Open mike 01/10/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, October 1st, 2014 - 408 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

408 comments on “Open mike 01/10/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mark 1
    30 September 2014 at 9:27 am

    Under this leadership selection process very time there is a leadership change the party tears itself apart in public and exposes the factionalism and distrust that the factions have. It is little wonder that the public have no confidence in Labour any more.

    Parker has now jumped off the Cunliffe bus calling Cunliffe’s position untenable. Just about everyone in the country can see it except for the party left wing and Cunliffe himself. Hopefully the Unions will see sense and pull pin on Cunliffe before the damage he does to the party is irreparable.

    [lprent: That is a diversion comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the post. Read the policy. Banned for 16 weeks and comment moved to OpenMike. ]

    • Hanswurst 1.1
      30 September 2014 at 9:57 am

      Under this leadership selection process very time there is a leadership change the party tears itself apart in public and exposes the factionalism and distrust that the factions have.

      Erm… that post is either rather heavy on spin or extremely light on intelligence. The last vote was generally lauded for its positivity and vitality. That was the first of its kind in the New Zealand Labour Party. There is little evidence that the party is “tearing itself apart” in the current campaign, which is in its infancy.

      It is little wonder that the public have no confidence in Labour any more.

      … and your post just gets worse. I’ll assume that your evidence for the public’s having no confidence in Labour is the election. That would be the election one year after the positive experience of the previous leadership contest and before the current one had even got underway. So no, there is absolutely no way that the leadership selection process has anything to do with any loss of confidence in the Labour Party. Whatever you’ve been smoking, I hope most New Zealanders never go near it.

    • Kiwiri 1.2
      30 September 2014 at 12:45 pm

      Parker has now jumped off …

      Huh? Well, on the contrary, Parker should jump off and be kept away from the finance role pronto. His tin ears, obstinacy and non-compromising stance on raising the pension age put off both right-wing and left-wing people who I know. His subsequent statement that there might be tax cuts made nonsense of the pension age proposal.

      Tell us what might be left-wing about not raising the pension age when John Key has promised no changes while he is around, and when I have seen, many times, Winston’s staunch position on super being supported and accepted by audiences at numerous public meetings.

      • phillip ure 1.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 1:52 pm

        @ kiwiri..

        “..Parker should jump off and be kept away from the finance role pronto. His tin ears, obstinacy and non-compromising stance on raising the pension age put off both right-wing and left-wing people who I know…”

        + 1…

        ..he is the complete opposite of the reforming/transformative finance-minister we need…

        .the guy has neo-lib running in his veins..

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.2.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 3:47 pm

          Unfortunately, phil, your definition of “neo-lib” includes anyone who knows anything about economics.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

            Nope. The definition of neo-lib includes everyone who’s been trained to think that neo-lib is correct when it’s essentially wrong. In other words, mainstream economics is a religion.

            • Clean_power 1.2.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 4:49 pm

              If even David Parker is unacceptable to the Labour Party radicals, then there is little or no hope it will ever gain political power. Left-wing extremism will be rejected my middle NZ.

            • TheContrarian 1.2.1.1.1.2
              1 October 2014 at 6:49 pm

              I don’t think you are in any position to define anything Draco given your ass-backward way of defining, well, anything.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                1 October 2014 at 8:39 pm

                I’m not the one who defined it – the economists did by slavishly following what they were indoctrinated into.

              • adam …
                1 October 2014 at 10:54 pm

                I’m gobsmacked TheContrarian, you deteriorating to a personal attack – never. Of wait you’re a VRWNJ you only know personal attacks, my apologies, I got you confused with a reasonable person.

      • Clemgeopin 1.2.2
        1 October 2014 at 8:07 pm

        Being the acting leader, I feel that Parker should have remained neutral in his public comment rather than give his lofty opinion that Cunliffe’s position was untenable and that he would not be voting for Cunliffe. Why did we want to know that? Shouldn’t that be confidential except perhaps to him and may be the caucus? I am not sure what he was meaning about Cunliffe’s position being untenable. Did he mean that Cunliffe should not stand for re-election?

    • Murray Olsen 1.3
      1 October 2014 at 1:44 am

      Isn’t Parker the neoliberal who thought stopping work at 65 was untenable and potential Labour voters would love working another couple of years. Yeah, I’m really interested in what he says. He’s a big part of the problem.

      • Colonial Viper 1.3.1
        1 October 2014 at 1:47 pm

        It’s about being “fiscally responsible.” The kind of thing Labour believes will increase its appeal to pragmatic economically minded voters who have concerns about the affordability of NZ’s welfare system. All good things, surely. Right?

        (sorry, reply to Murray Olsen)

  2. Hanswurst 2
    30 September 2014 at 10:01 am

    “Vested interests”? What you presumably mean is that the unions represent the interests of their members, the workers. Labour – the clue’s in the name.

  3. Richard 3
    1 October 2014 at 6:42 am

    First moan of the day.

    What the heck can we do about the meddling media. Do they not have laws, or are they just some bunch of scumbag ferals that do what ever they please with no consequences.

    What can be done to kerb the media’s obvious bias on everything from who runs the country to who gets preferred media coverage on a party election.

    IE who the fuck do Fairfax think they are and APN for that matter.

    • tc 3.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:17 am

      Fact is they are self serving, answer only to their owners and influential in shaping the sheeples opinions. A reality that must be accepted and worked with.

      The left leaning parties needs a comms strategy including its own sites, social media etc along with very simple messages so the sheeple can see if for what it is…..blatant bias and dumbing down.

      • lurgee 3.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 9:31 am

        Those ‘Sheeple’ you disparage are voters who may, or may not, return the left to power. A less arrogant, dismissive attitude towards people might help achieve that goal. Hell, you sound like some neo-liberal tosser writing off the poor as less than human and unworthy of consideration.

        • Ant 3.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 9:40 am

          Don’t think the opinion of one private citizen on The Standard will make much of a difference to the fortunes of the left.

          But good luck with the rest of your breathless crusade against something.

          • grumpystilskin 3.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

            So, I take it you never complain about anything because your voice doesn’t matter. Good luck with that line of thinking, you must live in an awesome world!

        • Tom Jackson 3.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 12:08 pm

          What if they are really a pack of rubes?

    • weka 3.2
      1 October 2014 at 9:39 am

      “What the heck can we do about the meddling media.”

      Make complaints to the relevant bodies:

      http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/complain.php

      http://bsa.govt.nz/complaints/making-a-complaint

      Post the complain here and on social media, and report back on what happens.

    • adam 3.3
      1 October 2014 at 10:59 am

      “IE who the fuck do Fairfax think they are and APN for that matter.”

      Your lord and master Richard – so shut the hell up, and buy more stuff!!

    • Tom Jackson 3.4
      1 October 2014 at 12:10 pm

      What the heck can we do about the meddling media.

      Mockery. The pompous twits are impenetrable when it comes to criticism or disagreement, but they can’t stand ridicule.

      • Paul 3.4.1
        1 October 2014 at 4:43 pm

        Ignoring them is also a good plan.
        Read other stuff.

        • Tom Jackson 3.4.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

          I don’t consume NZ media other than Concert FM in my car.

          • Paul 3.4.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 4:59 pm

            Yes, have started to follow you. Campbell Live is the only regular programme I view or listen to.

            Used to listen to some parts of National Radio, but Suzie Ferguson has driven me to the more soothing sounds of Concert FM. For health reasons, I have stopped listening to the Panel. Wayne Brittenden is a small and rare oasis of counter think in the corporate propaganda that counts for news.

            Recent treatment of Cunliffe has shocked me though. The level of vicious attack is akin to a witch hunt. Mana got the same treatment during the election. And Karen Price, like Pam Corkery, reacted in exasperation to the relentless vicious attacks.
            It is becoming risky to put one’s head above the parapet in Key’s one party state.

            • Tom Jackson 3.4.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 11:31 pm

              It is becoming risky to put one’s head above the parapet in Key’s one party state.

              Yes it is.

              The dumb thing is that denying large numbers of people a fair go in democratic politics incentivises less peaceful forms of political action. I’ve no desire to go back to the political environment of 1900-20. The main point of democracy is for me to keep the peace.

    • Beatie 3.5
      1 October 2014 at 3:11 pm

      Patrick Gowers obsessive vindictiveness against David Cunliffe is so irritating. How about reporting on the TPPA, issues raised in ‘Dirty Politics’ or Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass spying on NZer’s. Watching Glenn Greenwald highlighted how truly pathetic NZ journalists are.

      • Murray Olsen 3.5.1
        1 October 2014 at 8:21 pm

        Greenwald is like a Nicky Hager who writes shorter pieces. The people we have working in media are not really journalists at all, especially on tv and radio. They are would be celebrities. With very few exceptions, there is no career path for real journalism in Aotearoa. Even Australia does better (and worse as well).

  4. phillip ure 4
    1 October 2014 at 6:50 am

    (start the day with a laff…this is v. funny..)

    “..10 steps to the perfect Tory speech – video..

    ..Addressing the Conservative party conference can be daunting.

    Tory members demand soaring rhetoric –

    – attacks on Labour – and steely displays of strength.

    They like their tummies tickled on the big issues such as Europe – and cutting taxes..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/30/conservative-party-conference-10-steps-perfect-tory-speech-video

    • Chooky 4.1
      1 October 2014 at 8:40 am

      what did you do to bad12 phillip?…did he get banned?

      • phillip ure 4.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 8:50 am

        he had a blue with the moderator stephanie..

        ..and got a life-ban..

        • Chooky 4.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 8:53 am

          he didnt!..that is terrible!

          …he had a lot that was really important to say …and a really valuable perspective…plus I thought he was super intelligent

          ( not on abortion though)

          …i guess he is now in exile across on the Daily Blog

          …maybe the Standard will commute his life sentence….hopefully

          (lol …i had a severe warning for bad manners!)

          • Puckish Rogue 4.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:10 am

            Mess with the moderators and you get banned, quite simple really

            [lprent: Indeed. We get kind of busy, so there is a strong incentive to reduce our workloads for repetitive offenses ]

        • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 2:36 pm

          He did not “have a blue” with me. He posted a series of increasingly vicious personal attacks against me and lprent for no reason whatsoever and made multiple attempts to get around moderation.

          The repeated attempts by commenters like yourself to undermine and downplay what bad12 said and did are contemptible.

          • phillip ure 4.1.1.2.1
            1 October 2014 at 2:46 pm

            well..as i wouldn’t have a clue what he actually said..because it was all redacted..

            ..i am puzzled as to how i cd ‘undermine and downplay’..

            ..something i know nothing of..?

            ..let alone enough to make any value-judgment on it..

            ..to such a degree it is ‘contemptible’..?

            ..all i have ever said is that he added value to the proceedings here..

            ..and it was a shame he was banned for the term of his natural life..

            ..so could you please withdraw that accusation against me..?

            ..i repeat..i have never seen what was said..

            ..i wouldn’t even know what to ‘undermine/downplay’..

            • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.1.2.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 4:25 pm

              I will not withdraw my statement, especially as you persist in acting like bad12 was the victim in the situation. By saying “it was a shame” and “he added value” you are making it clear that you prized bad12’s presence here over his awful behaviour towards the moderations.

              weka explained to you last time you pulled this, the comment where bad12 called lprent “an impotent little prick” is still entirely visible.
              http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13082014/#comment-865337

              You’ve also framed the issue as being bad12 “setting me off” – i.e. it’s my fault as a moderator that I reacted to abusive comments directed at me.
              http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13082014/#comment-865266

              And you’ve acted like my word as a moderator – that bad12 was truly vile in his comments – cannot be trusted, and asked me to publish abusive comments directed at me so you can decide “if justice was done”.
              http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13082014/#comment-865282

              It’s up to you if you think the moderators of a blog are entitled not to be abused. But it’s not up to you to keep misrepresenting the situation to other people.

              • phillip ure …
                1 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

                i just answered a question..with a 10 word factual answer..

                ..the power-imbalance means i cannot respond to the above..

                ..save to say i disagree with a lot..

                ..i can’t be bothered looking at yr links..

                ..and i wish to end this conversation..

                ..i now wish i had never answered chookys’ question..

                • The Al1en …
                  1 October 2014 at 4:57 pm

                  “..i now wish i had never answered chookys’ question..”

                  That’s why quality beats quantity every time.

                • Chooky …
                  1 October 2014 at 6:27 pm

                  thanx phillip for trying to answer me..(.i wasnt there at the time because i was in self- imposed exile myself)

                  …and bad12 could be abusive …(eg on the abortion debate)….but then I just told him to look in the mirror and ignored him for a while …and eventually we both got over it….sort of….

                • The Al1en …
                  2 October 2014 at 10:03 am

                  “i just answered a question..with a 10 word factual answer….the power-imbalance means i cannot respond to the above….save to say i disagree with a lot….i can’t be bothered looking at yr links….and i wish to end this conversation..”

                  Now you’ve been told, at least you have no excuse when you do it again.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.2
        1 October 2014 at 8:55 am

        Yep, he got a permanent ban for fucking around with LPrent’s temporary ban which he got for being an arsehole.

        • Saarbo 4.1.2.1
          1 October 2014 at 9:51 am

          We can all be “arseholes” at different times (Lol)

          David Parker wasnt very good in his interview with Espiner this morning, although he had Jane Cliftons’ support…which could mean there is an ABC plot to let DC and Robertson smash the crap out of each other leaving a candidate like Parker to appear as a leader candidate, late and clean.This is very interesting.

          Labour needs a Steven Joyce, he is the Nats strategist and he hasnt put a foot wrong since he started after their 2002 disaster. Cunliffe is taking way more blame for the 2014 election result than he should be. I just dont have much faith that Labour will analyse its problems comprehensively enough to get to the bottom of its issues. But we will wait and see.

          • Chooky 4.1.2.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 6:29 pm

            @ Saarbo +100….”which could mean there is an ABC plot to let DC and Robertson smash the crap out of each other leaving a candidate like Parker to appear”….yes I have wondered this myself

            …personally i dont think Parker cuts the mustard either…I am in favour of a Cunliffe/ Nanaia Mahuta partnership

            • Kiwiri 4.1.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 6:32 pm

              If DC and Robertson were my close friends, I would take them both aside and encourage them, and their caucus colleagues, to partner up as a team.

  5. Clean_power 5
    1 October 2014 at 6:52 am

    The question remains: who will win? The “beltway” politician or the failed candidate?
    Interesting weeks ahead.

    • Skinny 5.1
      1 October 2014 at 8:03 am

      The good thing about a leadership roadshow will be the membership get the opportunity to pin the contenders down on a caucus clean out. He or she 
      who does right by the party in agreeing 
      it’s time to go for some MP’s has my vote.

      I believe we should help the ‘contender’ by countering the dead wood MP’s vote committing to vote for the one who has the courage to campaign on well overdue clean out.  

       So let’s compile a list outlining the MP and why they should go. I will start the ball rolling;

      Clayton Cosgrove: Christchurch people and indeed most Kiwi’s are sick of his lame one liners. Being great mates of sellout Shane Jones sums him up, little wonder the party vote never eventuated there. 

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 8:21 am

        I believe we should help the ‘contender’ by countering the dead wood MP’s vote committing to vote for the one who has the courage to campaign on well overdue clean out.

        I think that this is a message which needs to be made to the leadership contenders up and down the country.

        Time and energy which should be spent reorienting the organisation after an election defeat and opposing the government, has been lost. We’ve never had a 2 term National Govt before. Key’s exceptional popularity as a politician with the common touch continues. The party vote came in marginally worse than last time – but there were also many upsides in the results vis a vis individual electorate battles. Blaming Cunliffe when he did his part of the job relatively well (and is still learning) is wasting precious time and diverting attention away from some deeper rooted structural and cultural problems in the party. All to allow a few people to exercise their egos and ambition.

        • Tracey 5.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 8:53 am

          can you clarify what you mean by never had a two tern nat govt bbefore? i thought we had.

          • alwyn 5.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:22 am

            No Tracey we haven’t. National Governments have always been three terms, as the were in 1949-1957, 1975-1984 and 1990-1999, or four. They had four from 1960 to 1972. So far they have got another three term Government but the way the Labour Party is self-destructing it may be more.

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 11:52 am

              Ohhhhhh I misunderstood…

              I thought Cv was saying Nats had never had MORE than two terms… had a WTF???!!! moment.

            • swordfish 5.1.1.1.1.2
              1 October 2014 at 4:50 pm

              Which isn’t to say the Nats actually won the popular vote in all of those periods of Tory rule that alwyn alludes to. Labour support outstrips Nat support in 78 and 81. Left Bloc easily win in 93 (but thanks to FPP, a deeply unpopular National Government remain in power), Left+NZF win the popular vote in 1996.

              So if we’d had MMP in that earlier pre-1996 period then very few three-term Tory Governments would have eventuated. Which, in turn, makes the current situation a little more unusual than you might at first think.

              • alwyn …
                1 October 2014 at 6:36 pm

                “Left+NZF win the popular vote in 1996”
                What on earth does that have to do with anything?
                New Zealand First went into coalition with National in 1996 so clearly they must have preferred them to the Labour Party. Your statement is about as silly as claiming that the 2005-2008 Labour led Government was illegitimate because I could claim that “National + NZF win the popular vote in 2005”.
                It is entirely meaningless.

                The other calculations about 78 and 81 are also quite pointless. There were only candidate votes in those years and there was no party vote to quote. We can have no idea as to what a party vote count might have been if it was never held. After all the party vote for National in nearly every general electorate this year exceeded the Labour Party vote even though Labour won about 20 of those electorates.
                I would also point out that I would never allude to a “Tory rule”. We have never had a “Tory” party in New Zealand.

                • lprent …
                  1 October 2014 at 7:06 pm

                  I would also point out that I would never allude to a “Tory rule”. We have never had a “Tory” party in New Zealand.

                  You need to read NZ late 19th and early 20th century history. The Reform Party was a pretty classic landed tory conservative party, especially under Massey and a little less so under Coates. They are just subsumed inside the rural side of the National party there days

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  1 October 2014 at 9:21 pm

                  What on earth does that have to do with anything?

                  Well, that would have to do with NZF implying quite heavily, but never saying, that they would go with Labour as I’m sure you’re quite well aware. The fact that they did go with National rather than Labour is why their vote crashed in 1999.

                  The other calculations about 78 and 81 are also quite pointless.

                  No they’re not – they’re great examples of how broken FPP is.

                  We can have no idea as to what a party vote count might have been if it was never held.

                  Yeah, actually, we can – count up all the votes for each candidate assuming that each candidate vote is for the party. And, no, that’s not a bad assumption.

                  We have never had a “Tory” party in New Zealand.

                  /facepalm

                  Tory is, in modern vernacular, just another word for conservative. Are you really going to say that we’ve never had a conservative party in NZ?

                  • waikatosinger …
                    2 October 2014 at 1:15 am

                    Well we’ve got one now anyways.

                    However I don’t agree that National is a conservative party. More like neoliberal or just plain old liberal. There is a difference. That is why Craig started his conservative party. ‘Cause National wasn’t scratching his itch.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 October 2014 at 9:04 am

                      That’s probably true about National today but they were, before the 1990s, a conservative party.

                  • alwyn …
                    2 October 2014 at 11:05 am

                    Draco T. B. proposes that
                    “The fact that they did go with National rather than Labour is why their vote crashed in 1999.”

                    May we therefore assume that the fact the NZF went with Labour rather than National in 2005 was the reason they went out of Parliament completely in 2008?

                    You also say
                    “Yeah, actually, we can – count up all the votes for each candidate assuming that each candidate vote is for the party. And, no, that’s not a bad assumption.”

                    I’m afraid that it is a very bad assumption. If you look at the numbers for the election we just had we discover.
                    National got 1,010,464 party votes and a total of 976,726 candidate votes. That is a ratio of 1.035
                    Labour got 519,146 party votes and 709,457 candidate votes. That is a ratio of only 0.732.
                    If your assumption had any validity you would expect these ratios to be very similar and they are nothing like that.
                    If we don’t actually know what party votes were in 1978 or 1981 we certainly can’t make your crude assumption can we?

                • GregJ …
                  2 October 2014 at 4:03 am

                  My grandfather, his brothers and his mates – dedicated Labour men (unionists and party members) as adults from the late 1920’s and 1930’s frequently referred to National as “Tories”. Some of my earliest political memories (early 70s) are of passionate discussions around the dinner table & living room and “Tory” or “Tories” was frequently heard. My mother recalls the first time she heard my Grandfather swear (a shocking event to her as he was a strict and religious man) was referring to someone as a “Tory Bastard”.

        • lurgee 5.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 9:39 am

          You realise the MPs doing well in the individual electorate battles are probably the same ones you want to clean out?

          That the party vote was ‘marginally worse than last time’ – you are a king of spin, you’d probably describe a turd as ‘a marginally reformatted hot dog’ – is disastrous. New leader, tired, corrupt government without a plan, failing in all the big issues. And we did worse than last time. That’s an indictment of the uselessness of the whole top layer of Labour Party people, caucus and council and all. They are utterly useless, and should be culled, savagely.

    • Chooky 5.2
      1 October 2014 at 8:42 am

      Bomber Bradbury’s take

      ‘Party members and affiliates – the real losers in Labour’s leadership fight (Meanwhile the NZ Herald is pimping for war)’

      By Martyn Bradbury / October 1, 2014

      “The combined wisdom of the last two reviews was that the Party had to give affiliates and members a say so that they would feel connected to Labour and such interaction would boost membership. So how do those affiliates and members now feel after the Leader they selected had a Caucus sit on its hands and sulk?…

      – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/01/party-members-and-affiliates-the-real-losers-in-labours-leadership-fight-meanwhile-the-nz-herald-is-pimping-for-war/#sthash.AA8gdVSj.dpuf

      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/01/party-members-and-affiliates-the-real-losers-in-labours-leadership-fight-meanwhile-the-nz-herald-is-pimping-for-war/

      • Gosman 5.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 10:18 am

        Mr Bradbury’s political analysis has been somewhat off the mark recently. Not sure we should place too much store in someone who was predicting IMP would reach the dizzying heights of 4 %

        • DoublePlus Good 5.2.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 12:00 pm

          Try countering his actual points, and not criticising his prediction of election percentages. Pundits across the spectrum routinely over-egg predictions of vote percentages and not too much should be read into that.

        • lprent 5.2.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 1:24 pm

          I was also off the mark. I was expecting them to be in the range of 2-3% rather than 1-2%

          • Paul Campbell 5.2.1.2.1
            1 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

            I think a lot of people, myself included on the day, made a last minute decision based on asking themselves “could Hone lose?” and switched their vote to somewhere where it was more likely to be counted – role on removal of the 5% threshold

            • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.2.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 9:49 pm

              The 5% threshold needs to be halved; 4% is still way too high resulting in a loss of proportionality and too many wasted votes.

              Mind you under National, none of this will be happening.

          • adam 5.2.1.2.2
            1 October 2014 at 4:35 pm

            I know so many people who just gave up voting, when Hone was being attacked by national and labour. I think half of the mana vote, just didn’t bother voting. Maybe more – I think you would have been right Iprent, had they voted. That said, I thought the greens would have got more as I really did think they ran a very good campaign.

            • blue leopard 5.2.1.2.2.1
              1 October 2014 at 4:43 pm

              That is such a pity – if enough people had voted for IMP, then Hone wouldn’t have needed to win TTT.

              • DoublePlus Good …
                1 October 2014 at 5:12 pm

                Or we could get rid of this stupid 5% threshold and IMP could be represented proportionally in parliament with 2 seats.

                • blue leopard …
                  1 October 2014 at 6:11 pm

                  Yes that would be good! ….and if that threshold hadn’t have been there, perhaps more would have voted for IMP (if they were scared off wasting a vote).

  6. Richard 6
    1 October 2014 at 6:52 am

    First gut laugh of the day,

    Key on TV3’s morning show, twice he said. ” I don’t think” No you freaking don’t, you don’t remember, you don’t think, you mean your office, it wasn’t me, I can’t remember, I can’t recall.

    yeah the only truthful statement I have heard from Herr Jokey is “I don’t think”

    Well ya fucker maybe it’s about time you fucking did.. ya think

    • Gosman 6.1
      1 October 2014 at 11:44 am

      Why would he start doing anything given that his current mode of operating have led the National party to unprecendented levels of support in the MP era?

      • DoublePlus Good 6.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 12:02 pm

        This is a salient point. The New Zealand public have elected John Key because they want a leader who doesn’t do anything, doesn’t have any policies, and is comfortable with how things are.
        I propose on this basis that the government shouldn’t pass any legislation in this term of government.

  7. The Lone Haranguer 7
    1 October 2014 at 7:03 am

    First lesson for today:

    Google is your friend
    and
    Twitter probably isnt your friend

    People bang on about the damage from the MSM but the non MSM stuff which individuals can control, isnt helping either.

  8. Herodotus 8
    1 October 2014 at 7:03 am

    Many here are lamenting about the election just past and the by product with labours performance of where to go from here. Many from my reading are wanting labour to journey away from a centralist position and move more to a leftish position and increase their populist support, I wonder how realist this is. Perhaps many here should accept that labour will have to remain a centrist party but they should learn to be able to form a left leaning government to work cohesively with The Greens and to accept Mana or what ever party fills this vacuum.
    This will also necessitate that labour will IMO remain as a status quo & not a reformist in economic terms, as how is a party to achieve 30%+ support and not cannabilise any of their support parties ? This maybe hard for some here but how else is the “left” to attract enough support to form a government ?

    • just saying 8.1
      1 October 2014 at 8:19 am

      Sure. But they should at least have the honesty to change the name. And be completely upfront about what they believe and what they intend to do. No more hiding the blue behind a red veneer.

    • Colonial Viper 8.2
      1 October 2014 at 8:27 am

      David Cunliffe’s high tide in polling support was late 2013, when he was talking up and down the country about a ‘real red’ Labour Party, not a watered down ‘light blue’ one. At that stage Cunliffe was regularly polling mid to high 30s.

      Support for Labour started to dip down hill as that languaging petered out and was largely replaced by some variant of Thorndon bubble speak which said little to most core Labour support out there.

      • Chooky 8.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 8:44 am

        +100 Cv

      • anker 8.2.2
        1 October 2014 at 9:11 am

        When i studied the polls, DC popularity and Labour dipped after the media went to town (for days) over his trust and after the Dong Liu letter. Good on you NZ Herald (sarc!)

      • Jenny Kirk 8.2.3
        1 October 2014 at 9:12 am

        1000% CV – and the watered-down version would have been coming from the Thorndon bubble ! Cunliffe was hampered by all those self-interested MPs over-shadowing his efforts to put out the full story on what a real red LP would do for the country.

        • Chooky 8.2.3.1
          1 October 2014 at 9:26 am

          …and David Cunliffe was subjected to one of the most horrendous media campaigns ever seen in New Zealand

          …David Cunliffe deserves to be re-elected as leader just to answer the orchestrated vilification and intimidation he was subject to , both through twitter, Slater and Farrar blogs, the Herald and other newspapers, commercial radio and national radio bias and refusal to examine the real issues facing New Zealand fairly and in depth….

          …and biased inferior media continues …(eg. Morning Report has yet to give an in-depth look at Charter Schools coming out of a big business money making failing USA Charter School system….all we get is PR for the ACT MP pushing it on New Zealanders)

          • phillip ure 8.2.3.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 2:05 pm

            “..David Cunliffe was subjected to one of the most horrendous media campaigns ever seen in New Zealand..”

            ..i am steeling myself for when they find his primary school reports..

            ..i fear there may be some ugly/damaging stuff in there..

          • susannact 8.2.3.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 7:24 pm

            100+ chooky

      • Herodotus 8.2.4
        1 October 2014 at 9:24 am

        All the same CV, Labour’s vote may have crashed yet the “left” maintained a support base around 40% ( excluding NZ1), so the support by each leftish party may have fluctuated but the core support remained around the same level. If there is approx 35-40% of the vote is left leaning and the centre is not to be targeted then how will the left ever be able to govern for any prolong period, other than a infrequent protest against national going too far ?
        I can understand your sentiments of wanting labour to hold onto who & what it once represented.

        • Chooky 8.2.4.1
          1 October 2014 at 9:27 am

          what about the non voters?

          • Draco T Bastard 8.2.4.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 9:58 am

            Yep, talk their language and things will change and centrist isn’t their language.

            • Gosman 8.2.4.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 10:40 am

              So you state. The IMP party wasn’t exactly centrist and didn’t seem to pick up these non voters.

              • Paul …
                1 October 2014 at 10:45 am

                Yes and the media ensured very few people heard their plans by staging a controversy rather than reporting on their radical policies.
                Wonder why?

                http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/internet-mana-launch-ends-in-chaos-2014082417

              • adam …
                1 October 2014 at 4:44 pm

                No gossy and I think there was very good reasons for that – not least being stabbed in the back by labour – which was always going to put non-voters off, oh and maybe fronting a billionaire – who they have doubts about, did not help either.

                And oh I don’t know people attacking Pam Corkery when she stuck it to the hand puppets. And that domination news. Actually the whole media buying John Keys lies, will always be my favourite – and that just confirming to non-voters they were going to be screwed over – again.

            • waikatosinger 8.2.4.1.1.2
              2 October 2014 at 1:42 am

              Yep centrist isn’t their language. Try Hindi Cantonese or Korean.

              A lot of the non-voters are recent immigrants. You can’t assume that they would all vote Labour.

          • Herodotus 8.2.4.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 10:40 am

            Very fair point there. What of this group will never vote?so no level of targeting will result in attracting them.
            and what will it take to get those that could vote to vote and then vote for “you” without turning off some of your supporters ?
            I was thinking that as an election strategy instead of playing head to head Key v Cunliffe what the outcome could have been should Cunliffe have attempted to engage with this group. I am sure part of Nat strategy was to make this group as large as possible, and such events as the leaders debates turns more off than engages.

      • lurgee 8.2.5
        1 October 2014 at 9:45 am

        Nope, that was when he was shiny and new and there was lots of good publicity after the leadership contest. That was all. There was no policy platform to speak of.

        And if people were so enthused by his leftish rhetoric, why did they so willingly revert to National in the months that followed?

      • The Lone Haranguer 8.2.6
        1 October 2014 at 10:32 am

        Nobody has yet offered up a better candidate than Cunliffe, and even a RW type like me would agree that he did pretty well in the debates, and that hes growing into his suit.

        So if the Labour party is smart, they will choose to go down the path with him. And if Labour are too dumb and they wont go there, then they deserve whatever they subsequently get.

        I suspect that altho everyone talks about the centre vote, the centre dont yet trust Labour (and they do trust Key) so chasing them will be as effective as a dog chasing a car. They might catch the odd one, but mostly it will be a lot of barking and no results.

        • Paul 8.2.6.1
          1 October 2014 at 10:34 am

          Clearly the right wing media and their owners don’t want Cunliffe.
          Wonder why?

          • Gosman 8.2.6.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:43 am

            The right wing generally would love it if Cunliffe was re-elected as leader. You just need to look at the amount of support for the pro Cunliffe leadership FB page from right wingers to see that.

            • Paul 8.2.6.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 10:49 am

              Of course Gosman that’s why all the right wing writers in the media have spent and are spending so much energy trying to get rid of him.
              Your spin may fool some people, but most will see through your comments.

              • Rob …
                1 October 2014 at 11:41 am

                Maybe Paul, rather than crowing about someone scaring the so called right wingers , maybe you need a leader that can also gain their support by better selling of the ‘left position’. Your philosophy is all about inclusion, fairness and support, whilst your rhetoric is all about shock tactics and win at all costs.

                You guys seem fully intent on wining battles, as evidenced in continuing low level debates here, whilst the war has well and truly been lost.

              • Gosman …
                1 October 2014 at 11:47 am

                I’m just telling you what’s happening in the right wing circles I participate in. We would all love if Cunliffe got re-elected. It would provide acres of fun for us.

                [lprent: You are starting to read like a troll with a nah-nah fetish left over from when you were a child. You aren’t adding anything to the debate apart from demonstrating one of your bouts of being a dickhead. Goodbye for 2 weeks. ]

                • phillip ure …
                  1 October 2014 at 1:03 pm

                  bullshit..!..gosman..

                  ..you know full well this concerted anti-cunnliffe blitz is because the right..and the corporate media..are terrified of him leading a (policy) reinvigorated labour…

                  ..whereas robertson wd be a walkover for key…eh..?

                  ..and i wd repeat i pass tht judgement having watched/commented-on q-time in parl. for far too long..

                  ..and i don’t particularly like cunnliffe..

                  ..i am pissed at him for his part in killing his (ultimate) ally..mana…

                  ..(that and the greens gifting dunne his seat are my w.t.f.!-moments from that campaign..as in bone-headed-moments..)

                  ..but in any evaluation of cunnliffe vs. robertson..

                  ..as in who is best to take it to national/key on all levels..

                  ..it is no contest..

                  .the nats/key are scared of cunnliffe..

                  ..they laugh at robertson..

                  ..and robertson may well be a very nice person..

                  ..but in parliament i have watched him time and time again..

                  ..unable to cut it..and being easily waved away by any number of national ministers…

                  (so key wd eat him in any public-debates..)

                  ..if labour elect robertson..

                  ..they will be guaranteed defeat in 2017..

                  ..it’s as simple/clear-cut as that..

                  • Chooky …
                    2 October 2014 at 9:00 am

                    +100 Phillip Ure ..”.the nats/key are scared of cunnliffe..”

                    …it is for this reason he must be voted as leader of the Labour Party

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      2 October 2014 at 9:09 am

                      Yep. They haven’t been this scared since 1922.

        • Kiwiri 8.2.6.2
          1 October 2014 at 6:55 pm

          the “centre” is neither immutable nor static, but a socio-political and economic construct

          • Colonial Viper 8.2.6.2.1
            1 October 2014 at 9:59 pm

            Exactly – and a political party “wins the centre” by redefining it and shifting it their way. Which a few more Labour Party strategists and commentators should really figure out. Come on people, I’m giving you gems here!!!

      • Murray Olsen 8.2.7
        1 October 2014 at 9:08 pm

        Your explanation is plausible, CV. I think it may even be correct.

        My problem with Cunliffe now is that he started with sound and fury, but it all petered out under pressure, both internal and external. He had an opportunity and he blew it. Given that I can’t see anyone better than him, I no longer care who leads the Not Totally Tory Party.

        • Colonial Viper 8.2.7.1
          1 October 2014 at 10:03 pm

          My problem with Cunliffe now is that he started with sound and fury, but it all petered out under pressure, both internal and external. He had an opportunity and he blew it.

          And I agree with this narrative. Because of Cunliffe setting those expectations then visibly folding on then within the first 6 months of his leadership, this primary will be much closer than the last one.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.3
      1 October 2014 at 9:46 am

      Many from my reading are wanting labour to journey away from a centralist position and move more to a leftish position and increase their populist support, I wonder how realist this is.

      Reality has a radical left-wing bias.

    • KJT 8.4
      1 October 2014 at 10:22 am

      Funny that Labour went up in the polls when Cunliffe had just won the leadership, saying he would head Labour away from Neo-Liberalism, wasn’t it?

      And down when that didn’t eventuate.

  9. phillip ure 9
    1 October 2014 at 7:06 am

    the realities of three more years of tory rule sink in..

    ..nothing will be done to really help the poor..

    ..in fact the ongoing war on/demonising of the poor will just intensify..

    ..the environment will continue to degrade..

    ..as the resource management act is trashed..

    ..and as oil-drillers/miners go ape-shit…

    ..three more years of the irrationalities of cannabis prohibition..

    ..and now..the icing on the cake..

    ..our unseemly rush to war…

  10. Vaughan Little 10
    1 October 2014 at 7:15 am

    I’ve decided to try and keep the clicks I give to the Herald lower than the clicks I give the standard st al.

    it’s really simple. imagine you’re at a party and you’re talking to someone called the herald. they’re pissing you off big time by insulting people you care about and lying about them to strangers who aren’t gonna know better. it’s really your choice. either let them stress you out or fuck off over to the kitchen where a dude called russell brown is chatting to a guy called keith ng about some seriously fascinating shit.

    the msm: it’s your headspace, it’s your choice.

    also, in semi-related news, please don’t call yourself left if you’re not volunteering or somehow helping in the community. what I mean is, don’t just consume culture in the form of media intake. be socially and culturally productive. if you’re upset about poverty, do something about it. otherwise you’re best off actually putting it out of your mind.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      1 October 2014 at 8:29 am

      please don’t call yourself left if you’re not volunteering or somehow helping in the community. what I mean is, don’t just consume culture in the form of media intake. be socially and culturally productive.

      Not a bad concept at all…nothing worse than a tough talking ‘clicktivist’ 😯

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 10:03 am

        Personally, I’m still trying to figure out WTF that even means – besides being exclusionary.

        • CrashCart 10.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 10:24 am

          Yea seems like a winning strategy. “If all you are going to do is vote for the left then we don’t want you”. I would argue that if all you can do is vote left, that is contributing.

        • Vaughan Little 10.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 11:13 pm

          neoliberal anthropology emphasises consumption. socialist anthropology emphasises production. i’ve met a lot of people who talk left, but who live in a way that is not really disruptive of the neoliberal milieu. and if you’re not being disruptive, you’re part of the problem.

    • John Shears 10.2
      2 October 2014 at 9:19 am

      At last a really sensible comment thanks Vaughan.

  11. Vaughan Little 11
    1 October 2014 at 7:23 am

    I’m a bit tired of the negativity in the comments. ok, 2014 is a tough year in which to be upbeat. but I suspect if more people were positively engaged in the nz/world around them, there’d be less talk about national/msm, and more talk about the cool stuff that’s going on.

    I mean, I’m grateful for the serious watchdoggery that contributors on this website (bloggers and commenters) have evidently been engaged in, but it strikes me that there’s more negativity and talk about national than is healthy. we have our own fish to fry, and I’d love to hear more about that…

    • phillip ure 11.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:42 am

      “..we have our own fish to fry..”

      sorry..i’m a vegan..so i’ll pass on that charring of fish-bodies..

    • Colonial Viper 11.2
      1 October 2014 at 8:31 am

      +1

      Too easy to get sucked in on a bad focus: up to us as individuals to act with empowerment, in small ways and big ways, as we can and as the opportunity arises.

    • Chooky 11.3
      1 October 2014 at 9:00 am

      @ Vaughan Little….you cool about New Zealand’s public education system being undermined and dismantled by the sole ACT MP?…there is a bit to be negative about actually

      …what do you mean by we have own “fish to fry”…and you would like to hear more about that?…are you fishing for our biographies? …in which case….nah!

      …if you want serious discussion and debate about many core social and political issues…I suggest you go back over the archives…some people here are tired of repeating themselves

      • Vaughan Little 11.3.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:39 pm

        Youre right, there is a lot to be angry about. But anger can destroy you. Or like the Dalai Lama said, hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting them to die. Chronic anger and hate are bad for your mental and physical health.

        Focusing on the enemy is disempowering. Focusing on your own game is empowering, cos it gives you a sense of agency. Did you know that phrase about having fish to fry? I learned it from O Brother Where Art Thou. It means that we’ve got important things to be getting on with.

        This blog is an education for me, and I’m grateful for that.

        • Chooky 11.3.1.1
          2 October 2014 at 9:11 am

          @ Vaughan Little …”.anger can destroy you”

          …. or anger can spur you to action

          ….anger can be unjustified

          ….but anger can also be justified !…(.as in facing injustice , greed, hypocrisy, violation of peoples rights, fascism …eg if we are getting into quotes: money changers and usury in the synagogue)

  12. BM 12
    1 October 2014 at 7:23 am

    No doubt Mrs C is feeling a bit silly at the moment.
    Probably not one of her best ideas.

    • Princess 12.1
      1 October 2014 at 11:27 am

      She spoke the truth. It’s a shame she had to apologise for that.

      • Kiwiri 12.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:41 am

        Quite right that she spoke the truth.

      • indiana 12.1.2
        1 October 2014 at 11:51 am

        If you speak the truth, why do it anonymously? #CleanPolitics

        • Tracey 12.1.2.1
          1 October 2014 at 11:55 am

          you are happier with people lying to your face as I recall #Johnkey’sLipsMovedsoheislying

          • indiana 12.1.2.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 12:02 pm

            I’m not one to ever accuse a politician of lying, however if they deceive the voters in their pursuit to hold office then all I do is form an opinion of them and cast my vote accordingly.

            Screaming “Liar, liar – pants on fire” really hasn’t got anyone anywhere.
            #CleanPoliticsisRedorLeftonly?

            • Tracey 12.1.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 4:19 pm

              did you vote for the liars in national or the fraudsters in ACT.

              its funny how supporters of the Right expect such high standards of the beneficiaries and low paid but almost no standards from their politicians…

              by ignoring the lies you encourage more of them.

      • Murray Olsen 12.1.3
        1 October 2014 at 9:23 pm

        I agree. The fools in caucus should apologise to her and David. It must have been incredibly hard for her seeing her husband come home every night with fresh knives in his back. Sue Moroney has now done something along similar lines on Facebook, which I suppose is OK to quote here, since her page is public:

        “David Cunliffe has just announced he will run to continue as Labour Leader, after resigning to allow a competition to take place.
        I am delighted. It has long been my view that the caucus is there to represent the Labour Party, it’s membership and supporters – not the other way around.
        It saddens me to see posts on Facebook saying DC is the best person for the job, but shouldn’t do it because some in caucus don’t want him.
        For the record: I do want him to continue to lead our Caucus for all the right reasons. If he has lost the confidence of the Party and someone else wins then I will fully support that leader.
        If I find I cant do that 100% then it would be time for me to go.”

  13. Belladonna 13
    1 October 2014 at 7:25 am

    James Dann on Nat Radio – now I understand why a family member who offered more than once to leaflet drop for Labour in the Ilam electorate was ignored. DC has to
    get rid of the ABC faction asap and then build again even if we lose 2017.

    • phillip ure 13.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:54 am

      @ bella..

      ..aye..!..

      ..dann is/was a robertson booster..

      ..just another neo-lib/rogernome..(mark as such..)

      ..and obviously one skilled in the dark art of simplistic-thinking..

      ..as in..the defeat is 100% down to cunnliffe..

      ..thirty years..with no end in sight..of neo-lib/fuck-the-poor! policies eroding away labours’ base had nothing to do with it..eh..?..those birds coming home to roost..

      ..and that the abc’ers had enough control of the policy process to ensure cunnliffe was sent out with an empty policy-satchel..and thus guaranteed failure..

      ..i am sure that had nothing to do with that failure to motivate the disposessed..eh..?

      ..that there were no policies/promises for them..(benefits to increase at inlation-levels..that was it from labour..that was their ‘lurch to the left’…you’d weep if you didn’t fucken laugh..eh..?)

      ..dann is a robertson attack-dog..

      ..nothing more..nothing less..

      ..and as such..to be studiously ignored..

      ..and when thinking about this issue..

      ..it is worth remembering what cunnliffe was saying when labour were art 35-37%..

      ..he was promising transformational policies..

      ..to end the root of all evil that is poverty..

      ..to take labour back to its’ roots..

      ..when he couldn’t deliver with policies to do that..

      ..that support evaporated..

    • Colonial Viper 13.2
      1 October 2014 at 8:33 am

      The guy’s proving himself an idiot. He tweeted out on Monday and called Cunliffe and all Cunliffe supporters “delusional” – this was when Cunliffe was still the leader. I had a go at him with a couple of tweets, he then had the temerity to claim I was in bad form “attacking a fellow party member.” Seriously wtf James Macbeth Dann.

      Then he wrote this piece of gobshite

      http://publicaddress.net/speaker/an-open-letter-to-david-cunliffe/

      Apparently this is all it takes to get on National Radio nowadays.

      • Ant 13.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 9:31 am

        What is with some of the candidates in blue seats?

        A greenhorn throwing his toys after his first campaign and pulling a me or him with the party leader… If this is the next generation of Labour then yeah nah.

        Maybe they need some sort of narcissism test in the next selection criteria.

      • weka 13.2.2
        1 October 2014 at 9:47 am

        Ilam election results

        National Party 17,899 BROWNLEE, Gerry NAT 17,852
        Labour Party 5,348 DANN, James Macbeth LAB 7,023
        Green Party 3,717 KELCHER, John GP 3,492
        Conservative 1,170 STRINGER, John CNSP 1,053
        ACT New Zealand 308 VEALE, Gareth ACT 359
        Māori Party 179 WAKEFIELD, Benita MAOR 205

        http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-18.html

        • phillip ure 13.2.2.1
          1 October 2014 at 1:12 pm

          he was clearly a success at campaigning for the party vote..

          ..his figures confirm that..

          ..all dann has done is identify himself as part of the problem labour is currently wrestling with..

      • swordfish 13.2.3
        1 October 2014 at 11:12 am

        He’s obviously a highly-ambitious bloke who’s hitched his wagon to Robertson’s candidacy.

        Hence, the outrageously over-the-top rhetoric on Public Address. Along the lines of: Begone from this Party, Sir !!! And never set foot through its doors again !!! All very forced, disingenuous and contrived.

        • weka 13.2.3.1
          1 October 2014 at 11:18 am

          Where he says that if DC wins Dunn will leave the party, I wonder where he will go? Either he’s not that committed to politics, or he’s got another option.

          • The Lone Haranguer 13.2.3.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 11:47 am

            We dont want him over where we are. You can keep him. 🙂

          • Tracey 13.2.3.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 11:57 am

            Mcully got a PA job going?

            • The Lone Haranguer 13.2.3.1.2.1
              1 October 2014 at 3:19 pm

              Great reply there Tracey.

              I think McCully is all out of cushy numbers till he can find some other big fish to fry.

              McCully wouldnt even get Dann a job in Fendalton Rd as a stop go man…..

      • Tom Jackson 13.2.4
        1 October 2014 at 12:14 pm

        It’s Public Address, which is populated by people like the Richard Briers character from Ever Decreasing Circles. If you want tiresome liberal snark in place of argument, it’s the site for you!

      • Richard 13.2.5
        1 October 2014 at 5:31 pm

        Hmm I read that. For every person that says they don’t like DC there’s one that does. I’m one for exactly the reasons of taking Labour back left and towards it’s roots. Only haters voice their opinion, I wouldn’t take it to seriously.

        You can dissect shyte , blame this think that at the end of keys day, he had the media on his side, Armstrong demanding resignations, O’Sullivan
        and Hoskings etc all bagging him. So how can you blame the result on DC when he never got a fair hearing. Shearer needed outing his stammering was pathetic he looks and sounds indecisive.

        Robertson as PM? Just thinking about him holding a PM press conference and I just cannot see it working. But that’s just my opinion. Cunliffe has it more, I can see him as PM and that’s what counts for me partly.

        All DC needs to turn the media painting of him around is a smart press advisor and some good deeds in opposition, perhaps a kids food drive, labour funding or fund raising for the Sallies, something that will change the impression he’s an egotistical narcissist with a stone heart.

        It’s sadly all about image and 1% about the truth just ask Herr jokey.

        • lprent 13.2.5.1
          1 October 2014 at 7:13 pm

          What he really needs is 3 years of fixing his wee personal flaws and getting the party ready for the next election. In other words what should have happened after 2011 without the daft experiment that the 80s conservatives and beltway babies in caucus foisted on us for their own benefit.

          • Richard 13.2.5.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:23 pm

            Exactly Lprent, Time. You just do not win in that short a period.

            Key is pretty popular, Until, The Bills, mass borrowing and the falling dollar start hiking interest rates, will we see a major shift. Until then DC needs to practise being the next leader in opposition and some time to take it to Key in the house.

            If he does have bad personal flaws? I do not personally know him. I look at his job and that’s leading labour, I think the direction he wants to take it is better for the working man. Yep whatever demons I suppose, best he deals with it or move over, last thing we need is a nutter in charge.

            Robertson looks like an office clerk. Just saying , and one who’s guts so big he can’t keep his shirt tucked in.

          • Tom Jackson 13.2.5.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 11:47 pm

            Cunliffe comes across as fairly normal in person, and can tell a joke or two and work a crowd. I think he’s OK, and I voted for Labour precisely because he was the leader.

            His problem is that the news media dogpiled on him as soon as he was elected leader and still haven’t let up. I’ve never seen anything like it in NZ politics, and that was before Nicky Hager’s revelations showed how deep the rot ran. It got to the point where any item on Cunliffe had 4 or 5 flashbacks to 2 second clips that made him look bad. It’s crackers when you think about it.

            I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if Labour elects a leader more amenable to the business community, that the tsunami of derp will miraculously subside.

            • MustangSally 13.2.5.1.2.1
              2 October 2014 at 1:48 am

              I used to have dealings with David Cunliffe through my job in a previous life, over a decade ago, which is why I was keen to sign up for the Labour Party when he finally had a shot at the leadership.

              Way back then, it was obvious that he was a prime-minister-in-waiting. He had a special charisma to him; so warm, positive, energetic, and determined to make a positive contribution in the New Lynn/Titirangi electorate.

              So it’s been upsetting for me to watch his good character being torn apart through relentless attacks against him by the gutless media, such as John Armstrong and Paddy Gower, as well as nasty slurs from the ABC caucus. How could anyone fight this two-front war? No wonder poor Karen finally had to vent her seething rage on Twitter!

              I don’t even recognise the pantomine villain character they’ve tried to create on the 6pm news. That’s not the David Cunliffe I remember. Who is this guy they keep referring to as “tricky” and “fake”? Ok, so he’s made a few mistakes, but who hasn’t? And at least he’s owned them and tried to be conciliatory.

              To me, he was always very pleasant, professional, well-informed on local/national issues, and had a solution-focused mind. He was diplomatic and reliable – if he promised to call me back by 3pm on Thursday, then he did. You just knew he was intelligent and ambitious, in a good way.

              So if there is bad blood between Cunliffe and the toxic ABC faction, then my money goes on it being the fault of Mallard, Tinkerbell and “Pug-head”, to quote the delightful Judith Collins.
              The Labour Party will be much stronger and healthier without them.

              If elected, I certainly hope Cunliffe appoints a loyal team-mate like Nanaia or Sue Moroney or Carmel Sepuloni as his deputy, because Grant will only bring him down.

      • Rodel 13.2.6
        1 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

        Have met Dann. Is a little bit like Slater or a Cosgrove in a suit.
        He is almost a delusion in his own right.
        With maturity he might learn the meaning of the word loyalty but at the moment is a somewhat immature youngster trying to make an impression, and he is.

  14. One Anonymous Bloke 14
    1 October 2014 at 7:25 am

    I agree with the sentiments expressed in Lurgee’s “carpetbaggers” blog, but relax, Lurg: TRP ran the numbers and there’d have to be thousands of them to influence the outcome.

    • lurgee 14.1
      1 October 2014 at 9:52 am

      It’s the petulant idea of joining to vote for one person, then throwing toys if they don’t win that annoys me, rather than the likelihood of them actually swinging the election.

  15. travellerev 15
    1 October 2014 at 7:44 am

    That speech Cameron gave at the UN about having to fight non violent extremism at home for which he used 9/11 truthers? This is how that translates in the real world.

  16. Tautoko Viper 16
    1 October 2014 at 7:54 am

    The Herald editorial:
    NZ must be ready to join fight against Isis.

    These are questions that I would like every MP to consider before they vote on whether NZ should join in a war against Isis.

    1. To which country is my first allegiance- NZ or USA?

    2. Will joining this “Coalition” make NZ citizens safer or less safe?
    (a) Travelling overseas (b) at home in NZ

    3. Are we in NZ as a people anti Islamic?

    4. Will joining this war increase the likelihood of NZ producing its own home-grown terrorists in support of the Islamic state?

    5. Who is actually driving the decision to go to war?
    Sunni
    USA
    Israel
    United Nations
    Our PM
    Weapons manufacturers
    Who then?

    6. Who will gain something out of this war? Will NZ or New Zealanders?

    7. Is this war of benefit to mankind in general : for example, to bring about sustainability or the preservation of the environment?

    8. What is the end plan? If the Coalition wins, then what would happen over there and would it bring about sustainable peace for the people in that region or lead to further unrest?

    9. Is a war of this type really winnable?

    10. Would the result of NOT going to war have a better outcome overall than going to war, even if the Coalition “wins’?

    I believe that this war will create far more problems than it will solve and that NZers will be less safe both overseas and at home if we enter this dispute between 2 factions of Islamists, the Sunni and Shia. Isis was born out of the mess left by the Iraq war that the US started using the pretence of looking for non-existent weapons of mass destruction with little thought of how the situation would resolve itself once Saddam Hussein was removed.

    This linked article for a quick history of ISIS
    http://www.vox.com/2014/6/13/5803712/11-things-iraq-crisis-isis

    • Jenny Kirk 16.1
      1 October 2014 at 9:16 am

      + 100% TV, and I hope you send all these questions to MPs – but better still, TV, how about just turning this into a basic article to go on the Herald’s Dialogue page ? Get a wider audience for your excellent questions, and comments.

    • Chooky 16.2
      1 October 2014 at 9:17 am

      @ TV…great points…and

      …ISIS, terrible as it is, did not arise in a vacuum…until its causes are rectified…this will escalate imo

      … are there any other ‘terrorist’ states and their actions which have caused the formation of ISIS?

    • phillip ure 16.3
      1 October 2014 at 1:18 pm

      those anonymous armchair warriors in the editorial team at the herald..(roughan..?..)..

      ..are just jonesing to go and kill some a-rabs…

      ..but hasn’t it always been thus..?

      ..before every one of these ‘mistakes’ (vietnam? etc..etc..thru to afghanistan..)..that nz has made..

      ..those armchair-warriors in the corporate-media have always howled for war/’revenge’…

      playing their parts in our serial ‘manufactured-consents’ –

      – to go and kill some furriners…

      ..unthinking fools that they are..

    • Murray Olsen 16.4
      1 October 2014 at 9:36 pm

      Unlike the bullshit after 11/9, there isn’t really any open pressure from the seppos for a Coalition of the Dribbling. Maybe that’s because with Key and Abbott, they have puppets who know instinctively how to lick the appropriate parts of Washington’s anatomy, but so did Howard. Why we would want to join this criminal enterprise to try and fail to fix something that is a result of the last criminal intervention, I have no idea.

      If joining up creates one problem, that’ll be more than it will solve,

    • SPC 16.5
      1 October 2014 at 10:15 pm

      If we only think about what is good for us, then we should not be campaigning to be on the UNSC.

  17. Te Reo Putake 17
    1 October 2014 at 8:01 am

    Last chance to join Labour and choose the leader. On a related note, this guy is everything that twat from Ilam isn’t:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29343910

    OverDannOut!

  18. dv 18
    1 October 2014 at 8:30 am

    Meanwhile the debt clock is now

    93,043,218,353

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      1 October 2014 at 8:39 am

      NZ should be issuing its own NZD as it requires them, not taking out loans from the rest of the world.

      • Gosman 18.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:53 am

        Can’t wait for a mainstream left wing party to make this policy. On second thoughts I guess I will have to given we don’t have any that are that stupid in parliament anymore.

        • ropata 18.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

          ‘Cos selling off public assets at half price for short term gain on the balance sheet is a way better strategy? Better for JK and his wealthy bankster pals anyway.

        • ropata 18.1.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 1:38 pm

          Or maybe we should cut the top tax rate to -5% and jack up GST to 87% ?

          They would if they could #dirtynational

      • Wreckingball 18.1.2
        1 October 2014 at 11:58 am

        yea just print money. That’ll solve everything. Inflation doesn’t exist, devaluation doesn’t exist.

        • Kiwiri 18.1.2.1
          1 October 2014 at 6:21 pm

          oh, to “print” money is a bit behind the financial system in the present day

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.2.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:56 pm

            Yep. These right wingers are way behind the times.

            yea just print money. That’ll solve everything. Inflation doesn’t exist, devaluation doesn’t exist.

            Firstly, these days money is not printed. It is created by keyboard strokes.

            Secondly, we already have all those things you mention.

            Thirdly, the economy can’t tell whether a dollar circulating in it is sourced from borrowing, or sourced from government issue.

            • ropata 18.1.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 11:31 pm

              Positive Money NZ

              In 1844 the British Government made it illegal for anyone to print their own bank notes.

              Under New Zealand law the Treasury is the only issuer of notes and coins. But these laws haven’t been updated to account for the fact that almost all money now is electronic.

              Because of this loophole, banks worldwide now have the power to create money, effectively out of nothing.

              The current system has the Reserve Bank taking loans from foreign creditors (and selling govt bonds) in order to issue currency! And where do these foreign banks get the money for these loans? FROM THIN AIR.

              The consequences of our current fractional reserve banking system include
              . Incredible Inflation
              . Spiralling Household debt and housing affordability
              . Manipulating Interest Rates
              . Economic Instability
              . Government debts and deficits
              . Blocking economic development

              Positive Money says that treasury should be empowered to increase/decrease the fiat money supply as determined by an independent “Monetary Policy Committee” MPC. This approach has been described in a working paper by the IMF, and there’s a lot of literature.

    • Richard 18.2
      1 October 2014 at 5:34 pm

      I couldn’t resist this humorous line, I’m not a right winger..

      If the Greens get elected it’ll all be ok, Russell will just print off 200 billion and she’ll be right.

      • Kiwiri 18.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 6:24 pm

        doubtful that if he is in government, there will be a lot of initiatives to “print” money

  19. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 19
    1 October 2014 at 8:31 am

    Check out the big ego on James MacBeth Dann. Like most people (even those in Ilam, it seems) I had never heard of the guy. But apparently he thinks we all need to know who he thinks should be the leader of the Labour Party and what he will do if the wrong person is elected.

    Where do you get these guys from?

    • blue leopard 19.1
      1 October 2014 at 10:21 am

      That is a very good question, BiscuitBarrell.

    • Tracey 19.2
      1 October 2014 at 11:58 am

      Labour’s answer to aaron gilmore?

      • Rob 19.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 12:40 pm

        No, that’s the the other guy who resigned, who also felt that Cunnliffe was hopeless, this is a whole new one.

        • blue leopard 19.2.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 6:18 pm

          Lolz O.k we seem to be having a wee problem with generating Gilmore clones in Labour at present…there is no need to pour salt into the wound ….sniff…I believe they are working on it (cleaning up the mess, I mean, not generating more…well hopefully that is what they are doing…)

  20. halfcrown 20
    1 October 2014 at 8:43 am

    “Where do you get these guys from?”

    Probably the same place where National and Act get their dicks from

  21. Jenny 21
    1 October 2014 at 8:53 am

    Let’s get our priorities right.

    John Key, You want us to fight? You want us to go to war?
    OK, Sure why not,
    But Hey, let us forget about Iraq and Isis, let us ignore the Ukraine and Russian backed separatists. Let’s forgo all our petty insanities and hates and bloodlust. And pick a real fight; Let’s put the nation on an urgent war footing to fight climate change.

    “STATE-OF-EXTREME-EMERGENCY”

  22. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 22
    1 October 2014 at 9:04 am

    Getting a bit sick of all this dirty politics, to be frank:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11334613

    • ianmac 22.1
      1 October 2014 at 9:10 am

      The Herald uses the word “attack” by Karen. Funny given the endless attacks from the Herald on David. The comments apparently by Karen seem fair comment to me.

      • lurgee 22.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:26 pm

        But very, very foolish. IF her husband wins (big if, made iffier by her intervention) he’s going to have to lead the people she’s targeting.

    • Jono 22.2
      1 October 2014 at 9:22 am

      False equivalence, much?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 22.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 9:25 am

        Struggling to see how it is false. Leader of political party leaks information to friendly party who uses it on social media to attack his political opponents.

        Is that OK now?

        • Jono 22.2.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 9:47 am

          Leader of political party does not equal Leader of the country/Prime Minister/Senior Minister, and I am not seeing any money changing hands for services rendered. I am not suggesting she didnt make a huge mistake if all this is correct, but a wife defending a husband from sustained and ongoing attacks is a little different to orchestrating the same or similar ongoing attacks for money.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 22.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:00 am

            Only the party in power can’t do it. Got it.

            • DoublePlus Good 22.2.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 10:33 am

              Given that what Key did was against the law precisely because he was the PM using information from intelligence services inappropriately, there is an important distinction.

              • BM …
                1 October 2014 at 10:36 am

                What did Key do that was against the law?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                1 October 2014 at 12:26 pm

                I thought that, by definition, the PM could not leak.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  1 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

                  It’s not supposed to be a dictatorship. The PM doesn’t have the clearance or authority to arbitrarily declassify intelligence documents for general release. He might act like he does, but that would be leaking.

            • adam 22.2.1.1.1.2
              1 October 2014 at 11:06 am

              It’s the lies that hurt

        • weka 22.2.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 10:37 am

          “Leader of political party leaks information to friendly party who uses it on social media to attack his political opponents.”

          What was leaked?

          Where is the collusion and strategy?

          If DC’s wife set up and used that account, it’s very stupid politics not Dirty Politics.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 22.2.1.2.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:43 am

            The Labour Party have, for many years, devoted much effort to hiding the fact that Clayton Cosgrove is a fuckwit. Cunliffe colluded with Karen to leak this.

            • weka 22.2.1.2.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 10:52 am

              Liar.

            • Tracey 22.2.1.2.1.2
              1 October 2014 at 12:00 pm

              ROFL

            • DoublePlus Good 22.2.1.2.1.3
              1 October 2014 at 12:19 pm

              More from #KarenLeaks is expected to reveal that Trevor Mallard is in fact a dick, and Stuart Nash is that guy no one can stand listening to him talk at parties.

            • Kiwiri 22.2.1.2.1.4
              1 October 2014 at 1:45 pm

              Hiding ? Leak ?

              Clayton Cosgrove has not needed any help in making clear what he is all these years. And anyone, with just a little knowledge about Cosgrove, who would have wanted to tweet will have said what was communicated.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 22.2.1.2.2.1
              1 October 2014 at 11:41 am

              It’s a pity she offered a Clayton’s apology rather than accepting responsibility for her own behaviour.

              One day, I hope someone offers such an apology in court, and the judge has the presence of mind to immediately jail them for contempt. Pour discourager les autres.

            • Kiwiri 22.2.1.2.2.2
              1 October 2014 at 12:22 pm

              Kia Kaha, Karen!

              Good onya!

              I will be asking my partner this evening if I would have such kind of support in similar circumstances.

          • lurgee 22.2.1.2.3
            1 October 2014 at 11:28 pm

            One of those rare moments when we are in agreement, old chap.

            It isn’t like she said anything that hasn’t been said here a thousand times in the last couple of weeks.

            I suspect one of you might actually be Karen Price.

            I think I’m joking …

    • Saarbo 22.3
      1 October 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Karen Price is obviously as frustrated and in despair in a similar way to us members, as we watch the dirty tricks by Mallard and Cosgrove heap 100% of the 24.7% vote on Cunliffe. Cunliffe pretty much did his part for labour. As far as the vote was concerned, it was Mallard, Cosgrove et al’s in-fighting and general dysfunction/mediocrity that actually put the public off voting Labour as well as a very clever campaign from the nats.
      If Cunliffe is forced out and nothing else changes, watch as Labour’s vote continues to decline.

      • phillip ure 22.3.1
        1 October 2014 at 1:25 pm

        i agree..

        ..these pricks like mallard who are at least as much to blame..with their/his clown-antics ..(bringing moa back to life..?..)..

        ..them piling it all onto cunnliffe is complete bullshit..

        .and yep..!..appointing robertson will just further hasten the decline/atrophying/irrelevancy of labour..

        ..and as someone who wants a strong progressive party on the left..

        ..i am in mixed minds about that..

        ..maybe it is best that labour just hurry up and get it over and done with..?

        ..something else will rise from the ashes..

        ..(maybe i shd start supporting robertson..?..to achieve those ends..?..)

      • g says 22.3.2
        1 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

        i agree saarbo.
        i have struggled to be enthused about the moderrn labour party since helen moved on.
        i used to holiday at my grandparents house where the michael j savage portrait was slightly higher on the wall than the queens.
        my grandfather, jack, was an organizer at his job place.
        the antics of cosgrove, mallard, goff etc couldnt be further than the ideals jack held dear.
        imho, jesus could be elected leader of the labour party and it would not stop the rot and slide in the polls.
        i think they need to take the pruning shears to the caucas and PRUNE HARD.
        perhaps, (plz excuse the heresy), they could take a note of nationals actions after the dire result with bill english as leader, and trim the dead wood and bring in new blood.
        (forgive the prolonged gardening analogy).
        in the rangitikei we had a good candidate deborah russell, and from friends in the north they speak very highly of louisa wall abd billie jean prime.
        i wander what it will take for those old heads to get the message.
        take one for the team and move on.

  23. Ray 23
    1 October 2014 at 9:23 am

    Why does Cunliffe try to spin everything, he just seems unable to be truthful
    His lawyer wife becomes a”family member” he says he will not stand down, then claims he was always going to
    When asked a simple question on CGT involving family trusts that would almost certainly mirror his own situation, is unable to answer
    And so it goes, you can see why the Right want him to remain in the job

    • Te Reo Putake 23.1
      1 October 2014 at 9:28 am

      “Why does Cunliffe try to spin everything, he just seems unable to be truthful”

      I think you’ve mistaken David Cunliffe for John Key. That guy lies even when he doesn’t have to.

      • Tracey 23.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 12:01 pm

        Well, the right wingers here keep saying if Cunliffe and labour were more like Nats and John Key…

      • phillip ure 23.1.2
        1 October 2014 at 1:31 pm

        key lies so often..they now pass unnoticed..

        .his most recent:

        key:..’seymour from act did not ask for a ministerial position..’

        seymour:..’i did ask key if i cd be a minister’..

        ..this howler/clear-blatant lie from key.. was just shrugged-off/ignored by the media..

        ..are they really that used to/relaxed about key lying to them..?

    • greywarbler 23.2
      1 October 2014 at 9:52 am

      @Ray
      Just breathe through your nose, watch, listen and think. You will elucidate the facts eventually.

  24. Ray 24
    1 October 2014 at 9:42 am

    Maybe he thinks it is part of the job description

    • Rodel 24.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:26 pm

      No No. Agree with Willie wotsisname on Radio Live.

      Good on her, sticking up fpr her man and giving a bit of courageous mongrel back at the a**shole disloyalists in caucus who have been undermining Cunliffe and trying to destroy the Labour party for their own self serving interests.

      No apologies needed. Nice to see someone brave enough and proud enough to speak the truth. I’d love to read her views on the Gowers, Vernon Smalls, Watkins and other National sycophants.

      James Dann could learn from Cunliffe’s wife the meaning of the word loyalty.

      • Belladonna 24.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 7:30 pm

        Quite agree, they could teach a few people the meaning of the word ‘loyalty’. Just wish they would both stop apologising, no need for it and it would make them appear stronger if they either ignored the flak or got angry IMO.

  25. greywarbler 25
    1 October 2014 at 9:49 am

    Radionz Chief Executive Paul Thompson has announced that changes in top jobs recently will complete its new team.

    Carol Hirschfeld was demoted from a top job in Maori TV and has chosen to go to RadioNZ, starting Nov 24.
    Ms Hirschfeld will be responsible for news, drama, music, spoken features and Radio New Zealand International….

    Meanwhile, Radio New Zealand networks presentation manager John Howson has been appointed to head of radio.
    In a statement, Radio New Zealand says the new appointments complete the reorganisation of its senior management following the appointment of Stuff website editor, Glen Scanlon to head of digital media.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/radio-new-zealand-snatches-disgruntled-maori-tv-executive-cg-163204

    (Note the new, modern English usage showing lazy, (efficiency?), lack of respect and lack of capitals for holders of ranked positions: ‘head of digital media, head of radio.’)

    • DC for PM 25.1
      1 October 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Yay for Carol Hirschfield!

      Have to disagree with you on use of capitals for job titles though.
      It’s not laziness or intended to be disrespectful at all, it’s been standard news editorial style for at least 15 years to do that, simply because it’s easier to read while scanning the line of text quickly.

      This is what students are taught in journalism schools by sub-editors.

      It also saves the hassle of endless arguments about which job titles deserve capitals, and which ones don’t. If you read the Guardian, you’ll note that they also use lower case for prime minister David Cameron.

      • greywarbler 25.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 3:01 pm

        Job Titles. It is not easier to scan text. If you want to know who is what, capitals jump out at you. And 15 years, doesn’t seem that long. Give all head of department titles Caps, seniority Head Foreman. It is laziness, it is casual. It is can’t be bothered, it is diminishing and pseudo-populist like calling me by my first name instead of using an honorific. That goes way back. And I don’t like every marketer and government department making out that they are my best friend.

    • phillip ure 25.2
      1 October 2014 at 1:34 pm

      “..new appointments complete the reorganisation of its senior management following the appointment of Stuff website editor, Glen Scanlon to head of digital media…”

      whoar..!..

      ..i hope they didn’t base that on the quality of the content on stuff..?

      ..and i hope they aren’t asking him to do the same thing @ rnz..

      ..whoar..

      ..cos’…stuff puts the ‘lite’ in ‘lite-weight’…eh..?

      ..(it makes the herald look ‘serious’..and that is no easy task..)

      ..and he made that..?

      ..ew..!..just ‘ew!’…

      ..richard griffins’/keys’ plans to emasculate rnz continue apace.

      • greywarbler 25.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 4:10 pm

        @ phillip
        I fear. This was the bit I liked recently heard on Radionz – their trailer for Jim Mora. Lovingly transcribed by me from the golden words of a well-spoken announcer on Radionz.

        Jim Mora’s Panel ‘the country’s top opinion makers and commentators along with the experts”… (But wait there’s mora!) I couldn’t get any more down because I was falling over laughing.

        I was thinking of sending in a complaint to the Fair Trading whatsname on the basis of how can they prove they’re the top opinion makers etc. Judged by whom, alongside whom, with what qualifications? Or perhaps they could be taken to task for not being fit for their purpose, and we can send them back to the hole they came from. I’d rather listen to Ratty from his hole by the river in Wind in the Willows as he dispenses wisdom, with a strong sense of caring for his fellow animals. (Have the prime BBC radio version.)

  26. weka 26
    1 October 2014 at 9:52 am

    post-scott ‏@buzzandhum 2 hrs2 hours ago
    30 minutes of political coverage, @NzMorningReport, and not a single item about the government. Or ACT. Or Dunne.

  27. Draco T Bastard 27
    1 October 2014 at 10:06 am

    And Stuff prove their open bias in favour of National:

    Read all about National’s ups and surprising downs

    Perhaps they were surprised that their propagandising for National hadn’t worked as well as they expected.

  28. finbar 28
    1 October 2014 at 10:16 am

    So what is their cunning plan.Get rid of Cunliffe,implant Robertson,who in my opinion comes across as weak ‘NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS SEXUALITY’and replace him 18 months later, if the numbers dont crunch in their favour, and replace him with Nash.

  29. Puckish Rogue 29
    1 October 2014 at 10:16 am

    Some friendly advice to Mrs Cunliffe, its a bad idea to use a name that can identify who you are when going on twitter (or indeed doing anything online)

    But on a more serious note has she now invited attacks on herself?

    • Paul 29.1
      1 October 2014 at 10:29 am

      Sounds like a threat straight out of the Slater/ Collins Dirty Politics handbook?

      • Puckish Rogue 29.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 10:30 am

        Well no its just she entered herself into the fight

        • Paul 29.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 10:32 am

          Of course.
          Many people wouldn’t believe you.

          • adam 29.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 11:14 am

            Paul friendly advice – ignore PR-spin and the other right wing creatures who live under bridges. It will do your blood pressure some good also, as you won’t have to hear more lies and spin. And occasionally you will get a good giggle when they all get together and they do a hate in – and your mind drifts to asking them to get a room, but you know you shouldn’t, as that image really is quite revolting.

            • Puckish Rogue 29.1.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 12:36 pm

              Yes because answering uncomfortable questions is never easy, much easier to ignore them instead and pretend everythings a-ok

      • Murray Olsen 29.1.2
        1 October 2014 at 10:17 pm

        Yes. It has that smell about it.

    • Tracey 29.2
      1 October 2014 at 12:02 pm

      Does key using max in photo ops invite attacks on Max?

      • Puckish Rogue 29.2.1
        1 October 2014 at 3:04 pm

        Nope but if Max was to launch an attack on someone political then yeah he’d be open to attacks back

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 30.1
      1 October 2014 at 10:30 am

      who benefits from his removal

      The Labour Party?

      • Paul 30.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 10:33 am

        The establishment.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 30.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 10:45 am

          If the establishment’s aim is that the left never get into power again, then I think you can take it that Cunliffe is the leader it wants.

          • Paul 30.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 10:50 am

            Wow…..you and Gosman singing from the same song sheet.
            And both sent over here to foment happy mischief?

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 30.1.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2014 at 10:55 am

              It’s all a big conspiracy.

              • higherstandard …
                1 October 2014 at 10:59 am

                Shush !

              • Paul …
                1 October 2014 at 11:12 am

                Glad we agree.
                Clearly you have read the conspiracy as detailed by the book Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  1 October 2014 at 11:34 am

                  Paul, you can take it from me that anyone who it appears does not think exactly like you really does think like you. If he or she professes to hold a different position he or she is only doing so because someone is paying them to pretend.

                  I AM Edward Snowden.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    1 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

                    Look, we can’t all be Edward Snowden. You can be Julian Assange.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      1 October 2014 at 1:08 pm

                      He’s a bit rapey for me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 October 2014 at 1:28 pm

                      Ok, ok, you can be Chelsea Manning.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      1 October 2014 at 3:02 pm

                      If I am allowed to be any nutty conspiracy theorist, can I be Ev.

                      Watch me now:

                      LOL. Depleted uranium. LOL. Bankster. LOL. Buildings don’t collapse on their own. LOL. Obama shoots down passenger airlines. LOL.

                    • Puckish Rogue …
                      1 October 2014 at 3:07 pm

                      +1000 (with apoligies to Chooky)

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      1 October 2014 at 3:20 pm

                      You’re getting the hang of it, just aim a little higher and you’ll make a good Glenn Beck 😉

          • phillip ure 30.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 1:41 pm

            “..you can take it that Cunliffe is the leader it wants…”

            gee..!..gormless one..doesn’t this concerted anti-cunnliffe media shitstorm puts the lie to that claim..eh..?

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 30.1.1.1.2.1
              1 October 2014 at 5:46 pm

              You’re right of course. It is impossible that the media are treating Cunliffe like a numpty because he’s a numpty.

              It must be something wider.

              The establishment hasn’t been this worried since, what, 1922?

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

                you seen unaware of the implications of/from labour shedding its’ neo-liberal skin..there..gormless one..

                ..(if cunnliffe manages to achieve that..).

                ..’the establishment’ aren’t..

                ,.that is why they are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of cunnliffe..

                ..using their tame corporate-media..

                ..and everything else they can throw at him..

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  1 October 2014 at 7:50 pm

                  May-bee.

                  Cause it is hard to see why the media would otherwise be interested in Labour’s worst election result since 1922 and the complete cluster fuck which has followed. That’s hardly news.

                  Your analysis is good for Cunliffe because the more inept he is the more it proves that they want to get rid of him.

                  • phillip ure …
                    1 October 2014 at 7:58 pm

                    no..it is just a recognition of the fact that the right/establishment are terrified of the idea of a labour party that is actually a labour party…

                    ..and cunnliffe is the one to make that happen..

                    ..and they know that..

                    ..it is nothing to do with these corporate media clowns and their current get-cunnliffe! obsession..

                    ..this is longer/deeper/far more important..

                    ..and it should end up with a labour party the likes of cosgrove/nash will feel very uncomfortable in..

                    ..as the neo-lib will be gone..

                    ..and one that will talk directly to those million disposessed..

                    ..and i wonder if those old neo-lib mp’s realise yet that any hopes of renewal for the labour party..

                    ..must include their exit…

                    ..cos’ it must..

                    ..it’s over..!

                    ..for everyones’ sake..

                    ..just go..!

    • higherstandard 30.2
      1 October 2014 at 10:34 am

      Less than two weeks ago, this rabble was trying to tell us they were fit to govern, and in fact the best choice to lead this country.

      Moreover, the media seemed hell-bent on swaying the vote towards Labour.

    • Barfly 30.3
      1 October 2014 at 10:37 am

      It’s just

      “business as usual”

      “normal service has been resumed”

      “any chance of a bonus boss?”

    • blue leopard 30.4
      1 October 2014 at 11:05 am

      @Paul,
      Moral of the story: Don’t come out and state truths such as ‘neo-liberalism doesn’t work’ or else you will be attacked by those who are benefiting the most from neo-liberalism. These people are entirely advantaged by having people believe that the entirely flawed neo-liberal approach provides benefits to many. It doesn’t. That is plain to see. Yet those that are benefiting from neo-liberalism own the media.

      • Draco T Bastard 30.4.1
        1 October 2014 at 12:11 pm

        +1

        These people are entirely advantaged by having people believe that the entirely flawed neo-liberal approach provides benefits to many. It doesn’t.

        Of course it doesn’t – it was designed from the get-go to benefit the rich at everyone else’s expense and that is what’s happening.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 30.4.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 12:46 pm

          Only if you ignore that half a billion fewer people were in poverty in 2005 than were in poverty in 1981, notwithstanding the growth in the world’s population. How did this miracle happen, you ask? Was it by policies focussed on redistribution of wealth?

          • blue leopard 30.4.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 1:05 pm

            A lot of that statistic was achieved by China who were following a Chinese version of market socialism, not neo-liberalism.

            http://coa.sagepub.com/content/28/2/145.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

            While the stats look good, that article notes that many were dispossessed of land and have had to move into cities – so the quality of life may not be so good for some.

          • Draco T Bastard 30.4.1.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

            In the 1950s/60s and early 70s growth and prosperity in Africa and other under-developed nations was greater than what they have now and poverty was less. Then the IMF got involved and mandated open markets and free capitalism. Poverty exploded and development went backwards. The rich countries (More specifically, the rich in the rich countries) did really well out of it (A number of books but you can start with Ha Joon Chang’s 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism.

            To answer you’re question: It was policies that protected and developed local people and industry that was eliminating poverty and the free-market BS that causes it. We see the same thing happening in NZ.

            • blue leopard 30.4.1.1.2.1
              1 October 2014 at 2:32 pm

              I also seem to recall reading somewhere recently that there is something faulty about the way poverty is measured. Something about it being focused on monetary evaluation. For example, if a locale has an active barter system they will be evaluated as being in poverty even if their quality of life is good.

              • KJT …
                1 October 2014 at 10:13 pm

                When small African farmers who had rather a good quality of life are forced into City slums when agribusiness takes their land.

                • ropata …
                  1 October 2014 at 11:39 pm

                  But when they made their own thatched huts, owned cattle and bartered for other goods, there was no measurable GDP benefit. Obviously moving them onto trash heaps and giving them slave wages increased the velocity of money therefore they were no longer in poverty. Get it?

        • blue leopard 30.4.1.2
          1 October 2014 at 12:54 pm

          @DTB Agreed.

          Characterizing the removal of protective regulations and wealth re-distribution as ‘freedom’ is such a load of bollocks and leads to:

          “All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty; for they had just wit enough to perceive the advantages of political institutions, without experience enough to enable them to foresee the dangers. The most capable of foreseeing the dangers were the very persons who expected to benefit by them…” Rousseau, On the Origin of the Inequality of Mankind

          [This writing is a critique on ‘civilization’ and political institutions in general but the parallels with contemporary trends are stark.]

          Only written 200+ years ago. (1754)

          What a pity we don’t learn this type of history in school.

    • Saarbo 30.5
      1 October 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Pay back to their “insiders”

      In a different domain than Politics, although that domain was still very political, I provided inside information to the media…its incredibly powerful, effective and the media will pay back your favour…that is what we are getting here I reckon. Mallard, Goff, Cosgrove have been leaking like a sieve. Also remember that Jane Clifton seems pretty well connected in media circles and probably has influence on behalf of her partner, Mallard (I presume they are still together?). Also it seems the gallery have always hunted in a pack.

    • lurgee 30.6
      1 October 2014 at 4:30 pm

      It’s called reporting news. If the left doesn’t like having continual negative media coverage, they should stop acting like idiots. Karen Price’s attack tweets being a case in point. Do you really expect the media NOT to report something as bizarre as a politician’s wife going to town on his critics?

      • Paul 30.6.1
        1 October 2014 at 4:36 pm

        The Herald is driving this news and you know it.
        They have a preset agenda and they are looking for anything that will frame their storyline.
        They are not just simply reporting the story.
        In many ways, they are creating it.
        You know this and are being disingenuous when ignoring this.

        • J Mex 30.6.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 7:42 pm

          [Facepalm] They aren’t pushing this story because of a political agenda

          They are pushing it, because it’s a juicy f’n story that will pin eyeballs to papers and screens – and they are reporting it in such a way.

          They would be doing exactly the same thing if Bronagh Key was using a Twitter to slag off Judith Colins or Colin Craig.

          And you know it.

          But I digress. Everything would be o.k, if the corporate right wing media wasn’t out to get you right?

          • framu 30.6.1.1.1
            2 October 2014 at 8:01 am

            your right and wrong at the same time

            are the media lazy sensationalists? – yes
            does most of NZ media have a vendetta against anyone who isnt nat/act? – yes
            does the vast bulk of NZ media use any cheap opportunity to push a pre-decided narrative? – yes
            should labour stop giving them ammunition? – fuck yes!

            its not an either or for me –

            the MSM are baised little shits who would prefer to have an easy story or make themselves the story (who will turn tables en masse once they decide on a change) AND labour need to stop being fools

            labour woeful media interaction doesnt magically absolve the MSM from doing their jobs properly – and they havent bothered with doing their jobs properly for years

            • lurgee 30.6.1.1.1.1
              2 October 2014 at 9:45 am

              does most of NZ media have a vendetta against anyone who isnt nat/act? – yes

              That’s palpable nonsense.

              YEs, ultimately, the mainstream media is in the hands of the capitalist class – of course it is, as it is a means of making money – you wouldn’t expect them just to leave something like that just lying around for the proles to get their hnds on, do you – but that does not mean that tere is a strong or persistent bias against Labour or in favour of National or Act. Bluntly, there isn’t really enough difference between the National and Labour for it to be worth while running a deliberate campaign to undermine Labour.

              There’s something similar and more visceral going on here.

              The media likes one thing – winners and losers.

              Yeah, I know, that’s two things. No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

              The media love to celebrate a winner, but even more, they love to put the boot into a loser. Labour, unfortunately, has been looking like a loser for almost a decade, now. It’s hard not to, when you’ve churned through a grab back of leaders and the party is polling 30% and National is on 50% (remember those heady days when 30% seemed low!?). That’s why I’ve always eschewed talk of grant multi-party coalitions. We live in an MMP environment, but most people don’t think MMP.

              IF Labour managed to drag the party to the right side of 30% … (Dare I say the right side of 35%?) and managed to stop the continual factionalism and squabbling, and had a leader with the sort of vim and energy of Norman Kirk, or the grim technocratic authority of Clark, the media would be much more positive towards Labour. National, of course, has had someone who has looked like a winner since 2006, which is a bit of an advantage for them

              Consider how the Greens were treated in the election. They had a fairly easy time of it. This wasn’t because of Norman’s comment about working with National, but because the Greens were seen as a party on the upswing … so the media – being little more than nasty bullies – didn’t put the boot in. Or contrast the treatment of Don Brash – the media had a field day with him, once they decided he was a rightwing zealot (worse) and a fumbling loser, not the plain speaking champion of middle New Zealand.

              Ultimately, the mainstream media exist to sell advertising to people. As long as they perceive people as being more inclined towards the right, they will pander towards that. Labour needs to makes itself important and interesting again. Then the media will be ready to make nice.

  31. Kat Alexander 31
    1 October 2014 at 10:31 am

    Hi de ho standardistas, haven’t posted here in years, but thought this was worth coming out of lurk-mode…

    If this is an omen of what we can expect if the TPPA goes through then it’s enough to give me the chills:

    http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/83867-court-dismisses-zespri-case.html

    Fortunately this particular case was dismissed, but I shan’t think we’ll be so lucky in future if China is already pursuing cases like these.

    Any thoughts on how we can ramp up the resistance to this nasty TPPA agenda?

  32. Paul 32
    1 October 2014 at 10:38 am

    Cosgrove busy stirring on the corporate media outlets.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11334613
    “Mr Cosgrove told RadioLive the tweets were “sad”.
    “There is a code of conduct which the party has which basically says we should treat people with respect and I don’t think that family members should be used in this way,” he told the station.
    Speaking to NewstalkZB, Mr Cosgrove said if his partner opened a Twitter account to attack caucus colleagues he would know about it.”

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  33. Granted 33
    1 October 2014 at 10:41 am

    I did not know about the twitter account…………………was I really the first follower of the twitter account I did not know about????

    The stupidity is overwhelming

      • Paul 33.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:06 am

        This is an ugly witch hunt by the media.

        • Olwyn 33.1.1.1
          1 October 2014 at 11:58 am

          It is astonishing and awful. The rule seems to be that anyone whatsoever can take a swing at Cunliffe, but no one, not even his wife, may strike back on his behalf. I have never seen such a concerted and unwarranted attack on anyone. I mean, what has the guy done? He led a party that lost an election – a thing that happens to someone every three years in NZ. Then he didn’t stand down, as was hoped for by some people. So what! Neither did English, with an even worse result. And Goff, after a result that was just 2.8% up on David’s – replaced himself with a less experienced clone.

          • Kiwiri 33.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2014 at 12:28 pm

            David Cunliffe is the best Labour Party MP to lead the campaign in the run-up to General Election 2017.

          • Draco T Bastard 33.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2014 at 12:42 pm

            I mean, what has the guy done?

            He actually promised to fix things and if he follows the path he laid out in the Dolphin and the Dole Queue then a lot of rich people will find themselves not being so rich nor so powerful.

          • Puckish Rogue 33.1.1.1.3
            1 October 2014 at 12:43 pm

            Ackshully its more like John Key uses proxys to attack anyone and here we have (possibly) Cunliffe attacking his own party via a proxy

            I don’t think thats the case here but the media do love a scandel no matter how small it is

          • Hayden 33.1.1.1.4
            1 October 2014 at 1:40 pm

            I mean, what has the guy done?

            Apparently his “apology for being a man” took a minimum of 1″ off every penis in New Zealand; at least you’d think so based on the way some people went on about it.

            • Hami Shearlie 33.1.1.1.4.1
              1 October 2014 at 2:27 pm

              Well, if Chris Trotter’s mythical “Waitakere Man” feels “bobbitted” because David Cunliffe drew attention to the violence of a substantial number kiwi males, then they will just have to wince and bear it! If they took it personally, maybe they have something to hide themselves. If the cap fits they can shove it on their noggins!

            • Clemgeopin 33.1.1.1.4.2
              1 October 2014 at 9:23 pm

              There was nothing wrong with Cunliffe’s statement in the context in which it as made. One should be proud of a heartfelt statement like that from a leader. What is really wrong is the stupid political reaction it received from the sensation seeking media and the unthinking small minded nasties.

              Right now I feel sorry for being a Kiwi because 48% of the voters voted this bad government back in!

          • Hami Shearlie 33.1.1.1.5
            1 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

            I think David’s wife Karen was really restrained in what she did – They have been under sustained attack from without and within for at least 18 months – I will be voting for David, if he doesn’t win I will leave the party – the Cosgroves, Mallards, Goffs , too damn toxic to want to mix with them!! As for Nash and (maybe) Davis, they would be OUT for leadership as far as I’m concerned – they are connected to Cameron Slater so that shows what little judgement they really have – The old adage is very true – you are known by the friends you keep!

            • Olwyn 33.1.1.1.5.1
              1 October 2014 at 3:00 pm

              you are known by the friends you keep!

              And by the people you are willing to pick a fight with. Yes to fighting with their leader, who was overwhelmingly endorsed last year by the members and affiliates. But no fights with Mr Slater, nor with the rest of the increasingly feral media players, who are instead fed regular tidbits of leaked information.

              • Paul …
                1 October 2014 at 5:22 pm

                In Nash and Davis, one sees the problems caused by naked ambition.
                Their own interests trump the party.
                This makes them easy to manipulate by the establishment.

          • Paul 33.1.1.1.6
            1 October 2014 at 4:38 pm

            His crime is that he is a threat to the establishment
            And the Herald is a puppet for the powers that be.
            It’s vicious and naked attack on him only shows how much their owners have to lose.

            • Hami Shearlie 33.1.1.1.6.1
              1 October 2014 at 8:29 pm

              And don’t forget the unthinkables that he commits – he wears a red scarf and sometimes winks!

              • Clemgeopin …
                1 October 2014 at 9:39 pm

                Cunliffe has definitely made some unwise errors in his public statements (e.g, the beltway remark was unnecessary) and actions (the secret trust was stupid), but overall, he has done a good job. He needs to talk with his heart as regards the Labour values and policy direction and mean them and come across as such without fear or undue caution. What people want from a leader is trust worthiness and honest passion. Many times, he has shown that he has it in him. Needs to improve further.

                The caucus moved against him too fast too soon. Wrong and unfair move.

                All this is not to take away from Robertson who is very capable too.

                Some of the caucus members have acted like clowns and vultures bringing their dissent and views into the open rather than sort things in house in their caucus deliberations. Don’t bring the party into disrepute for your own private ends.

    • Ant 33.2
      1 October 2014 at 11:06 am

      Yawn, politician accounts follow anyone that follows them, it’s twitterquette.

    • Draco T Bastard 33.3
      1 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

      Did you know that political leaders usually don’t have personal twitter accounts?

      Basically, there will be a media team that controls the twitter account and Judith Collins gave a really good example of why.

      And, yeah, there’s probably an auto-follow script running in the background as well.

      • alwyn 33.3.1
        1 October 2014 at 3:14 pm

        I don’t have a link to this but I gather Cunliffe says that he doesn’t have one either. He says he hasn’t had access for nearly a year and that his staff send out any tweets.
        Perhaps he learnt something from Collins after all.

    • Ovid 33.4
      1 October 2014 at 2:16 pm

      Barack Obama follows me on Twitter. I don’t think it’s because he was sitting in the Oval thinking I’d be a good and worthy individual to follow. In many cases it’s an automatic thing when you follow a politician there.

  34. greywarbler 34
    1 October 2014 at 10:52 am

    I noticed Guyon Le Spinner talking up David Parker’s possible leadership challenge despite him saying he wouldn’t. But he might, mightn’t he, m>>he, m>>he.
    David Parker preparing for battle as caretaker leader ( 7′ 29″ )
    07:10 Labour’s new acting leader, David Parker is not ruling out joining the race for the party’s top job.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport

    I noticed James Dann throwing his spanner into the Labour work in progress. Talking about younger people being needed (James perhaps?). Youf is always so wise, and far-seeing, know all, and nimbler for jumping over the log-jam of bad and festering policy requirements. Also Kris Faafoi has taken this line.

    Labour leadership contest hots up ( 2′ 49″ )
    06:39 The Labour Party leadership hopeful, Grant Robertson, says the party has to get through its leadership contest being honest with itself about what went wrong.

    David Cunliffe? He had good coverage in 30 September piece – Labour rift growing ahead of contest. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/255795/labour-rift-growing-ahead-of-contest
    and Labour’s outgoing deputy leader David Parker said he no longer had confidence in Mr Cunliffe. “I don’t think it’s tenable that David Cunliffe continue as leader,” he said, but declined to give any reason.

    Comments by David and Grant about their opinions were treated as bad form, old chap, instead of attempts to shine a light on their feelings.
    And another Radionz heading that seems to inflate reasonable comments that are more about media behaviour than the two leader contenders.
    8.10 Labour leadership contenders encouraged to have a clean fight

    David Slack running down David Cunliffe largely, very personality oriented and seems to favour Grant Robertson, and brought in David Shearer.
    Jane Clifton attempted a balanced opinion as usual, sounded perceptive. She mentioned how many matters would come up for query and attack in Parliament and felt that if David Cunliffe had stuck it out for some months as Leader of the Opposition, it would have provided time for him to show his talents.

    8.13 Comments from Don Brash on the effect of being on the list or not, and how that affects the candidates when seeking votes in their electorate was of value.
    edited

    • GregJ 34.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:14 pm

      Perhaps Parker is “Jim Hacker” in Labour’s version of “Party Games”? You know the moderate, compromise candidate. As Sir Humphrey & Sir Arnold would say

      “… malleable, flexible, likeable, no firm opinions, no bright ideas, not intellectually committed, no strength of purpose to change anything. Someone who can be manip…,er, professionally guided”.

      Much better then to let everyone know that he’s not campaigning for the leadership:

      “I have no ambitions in that direction”.

      Then at a later stage he can follow up with:

      “While one does not seek the office, one has pledged oneself to the service of one’s party, and if one’s friends were to persuade one that was the best way one could serve, one might have to accept the responsibility whatever one’s own private wishes might be.”

      😈

    • Belladonna 34.2
      1 October 2014 at 7:26 pm

      If I hear David Slack say one more time that Shearer( and his guitar) is who he would chose I will scream. He is available to the highest bidder as I seem to recall he was a speech writer for Bolger at one stage. He professes to be leftwing but I have my doubts.
      He is filling in for Karyn and Andrew on Radio Live who are away for a week. Will tune in again next week.

  35. Adrian 35
    1 October 2014 at 11:17 am

    Weka put up some numbers for Ilam. I thought that a voting paper had to have 2 ticks to be valid.
    So where are the missing 1400+ votes that went to James Dann but not to Labour.
    Only the Greens had a 300 vote descrepancy which presumably went to Dann, taking him from 1700 to 1400 ahead of the party vote.
    Thats why people are asking questions.
    A lot of party votes are missing in most electorates, even though toal votes, candidate and party roughly match.
    Something smells.

  36. aerobubble 36
    1 October 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Kids getting their hair cut, seems the neighbor school has implemented a short hair cut policy, and every kid not wanting to get a kicking in the area, is having to keep their hair cut, allegedly.

    Why a principle could not imagine the effects of a haircut policy is anyone’s guess.

  37. ropata 37
    1 October 2014 at 1:51 pm

    An alternate universe where Cunliffe was PM: NZ would be on the road to a decent society again instead of the neoliberal exploitation that’s all the rage these days.

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/the-left-triumphant-counterfactual.html

    http://www.matthewbeveridge.co.nz/politics/twitters-alternate-post-election-universe/

  38. ropata 38
    1 October 2014 at 1:58 pm

    Hey lprent there’s something really weird going on with the comment threading and timestamps from comment 35 onwards.. there are two of each: 35.1 , 35.1.1 , 35.1.1.1 , ???

    (oh, now it’s comment 36 onwards… the replies have moved below this comment)

  39. Katy 39
    1 October 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Here is the Wikipedia page concerning the N.Z. Labour party leadership election 2013,held a little over a year ago. The results show that David Cunliffe gained more votes than Grant Robertson and Shane Jones put together.
    So if the current leadership election is run solely between Cunliffe and Robertson the chances are that Cunliffe will win by a landslide, hence the need by those opposed to Cunliffe to get more people to run in this contest to split the vote and find some reasons (credible or not)to discredit David Cunliffe.
    Just wait and see all the ABC wannabes, right wing journalist and other associated try hards,get on the band wagon with their spin to try and damage Cunliffes popularity.

    http://Wikipedia/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2013

    • Colonial Viper 39.1
      1 October 2014 at 5:45 pm

      What this makes clear is a bloody minded Labour caucus which cannot accept the will of the general membership and the union affiliates. Instead of sorting shit out after a major election loss and reorienting for a bigger better campaign against the NATs, they are in fact demonstrating to all of us why Labour lost.

  40. Draco T Bastard 40
    1 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Sophisticated surveillance coming to Auckland

    With over 2000 cameras deployed across Auckland, the system will use a “HP Intelligent Scene Analysis System” and licence plate recognition for accurate identification.

    They will screen for dangerous activities and analyse safety threats across the city.

    All the data gathered by the cameras will be processed by HP cloud servers based in Palo Alto, California.

    Which means that it will be going straight to the US’s NSA.

    This is the type of stuff that needs to be done in NZ by the NZ government with the information staying in NZ.

    • Colonial Viper 40.1
      1 October 2014 at 5:45 pm

      This is just so unbelievably shit. Being policed by the Americans, good bye sovereign state of NZ. Bet you that protest marches are classified as ‘safety and security threats’.

  41. greywarbler 41
    1 October 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Puckish Rogue – you seem to be overdosing on the rich fermented yeast of The Standard.
    Can’t you stagger off to some other blog before you throw a full technicolour yawn. (Bazza McKenzie aka Barry Humphries.)

  42. Murray Olsen 42
    1 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

    I think David Cunliffe should have stood by his wife. Basically, they are good people and she’s not saying anything that’s not true. She must be in despair seeing him work so hard and then seeing the Rogernome idiots shit on all his effort. They’re not at all collegial and you could even make a case for David having the responsibility of exposing them.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11334613

    • Hami Shearlie 42.1
      1 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

      They sure are an unpleasant bunch aren’t they? In the outside world they would probably be reported for bullying behaviour and given a written warning!

    • Ant 42.2
      1 October 2014 at 5:42 pm

      Yeah he could of said it wasn’t the best way to go about it, but she is a good kiwi wife defending her husband.

    • Colonial Viper 42.3
      1 October 2014 at 5:47 pm

      Exactly – it seems to me that the PR advice DC is getting has been lacking for sometime now.

    • TheContrarian 42.4
      1 October 2014 at 6:52 pm

      So obviously the correct response is to create a twitter account under an assumed name to bag out her husbands colleagues.

      What a fucking dumb thing to do.

      • Murray Olsen 42.4.1
        1 October 2014 at 11:10 pm

        While that might be what you’d say to your spouse if they defended you, I would thank mine. She’s showing loyalty that is missing from the caucus completely. I applaud her.

    • infused 42.5
      1 October 2014 at 10:39 pm

      Probably. But she could have done the job a lot better… and not got caught…

    • greywarbler 42.6
      2 October 2014 at 9:42 am

      @Murray O
      It wasn’t the time for David’s wife to step in even if she was doing a volcano when looking at the attacks on the good man who is her husband. It was just another interference in the process which will bring order through this system of choosing a Labour leader.
      And James Dann’s comments from Christchurch are interference. Can’t lefties discipline themselves, shut up and let their own procedures run fairly and without interference??

      I was talking to a Christchurch supporter who backed Dann, saying that he had visited so many houses in Ilam who had been negative about Labour and Cunliffe, that he felt justified venting his opinions. So that was a pocket of such people that he knew of in one place. So he was still interfering in the process. That is why you can’t advertise or make political gestures on polling day in a national election. Doh!

  43. Draco T Bastard 43
    1 October 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Last German state to do away with university tuition fees

    “Tuition fees are socially unjust,” said Dorothee Stapelfeldt, senator for science in Hamburg, which scrapped charges in 2012.

    “They particularly discourage young people who do not have a traditional academic family background from taking up studies. It is a core task of politics to ensure that young women and men can study with a high quality standard free of charge in Germany.”

    Now it would be nice if our politicians who still stick with failed neo-liberalism realised the same thing.

    • Paul 43.1
      1 October 2014 at 5:18 pm

      Great to see some countries don’t slavishly follow the neo-liberal faith.
      From the article you reference.

      “We got rid of tuition fees because we do not want higher education which depends on the wealth of the parents,” said Gabriele Heinen-Kljajic of the Green party, the minister for science and culture in Lower Saxony.

      Pretty simple logic.

      Does NZ want a high value economy like Germany?
      It’s clear from our governments policies over the past 30 years, the answer is no.
      Better to just be a source to be looted by transnational corporate interests.

      • Draco T Bastard 43.1.1
        1 October 2014 at 8:38 pm

        Does NZ want a high value economy like Germany?

        All NZ’s governments since 1984 have been working to turn NZ into a high profits/ low wage country and mostly succeeding.

    • greywarbler 43.2
      2 October 2014 at 10:32 am

      @ Draco tb
      The politicians won’t encourage tertiary education. It’s an asset that students can use to get more money when they sell themselves on the human resources market. Our politicians are on the trail of leave everything to private businesses. They don’t show much interest in advancing knowledge except where there is a sure, or very likely, return.

      And now they are trying to limit the knowledge that can be passed on for free by scientists. Jim Salinger made comment about the weather, pro bono publico, and it seemed was sacked because he wasn’t following the strictures of the commercial boss of his organisation. It’s money, not life-assisting knowledge that our politicians are interested in.
      http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/face-niwa-sacked-being-too-public-2673255
      http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2009/04/26/the-salinger-dismissal-is-there-more-to-it/

      And now Sir Peter David Gluckman, KNZM, FRS, FMedSci, FRSNZ is a New Zealand paediatrician. He is currently the inaugural Chief Science Advisor to the New Zealand Prime Minister. (Wikipedia)
      He announced a proposal that will have a dampening effect on scientists speaking to the public about alternative directions for NZ which brings their experience and analytical skills to the ears of those who want to learn. Gluckman says that some are speaking out of their area of expertise. (Gluckman is a paediatrician, a children’s ailments specialist.) Yet many scientists have studied more than one discipline, or taken a strong interest in some outside the area in which they are employed. There is a practice for governments to groom suitable scientists as tame on-tap people who talk the government talk, though supposed as being objective and wise. It seems that Sir Peter is one
      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/255991/fears-proposed-code-could-gag-science
      And on Gluckman from The Sprout on TS http://thestandard.org.nz/gluckmans-apology-for-nationals-science-package-shredded/

      Politicians want to limit knowledge and disagreement with their policies. They want easy money and to pick winners though they say they despise that as a socialist plot, the big plan that government backs should be left to organically happen through private business decisions! So our government limit scientific funding, want profit from everything, don’t want to invest in blue sky, speculative projects. And they definitely don’t want annoying tertiary graduates advising the public so they are informed about our world, and our country’s actions within it which we look to government to control.

      Of course our government will waste money on speculative ventures that don’t even show real cost benefit advantages to the taxpaying citizens. The advantage to politicians and their minions is measured precisely however. Large businesses working on 20th century principles squeezing the last profit out of old practices, and structures. If it works (for them) resist change, fight future thinking.

      joe90 or? Could you advise me, just from memory, when government had an advisory panel called something like Council for the Future? In the 1970s probably. Perhaps in Sutch’s time, when such thinking was attempted.

  44. Clean_power 44
    1 October 2014 at 4:48 pm

    If even David Parker is unacceptable to the Labour Party radicals, then there is little or no hope it will ever gain political power. Left-wing extremism will be rejected my middle NZ.

    • Colonial Viper 44.1
      1 October 2014 at 5:49 pm

      Until Labour begins to cater directly for those earning less than $50K pa, it is going nowhere in the polls.

      • greywarbler 44.1.1
        2 October 2014 at 10:46 am

        @ colonial viper
        In that case the unions might as well stop supporting Labour. Let the middle class do all the footwork on the Party – their vehicle which they have driven away with encouraging slogans painted on the side, and a vast indifference to the people who wait at the bus stop in the rain. The children of those who built and supported Labour. If the middle class do show interest in the ‘people’ it is likely to be a patronising one that doesn’t feel unity with those who don’t live the life of the glossy advertisements.

        • Colonial Viper 44.1.1.1
          2 October 2014 at 10:54 am

          Let the middle class do all the footwork on the Party – their vehicle which they have driven away with encouraging slogans painted on the side

          Spot on: that’s about as fine an analogy as I have read on The Standard this week, and that is saying something.

          In my estimates, roughly 2/3 of NZers are on less than $50K pa. (Given that the median income of the country is $29K pa, and the median wage of the country is still just $44K).

    • Kiwiri 44.2
      1 October 2014 at 6:17 pm

      Is ensuring there are socio-economic policies to improve the lives of those earning below $29,000 equivalent to left-wing extremism?

    • Puddleglum 44.3
      1 October 2014 at 8:18 pm

      “even David Parker“?

      Is he positioned on the left of the Labour Party?

  45. Paul 45
    1 October 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Our PM has inferred he might send our soldiers to war.
    This should at the forefront of the news.
    It isn’t.
    Says so much about the absolute garbage the MSM has become.

  46. Not a PS Staffer 46
    1 October 2014 at 5:15 pm

    1. Nash will say he has supoport from Maori Caucus and Unions.
    2. Some old fart with a slightly distinguished career will endorse him.
    3. Nash will put his hat in the ring.
    4. Nash will withdrwa for teh purposoe of Blah blah blah and publically back Robertson.
    5. Nash will get a position for more senior that he deserves.

  47. Paul 47
    1 October 2014 at 6:10 pm

    @gormless
    I know your hero, the Dear leader, believes in neo-liberalism.
    However I tend to put more value on the views of the following economists who have debunked neoliberalism.
    Joseph Stiglitz
    Paul Krugman
    David Harvey
    Richard D. Wolff
    Thorstein Veblen
    Ha-Joon Chang
    Steve Keen
    David Colander
    Satya Gabriel

    • Colonial Viper 47.1
      2 October 2014 at 2:13 pm

      Good list. Checkout L Randall Wray and Stephanie Kelton, too.

      Max Keiser and Stacey Herbert’s utterly ascerbic The Keiser Report is usually very good value as well.

  48. greywarbler 48
    1 October 2014 at 6:40 pm

    If anyone can call to mind the name of a song which comes from the 1970s? could you put it here.
    It was about the way we regard important things trivially because of tv. It is something to do with seeing a war on tv while having dinner and has a line pass the salt or mustard, next to something about someone being blown up.

    Don McLean came to mind but can’t get a clue to it. Not American Pie.

    • Belladonna 48.1
      1 October 2014 at 7:03 pm

      Just a guess here but maybe Dire Straits and maybe Brothers in Arms. Like i said just a guess. Am curious myself.

    • Murray Olsen 48.2
      1 October 2014 at 11:14 pm

      “I am the slime” fits the bill. Not the one you’re thinking of, but I like it.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnNDkHb0MU

    • ropata 48.3
      2 October 2014 at 12:51 am

      For greywarbler: Bruce Springsteen – WAR (1986)
      A great cover by The Boss, but nobody has topped Edwin Starr’s original version.

      Others on the anti-war theme:

      Nena – 99 Luftballons
      OMD – Enola Gay
      Midnight Oil – Put down that Weapon
      Frankie Goes to Hollywood – War

      Here’s a gem from 1971: Neil Young – Heart of Gold

      Thanks for the 70’s / 80’s music excavation 🙂
      (hat-tip: examiner.com).

      • greywarbler 48.3.1
        2 October 2014 at 9:27 am

        Thanks ropata –
        for thinking of all this in the breaking hour of this morning. Hope all that war music did not disturb your sleep when you at last stopped tapping fingers!

        I’ll listen to them and appreciate. The one I was thinking of was ironic – about watching some war and eating breakfast I think. Oh look someone’s been shot, pass the crunchies.

        I thought I would never forget the song, but age wearies me etc. And there are too many pings to the brain of a negative kind each hour. I read recently about someone connected with the music industry, after what seemed like a lifetime of hassling and producing records and managing self-destructive bands, who built a house in a desert area and raised dogs. Understandable.

        Especially after an election like this one where after an attempt to raise consciousness, a large number of people still wouldn’t choose a new improved route and assist the working gang with the cautionary road signs, to get the better, straighter road ahead in the plan.

  49. Clemgeopin 49
    1 October 2014 at 7:44 pm

    This simplistic article suggests that Labour could be-out-till-2020. Rubbish, I say.
    In my opinion, there is a strong chance for Labour to lead the next government if Labour keep its values but makes necessary changes to its policies and programmes.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10563731/Data-suggests-Labour-out-till-2020

  50. Jenny 50
    1 October 2014 at 9:25 pm

    The lessons of past and future history

    Despite two previous election defeats under his leadership, Norman Kirk went on to become the greatest Labour Party Leader of the modern post war era.

    I see a number of similarities between Norman Kirk and David Cunliffe, I will leave it up to others (including David Cunliffe himself to define more).

    Here are some of the parallels between Norman Kirk and David Cunliffe.

    Norman Kirk had a reputation as the most formidable debater in parliament of his time.

    David Cunliffe has a reputation as the most formidable debater in parliament of this time.

    In 1966:
    The election saw the governing National Party win a third consecutive term in office.

    In 2014:
    The election saw the governing National Party win a third consecutive term in office.

    In 1966:
    The Labour Party experienced a leadership change shortly before the elections: Arnold Nordmeyer, who was closely associated with an unpopular previous Labour government, was replaced by the younger Norman Kirk. Labour remained disunited, however, with ongoing leadership problems undermining Kirk’s position. Disagreement between unionists and non-unionists regarding economic policy also weakened the party.”

    In 2014:
    The Labour Party experienced a leadership change shortly before the 2014 elections: David Shearer, who was closely associated with figures from an unpopular previous Labour government, was replaced by David Cunliffe. Labour remained disunited, however, with ongoing leadership problems undermining Cunliffe’s position. Disagreement between neo-liberals and unionists regarding economic policy, and between environmentalists and fossil fuel fundamentalists regarding deep sea oil drilling and climate change also weakened the party.

    In 1966:
    Turnout was 86.0%, a number relatively low for the time.

    In 2014:
    Turnout was 77.0%, one of the lowest turn-outs in New Zealand history.

    In 1972:
    Norman Kirk became the fourth Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand.

    In 2017:
    David Cunliffe will become the tenth Labour Prime Minister of New Zealand.

    In 1972:
    Norman Kirk had lost two elections as leader of the Labour Party, (1966, 1969), but retained the popular support of his party, and the backing of his caucus.

    In 2017:
    David Cunliffe has lost only one election as leader of the Labour Party. (the same as Helen Clark, 1996) but retained the popular support of his party throughout, but unfortunately not the backing of his caucus, luckily in 2014 most of them resigned/were pushed-out, after a crushing vote of confidence in David Cunliffe’s leadership by the membership.

    Labour Leaders the calibre of a Norman Kirk (and possibly a David Cunliffe) appear only once in a generation.

    If the Labour Party does not want to stay in opposition, like the 12 year term preceding Norman Kirk’s leadership, (or be replaced by the Greens as the leading opposition party), then Labour need to renew the caucus, not the Leader.

    SHITTING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS

    • infused 50.1
      1 October 2014 at 10:35 pm

      Is Zetetic Cunliffes wife?

    • boldsirbrian 50.2
      1 October 2014 at 11:09 pm

      @ Jenny (48)

      I’m optimistic (hopeful?) that the participants in the Leadership process can take a few deep breaths, and the result will not end in either a great purge of caucus members, or party activists.

      If a bit more time is spent thrashing out the Party vision, (that all can agree on); and then thrashing out the particular policies that are so important to each faction, then common sense will prevail.

      This is MMP. Parties are expected to have the skills to negotiate with other parties to reach common ground. If they can reach out successfully to other parties, surely it must be so much easier to reach out to another group within the party. Surely?!

      The best result now is that Cunliffe and Robertson take the two top jobs..
      Perfect time for Co-Leaders.

      It could be all over tomorrow.

  51. Clemgeopin 51
    1 October 2014 at 9:49 pm

    Back Benches : FINAL SHOW TODAY

    Wednesday 10:40PM
    Igniting raucous debate one last time, the 2014 Back Benches finale has Wallace and Damian testing our panel’s limits; what kind of leaders would our panel be? What makes a great PM?

  52. mike 52
    1 October 2014 at 10:11 pm

    Dirty Politics….. The sequel. Karen Price tweets her displeasure at poor David’s opposition. Nicky Hagar… Where are you?

  53. Clemgeopin 53
    1 October 2014 at 10:33 pm

    Pigeons released for China’s National Day had feathers and anus checked for dangerous materials.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/61620879/10000-pigeons-bodysearched–reports.html

  54. infused 54
    1 October 2014 at 10:41 pm

    Why didn’t Labour go with a tax free threshold with an increased bracket @ 150k?

    Edit: post bounced half way up

  55. Harry Holland 55
    1 October 2014 at 10:50 pm

    Leadership and policy are not the same thing. The parliamentary leader may well be the front man for party policy but does not get to create policy to suit themselves. By extension then, does it really make sense to say that this leader took the party left, or that that leader would take it right etc?
    .
    Or is their solid evidence to suggest that I’m being naive?

  56. Jenny 56
    1 October 2014 at 11:14 pm

    So, it’s not so impossible after all

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4213550.ece

    No wonder the Labour Party had to destroy Internet/Mana

    • boldsirbrian 56.1
      1 October 2014 at 11:50 pm

      @ Jenny (54)

      Harawira; Obviously a visionary! (Or that he has travelled to Germany or Invercargill)