Open Mike 01/11/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 1st, 2017 - 219 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open 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 …

219 comments on “Open Mike 01/11/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    1 November 2017 at 6:35 am

    The kind of power that makes all the aggravation of being president worthwhile for the dayglo pervert with petite paws: the ability to appoint a crony tax-evasion-enabler as acting IRD commissioner.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-tax-scam-we-know-and-the-tax-scam-we-dont-know_us_59f7d02de4b0e4c2eab1c348?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    • Agora 1.1
      1 November 2017 at 8:34 am

      I hope someone is documenting the Siege of Manus Island on video. Regrettably, Paul Newman is no longer available.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(1960_film)

      • DoublePlusGood 1.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:52 am

        We should be suspending diplomatic relations with Australia.

        • RedLogix 1.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 1:58 pm

          Idiot comment of the decade. But for the good fortune of geography NZ would be struggling with (and mishandling) the exact same issue. We have nothing to be smug about.

          By sheer social coincidence I’ve just spent five days with a senior Australian military diplomat. The kind of person who is on first name terms with their Foreign Minister. Lots of interesting issues came up, and I’m not going to air most of them here.

          Except to say that the real story of people smuggling is a LOT more complex and ugly than most kiwis would ever imagine. As unattractive as Abbott’s solution has been, it’s stopped something orders of magnitude worse.

          • Wairua 1.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 3:06 pm

            You mean something like this .. ?

            http://apo.org.au/node/116281

          • Andre 1.1.1.1.2
            1 November 2017 at 4:18 pm

            “Idiot comment of the decade”

            In the leading pack to be sure. But I fear you forget how strong the competition is.

          • DoublePlusGood 1.1.1.1.3
            2 November 2017 at 9:59 am

            Doing nothing is the idiot course of action. Condoning human rights abuses is the idiot comment of the decade.

            Australia is violating international human rights law. They refuse to listen via standard diplomatic channels, so go a step further and chuck out their diplomats. If that doesn’t work, sanctions. Shame them into doing something. Because nothing will get done by just asking politely if Australia could please stop human rights abuses.

  2. Ed 2
    1 November 2017 at 7:01 am

    RNZ repeating the words of vested interests.
    The real estate industry would say this…….

    Do your job RNZ.
    You are journalists, not pr and comms for lobby groups.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/342801/foreign-home-buyer-ban-will-it-make-any-difference

    • Antoine 2.1
      1 November 2017 at 7:14 am

      Interesting fact in there, the ban does not apply to Aussies. Probably inevitable given CER

      • Ed 2.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 7:19 am

        Interesting fact.
        RNZ give Vox pop to real estate agents without checking or challenging their claims.
        Reporters . No.
        Repeaters. Yes.

      • Andre 2.1.2
        1 November 2017 at 7:21 am

        Maybe it’s about reciprocity.

        “Foreigners would still be able to buy land and develop housing on it for on-sale. Australians would have a special carve-out to still be able to buy homes – as Kiwis do in Australia.”

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98417459/labour-will-make-all-existing-homes-sensitive-effectively-banning-foreign-buyers

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1
          1 November 2017 at 12:27 pm

          Kiwis are being kicked out of Australia against the CER. Perhaps it’s time to reciprocate that or simply drop the CER – Australia obviously doesn’t want it any more.

          • greywarshark 2.1.2.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 5:26 pm

            But are we dependent on CER for Oz trade? What would happen concerning the banks here owned by Oz. What would happen to NZs living and working in Oz? Not all of them are being repatriated. Economically and culturally they may be doing better than our decimated economy allows. So be careful what you wish for talking about dropping CER. Much as I don’t like it we may have to keep swallowing dead rats while Oz looks on, and baits the dancing bear, the toothless tiger etc.

    • Muttonbird 2.2
      1 November 2017 at 7:19 am

      David Clark pointed out that the property cycle has peaked now (my view is the capital restrictions out of China is the major contributor to this) but it’s the next surge when this policy will benefit ordinary New Zealanders because in a rising market you can be sure these speculators and their resident proxies will be back.

      • Carolyn_nth 2.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 7:35 am

        And there’s a little loop hole, apparently. Morning Report tweeted:

        Foreign buyers can still buy commercial property, Parker says. “If it’s got a flat at the top of a commercial building, that’ll be exempt.”

        So that would be the entire high rise block at New Lynn – commercial premises on the ground floor, several storeys of flats above them?

        • The Chairman 2.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 7:42 am

          While the Labour Party cheerleaders will trumpet this, in reality, it’s a piss poor effort.

        • Muttonbird 2.2.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 7:49 am

          Presumably cases like this would have to pass the sensitivity test by an expanded OIO. Not really a loophole, imo.

          • The Chairman 2.2.1.2.1
            1 November 2017 at 8:02 am

            “Presumably cases like this would have to pass the sensitivity test…”

            With Parker stating they will be exempt, that’s unlikely.

            • Muttonbird 2.2.1.2.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 8:08 am

              In Carolyn’s example when is the building an apartment building with an retail floor at the bottom, and when is it a commercial building with and apartment at the top?

              • The Chairman …
                1 November 2017 at 8:35 am

                A grey area that one would assume will be defined within the policy before it takes effect.

          • Frida 2.2.1.2.2
            1 November 2017 at 12:01 pm

            @Muttonbird – sensitivity only applies to farmland over 5ha, not to commercial urban property

            • Muttonbird 2.2.1.2.2.1
              1 November 2017 at 12:08 pm

              Is commercial property a big issue here? Is it even that attractive to foreign interests? I don’t know enough about it but what I do know is that homelessness isn’t increasing and home ownership isn’t dropping and communities are becoming more transient because of commercial property sales.

              I’m tending to want to concentrate on the pressing problems for NZ families and the disenfranchised not on opportunities for local commercial property investors.

            • David C 2.2.1.2.2.2
              1 November 2017 at 12:37 pm

              Frida.
              OIA doesnt get bare urban land either, so a non resident can speculate on sections all they like, and land costs are where the problem is.

        • Ad 2.2.1.3
          1 November 2017 at 8:29 am

          Each of the New Lynn apartments has its own title.
          Can’t be sold as a single block.
          Title to the car park block is also separate.

    • Grey Area 2.3
      1 November 2017 at 7:49 am

      Totally agree Ed. Soon as I heard that I thought yep vested interests much. RNZ present these comments as if they were objective observations from people who know what they’re talking about. They are real estate salespeople FFS!

    • David C 2.4
      1 November 2017 at 8:43 am

      It will be interesting to see some details of how exactly this is going to be implemented to if it will have any power to stop non resident purchasers.

      A couple of things come to mind immediately tho….

      The non resident wealth (two Chinese families) I have dealt with use English speaking (lawyer) proxies who live here anyway… Its not a big step for the proxies to be purchaser IF the wealth is intent one owning a house.

      If the wealth is not fixated on a house and is just looking to stash some funds safely external to their country then they will go into other long term holdings… probably land or mixed/commercial. Neither are subject to OIA so no problem.

      But one thing we do know already is that this is just window dressing and will make no real difference. Only a few percent of houses are purchased by non residents so Labour are just doing this to be seen as doing something. Pure virtue signalling.

      IF they want to get real then land supply is where the difference can be made.

      • Muttonbird 2.4.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:48 am

        I’d expect to see heavy penalties legislated for those lawyers, trust managers, or other proxies caught acting on behalf of offshore speculators.

        • David C 2.4.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 9:08 am

          Good luck with that.

          By definition, if the proxie uses a legal entity for purchase then the wealth is an investor in the entity, not in a house.

          A lawyer can be director of a trustee company, which uses legally sourced funds for housing purchases. A few hoops but all easy. I would also expect the larger property management companies to set up trustee companies.

          But as I said above, its all bullshit. there is no actual intent to make this work.

          • Muttonbird 2.4.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 9:20 am

            Do large property management companies ‘own’ NZ residential property? I wasn’t aware of that. I thought property management companies did just that – manage property for landlords.

            If your prediction is that proxy property owning trusts are going to be set up left, right, and centre then I’d also expect the beneficiaries of these trusts to be visible as per the new law. If they aren’t resident or a citizen then that trust is not allowed to buy existing houses.

            • David C 2.4.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 9:44 am

              Can you cite this ‘new law” where benificiaries of trusts are visible? That will be quite a major change.

              Property managers will do whatever is asked of them by clients. Its a service industry and very lucrative.

              • Muttonbird …
                1 November 2017 at 10:03 am

                “We have already committed to a course of action for strengthening New Zealand’s anti-money laundering rules, which will bring in more comprehensive requirements for lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and others,”

                After John Key denied NZ was seen as, and was, a tax haven his government did a massive U-turn and was finally dragged to the table on foreign trust disclosure. I imaging the “more comprehensive requirements” involve disclosure on who is benefitting from the trust.

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/82053195/government-to-act-on-foreign-trust-regime

                • David C …
                  1 November 2017 at 10:09 am

                  You imagine wrong.
                  Foreign trusts and money laundering. Nothing to do with houses.

                  • Muttonbird …
                    1 November 2017 at 10:15 am

                    What is a trust set up for an off shore speculator for the purposes of circumventing New Zealand law if is not a ‘foreign trust’?

                    • David C …
                      1 November 2017 at 10:51 am

                      A trust set up in NZ by a NZer is not a foreign trust.

                    • Frida []
                      1 November 2017 at 2:22 pm

                      The OIO looks through such entities as far as is possible to try and determine the real beneficiaries. Not sure how effective this is, but the Act does allow for it

                    • Andre …
                      1 November 2017 at 2:29 pm

                      Frida, I would hope that any suspicion that there was any attempt to conceal the true beneficiaries would result in immediate rejection of any application. The cynic in me says that’s probably not what’s happening.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.4.2
        1 November 2017 at 12:41 pm

        The non resident wealth (two Chinese families) I have dealt with use English speaking (lawyer) proxies who live here anyway…

        Then they need to be kicked out and the proxy jailed with all his assets claimed under the proceeds of Crime Act.

        And you be as well for knowingly allowing a crime to continue.

        If the wealth is not fixated on a house and is just looking to stash some funds safely external to their country then they will go into other long term holdings… probably land or mixed/commercial.

        And that just means that that needs to be illegal as well as it’s obviously for money laundering.

        People committing crime isn’t a reason to not put in place laws to try to prevent that crime.

        Only a few percent of houses are purchased by non residents…

        Ah, you’re pulling out that lie again:

        Auckland now has a significant population of Chinese people, so there will always be some who are actively buying or selling properties.

        But the numbers are well down on where they were a year ago.

        Auctions that were packed with Chinese buyers this time last year are now much quieter and Chinese faces are often more notable by their absence rather than their presence.

        When they are buying, they are more likely to be buying a home for themselves or perhaps their children than a pure investment property, and their bidding has been far more cautious than it was just a few months ago.

        Often they will bid on a property only to let it be passed in, figuring that they may not face much competition from other buyers in post-auction negotiations.

        With the odd exception, the days of the bidding frenzy are over.

        This change in buyer behaviour corresponded with new restrictions the Chinese government introduced on the amount of money people could take out of China, cutting off one of the main sources of funding for property purchases by Chinese buyers in this country.

        Evidence is anecdotal but suggests that lack of Chinese buyers with Chinese connections is already having an effect.

        • David C 2.4.2.1
          1 November 2017 at 2:03 pm

          Draco.
          You are fucking deranged, maybe a nice walk in the sunshine would help?

          “Then they need to be kicked out and the proxy jailed with all his assets claimed under the proceeds of Crime Act.

          And you be as well for knowingly allowing a crime to continue.”

          What law has been broken?

          “And that just means that that needs to be illegal as well as it’s obviously for money laundering.”

          It may be strange to you but people with a couple of bucks do like to spread it about for safety , its not all tainted with cocaine residue some is just withdrawn from superannuation schemes.

          • Draco T Bastard 2.4.2.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 3:51 pm

            What law has been broken?

            I’m pretty sure that one of the requirements for getting permanent residency/Citizenship is being able to speak English. What you seemed to be saying is that these people have bypassed that.

            It may be strange to you but people with a couple of bucks do like to spread it about for safety

            Safe from their government maybe? Safe from authority checking where they got the money from? Safe from having to pay tax? Sounds dodgy.

            • David C 2.4.2.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 4:18 pm

              Maybe when I said “non resident” it might have been a clue that they are in fact not residents?

              Safe from governments or maybe just safe from banks going bung?
              I was on holiday in Peru when Lehman Bros popped. I bet some of the very wealthy Americans I saw crying had thought to put a pot of cash into a nice house in Auckland.

          • McFlock 2.4.2.1.2
            1 November 2017 at 4:31 pm

            If proxy ownership to bypass regulatory requirments isn’t illegal, it fucking well should be.

  3. Incognito 3
    1 November 2017 at 7:34 am

    Property speculation is on par with Class B drugs and should be controlled. Why the apparent limitation to houses instead of land is not clear to me as houses are not inalienable but land is. As far as I can tell this this ‘sensitivity clause’ is just a cute patch to get around some tricky issues without actually properly dealing with those.

    • Andre 3.1
      1 November 2017 at 7:51 am

      If there’s a specific intent to allow overseas investors to buy new builds (and therefore help ease housing pressure by adding new stock) then adjusting the criteria for “sensitive land” should be even easier than adding existing housing into the OIO process. At the moment, farmland over 5 hectares is “sensitive land”, so cutting that down and removing the “farm” bit would easily deal to landbanking concerns.

      https://www.linz.govt.nz/regulatory/overseas-investment/what-you-need-do-if-you-are-selling-new-zealand-assets-overseas-investors/sensitive-land

      • Incognito 3.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:18 am

        Agreed. An overseas investor who buys & builds for somebody (a third-part buyer or renter) who is already here in the country adds new stock and eases pressures (but not necessarily on prices or rents) but an overseas investor who immigrates here adds to the pressure even if he/she buys & builds new but for him/herself.

        • Andre 3.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 8:22 am

          Yeah, but that’s an immigration policy issue, not a land/housing purchasing eligibility issue. An overseas investors that buys permanent residence here will still be able to buy whatever they want.

          • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 8:27 am

            Yes, which is why this Government needs to come up with integrated cohesive policies instead of the patch-pragmatism that we have become accustomed to. Immigration, housing, infrastructure, etc., are all linked, of course; a reductionist approach is completely ineffective and counter-productive, in fact.

            Edit: I do wonder whether this is prompted solely by TPP-11 and this is why they seem to be rushing things. It is not the way to deal with complex issues that have been plaguing us for a long time now.

  4. The Chairman 4
    1 November 2017 at 7:37 am

    Labour’s foreign buyers housing ban falls short.

    First off, Australians are exempt.

    Secondly, by allowing foreign buyers to continue to buy new builds, Labour have failed to take into account the ripple effect.
    https://youtu.be/HzSAmOQuyjU?t=25m25s

    • Muttonbird 4.1
      1 November 2017 at 8:05 am

      They are however creating an additional house rather than removing one from the market which would be available for a New Zealand family to buy.

      The relationship between NZ and Australia has been close to a greater or lesser extent since colonisation. Citizens from both are able to live and work freely in the other country. Wealthy Australian buyers have though been a significant contributing factor in NZ’s housing problems. There’s an imbalance there and something to work on for sure.

      For the life of me I can’t understand how offshore buying of residential property is a welcome ‘investment’ in the way Fran O’Sullivan types say it is. How does this sort of ‘investment’ benefit anyone but the vendor? Trickle-down effect? Sure, a lump of foreign capital has arrived in the country but it’s false growth and unsustainable.

      • syclingmad 4.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:16 am

        The rationale for preventing foreign interests buying existing housing stock is clear – in fact the only beneficiaries are existing vendors but it just creates an inflationary spiral as we have seen.

        Preventing sales of land provided that there is clear intent to build – i.e. add to productive capital-stock? Indefensible without incurring the “xenophobe” tag that was being thrown around during the election campaign.

        You got to have a valid reason to do stuff.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 12:48 pm

          Selling land to offshore owners is bad for the country as it pushes up prices for housing and land.

          Sounds like a valid reason to me and it’s what we’ve been seeing.

      • The Chairman 4.1.2
        1 November 2017 at 8:20 am

        @ Muttonbird

        “They are however creating an additional house rather than removing one from the market which would be available for a New Zealand family to buy.”

        In the process, they (foreign buyers) are adding to demand for both land and the construction of new builds, driving prices up while squeezing local families out. Leading to the ripple effect.

        I concur with the rest of your post.

        • Molly 4.1.2.1
          1 November 2017 at 11:20 am

          “In the process, they (foreign buyers) are adding to demand for both land and the construction of new builds, driving prices up while squeezing local families out. Leading to the ripple effect.”
          Agree. They are just slowing the wave down, not eliminating it.

          Inflationary pressures on house prices will still exist, driving up the cost of new builds to NZers.

          Leaving the existing – and often badly maintained and insulated – houses for NZers, is just toying with the problem.

          The monetary policies in place still give financial incentives to invest in housing. Non-existent land taxes for undeveloped but residentially-zoned land, encourage landbanking.

          Most importantly, a society and politicians that talk about housing in terms of affordability and capital gains instead of as a necessity for a reasonable quality of life, and engagement with community, is one that is unlikely to solve the problem.

          • The Chairman 4.1.2.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 12:03 pm

            “Inflationary pressures on house prices will still exist, driving up the cost of new builds to NZers.

            “Leaving the existing – and often badly maintained and insulated – houses for NZers, is just toying with the problem.”

            Indeed, Molly. And the ripple effect will see the price pressure on existing homes also increase.

            They (foreign buyers) may well be able to access Kiwi-build homes.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3
        1 November 2017 at 12:46 pm

        Citizens from both are able to live and work freely in the other country.

        That’s what we tell ourselves. Doesn’t make it true though as Australia keeps kicking our people out.

        • Muttonbird 4.1.3.1
          1 November 2017 at 12:54 pm

          Agree some not insignificant imbalance has entered the relationship in the last few years due to increasing nationalistic sentiment in AUS and the weakness of the recent National government in NZ.

          • syclingmad 4.1.3.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 1:06 pm

            “Agree some not insignificant imbalance has entered the relationship in the last few years due to increasing nationalistic sentiment in AUS and the weakness of the recent National government in NZ.”

            And the way NOT to resolve that is to throw a ban on residential sales to Aussies as well as other nationalities. We have 650k-odd kith and kin on the other side of the ditch, best we not make their life even more twitchy by ramping up the tit-for-tat tactics.

            In anycase, wasn’t it foreigners further “north” that were copping the flak back when the housing market was hissing along?

            • Antoine 4.1.3.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 1:31 pm

              > In anycase, wasn’t it foreigners further “north” that were copping the flak back when the housing market was hissing along?

              You mean CHINESE?

              A.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.1.1.2
              1 November 2017 at 4:59 pm

              And the way NOT to resolve that is to throw a ban on residential sales to Aussies as well as other nationalities.

              Perhaps but then continuing to just accept the poor treatment that they dish out isn’t working either.

              And if push comes to shove I’m quite happy to use our national airline to bring those 650k home.

      • Nic the NZer 4.1.4
        1 November 2017 at 11:42 pm

        “Sure, a lump of foreign capital has arrived in the country”

        Its highly debatable if a lump of foreign capital arrived or not. If the purchase is in NZ dollars then the closest thing to happen approximating this is a trade of some NZ dollars for some other currency happened in a Forex market. This may have influenced the exchange rate in some way but no money was created or destroyed by such a transaction, it simply changed hands.

  5. Darth smith 5
    1 November 2017 at 7:40 am

    I noticed in the area I live in the last two weeks a lot of mac mansions are up for sale I wonder if speculator panic has just begun.

  6. eco maori 6
    1 November 2017 at 7:57 am

    To my some of my supporters sorry about the burn I try my best not to affect other people in a negative way as I never do this . I like to Tautoko all, Some people are Schiedsrichterball’s and won’t even step up to protect there moko, I must be unique as I will call out anyone to protect my Moko future. Yes we need more Lady’s to be in management once I started thinking about that subject I figured out that most men can’t see past there other head and there ego and that stop’s them seeing the big picture our future you see I’m calling out most men and I can see that this make’s them nervous as they circle around there Lady’s when I’m present fuck it’s funny.
    Some people think that my excellent sense of smell is going to disappear over nite but no this is a gift from my Te Puna many thanks to them. Kia kaha

    • greywarshark 6.1
      1 November 2017 at 2:54 pm

      Thanks for more sprightly imaginative comment from you eco maori. I love the way you work te reo in to it as you carry out stream of conciousness writing. It all adds to the colour and different perspectives that come together here in TS.
      And Schiedsrichterball’s is a new high for a simple guy from the sticks which I thought was your persona. Kia kaha.

  7. cricklewood 7
    1 November 2017 at 8:35 am

    Won’t they just register a company or trust in NZ and buy them that way?
    Seems to me that if you are wealthy enough to speculate in the NZ market the small extra expense wont be much of a barrier?

    • weka 7.1
      1 November 2017 at 9:02 am

      how does the OIO already manage companies buying land? e.g. rural land

      • Cricklewood 7.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 9:57 am

        I really don’t know but given how easy and cheap it is to set up and register a company in NZ you would have to hope they have a mechanism this.

    • Muttonbird 7.2
      1 November 2017 at 9:26 am

      Another reason the beneficiaries of trusts need to be visible.

      Anyone serving as a NZ proxy for off-shore speculators should be heavily penalised.

      • David C 7.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 10:58 am

        Mutton.
        You are just making meaningless noise.
        Go away and find out a little bit about trusts.

        • Muttonbird 7.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 11:02 am

          No surprise that you want to defend the status quo and are on the side of foreign speculators.

          • David C 7.2.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 12:42 pm

            ahhh no.

            I want less external investment not more.
            I cant compete with someone who can borrow money at less than one percent, or someone who doesnt actually care if they lose ten percent as long as the money is out of the country they live in.

            The fact that you just dont know what you are talking about is just another side issue.

            • Muttonbird 7.2.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 12:49 pm

              Ok, so we’ve established you are for the government’s foreign buyer ban. You appear to be saying though that they’re too clever for us, it’s too hard to enforce, so why bother.

              Is that it?

              • David C …
                1 November 2017 at 2:06 pm

                Nope that is most definitely not it.

                I have said quite clearly that its bullshit and wont work to bring down house prices.

                Pure virtue signals for the morons that never read past the headlines.

                • Muttonbird …
                  1 November 2017 at 2:16 pm

                  You are ignorant of what is sought to be achieved. You’ve made up that it’s about bringing house prices down. It’s about preventing or minimising another rapid inflation in the future.

                  • syclingmad …
                    1 November 2017 at 2:20 pm

                    “You are ignorant of what is sought to be achieved. You’ve made up that it’s about bringing house prices down. It’s about preventing or minimising another rapid inflation in the future.”

                    Agreed – it’s a fast way to a one-term government to engineer a crash in the housing market now. That horse has bolted and Labour realises it needs to grow it’s vote with middle-NZ too.

                    Kiwi-build is the only solution to catching up with the shortage. That and finessing the tax system to deal with the fundamental imbalance which favours property over all other asset classes.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:33 pm

                      The tax system is decades behind and needs to recognise that capital gain on property has been significant income for many thousands of New Zealanders of a particular demographic.

                      They’re almost embarrassed at how easy it is.

                      The bitter take home for low wage earners and young families is that for these people their houses earned several times more in a day than the average wage. All free.

    • Antoine 7.3
      1 November 2017 at 12:51 pm

      I would have thought it would be more effective (for some nationalities) to ask a NZ resident friend or relative to buy the property for them, under an unwritten agreement. Am not an expert though

      A.

      • Muttonbird 7.3.1
        1 November 2017 at 2:18 pm

        There’s anecdotal evidence that this is exactly what occurred during the last 5 years hence the call for information collection on house sales.

        Once again National had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table on that too.

  8. Pete 8
    1 November 2017 at 8:48 am

    When Mike Hosking sees some things they do overseas which he wants us to do here, he says if it’s all right for them, it’s all right for us.

    Something happens to stop foreigners buying houses in New Zealand and he is in a tizzy.

    If it’s “xenophobic, made-up political bollocks for expediency purposes and nothing else” for us to stop foreigners buying houses here is it xenophobic, made-up political bollocks for expediency purposes and nothing else when they do not allow New Zealanders or any other foreigners buy houses and land in their countries?

    • ianmac 8.1
      1 November 2017 at 9:49 am

      Is it possible that Hoskings is teetering on the edge of crashing? He seems to be getting more and more hysterical. Either he is cracking up or his over-exposure is troubling his bosses.

      • Muttonbird 8.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 6:24 pm

        He just wants to reserve the right to sell his property portfolio to the world rather than just New Zealand and if that right damages the bottom end of NZ society then all the better.

  9. mauī 9
    1 November 2017 at 9:04 am

    Pokemon…? What do russian meddling tentacles, a shadowy troll farm, pokemon go, black lives matter and an ecosystem have in common? The evidence against the mango mussolini mounts…

  10. Pete 10
    1 November 2017 at 9:06 am

    I just read the letter where Steven Joyce said in the last week the Government announced “removing standards and accountability in our schools.”

    I’m sure in all schools they are happy that there are to be no standards in and accountability of our schools.

    The realisation of the loss is starting to bite and while the lies and garbage previously emanating from him continue, they will now be tinged with bitterness and rancour.

    Steven, get over it, get over yourself, you lost. Now though you are just being pathetic.

    • Stephen Doyle 10.1
      1 November 2017 at 10:48 am

      And there are still issues with Novopay:)

    • patricia bremner 10.2
      1 November 2017 at 3:22 pm

      We used to have progress and achievement registers, P.A.T scores across all skills areas in Reading English and Mathematics. These were standardized tests which gave a huge amount of information.

      Plus Study Skills and all the problem solving skills.

      At the time we were second only to Scotland for Educational achievement.

      Labour’s Lange brought in School Boards in Primary Education.

      National’s Lockwood Smith changed the curriculum and it was all down hill from there.

      National Standards and testing ideology brought in by National plus NCEA finished making teaching a hugely difficult repetitive task.

      No-one talked of the joy of learning any more. It became a battle ground for diminishing resources.

  11. Muttonbird 11
    1 November 2017 at 9:31 am

    Looking forward to seeing the end of people peddling NZ residential property in this way…

    http://about.hougarden.com/about-us/

  12. Philip Ferguson 12
    1 November 2017 at 9:49 am

    Interesting thoughts on minimum wage, living wage and the workers of the world:
    https://rdln.wordpress.com/2017/10/31/a-living-wage-time-to-shift-the-boundaries-and-think-global/

  13. Carolyn_nth 13
    1 November 2017 at 10:04 am

    This looks to be a good move by the government (at first glance anyways):

    Statement on Equal Pay legislation

    The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Iain Lees-Galloway and the Minister for Women Julie Anne Genter have today reaffirmed the new Government’s commitment to halting the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill that was introduced by the previous Government.

    “All three Government parties were clear during the Bill’s first reading that we were opposed to the legislation, and that we would not rest until New Zealand workers have genuine opportunities for pay equity,” says Iain Lees-Galloway.
    …
    “The current legislation diminishes the opportunity for people to make a pay equity claim, and we were clear that if we were elected then it would be the end of the line for this Bill. We were, and it is.

  14. marty mars 14
    1 November 2017 at 11:01 am

    I prepared to give Jacinda and Labour a chance to deliver. I dont expect everything delivered today. I have some trust, based on facts and evidence, in Labour and i am still wary but willing to give them a chance.

    I think critique of Labour at this early stage for things they havent done rather than what they have done is sad.

    • Muttonbird 14.1
      1 November 2017 at 11:24 am

      I’m disappointed some are so quick to put the boot in to the new government.

      • tracey 14.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 5:52 pm

        Boot or critique? I am trying to use the same yardstick for this government as I have for previous govts.

        Joyce is right, labour and its partners have been calling for transparency for years, now is the time. By all means do not give away bargaining positions but that is the line you have to work if you want to promote transparency. If you are referring to parker’s announcement today, it raised alot of question which a link to a much more detailed statement addressing those wouldhave helped.

    • Carolyn_nth 14.2
      1 November 2017 at 11:37 am

      There are many good things in the pipeline from the new government. I’ve posted above on their move against the dodgy Nat Equal pay Act.

      However, some of us have been strong critics of the TPPA and have had big concerns about TPPA-11. We have been on many protests against it. It hangs in the balance NOW, and any acceptance of dodgy clauses could be detrimental to many Kiwis for a long time to come. We need to start out concerns ASAP, because in a month or so, it may be too late.

      Housing is also a crucial area. If it is not tackled now, in a way that cannot be undone by the likes of TPPA, more Kiwis may suffer, with their health and their lives. So, again, now is not the time to stay silent on things we feel strongly about. And, that IS democracy.

      • marty mars 14.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 11:54 am

        Some of us can be strong critics of Labour and still give them an opportunity to put in place the solutions we want. In the same way as with climate change – any positive movement in the desired direction is reinforced while still wanting even more action.

        • Carolyn_nth 14.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 1:09 pm

          The problem with these TPP and housing issues, if we don’t speak up now, it may be too late, and there may be no way of incrementally moving things in the direction we want in the future.

          • marty mars 14.2.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 1:44 pm

            I fully endose your right to say what you want to say, I encourage it – I just wanted to put another position. I also thought quite a bit about whether I really cared enough to say something and I realised I did.

            I assume people are lobbying the Greens so they can exert pressure or even nzf.

            I hear you about the timeframes and I also believe 5 days in after 9 years out is the very earliest part of the first step. It just doesn’t align for me with a new way of doing politics which I hope we are now in.

            • Carolyn_nth 14.2.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 1:53 pm

              Well, unfortunately, I am not seeing a new way of doing politcs. It’s looking a lot like what happened under the Clark government. Tinkering with things, without really bringing in any new change or shift in direction.

              Then when the Nats got back in, they shifting things more brutally to the right, with many of the least powerful, and least well off NZers really suffering.

              And Parker and Robertson are hardly a new guard. When i see solid evidence of a strong shift in direction, I’ll get behind it.

              • marty mars …
                1 November 2017 at 2:03 pm

                When was the last good government in your opinion?

              • Karen …
                1 November 2017 at 3:18 pm

                You remind me of my mother, always looking for what may go wrong. No matter how beautiful the day, my mother would see clouds on the horizon, and when relating stories she seemed to relish the disasters, not the successes. My father was the opposite. Guess who was happier and who was better company?

                Of course this government will disappoint at various times. It is inevitable, because it is made up of MPs with varied ability and ideology. It is democracy – we do not have enough left wing progressive voters in NZ to have anything else. That is the reality.

                I am a socialist and would dearly love to have a truly left wing government, but I know it won’t happen any time soon because there just aren’t enough voters like me. I am still, however, happy to see a government that will make a difference to the poor and vulnerable in this country. I am absolutely confident that the people I know who are struggling will be better off, so I want to celebrate that. I have hope for the first time for decades and I want to relish this while I can.

                I know I will get frustrated and disappointed at times in the coming years, but criticising a government that was just formed 5 days ago, on the basis of hunches and dodgy reckons, is completely unproductive and somewhat ridiculous IMO.

                I also don’t see any resemblance with the Clark government which had a large number of neo-liberal MPs and did not have a good relationship with the Greens. I keep saying this, but I will again – there are only 4 MPs left from the Clark government.

                In South Auckland, the people I know working on the frontline of poverty issues are really pleased that 5 of their local MPs have ministerial positions and they will be making sure that this government delivers on the promises to reduce poverty.
                As for getting rid of neo-liberalism this Brian Easton article is quite interesting:
                http://briefingpapers.co.nz/the-future-of-new-zealand-capitalism/

                • McFlock …
                  1 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

                  Agreed.

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  1 November 2017 at 3:37 pm

                  And, yet, not far up thread I have praised the new government for withdrawing the Nats (un)equal pay legislation.

                  Democratic participation means being critical when it is thought to be necessary. Accepting the status quo, because that’s what a lot of people do, seems to me to be a pretty lax way of proceeding – especially when it could likely to lead to long term decline in the situation for many of the least well off New Zealanders.

                  And perhaps you underestimate many Kiwis?

                  Interesting paper from Easton. I do tend to see him as being quite MOR. However, that paper is for changing the whole underlying culture and narrative of neoliberalism, and especially the way it underpins a lot of policies/legislation – not seeing that so far from Labour.

                  Easton concludes:

                  Reducing the influence of neoliberalism in our thinking does not by itself lead to the kinder, gentler and more egalitarian society which Peters seems to seek. But the neoliberal assumptions which underpin so much of policy need to be replaced by something which is both closer to economic reality and more consistent with the human condition. If that does not happen, many will conclude in three years’ time that the new government is still a foe rather than a friend.

                  • Karen …
                    1 November 2017 at 4:01 pm

                    No problem with constructive criticism, but it needs to be based on actual legislation, not guesses as to what any future legislation might include or not include. Same with assessments on the likely performance of MPs – making judgements before they have been able to demonstrate their abilities in government is simple prejudice, and not helpful IMO.

                    But that’s me – I see no point in wallowing in despair at what might or might not happen. I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until I am proved otherwise and I am very hopeful that there are enough progressive people in this new government to make some real change in NZ.

                    A piece from Helen Kelly’s son Dylan reflects my current feelings:

                    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/01-11-2017/on-a-new-government-kindness-and-the-unfinished-legacy-of-my-mother-helen-kelly/

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      1 November 2017 at 4:08 pm

                      The criticisms about the Labour’s plans and position on TPPA, and their related policy on housing ARE based on the evidence of what Labour has said they plan to do. Look at the detail being debated under the relevant post today.

                      The potential outcomes are too important to wait and see how this goes down in the upcoming TPP negotiations – especially given that the government is not going to provide full transparency on the negotiations til after the deal is done.

                      Parker and Robertson do have a long track record on which to match their current statements with past performance.

                      So, basically, it’s about evidence-based critiques, given the amount of evidence we have.

                      The TPP, and the dire housing situation are issues I care strongly about, and ones which I will continue to follow critically and closely. Helen Kelly was pretty strong on keeping a close watch on issues she had strong feelings about.

                    • tracey …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:03 pm

                      Surely Parker has an idea of what he wants in that legislation? He will have given instructions to those who need to draft it.

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:16 pm

                      BTW, I am very happy with all Labour’s policies on the things mentioned in Dylan’s OP piece – the one’s closest to Helen kelly’s work and campaigning. And I said very positive things about the repealing of the Hobbit law on TS.

                    • patricia bremner …
                      2 November 2017 at 12:55 am

                      Karen, thank you for that link. I feel that Helen made a difference and her son is from the same fine clay.

                  • Karen …
                    1 November 2017 at 5:37 pm

                    For some reason I was unable to reply to your last comment directly so am here.

                    To make it clear I have opposed the TPPA since was first mooted several years ago. I signed the current petition to the current government asking them to walk away if the ISDS clause cannot be excluded. Both Parker and Ardern have said they are opposed to the ISDS provisions but do not want to discuss them at this stage as it could hamper their negotiations. Jane Kelsey will continue to lobby them – I think she will be a better advocate than anyone commenting here.

                    The discussion here on the housing issue is so full of uninformed commentary that I wouldn’t know where to start. The legislation has not been written, nor has the proposed tightening of OIO regulations – criticising a proposal without knowing the details is a waste of time.

                    Your assessment of Ardern , Parker and Robertson seems to be based on personal prejudice rather than actual evidence. Which is fine as far as it goes – we all do this to varying degrees. However, I prefer to look at what people actually do rather than rely on labels from third parties. And I happen to know all three have been shown to be kind and generous people in real life.

                    • weka …
                      1 November 2017 at 5:55 pm

                      “The discussion here on the housing issue is so full of uninformed commentary that I wouldn’t know where to start.”

                      Yes, and I’m one of the people trying to guess. As I’ve said elsewhere the ‘trust us we know what we are doing’ approach is no acceptable on such a critical issue.

                      I also think it’s way less than ideal that we are in the position of having to guess so much. It’s not like the TPPA or even the TPPA-11 is a new thing.

                    • Karen …
                      1 November 2017 at 5:57 pm

                      “Helen Kelly was pretty strong on keeping a close watch on issues she had strong feelings about”

                      Yes – and I will be doing the same. I will be criticising this government when they make mistakes and if (when) they don’t live up to my expectations. However, I am not going to criticise them before they have had a chance to do the right thing.

                    • weka …
                      1 November 2017 at 5:58 pm

                      btw, just scroll up to the first available reply button and the comments will stay in-thread.

                      edit, i.e in this case you would have replied to your own comment.

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:13 pm

                      Actually, my criticisms of Ardern, Parker and Roberston ARE based on past performance. I’ve seen them in action a lot over the last few years, including during and after this last election.

                      I am particularly concerned that Robertson and Parker lead on these crucial issues, of TPP, and the economic angles.

                      And, I point to Robertson on Labour’s budget responsibility rules. – Made in March of this year, and meant to guide Labour through the election.

                      the problem is mainly with the way he’s tied Labour to expenditure in relation to GDP and past government spending. This is not the policy of a party aiming for a new direction economically.

                      And Parker has always been somewhat weak on challenging Nat’s TPP-12.

                      So, the criticism extends to Ardern on economic matters as she has given these responsibilities to Parker and Robertson.

                    • Karen …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:17 pm

                      “As I’ve said elsewhere the ‘trust us we know what we are doing’ approach is no acceptable on such a critical issue.”

                      They have been in power for 5 days. They have only just got access to the information themselves and they have to try and renegotiate TPPA at APEC in a couple of weeks time. Whatever they discuss at that stage would still need to be debated and agreed to by all parties before being passed into law.

                      The changes in law related to housing will need to be drafted and go through the select committee process. That is the time to criticise and make submissions. Nobody is suggesting that it will be secret.

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:22 pm

                      The Housing legislation will be rushed through urgently – so there won’t be that much time for public consultation.

                    • weka …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:28 pm

                      They have been in power for 5 days. They have only just got access to the information themselves and they have to try and renegotiate TPPA at APEC in a couple of weeks time.

                      That in itself is a problem. I do feel sorry for Labour about the timing and that they have to deal with this so immediately, but the whole being rushed by other people’s agendas is not good.

                      Whatever they discuss at that stage would still need to be debated and agreed to by all parties before being passed into law.

                      See even that is unclear to me. Does it require a vote? (the TPPA).

                      The changes in law related to housing will need to be drafted and go through the select committee process. That is the time to criticise and make submissions. Nobody is suggesting that it will be secret.

                      I disagree. If Labour are doing things that might lock us in to the TPPA, then now is exactly the time to be debating that. I’m not worried about the OIA changes, I’m concerned about the TPPA and the timeframes and the fact that we know so little.

                    • Karen …
                      1 November 2017 at 6:46 pm

                      Labour can’t lock us into anything at Apec. It still has to go through parliament and hopefully we all get to debate it before this. There seems to an assumption that Labour will be deciding it all at Apec but this is still a negotiating period. In fact it is being revised as we speak in Tokyo so nobody knows the detail at this stage.

                      You may find it useful to listen to Jane Kelsey to find out the process:

                      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018620040

                      Jane comes on about 2:30. She is talking about trade agreements generally as well as the TPP.

                    • weka …
                      1 November 2017 at 9:15 pm

                      Will there be additional meetings past the APEC one at which NZ can negotiate?

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      1 November 2017 at 9:45 pm

                      It was never my understanding that Labour would agree to the TPP next week. My understanding is that they are rushing the ban on foreign home ownership, to be in law by early next year.

                      And that is what is reported here a day or so ago on Newshub.

                      Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern wants to introduce legislation by Christmas to ban foreign speculators from buying houses in New Zealand.
                      …
                      Ms Ardern expects the new legislation, an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, to take effect from early next year.

                      And that really doesn’t leave any time at all for select committee processes and consultation – and we also have the Xmas-New Year period in between.

                      kelsey does make it sound that a lot of work will be done on the TPP negotiations next week.

                      This from Jane Kesley on Mon 30 October 2017:

                      ‘There is an imminent risk that trade ministry officials and the agriculture lobby will bulldoze of the new Labour-led government into taking a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) this week and foreclose the fundamental rethink of the agreement that it previously said was essential’, warns Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey.

                      ‘The government needs keep that space open at the meeting of TPPA-11 officials today and tomorrow in Tokyo, which will set the agenda for the APEC meeting in a week’s time’.

                      Japan is certainly hoping most of TPP-11 will be decide during APEC, according to Newshub/Reuters today.

                      A TPP ministerial meeting is expected to be held in Vietnam’s Danang on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit next week, aiming to finalise the agreement.

                      Japan hopes to finalise the deal at the APEC meeting to show other nations that it can act as a champion of free trade and hopes Washington will eventually reconsider and return to the deal.

                      Reuters

                • tracey …
                  1 November 2017 at 6:01 pm

                  I hear you. I think TPP triggers many on the Left, more than the Right

        • tracey 14.2.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 5:59 pm

          marty, I truly think it is how important TPP is seen by many who voted for Labour, Green or NZF. To have this being put in as the first “trust us” platform is a concern for me. I know it has been precipitated by the timing of the next meeting BUT the timing of this meeting has been known a very long time so labour and their staff should have been VERY prepared and able to give more detail? It is Labour that have made the connection between the TPP and the change to the OIO, that has opened up alot of speculation and the top Leadership of Labour have been very hard to pin down on definitive stances on TPP since the election… and toward the end of the campaign.

          It may be a clever move to address (or seemingly address) the housing problem which is seen as a problem by so many (and “foreigners”…) and then enter the TPP…

          If Nats were announcing a new piece of legislation and giving people a month (during the December period) to submit, many here would be more outraged than they are.

          • Karen 14.2.1.2.1
            2 November 2017 at 10:01 am

            I urge everybody here concerned about the TPPA (as I am) to sign the petition:

            https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/open-letter-to-jacinda-ardern-put-people-before-planet-in-tppa11

            The foreign land legislation is a way of getting rid of that issue so that NZ is in a better position to get changes to the ISDS provisions in talks in Vietnam. People seem to think it means that NZ will be signing the final agreement in Vietnam – that is not what will be happening. It still has to be passed by parliament and there is no suggestion at all that TPPA legislation will be rushed through before Christmas. The foreign ownership bill is something that was Labour policy anyway so getting that done with urgency is a separate issue.

            Labour promised to be more transparent and they need to be held to that, but the proposal is currently being rewritten in Tokyo sand NZ is presumably trying to get changes underway now. The transparency is required before final sign off. If this doesn’t happen then I will be back on the streets protesting.

            As for the Pharmac and Te Tiriti issues the Nats said thesehad been resolved through their negotiations, but they could well have been lying. Labour has not had access to all the TPPA details before last Friday.

    • McFlock 14.3
      1 November 2017 at 2:23 pm

      Labour’s position on the TPP a couple of years ago had no-TPP unless five conditions were met:

      * Drug buying agency Pharmac must be protected.

      * Corporations cannot successfully sue the Government for regulating in the public interest.

      * New Zealand maintains the right to restrict sales of farm land and housing to non-resident foreigner buyers.

      * The Treaty of Waitangi must be upheld.

      * Meaningful gains are made for farmers in tariff reductions and market access.

      Their OIO housing move suggests they’re actually living up to that idea.

      Also note that the second point is not “no ISDS”, just that the government would havea defense that its regulation was in the public interest.

      • weka 14.3.1
        1 November 2017 at 5:57 pm

        did the Pharmac stuff get sorted?

        Rural land appears to have been dropped.

        No idea what the Treaty issues are re the TPPA, but I would trust Labour somewhat more on that.

        “Their OIO housing move suggests they’re actually living up to that idea.”

        Or compromising.

        “Also note that the second point is not “no ISDS”, just that the government would havea defense that its regulation was in the public interest.”

        That’s a problem.

        • Carolyn_nth 14.3.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 6:30 pm

          it looks like it hasn’t. In the last few days there have been some comments from medical people, expressing concern about the Health elements embedded in the TPP.

          Monday, 30 October 2017, 12:14 pm
          Press Release: Association of Salaried Medical Specialists

          It’s not just housing affected by the TPPA, Prime Minister – don’t forget health

          “The new Government needs to also keep the potential impact on health in mind as it prepares to take on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement over offshore investment in New Zealand’s housing market,” says Ian Powell, Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS).
          ..
          “No one wants health care in this country to be influenced by the vested interests of big international corporates, who will have no scruples about undermining New Zealand’s health system if it gets in the way of their profits.

          “Senior doctors have welcomed the new Government’s health policies and are very keen to engage over their implementation. A key part of that for the Government is preserving New Zealand’s autonomy in health decision-making, and not letting the big corporates bully us into decisions that would compromise the health care of our communities,” says Mr Powell.

          “Before considering signing this new version of the TPPA the Prime Minister should insist that there is an independent clinical assessment of its impact on our health system including the medicines that our patients depend on.”

        • McFlock 14.3.1.2
          1 November 2017 at 10:19 pm

          Dunno about all that, I’m still getting used to the idea that the government seems to be pretty much matching the sticker on the box it came in.

          • weka 14.3.1.2.1
            1 November 2017 at 10:57 pm

            Just saw that rural land is to be managed via tightening of the OIO. So that gives us a three year reprieve.

            “I’m still getting used to the idea that the government seems to be pretty much matching the sticker on the box it came in.”

            after a decade of neoliberal hell I think we’re all having to adjust.

      • tracey 14.3.2
        1 November 2017 at 6:05 pm

        OIO move suggests they are quickly addressing 2 of those ideas.

        Sorry McFlock the second one does mean no ISDS

        • McFlock 14.3.2.1
          1 November 2017 at 10:15 pm

          No, the key word is “successfully”. No no suing whatsoever – just if a law is in the public interest, the case will fail.

          • tracey 14.3.2.1.1
            2 November 2017 at 7:02 am

            It will depend on the former commercial lawyers cone Judges interpretation of public interest in the behind closed doors ISDS hearings?

            • McFlock 14.3.2.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 1:24 pm

              Not sure about closed door, but yeah, that’s one theoretical option other than “no ISDS”.

              Of course, if the ISDS comes out with a bullshit judgement in favour of, eg, tobacco companies, Labour are dirty neolib rotters etc etc etc

              • tracey …
                2 November 2017 at 4:04 pm

                I understand they take place out of public and do not have to publish findi gs.

                • McFlock …
                  2 November 2017 at 4:41 pm

                  That might be true, but as long as those findings do not overrule public interest legislation, it is still consistent with what Labour said they’d do.

                  • tracey …
                    2 November 2017 at 5:24 pm

                    But if they do rule the particular legislation was not in public interest we will not know how they came to that conclusion, merely that they did.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 November 2017 at 6:20 pm

                      But we will still have a public opinion of whether the law was indeed in the public interest, so we will be able to form an opinion of whether Labour followed through on their word, or outright lied or sold out by enabling TPP to take precedence over public interest legislation.

                      Again, the test of whether they keep their word rests on a precise reading of what they committed themselves to do.

    • patricia bremner 14.4
      1 November 2017 at 4:04 pm

      Thank you Marty Mars. There hasn’t been a honeymoon!!

    • Incognito 14.5
      1 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

      That’s a fair comment.

      It’s also fair to say that many (of us) harbour high expectations and have ‘heightened senses’; you get that during the honeymoon of a second marriage and after a dull and utterly miserable failed first one of 9 years.

      I guess we have to get used to the new Government but this doesn’t mean we forego our vigilance; I’m particularly focussed on more transparency from the powers that be – there’s no accountability without transparency.

      Ardern is the PM of a coalition government and I suggest we talk less about what Labour does or doesn’t and more about the Government as such.

  15. Ad 15
    1 November 2017 at 11:09 am

    You just need to insert a fact in there.
    Any fact.
    It will help you think.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • greywarshark 15.1
      1 November 2017 at 1:24 pm

      I’m surprised that Ad’s comment was shifted. It would be apt wherever it was put.

  16. Antoine 16
    1 November 2017 at 11:16 am

    It would be nice to get a post on the 3 strikes repeal

    A.

  17. Molly 17
    1 November 2017 at 12:02 pm

    There is a another good move by this government: Three Strikes Law not working

    Considering the amount of time, the necessary changes are happening fast.

    While I may not think that some of the fixes are far enough, I am more than glad that some of the detrimental policies of the last government are a priority to overturn.

    • Antoine 17.1
      1 November 2017 at 12:53 pm

      Why is repealing 3 Strikes a good idea?

      It seems to be working, in that there are few “2nd strike” offenders and very few “3 strikes and out” offenders (as shown in the article you link). If the measure was ineffective, you would think there would be more of both.

      A.

      • Molly 17.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 1:30 pm

        The measure is not shown to be effective, and a punitive justice system often results in more incarceration, more repeat offending, less rehabilitation. The opposite to what is said to be the intent.

        A conviction for a crime should be related to said crime, not a rehash for convictions which have already had time served.

      • tracey 17.1.2
        1 November 2017 at 6:08 pm

        I wonder then, why serious offending hasnt decreased?

        • Antoine 17.1.2.1
          1 November 2017 at 11:06 pm

          You would only expect to see a decrease in serious offending among the 2- and 3-strikers rather than the population at large. Such a decrease could be swamped by other trends occurring at the same time, resulting in no overall change in violent crime rates.

          Personally, I’d be sorry to lose 3 strikes, but I am sure there are other measures Labour could take (around drug rehabilitation and mental health) that would more than make up for it.

          However I’m not convinced that 3 strikes will be repealed anyway – how would Labour get Peters on board?

          A.

          • tracey 17.1.2.1.1
            2 November 2017 at 4:08 pm

            Have we seen a decreasing in reoffending of stage 2 and 3 folks and if yes has a rigorous study shown it is ONLY attributed to this law… not drug and alcohol treatment or similar.

            Surely the decrease is seen in 1st strikers scared of becoming 2 and 3rd strikers and in no strikers not wanting to get a first strike?

            Do you have these figures?

            • Antoine 17.1.2.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 10:58 pm

              I have not. I infer that the rates must be low, from the small numbers of 2nd and 3rd strikers.

              A.

  18. Muttonbird 18
    1 November 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Bit of squabbling between authors today. Good to see!

  19. greywarshark 19
    1 November 2017 at 1:21 pm

    But here is a calming pause. Some people on Jonathan Cainer’s page with quotes that have settled in the brain.

    from Sunshine B
    “A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space.
    He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.
    This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
    Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Einstein

    from Janice
    “There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth – we are all crew.” Marshall McLuan

    • Incognito 19.1
      1 November 2017 at 6:15 pm

      O.k. I had to look that up because I’d never heard of him. I quite like the two quotes by Teilhard de Chardin.

      • greywarshark 19.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:01 pm

        Incognito
        Sorry I didn’t realise people might want to see some more. I like the one –

        Our brains are not capable of comprehending the infinite so, instead, we ignore it and eat cheese on toast.
        Jonathan Cainer
        (http://www.azquotes.com/author/46510-Jonathan_Cainer

        This is put neatly.
        “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.” Teilhard de Chardin
        (https://www.cainer.com/features/quote.htm

        • Incognito 19.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 8:37 pm

          Pondering “the infinite” is much more enjoyable whilst eating cheese on crackers with a nice little red. After some pondering one simply gives us & relaxes and simply enjoys the moment and that’s when it might hit you …

          • greywarshark 19.1.1.1.1
            2 November 2017 at 11:37 am

            What might hit you? Tell me please, now I’m all worried and afraid to have a glass of red and cheese. Sounds more relaxing than bread and cheese but perhaps dangerous.

            • Incognito 19.1.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 3:25 pm

              The infinite; “hit” is a euphemism for epiphany. Wine, cheese & crackers are optional but not necessary 😉 A nice cup of tea can work equally well I’ve been told …

  20. The Chairman 20
    1 November 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Labour’s plan to double the current planting rate of 50 million trees annually has the potential to create a lot of employment with the flow-on effect benefiting struggling regions.

    One just hopes no one is paid less than the living wage and safety in the forestry sector is improved. We don’t want a doubling of the current amount of deaths.

    • Barfly 20.1
      1 November 2017 at 2:18 pm

      Planting trees is a lot safer than felling trees.

    • McFlock 20.2
      1 November 2017 at 2:55 pm

      If we don’t improve wages or workplace safety in the thirty years or so the trees will take to mature, we’ve got bigger problems than trees.

      • The Chairman 20.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 3:11 pm

        Well Labour are moving slowly when it comes to getting the minimum wage up to the living wage.

        • McFlock 20.2.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 3:21 pm

          Not that fucking slowly.

          Alternative response: yes dear, Ardern is planning to double the number of forestry deaths in a few decades’ time, cunningly disguising it as a tree-planting exercise /sarc

          • The Chairman 20.2.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 3:35 pm

            “Not that fucking slowly.”

            You would like to think so, but, unfortunately, they won’t even achieve parity by 2021. So at this slow rate who knows how long it will take them.

            • McFlock 20.2.1.1.1.1
              1 November 2017 at 3:38 pm

              Geez, all those trees will barely be in the ground by 2021.

              • The Chairman …
                1 November 2017 at 3:49 pm

                50 million extra trees annually. So if they start next year, they will be long on their way.

                Yet, we have no idea when they plan to achieve parity.

                • McFlock …
                  1 November 2017 at 4:01 pm

                  And we have no reason to think that they don’t plan to meet this goal some time in the next three decades. Which is all they need to do to address your latest faux concern. Hell, if the minimum wage is a living wage in 2030 your faux concern is ludicrously pessimistic. And for it to take so long as 2030, we’d be looking at some pretty shit government.

                  • The Chairman …
                    1 November 2017 at 4:16 pm

                    They have no set date or solid commitment, thus it’s not a faux concern. We have no idea if they will reach parity by 2030.

                    Moreover, we require parity now.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 November 2017 at 4:23 pm

                      Well you should have voted and campaigned for green then, rather than being a boring concern troll.

                      You have no idea. Looking at the parties in this government, I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened this term, and if it’s not a living minimum wage in 2030 the only way that’s feasible is if we’ll have had a solid 7 years of national in government, i.e. lab6 2 terms and out because they did fuckall, and got replaced by neolibs.

          • The Chairman 20.2.1.1.2
            1 November 2017 at 3:43 pm

            As for your alternative response. I doubt it’s their intention, but if they don’t make vast improvements, unfortunately, it will be the end result.

            • McFlock 20.2.1.1.2.1
              1 November 2017 at 4:06 pm

              fucking bullshit.

              It’s not a “vast” improvement in Labour that’s required, at worst it’s another 2% for the Greens in 2020. If it doesn’t happen this term, that’ll push living wage to the fore.

              • The Chairman …
                1 November 2017 at 4:12 pm

                Vast improvements in the current rate of death in the forestry sector.

                The minimum wage won’t hit parity with the living wage this term. And not even by 2021. Thus, it needs to be at the fore now.

                • McFlock …
                  1 November 2017 at 4:18 pm

                  Oh? Fair enough. and I expect those improvements in sector safety to be made by this government. In this term. They seem to give more of a shit about workers lives than the nats did.

                  As I said, if Labour don’t bring a living minimum wage to the for this term, the greens will in 2020.

                  So your faux concern is still bullshit.

                  • In Vino …
                    1 November 2017 at 8:45 pm

                    Agreed, McFlock. Chairman tries so hard to appear to be a Leftie, but always urges policies that could be damaging, while trying to spread despondency. An egg of the first order.

    • patricia bremner 20.3
      1 November 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Yes The Chairman, seedling nurseries, mulch, transport, planting and scientific work on uses for wood products. .. come to mind.

      Coming from Rotorua, we are excited it is being considered as the forrestry centre.

  21. joe90 21
    1 November 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Women and not-white people and LGBT folk, Bernie sez wait for your turn.

    “Yes. I mean, I think we’ve got to work in two ways,” Sanders answered. “No. 1, we have got to take on Trump’s attacks against the environment, against women, against Latinos and blacks and people in the gay community, we’ve got to fight back every day on those issues. But equally important, or more important: We have got to focus on bread-and-butter issues that mean so much to ordinary Americans.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-warns-democrats-not-to-hang-their-hopes-on-robert-mueller

  22. greywarshark 22
    1 November 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Has anybody seen important looking people driving interesting vehicles around the country. It sounds like a giant outdoor camp for military et al, and if you want you can be accepted as an extra in the drama.

    What will be the cost to Ministry of Health, cash strapped District Health Boards, Red Cross and St Johns? How much money have we had to borrow to run this?

    Dates 2-20 Oct – 18/24 Nov. South Island.

    The SK17 exercise scenario will be a continuation of that used in Southern Katipo 15, in which New Zealand deployed a military contingent to lead a multinational combined joint task force to will help restore law and order in a fictional South Pacific country called Becara. The multinational task force conducted stability, support and humanitarian operations, including the evacuation of internally displaced people.

    However, the exercise director, Lieutenant Colonel Martin Dransfield, said in SK17 higher threat levels would be used to create more challenging training environments across the spectrum of operations.

    “Opposition groups and challenges presented will allow for a range of military and non-military responses to be exercised, both individually as NZDF and collectively with other government agencies, non-governmental organisations and international partners,” Lieutenant Colonel Dransfield said.

    As well as the international military partners, New Zealand organisations supporting the exercise will include the New Zealand Customs Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Police, Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand Transport Authority, Immigration New Zealand, Ministry of Health, District Health Boards, Red Cross and St John New Zealand.

    SK17 would build on the cooperation achieved between the NZDF, other government agencies, non-governmental organisations and regional defence partners during recent humanitarian aid operations such as in Fiji and Kaikoura last year, Lieutenant Colonel Dransfield said.

    Major General Tim Gall, Commander Joint Forces New Zealand, said SK17 would provide participants with a realistic portrayal of an emergency that might arise in the South West Pacific.

    “In SK17 we will be dealing with challenges that commanders have to grapple with in real-world operations, such as exercising command and control over units that are operating in remote areas,” Major General Gall said.
    http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2017/20170918-nzdf-to-host-international-military-exercise.htm
    and
    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/10/nz-defence-force-convoys-prepare-for-military-exercise.html
    and
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/342098/cast-of-thousands-in-south-island-defence-exercise
    and
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/98222913/Kaik-ura-residents-freak-out-at-military-presence-in-Exercise-Southern-Katipo-army-exercise

    • Exkiwiforces 22.1
      1 November 2017 at 4:40 pm

      I wrote this about SK17 back on the 12 Oct, trying to run and plan UN style Peacekeeping Ex’s are highly complex as it require a multipole Government and NGO agencies as you need to make the Ex as realistic as possible as all UN or UN supported (INTERFET just to name one) as Peacekeeping operations are never the same as each Peacekeeping operation is and can very dynamic with a of moving parts which can easily get of hand from Tactical POV (as what happen in SK15) or at Strategic POV (At government/ UN security council level aka Rwanda/ Bonsia or when my mate was KIA in ET Ptv Lenny Manning due to having the wrong ROE/ OFOF due to some Wank at inter- government level thought the ET Border patrols was safe and didn’t listen to the OZ and NZ Battalion Commanders at the time as he or she thought the ANZAC’s Cdrs were over egging their intell) as noted below. These types exercises are expensed to run and organise hence SK runs every 2nd or do you want the to NZDF forget what it has learned from other Peacekeeper OPs since the end of the cold war and train for Cold war Ex’s ie Blue Force vs Red force as these Ex’s are cheaper to run.

      The current SK17 scenario appears to be base around what happen in East Timor back in 2006 and some other scenarios are also similar to what we face during INTERFET 99-00. The TNI Forces and the TNI backed militia push the our boundaries in terms of our ROE/ OFOF to the limit weather it was on the sea (even under the Sea), in the Air harassing the Naval Task Group incl the Air Bridge between Oz and ET and on the land around Dili and down towards the main centres around the border provinces of ET incl the onclave. You don’t know just how close it came to a all out war with the TNI. Once our section was outnumbered by 3to1 at abandoned police/ TNI barracks and it was only when shook out into a attacking formation, (I my loaded the M79/ prep the M72’s for firing) etc, for a few mins we thought we were about to meet our maker and then other side backed down rather quickly once they saw that we meant business.

      Then there is the handling of dead bodies, documented the voting fraud, the illegal abuse detainees by the TNI/ police and the human rights abuse aka rape, torture, shooting detainees etc. But another story to tell one day.

      SK ex’s are a good foundation stone for the NZDF, foreign forces, other agencies both Government and NGO’s to prepare for such events for the future. Because Peacekeeping operations can be very fast and dynamic with a lot of thinking on your feet, be it the humble private/ trooper or PC etc to very to top of the decision making progress at inter government level?

      To some on the left Peacekeeping may sound sexy to you, but as follow lefty who has done Peacekeeping I’ve seen the best of human kind and the bloody worst of human kind.

      A well prepared, well equipped and trained Defence Force for UN peacekeeping for Chapter 1 to Chapter 7 missions comes with a big price tag than most people here realise.

      • greywarshark 22.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 5:05 pm

        Ex Kiwi forces
        Interesting and you know what you are talking about. Peacekeeping can be a rotten task so training is important. I don’t feel that the defence forces are my friends though. I feel ambivalent. It seems that it is expected that there will always be some conflict somewhere that we can be called up to participate in. When nz goes overseas to Middle East etc do we pay, the USA, the UN or…?

        The scenario for the 2015 and current business is that of a country that is rebelling against the government. Sort of like in Catalonia and Spain, or the South Island wanting autonomy. The permanency of a defence force wasn’t the case before WW2. What would happen if we disbanded everyone, had the territorials to keep some expertise, and called them into help in disasters only.

        That’s how it used to be in the USA too.

        • Exkiwiforces 22.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 6:26 pm

          When its a UN sanction Peacekeeping mission authorize by the UN Security Council aka Blue Hat one as i’m not sure about the INTERFET or MFO in the Sinai ones, but I do have a feeling they also its come out of the UN Peacekeeping Budget and payed that has forces assigned to the mission ie extra pay, cost of maintain equipment or loss/ of equipment due warlike or non warlike damage etc. These UN peacekeeping can be a little money earner for 2nd and 3rd countries as they are payed in US Dollars. Take for example Fiji maintains 2 light Infantry Battalions UN Peacekeeping operations in the Middle East, Nepal always has a battalion on ops, Jordan and Kenya to name a few.

          SK15 and SK17 scenario’s appears to based around happen to us during International Force East Timor (INTERFET), later the UN mission post INTERFET (Col Dransfield was CO for NZBATT2 when Lenny was KIA) and during 2006 around the Pacific/ East Timor where either the locals or elements of the Security forces (Military/Police) rebelled against their Governments either in support local pop or not.

          The case I will use is ET 2006 which almost split down the lines of the Civil war of 1975 prior to TNI invasion as we had the police shooting at the Army, Army and elements of the Navy shooting at each other and at the police if that wasn’t a enough the under/ unemployed youth raise up at everybody especially at the Chinese aid projects which were using their people on their aid Projects unlike they way the UK, EU, NZ and OZ aid projects where we trained the locals up.

          I think the way Warfare/ Conflicts have develop post WW2, the idea of NZ maintaining non standing Defence Force is dated. Todays NZDF has to have what is known in some Staff collages is the “Utility of Force” ranging from Chapter 1 to Chapter 7 UN missions (non warlike to warlike operations) HADR missions and the elephant in room atm is climate Charge and what’s that going to bring?

          A really good book to read is called ” The Utility of Force the Art of Modern War Fighting” by Rupert Smith a former British Officer, former UN Force Cdr and his been to the usual places when Brit Army has been. Sir or is it Lord Paddy Ashdown’s Book called I think its called (I did have copy once) Swords in Ploughshares. Sir Paddy has just about done everything in life apart from going in space I think. I have met bloke a couple times in the UK and I keep questions to him as is a very interesting person. Then you’ve got David Kilcullen’s 3 books and I believe he has another on the way.

          The books might give you and others here an ideal on what’s likely to happen into the future and some of the scenario’s describe in the books are already happening. As I’ve said elephant in room atm is climate Charge and what’s that going to bring to party?

          • greywarshark 22.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 7:28 pm

            You said it ex kiwiforces. Who knows? I’ll have a look at those books. Got to get up to date. Reading an old secondhand book by Conan Doyle and its about Napoleon’s end, written round 1919. So very old story.

            • Exkiwiforces 22.1.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 1:03 am

              Old Boney, was it very interesting character as aMilitary Commander or a civilian administrator with some of the laws he enacted as emperor are still French law today. Some scholars have said he also set off some untended events which were to lead to gave conquests for yrs to come will after he died. Battle of Jena where he defeated the Prussian Army for a second time the other place was at Namy about 45km west of Paris. The Prussian defeat lead to a major restructure of it Army under Carl von Clasusewitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which lead the forming of the General Staff and they say the rest was history. British domination of ocean after war which lead to the British Empire.

              My NZ Grandfathers side we have a long distant relative who was a French Col in the imperial army who had retired before the French Revolution and he was recall to the colours by Boney. He marched his old regiment from the channel to old killing ground of the Prussian Army of Verdun. Col Louis Beaurepaire defend Verdun with than 900 men against about 20K strong Prussian only to be killed in a mysterious way. As the night before his death the people assembly want to surrender and he didn’t want too as knew the longer they held out against the Prussians it the main French Forces had time and space for them organised. Col Beaurepaire body went missing and I think this because he was killed by his own side. The weaked Pussian Army capture Verdun, but to destoy at Namy by Boney.

              My late NZ grandmother and other members of the family had the same feeling toward the forces, as we come from a Socialist/ Communist/ Presbyterina Methodist background. But she always said we are necessary evil to have and who is going to take arms to protect we fought hard for or defend and protect the people who can’t defend themselves against tyranny. Hence why I want to Peacekeeping since I was a kid.

              • greywarshark …
                2 November 2017 at 11:35 am

                What a mine of information you are. And interesting to hear Verdun being battleground at that early time, so in WW1 it wasn’t new to battle. What a historic spot.

                Conan Doyle is finishing the book with the Emperor about to be captured. He has assessed the cause as lost. He wants his documents and the whereabouts of resources to fund possible further military moves, to be placed in safety with a trusted person and has offered his three closest longest serving officers the opportunity to take money and give him up to see who would resist and prove loyal. He says he can’t trust anyone and sets up a meeting point for document handover but someone else has got them and they are on the chase. Tough times for the little Emperor. It is very interesting looking at the old history.

                Robert Harris writes good books based on past events. It’s true that we need arms to protect ourselves from armed tyranny and robbery. But we also can’t afford to relax and let subversive elements into our country, and I’m not thinking of terrorists now, I’m thinking of the new economic order which has been like a takeover, a quiet revolution. Getting whiteanted can also be devastating as we have found. We now need to defend and protect what we have left from economic tyranny.

                • Exkiwiforces …
                  2 November 2017 at 4:17 pm

                  Sedan, Verdun and another place south on the Rhine which France and Germany have fought over as well. All 3 cities have been the main approaches for attack/ defence for either country until WW1. My parents have been to Verdun some years ago for a visit and they were hoping I heading over next year as we have another Beaurepaire buried in France just outside the village of Le Quesnoy who died of his wounds 7 days before the war ended.

                  I enjoy reading Robert Harris, Len Deighton and Frederick Forsyth books due the research they put into their books. John Le Carre spy books are just is good as well and it might due to his time the Uk’s secret service.

                  Here’s a good read for alt WW2 history https://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Hitlers-Panzers-East-R-H-S-Stolfi/9780806125817 It’s based on the OKH (German Army Command) Operation Orders, OKH’s MAP, CONOP’s, their understanding of the Russian Political and Military Command Control and Comminution’s when trained with Russains in the 1930’s during Hitler’s rearmament program and from the Fin’s during Russian Finland war in 39-40.

                  Kenneth Macksey (former WW2 Brit Tankie) did a couple of books on alt WW2 history, one on the invasion of England and the other on Hitler’s other Strategic options. I can’t remember if was Macksey or Basil Liddel Hart books, but someone in the late 50’s early 60’s got all the major players that were still alive that time to war game the invasion of England and of some Hitler’s other options and the results were quite interesting.

                  Sir John Hackett’s book on WW3 are a good read, The Third World War: August 1985, which was a fictionalized scenario of the Third World War based on a Red Army invasion of West Germany in 1985. It was followed in 1982 by The Third World War: The Untold Story, which elaborated on the original, including more detail from a Soviet perspective

                  Pretty much concur with last your paragraph. I remember watching a Sam Neil doc sometime ago about the state of NZ under the Neo Lib experiment and If I ever bump into him i’m shouting him a beer as I almost had tears at what he said.

                  • Sanctuary …
                    2 November 2017 at 5:13 pm

                    Hitlers Panzers East is a dated book. No matter what they had done, the Germans simply lacked the means to defeat the USSR in 1941. The Germans forces that defeated Kirpinos in the South would have had to fight those Soviet armies some time, and the attrition the USSR subjected the Germans to meant the Nazis simply lacked the resources to defeat the Soviet Union.

                    The German invasion force (plus allies) numbered around 3.8 million men on June 22 1941, of which German troops were about 3.3 million. Bearing in mind Russia’s geography acts as a funnel (that is, the front was shortest at at the start of the attack, and the German armies funneled out to front that was over 2200km long, with a smaller force) German losses from all causes (KIA/MIA/WIA/illness) were: (rounded)

                    June 91,000 (just eight days!)
                    July 181,000
                    August 225,000
                    September 187,000
                    October 167,000
                    November 157,000
                    December 166,000

                    The figures above clearly some the effect of continuous Soviet counter-attacks on the Germans. The army suffered peak combat losses as early as August, and combat losses rapidly fell off after that, indicating a decline in the ability of the German army to maintain high tempo, high loss operations. This is especially clear when you consider that of the August figures, 34,000 were sickness related (and 196,000 combat related) and the December figures fully 90,000 were sick (mainly frostbite). If you consider the continuous winter battles around Moscow and Kharkov into March 1942 as part of the first phase of the fighting on the Eastern front, then total German losses in first nine months of Barbarossa were: 1.1 million killed, wounded, and missing and 567,461 sick. So, to take stock, the Germans lost around 300,000 KIA and MIA, 850,000 WIA (380,000 of which were so badly wounded as to be unfit for further combat duty) – so, around 700,000 irrecoverable losses, or almost 100% of their infantry strength.

                    On top of the enormous strain of combat losses was the hopeless logistics of the invaders. An example of German logistical weakness was the lack of winter clothing available to the troops in 1941. Historians often blithely put it down to German over-confidence, that they were not prepared for the Russian winter and it took them by surprise. Of course the Germans knew what Russian winters were like – they had been in Russia during WW1 for years!!! The reality was they simply had no means, after supplying ammunition and fuel and limited rations, to deliver large quantities of warm clothing. That was the state of the German army’s logisitics in 1941.

                    In sum, despite the awesome power of the German army it simply lacked the ability to over-run the USSR in a single season. The Soviet Union fought back with such ferocity that after August the Germans ability to maintain combat operations at the required tempo began to drop off. By the time the Soviets launched their Moscow counter-attack, the offensive combat power of Army Group Centre was long finished.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      2 November 2017 at 6:46 pm

                      Three things that come to play here:

                      1. If Hitler hadn’t taken part in the Balkan’s side show which delayed the start Op Barbarossa by 2-3mths, there are pro’s and con’s to the Balkan’s War or Hitler’s southern flank.

                      2. If Hitler hadn’t remove 90% of the Panzer Divisions from Army Group Centre to conduct some wild goose chase in the south(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tzen_decision) which added about an extra 800kms there and back again. Which in turn slowed the advance of Army Group Centre down and competently sources aka Von Manstein, Guderian, Halder etc, OKH Operations Orders, German military archives and from the former USSR Army archives. Army Group Centre would’ve had clear run to Moscow and beyond as there was no defensive line in place until old Hitler ordered those panzers sth. Which in turn the Soviets give the time and space (time and space means a lot armoured forces weather its in attack or defence and it was drilled in me when I was Crew Commander when I was in the RNZAC) to build up its defensive line and along with Army Group Centre’s worn out panzers from its wee detour south stop the German advance on the outskirts of Moscow. Had it not been for Hitler’s stupid order of no withdrawal at Moscow as Army Centre commanders want to shorting it supply lines, the 1942 summer offensive may not have been directed at Stalingrad, but encirclement of Moscow instead which could’ve cause all sorts of problems for the Russian’s.

                      3. The OKH (Army High Command) under the Franz Halder understood along with the Senior Field Commanders knew that Moscow had to their Centre of Gravity if Op Barbarossa was to succeed as they Soviet Political and Military Command Control, Comminution’s was a very strict top down decision process and very inflexible unlike the German Mission orientated orders which allows field commander greater flexibility and ability to achieve the overall Commanders Intent. A good cdr looks at the Cdr’s overall intent, the mission verb, timings , admin and log. Had the original Op Ord had been adhere too (just like the original Manstein’s Plan for Fall Yellow had been followed there wouldn’t been a Dunkirk) Op Barbarossa would’ve succeed in my view if it wasn’t for Hitlers mending to go after economic objectives instead of military objectives.

                    • Exkiwiforces …
                      2 November 2017 at 7:00 pm

                      Forgot to add this in point 2.

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

          • tracey 22.1.1.1.2
            2 November 2017 at 5:27 pm

            Thanks for the book references

  23. ianmac 23
    1 November 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Do our farmers care? Artificial milk is very soon. Be hard to stop the science progress.
    Dairy farming?
    Rachel Stewart:
    “Another fool, the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser Peter Gluckman, told the recent NZBIO conference that great strides were being made commercialising artificial milk and meat.” (Fool in eyes of farmers.)
    “Gluckman also said synthetic milk was the biggest threat to New Zealand, because of the country’s reliance on its “liquid gold” dairy exports.”…..
    …”Based on some of the investors who are driving the tech – Leonardo DiCaprio, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Richard Branson, Bill Gates – it’s a solid bet.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11938961

    • Andre 23.1
      1 November 2017 at 4:15 pm

      I for one will be a lot happier about drinking a product blended from vats of engineered bacteria and yeasts. Better than something squeezed out of a cow from just below its sewer outfalls. Once it’s made into cheese or yoghurt, even better.

      Ditto for what goes into my burgers and sausages and other small goods. If it smells like bacon and tastes like bacon and gets a good crispy mouthfeel like bacon, I’ll be even happier if it doesn’t come from murdering a pig. Since I never eat steak or roasts, it won’t bother me that those are a lot further from being synthesised.

      • greywarshark 23.1.1
        1 November 2017 at 5:09 pm

        Andre
        You need bacteria to survive I understand. Millions of them form part of your defecation. Personally i would like to hang onto to a beautiful Jersey rather than a laboratory created mixture. And someone will pick up some bug or reaction to the synthetic and it will be as popular as vaccinations or mesh in operations.

        • Andre 23.1.1.1
          1 November 2017 at 5:37 pm

          Oh yeah. Only about 10% of the cells (by number) travelling around in and on the sacks of lumpy and wobbly and slimy bits called our bodies are actually us: the rest are various bacteria and other hitchhikers. Some of whom are as important to our well-being as the bits that are all us.

          Unlike Gareth, I’m not planning to come for Bessie. If she gives you joy, and a bit of your sustenance, I’m happy for you both. I’m sure she prefers being lovingly tended to by someone that truly cares for her, rather than being herded into a crowded noisy shed twice a day and plugged in to some weird machine. Nor have I got plans to coerce you to consume the spawn of some satanic machinery.

          There will always be those that persuade themselves that something is bad for them, when it really isn’t. Look at the current fad of being gluten intolerant, very few of whom genuinely are. If those people want to spend huge amounts of money pandering to their psychosomatic symptoms, I view it as a kind of idiot tax.

          • greywarshark 23.1.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 7:36 pm

            I’ve read that about gluten too. But I think one needs the bigger picture. They might have gut problems and find that less gluten helps even though they are not formally identified as gluten free. And it is part of experimenting to see what foods bring health.

            We have had the chemicals around us increase exponentially since WW2 and combine to create new effects etc It’s easy to criticise about apparent pickiness and fashion re gluten free. I don’t know much but do some work in an organic shop and meet people with health problems and hear their difficulties. I made the point yesterday that we are ignorant about a lot of things, food is just one of them. We just do the best we can in a changing world, one where people assume so much, without solid facts. And even the solid facts and the research that led to them have to be checked out.

    • patricia bremner 23.2
      1 November 2017 at 4:20 pm

      ianmac, you may be interested in the Editor’s pick of the news/opinions on interest.co.nz.

      It is an article by John Mauldrin about robots and the future of work.

      If the changes he lists can happen so fast, synthetic milk is a sure bet

      • ianmac 23.2.1
        1 November 2017 at 8:09 pm

        Thanks Patricia but I was unable to find an article by Mauldrin.

          • ianmac 23.2.1.1.1
            1 November 2017 at 10:44 pm

            Thanks patricia and Incognito. Read it saved for further reflection.
            Change is coming fast. Labour did that what is the nature of work in the future recently. How timely.

            And John Mauldin’s piece resonates:
            “The calls for a guaranteed basic income (like Mark Zuckerberg’s) are just beginning, but that is going to become a major political theme in our future. Like King Canute, we cannot stop the tides – but perhaps we could get creative and channel that tide. What do we think of shorter work weeks? Just as Roosevelt put men to work during the Depression, maybe we need to think about finding jobs around our communities that need to be done. Guaranteed basic employment. Mull that over….”

  24. Penny Bright 24
    1 November 2017 at 5:43 pm

    Subject: Press Release: Sue Henry (Housing Lobby) “Stop the transfer (privatisation) of Tamaki tenancies!”

    1 November 2017

    “Now we have a new Government, there are some urgent, ongoing issues that need addressing,” says Sue Henry, Housing Lobby Spokesperson.

    “In early November 2017, the tenancies in Tamaki, curently held by the Tamaki Housing Association (Limited Partnership), are planned to be transferred, (under the ‘Partnership model’) to an Australian consortium, or other private operator, to manage, or to be sold.”

    “Instead of tenants being shoved into an even deeper trench, of former Housing Minister Nick Smith’s making, this ridiculous idea needs to be stamped out, immediately.”

    “Former State tenants in Tamaki have had so many disruptive changes forced upon them in a short space of time – this must stop.”

    “All we saw under the previous National Government’s watch was ‘pass the parcel’ and a 70 year old institution fragmented to such an extent, it is unrecognisable.”

    “Tenants in Tamaki have had to deal with having families split up, communities dislocated, made transient, as well as having their secure tenancies abolished.”

    “In many cases tenants have had their lives destroyed, and had their long-time exisiting homes and communities bulldozed to the ground.”

    (4 minute video of the destruction of the solid former State house at 14 Taniwha St Glen Innes, demolished on Tuesday 31 October 2017).

    https://www.facebook.com/penny.bright.104/posts/1860683590610991

    “We want immediate action by this new Government to STOP the transfer (privatisation) of Tamaki tenancies.”

    Sue Henry
    Housing Lobby

    …..

  25. greywarshark 25
    2 November 2017 at 10:00 pm

    A brave, determined young person taking the government to Court.
    Law student loses case against govt’s climate policy
    5 minutes ago
    Waikato law student Sarah Thomson has indicated she will appeal her case challenging the last government’s climate change policy.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/342953/law-student-loses-case-against-govt-s-climate-policy