 2017 at 2:40 pm

       Shit-stirring is a high possibility, by Labour seemed to have gotten over that within the caucus lately. And of course now if he turns up at higher than 21, it looks like he shook his rattle and got what he wanted.

       Going by last election’s Labour list and cutoff, the 21st spot didn’t get into parliament until Ardern won Mt Albert. But as you say, for WJ to miss out on a spot at 21 this time round, Labour would have to do as badly if not worse than in 2014 (assuming roughly the same number of electorate seats).

       And if he’s not going to boost the party vote, why bother having him in?
       • Psycho Milt 6.2.1.1

         1 May 2017 at 2:43 pm

         And if he’s not going to boost the party vote, why bother having him in?

         Would love to see a journo put this question to him…
       • BM 6.2.1.2

         1 May 2017 at 3:02 pm

         Wasn’t Jackson going to run for the Maori party but Little convinces him not to?

         Maybe promised him a “guaranteed to get into parliament” list placing.?

         Cutting Jackson would look like Labour has fucked over Jackson which would not go down well with many Maori voters.

         You would also have Jackson spending the next 4 months sticking it to Labour
         • lprent 6.2.1.2.1

           1 May 2017 at 3:08 pm

           Nope. The exact wording in public that I remember was a “high place on the list”. That was a mistake. Basically it meant that people who’d actually worked for Labour were bumped for a stupid political reasoning (in my opinion). It makes the list even more rigid for the ‘benefit’ of an unproven performer with a dubious ability to bring in votes and no particular track record in politics apart from being mates with that political idiot John Tamihere.

           But where are you picking up your lie from? Kiwiblog or Whaleoil? It has a ring of their fake news style
           • BM 6.2.1.2.1.1

             1 May 2017 at 3:24 pm

             But where are you picking up your lie from? Kiwiblog or Whaleoil? It has a ring of their fake news style

             Think it was an article by Mathew Hooten, he was less than complimentary about Willy Jackson, basically, spend 90% of the article calling him a dumb arse.
           • Gosman 6.2.1.2.1.2

             1 May 2017 at 4:15 pm

             Why are they delaying the announcement of their list if not because of dissension in the ranks?
             • McFlock …

               1 May 2017 at 4:31 pm

               So WJ can be there at the announcement and smile and shake hands and assure everyone that he respects the democratic processes in the party, and that this was always his understanding when he joined, and that he looks forward to helping Labour on its journey towards being the next government, and gosh jono mcjonolist needs to take a chill pill.

               You know, like a grownup politician would.
             • lprent …

               1 May 2017 at 5:08 pm

               WTF? Are you thick? Because people aren’t happy with their position on the list and the specified process and they’re arguing about it.

               In the case of Willie Jackson, he doesn’t like the process specified by the party and wants some kind of intervention from on high.

               That in turn will cause a lash back from the more worthy candidates who were selected and ordered by the party members, the caucus, and the leadership in a predefined process. If Willie or his supporters had wanted to bump himself up the list, then there were a pile of list conferences that they could have done that at as well as the various processes that were used to arrive at the final list.

               If he does bump himself up the list in a violation of common sense and the procedures, then I suspect that there will be a considerable amount of walking from support in the NZLP members and supporters to the Greens or NZ First who aren’t such idiots as to violate their previously agreed party processes.

               I’d be one of them. I really don’t like idiotic and usually misogynist shock jocks at the best of times. I don’t think that Willie is going to bring much to the campaign apart from some serious level of distaste. I really don’t like dickheads in parliament and the staffers pissing on the procedures because they think it is a good idea.

               And I know that I’m not alone with this. The adverse reaction amongst my relatives, acquaintances and friends to his promotion and especially with the roastbusters debacle is pretty strong. And these are mostly people like – the relative left conservatives.

               Basically the position that Willie Jackson got is pretty good bearing in mind his political inexperience and the lack of campaigning experience that he has. He should be satisfied with it. So should anyone else.

               Sue Moroney had the appropriate reaction to disappointment. But I guess that was because she knew the depth of the process and that you need to get widespread support. I’m not particularly happy with that myself as I think she was doing a pretty good job. But I’m perfectly willing to abide by the results of the process rather than whining like Willie..
     • Psycho Milt 6.2.2

       1 May 2017 at 2:42 pm

       The problem for the list-only people is that Labour gets a lot of electorate seats, so even with 32 MPs that doesn’t necessarily mean the 21st list MP gets in.
     • Karen 6.2.3

       1 May 2017 at 3:29 pm

       It is more complicated than that, Weka, as Labour win a lot of electorate seats. Basically Labour would probably need just over 30% to get Jackson in if he is number 21 on the list. Note I said probably – it depends on who wins marginal seats.

       However, Labour need more than 30% to be in government so I don’t see Jackson’s problem, particularly as he claims to be able to increase Labour’s share of the urban Māori vote. If he can bring more votes he’ll get in, if he can’t then he is a waste of a place.

       This is mostly to do with his ego. He wanted to be in the top 10 on the list (he told a friend of mine this) but that was never going to happen. I really hope Labour do not give into his temper tantrum. I will be highly pissed off if he is given a higher place than Kiri Allan for example.
       • james 6.2.3.1

         1 May 2017 at 4:11 pm

         ” If he can bring more votes he’ll get in, if he can’t then he is a waste of a place.”

         If he can bring in more votes than some of the people ranked higher than him – would it not be them who are the waste of a place?
         • Gosman 6.2.3.1.1

           1 May 2017 at 4:16 pm

           I think he finds it a bit of an insult that his list placing may be lower than other people who haven’t got as much media presence as he does.
           • McFlock 6.2.3.1.1.1

             1 May 2017 at 4:27 pm

             But his almighty presence will bring more than enough people to Labour to ensure his selection and promotion to the front bench…
         • Grantoc 6.2.3.1.2

           1 May 2017 at 8:04 pm

           Bringing in more votes was the rationale for head hunting Jackson in the first place.

           There is no evidence to date that he is making any difference to Labour’s polling. There can’t be much confidence that that this will change as we approach the election.

           It seems to me that he has no bargaining chips for arguing for a higher place on the list.

           Jackson is irrelevant and if he doesn’t like the place he’s been offered by Labour the party should just let him go.

           To give in to his tantrums would demonstrate incredible sycophancy, weakness and desperation by Labour.
7. james 7

   1 May 2017 at 2:57 pm

   Seems he was suckered in on Littles promise of a high list placing. No wonder he is upset.

   new opinion piece on stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92074732/labour-sustains-selfinflicted-wounds-from-lastminute-list-turmoil
   • McFlock 7.1

     1 May 2017 at 3:16 pm

     lol if that’s true then it’s funny when assumed privilege finally bites someone in the arse.
     • james 7.1.1

       1 May 2017 at 3:22 pm

       Its not so much that it was assumed – it sounds like it was promised.

       But yep – its biting Little in the arse now. This is the kind of press that makes Labour look like a shambles, and cannot even get something this ‘basic’ right.

       yeah – I know its not basic – esp given gender quotas etc, but this should not be playing out in the press.
       • McFlock 7.1.1.1

         1 May 2017 at 3:32 pm

         🙄
         It’s not. Not being played out in public, not even much of a shambles. Massive improvement on Damien O’Conner’s petulance last time.
         Nice throw to “quotas” as well, btw.

         Basically, Little overextended himself a bit, and WJ just assumed he’d be greeted like a knight in shining armour. I love to imagine what WJ would have said if he was a mid-level Labour listie and the caucus leader tried to parachute someone in above. And yet the thought never occurred that others might feel the same.

         So far, Little and to a greater extent WJ have learnt a bit more humility. Let’s see who spits their dummy in public.
         • james 7.1.1.1.1

           1 May 2017 at 3:49 pm

           Whilst I agree its better that the O’Conner situation. – despite what you say it is being played out in public.

           Its on the front page of almost every news site in NZ – with headlines such as “Labours List of Woes”

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92074732/labour-sustains-selfinflicted-wounds-from-lastminute-list-turmoil”

           and “Labour delays candidate list amisdt discontent”

           http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/04/labour-to-reveal-election-candidate-list.html

           Its hard not to see this as a shambles. And tomorrow if there is a change with WJ’s position – you just know that will be the main talking point in the news as well.
           • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.1

             1 May 2017 at 3:59 pm

             lol

             Yeah, keep talking it up. Blinglish needs a “pretty legal” story to distract from his own problems.

             At the moment it’s all reporter supposition in search of a story. List announcements are always controversial to a certain degree. If it’s a gender thing, why is Moroney down? If WJ is making a last ditch threat to spit the dummy, we’ll see how the selection committee takes that under advisement.

             Until someone actually says something public, you’ll keep fapping away. And if it’s a molehill you’ve been pinning your hopes on… bodes well for the left.
             • james …

               1 May 2017 at 4:01 pm

               So – you think the news links above show labour in a good light?
               • McFlock …

                 1 May 2017 at 4:24 pm

                 Nope. But five years ago everyone concerned would have been throwing petrol on the smouldering embers. Whereas today it’s just you and whatever 3news are calling themselves after their last financial quandary. And it’s not flaring up yet.

                 edit: so actually… if they maintain their discipline, not a bad light at all…
           • Cinny 7.1.1.1.1.2

             1 May 2017 at 4:48 pm

             Its on the front page of almost every news site in NZ – with headlines such as “Labours List of Woes”

             Indeed, because online news media knows that gossip gets clicks.

             It would be an even sadder reflection on news networks if they give this any airtime on the evening news.

             If anyone is worried about their ranking on the list, maybe they should stand for an electorate instead of being list only. JS
8. AsleepWhileWalking 8

   1 May 2017 at 3:07 pm

   Wanganui housing crisis update

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11846358
9. Anne 9

   1 May 2017 at 3:16 pm

   The Labour list announcement has been delayed until tomorrow because some candidate are upset with their placings.

   I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest the reason why is allied to the new mandatory ruling that 50% of the caucus must be women. I am 100% for encouraging women in the Labour Party to aim for a parliamentary career, and it was pleasing to see a few years ago that the goal of 50% was close to becoming a reality and without any compulsion. I voted against introducing the mandatory aspect because it seemed to me to be unnecessarily divisive. It should have been obvious that it would cause ructions inside the party particularly in election year when we could least afford it.

   I suspect that is what has happened. In an endeavour to implement the new rule, the list committee has effectively de-selected some highly desirable (for whatever reason) candidates simply because they are male. It was inevitable that would create angst and bitterness which plays directly into the hands of the NAct government.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11848145

   Edit: they have changed the headline. It was “Discontent over list rankings” and started with the words “Some candidates are upset about their rankings…”
   • repateet 9.1

     1 May 2017 at 3:28 pm

     If it gets to the nitty gritty and 50% of each gender is an absolute, there will be some prepared to have another three years of English/Joyce and co. for sticking to the principle.

     Somehow, doing a lap of honour for getting thrashed in the World Cup final though is not very satisfying.

     I can understand the thought that the community will catch up and finally acknowledge the worth of the principle with electoral support. In that case the successors to English/Joyce and cobbers have a long road of governing ahead.
   • james 9.2

     1 May 2017 at 3:29 pm

     “the list committee has effectively de-selected some highly desirable (for whatever reason) candidates simply because they are male.”

     Isn’t that almost the epitome of sexism? De-selecting people simply because of their sex when they may be the best person for the job?
     • McFlock 9.2.1

       1 May 2017 at 3:38 pm

       Not if societal assumptions about their gender played a part in their initial selection, and there were equivalently-qualified people of the other gender who had been deselected initially. In that case it would be the minimisation of sexist outcomes, if Anne’s suspicion is correct.

       It could, of course, just be regular churn in list placements.
     • Anne 9.2.2

       1 May 2017 at 3:38 pm

       I don’t know if that is what happened James. If you read what I said you would know it is only a suspicion on my part. If it turns out something like I suggest has happened than no… it was not done in the name of “sexism”. It was an attempt to be in line with the mandatory nature of the new ruling. Quite different.
10. feijoa 10

    1 May 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Well, in a perfect non sexist society a woman MUST be the right person for the job 50% of the time
    Women generally not so good at jobs requiring brute strength, but apart from that….
    • BM 10.1

      1 May 2017 at 3:52 pm

      https://www.powerofpositivity.com/ways-men-women-think-differently/

      There are jobs better suited for men, there are jobs better suited for women.
      • mac1 10.1.1

        1 May 2017 at 4:01 pm

        BM, that article you’ve cited is about thinking differently. Would you like to give us a job or two that you have in mind that you think this article could be applied to, because it doesn’t talk about actual jobs?
        • james 10.1.1.1

          1 May 2017 at 4:05 pm

          Not speaking for BM – but generally I think all jobs could be filled by either sex. I have worked in the tech industry for years, and I would say two out of 3 of the best people I had as bosses were women.

          It all comes down I think to 100’s of small things that make up the person who is best for the job – again, sex is only one of those.
        • BM 10.1.1.2

          1 May 2017 at 4:09 pm

          Teaching, nursing, vets, child care, counselors, care workers, all predominately female occupations.

          Police, armed forces, firemen, pretty much all the trades, computer related fields seem to be mainly done by guys.
          • james 10.1.1.2.1

            1 May 2017 at 4:13 pm

            computer related fields – That was the case before but I see a real shift in developers, PM’s and BA with a lot more females coming into the field.
            • BM 10.1.1.2.1.1

              1 May 2017 at 4:18 pm

              That’s good most places I’ve seen are real sausage fests.
            • McFlock 10.1.1.2.1.2

              1 May 2017 at 4:21 pm

              A shift reversing the earlier shift against women.

              I guess women had a massive shift in their suitability for coding in the 1980s 🙂
          • mauī 10.1.1.2.2

            1 May 2017 at 5:09 pm

            A women run army, police force and prison system would be a lot more successful than what we’ve currently got.
            • greywarshark 10.1.1.2.2.1

              1 May 2017 at 6:41 pm

              maui
              Mmm. Women are just as affected by the power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The disappointing thing about many women who go up the power ladder is that they seem to become heckling nasties who talk down to most of the public, and utter ultimatums to the point of get going or get out to the despised ones with weaker moral fibre.
              • weka …

                1 May 2017 at 11:10 pm

                Women who gain power in very patriarchal systems tend to be people who are ok with those systems and are willing to behave accordingly. That’s quite different than if women ran those systems themselves. Women tend to organise differently and I think mauī is right, that the army, police force and prisons would look very different if run by women culturally (not run by a few women according to the way men set them up).
                • mauī …

                  2 May 2017 at 12:04 am

                  Yeah I agree with that weka. Women collaborate well together to achieve outcomes. This might be running a school or a nursing home for example. And you often see women in the critical leadership roles that make a community organisation function at all and of course the running of the individual household too. I don’t think men do this as well.

                  The collaborative, efficient and compassionate approaches that women would bring would be a really intersting contrast if they could start from scratch.
                • greywarshark …

                  2 May 2017 at 11:26 am

                  weka and maui
                  It may be so in many roles and the enforcing entities of society that a true feminine approach not bound by male certainties would result in better outcomes in society than when run by men. But there is a strong authoritarian type that can emerge who gathers fervent followers who keep the thinking along agreed lines. Then women tend to cluster
                  around this Queen Bee who is a dominant, charismatic, person and ideas of democracy can vanish in the glow of having feminine control, with no dissenters to spoil the beautiful harmony thank you.

                  It does happen, so optimistic beliefs that everything would be better if only women were in charge should be recognised, and then adjustments made to behaviour when women do get control to stop this style of hegemony getting established.

                  I think women are likely to choose consensus decision making, with the idea that all are involved and have their say, equally. This is likely to be using a flat organisational structure which has its weaknesses and benefits.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_organization
                  Under ‘Criticisms’:
                  …new power dynamics can emerge that undermine the equality afforded by a non-hierarchical context. …

                  [Problems]:…the formation of informal cliques, the “soft power” of popular employees, unprofessional and sexist attitudes, and lack of workplace diversity.

                  These are things that have occurred to me and I bring them up because there is a regular meme of women automatically being better in many spheres, which needs to be qualified, ie they with the right principles, breadth of vision and practicality probably would be better. But also if men with the above attributes could take over many entities now run by men and women without those attributes there would be huge improvements also.

                  It is just a thought that you can pick over as you want. I don’t want to argue for it but present it from observation, as a point of view.
                  • weka …

                    3 May 2017 at 12:17 pm

                    I’ve worked in women’s groups and collectives and they do often function differently than ones designed by men.

                    I’ve also looked at how women organise in egalitarian societies, and again, there are differences.

                    So it’s not so much optimistic beliefs as observations.

                    There’s a whole thing about to what extent women can function in non-patriarchal ways when we are pretty much all socialised into the patriarchy. But I have seen women (and men) make conscious choices to organise differently. Giving women control in patriarchal structures is not the same thing.

                    To take it out of the gender realm, the Greens based their organisational structures on non-domination models as much as they could. It’s part of why you don’t see leadership coups and MPs leaking against the party. So we do have examples of people choosing to organise differently and that being beneficial.
          • Visubversa 10.1.1.2.3

            1 May 2017 at 5:26 pm

            The first computer programmers were women. It was seen as keyboard work so was given to the Navy typists. It was only once its imprtance was realised it got shifted to the blokes.
            • McFlock 10.1.1.2.3.1

              1 May 2017 at 5:32 pm

              The first computer programmer was Ada Lovelace.
              • Antoine …

                2 May 2017 at 2:27 am

                Second. (First was Babbage.)

                A.
                • McFlock …

                  2 May 2017 at 10:47 am

                  Nope. He was the engineer, not a programmer. It was Lovelace who actually realised the potential of his machine.
                  • lprent …

                    2 May 2017 at 11:07 am

                    Looking at what of her code survived, she did pretty damn well considering she was writing for clockwork. It was pity that the difference engine and the other similar attempts in this period simply weren’t accurate enough to run it.
                  • Antoine …

                    2 May 2017 at 11:07 am

                    I’m working off e.g. https://www.quora.com/Can-Ada-Lovelace-be-regarded-as-the-first-programmer
                    • McFlock …

                      2 May 2017 at 11:35 am

                      Well, by that article Babbage doesn’t count, either.

                      To a certain degree, the question is basically asking “how long is a piece of string?” The “first” is generally where you choose to cut the string.

                      The line about Lovelace becoming a “steampunk myth” is a bit harsh. Lovelace was basically the first one to make the leap into general problem abstraction for complex mahine instructions. She wasn’t the first to work regularly as a cruncher, but as benchmarks go, she’s a pretty good line.
                    • lprent []

                      2 May 2017 at 11:56 am

                      As you say, what was interesting with her work was that she was the first one I know about who started from the principle of how should these operations be done rather than just trying to do them.

                      Her “Notes” had the first ‘program’ that I am aware of that was written on how it should operate rather than how I got the %*&^%&$^%#!!! thing to run. It was a technique for calculating one of the number sequences. But importantly it was written from the logical design of the Analytical Engine rather from its implementation (which never did finish).

                      Because she was (I suspect) the first person writing operating instructions who wasn’t the inventor and or tinker of the gadget running it, we got a programming algorithm rather than a series of after the implementation kludges.
                    • Antoine …

                      2 May 2017 at 11:40 am

                      Anyway, they were both pretty awesome.
                    • McFlock …

                      2 May 2017 at 11:47 am

                      we stand on the shoulders of giants 🙂
          • mac1 10.1.1.2.4

            1 May 2017 at 5:30 pm

            Thanks, BM. How do these jobs pan out when lined up against the different thinking outlined in the article you cited?
      • DoublePlusGood 10.1.2

        1 May 2017 at 4:25 pm

        The 1950’s called; it wants it’s obsolete debunked psychology back.
    • james 10.2

      1 May 2017 at 3:59 pm

      Not really – You would have to assume that for every job there would be an equal number of exactly qualified people of both genders wanting that position.

      Truth is – there will very rarely be so.

      There will always be one person who would be a better match for the role. Gender may make up a small part of that equation – but should not be the number one decision making point.
      • McFlock 10.2.1

        1 May 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Except that the old “we select the best candidate for the job” is complete bullshit. Most organisations select people from a pool of qualified folk, and frankly the distinction between selection and discard can be down to the colour of ink the person signed their cover letter in, once around half the applications have been filed because they’re completely unsuitable.

        Oh, if you have only a few applicants you might whittle it down to only a few interviewees, but unless the pool from which you get your people is exceptionally small and brackish any one of those few could satisfactorily do the job. So it comes down to how easily they make social conversation, or whether they have an ancillary skill that might be interesting.

        The problem we have in this country, and that parties like Labour and the greens are trying to address, is that while more and more women are in the “can satisfactorily do the job” category, that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the final hiring rates.
        • james 10.2.1.1

          1 May 2017 at 4:30 pm

          So using your logic – Im going to assume that you believe that every person on the Labour List could satisfactorily do the job.

          Do you think that some of them could do the job better than others?

          edit – and if so – do you think that the people who could do the job better than others should be ranked above the ones who, whilst still being able to do the job, are not as “good”?
          • McFlock 10.2.1.1.1

            1 May 2017 at 4:41 pm

            Am I assuming that there would be no differences in suitability in the top fifty?

            Nope.

            In fact, there’d probably be at least one or two utter deplorables on any given list. And a few superstars.

            But the point is that those variations are within the bounds of any reasonable application review process. Some might be slightly better than others, but so much better as to justify a sausage or taco fest in the top 20? Fuck no. And the dropkicks will be indistinguishable from the stars, by and large, until they’re in the job.

            I mean, you could spend tens of thousands of bucks on each applicant with reviews, psych tests, work history back to McD’s after school, surprise drug tests, background trashers to find all the porn bills or what have you. You know what? You’d still end up with much the same list as before, except you ditched a star because they got a false positive for opioids in their piss test.

            But much tifference between the top 5 and next 5? Nah. Nor the 10-15 and 20-25. By and large they’d all be reasonably equivalent, do the job, work hard, make mistakes, and try to do good things.
            • james 10.2.1.1.1.1

              1 May 2017 at 5:03 pm

              You raise really good points.

              Honestly, I hadn’t really thought of it like that – but what you are saying makes a lot of sense.
              • McFlock …

                1 May 2017 at 5:11 pm

                Wow.

                Cheers for that.
                • James …

                  1 May 2017 at 6:31 pm

                  Credits due when credits due. 🙂
          • AB 10.2.1.1.2

            1 May 2017 at 5:17 pm

            You’re not really using McFlock’s logic.
            What he said was that generally, once the patently unsuitable have been eliminated, you end up with a group that could probably all do the job reasonably well. (The exception to this might be when you are looking for really rare skills.)
            In any case, one of the hardest things in recruiting is finding some rational basis for picking one person from among your shortlist. In the end that decision is rarely rational – it’s pretty intuitive, though you do become good in dressing it up in the language of rationality.
            So to suggest that we can just “pick the right person” irrespective of extraneous factors is an overly-idealised and purist view of how recruiting actually happens. I think McFlock has made a really important point.
            • John up North 10.2.1.1.2.1

              2 May 2017 at 12:40 pm

              But all this guff about skills and Gender and experience and such all fall by the wayside when you’ve got the right connections.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8507144/Key-forgets-tip-to-friend-over-spy-job

              And THIS is a major problem in our society, the old boys network! We currently have a large number of asses on seats that have no idea of how to do the job properly, but they know the handshake, talk the bullshit and have the same partly line engraved in their DNA. No need to send an email or such to stick a knife into John Campbell, just stand in the corridor and mumble “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/79593244/Mark-Weldon-right-to-resign-from-MediaWorks-former-TV3-news-boss-says
    • Bill 10.3

      1 May 2017 at 4:48 pm

      Not really interested in Willie Jackson but am interested and waiting to see what placing Sue Moroney got seeing as how she retired over the head of it. She was 11 or 14 last time around.

      It could be the left of the party is getting the heave-ho.
      • Enough is Enough 10.3.1

        1 May 2017 at 5:10 pm

        Moroney is a big loss for Hamilton West.

        She has done some great work but has been poleaxed by Little’s list.

        Thanks Sue for your work. Especially around paid parental leave.
        • In Vino 10.3.1.1

          1 May 2017 at 8:37 pm

          As a Hamilton West voter, I will be expecting a damned good left-wing candidate, or Labour will lose even my electorate vote. It has never had my party vote because it has not reversed neo-liberalism.
      • Rosemary McDonald 10.3.2

        1 May 2017 at 5:12 pm

        “It could be the left of the party is getting the heave-ho.”

        That’s my reading.

        Labour consolidating it’s centrist position.

        I wonder if they’ve given thought to the possibility that their target voter just might opt for the devil we know rather than risk a change.

        Ho hum.
        • McFlock 10.3.2.1

          1 May 2017 at 5:36 pm

          O’Conner the gregbert is apparently in an “Ohariu or bust” placing.

          I guess we’ll see what it is tomorrow – if WJ is any higher than 21 it would look like he threw a tantrum and the panel caved.
        • Bill 10.3.2.2

          1 May 2017 at 5:45 pm

          If the reading is right (and I should say that Labour died to me quite a while back, but still…) there comes a point when you’ve said “Don’t pick up the gun”…when you’ve said “That’s a really bad idea where you’re pointing that”…when you’ve said “Look over there at the alternatives and see how it’s working out really quite well” … when you’re fed up saying things and get to quietly thinking… “Fuck off. Hurry up and just pull the trigger….Goodbye and good riddance”
11. feijoa 11

    1 May 2017 at 4:31 pm

    it’s just that line about “the best person for the job” kind of misses the point. Theoretically a woman should be the best person half the time, a man half the time.
    Physical ability in some jobs is an issue I accept.
12. NZJester 12

    1 May 2017 at 5:01 pm

    R.I.P. Air New Zealand.
    The Smiling assassin is joining their board in September.
    How long before it is run into crippling debt like he left behind in his last job?
    • Enough is Enough 12.1

      1 May 2017 at 5:13 pm

      New Zealand hardly has crippling debt.

      We have some of the best debt levels in the western world.

      What makes you think it is crippling?
      • lprent 12.1.1

        1 May 2017 at 5:29 pm

        We have some of the best debt levels in the western world.
        What makes you think it is crippling?

        Because it hasn’t gone down. The problem is that we are a small economy that depends a lot on external trade. We don’t have anything lie an internal market in the way that most of the economies you are comparing us with have.

        Consequently we get hit hard if we have a downturn in external and international trade, and the problems tend to pile on top of each other at once causing massive fluctuations in income. You only have to look at the effects of the recessions during my life time to see that.

        This last one was the only one that we survived well. That was because we had no debt and therefore could raise debt cheaply rather than getting into a spiral of interest payments sucking the life out of the governments fiscal position. Having a dairy commodity boom at exactly the right time after having Labour do the Chinese FTA helped. Similarly the diversification of the economy outside of commodities from the early 2000s buffered the employment tax take.

        Basically we’re due for another shock downturn in international trade. It’d have been useful if the government was in the same position as it was in 2007. However National are the party of government debt and fiscal imprudence. So we aren’t ready for it this time.
        • Bill 12.1.1.1

          1 May 2017 at 5:58 pm

          If the idea is to bail out banks and whatever financial institutions while inflicting austerity on society, then no – NZ isn’t in a good place (and never will be).

          But if the idea is to bail out society by borrowing for the sake of stimulus, then there’s no real problem. Employment’s created (those houses, that other infrastructure). So the tax base doesn’t shrink – it grows. Upward pressure also becomes applied to wages because of more or less full employment = more tax revenue.

          And any debt shrinks in terms of ratio to GDP.

          edit – the caveat is that you got to be among the first to pursue that strategy for it to work well 😉
        • exkiwiforces 12.1.1.2

          1 May 2017 at 11:40 pm

          Your comment about how NZ is vulnerable to external trade is so true. Especially now with old fat boy threating to launch missiles and throw nukes around the place willy-nilly. 5 to 6 of NZ’s major trading nations will be up to their neck shit and if war does happen (I hope it doesn’t for everyone’s sake) a few chicken’s will come home to roast in NZ in more ways than one.

          If war doesn’t break out as you said “Basically we’re due for another shock downturn in international trade. It’d have been useful if the government was in the same position as it was in 2007. However National are the party of government debt and fiscal imprudence. So we aren’t ready for it this time.”

          So true my dear sir.
    • The decrypter 12.2

      1 May 2017 at 5:15 pm

      NZjester.Crippling debt. Yep then sell off the rest of it.(cheap)
13. CLEANGREEN 13

    1 May 2017 at 10:45 pm

    It appears Martyn Bradbury’s site at The Daily Blog has been attacked by the Deep state tonight as the site is down with a message 502 Bad Gateway.

    Long live the freedom of speech, and Martyn Bradbury.

    I hope when the morning comes of the 2nd may 2017 TDB will be back again.

    The fight goes on!!!
    • McFlock 13.1

      1 May 2017 at 11:04 pm

      probably overloaded by breathless commentary on the Great List Fire of 2017…
    • lprent 13.2

      2 May 2017 at 9:04 am

      It will be a network misconfiguration.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS