Open mike 02/02/2012

89 comments on “Open mike 02/02/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   2 February 2012 at 6:41 am

   This news is a bit of a shocker for the Government and I bet a Treasury staffer is having their nether regions roasted right now.

   A draft of the discussion paper concerning the removal of the effect of the treaty clause in the SOE Act from the partially privatised companies was inadvertently put on Treasury’s website yesterday for a short while.

   The Herald downloaded a copy.  It reports the changes include removal of the following passages:

   * “The Government … on balance, tends to favour no Treaty clause.”* “On balance, the Government tends to the view that continued application of section 9, or … a new Treaty clause … is not appropriate when its policy intent is for the companies to be treated like other private sector companies.”* “Ministers’ powers … will not be as great as the powers they have under the SOE Act … This is part of the intent of the policy – to move the companies into a legislative and governance framework that will create a greater commercial focus to their operations.”* “In respect of institutional investors, section 9 will not be well understood … and have a negative effect on investment ..” 

   Obviously the Government did not want to scare the MP.  The reference to Ministers’ powers not being as great as under the SOE Act belies the line that some have been running that a shareholding of 51% provides just as much power as a shareholding of 100%.  It does not and the draft document recognises this. 

   The problem for the Government is that once it decides to remove the effect of section 9, which it will, it will then be accused of having made its mind up and not consulting in good faith.

   One question that the MSM should ask is that the issue has obviously been recognised for a while.  When was it first identified?  If this happened before the election why was the Government’s intentions kept silent?
   • mickysavage 1.1

     2 February 2012 at 7:02 am

     Oops link is wrong.  The article is here.
     • Colonial Viper 1.1.1

       2 February 2012 at 8:47 am

       I can’t believe that the Government would not be truthful to us about elements of asset sales including never intending to observe the Treaty, and always intending to limit the power of Ministers despite a theoretical 51% “controlling” Crown stake National continuously emphasize.

       Its like National don’t give a shit about our strategic assets apart from how much cash they can be flogged off for. 🙄

       and I bet a Treasury staffer is having their nether regions roasted right now.

       Give the staffer a frakking medal I say. And the NZ Herald.
       • queenstfarmer 1.1.1.1

         2 February 2012 at 9:23 am

         Its like National don’t give a shit about our strategic assets apart from how much cash they can be flogged off for

         Were that the case, they would not be selling only a minority stake.
         • thatguynz 1.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 9:38 am

           Incorrect. You don’t boil a frog by dropping it into boiling water QSF…
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 9:40 am

             Oh very nice 🙂
           • queenstfarmer 1.1.1.1.1.2

             2 February 2012 at 9:52 am

             Why not? That would actually work pretty well (just not for the frog).

             [ edit: yes I know the metaphor, but it is scientifically incorrect:
             http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#Scientific_background ]
             • thatguynz …

               2 February 2012 at 10:17 am

               Because JK knows perfectly well that National would not have been re-elected if he’d campaigned on a full asset sales policy. This is a step change to the end goal.
       • Ed 1.1.1.2

         2 February 2012 at 10:05 am

         We have seen directors of a finance company on trial recently for misleading in a prospectus. Currently the SOE’s have the following requirement :
         1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—
         (a) as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown; and
         (b) a good employer; and
         (c) an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.”

         Provision (a) may be accepted as a given whether it is retained or not, but any investor should be aware that government appointed directors (representing a majority), will adhere to (b) and (c) whether they are enshrined in company requirements or not.

         By removing these requirements however, National may be seen subsequently as having misled minority shareholders. The sort of problem that may occur for example would be if a government determined to manage the company to put a priority on long term continuity of supply, for example by investment in new technology, rather than exploiting a short term opportunity for price increases and increased dividends.

         John Key may be happy for investors to think that they can work to exploit the market (and employees) for short term gain, but he cannot bind future governments.
     • Gosman 1.1.2

       2 February 2012 at 8:48 am

       What’s the problem here? There were originally not going to put any Treaty clause in but when they realised that might be a problem they added a couple of options around this. Seems responsive to me. You do like Governments to be responsive don’t you mickeysavage?
       • muzza 1.1.2.1

         2 February 2012 at 8:52 am

         Responsive, as in “9 months response to the crafer farms decision”

         That kind of manipulative responsiveness eh Gosman!
         • Gosman 1.1.2.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 8:55 am

           What’s this got to do with the issue over the Section 9 clause?
           • muzza 1.1.2.1.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 9:10 am

             Do you really need “manipulative response” explained G!
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.2.2

         2 February 2012 at 8:57 am

         here were originally not going to put any Treaty clause in but when they realised that might be a PR problem they added a couple of options around this. Once the cat is out of the bag they seem responsive to me.

         FIFY

         Basically National don’t understand the importance of the Treaty and the Iwi corporates who exist because of those Treaty settlements understand that now, too.
   • yeshe 1.2

     2 February 2012 at 8:46 am

     The information lower down in the same article re limiting of powers of relevant ministers over the new partially owned assets is frightening … let Parliament begin.
     • Colonial Viper 1.2.1

       2 February 2012 at 8:52 am

       Yep I suggested here that this is one way the NATs could do it:

       http://thestandard.org.nz/summer-service-open-mike-05012012/#comment-422943

       Fill the Board of Directors of the power generation venture with passive Government directors, effectively handing control to the remaining 49% private sector directors on the board.
   • ad 1.3

     2 February 2012 at 8:48 am

     It’s strange that an otherwise obsdcure draft clause would add the extra drop of petrol to the asset ownership bonfire this government has set itself around the Beehive.

     As the complaint about this Treaty clease peaks around Waitangi Day and in the weeks after in Parliament, the Government will find itself against a particularly Maori version of nationalism against asset sales, perhaps in a manner that we have not seen since Tanui took the government to the Court of Appeal against Coalcorp for similar reasons some years ago.

     It was excellent to hear Winston Peters on National Radio this morning railing against the American film-maker James Cameron buying land. At least, unlike the Labour party, he is being consequential in his criticisms of foreign ownership. If only the Labour Party had even a single spokesperson with similar penetrating clarity.

     Oddly the Greens have been quite ineffective in this space to date. And yet as they have shown in the last decade with GE and mining in national parks, they have pushed civic action on the ground really well.

     Between Maori, the Greens, and Labour, this asset ownership debate could be marshalled into the next great Foreshore and Seabed march to Parliament.

     The simple question for the next three months of debate leading up to Budget 2012 is whether the “Xenophobia” argument wins over the “Own Our Future” argument.

     At the moment “Own Our Future”, but from a Maori perspective, is winning. The government is being spectacularly inept and it will take an almighty effort of political management to get this back on track.

     Remember this Government has already effectively “booked” the 50% sale of all the big four plus Air New Zealand, and without these sales proceding apace the Government’s debt position is many billions of dollars worse than it already is.

     The trick in the next year will be to use every legal means to delay every sale, to make it so politically toxic to foreign buyers that taking a minority stake is not worth it. In turn, without being able to book those proceeds, the Gvoernment will look like it had no other means to manage the finances, other than a financial prescription that other political parties had laid out prior to the election (such as increasing the top tax rate back to where it was).

     If anyone can remember this far back, the turning back of the Swiss aluminium firm at Aramoana was a massive blow to the Muldoon government – people power really can work even in the face of every organised government instrument and all scales of itnernational capital.

     This little Treaty clause shows that there really are incendiary moments to stop this entire sale process, sometimes surprising ones.

     This asset sales process can be stopped, not just railed against.
     • Carol 1.3.1

       2 February 2012 at 9:02 am

       I think the James Cameron purchase of land is different from the Crafar farms sale. Cameron intends to be resident, and presumably will pay taxes and rates here. It’s a small farm, which will hopefully keep any profits in NZ, unlike the Crafar farms.

       However, I’m not keen on wealthy overseas buyers pushing up NZ land prices because they are willing to pay more.

       I am more concerned about the continuation of the Hollywoodisation of the NZ film industry, in which Peter Jackson has played a major part, and Cameron looks like extending.
       • Gosman 1.3.1.1

         2 February 2012 at 11:54 am

         “However, I’m not keen on wealthy overseas buyers pushing up NZ land prices because they are willing to pay more.”

         This concern is understandable if you are looking to buy a property. It is less understandable if you are looking to sell. Getting a higher price for your property as a seller is always beneficial.
         • DJL 1.3.1.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 7:21 pm

           Great if your an older farmer thinking of retirement…Not so great if your a young one working hard for a deposit.
     • yeshe 1.3.2

       2 February 2012 at 9:07 am

       Russell Norman on TV3 a couple of days ago spoke of a citizens’ referendum emerging in about two weeks for our delight and support against asset sales … anyone have any further details ? Thank you for the bonfire imagery .. let it blaze !
       • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.3.2.1

         2 February 2012 at 9:13 am

         and presumably will pay taxes and rates here

         Explain how the Chinese are going to be magically exempt from paying rates and GST and income tax.

         And I just love the idea that a land sale to James Cameron should be blocked in an effort to stop the “Holywoodisation of the NZ film industry”.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.3.2.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 12:08 pm

           Explain how the Chinese are going to be magically exempt from paying rates and GST and income tax.

           Vertical integration – The Chinese will be running the farms at a loss. Rates will still be paid but they’ll be minor compared to how much we’ll be losing.
           • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1.3.2.1.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 1:11 pm

             So they’ll be getting around the transfer pricing regime? Nice trick.
     • yeshe 1.3.3

       2 February 2012 at 9:38 am

       Yes, I do remember Muldoon and Aramoana. And with joy I also remember it took only one brilliant woman to cross the floor and bring him down on the nuclear issue … who might be the Marilyn Waring of this paltry government ? Auckland Central might be promising ? ( And refer here for those to young to know …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Waring )
       • muzza 1.3.3.1

         2 February 2012 at 11:15 am

         If I read you right, you are suggesting Nikki Kaye, might have the potential to do “a Marilyn Waring” – I would advise against holding your breath!

         Any email response had by NK, is 100% a hack job cut and paste from the party propaganda booklet! Not really an indication that she might cross the floor at any point in time…..happy to be proved wrong!
         • Gosman 1.3.3.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 11:55 am

           Why would Nikki Kaye do this when she has not indicated any strong objection to partial sale of State assets previously?
           • muzza 1.3.3.1.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 5:41 pm

             People can and sometimes do grow a conscience …Not JK though

             http://greystar.co.nz/node/458
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 February 2012 at 6:20 pm

               Yep. The ‘capitalism at everyone else’s cost’ chip they put in usually precludes that happening.
         • yeshe 1.3.3.1.2

           2 February 2012 at 2:46 pm

           Muzza .. you’re probably right, simply offering my thoughts .. but Marilyn also might have seemed an unlikely ‘floor-crosser’ so early on in a new parliament … not holding my breath but I do believe someone is going to bring it all down … it’s wobbly like an Edmonds jelly used to be !
       • Lanthanide 1.3.3.2

         2 February 2012 at 2:31 pm

         The weakest link on asset sales is Peter Dunne. He’s already said he doesn’t like asset sales in principle.
         • yeshe 1.3.3.2.1

           2 February 2012 at 2:40 pm

           Thx Lanthanide et al … so then, instead of ‘cherchez la femme’, it should be ‘cherchez le coif ‘ ??
       • millsy 1.3.3.3

         2 February 2012 at 7:21 pm

         Still reckon it was strange for an openly lesbian feminist woman to win a hardcore blue National electorate in the 1970’s…

         Must have been a weird place to be, 1970’s NZ. Contradictions a go-go
         • Vicky32 1.3.3.3.1

           3 February 2012 at 5:49 pm

           Still reckon it was strange for an openly lesbian feminist woman to win a hardcore blue National electorate in the 1970′s…

           Except that she wasn’t open about it! Her lesbianism was still just a rumour until after she’d left Parliament. She went for a policy of deliberate concealment, she said later, so that she would get into Parliament.
     • MrSmith 1.3.4

       2 February 2012 at 9:46 am

       You have to wonder who the winner will be from driving down the value of these assets?, which is inevitable now.
        
       If the government don’t get the price they have already banked for these assets (which was never realist) they’ll now be able to blame the Maori.
        
       So cheap shares for there mates and a scapegoat allowing them to sell off more assets or and make more cuts to the public services, seems to me the way this may play out.
       • Colonial Viper 1.3.4.1

         3 February 2012 at 1:05 am

         So cheap shares for there mates

         Oh yeah that includes cheap shares for the Maori Party’s mates too…kinda neat coincidence eh.
2. T 2

   2 February 2012 at 7:02 am

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

   Do we have any similar info graphics for a NZ situation?

   Some of the comments on that page are very critical of that family’s spending – Sky Movies, weekend pints, mobile phones cigarettes. Reminded me of this Hand Mirror post: http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/luxuries-necessities-and-right-to-make.html
3. Pete George 3

   2 February 2012 at 7:10 am

   Snappy snooping in Shearer’s office results in resignation.

   Political reporter to resign over sneaky snaps

   A reporter from the website Scoop will resign from Parliament’s press gallery after being caught photographing documents in Labour leader David Shearer’s office.

   Lyndon Hood was among a number of journalists waiting in the office for an interview with Mr Shearer yesterday afternoon, and was spotted taking photos of documents on the leader’s desk by a Labour Party press secretary.

   It’s tough when a momentary indiscretion can have major repercussions but the political media needs to be held accountable too, they are as much a part of our political process as the MPs, albeit unelected.
   • tsmithfield 3.1

     2 February 2012 at 8:11 am

     Surely that photo should be able to be given to MSM. We should be able to know what was in the document that was photographed. Afterall, the reporters were invited to Shearers office, so its not like he sneaked in to take the photograph or anything. So, in this context Shearer’s office was probably a public place. Shearer shouldn’t have left the documents lying around if he wanted the contents kept secure. The public have a right to know what was in the documents that were photographed. And if Shearer has nothing to hide, he should welcome the contents being disclosed.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       2 February 2012 at 8:28 am

       Repeating Cameron ts?
        
       An office is clearly not a public place.  The fact the reporters were invited in clearly indicates that.
        
       Interesting that you should try and argue the clearly unarguable.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         2 February 2012 at 8:40 am

         Don’t be so hard on tsmithfield, he’s the kind of guy who invites mates over for dinner, and has no problem if they happen take phtotos of his wife’s knicker drawers while waiting for dessert to be served.
         • tsmithfield 3.1.1.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 8:54 am

           At least my wife’s knickers aren’t left lying on the dining table on open display when people come for dinner!
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 9:08 am

             And if your wife’s knickers were there, you’d be quite happy with your mates taking photos and light sniffs?
             • tsmithfield …

               2 February 2012 at 9:13 am

               “And if your wife’s knickers were there, you’d be quite happy with your mates taking photos and light sniffs?”

               I wouldn’t be happy. But I couldn’t really complain about it either.
               • mickysavage …

                 2 February 2012 at 10:21 am

                 TS you have crossed over into the realms of fantasy there.
                 • tsmithfield …

                   2 February 2012 at 10:36 am

                   If I knew I had friends who were into sniffing womens underwear, and I still left the underwear out, they would probably assume I had left it out as a little treat for them. 🙂
             • higherstandard …

               2 February 2012 at 9:13 am

               Are you angling for an invite to dinner ?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 February 2012 at 9:38 am

                 😛

                 So going full circle, are we now saying that we expect the Labour Leader, the PM, the Deputy PM etc to first clear their desks, password protect their laptop and lock their desk drawers and brief case every time they have journalists in their office?
                 • tsmithfield …

                   2 February 2012 at 9:58 am

                   “So going full circle, are we now saying that we expect the Labour Leader, the PM, the Deputy PM etc to first clear their desks, password protect their laptop and lock their desk drawers and brief case every time they have journalists in their office?”

                   Probably wouldn’t be a bad idea.

                   What say there was something really juicy on the desk that passed the public interest test? Surely that would be fair game whether its a private place or not?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 February 2012 at 2:24 pm

                     What you said indicates that journalists are a security risk and should be kept away from areas where sensitive information might be present.
       • tsmithfield 3.1.1.2

         2 February 2012 at 9:08 am

         “An office is clearly not a public place…”

         So, would you accept that if it is found that Key’s cup-of-tea locale was also a private setting, then Ambrose has broken the law?
         • mickysavage 3.1.1.2.1

           2 February 2012 at 10:22 am

           If Key owned or operated the cafe and asked everyone to go then yes.

           Besides it appears the photography here was deliberate whereas in the teacup case the cameraman said the recording was accidental. 
           • tsmithfield 3.1.1.2.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 10:43 am

             “If Key owned or operated the cafe and asked everyone to go then yes.”

             Well, it hasn’t been determined if it is a private setting or not yet. So, I take it from your answer that if it is so determined by the courts then you would agree that Ambrose has broken the law.

             “…whereas in the teacup case the cameraman said the recording was accidental.”

             And the simple and gullible would probably believe him.
         • Lanthanide 3.1.1.2.2

           2 February 2012 at 2:46 pm

           ts, this is really quite simple.

           Could someone “reasonably expect” documents on their desk in their office to be “private”. The answer to that, is yes.

           Could Key and Banks “reasonably expect” a conversation held in full view of the media, that they invited, in a public space, where someone was standing not more than 1m behind Key with NO glass between him and key, was “private”? The answer to that, is no.

           This is doubly confirmed by the fact that Key and Banks deliberately don’t use Brash’s name but instead refer to him as “that odd fellow” – because they knew they could be overheard.
           • Pete George 3.1.1.2.2.1

             2 February 2012 at 3:03 pm

             deliberately don’t use Brash’s name but instead refer to him as “that odd fellow”

             Yes, apparently that was a secret code for Brash that no one was supposed to be able to decipher.
       • Bored 3.1.1.3

         2 February 2012 at 10:08 am

         Mickey, in principle you are correct and TS is basically shoveling shit uphill (I would expect nothing less from a cyclopean idiot).

         I often have employees etc in my room, there is never anything left out or on screen….Shearer has got to learn you don’t trust even the most innocent to see what should not be seen, even by accident. And journos are no innocents. Good thing is he took action…he should however never have needed to.

         This whole thing reminds me of the expenses fiasco last year: the Party needs to get its collective administrative / behavoiral **** together.
         • tsmithfield 3.1.1.3.1

           2 February 2012 at 10:13 am

           So, if you had one of your competitors in your office, and you left your full marketing plan up on a white-board in plain view of all?
           • Bored 3.1.1.3.1.1

             2 February 2012 at 2:21 pm

             Read it again, I would not do that full fekkin stop. Only cyclopean cretins would even contemplate that, and to paraphrase that new right zeitgeist soaked TV show “TS, you are the weakest link”.
4. Gosman 4

   2 February 2012 at 8:49 am

   Any hysterical posts in the pipeline about the evil foreigner James Cameron buying up our farmland?
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     2 February 2012 at 12:23 pm

     You mean the evil foreigner that’s going to become a NZ citizen or resident? Well, I would have preferred it if he’d become a NZ citizen first but our laws don’t work that way ATM.
5. Carol 5

   2 February 2012 at 8:53 am

   Since yesterdy afternoon, I’ve been having trouble with the recent comments links in the box to the right of the screen.

   I click on one of the latest comment links, get taken to the post thread but not to the comment, and the individual comment (from the designated commenter), is nowhere to be seen, and the link I clicked on has disappeared from the box on the right. Using firefox.
   • rosy 5.1

     2 February 2012 at 9:14 am

     +1. Using Chrome
   • ianmac 5.2

     2 February 2012 at 9:57 am

     Having similar problems. Using Firefox on Apple. Firefox has been doing some erratic stuff. Might switch to Safari.
     • Carol 5.2.1

       2 February 2012 at 10:21 am

       I have now discovered that, once I click the link and get taken to the lead post for the thread, if I refresh, I then get taken to the specific recent comment.
       • lprent 5.2.1.1

         2 February 2012 at 4:08 pm

         Odd. Hang out for the weekend. It is probably related (somehow) to the hack I used to get past the outage yesterday. I’ll be fixing that up on the weekend.

         While I am at it, I want to have another look at that box on the right. It uses JQuery to load it late in the process. I think that the intent was to make it dynamic (ie so new comment show soon after they are made) and I might put that in.

         Be nice to add some filters if I can figure out a good screen process for it.

         I also want to look at the screen real estate
         • Carol 5.2.1.1.1

           2 February 2012 at 4:22 pm

           Thanks. I can work with this by refreshing after clicking. The site is much improved from the outages yesterday.
6. Jackal 6

   2 February 2012 at 9:04 am

   How many people attended?

   There was a protest in Christchurch yesterday, with people voicing their concerns about the pay rise of council CEO Tony Marryatt. The mainstream media plucked their crowd estimates out of thin air… over-exaggerating by a whopping 300%.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     2 February 2012 at 9:33 am

     If it were just 750 people there it wouldn’t take long to count each person. 12-15 minutes tops.

     However, some of the very dense grids have 35-40 heads present. Some of the lighter grids only 10-15. With say 45 decently populated grids and an average count of 26 peeps each.

     IMO it looks like a crowd of 1100-1200.
     • Jackal 6.1.1

       2 February 2012 at 12:09 pm

       I used the higher definition photo as well and got to an average 35 in the denser grids, of which there are seven. The point is that the MSM saying there were 3000 to 4000 people attending is completely wrong!
   • ianmac 6.2

     2 February 2012 at 10:01 am

     I used a photo published on the Press I think. Enlarged it and sampled and easily reached 2,000 +
     • Carol 6.2.1

       2 February 2012 at 10:16 am

       Stuff says 4,000

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6345250/Angry-Christchurch-residents-to-protest-council
       • ianmac 6.2.1.1

         2 February 2012 at 10:45 am

         It just occurred to me that there is a correlation between the Occupy Movement and the Christchurch Protest. Many feel helpless in the face of the power of “The System” but here there was a chance for a specific focus of their discontent, as opposed to the vague discontent lacking defined targets.
7. randal 7

   2 February 2012 at 10:27 am

   when is Radio New Zealand going to fire brian krump.
   there is soemthing terminally tacky about that man and when I hear him say you are going into the draw to win then I want to barf my tea all over the wireless.
8. travellerev 8

   2 February 2012 at 11:16 am

   Has banker bashing gone to far? You be the judge!
9. Jackal 9

   2 February 2012 at 12:11 pm

   Wetlands day nothing to celebrate

   Today marks the 41 anniversary of the Ramsar Convention, which is designed to raise public awareness and safeguard what wetlands remain. It’s also meant to protect the environmental, economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value of wetlands…
   • Pete George 9.1

     2 February 2012 at 12:28 pm

     This may or may not be coincidental:

     Lower Taieri wetland to be restored

     The Otago Fish and Game Council has unveiled plans to restore a large drained wetland off the lower Taieri River.

     Operations manager Ian Hadland said today was World Wetlands Day and Fish and Game was taking the opportunity to announce plans to reflood the 80ha Takitakitoa Wetland near Henley, which is now a low-lying, rush-covered valley floor.

     Mr Hadland said the Taieri project was an example of the sort of work Fish and Game was doing around New Zealand to create or restore wetlands, which have been fast disappearing with urban growth and intensified land use.

     While it was involved in some large wetland projects, such as this one, Fish and Game also provided free help to farmers and landowners who wanted to create or enhance wetlands on their property.

     This isn’t far from another redeveloped wetland area:
     http://milton-district.co.nz/sinclair-wetlands/
10. Pete 10

    2 February 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Treasury has gone full retard.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      2 February 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Yeah, noticed that. Nothing but pure ideology in there – the ideology that has just been thoroughly shown as pure BS. It seems that Treasury is out to make us worse off.
      • Galeandra 10.1.1

        2 February 2012 at 12:53 pm

        Nope,not mad just panicked about the global road crash further down the highway, and disguising budgetary austerity as ‘policy for growth’. Where are our borrowing billions to come from?
      • Jum 10.1.2

        2 February 2012 at 1:48 pm

        No Draco T Bastard – think cup half full here in line with the sweetness and light New Zealand.

        Treasury is not out to make the 90+% worse off; they’re out to make the 1-10% better off. Now, d’ya see?

        Kind regards
        crosby and textor
        in their absence signed by: john key and bill english
11. randal 11

    2 February 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Careful Jackal. you will offend every dingbat with a bobcat and a truck who wants to fill in every bit of swamp in the world because they are offended by nature.
    • Jackal 11.1

      2 February 2012 at 2:49 pm

      I was actually hoping to offend those bastard farmers who let their cows mess up the place… but offending a few other dingbat environmental criminals is all good as well.
12. Ianupnorth 12

    2 February 2012 at 12:56 pm

    OK, so where’s the TPK thread? Just wondering, 16% of a ministry staff being scrapped, it’s budget being capped/slashed and the only person I have heard in the media about it is Winston.
13. Jum 13

    2 February 2012 at 1:45 pm

    http://business.scoop.co.nz/2012/02/01/nz-post-drags-down-kiwibank-credit-rating-outlook/

    Now what are these bastards up to – separate and sell off ?
14. aerobubble 14

    2 February 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Key creates a crisis, slaming us all with the notion that a 49% private shareholding shall not be held to the treaty of Waitangi, because weep weep private investers need certainty. Exactly how does the 51% holding by the Crown produce this uncertainty? well it doesn’t — unless — Key plans on fully selling the assets.
    So let’s sum up this for a moment, Key plans on selling renewable energy sources held in trust by, for and of public, at the bottom of the market just before the greatest collapse in oil reserves known to Humanity. And now he wants to bleed small NZ investers who will pay more ‘because’ of perceived certainty (which they actually don’t get unless fully sold), to provide the big investors who will buy out the assets in full the benefit of the uncertainty being removed. There is no innovation in buying an asset over to the private sector to hoard, though a lot of innovation (distortion) in how to achieve the firesale in the public arena.

    And that’s not enough, Key then pulls out the tried old technique in misappriopiating Maori. By talking only with Maori inside the tent (who just left the tent). The Maori party is not the sole representative of Maori, in fact the recent election saw them drop to less than half the Maori Seats, and Mana also got 1% of the list vote. So seems to me that Key echo chamber with the Maori party ‘consenting’ for all Maori, which even the Maori party is hesitating to provide, is shocking given NZ history and give the Maori just left the tent because of Asset sales.

    Why should the public who have had to hold assets in trust for the future suddenly found just when they are going to become so valuable, when the market is so weak, when global soverign nations are printing money (a buyers market), justifies the PM sweeting the deal by shifting the benefit to the full sale of the assets.

    Welll lucky old Key has no real opposition since the Media are gagging to white wash his astonishing position, that there is a crisis of certainty in the partial asset sale, that will leave a asset that under partial ownership will still have to take the Treaty into account (as the largest shareholder is the govt, i.e no crisis).

    Where is media balance when the Media let the PM lie firstly that there is a crisis, then that the crisis is a crisis, then suggest that the Maori party represents Maori, then that the Maori party has no seat at the table due to its supply agreement. Sorry but who the hell do the editors of MSM think they are??? That a snowstorm of lies go unchallenged without any rigor at all. There is no need to remove the treaty obligations since full privatisation is not on the cards. Maori are not solely represented by the Maori Party, and the Maori party does not provide consent for the treaty to be removed because they signed a supply agreement not to be at the table on asset sales.

    Then look at the Maori party, like they are hanging out for iwi to buy the assets, what a bunch of two faced… …Maori are disproportionately represented in the jails, in the courts, in the poverty metrics, and why because if the bridges were collapsed in the Pakeha dominated heartland of NZ they’d get fixed aleady, but since the social bridges, economic bridges, careers bridges, access to transport, etc, etc are all broken in Maori, Pacific Island (and Pakeha poor) areas its okay for the Maori party to ignore them and talk solely about government programs. The poor of NZ dont need more government, they need better goverance, we as a nation need capital fairness, capital independance, capital freedom for NZ and seating with Mr ‘big capital’ Key is not going to help Maori.

    The Maori party has just been insulted by the PM, who says they are not at the table because of the supply agreement says nothing about asset sales, this is like you or I being told by our bank that we signed up to mortgage our home because we trusted our bank to look after our money (as we didn’t arrange a mortgage). Key broke trust with the Maori by suggesting that the supply agreement means consent does not need to be sort from, amongst others, the Maori Party. (i.e. Mana, Maori Labour MP, and other Maori MPs). Key needs to engage with Maori in Parliament who have won the votes to represented Maori not have a few staged events outside of parliament.

    Key is not to be trusted, he does not come to the table in good faith.
    • Jackal 14.1

      2 February 2012 at 5:23 pm

      National and Maori party to split?

      The Maori party will loose what little credibility remains to them if they continue to support a National led government that has shown them such contempt…
15. aerobubble 15

    2 February 2012 at 3:24 pm

    Case thrown out, careless use of a motor vehicle should of been the charge…
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6354563/Judge-drops-cycle-death-case

    Judge points out the confusion caused by the markings that push cyclists onto he busy footpath.

    So why ws this man dragged into court, at considerable cost emotionally?

    Because seems to me the council was at fault, the judge pointed out that it was a busy place for recreational cyclists (and also pedestians).

    Parking should never have been allow at that choke point.
16. MrSmith 16

    2 February 2012 at 7:42 pm

    “Ring, Ring”, “Hello” “Bill I need a diversion fast, my image is suffering with this Maori thing”
     
    Bill: “hang on a minute John”, “how about we try some teacher bashing, you know the old making class sizes bigger line”
     
    “Teachers! Brilliant Bill that will also take the pressure of Mad Banks & Isaac as well, two birds with one stone thanks Billy”
17. lprent 17

    3 February 2012 at 12:01 am

    Wow that was ‘fun’. A previously used plugin that was meant to delete the older post revisions went berserk. It deleted all of the posts.

    I dumped the binary log out as SQL using mysqlbinlog and edited the resulting 750k line files. Have to love Visual Slickedit. At one stage it had 5 of the binlog SQL files of similar size open at once.

    Did a selective display of all statements so I only saw those SQL statements with the three tables that may have been affected (problem statement below). Dumped those three files out with a slickedit macro “copy-selective-display” that copies the visible lines and ignores collapsed lines.

    Looked at the tables to see what the problem was. Just wp_posts was a problem – had 5 rows left out of the 74k. Dumped that table back in from the last backup. Figured out what the last update was. Clipped between that and the error statement. Told slickedit to add a semicolon on the end of every line.

    Opened up Navicat in wine (because I own a windows version and their ‘linux’ version is just Wine anyway). Told it to load and run the file out of slickedit.

    Checked everything and turned maintenance mode off. Good thing that I not only have backups, but I also have the binary log running

    What I now have to figure out is why this following statement caused the problem…

    DELETE a,b,c
    FROM wp_posts a
    LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships b
    ON (a.ID = b.object_id)
    LEFT JOIN wp_postmeta c
    ON (a.ID = c.post_id)
    WHERE a.post_type = ‘revision’

    It looks fine to me ! In particular why in the hell it only affected one table as far as I can see. But I don’t do SQL a lot. I did have some problems with left outer joins converting from an older windows MySQL database to linux MySQL. But left inner joins? WTF.

    Updated: Ah. LEFT JOIN is a LEFT OUTER JOIN. I’m always pedantic about saying it exactly (the way Codd would have liked it)

    I really have to start doing some of these maintenance jobs right after I have taken a backup. There are so many plugin updates that I never read the code or fully test them.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS