Open mike 02/06/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 2nd, 2015 - 169 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

169 comments on “Open mike 02/06/2015”

  1. Charles 1

    There are no reply buttons on the original post yesterday….

    “I got sick of explaining over and over again about the Green Party and James Shaw’s position on forming government with National (tl;dr, they won’t), so I wrote a synopsis,
    /labour-and-the-greens-2/#comment-1023716…”

    It’s a good synopsis and I’m pretty sure I have the located the central intent of the message for myself. But (there’s always a but) if the Greens think this is acceptable rhetoric for the people on the street, they’re in for a surprise. I had to apply some thinking pressure to sort out what was being said. Let’s see if I can present the so-called obvious:

    1) James Shaw, personally, as an individual, would rule out any form of coalition with National. When asked, he would say, “No deal with National of any kind.”. He wouldn’t even work with developing policy with them. He might not even cross the road to piss in John Key’s ear if Key’s brain was on fire.

    2) James Shaw, Co-Leader for the Green Party, isn’t acting personally or as an individual when any one hears him speak in person or via the media.

    3) The Green Party of NZ and its members, are the only people who can decide whether The Greens enter coalition with National, and where Green Party policy might change or develop, or what it says.

    4) James Shaw cannot say to NZ, “The Greens will not enter coalition with National under any circumstances,” because it is not his right as Green Party co-leader to make that decision. He cannot predict the future response of the party members because the members want to make decisions as situations arise, not before. This leads to phrases such as, “Highly Unlikely” because it’s as close to certainty as he can get, without exceeding his role or disrespecting his party and members. All decisions in the Green Party are collective, and made as close to immediate as possible.

    This is understood, and for some here, plain as day. In a way, The Greens approach is good sense: policy reflects the people it affects, and you get to vote on the best information to hand. But let’s not think our echo chamber here represents what happens in real life.

    The explanation above is hard work, far too hard, and frustrating as hell to watch it play out. The Greens need to understand that. If you think I’m thick, then you should meet some of the people I know. They will never understand it. There is too much room to argue some very valid points in the way the Greens are doing things, and too many people arguing them.

    After a period of almost forever, average Jolene and Joe NZ still don’t understand that First Past the Post, hierarchical, top-down politics, is over. Every day they work in places where, what the boss says, goes. They see Leader and see Central Authority. They hear Leader, and think Leader has final say. No other style of leadership exist to them. The systems of collectivist-style philosophies are unknown and foreign. Why would they need to look for them? They’re more or less comfortable where they are. It works for them. If The Greens want to win in 2017 (whatever form that might take) they need to examine this point.

    It’s no good telling NZ over and over again that you’re doing it differently, without an intermediate step. It is naive to think enough people in NZ speak The Green Language, or will take the time to figure it out, and figure it out before 2017; and simply bad politics to ignore the obvious cultural influence of a country on political rhetoric. Either The Greens want to communicate with the people they need to influence, or they don’t. They can’t blame MSM on this. They have missed out a communicative step in a long-term project and instead of fixing it, blamed the people least able to understand.

    How hard would it be, how offensive to the Green mentality would it be, to ask the members for a release (essentially a 2 year commitment from the members et. al.) to allow James Shaw and Metiria Turei, to say, “NO COALITION WITH NATIONAL 2017”. Just this once, on this matter only: A release for the leaders to exceed their role and the philosophy of the Green Party, as an intermediate step to communicating with a constituency that does not speak the Green language.

    There may be better alternatives already known to party members. Clearly, however, all NZ is currently hearing when The Greens are questioned on collation issues are, “typical political weasel-words”.

    An important part of politics is about how you’re perceived by your public. To appear to staunchly refuse to make compromises among themselves and in their best interest, makes the genuine urgency of many Green issues to seem not so urgent after all. If the Greens can afford to wait Marx’s “400 years” for NZders to learn the Green Language, then…

    • Colonial Rawshark 1.1

      Mate, every day NZers appear to get MMP better than some parts of the political and parliamentary Left Wing. Don’t celebrate a left wing political class which is increasingly disconnected from what left wing voters want.

      At the end of the day the voters in NZ are perceptive and choose the politicians that they have the most confidence and certainty in, to run the nation.

      • weka 1.1.1

        I think that last bit is true, and the GP will be trusted much more if they can commnicate the above better. There was definitely confusion about the GP position at the last election, thanks largely to Corin Dann doing some gotcha on Russell Norman the week before polling day. We had some endless conversations about it here on ts, similar in some ways to what’s been happening in the past few days.

        • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1.1

          Yes indeed – LAB and GR don’t have to agree on and pre-announce all aspects of policy ahead of the election – but they do need to demonstrate to the NZ voter that they trust each other, can work together, and can be politically effective together.

          The people who say that all this can be left until after Election Day results are announced are still living in an FPP dream world.

          • weka 1.1.1.1.1

            It’s an opportunity for them to pioneer a new way of doing MMP. Peters set the MMP agenda in a power and control/anti democratic way years ago. Time to change how things are done.

      • Ron 1.1.2

        … or more likely they choose the leaders whose parties have the funds to manipulate the public especially via MSM

        At the end of the day the voters in NZ are perceptive and choose the politicians that they have the most confidence and certainty in, to run the nation.

        • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.2.1

          Not entirely disagreeing with your point. But the way the Labour caucus imploded with ill-discipline within hours of the election result being announced pretty much proved the voters correct in not trusting them with the levers of Government.

    • Colville. 1.2

      Charles.
      By saying “NO COALITION WITH NATIONAL 2017” doesnt it give Labour carte blanche to just lock Greens out of coalition and just do a deal with Winston? like 2005?

      • aerobubble 1.2.1

        No. Labour need support from the Greens otherwise they cannot govern. Sure there is Winston. Now its argued that its because everyone knows Labour needs the Greens an Labour did not do enough to create a common platform that voters did not have confidence.

        Look take what happen with Northland, ACT lost power, Dunne and Seymour had to unite to help National win after the Northland loss. Why would ACT be looking to get a National MP to slide over to them but for the numbers. So how is it that ACT can do the sums yet media want us to believe Labour think the Greens have no power over them. Only reason, Labour don’t want to be in govt yet.

        • Colville. 1.2.1.1

          Labour can just ignore the Greens and what can the Greens do? … Vote with National against Labour?

          • aerobubble 1.2.1.1.1

            Labour ignoring the Greens has done what? Ignoring the Greens means they stay in opposition where it Does not matter that they are ignoring the Greens.

      • weka 1.2.2

        “Charles.
        By saying “NO COALITION WITH NATIONAL 2017” doesnt it give Labour carte blanche to just lock Greens out of coalition and just do a deal with Winston? like 2005?”

        Labour are quite capable of doing that irrespective of what the GP do. The GP are stepping up in good faith and demonstrating that they’re ready to be in government and they’re not going to sell out on core principles. What you are suggesting is that they instead hide their intentions as a way of manipulating Labour into working with them. That would go against the GP’s core principles.

        It is still possible for a political party to be open, transparent, and favour democracy in NZ (and work in the way that MMP was intended).

      • Visubversa 1.2.3

        Please stop repeating the old canard that Labour chose to “lock the Greens out” in 2005. Labour and the Green parties together did not have enough seats to form a government in 2005. Both NZ First and United Future refused absolutely to be part of any government which included the Green party. Labour had the choice – in Government without the Greens, or in Opposition with them. They chose to be in Government.

        Don’t believe me? – look up the figures.

        • Bill 1.2.3.1

          Green + Progressive in 2005 = 11 seats.
          Green + UF in 2005 = 17 seats.
          Green + NZ First in 2005 = 22 seats.

          Actual coalition was Progressive + UF = 10 seats.

          But, fuck it all. Bring in a Fixed Parliaments Act and be done with all the bullshit and nonsense.

          Fixed Term Parliaments

    • David H 1.3

      @Charles.

      “He might not even cross the road to piss in John Key’s ear if Key’s brain was on fire.”

      Don’t you know, you cannot have a flame in a hard vacuum?

      • Puckish Rogue 1.3.1

        I think John Keys greatest gift is his ability to make the left constantly underestimate him

        • thatguynz 1.3.1.1

          Or perhaps it could be his innate ability to hoodwink those on the right into believing him..

          • Puckish Rogue 1.3.1.1.1

            Yes of course it is…sheesh

            When both chris Trotter and Michael Cullen are saying the left underestimate Key (to their detriment) don’t you think that maybe, just maybe the left have been underestimating him?

    • weka 1.4

      “The explanation above is hard work, far too hard, and frustrating as hell to watch it play out. The Greens need to understand that.”

      If you read my original comments in micky’s thread, they say this,

      “One of the challenges for the GP is how to simplify the above for the media and public, and have it in an easily explainable form. There was much confusion about this at the last election and it wasn’t communicated clearly.”

      Labour and the Greens

      Sorry, but I skim read your long comment, and am wondering at the irony of you taking so many involved and unnecessary sentences to criticise the GP for being too complicated for the general public 😉

      I wrote the synopsis for the standard, which requires backup and links. I’d be interested in working on writing up the GP position, from an outsider’s perspective, into a simple and easily accessible form for use in the blogosphere (a twitter version would be great too). I’m not sure you and I are the right people to do that, all things considered, but willing to give it a go. Anyone else?

  2. Lynda Brown 2

    Surely there were other Greens who cringed with embarrassment at Metiria Turei saying this in her conference speech:
    “I have to say I feel a little bit like the Bachelorette. It’s certainly been a while since I’ve had four men chasing after me to become my partner. And while they may not have the rippling abs and paleo diet toned bodies of the TV version, our bachelors are all political Adonis’s.”
    Amazingly, she got a huge laugh.
    Why would she want to portray herself as some kind of desperate cougar?
    How does this squirmy sexism fit with Labour?
    I hate seeing young women MPs like Jacinda portrayed in the media as ‘babes’.
    This is on the same revolting scale.

    • Meh. I think you know that this isn’t an example of sexism. More an example of a right wing beat up, actually.

      • Jenny Kirk 2.1.1

        TRP – totally agree Some people can’t see a joke when its right in front of their noses !

    • Puckish Rogue 2.2

      Just a politician trying to be funny and failing, no big deal really it happens in every political party

      • Colville. 2.2.1

        A Party Leader trying to be funny and failing?
        Like playing with a ponytail you mean?
        “no big deal really it happens in every political party”?

      • Trying to be funny and failing? I think that may be you, Puckish. According the reports, Turei had the audience in stitches. Even Lynda Brown notes that in her comment above.

        • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1

          Naah I think its more the audience, its not like it was a hostile environment for her

      • stigie 2.2.3

        Can you imagine if Key had said the some language as Turei ?

        He would have been pillared by the left.

        • te reo putake 2.2.3.1

          I don’t think NZ cares about that, ackshully.

          • Colville. 2.2.3.1.1

            Naaa… bad behaviour is always ok when the Left does it eh TRP ?

            Its just not possible for Woman from the Left to be sexist..if confronted about this Turei would call the it a racist attack!

            • te reo putake 2.2.3.1.1.1

              Ok, I’ll bite. Explain how this is sexist.

              • Colville.

                How is it sexist for a woman in power to denigrate 4 male aspiring leaders as suitors? to liken their wanting to be Leaders of a political party to wanting her physically? and for her to reject at her whim?

                Stolen (below) from another site because I really dont want to validate your pathetic stance with any effort on my part..

                “Imagine John Key starting a speech like this:
                “I have to say I feel a little bit like the Bachelor.
                It’s certainly been a while since I’ve had four women chasing after me to become my partner.
                And while they may not have the blonde hair and diet toned bodies of the TV version, our bachelorettes are all political goddesses.”

                To call you a hypocrite just doesnt begin to describe the contempt I have for your position.

                You, My Son, need your fucking head read.

                • So you don’t know why it’s sexist? Goodo. And yes, I can imagine Key making a speech like that. He’s pretty relaxed about that sort of thing. Nice feigned outrage, though. Muppet.

    • Colonial Rawshark 2.3

      “Political adonis”

      This is language which is of the Thorndon Bubble, speaking to the Thorndon Bubble.

      • Jeez, you say some weird shit, CV. Apart from apparently misunderstanding the context of the phrase political Adonis, I think you probably need to rethink what the ‘thorndon bubble’ might be. Clue: it’s not a bunch of branch and regional reps at the AGM of the Green Party.

        • Colonial Rawshark 2.3.1.1

          Hey TRP, the shit I say sounds “weird” to you because it’s not designed for your consumption.

        • weka 2.3.1.2

          +1 a GP AGM is hardly representative of the Thorndon Bubble.

          • Colonial Rawshark 2.3.1.2.1

            The GP use languaging like “Political Adonis” with its rank and file membership and it’s considered standard mainstream Kiwi? OK.

            • weka 2.3.1.2.1.1

              I simply pointed out you were wrong in characterising the audience as a group of hard core politicos with no feel for the common man.

            • te reo putake 2.3.1.2.1.2

              It’s entirely mainstream in the context of a cultural reference to a TV show that has wide appeal in the mainstream which was delivered for comic effect to a sympathetic and, from the laughter, educated audience. On the other hand there are words that aren’t standard mainstream kiwi. Words like ‘languaging’, for example.

              • McFlock

                CR languages with ordinary New Zealanders every day, and has the knowing that they understandify not the term “Adonis”, because ordinary New Zealanders are all rude, brutish beasts of the land.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.2.1.3

              I’m pretty sure that most people would have understood the reference. It does, after all, get used quite often in other mainstream media.

  3. DH 3

    Is this happening much in ChCh?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/68063552/ive-had-enough–canterbury-caravan-mum

    $300 week for a caravan park is bad enough, how much are rental houses down there?

    • David H 3.1

      Sometimes you have to ask yourself why are you staying in CHCH when things are so dire housing wise. Wouldn’t it be better to move out of town to where the rents are reasonable, and you are not being screwed over everyday by the Nats and their followers/hangers on.

      • Brendon Harre 3.1.1

        Christchurch is the 2nd largest mass of humanity in NZ, is it possible for those people to move somewhere else? Or do you mean only the poor should move. Away from schools, friends, family and jobs?

        The housing market has been allowed to become unaffordable because John Key and his crony -Brownlee care more about property owners and landlords than they do about buyers and renters.

        There is a lot they could have done to prevent escalating house prices and rents that have resulted in the poor falling out of the market completely.

        I discussed this last year. http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/70493/fridays-top-10-brendon-harr%C3%A9-national-vs-labour-housing-affordability-uk-councils-spy

        This should be core Labour territory. Labour should go back to the basics and do what Micky Savage would have done.

        • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.1.1

          Anything that Labour does nowadays would have to fit within the confines of a fiscally conservative, market led capitalist model.

      • DH 3.1.2

        She probably can’t afford to. You need a fair bit of capital to move and once you end up on the bones of your arse you can chew up your savings pretty quick.

        One of the traps of poverty is that every escape route from it costs money.

        • Brendon Harre 3.1.2.1

          Trina has family -at least one sister is mentioned. Also she has a work history in Christchurch and if you are looking for work then Christchurch is probably the best bet given her contacts and the number of new jobs compared to smaller centres.

    • Paul 3.2

      From the article.

      ‘After the 2011 earthquake Nesbitt was forced to move from her rental home because the landlord tripled the rent after renovations.’

      Scum slum landlords.

      • Belladonna 3.2.1

        When a woman is separated from her partner and has children she is not allowed to move to another city without her partner’s permission. Many women are stuck in an abusive relationship as they are unable to afford rents in Christchurch but are not able to move to a location where rents are affordable and have no option but to stay in that relationship.

        • RedBaronCV 3.2.1.1

          Ah yes the Harem rules. He doesn’t have to be paying anything or even bothering to turn up to see the kids – they can be living in unneccessary poverty when a job and house in another town may be viable. He can have the money and afford to travel to see his kids.
          None of this matters a damm to the idiots at the courts who insist that the mother remains an unpaid child care convenience to the father even when he has no intention of looking after the kids.
          The court idiots will routinely spend far more on counselling, lawyers, judges and legal time than the costs of fares for the kids between two centres.

          There was an article published in the law journal about this sort of situation at the time of the quakes. It was really frightening – the shallow thinking, lack of understanding of kids and the secondary abuse of them was rife.

          • b waghorn 3.2.1.1.1

            I know a horrible little man child who only agreed to let his ex move with the kids if she let him off any and all support payments . on the plus side his kids are adults now and won’t go near the arsehole

            • RedBaronCV 3.2.1.1.1.1

              One of many unfortunately. A system that assists him with his bullying.

  4. Jo 4

    Latest Colmar poll; Andrew Little 9%. He is not a leader, the party knew that, the caucus knew that only the Unions couldn’t see it.

    David Shearer is a natural leader and the caucus was right to elect him the first time. Sure his inexperience showed and he could have done with more time in Parliament before he became leader. BUT the fact is he is a natural leader and that can’t be faked or taught by a PR consultant.

    There is no doubt in my mind if Labour had stuck with him, and several caucus members had put their own leadership ambitions aside, then Labour would now be sitting on the other side of the House.

    Labour needs to go back to electing their Leader in the caucus, this system is a disaster, all it does is foster a Leader on the caucus who no one wants and then everyone complains that they don’t support him, go figure. The caucus didn’t like Cunliffe actually he appeared to be one of the most disliked members and Little is proving to be absolutely tits and comes across as either very boring or angry………………9% and I am guessing it will go lower!

    • Anne 4.1

      Piffle!!!

      • Jo 4.1.1

        Yes 9% is piffle!!!

        • Anne 4.1.1.1

          I’ve been around the political traps one hell of a lot longer than you. That is clear from your naive comment. Guess what! Helen Clark’s rating in the 12 months after she became leader was less than 9%. If my memory serves me correctly it went as low as 6% – possibly lower. Guess you didn’t know that because you don’t sound like you have much political knowledge at all.

          David Shearer has the makings of maybe our best Foreign Affairs minister ever – in a Little-led government. His background lends itself to such a role. Why don’t you reflect on the fact you have much to learn…

          • Jo 4.1.1.1.1

            Yes but she had the experience and numbers to stand up to Cullen when he tried to roll her. That is the big difference she was elected by her caucus and if Cullen had the numbers she would have been gone. After that she was stronger, she had the support of her caucus. Why? Simply because they elected her. Both Cunliffe and Little were not the choice of the caucus and it shows!

            David Shearer does have the makings of a fantastic Foreign Minister, for the very same reasons as he would also make an extremely good Prime Minister. I honestly can’t see Andrew Little as Foreign Minister, can you?

            • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.1.1.1.1

              If fucking McCully can do it…

            • Clean_power 4.1.1.1.1.2

              I agree with Anne. Shearer had his turn and failed miserably, proving to be inarticulate, indecisive, and no match for Key in Parliament. So far, Little has not done better but it is still early days to judge him. We have to wait.

              Finally, there is Robertson always waiting for the opportunity.

    • just saying 4.2

      ..Labour needs to go back to electing their Leader in the caucus…

      Welcome astroturfer.

      This made me laugh. If caucus is electing the leader then by definition Labour isn’t electing “their leader” just a few elite members are.

      But Shearer was the bigger laugh. I guess if National has to stand down for the odd term it’s good to have their proxies in place. I assume you’d like to see Davies and Nash and Goff etc. as his deputy dawgs.

      • Jo 4.2.1

        They are not elite members, they are the elected Labour party MPs, put there to serve their party. If you don’t have faith in them to elect, who they consider to be the best leader, why were they selected to represent the party in the first place?

        • te reo putake 4.2.1.1

          MP’s are selected to go to parliament. Their opinions on party leadership are respected, but are balanced against the opinions of members and affiliates, who also have an interest in the matter. Why should just a few dozen ‘elite’ members decide? What’s wrong with having a democratic process that involves all members and the unions that founded the party?

          • Jo 4.2.1.1.1

            Because they work with them every day and they will have a far better idea of how they will perform as the leader and hopefully the PM, than simply a member of the party, who is basing their vote on what they see in the media. Helen Clark would never had a show of being elected under this system, but one of her strengths was the support she enjoyed from colleagues, when she stuffed up (and lets face it, she did occasionally) they didn’t all run for cover, but came out swinging in her defence.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1.1

              Because they work with them every day and they will have a far better idea of how they will perform as the leader and hopefully the PM, than simply a member of the party, who is basing their vote on what they see in the media.

              And that’s a load of cods-wallop as well.

              The ‘leaders’ of a party have to be able to connect with the membership of the party and not just a few people in a smoky room.

              Helen Clark would never had a show of being elected under this system,

              Or she may have reached leadership sooner. She didn’t become NZ’s greatest leader because the people in caucus liked her.

    • David H 4.3

      Rubbish

    • thatguynz 4.4

      A truly inept comment. Faux concern for Labour. Now toddle off.

      • Jo 4.4.1

        Inept? Is the Labour party returning to the popularity seen under Helen Clark or David Lange, or is the current leadership inept?

        • thatguynz 4.4.1.1

          Yes inept – if you think the issue for the Labour Party is Andrew Little and that normal order would have been restored had they simply persevered with Shearer you need your head read.

          As for suggesting that going back to a caucus selected leader is a good thing… dear lord.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.5

      Oh look, another RWNJ concern troll.

      • Jo 4.5.1

        A troll would welcome the state of Labour and rejoice in their current position, all I did was suggest that how it worked before the rule changes resulted in a far better performing party. Don’t take my word for it, take another look at the election result and the polls.

        • te reo putake 4.5.1.1

          Um, 2 election losses pre-democratic election, 1 since. The party membership is up since democratic election was bought in as well.

          • Jo 4.5.1.1.1

            and remind me how many Leaders have there been, does the new system just mean everyone gets a go? How many Nat supporters joined so they could vote, I seem to remember a very prominent HK business woman joining!

            • te reo putake 4.5.1.1.1.1

              There have been two leaders since democratisation. Cunliffe and Little. Yes, everyone gets a go, in the sense that its an open process when the gig comes up. And frankly, if Odgers wants to send the party money, that’s totally fine by me. She only gets one vote for her fiver, same as me.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.5.1.2

          I called you a concern troll for a reason and that reason is that you’re putting forward a false concern about Labour’s polling. What makes you a RWNJ doing it is that you’re saying that Labour should go back to being exactly the same as National.

          • Jo 4.5.1.2.1

            I don’t even know what a RWNJ is. Not doing something because National does it is not valid argument.

            If the respective parties were elected a candidate for President, the Labour system would be valid. A President works to a considerable degree separately from the Parliamentary wing of a party. But we don’t have that system, we are electing a leader of a party. The candidates come from the pool of MPs and first and foremost he/she is elected to lead these people. If the wishes of the MPs are trumped by the party members or in Little’s case the Union vote, it does nothing for the caucus moral or cohesion.

            Personally we select these people to represent us in Parliament and we should therefore trust their judgement to select from their midst the best Leader to lead them and the party.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.5.1.2.1.1

              Not doing something because National does it is not valid argument.

              Good job I didn’t make that argument then.

              The candidates come from the pool of MPs and first and foremost he/she is elected to lead these people.

              That would only be true in authoritarian parties such as National.

              Personally we select these people to represent us in Parliament and we should therefore trust their judgement to select from their midst the best Leader to lead them and the party.

              There’s a difference between them representing the members of the party and them telling the members what to think. The way you describe is the latter.

    • Lanthanide 4.6

      “David Shearer is a natural leader and the caucus was right to elect him the first time. Sure his inexperience showed and he could have done with more time in Parliament before he became leader.”

      So by your own admission, they in fact were not “right to elect him the first time”.

      Even less value in the rest of your comment.

      • Jo 4.6.1

        He had a similar amount of Parliamentary experience as Little. The difference is he has talent as a leader and people who didn’t even vote Labour liked him. As I said Leadership comes from within and it can’t be taught or faked. Neither Little or Cunliffe have that natural talent.

        • te reo putake 4.6.1.1

          Yeah, right. Little led the EPMU, which is a voluntary association of 40,000 kiwis who not only supported his leadership, they actually paid money every week to do so. Shearer had leadership experience, too, but only in a managerial sense.

          • Jo 4.6.1.1.1

            Is the President of the EPMU an elected or appointed position?

            Obviously the skills needed to lead the EPMU are different than the Labour party and to position your self as the next PM. The longer he spends in the job the less comfortable he looks. His budget reply was terrible, actually it was so bad that it isn’t even up on the Labour party fb page, just a collage of different speakers.

            • Colonial Rawshark 4.6.1.1.1.1

              patience Jo, even Helen Clark needed a second go to achieve victory in a General Election.

            • te reo putake 4.6.1.1.1.2

              Elected, as I recall. Four year term, I think, and responsible to an exec made up of rank and file members in between times. The point is that Little has more leadership experience than anyone else in the caucus, by a considerable margin. And have a think about being the boss of a bunch of union organisers; from my experience they tend to be opinionated, driven, contrarian and not afraid to stand their ground … after leading 60 of them for ten years, caucus would be light relief. Which actually shows; there have been bugger all public divisions, leaks to the media etc since Little took over. Caucus is behind him. The party’s behind him. He’s actually doing a fine job.

        • Anne 4.6.1.2

          My God, every time it opens it’s mouth it shows what a total ignoramus it is.

          [No need to (de)personalise things, Anne. While some of the comments have a whiff of the troll about them, for the time being lets assume Jo has a point of view which is more likely to be swayed by constructive argument than by abuse. TRP]

          • Jo 4.6.1.2.1

            Have I attacked you in such a rude manner? Would you speak to me like that in person? I should hope not.

            Never write something you would not be willing to say in person, and as my very intelligent Grandmother taught me, good manners cost nothing.

            [lprent: Don’t try to moderate on this site. It is important to read the policy so you know what your responsibilities are on this site, and what ours are. Banned for a week. This should give you time to move your finger and mouth the long words. ]

            • Rodel 4.6.1.2.1.1

              Granny taught you a lot of cliches which have served you well so far.

          • Anne 4.6.1.2.2

            @TRP
            Ok, but I have no idea whether this Jo is male/female or an apprentice troll. My instincts suggest its the latter which means constructive argument is a complete waste of time and effort. His/her/the trolls attitude to date is indicative of a very nasty turn of mind and poor cognitive ability.

            • te reo putake 4.6.1.2.2.1

              Yep, all of that is true. But I still have a sense that Jo is debating in good faith, even if he or she doesn’t have the benefit of our years of experience to draw on.

              • Anne

                Fair enough trp. If he/she is genuine then he/she is not going about his/her support of David Shearer in the right way. Indeed I think Shearer would be a bit suspicious of the support. As I said, my instincts tell me this ‘Jo’ is a troll. Time will tell. 🙂

                • Agreed! I suspect DS is more than happy where he is now and has no intention of having another crack at the leadership. Minister of Foreign Affairs in the next Government?

        • Colonial Rawshark 4.6.1.3

          Cunliffe was pretty good, before he got subsumed into the Thorndon Bubble thinking which surrounded the Leaders office.

          Shearer didn’t have it. At least Little knows all the ins and outs of the Labour Party and its people.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.6.1.4

          The difference is he has talent as a leader and people who didn’t even vote Labour liked him.

          No he didn’t and National voters liking him puts Labour voters off.

          • Jenny Kirk 4.6.1.4.1

            “” The difference is he has talent as a leader and people who didn’t even vote Labour liked him. “”

            Yeah – that’s the absolute giveaway, Draco and Anne. This Jo person is a troll.

            In fact, I’m finding if fascinating how many trolls have sprung up on The Standard over the last couple of days ……. James Shaw’s election as Green Party Leader and the hopeful noises coming out of Labour mouths re the two parties working cooperatively MUST be really worrying the right wing. There’s no other explanation for it !

  5. Puckish Rogue 5

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11457713

    This article demonstrated one of the major failings of the left in that heres someone young thats got on the property ladder and the response of the posters on here was distrust and vitriol

    He may have got help from his parents but so what? Most people who get into houses generally get help from parents in either loans, free rent, or guarantees

    Now maybe he did work all the hours available and maybe he didn’t but what most voters will see is a young man making use of whats available to him and getting ahaead and most people will say well done (if they have an opinion)

    The people who responded however showed their true colours and its an attitude that most voters disagree with

    • maui 5.1

      The idea that if you’re studying you can go out and buy your own house is quite frankly fanciful to 99.7% of students. It perpetuates this “dream” thinking that if you work hard you can achieve anything, and eventually become your own mini-overlord. The media loves this stuff, it plays on people’s jealousies and is a straight out ad for the broken capitalist system we have.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1

        The point being that most voters think positively of what this guys done, the left act negatively towards it, the voters think the left is negative

        John Key goes up in the polls…not that hard to understand is it?

        • maui 5.1.1.1

          I don’t think most voters would think that. Most would relate his situation back to their own reality, as in can I afford a house? Probably not, and it’s getting less likely. The people who already own houses might congratulate him, but they’re coming from the standpoint of, look he’s done what I’ve done.

          It’s like every child being told from a young age you can be a professional rugby player, just keep on working at it. Unfortunately there’s only a small number who can, and the number is reducing.

          John Key goes up in the polls and life gets harder for most. The crunch will hit sooner or later.

          • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1.1.1

            That right there is the problem for the left, if you were right and I was wrong there’d be a labour/green governement right now but there isn’t because enough people (as an example) think good on that guy

            Until the left see that they’ll have to wait for 2020 to get back in power

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1.1

              because enough people (as an example) think good on that guy

              And while they’re doing that they’re destroying the society that’s propping them up. Yes, the crunch will come but I doubt if they’ll like it.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Meh, elections come and go National will eventually be kicked and labour will be in power and then they’ll get kicked and National will be in power and so forth and so forth

                A two party state is not a democracy but it beats the alternatives

                • Draco T Bastard

                  There’s one alternative that a two party alternating dictatorship can’t beat and that’s an actual participatory democracy.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    In NZ? Good luck with that.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Humans are a cooperative, socially driven species thus participatory democracy should come naturally to them. It’s probably this instinct that has forced democracy to rise against the authoritarians over the centuries.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

        The media loves this stuff, it plays on people’s jealousies and is a straight out ad for the broken capitalist system we have.

        QFT

    • Brendon Harre 5.2

      That is completely BS. Why is it only possible to get on the housing ladder by renting to others while you live rent free with mummy and daddy?

      Is that the sort of NZ we want? We invest millions in our kids education and then when they grow up the housing market is rigged so they can’t go independently out into the world.

      • The Murphey 5.2.1

        This is a recycled story which appears every few years going back through the past 10+

        Nothing new with regards the message it is selling other than still people are suckered into talking about the ‘story’

        There will always be anomalies be they fact or fiction

        It’s not about to become the ‘norm’ it never has and it never will which is why this is a ‘story’

        Nothing more

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1

          There will always be anomalies be they fact or fiction

          The exception to the rule which the MSM then trot out as if it’s the norm.

    • DH 5.3

      You’re really just showing how little you understand people. I read that article as portraying a boastful man claiming to have done it all by himself. I’ll admit to being distrustful of the claims made in the article for the reason being they didn’t add up.

      There’s a follow-up article to that one here;

      “Property investment not a reality for students – Association”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=11458041

      If people want to brag about how successful they are then they should expect others to examine their claims. What offended people was not the ‘success’ of a person but the bragging which is still to be fully explained.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.3.1

        See thats your opinion, mine is he wasn’t bragging but explaining what he did and how he did it

        The left have forgotten how to speak to the people and expect the people to listen to the left

        • Macro 5.3.1.1

          There you go! Bragging again!
          And you wonder why we don’t listen to you?

          • Puckish Rogue 5.3.1.1.1

            and you probably wonder why the people of NZ arn’t listening to Labour

            • thatguynz 5.3.1.1.1.1

              I don’t wonder at all – I have some pretty informed views as to why people aren’t listening to Labour. That doesn’t detract from what is being said above however.

        • DH 5.3.1.2

          “See thats your opinion, mine is he wasn’t bragging but explaining what he did and how he did it”

          Oh come now, your reading comprehension can’t be that bad your real ‘opinion’ is that you thought you’d shit-stir here by spouting provocative bollocks.

          The article doesn’t contain any useful explaining, it just raises questions. It’s an explanation-free zone. For example it says he saved his $45k deposit through working nights for a year at Countdown. Don’t tell us you actually believe supermarket jobs pay $55k?

          And as I noted in an earlier comment banks won’t normally make loans like that to people without any assets. The later article also notes he has student loan debt.

          The vein of the article is smug ‘work makes you free’ propaganda and it’s no surprise some people are irritated over it.

          • Puckish Rogue 5.3.1.2.1

            Probably used his student living costs as well while getting free board

        • Paul 5.3.1.3

          Tory tr***

    • aerobubble 5.4

      Wealth makes wealth. Of course a lot of boomers retiring and eating into the family wealth got ahead because of that foot up by their parents and are not now going to be passing on the wealth to their family. So of course a bunch of entitled boomers who got free everything, and were sold a housing bubble scam, are now rightly angry that they can’t turn their backs on their own responsibilities to pay forward to their own families. Key runs into govt, opens the door to investor migrants, and does nothing to build the homes they will need while a leaky home crisis ravaged the market and a GFC pushes the less well off into dire circumstances. Oh yeah lets all cheer how blantently ugly the economy is being ground down by this class of idiot politicians.

      • Clean_power 5.4.1

        What? What are you trying to say, aerobubble?

        • Puckish Rogue 5.4.1.1

          John Key is bad?

          • b waghorn 5.4.1.1.1

            Yes he is ,you’re finally working it out.

            • Puckish Rogue 5.4.1.1.1.1

              Better get used to him then, he’ll be leader until 2019-2020 depending on when hes had enough

              • Draco T Bastard

                Considering how tired he looks lately he’s already had enough. His problem is that if he leaves then National will be out of the door and won’t be able to continue to screw over NZ for his masters in the US.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  My sources (and by sources I mean stuff I made up) tell me hes got another three years left in him before he retires as Sir John Key

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  Paula Bennett for PM

        • aerobubble 5.4.1.2

          Boomers have be bribed, and when the bills came due the govt removed what boomers got for free. And the wonderfully perverse thing is now they have to raid their own family inter generational wealth to pay for retirement. Fact is its simple accountancy, you can live on a income, or you can force costs on society and borrow to finance the same standard of living off the same income, which then does not keep up and you’re whole boomer generation ends up paying and paying and finally eating itself. And all the boomers needed to have done was say no to the conservative revolution. There is a reason the financial sector is so huge, debt, huge debt growing and growing sustaining more and more quants and forcing the general population into debt to maintain their lifestyle.
          In order to maintain the debt Key opened the door for million roller migrants, who now buy and make Auckland even less affordable and harder to find kiwi workers. Now don’t get me wrong migration is good, but its not being used to build and stronger economy its being used to keep the debt binge going a bit longer.

    • Crashcart 5.5

      I didn’t see the guy himself as bad. I saw the article as a complete miss representation of the situation.

      The headline gave the impression that even a student can buy a house in Auckland. Then you find out that the story is the guy basiically lived with no sleep by working at night and studying during the day. Stayed with his perants rent free (I like most people I know had to start paying board to my parents the moment I left secondary school) and even then had to give up the idea of owning a home in Auckland and instead get a property to rent out in Hamilton.

      Now good on him if all of this is accurate and he has managed to get on the ladder. Hardley a ringing endorsment of the current state of the housing market in NZ.

      • Jenny Kirk 5.5.1

        And if he’s living with his parents, working at night, and studying during the day, Crashcart @ 5.5 then he’s probably not doing his own shopping, cleaning his room (let alone a house), making his own meals either. In other words, he’s had it handed to him on a plate ! That is NOT your average student nor how the average person can get to own a rental property in another town.

  6. Atiawa 6

    Heres a link to an opinion piece on Littles views regarding superannuation and some context on what he said and what was reported.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/68927671/the-facts-about-those-comments

    • An excellent piece, Atiawa! Thanks for putting it up.

      • Jenny Kirk 6.1.1

        I agree TRP and Atiawa – and useful to have to counter all the rightwing comments likely to come up in future (including those from our contrary mate CV below !)

    • Colonial Rawshark 6.2

      So the conclusion to sorting out the future of Super is – let’s start pouring money back in to the world financial markets (“Cullen Fund”) in the search for economic and financial growth (which is destroying the future of this very finite planet).

      Yeah I think the Left need to sort out a few incongruities here.

      • Atiawa 6.2.1

        Take it up with your local LEC branch. Convince them, then go and convince the LEC. Once you have succeeded in convincing those two democratic forums the next step is likely the policy committee.
        Of course if you fail at the first or second hurdle, then it’s plain old fashion hearts & mind’s campaigning.
        Good luck.

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.2.1.1

          Nah there are better less time and energy wasting strategies than trying to push change through the sclerotic entrenched hierarchies.

          Plenty of people see how philosophically and practically incongruent pushing for and expecting more economic growth is during this long descent, and there is no time to wait for Labour to catch up to what is already bloody obvious to many others.

  7. Draco T Bastard 7

    African people don’t want your stinky T-shirts, and other mythbusters – video

    As I say, the West doesn’t need to ‘help’ Africa or any other nation. What we really need to do is get out of their way and stop taking their resources off of them.

    • Colonial Rawshark 7.1

      China and Asia in general is changing the face of Africa.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

        China and Asia in general are causing the same problems that the West has for centuries – they’re taking away the resources that those people need to develop their own society so as to enrich themselves.

        • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1.1

          China and Asia are causing a different set of problems for Africa than the west but they are also putting a hell of a lot of money into both social and economic infrastructure there.

          Another major difference is that China has no wish to set up colonial rule in Africa, and are more than happy with African nations ruling themselves in whatever style of government works for them.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1

            China and Asia are causing a different set of problems for Africa than the west but they are also putting a hell of a lot of money into both social and economic infrastructure there.

            Sovereign monetary policy means that no other country is needed to invest in social and economic infrastructure. And then there’s the stories coming out that show that China and Asia have actually been worse for the local communities than other foreign ‘investors’.

            • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1.1.1.1

              Sovereign monetary policy means that no other country is needed to invest in social and economic infrastructure.

              As you know, I am a fan of currency sovereignty. But there are some limitations. You may still need USD to buy Caterpillar heavy equipment, Japanese yen to buy Mitsubishi CNC machine tools and Indian rupees to buy generics made by Cipla and Lupin.

              • Draco T Bastard

                In the case of developing nations they use their resources to build up their infrastructure to produce those things themselves. Same as we and every other developed nation did.

                This seems to be something that the First World has forgotten:

                We did not start off as industrialised and built up the capability over centuries.

                It is through this change process that a society develops and matures. Trade prevents that maturation process.

  8. Big ups to Andrew Little for this

    Labour leader Andrew Little said the people were not a threat, and would be extremely unlikely to make it to New Zealand.

    “We had all this at the time they passed the Immigration Amendment Bill a couple of years ago, there was talk about hordes of refugees coming down from Indonesia, and from Asia – it has never happened, it’s most unlikely to happen.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69027808/peoplesmuggling-boat-credible-risk-and-threat-to-nz

  9. NickS 9

    Ugh: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/legal-fight-revoke-unlawful-abortion-license-goes-high-court-6328321

    This is what we get from both main party’s unwillingness to update the Abortion Act.

    Anyhow, hopefully the court rules in favour of Family Planning, as the services they provide fill the regional holes and reduce the distances required to travel for an abortion. As the main reason for combining medical and surgical abortion services during the drafting of the Act was due risk factors concerning medical abortion. Risk factors that are now far, far lower.

  10. McFlock 10

    Hmmm.
    The astroturfers are busy today, trying to stir up division within and between Labour and the Greens.

    Key says today that a boat that couldn’t make it to Australia from Indonesia last week is a credible threat to our border security.

    All the stops pulled out to save McCully, really? Or has tugger been giving away bottles of wine again?

    • Puckish Rogue 10.1

      Lets be honest here, whatever people do on here to forment trouble between Labour and the Greens is nothing compared to what Labour have done to and will continue to do to the Greens

      The Greens constantly put out to Labour and in return Labour continue to disrespect the Greens

      • McFlock 10.1.1

        Thanks for your concern. Duly noted.

        Now you can go and man the beaches against the hordes of boat people ol’ tugger is worried about…

        • Puckish Rogue 10.1.1.1

          Its not concern, I like the fact that Labour shaft the Greens whenever they get the opportunity as it makes Nationals chances of leading better

          • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1

            yeah, my apologies. I forgot you were a moral vacuum for a moment.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11

    How America Is Turning into a 3rd World Nation in 4 Easy Steps

    In the 1950’s when our economy still embraced Hamilton’s 11-point plan, manufacturing used to account for a quarter of GDP, but today it accounts for around a tenth, replaced by the low-wage service sector and Wall Street. And this new economy can’t support a middle class. A service sector can’t create lasting wealth, nor can Wall Street.

    Before NAFTA, the average American taxpayer earned an inflation-adjusted income of $33,400 a year. By 2008, that number dropped to just $33,000. Working Americans maxed out their credit cards and took out a second mortgage on their homes just to make ends meet. Eventually, even that wasn’t enough to make ends meet.

    We are, of course, going down the same road as the US and that road leads to enrichment of the already rich, poverty for everyone else and essentially turning us back into a feudal state with the rich as the new aristocrats.

  12. John Shears 12

    So I have scrolled down to subject 8 and skim read a load of utter drivel, sadly.
    In the meantime kids are going to school in unsafe buildings which were reported in 2012 ( some pupils who started then will have left or are about to) this is nothing short of a national disgrace and the NATIONAL PARTY , the Minister and John Key all be both ashamed and hauled over the coals for this complete lack of action.

    Come on Standardistas stuck into get into a real problem and get some results
    for these students and their teachers instead of sniping away at
    one another. The fact that it will not be sorted till 2017 is hard to believe.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11458555

  13. jimmyben 13

    The last NZ and UK elections both point to a divide between the commentariat classes and voters.
    It is evident with the Greens hanging their hat on the Climate Change thing.
    This is shown repeatedly to be something the great unwashed simply do not buy into.
    It is hard to take seriously someone who really believes CO2 is a “pollutant”.

    [lprent: Ah a idiot who doesn’t understand anything about science. But also one who hasn’t shown why this comment has *anything* to do with the post. Moved to OpenMike. ]

    • dukeofurl 13.1

      Pollutant is not a good word for something that has been around since the earth had an atmosphere.

      Better to call it a slow release time bomb

  14. repateet 14

    I see on Kiwiblog that Peter Hughes of the Ministry of Education has been named chief executive of the year.

    What? He would not have been fit to be the doormat to the office of Clarence Beeby.
    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5b17/beeby-clarence-edward

    • Kiwiri 14.1

      Anyone can find what salary band is he on, as well as what is his remuneration package?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago