Open Mike 01/12/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 1st, 2016 - 147 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 …

147 comments on “Open Mike 01/12/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    1 December 2016 at 7:18 am

    “I said at the time when Nick stood for the Wellington mayoralty that he wasn’t true Labour”
    – Andrew Little

    “They were eight core people and they’ve walked away. They expected us to help the Greens… we’re not going to work for the Greens, bugger that. It leaked out at the [annual] conference. One of the candidates was told by Andrew Little… people here are really angry.”
    – Ex Labour member in Nelson who doesn’t like the deal Turei went public on and Little said wasn’t done on Tuesday.

    The latest Roy Morgan has Labour on 23% and Labour+Greens on 37.5% – RM polls vary quite a bit but this is an awful way to finish the year.

    What will it take for those remaining in Labour to wake up to the reality that spraying everyone who walks away with vitriol is not going to rebuild the party.

    Would 19% be enough of a wake up call?

    Or would that be blamed on the pollster, the media, and on all the ex Labour voters too?

    • Muttonbird 1.1
      1 December 2016 at 7:30 am

      Those members in Nelson could always be encouraged to work for, y’know, the party vote.

      Why do they think they’d be working for the greens?

      • Cinny 1.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 7:40 am

        Those Nelson members need a lesson in MMP. Nelson is conservative, some didn’t vote for Street when she stood here purely because she is a lesbian.

        I’m going to take a leaf out of Peter Goodfellows book… it’s a smear campaign, yes that’s it, that’s the answer to any controversy, it’s a smear campaign by those whom are against us.

      • Jo 1.1.2
        1 December 2016 at 8:06 am

        No. They want to work for the Labour party and want to be led by their local candidate. That is why National always stands a candidate in Epson. It is Labour who don’t understand MMP, the party vote elects the Government but it is the local committees and volunteers who do the work to make that happen. The Greens have finally woken up to the fact, if they are going to grow their vote to become more than a fringe party they need Electorate seats and the groundswell and legitimacy that brings.

        Small parties have two options; behave like NZF and refuse to say which larger party they will support or sign a MOU, which signals to supporters of that party (Labour), that a vote for either is the same thing. I know the MOU finishes on election night, but that is not what voters expect.

        The two main parties need to concentrate on their vote and protect the soft support from seeping to a smaller party. That is why National has made some movement on immigration in an attempt to stop the flow to NZF. Labour signing the MOU has helped that flow. Little showed he was a complete novice, when he signed up, and coupled with his own poor ratings this has turned into a disaster. He has lost control of the narrative, the Greens are just leaking what they want and because Little signed the MOU, people assume it is a done deal….perception is everything in politics.

        Blaming local people for feeling that they have been abandoned won’t achieve anything, except piss them off even more.

        • KJT 1.1.2.1
          1 December 2016 at 10:45 am

          The Greens are a main party now.
          Anyone who thinks Green support is going anywhere else but up is delusional.
          As are any Labour party members who think they will get back to the Labour/National cosy born to rule. club

          • rsbandit 1.1.2.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 11:07 am

            The Greens are not a main party. They cannot move their vote from the fringe.

            They may become one, tho’, if Labour stick to their current terrible “strategy”

    • marty mars 1.2
      1 December 2016 at 7:51 am

      Good to have a link to those quotes please

    • Scott 1.3
      1 December 2016 at 8:31 am

      It also begs the question: Did they move away from Labour, or has Labour moved away from them. I suspect the reality is that it may be a bit of both.

  2. Psycho Milt 2
    1 December 2016 at 7:40 am

    “I said at the time when Nick stood for the Wellington mayoralty that he wasn’t true Labour”
    – Andrew Little

    A view confirmed by Leggett’s subsequent joining of the National Party. Why don’t you stop trying to push shit uphill with a fork?

    – Ex Labour member in Nelson who doesn’t like the deal Turei went public on and Little said wasn’t done on Tuesday.

    Ex-Labour member in Nelson still doesn’t understand MMP ten years’ later. Not exactly news – there are surprisingly many people who still don’t get it.

    Edit: sorry, was meant to be reply to Pete George in comment 1.

    • Pete George 2.1
      1 December 2016 at 7:50 am

      ‘True Labour’ seems to be a rapidly narrowing thing, and I haven’t seen any clear definition of what it even is.

      A political expert says Labour gave Nick Leggett little choice but to jump ship.

      Massey University Professor Claire Robinson said Andrew Little has been so vocal about Nick Leggett being disloyal to the party.

      “What do you do? You can’t hang around waiting to be told or advised when you become loyal again, so actually I think he didn’t have much choice but to stand for another party.”

      http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/leggett-didnt-have-much-choice-but-to-jump-ship-expert/

      What’s notable about Leggett’s defection is that someone like him with political ambition saw no future with Labour.

      Labour is not exactly over-endowed with new talent. Nor with old members.

      I don’t think one dominant party is good for New Zealand, but that seems to be where we’re headed.

      • Gabby 2.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 8:16 am

        He could have got a job.

      • The Chairman 2.1.2
        1 December 2016 at 8:52 am

        Someone who can easily jump to the opposition shouldn’t expect to go far within the Labour Party.

        The fact that he did (at one stage) coupled with the fact he was being touted as a potential Party leader, highlights the mess and loss of direction the Party is in.

        • lprent 2.1.2.1
          1 December 2016 at 10:36 am

          Leggett never appeared on my horizon as a potential leader.

          I’d really like to know where this ‘touting’ came from? Leggett, Quin, and Pagani?

          • james 2.1.2.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 1:48 pm

            I did a bit of looking – I couldnt find anything.

          • lprent 2.1.2.1.2
            1 December 2016 at 2:40 pm

            I did as well a couple of days ago when the rumors spread. Came up with nothing.

            Who wrote the article? Perhaps they should explain from whom they received that wisdom. It sounds about as self-manufactured as Shane Jones self-promotion of the same future job opportunity.

            I remember looking at Shane Jones a number of years ago displaying the self-love of his oratory, while I was lexxing his actual content down to what I determined to be the pea size of his intellect.

      • Psycho Milt 2.1.3
        1 December 2016 at 10:02 am

        … I haven’t seen any clear definition of what it even is.

        We’ve been here before, Pete. There’s a clue cleverly hidden in the name of the party – perhaps so cleverly hidden that only those who aren’t chronically obtuse can see it.

        What’s notable about Leggett’s defection is that someone like him with political ambition saw no future with Labour.

        An ambitious right-winger saw no future with Labour? Er, good. Anything else notable about it?

      • lprent 2.1.4
        1 December 2016 at 10:34 am

        “Professor Claire Robinson”

        Yeah right. The only thing noticeable about her is that she really doesn’t like anyone left of a David Shearer or greener than John Key.

        You really do know how to destroy your own argument.

      • Tricledrown 2.1.5
        1 December 2016 at 2:38 pm

        PG your still welded to FPP.
        Labour is the largest opposition party.
        The Greens and Winston first are the the left and right branches Labour middle.
        Labour is being cleansed of Neo liberals like yourself.

        • Gosman 2.1.5.1
          1 December 2016 at 2:54 pm

          Won’t that just mean people who support more business friendly policies but also wish to ensure a good level of social spending (e.g. Nick Leggett) are just going to go to National meaning National is more likely to hit 50% than they are now?

  3. The lost sheep 3
    1 December 2016 at 7:52 am

    And in the meantime the U.K. Labour Hard Left experiment has seen Labour drop to near record low levels of support.

    Still a lot of enthusiasm here for NZ Labour going down the same route?

    • The Chairman 3.1
      1 December 2016 at 8:14 am

      The NZ Labour Party centrist stance has seen their support drastically fall as well.

      • The lost sheep 3.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 8:30 am

        The current Labour stance is somewhere Left of HC’s govt. – Trade Union Leader etc., and cannot get within a very long barge poll of 2005 support.

        So if Harder Left don’t work, and Center Left also ain’t doing it, that leaves shifting towards further Right?

        • The Chairman 3.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 8:58 am

          “The current Labour stance is somewhere Left of HC’s govt”

          I disagree. Despite Little coming from the Union, the Party’s position is still centrist. There has been no commitment to overturn past Labour policy.

          Therefore, we’ve yet to see Labour move back to a left wing stance.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2
          1 December 2016 at 11:27 am

          The problem being is that Labour haven’t gone Left. In fact, they’re still centre-right and they’re bleeding support because of it.

          And I haven’t really seen anything from UK Labour that indicates that they’ve gone hard left from their Blairite position either.

    • alwyn 3.2
      1 December 2016 at 11:26 am

      The Independent wrote that article. which roughly consigns Labour to the rubbish bin of history, when the Conservatives were on 44% and Labour on 28%.
      I wonder what they would describe the New Zealand situation of 49.5% to 23% as?
      Clearly New Zealand Labour are in far worse shape.

      Incidentally I wonder if Trevor Mallard is trying to reverse his plan to retire gracefully to a cushy seat via the list? With the way the polls are going he will most ungracefully be retired completely. There won’t be any list seats available unless Labour lose a lot of their electorate seats.

      • lprent 3.2.1
        1 December 2016 at 12:01 pm

        I wonder what they would describe the New Zealand situation of 49.5% to 23% as?

        I have no idea why you’d compare an apple with an orange. Or a first past the post electorate system (as the UK has) with a MMP system (as we have here).

        Your senility or stupidity would seem to be the only options. Perhaps you could comment on that debate.

        I’ll be charitable and suggest that alwyn is just being temporarily stupid. Of course that raises the debate about what the temporary effect is caused by?

        • alwyn 3.2.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 8:28 pm

          Well you just stick to your beliefs.
          MMP systems will see parties with low popularity gain more seats than they would under a FPP system.
          It doesn’t affect the fact that if your popularity is such that you are sinking down to risible levels you aren’t going to be in Government.
          If this poll is correct it says that a party that was the most popular one 10 (well 11 actually) years ago is now heading down to be on level pegging with the Green Party.
          When Shearer got the push Labour were on about 34% weren’t they?
          Why did you dump him for the useless Cunliffe and the even worse Little? No wonder the support is down to 23% and sinking.

          • lprent 3.2.1.1.1
            2 December 2016 at 8:32 am

            MMP favours having a range of parties. They have a strong chance of getting into government because every government is a coalition.

            Only a political relic would insist in viewing everything as if it was a head to head contest between two parties as if this was still 1975.

            A political party has to represent it’s members and it’s long term supporters. Shearer certainly didn’t do the first and it is unlikely he was doing the second. Instead he was trying to drag the Labour party in directions that had been repeatably refuted in previous decades. So he got the same treatment that we gave Douglas and Moore.

            It might be the vision of you and your like minded fair weather friends like Quinn, Leggett, and Pagani. So start your own blog or party rather than being parasites.

  4. Sam C 4
    1 December 2016 at 7:53 am

    2 It has Labour at 23% which would see them get just 28 MPs in a House of 120. As they hold 27 electorates it means on that poll they would get just one List MP – their leader Andrew Little. If they drop just 1% more, then Little loses his seat. Alternatively if they pick up one more electorate seat then again Little loses his seat.
    3 Other List MPs such as Jacinda Ardern and David Parker are toast on this result.
    4 It is always useful to compare polls to the same time period in the previous election cycle. So how are National and Labour placed in November 2013 and November 2016?
    • November 2013 – National 44.5% and Labour 34.0% for a 10.5% lead
    • November 2016 – National 49.5% and Labour 23.0% for a 26.5% lead
    5 A huge difference. This is the second lowest poll result ever for Labour in the history of the Roy Morgan poll.

  5. Michael 5
    1 December 2016 at 7:56 am

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-white-house-231998?cmpid=sf

    “After a decade in the wilderness, Wall Street’s most powerful firm, Goldman Sachs, is dominating the early days of the incoming Trump administration. The newly picked Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, spent 17 years at Goldman. Trump’s top incoming White House adviser, Steve Bannon, spent his early career at the bank. So did Anthony Scaramucci, one of Trump’s top transition advisers.

    Goldman’s president, Gary Cohn, spent an hour schmoozing with President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday and could be up for an administration job, possibly as director of the Office of Management and Budget, people close to Cohn and the transition said. Cohn, a long-time commodities trader, is friendly with Trump’s powerful son-in-law, Jared Kushner.”

    For all the people who frequent this blog that supported Trump over Clinton in the US elections, I hope you see how absurd that is now. Goldman Sachs is getting into every major corner of the Trump Administration, a billionaire who wants to privatise public education is heading the Education Department, and a range of Republicans who are anything but populist/anti-establishment are taking a number of other Cabinet spots. Meanwhile, the GOP Congress is getting ready to rip up Medicare and Medicaid, along with Obamacare. Not to mention his national security appointments!

    There are some on here who especially made egregious claims about how Trump would govern for the working class, how he’d bust the establishment, how he’d protect the welfare state, etc…it’s just a farce. If Hillary Clinton had won, we’d be arguing whether or not her carbon emissions reduction plan is aggressive enough, not over Trump possibly abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency. But for some reason people think that someone being ‘outside the establishment’, despite being a literal cartoon billionaire, is better than a woman with decades of experience who would likely just continue Obama’s policies roughly.

  6. The Chairman 6
    1 December 2016 at 7:58 am

    “I said at the time when Nick stood for the Wellington mayoralty that he wasn’t true Labour” – Andrew Little.

    And to think, Leggett had previously been touted as a potential future Labour Party leader.

    What were they thinking?

    Douglas, Jones, Leggett, etc… Labour have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the right.

    • David C 6.1
      1 December 2016 at 8:05 am

      What were they thinking when they touted Leggett as a future Leader?

      Maybe that they wanted someone electable? articulate? pleasant? A leader?
      Maybe to lead a Party that had a policy platform that was left but not so far left to make it unattractive to all but 23% of NZ?

      • millsy 6.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 8:07 am

        Liggett was hard right, and wanted to privatise everything.

        • Pasupial 6.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 8:20 am

          A “real estate agent, specialising in commercial and industrial sales”, has legged it back to his natural home on the right. People are surprised by this?

        • David C 6.1.1.2
          1 December 2016 at 8:46 am

          Hard Right millsy?

          Your head is so far up your arse you must see daylight.

      • The Chairman 6.1.2
        1 December 2016 at 8:22 am

        “Maybe to lead a Party that had a policy platform that was left but not so far left to make it unattractive to all but 23% of NZ?”

        Labour haven’t been left since 1984.

        Therefore, their National lite position has contributed to their downfall.

        • Herb 6.1.2.1
          1 December 2016 at 8:52 am

          And their hard left stance has seen them rise to 23% .
          Sorry drop to 23%.
          The hard left is a much diminished and diminishing base as the internet has allowed people to better access information and compare the living standards of socialist utopias with they real world.

          • KJT 6.1.2.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 9:21 am

            Compare Denmark, Sweden and Norway to right wing paradises like Somalia, Haiti and Chicago. Fixed it for you.

          • The Chairman 6.1.2.1.2
            1 December 2016 at 10:02 am

            Their hard left stance?

            You must be joking. Labour don’t have a hard left stance.

          • TootingPopularFront 6.1.2.1.3
            1 December 2016 at 6:59 pm

            More National-sponsored polling, it didn’t work for Hillary, it won’t work for Key and his cronies

    • BM 6.2
      1 December 2016 at 8:10 am

      I think the problem Labour should be more concerned about is the infiltration by the greens.

      • The Chairman 6.2.1
        1 December 2016 at 8:30 am

        The infiltration by the right has resulted in Labour Party policy falling short. Which in turn has led to a fall in their support, hence increasing their need to work with the Greens.

  7. millsy 7
    1 December 2016 at 8:05 am

    To Pete George and others: If a National party MP was forced out of the party because they supported the public sector provision of health and education, opposed the sale of state owned assets, supported a high(er) minimum wage, a welfare state, social housing, and intervention in the power market to bring down prices, what would your opinion be? The fact is that if you wish to be part of a political party, you need to sign up to its values. And Labour’s values so happen to be public services, worker protections and state housing. If workers having 5 days of sick leave, cheap power bills and clean air to breathe is so repugnant to Legett then he should join National, whose sole purpose is to dismantle worker’s rights and replace them with contract law, as well as have us choke on LA style smog and impose US style health care.

    • David C 7.1
      1 December 2016 at 8:10 am

      millsy.

      Dunno… it never happens. The Nats are so left of center these days anyone is welcome.

      I mean FFS…Leggett is in favour of stealing money from unemployed poor people and gifting it to Council staff via the totally bullshit “living wage”

      The man has no place in the Blue camp.

      • framu 7.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 10:18 am

        so thats why the nats help act in epsom – they need them to run all their hard left stuff they dont want to be seen handling ,

        good grief man – your talking nonsense that ignores personal/party history, ideology and concepts of modern marketing

        • David C 7.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 10:40 am

          Huh wot?

          Epsom is just a free seat. Be pretty dumb not to take it huh?

          • framu 7.1.1.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 11:45 am

            ” The Nats are so left of center these days”

            your talking nonsense that ignores personal/party history, ideology and concepts of modern marketing

            you know what i said (i hope) yet your playing dumb games.
            Please stop being this way – its really dull.

            • Nessalt 7.1.1.1.1.1
              1 December 2016 at 1:06 pm

              And you are blind to the modern realities of MMP politics.

              MMP was supposed to help the left as apparently the left are progressive and modern and will make the most of it. It’s just kind of came along and fucked the left up, as if you don’t know how to play the game and win votes?

              Blaming everyone but yourself is not the way to learn in life. It just ostracizes you further. But hey, what would anyone but those on the “pure” left know right? it’s not like we are generally more successful at everything. Except caring, not actually doing something about caring, just caring and being loud enough about that everyone knows, you care. Well done on that.

              • framu …
                1 December 2016 at 2:23 pm

                What the hell are you on about? Seriosuly – it makes zero sense as a reply

                thats a weird response to me saying that…
                “based on ideology and history national arent left of center”

                do you think national are left of center?

    • Stunned Mullet 7.2
      1 December 2016 at 9:11 am

      Millsy you repeatedly have this rant regarding the NZ government wanting to replace our current health system with one akin to that in the US – yet fail to produce a shred of evidence to support such a position.

      For the record both Labour and National strongly support PHARMAC which provides heavily (most often totally) subsidised pharmaceuticals. Governmental spend on health has increased year on year under the current National and previous Labour government and is projected to keep on doing so.

  8. Pasupial 8
    1 December 2016 at 8:07 am

    I agree that; “information”, needs to be informative. But when you are paying your budgeted Public Relations money to PR consultants every month, that just doesn’t seem to happen.

    it was ”quite frankly, farcical” that the company blamed problems it faced on an ageing network, rather than ”lack of maintenance, lack of planning and the excessive profits creamed from the network for the last 26 years”…

    Staff called on the Etu union to organise a meeting for union and non-union members to discuss the matter, and the resolution in the letter that was developed for the meeting.

    The letter said the employees, who installed and maintained lines, cables and equipment in the network ”believe that much of the network is in a run-down state”.

    That meant compromised safety for both workers and the public…suggested radio advertisements and full-page newspaper notices ”explaining the dangers and showing what gear and areas to avoid around poles etc”.

    Information released to the media needed to be accurate and factual, ”something which has been sadly lacking so far”.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/deltas-explanations-farcical-staff-believe

  9. Puckish Rogue 9
    1 December 2016 at 8:41 am

    To Robert

    “may I ask, why do you think National regard, “WFF, interest free loans ect etc…” as “dead rats”?”

    – I think National regard them as dead rats because its basically middle class welfare but they can’t get rid of it without suffering major voter backlash from the middle class voters

    Doesn’t sound as though those things are part of National’s kaupapa, more that they are foreign objects that need to be swallowed in order to stay alive. Ne ra?

    – Yes they are, I completely agree with this statement

    However something else to note is that National, especially under john Key, is somewhat of a broad church, you have fundamentalists (probably) and atheists, blue Greens and dig it all ups, Nick Leggatt wants to bring in the living wage yet he’s standing for National

    So I think that National has moved towards the centre and as Wayne put it yesterday its not likely the voters of NZ would vote for a hard right/far right party especially under MMP

    • BM 9.1
      1 December 2016 at 9:03 am

      There’s one huge difference between National and labour.

      National runs it self like a business, Labour still runs it’self like a political party.

      When you run your political party like a businesses you’re looking at what your “customers” want and adapting your “products” to suit and make them more attractive to existing and potential customers.

      Part of being a successful business is to increase market share, for National that means appealing to both center left and center right, so a lot of the stuff Clark put in place stays because it has voter appeal and by doing so it locks in those center left voters.

      Political Ideology has no place in National any more, it’s stifling and does more harm than good.

      • Robert Guyton 9.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 9:09 am

        Hit the nail on the head, BM, and you know, the customer is always right, right?

        • BM 9.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 9:30 am

          Certainly is , they’re the people who keep a business/political party afloat.

          No customers, no business.

          • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 9:35 am

            “No customers, no business.” – true, if you buy in to the business model. There are other models but, as you are perhaps saying, they have to compete with the consumption model which is a very hungry one. People, I contend, don’t have to be consumers. There are other models for us to chose from, however, we are in the thrall of business at this point in our history. More fool us, I say.

      • mickysavage 9.1.2
        1 December 2016 at 9:13 am

        There is more than a grain of truth to what you say there BM.

      • KJT 9.1.3
        1 December 2016 at 9:26 am

        Run like a business all right.
        Where the Managers make the short term profits look good so they can run off with the cream.
        While a few years later the business fails because all the income earning assets have been sold and the staff have had enough.

        Run like too many businesses are these days.

        • Robert Guyton 9.1.3.1
          1 December 2016 at 9:31 am

          BM’s pointing to how National treats the gaining and retaining of the Government benches as a business; the business of winning elections. His point is well made, I think. National’s other business, as described by KJT, has been well picked over here on TS but is a side-line to the business of winning votes.

        • mauī 9.1.3.2
          1 December 2016 at 10:10 am

          Businesses that exploit for profit and diminish the trust with their customers have a natural end game. Be prepared for tanking sales. Just look at the Clintons. The Nats have gone down this path thus their fate is determined.

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.3.2.1
            1 December 2016 at 10:21 am

            It’ll happen no doubt but when do you think it’ll happen, before the next lection of before the 2020 election?

      • Puckish Rogue 9.1.4
        1 December 2016 at 9:32 am

        I agree, to a certain extant, yet if it were completely true the partial sell down of the power companies wouldn’t have happened nor would the GST increase gone ahead and NZ would be taking in more refugees

        But certainly the message is much better presented by National

        • BM 9.1.4.1
          1 December 2016 at 9:44 am

          I agree, to a certain extant, yet if it were completely true the partial sell down of the power companies wouldn’t have happened

          Which why only 50% was sold not 100%, 100% would have been politically disastrous for National and probably cost them the election.

          50% was a best of both worlds compromise, appeals to both center left and center right.

          • Puckish Rogue 9.1.4.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 9:50 am

            I agree, it was definitely pragmatism at its finest

          • David C 9.1.4.1.2
            1 December 2016 at 10:43 am

            49% was sold. wasnt it?

            and that shows a pragmatic Party in action, get some cash but its an easy message to sell to the punters, everyone understands what 49% means.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.4.1.2.1
              1 December 2016 at 11:14 am

              No, that shows an ideological party in action. A party that will go against the wishes of the people to implement the policy that they want that will enrich a few while making everyone else worse off.

              • Nessalt …
                1 December 2016 at 1:10 pm

                An election was fought with asset sales as a major issue. The party proposing to sell the assets won the election. How can you then claim they went against the wishes of the people. Not voting is a tacit acceptance of the policies of the party that eventually wins, whether you like them or not.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  1 December 2016 at 1:33 pm

                  How can you then claim they went against the wishes of the people.

                  Because polling and a referendum showed 70% of people against the sales.

                  I can only assume that some people voted for National despite their policy of selling state assets in the belief that they’d then listen to the public and not sell them. Just as they did with mining protected areas on Great Barrier.

                  Not voting is a tacit acceptance of the policies of the party that eventually wins, whether you like them or not.

                  It could be viewed that way. It can also be viewed as a vote of no confidence. The thing is, we don’t know.

                  Which is why I say we need to view voting as a duty not a right and make it compulsory.

                  And the 70% against asset sales is why I support policies being set by referenda and not by parliament. Why we should be getting rid of ‘government’ altogether. Elected dictatorship does not bring about the wishes of the people.

                • framu …
                  1 December 2016 at 2:42 pm

                  “How can you then claim they went against the wishes of the people. Not voting is a tacit acceptance”

                  referenda are also part of our democracy tool kit and are designed to focus on a single issue, which elections cant do

              • David C …
                1 December 2016 at 6:29 pm

                Draco.

                WFT are you on about?

                Go against the wishes of the people???

                The Nats went into the election banging a drum and telling everyone they were selling the power companies and they romped home in the election, they SLAUGHTERED Labour who campaigned to keep the power companies.

                People voted Nat because they wanted the power companies sold.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  1 December 2016 at 7:03 pm

                  Just because a party wins the election doesn’t mean that they then, ipso facto, carry out the wishes of the people.

                  It was obvious from before the election happened through polling that people didn’t want to sell our state assets. Referendum after the election showed that to still be true.

                  National still sold those assets – against the will of the people.

                  And, no, they didn’t slaughter Labour – without the overhang seats of UF and Act they would not have been able to sell those assets.

                  We don’t have a democracy – we have an elected dictatorship. If we had an actual democracy the announcement of seeking a referendum would have stopped the sale until afterwards and the actual referendum would have stopped the sale altogether – because the people of NZ didn’t want to sell them.

                  • David C …
                    1 December 2016 at 9:11 pm

                    yes National slaughtered Labour, wiped the floor with them and pissed all over them.
                    Nats got twice the vote of Labour.
                    Labour would have needed the support of four other parties to beat National.
                    The people voted for National knowing National would sell the assets and were happy to do so because the alternative was so appalling.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      1 December 2016 at 10:32 pm

                      Labour would have needed the support of four other parties to beat National.

                      And National needed three.

                      The people voted for National knowing National would sell the assets and were happy to do so because the alternative was so appalling.

                      Nope. People voted for National and then tried to stop them selling the assets. That’s what the referendum was for – National continued with their failed ideology.

                    • framu …
                      2 December 2016 at 7:27 am

                      “The people voted for National knowing National would sell the assets ”

                      and then after that there was a referendum on the topic

                      How can you sit there and claim the election gives the policy approval – when a referendum held after the election rejected the policy?

      • Pat 9.1.5
        1 December 2016 at 9:35 am

        It is one thing to run a political party like a business (and in that I think your analysis re National is correct), however there are obvious problems with running a country as a business.

      • lprent 9.1.6
        1 December 2016 at 10:45 am

        National runs it self like a business, Labour still runs it’self like a political party.

        Labour runs itself like a government.

        National (as you say) runs itself like a business. It considers that a long-range plan is no more than 4-5 years.

        That is its problem. Kids take 20 years to raise. Victims of childhood abuse cost the country (one way or another) for 50+ years after the abuse stops. Moderately severe earthquakes (like Christchurch or Kaikoura) happen every 20-30 years on average. Severe ones happen about every 80 years on average. Defense forces and hospital systems take decades to get running properly. etc.

        National may be fit to be a business with their short-term thinking. But they aren’t capable of being a government.

        Who gives a flying fuck about how good their marketing is. BM are you really that shallow?

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.6.1
          1 December 2016 at 11:17 am

          National may be fit to be a business with their short-term thinking.

          National maybe fit to run the lemonade stand at the front gate but that’s about it and even that’s debatable.

      • adam 9.1.7
        1 December 2016 at 12:05 pm

        That folks is the ideology underpinning of this national government right there on display by BM. First it denies it’s ideological, then it proceeds like a Marxist on acid to steam roll anything which disagrees with it. Secondly it argues it’s just common sense, when it is anything but. Third, a complete lack of understanding of what ideology is to muddy the waters. And finally the ‘big lie’ if the lie is big most people believe it, if it small almost no one believes it…

        Just for the record BM, the last person who said there were no place for ideology in a political party was a vain, short, sex addicted, snake tongue, and Italian…

      • Incognito 9.1.8
        1 December 2016 at 11:44 pm

        Well, BM, either you’re extremely clever or you really believe your idea of the “business model”, if it is your idea. Is it?

        National operates like a corporate, a global corporate for that matter, not a national one.

        Here’s the thing that I don’t buy [no pun]: we, the people, the voters, are National’s “customers”.

        There’s a famous quote – it is just a quote:

        If you’re not paying for it; you are the product

        Hang on, you say, we are paying, we are paying taxes!

        Sure, we do, but we do regardless of who’s in government and we would get (most of) the services regardless. I could expand on this, and probably should, but it’s getting late and I want to get to my main point(s).

        But but but, you say, we ‘pay’ with our votes, not in hard(-earned) dollars.

        Indeed, and now you’re getting closer to the truth of the National Party.

        National’s “business” is staying in power and maintaining status quo.

        By making us believe we’re getting something in return National remains in power. However, are we the real beneficiaries of this ‘transaction’ or is there more to it?

        To answer this question you’d need to follow the money, my dear fellow New Zealand taxpayer and law-abiding consumer.

        Yes, we are customers and consumers in the literal sense, but not National’s, and, at a different level, we are the product or commodity that National uses to achieve its ‘target’.

        Complete and utter nonsense, you say. Fair enough, please go to the National Party website and read it for yourself:

        Less debt, more jobs, strong stable government

        The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous, and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.

        https://national.org.nz/about [I hope this link is not going to trigger some kind of TS alarm or Moderator alert]

        You see, National ‘sells’ us dreams! It is pure make-belief, trickery magic, and mass hypnosis packed into one smooth political message. And it does the trick very well!

        Meanwhile some people are laughing all the way to the bank, literally, and laughing at us, the poor suckers, who are buying this dream shit and day-in-day-out work at the coal-face to pay the bills and for our children’s education so that they can “reach their personal goals and dreams” because that’s our dream, isn’t it?

        Now, before you shake your head in disbelief that I can be so stupid I’ll give you one more reason to do some head banging: the Labour Party is doing essentially the same …

  10. Robert Guyton 10
    1 December 2016 at 8:53 am

    Good morning, Pucky. Thanks for your response. I see what you mean.

    • Puckish Rogue 10.1
      1 December 2016 at 9:04 am

      Of course its completely unscientific and my opinion only so I could be completely wrong about…well everything

  11. Robert Guyton 11
    1 December 2016 at 9:19 am

    The “we are all customers” concept is an interesting one and the analogy invites comment about how customer decisions are made; why buy this product and not that product, why buy at all, etc. The role of advertising is key (apologies there) and purchasers of products are famously plastic when it comes to their decisions. As well, there’s the deeper consume-like-a-consumer issue for those who think we are consuming our world and that the consumption model is our undoing on a global scale.

  12. Morrissey 12
    1 December 2016 at 9:33 am

    Chomsky on America’s Ugly History:
    FDR Was Fascist-Friendly Before WWII
    AlterNet, Nov. 29, 2016

    Before the Second World War, what view did the United States government have of fascism in Germany? What was the political and military relationship between Berlin and Washington?

    Noam Chomsky: Well, it was a mixed story. Roosevelt himself had a mixed attitude. For example, he was pretty supportive of Mussolini’s fascism, in fact described Mussolini as “that admirable Italian gentleman.” He later concluded that Mussolini had been misled by his association with Hitler and had been led kind of down the wrong path. But the American business community, the power systems in the United States were highly supportive of Mussolini.

    In fact, even parts of the labor bureaucracy were. Fortune Magazine for example, the major business journal I think in 1932, had an issue with the headline, I’m quoting it: “The wops are unwopping themselves.” The “wop” is a kind of a derogatory term for Italians and the “wops are finally unwopping themselves,” under Mussolini they’re becoming part of the civilized world. There was criticism of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, a lot of criticism. But basically pretty supportive attitude toward Mussolini’s fascism. When Germany, when Hitler took over, the attitude was more mixed.

    There was a concern for a potential threat but nevertheless the general approach of the U.S., the British even more so, was fairly supportive. So for example in 1937, the State Department described Hitler as a kind of a moderate, fending off the dangerous forces of the right (and left). The State Department described Hitler as a moderate who was holding off the forces, the dangerous forces of the left, meaning the Bolsheviks, the labor movement and so on, and of the right, namely the extremist Nazism. Hitler was kind of in the middle and therefore we should kind of support him. This is a pretty familiar stance, incidentally like in many other cases.

    Read more….
    http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-americas-ugly-history-fdr-was-fascist-friendly-wwii

    • Psycho Milt 12.1
      1 December 2016 at 10:07 am

      Kind of ironic that you’d post something about left-wingers getting sucked in to supporting right-wing authoritarian nationalist dictators…

      • Morrissey 12.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 12:10 pm

        Chomsky is talking about the shamelessness, the depravity and the boundless cynicism of the American and British political establishments, not about labels.

        This has nothing to do with “left” and “right”—not that you even understand what you mean when you fling those labels about. You really do not have a clue.

        • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 3:49 pm

          Chomsky is talking about the shamelessness, the depravity and the boundless cynicism of the American and British political establishments, not about labels.

          Well, yes. We can take that as read because that’s what he always talks about. I guess we can count our blessings that their shamelessness, depravity and boundless cynicism haven’t infected the political establishments of other countries… oh, wait…

          • Morrissey 12.1.1.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 8:11 pm

            I get the impression you don’t actually know much about Chomsky at all.

            • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1.1.1
              1 December 2016 at 9:17 pm

              Well, apart from his theory of transformational syntax being a big part of my undergraduate major in Linguistics back in the 80s, the various books of his I’ve read and the time I went to see him speak, you’re right, I know fuck-all about him. Those things don’t really constitute getting to know a person. I suspect you imagine you know plenty about him, on the other hand, with the emphasis being on the word “imagine.”

  13. Andre 13
    1 December 2016 at 9:58 am

    The story of a super-rich divorce takes a deep dive into the cess-pool of foreign trusts, international tax arrangements…

    http://www.msn.com/en-nz/money/markets/how-to-hide-dollar400-million/ar-AAkXWnR?li=BBqddE1&ocid=mailsignout

    It’s a long read, but worth it to get a picture of what the super-rich do when just lowering taxes at home isn’t enough for them. Screwing (soon to be ex-) partners seems to be just an added benefit.

  14. Robert Guyton 14
    1 December 2016 at 10:06 am

    The rats are cocking a snook!
    Responding to the Government’s audacious challenge to the rat community’s long-term well being, rats around the country are rising up, literally in some towns, and making themselves seen and heard in defiance, it seems, of the threats from the Beehive. Rats, begging for food from picnickers in our parks, multiplying where they should be succumbing to the attentions of the poisoners, flowing from the rivers in waves of whisker and bald tail – the revenge of the rats, Ben, has just begun;
    here;
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/85947945/Brazen-rats-ruin-riverside-picnics
    here;
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/87004923/rats-run-amok-in-historic-seaside-suburb-on-aucklands-north-shore
    and here;
    http://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/81133196/DOC-look-at-reshuffling-1080-drops-as-rats-not-behaving-as-predicted

  15. Rosemary McDonald 15
    1 December 2016 at 10:12 am

    Oh my goodness! ANOTHER Public Servant doing their job.

    Golly gosh, this could become a trend….an actual thing…

    Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier fronts up to the Education Select Committee and tells them…this legislation has the potential to allow schools to exclude children with disabilities (especially autism) from schools….by forcing them into one of the brandspanking new On Line Schools.

    Interview here….http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201826003/online-schools-could-become-dumping-ground-ombudsman

    and oooh look! Its on Natrad….more publicly paid people doing their job!

    I am starting to feel a tiny little bit of optimism for the future. These are high profile government appointees speaking out on some of the most important issue facing New Zealand’s most vulnerable.

    THIS…is how things will change.

  16. NotMe 16
    1 December 2016 at 10:18 am

    Latest Roy Morgan has Labour’s support down at 23%. Lowest in 2 years, National at 49.5% matching the lastest CB poll.

    I wonder what Labour’s UMR polling is showing? Will Andy release the numbers?

    • James 16.1
      1 December 2016 at 10:21 am

      I doubt it. I don’t think little has commented on this one or the CB one.

    • Puckish Rogue 16.2
      1 December 2016 at 10:42 am

      Its been proven conclusively that the public polls are wrong and Labours private polls are correct 🙂

      True fact

      • David C 16.2.1
        1 December 2016 at 10:46 am

        Yip David Little has an internal poll showing Labour to be at least 40%.

        He will release that poll any moment now…

    • Pat 16.3
      1 December 2016 at 10:54 am

      It could be argued this result assumes an unrealistic 92.5% turnout for the hypothetical election and therefore is not representative.

      • Nessalt 16.3.1
        1 December 2016 at 1:20 pm

        Lower turnouts favour the national party. are you saying 23% might be an overstatement of labours support?

        • Pat 16.3.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 1:31 pm

          lol….no Im saying that if polls are a true (within MoE) representation of voter intention then it would be reasonable to expect a non response that equates with real life participation……this poll states a non selection rate of 6.5% (unchanged) whereas the last election had a non selection rate of 23%…..obviously their sample is not representative.

  17. Robert Guyton 17
    1 December 2016 at 10:26 am

    “sell themselves” – perfect expression, framu. Makes you think though, about the buyers and their motivations.
    edit – idjit – wrong button

  18. greywarshark 18
    1 December 2016 at 10:27 am

    Interesting that the shipping interests have taken the opportunity of the debacle of essential roads rendered impassable also train transport, to point out the bleeding obvious that sea transport is the new black. It may be the time to breach the wall of determined ignorance that the National government puts up to important faults in their choice of governance of the country which includes emphasis on roads which in a stretched out country, is very expensive and inefficient. Also they made the point about how sea transport would reduce our carbon footprint.

    The New Zealand Shipping Federation says the government needs to take the resilience of ports seriously as the Kaikoura earthquake has shown the vulnerability of roading – and consider what their role is when auditing them. Annabel Young is the Executive Director of the NZ Shipping Federation. Canterbury University Professor of Geological Sciences Tim Davies, says improving and increasing the transport network through coastal shipping is essential.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201826002

  19. joe90 19
    1 December 2016 at 10:48 am

    Spot the difference.

    Back to Cincinnati, Ohio this Thursday (12/1/16) at 7pm for #PEOTUS @realDonaldTrump's #ThankYouTour2016! Join us!https://t.co/HjqmANyN1Z pic.twitter.com/ZIxkRHLmsA— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) November 29, 2016

  20. greywarshark 20
    1 December 2016 at 11:00 am

    lprent
    Is it possible to again be able to search or does it take too much capacity?

    • lprent 20.1
      1 December 2016 at 11:50 am

      The capacity issue is all my side. I simply haven’t had time to finish the code.

      Looking forward to xmas.

      • greywarshark 20.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 12:18 pm

        Well I will take the opportunity to wish you (early) a Merry Christmas and good relaxing times with Lyn and some nice cool beers and time to do what you fancy for once.

        • lprent 20.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 12:52 pm

          🙂 relaxing. I wish.
          Between now and the 4th on Jan when I head back to work to carry on the current project, I will be fitting in
          1. One more day on the current project
          2. Two weeks work in Italy.
          3. 4 days work on the current project (and jetlag).
          4. Family xmas in Auckland
          5. Family Birthday in ChCh
          6. Family New Years in Auckland.
          7. Maybe a couple of days of downtime….

          But I will have sometime in the evenings after I get to Italy…

          And I suspect a good holiday when it starts cooling down again in March/April

          • greywarshark 20.1.1.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 5:44 pm

            Well all I can say is – that it doesn’t sound boring. And two weeks work in Italy sounds exotic but I fear that it might be like the period my son spent in Paris. In a narrow concrete room lined with computers and people facing the walls, opening out onto a grey concrete corridor – or that’s the picture in my mind. Not an ooh la la in sight. So hope you have time for a chianti – ciao and kia kaha.

  21. Puckish Rogue 21
    1 December 2016 at 11:18 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/87030493/hamilton-city-councillor-siggi-henry-accuses-health-officials-of-fluoride-spin-brainwashing

    “Because they [scientists] think they are so smarty-pants, they think they can say whatever they like and we should just take it.”

    “The more educated you are in a field, the narrower your thinking becomes. I’m not hot on these academics…sitting on comfy chairs up on their hill. I’ve studied this subject for over 20 years, I know a little bit more than they do.”

    Stick to your guns Siggi!

  22. Observer Tokoroa 22
    1 December 2016 at 11:44 am

    .
    .The wheel of Fortune

    . It seems that when there is insecurity within the populace people flock to Conservative Politicans. Looking tor the blanket. And the Rhetoric.

    Trump in USA. Cameron in the UK. Both deep Conservatives

    The wheel spins and it turns out that the Conservatives know only one thing – and that is how to look after their own income and glamour. They thank the voters who voted them into power by putting Austerity packages on the PAYE middle class and on the very poor.

    While the Politicians blatantly fiddle with their Tax Avoidance schemes.

    Conservatives always have the best rhetoric – full of empty promise. They also have ostentatious wealth. Glamour Glamour Glamour.

    So in time, but always too late, the Voters disown the Conservative hoax and walk to the center left, because they know that Labour / Greens / and like minded, care for the Community.

    All I can say is :
    . With all the support that all the Main Stream Media gives to National Party hacks; with all the money Bill English borrows; with all the efforts of the wandering trolls who suck up to John Key …

    With all that, why is New Zealand in a death spiral? Why will the present young generation from cradle to grave receive nothing but excessive burden from Mr Key?

    Because Mr Key does exactly what the greed of Corporations and Media want. He is an actor; a hoax; a shallow wealthy being building up Casinos. As does Trump.

    He and his mates simply do not care. They care not about our polluted water; not about our work or pay; not about our Education; not about our Health provision; not about our lack of infrastructure; not about our future.

    New Zealand Conservatives have a lot to think over.

    .

    • Puckish Rogue 22.1
      1 December 2016 at 11:48 am

      If the MSM support National so much why isn’t the latest poll being trumpeted all over Stuff, the nzherald, the radio or TV?

  23. Morrissey 23
    1 December 2016 at 12:02 pm

    The normally excellent Lynn Freeman failed to do her job this morning.
    RNZ National, Thursday 1 December 2016, 11:10 a.m.

    I’m sure that many regular listeners will agree with me that Lynn Freeman is superior to the regular Nine to Noon host Kathryn Ryan. She’s more thoughtful, better and more widely read, and is prepared to challenge and refute the dodgy statements of people like Matthew Hooton. [1] But she’s not perfect: this morning she allowed “new technology expert” Andy Linton to repeat a bizarre and unfounded trope from a thoroughly discredited and unsuccessful election campaign. [2]

    Disappointed, I sent her the following email…..

    Andy Linton’s dismissal of Julian Assange

    Dear Lynn,

    I was disturbed to hear your technology correspondent Andy Linton recycling the Clinton campaign’s cynical propaganda against the dissident journalist Julian Assange. To compound his credulity, Andy Linton snickered when he suggested that “Assange’s agenda is to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy.”

    I never fail to be appalled when I hear safe and complacent people deriving humour from the suffering of those who dare to tell the truth. Surely Andy Linton should be supporting Julian Assange, not laughing at his plight.

    Yours sincerely,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point

    [1] https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14072015/#comment-1043304
    [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/07/glenn_greenwald_on_donald_trump_the_dnc_hack_and_a_new_mccarthyism.html

  24. Observer Tokoroa 24
    1 December 2016 at 12:13 pm

    .
    . Hello Puckish

    . I think that very few people have confidence in Polls nowadays. Because they rely on an ever reducing number of people who have landlines.

    Also, the wide variety of polling results (consider USA recently) is disconcerting. Pollsters did not even correctly select who is the President to be.

    But if you believe them – well fair enough.

    .

    • mlpc 24.1
      1 December 2016 at 1:14 pm

      “Because they rely on an ever reducing number of people who have landlines.”

      No they don’t. Sounds like you are clutching at at straws, hoping the polls are really concealing the fact that David Little is fabulously popular.

      Roy Morgan uses both landlines and mobiles.

      • NotMe 24.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 1:29 pm

        If the recent CB or RM polls were favorable to Labour, it would have been headline news here. A little bit of discussion (denial) on the CB, but the disastrous – yes, 23% is a disaster- RM poll has passed through with merely a mention.

        • mlpc 24.1.1.1
          1 December 2016 at 1:35 pm

          Some people are talking about it, but they seem to think the solution is for Labour to follow Corbynite UK Labour and lurch leftwards.
          But if the UK polls are anything to go by, Corbyn is leading his party to a rout at the next General Election.

          • KJT 24.1.1.1.1
            1 December 2016 at 8:21 pm

            Nothing to do with the blatent disloyalty and undermining by the UK equivalent of the ABC’s of course.

      • Observer Tokoroa 24.1.2
        1 December 2016 at 1:35 pm

        .
        .Hi mlpc

        . Anyone who clutches at straws is doing a lot more than nice people like you.

        . Where did you get David from? Confused eh?

        . can you put me onto a man or lady who can explain Morgan’s wide of the mark Polls ?

        Thanks

        .

        • mlpc 24.1.2.1
          1 December 2016 at 2:29 pm

          Yeah, yeah, I know his name is Andrew, but didn’t the Mayor of Kaikoura refer to him as David? It’s a mark of how poorly Little projects himself. You could argue that personalities shouldn’t matter, but the fact is that they do.

          And you can choose to ignore Roy Morgan if you want, but the other polls don’t make things look much better for Labour.

  25. james 25
    1 December 2016 at 1:57 pm

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/09/how_the_pollsters_did-2.html

    Seems both the Colmar and the Roy Morgan under estimate the National vote – So I do no get where you are saying Morgans being wide of the mark – unless you think National is higher.

    BTW OT – All the full stops?? – is your keyboard broken?

    • lprent 25.1
      1 December 2016 at 2:36 pm

      That Farrar chooses to test the efficacy of polls by comparing to the polls just before an election to the election result, and then somehow implying that they were just as effective a year earlier long before many people voting would have made up their mind – well that tells me:-

      Either David Farrar is statistically a moron who doesn’t understand the maths of sample sizes and confidence
      Or David Farrar is PR mouthpiece saying whatever is advantageous for his business
      Or both.

      That you choose to present this as something worth discussing, just makes you look ignorant and/or stupid.

  26. Oberver Tokoroa 26
    1 December 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Hi mlpc

    . Why do you support so firmly National’s scandalous treatment of the ordinary person within New Zealand.

    You know perfectly well that wages are too low for even doctors to purchase a house. And rents are too high for many people to afford anything but a hovel. Or even a shed.

    You ram your wicked philosophy into the ordinary Kiwi by giving the Landords huge subsidies – taken from the Paye Tax Payers, minimum Wage Earners; Pensioners and Beneficiaries – while you use tax avoidance to live the life of Reilly.

    The landlords of course get all manner of tax exemptions on top of their excessive exploitation.

    You are great people MLPC. You truly are. I wonder why you disgust me to the core..

    • mlpc 26.1
      1 December 2016 at 4:34 pm

      Your problem, OT, is that you obviously think the ordinary person is stupid, and that you know better than they do what is good for them.

      You can’t understand why Labour is deeply unpopular, can you?

      I can tell you. It is because the party has completely lost a connection with the ordinary person. It has a completely useless leadership. And it is so disparate that it has climbed into bed with another party whose policies are anathema to the interests of the ordinary working person.

      I don’t care if I disgust you to the core. I care more about the ordinary working person than you do.

      • mlpc 26.1.1
        1 December 2016 at 4:46 pm

        sorry, that should be desperate (i.e. “feeling or showing a hopeless sense that a situation is so bad as to be impossible to deal with”)

  27. AsleepWhileWalking 27
    1 December 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Joe Biggs is an Infowars reporter. This Pizzagate thing first sounded bizzare. Over the period of the last few weeks the information coming out is only reinforcing the idea that there is something very, very sinister to look into. At this point I’m actually trying to prove my normalicy bias correct, rather than the #Pizzagate. So far my attempts keep failing : (

    Yesterday SGT Report had a video covering the disproportionate amount of childrening missing in Virginia. Now this:

  28. Oberver Tokoroa 28
    1 December 2016 at 6:32 pm

    Hi mlpc.

    Thankyou for your diagnosis of what you call my problem. Your certainty taints and swamps any discussion.

    You don’t discuss. You just proclaim. – as if you were Almighty. Please turn your megaphone down. Right down to an angry endless Shout.

    Your support for the ordinary man comes as a bit of a surprise mlpc. But I accept that you do everything better than me – and better than anyone anywhere.