Open mike 02/10/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:35 am, October 2nd, 2014 - 182 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

182 comments on “Open mike 02/10/2014”

  1. Richard 1

    Speaking of Dirty, question of the day. What happened to Dirty Politics and all the information left with Gower. Now I read Gower had his eye damaged and was in hospital but surely paddy has read it by now and can start spilling the dirt to take some of the gleam off national or was Raw Shark duped. If Raw Shark was duped by Gower I wonder if he will reappear if National and MSM continue there DP tactics which it appears they are.

    I noticed everything went damn quiet on the Herald as soon as O’Sullivans name was implicated!!!

    • karol 1.1

      How was O’Sullivan’s name implicated. I understood there wasn’t a lot of stuff left that wasn’t already in the book or that had been posted by whaledump.

      However, there’s plenty in all that, already public info for the MSM to be pursuing. They’ve just let the whole nasty mess drop. Instead, they are labeling anything a little bit attacking “dirty politics”, providing rear guard smoke and mirrors.

      • phillip ure 1.1.1

        @ karol..

        ..unused material was given to apn..fairfax..and tv3..

        ..this is what the court-case/injunctions have been all about..

        ..so we should see it rolling out soon/when all the ducks are in a row/oia’s answered..

        • karol 1.1.1.1

          Rawshark said all the most important stuff was already public, when he disappeared. Hager said something similar.

          There’s plenty of issues to be pursued on the already-public stuff… OIA’s and other investigations.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.1.1

            oh well..!..one of us will be correct..

            ..as i think there is lots still to come..

            ..so you really think this big/expensive legal-battle..

            ..that fairfax/apn/tv3 have been involved in..

            ..trying to get injunctions against publication lifted..

            ..has been over nothing..?

            • karol 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Slater was the one who instigated the injunctions. Worked a treat in closing down reporting of the issues before the election. Now Team Nat-Slater has far less to gain from pursuing the issues/case.

              • Galeandra

                This issue is well traversed by Russell Brown et al on Hard News. You may find substantive comments there which address your concerns. Pundit also might help with the ‘It’s gotta be down to media conspiracy” meme.
                MSM in NZ seems woefully weak and some commentators are clearly and shamefully partisan, but this anti-MSM reflex from the left is often counterfactual and deservedly Standard posters come in for some mockery because of it.

                • Lanthanide

                  +1

                • greywarbler

                  @ Galeandra
                  this anti-MSM reflex from the left is often counterfactual and deservedly Standard posters come in for some mockery because of it.

                  You deserve mockery for your quaint, naive comments. In fact they are typical of the complacent, conformist, accepting sort of NZer we all were who allowed the present developments by embracing Rogernomics.

                  Now that a few people are trying to drag the majority from this destructive coma of acceptance, it shocks the addicted.

                  Don’t rock the boat, don’t criticise, don’t put your ideas forward, don’t demand better, who do you think you are making complaints. Follow those in charge without question, they know best, everything will be justified in the end, and those ends will be golden and worthy of the sacrifices caused by the means.

                  Jam tomorrow for some and, for the most, compliance or else is the true end – that is the wisdom that observation teaches, substantively.

                  • fair do’s warbles..

                    ..i pour as much shit on the corporate media as anyone..

                    ..and there is more than enough material to be getting on with..

                    ..each and every day..

                    ..so i see no need to make shit up about them..

                    ..and of course they have not been able to publish..

                    ..because of injunctions..etc..

                    ..claiming it is part of a supression-conspiracy (favouring key/national) on their part..

                    ..is just ridiculous..

                    ..and i think this is all that galeandra is saying/pointing out..

                    • adam

                      What’s this MSM your talking about Galeandra? All I see is a corporate media, driven by the profit motivator. Fair enough, that’s their buzz. Just remember if your going to play the game in the interests of profit – you are open to criticism from a non-profit, or socialist perspective, also a green one, and/or a feminist perspective.

                      I think if you try thinking, you will find a few more perspectives the media, which uses as it base – the profit motivation – can be critiqued on.

                      To blame us for doing analysis and criticism of the media as it currently stands – is like blaming a fish for living in water.

                    • greywarbler

                      @ Galeandra
                      Why if you are left do you spend your time criticising others who are left. And why if I disagree with you is it ad hominem comment? Why can you throw negatives around and then react against a spirited reply?

                      If you are so wise then you will know that one of the problems with the left is that they splinter into squabbling factions. If the idea is to get a strong left movement going, and you are wise, and informed and clever etc. then why wouldn’t you support the good ideas, then say why others are lacking and look to amalgamate the good ideas into a strong and yet flexible philosophy and entity?

                      Wikipedia
                      ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person.

                      @ phillip
                      I think that enough evidence of MSM dirty tricks and bias has been presented here to justify our criticisms. And you can have your own separate viewpoint but this does not diminish our findings when they are based on observation and fact. If they are not then you can present the source and your interpretation of what was said to justify your position and show TS commenters their error.

                  • Galeandra

                    Well, well, well…… so having a ‘wrong’ opinion equates with “You deserve mockery for your quaint, naive comments” and references to my complacency and selfishness.
                    Just another shitty little attempt to shoot the messenger, which I think my original comment was about. Why don’t you follow up the sources I referenced before you let fly. Move out outside the truthy bubble, perhaps.

                    FYI, my inclination is harder left than most folks, and I used to spend quite a lot of time here but too many just want to interview their own keyboards. Labour still sucks but I try to support them even when the caucus let their politics of self-interest get in the way.

                    I don’t go in for ad hominums, I do grow tired of the faffing and whining that posters so liberally spray around, and sadly, I do read a lot of scathing posts elsewhere about “te Standard’ and the siege mentality that pervades its posts.

                    Thanks you for concern. Have a good day.

                    • Ant

                      Comes in, makes a contentious statement, throws toys and takes off in a sook once challenged.

                      Claims to be of the “harder left” variety.

                      With skin that thin, no wonder we are losing 😀

                • This issue is well traversed by Russell Brown et al on Hard News.

                  Some of us demand more sober sources than Public Address.

                  Pundit also might help with the ‘It’s gotta be down to media conspiracy” meme.

                  Pundit is an “establishment” blog written mostly by insiders. The last thing you are going to find there is genuinely critical analysis.

                  MSM in NZ seems woefully weak and some commentators are clearly and shamefully partisan.

                  That’s always been true. This time seems somewhat different to me and people in my social circle. Media bias is not new in New Zealand. Collusion between media and political parties of the kind exposed by Hager does seem to be something new, as was the relentless media campaign against Cunliffe by TV3, Stuff and the Herald. I’ve seen that done overseas, but never here.

                  Now if you want to claim that there was no relentless series of hit pieces on Cunliffe over the past year, I don’t think I have anything further to say to you. It was patently obvious to anyone watching, and denials just aren’t credible.

                  Holding the media solely responsible for the election result is hardly credible, but who is actually doing that? To say that the media had no role in it is equally silly. But that’s largely irrelevant – they didn’t do their job. The media in this election were poor and in many cases actively partisan. It doesn’t really help that most of them are stupid, but you’d think that they could make more of their admittedly meagre talents.

                • Tracey

                  you could read a little wider here and find many on the left hold the Left responsible for its failures. it is you who chooses to characterise the comments here on the defeat as being

                  media bad
                  left hard done by

                  you stated Standard poters deserve the mockery, not some posters.

                  most people i read here commenting about the media have also commented on other aspects of Labours demise from internal squabbling, lack of connection to middle nz and much more.

                  you make such a bald statement as that and then shrink into a shell cos someone took umbrage?

              • Tracey

                yes it did. defending himself in another case cos he says he has no, oney but a QC for the injunction… mission accomplished.

    • David H 1.2

      “Gower had his eye damaged” What by, or who by are the questions

  2. the abc’ers have a lot to answer for..

    ..not only did they undermine cunliffe from day one..

    ..their control of the policy-process..

    ..ensured that cunliffe was sent to campaign with an empty-policy satchel..

    ..with nothing for those people he was talking to/inspiring..

    ..when labour were polling at 35-37%..

    ..plus there was parkers’ vote-killing brainfart…the raise the pension-age clanger..

    ..that went down like a cup of cold sick…

    ..had cunliffe been given policies that backed that 35%-37% rhetoric..

    ..cunliffe wd now be prime minister..

    ..and the abc’ers stopped those policies..

    ..it is easy to conclude the abc’ers cost labour/progressives the election..

    ..and those same bastards now trying to blame cunliffe for the poor result..

    ..is kinda puke-inducing..

    ..and a bunch of lies..

    • Harry Holland 2.1

      I actually posted this on Open Mike yesterday, but it very much relates to what you are saying, and I think it’s an important issue…
      .
      “Leadership and policy are not the same thing. The parliamentary leader may well be the front man for party policy but does not get to create policy to suit themselves.
      .
      By extension then, does it really make sense to say that this leader took the party left, or that that leader would take it right etc?
      .
      Or is their solid evidence to suggest that I’m being naive?”

      • Harry Holland 2.1.1

        Quick disclosure: In future I will be dropping the handle HH (too evocative of Labour’s historic mana) and I will be posting under the name Cave Johnson.

        [karol: thanks for letting people know. Flagging it to the moderators]

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2

        Yeah, that’s a good point and so the Labour people who want to go left need to ask where the policies are decided and why aren’t Labour’s policies the ones they want?

    • Vaughan Little 2.2

      you’re too fucking gnomic.

      …. if you

      … wanted ….

      to…

      be…

      …more hooton…

      …than hoot..o…n…

      ………

      …… why not

      just be terse instead?

    • Jenny Kirk 2.3

      Phil U – 100% agree !

    • Chooky 2.4

      Phillip Ure …your analysis is spot on….and now they want to elect a Leader before the Election analysis is out!

      …it is almost corrupting the process of the leadership debate and selection

      …especially if DC cops all the blame and loses to Robertson ( who is absolutely a Labour Party Election disaster imo)

    • The Al1en 2.5

      Writing the same points over and over again is easy.
      Have you got anything else we haven’t read 30 times since yesterday?

      • phillip ure 2.5.1

        i don’t think i’ve seen anyone else argue the empty-policy-satchel case..

        ..(and no..i am not commencing a dialogue with you..i am just pointing that out..)

        • The Al1en 2.5.1.1

          Fact check your rants bruv – Daily often repeated claims = Empty head of a one trick pony.

          ..Fucken..Bo(a)re…eh..?..

        • The Lone Haranguer 2.5.1.2

          Hang on you lot 🙂

          I recall the left saying that Labour had great policies and that the Nats had no policies. And now you are saying Labour either had no policies, or the ones they had were toxic.

          So were the policies great, or were they toxic?

      • Chooky 2.5.2

        @ Allen …some things bear much repetition ….talking to children and talking politics

        ( besides which I thought you were talking to me until I realised you were talking to Phil….who actually does have interesting stuff to say)

  3. michael parkin gives a very good impersonation of an empty-headed fool..

    ..(and he calls cosgrove ‘cosy’..chuckling about ‘cosy’ making up shit about the cunliffes..)

    ..he really is piece of fucken work..

    • Vaughan Little 3.1

      …………………..if…..

      you….

      have…

      a …..

      drinking……

      ….problem…..

      get…..

      …..help…..

      • phillip ure 3.1.1

        i don’t use alcohol..dear boy…

        ..far too declasse..eh…?

        • phillip ure 3.1.1.1

          and the newest benchmark of/for declasse..is clayton cosgrove..

          .(.or ‘cosy’ as tvone sock-puppet michael parkin calls him..)

          ..for just making stuff up about the cunliffes..

          ..or just ‘having a go”..

          as sock-puppet parkin admiringly sneered this morn…

          ..(and hopefully this is the nadir in this relentless anti-cunliffe campaign being waged..

          ..i think cosgrove has taken it as low as it can go..)

      • phillip ure 3.1.2

        i’ve also noticed that alcohol use..especially the longer it goes on..

        ..dulls the brain of the user..

        ..have you noticed that in yrslf..?

        • Vaughan Little 3.1.2.1

          Thanks for your concern.

          I found your idiosyncratic writing style outrageously funny so I thought I’d have a crack at it.

          It reminded me of someone who’s just hanging on to his bar stool (ergo the probably callous reference to our favourite tory opinionator). But then today I realized it has a striking resemblance to the diction of Rorschach (where Rawshark gets his name from) from the Watchmen. So now when I read your comments I hear Rorschach, which is pretty annoying.

          • phillip ure 3.1.2.1.1

            “..I found your idiosyncratic writing style outrageously funny so I thought I’d have a crack at it. .”

            ..harder than it looks..?

  4. James Thrace 4

    Leadership campaign details are out. 14 meetings from 22 October (Wellington first) to South Auckland on November 11.

    Voting results then announced November 18.

    Seriously.. Labour should have kept the Goff-father after 2011. Probably would have won on Sept 20 but no… Let’s go all out internecine warfare in the public domain after every election loss.

    Ffs.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      Yes, Phil Goff should have stayed on as Labour leader for at least 6 months, to stabilise Labour after a big defeat. He was growing into the job as well. And Labour’s poor party vote performance could not simply be laid at Goff’s feet; there were many campaign management team decisions which led to a poor party vote campaign.

      And FFS, this was a John Key Govt after just one term.

      But Goff moved on after a lack of support from the pro-Robertson camp who was demanding change, and Goff didn’t have it in him to defend a bad election result. The thing they all had in common: none of them liked DC so the idea of installing David Shearer, with Grant Robertson as deputy, was born.

      • Clemgeopin 4.1.1

        I agree. Goff was good. Still is. Now the Labour caucus members should put their egos/prejudices aside, get united and show their full loyal support to Cunliffe instead of spending heaps of cash on an unnecessary destabilising contest at this stage. Everything has some risk. Changing the leader now perhaps has the biggest risk of all.

      • Richard 4.1.2

        CV, personally I put Goff in the Shearer category of too indecisive, can’t think on his feet, is a terrible orator.

        As the leader gets the most press and announces the big things he’s got to have wits. The only time I’ve seen Cunliffe struggle was when Key set him up on the CGT for the family home. I believed DC’s reasoning, he was caught off guard there was not tax on family home or trust homes.

        Robertson is a good orator too, Just doesn’t have the PM stature He’s short squat and can’t keep his shirt tucked in. At times Robertson looks like some random plucked off the sidewalk thrust into a suit he’s not fit to wear.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1

          To me Goff clearly beats Shearer in the oratory and thinking on his feet stakes. That is not saying much – Goff does have a lot of experience to fall back on. But it’s not enough against John Key.

          As for your description of Robertson. Yeah that laser guided bomb struck the designated target pretty hard.

      • Murray Olsen 4.1.3

        Goff should have stayed long enough to hand over to Cunliffe and not a second more. In 1985 I was visiting various Labour MPs as part of a HART initiative to sound them out on the subsequently cancelled racist rugby tour. Goff was the only one who refused to see us. Helen Clark gave my friend and I more than half an hour.

        Since that time, the only time I’ve had any respect for Goff was when he visited Yasser Arafat against the wishes of the Zionist regime.

    • Ant 4.2

      Yeah I don’t think there are many people here that disagree with that, most people for better or for worse thought at the time that Goff should have stayed on.

  5. Vaughan Little 5

    Labour should – – –

    I do – – — —

    • Chooky 5.1

      can you decode that?

      • phillip ure 5.1.1

        @ chooky..

        ..psst..!..(hic!)…i think he has alcohol-issues…

      • Vaughan Little 5.1.2

        Yeah sorry for being unhelpfully terse.

        This blog has to have the greatest comments sections I’ve come across, but I do get frustrated by a lot of the “What Labour needs to do is…” opinionating. Tho alongside that there are also quite a lot of insightful criticisms of the party.

        It seems to me that a lot of commenters have done a lot of yards in political activism, but then there are a lot of armchair critics. and I seriously believe that praxis is intrinsic to socialism. So my point is, OK thanks for all your opinions, but what actually the fuck are you doing/have you done about anything?

        I know it could be construed as snobby, but there’s an unreality about language that isn’t grounded in work or experience. Or as Marx said: “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

        In my experience I have found it very hard to be *extremely* negative while I’m engaged in positive, constructive activism. So I take it as a sign of unhealthy disengagement when commenters reveal a kind of towering negativity about their subject.

  6. Saarbo 6

    The upside of the dairy price collapse, which after this monings Fonterra GDT auction drop ( http://www.globaldairytrade.info/en/product-results/whole-milk-powder/ ) is many of our environmental problems will be reduced. Because farming is about to become grass based as opposed to supplementary feed based, which will reduce output and reduce the nitrogen runoff into waterways.

    Bank economists are arguing that it is cyclical, but it will be interesting to see if that proves correct…given what USA and Europe are doing this may be more structural, in which case many NZ dairy farmers will be forced off their farms with too much debt. This is scary times for our economy and the collapse of the national party’s key economic driver.

    • @ saarbo..

      ..there is a market-glut predicted for the next five years..

      ..which will continue to drive prices down..(fonterras’ latest price-predictions are laughably optimistic..)

      ..and of course soon we have the release of mufree..

      ..which is milk made from yeast..which looks/tastes/behaves the same as cow milk..(i.e..baking/cheese-making etc..)

      ..this is made with minimal environmental-footprint..(no dirty rivers..)..

      ..will be much cheaper that cow-milk..

      ..and will not need to be chilled..(it does not ‘go off’..)

      ..these twin-storms mean that longterm the dairy industry is pretty much fucked..

      ..and what concerns me is how so many iwi are pouring their treaty-settlement money into an industry –

      – that could be compared with bridle-makers/stable-owners..

      ..just before the advent of the motor-car..

      • The Al1en 6.1.1

        “..and of course soon we have the release of mufree….which is milk made from yeast..which looks/tastes/behaves the same as cow milk..(i.e..baking/cheese-making etc..)”

        Put your astute observationalist punditry to the test and make a prediction in which year sales of genetically modified/engineered milk from a lab will out sell cows milk in NZ.

        A. 2015
        B. 2016-2020
        C. 2020 – To absolutely never in a million years.

      • Saarbo 6.1.2

        @phillip ure

        Where are you reading/hearing a market glut for 5 years. I have read it will balance out over 2015. Personally I think it will be longer than that but I am interested where you read 5 years?

        • phillip ure 6.1.2.1

          @ saarbo..it was in a reputable int publication..(sorry..can’t remember which..)

          ..a couple of months ago..

          ..they pointed out that the white-gold rush into dairy has happened globally..

          ..and there are big operations coming on-stream..on top of what is already there..

          ..and the prediction was this wd all lead to a glut lasting at least five yrs..

          ..which is pretty grim news for the nz economy…

          • Kiwiri 6.1.2.1.1

            I have vague recollections of reading it .. and found it in my history folder:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/milk-output-expansion-poised-to-spur-5-year-world-surplus.html

            By Phoebe Sedgman Jul 12, 2014 5:09 AM GMT+1200

            “A record payout to New Zealand dairy farmers last year is setting the stage for a global milk glut that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. predicts will last half a decade.”

            • phillip ure 6.1.2.1.1.1

              chrs kiwiri..

              • it’s a shame our corporate media doesn’t cover the important stories/’stuff’….

                ..i wonder what faff/nonsense they were headlining on july 12 th..?

            • GregJ 6.1.2.1.1.2

              Thanks Kiwiri.

              You’ll note that article (July 2014) was predicting a forecast price of NZ$7/kg milk solids. The latest forecast from Fonterra on 24 September was NZ$5.30 and now the ANZ has cut its forecast to $4.85 & Westpac to $4.80

              And you’ll note that the second article states “This sits well below the average cost of production for farmers and will have a significant impact on discretionary spending,”

              • shit..!..that is serious..

                ..and should our corporate media be covering this..?

                ..hell no..!..they’re busy..they have cunliiffe stories/dire-predictions to dream up..

                • GregJ

                  And the ANZ/Westpac forecasts were on the basis that “assuming a modest bounce back in global prices.”

                • Saarbo

                  Agee PU. It is interesting that the Bloomberg article wasn’t picked up. TV3 news balmed the entire collapse of the dairy market on the unpredictable Russian ban on Dairy…not mentioning the very predictable oversupply from USA and Europe and drop in cost of cow feed (wheat) by 25% in USA.

                • ‘coming up in the news at 10.30..

                  ..patrick gower asks again..

                  ..the question everyone wants the answer to..

                  ..’is this the final nail in david cunliffes’ coffin..?’

                  ..we have pictures of the nail..!..

                  ..and paddy interviews the coffin..’..

            • Saarbo 6.1.2.1.1.3

              Thanks: Yes that is interesting. It quotes Rabobank in there and it is Hayley Moinahan from Rabo NZ who is talking up some sort of recovery next year…which is really difficult to see happening given the over supply. To put things in contxt, for there to be oversupply then factories/dryers had to be built…they arnt going to de-commission new plant and equipment immediately, this is why commodities tend to do what they do…I was in the paper industry for a while and that industry is even worse than dairy. The big question is whether this downturn is cyclical or structural…if structural then we (NZ) is in the shit…so to speak.

    • Chooky 6.2

      +100 Saarbo

    • Paul 6.3

      Dairy price drop.
      How the government handles this will be interesting.
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11334946

      • Tracey 6.3.1

        have you heard about the flag referendum…

        • Paul 6.3.1.1

          Diversions can only work for some time.
          The bribe of no CGT will wear thin as house prices stall and the economy tanks.
          Key needs the TPP quickly to lock in the sale of the country to corporate interests and before enough people realise what’s happening.

  7. xanthe 7

    if labour cannot acknowledge that they created pike river against public opposition.
    if labour cannot acknowledge that the dismantled the mines safety regime against public opposition.
    if labour cannot apologise to the families of the 29 miners
    they should turn out the lights and shut the door on their way out!

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1

      1. Labour allowed Pike River to be investigated, National opened it up for commercial use
      2. National dismantled mine safety in the 1990s, Labour was reviewing the legislation when National were elected in 2008 at which point National dropped the review
      3. It’s National that should be apologising and coughing up the compensation

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

        +1

      • phillip ure 7.1.2

        nine yrs not long enough for labour to fix that..?

        ..that is one long ‘review’…

        • greywarbler 7.1.2.1

          @ phillip
          Labour was slow, weak, wet and deleterious in its duty to its constituents the workers in dangerous industries. (Other words for deleterious are injurious, destructive, prejudicial, ruinous. All are entirely appropriate. The free market gives you a choice – so feel free to choose freely.
          (Also nocent is a synonym for destructive – what a great word for politician’s wrongdoing.)

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.2

          Yes, they took too long to look at it but at the same time not everything can be done in a day and they did get round to looking at it. National stopped even the belated looking.

          • phillip ure 7.1.2.2.1

            i guess if you wanted to try to retrieve a shard of credibility..

            ..(‘heyy!..c’mon..!…we were looking..!..)

            ..you cd try that on..

            ..but yeah..nah..eh..?

            ..and nine years is quite a bit longer than ‘a day’..eh..?

            ..who was the minister then..?

            ..which of these abc’ers was it..?

            ..labour and national are both guilty of criminal neglect..

            • phillip ure 7.1.2.2.1.1

              that’s the thing with those abc’ers..

              ..they’ve all got so much baggage to lug around..

              ..they almost need permanent porters..

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.2.1.2

              Even nine years isn’t long enough to do everything.

              Really, you’re the one with credibility issues.

              • but definitely long enough to do something..

                • Draco T Bastard

                  They did do something, quite a bit in fact – they just hadn’t gotten around to doing that.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    DTB. You are very kind to Labour. Fact of the matter is that they were far too slow and cautious, spent a lot of energy carefully straddling the centre and fending off dirty politics attacks (eg shower heads, speeding to rugby games).

  8. fambo 8

    Interesting to see quite a lot of political columnists presently bagging the Greens for not selling out on their principles. I conjecture that what has happened is the election results which saw the majority of voting New Zealanders ignoring the moral reasons for not supporting National/ACT/etc has created a new amoral political universe that said columnists feel the need to somehow drag the Green Party and its supporters into. Sorry mates, us non-National/ACT etc voters may have lost the election but we remain on the right side of the moral universe which feels good inside. You can takeaway our rights but you can’t buy our souls.

    • ah..!..a green..!..a talking one..!..(rare in these parts..it seems..)

      ..care to tell us why you greens gifted peter dunne his 11th term in parliament..?

      ..much as you have also gifted him his seat in the elections before..

      ..cd you explain for us just how exactly your doing that..

      ..is in any shape or form..’on the right side of the moral universe’..

      ..eh..?

      ..i’m having difficulty seeing that..myself..

      ..what you did there may make you ‘feel good inside.’..

      ..it makes me feel like puking..

      ..i mean..was it even discussed/debated..?

      ..what the inevitable outcome of yr vote-splitting wd be..?

      ..and honestly..!..i have also had an irony-o.d. over this one..

      ..as dunne is the man who kept the green party out of office..way back when..eh..?

      (..and this is how you repay him..?..as they say..)

      ..you could have taken dunne out at the election..

      ..why the hell didn’t you..?

      ..and..how he must laugh…eh..?

      ..at you..

      • Chooky 8.1.1

        @Phillip ure…why did Labour not agree to a coalition deal with the Greens before the Election?….that is part of your answer

        the Election showed many of the potential Left alliance coalition Parties worked for themselves and not in collaborative concert…this was their undoing!

        personally i think what Labour did to Hone and Int/MANA was unforgivable too….there was the possibility of 4 Left MPS ruled out for a Left coalition in that stupid little manouvre

        ….and as for rejecting the Maori Party as a coalition partner before the Election…this was crazy

        • phillip ure 8.1.1.1

          i feel the greens should have had the nous to make a unilateral decision not to stand a candidate in ohariu..

          ..had they not..dunne wd be gone..

          ..dunne won by 900+ votes..

          ..the green candidate got 2,400+ electorate votes..

          ..how..in any way..can this not be braindead on the part of the greens..?

          • Chooky 8.1.1.1.2

            …yes well maybe there are some dumb Greens?.

            ..and agreed in hindsight the Green Party should have called off the candidate

            …but as I say there are extenuating circumstances

            ….and maybe the Green vote in that Electorate surprised everyone

            • phillip ure 8.1.1.1.2.1

              in ohariiu there are 2,400+ of them..

              ..yes..the greens should have not stood a candidate..that much is pretty much unarguable..

              ..what ‘extenuating circumstances’ cd there possibly be..

              ..no..this has happened election after election..

              ..dunne is there/been able to do all the damage he did..

              ..because the green party split the vote..

              ,.and thus serially gift him the seat…

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.2.2

              and agreed in hindsight the Green Party should have called off the candidate

              They can’t afford to do that due to the increase in advertising spending that the electorate candidate represents. In other words, to get the party name in front of more people they need the electorate candidates.

              Everyone keeps going on about parties not working well in MMP and part of that is that in FPP, which the electorates still are, there are only two possible choices. And those two choices effectively come down to National (or who they tell people to vote for) or Labour and it will stay that way until such time as we bring in preferential voting for electorates.

          • GregJ 8.1.1.1.3

            I really, really wish people would drop this specious argument about Ōhariu. All this discussion about tactical voting without any realistic understanding or analysis about when that tactical voting will work and when it won’t.

            I’m not even going to link to my original comment – I’m just going to paste it here, again! 😡

            “I think people are too easily seduced by the 900+ vote majority in Ōhariu into thinking Ginny Andersen could have won.

            Look at the party vote distribution – 16,686 out of 32,698 voted National (leaving aside the 977 Conservative votes, 222 ACT & 241 United Future). The combined Green/Lab Party vote was 12,306. If there had been any hint of an accomodation between the Greens & Labour at the candidate level then the 5,000+ National voters who voted for Hudson would have simply switched to keep Dunne in. (If there’s one thing National voters know it’s how to follow directions from “Dear Leader”).

            Ōhariu is not the old Onslow seat, its not even Ohariu-Belmont. It’s now a firmly National seat. Dunne has simply moved right as his seat has moved right. When the Hairdo retires it will return a National member (unless they stitch up some deal with the Conservatives to coattail the Conservative vote).

            I’m not saying that tactical voting isn’t important – and that the Left needs to work out when it is important and when it isn’t (and that also means that sometimes Labour is going to have to surrender an electorate seat to someone else on the Left – oh I don’t know – say a seat like TTT!).”

      • fambo 8.1.2

        Hi Phillip – I too would have been in favour of the Greens not having a candidate stand against Dunne.

        • phillip ure 8.1.2.1

          chrs for answering..fambo..

          ..was it even discussed..?

          ..do you know why they didn’t make that decision not to stand a candidate..?

          ..the thought-processes behind that fascinate me..

          ..what on earth cd the ‘we must stand!’ case have been..?

    • Chooky 8.2

      +100 fambo

  9. boldsirbrian 9

    Congratulations to David Farrar. Kiwiblog has been accepted as a member of the Online Media Standards Authority.

    It doesn’t mean that I like the blog. At the very best it is a personal blog, and he openly stands for “mischief”. I see the mischief in the way that he reports “accurately” but too often uses “facts” out of context, to suggest a conclusion that suits National. In other words it is a National propaganda blog, rather than a blog of the right, even if he periodically highlights a minor issue he personally disagrees with. And nothing of course stops selective reporting

    Another issue that is worth noting is that there have been many criticisms of media standards, with regard to political reporting over this last election, that I think have a lot of justification. Main stream media will be quick to claim that they are neutral, and criticisms are made by all “sides” of politics, simply because they do not like negative publicity. This is partly true, but it’s also partly simply an excuse to ignore criticism. The main concerns I have is the open bias that is now accepted from people generally considered in the past to be reporting news. I have no concerns about people providing opinion, when that is clearly their role. But when others are given anchor roles in “news” type programmes, and are permitted to be openly political, I’m much more concerned. I’ll single out Mike Hosking, for an example of the worst of the worst. I’m less concerned about obvious subtle bias from a lot of others on the left, and the right.

    Regardless, I’ll still say that I am pleased that Farrar has taken the action that he has. It’s a step in the right direction, and as the first blog to take this action, he deserves some accolades.

    Farrar himself does not claim to be a journalist, distinguishing blogs from MSM. It’s a wise distinction. And he also openly says his blog is from the “right”. Open biases are less of a concern than hidden biases. Those on the “left” of the political spectrum, would be foolish not to periodically, and regularly understand what is being written on right leaning blogs.

    I presume his joining means that standards will be maintained from the 1st October. It’s a pity that the example of Dirty politics from kiwiblog, exposed on this site, in the last week, is not subject to his “new” standards.
    Refer to: Dirty Kiwiblog, 26 Sept 2014

    • Tracey 9.1

      “.I presume his joining means that standards will be maintained from the 1st October. It’s a pity that the example of Dirty politics from kiwiblog, exposed on this site, in the last week, is not subject to his “new” standards….”

      he could have had better standards without joining a group. its hard to avoid the notion its a new way to make himlook reasonable… just another strategy.

    • karol 9.2

      The new “standards” don’t cover anything like the two track strategy or abuse of power as exposed by Hager. Where it does focus on accuracy, etc,, they are pretty weak:

      PART A – STANDARDS THAT RELATE TO THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED

      Standard 1 Accuracy

      Publishers should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news and current affairs content is accurate and/or does not mislead in relation to all material points of fact.

      Guidelines

      1a. Comment or opinion (to which this standard does not apply) must be clearly distinguished from factual content.

      1b. If the content is edited publishers should take care to ensure that the extracts and abridgments used are not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.

      Standard 2 Balance on Controversial Issues

      Taking account of the Context in which the content is published publishers should make reasonable efforts to ensure that where the content deals with controversial issues of public importance it makes due reference to a reasonable range of significant viewpoints on the issue.

      Guidelines

      2a. In determining whether there has been due reference to a reasonable range of significant viewpoints the publisher will consider:

      the opportunities provided for those with significant viewpoints to contribute to the content;
      whether the issue or topic is clearly presented from a particular perspective

      So, not much different from what is done on most blogs and/or in the MSM… which still manages to be pretty inaccurate in its biases.

      The rest of the standards are just about things like issues related to matters of sex and violence, for the most part, defamation, etc… most of it already covered by laws.

      No doubt DPF will use it as a badge of not doing ‘Dirty Politics” of manipulation and deception, feeding such to the MSM, etc….. but it ain’t necessarily so in reality. There are clauses about not doing deception…. but ….?

  10. anker 10

    https://www.facebook.com/cunliffeforleader

    If you haven’t already signed this, and you support DC for leader, please click!

  11. Granted 11

    So Auckland city is about to come under a “mass surveillance” program after a contract awarded to HP????

    Is this worse than the GCSB issue?

    It seems more “personal” which is a worry?

    • Tracey 11.1

      and reported as a shiny new IT innovation.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1

        Selling out our sovereignty – NZ data sent overseas, law enforcement processes, data matching, privacy intrusion – all conducted by foreign nationals in a foreign data centre now. All automatically sucked up by the NSA – where/when you go in your car/how long you stay there/who was in your vehicle with you etc.

  12. Puckish Rogue 12

    “My hope is that we will be able to pull it back. It is important to me that I leave my personal brand, which is reasonably statesman-like, and I’m not into any form of gutter politics. I’m distraught that this has occurred.”

    – A statesman is usually a politician, diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level.

    – “The greasy little fulla in the blue suit”

    Labours gift to National would be a Cunliffe win 🙂

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      “The greasy little fulla in the blue suit”

      You talking John Key or DPF there?

  13. Hami Shearlie 13

    A message to the Darling of Ilam, James Dann – you say if David Cunliffe wins the leadership race you will leave the Labour Party. And you demand that if David Cunliffe loses the race, he should leave Parliament altogether. Well, to be absolutely consistent and even-handed how about this? If Grant Robertson loses the race, HE should have to leave Parliament too!! Fairness above all surely, James! Or is that not the way you roll?

  14. adam 14

    In case you missed it – the truth is out the right wing hate the poor.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-david-cameron-accidentally-says-tories-resent-the-poor-9768106.html

    Now the British PM admits it.

  15. Barfly 15

    The NZ Labour Party has had more than 2000 new members join in the last week…Vote David Cunliffe 🙂

  16. westiechick 16

    I see John Armstrong in the Herald is once again telling David Cunliffe to give up and go away. Ground hog day. Can anybody do a timeline showing the number of times that Armstrong and others at the Herald have called for Cunliffe’s resignation in the year since he became leader? – It feels like I have read the same article a hundred times. Hope he continues to disobey them.

    • @ westiechick..

      ..heh..!..it is becoming farcical..

      ..you could almost build a drinking game around every time gower says..

      ‘..’is this the last nail in cunliffes’ coffin?’..

      ..they are all fucken hysterical..bordering on demented..

      ..i am up early in the morning finding stories for whoar..

      ..and christie always starts his morning with a cunliffe-moan…

  17. yeshe 17

    Here we go .. Monsanto’s GMO pressure on NZ farmers .. look at this loon on return from his free and no doubt well- sponsored trip. If this is released into NZ, it won’t matter who the leader of any party is .. we will be rendered useless by Monsanto.

    Dirty Monsanto tricks makes Dirty Polltics look like a Peanuts cartoon.

    Watch this space and oppose it when and where you can, please …. imo it is the BIGGEST issue we face.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/10555565/Farmer-calls-for-debate-on-GM-potential

      • yeshe 17.1.1

        Yup. NZ under Key’s TPPA. Read it and weep for what ‘clean and green’ used to mean.

        The loss of safe food and total desecration of our environment by glyphosate and then glyphosate-resistant weeds will be Key’s legacy if this is permitted through.

        Glorious leader John, too stupid, thick and pig-ignorant to know any better. But so well-paid ….

        • TheContrarian 17.1.1.1

          I’m no fan of Monsanto but GM food has been proven to be extremely safe for human consumption and beneficial in a lot of ways.

          Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water etc.

            • TheContrarian 17.1.1.1.1.1

              I think you are missing the point I am getting at here – particularly when it comes to “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water etc”

              Golden Rice is a GE product which is safe from human consumption and beneficial to children who have Vit A deficient diets.

              Also I get my information from the vast majority of scientific literature.

              http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

              • Colonial Viper

                Oh FFS mate the real risk of GMO food isn’t to individual human health, it is the systemic and potentially catastrophic threat that GMOs pose to the global ecosystem.

                • TheContrarian

                  Exactly right but I’m not suggesting we should just accept full instigation of GMO’s but what I am saying is that GMO research, as a science, could give real benefit to mankind so we should be using it where safe – such as with Golden Rice as a prime example.

                  GMO, the science, is sound and well tested and studied and long should it continue to be so.

              • blue leopard

                Take a look at the credentials of that site, Contrarian.

                Their team consists of journalists, not scientists and a quick search (Sourcewatch) indicates that that site could be politically motivated (while I have already found online articles by them accusing real scientists of having ‘political motivations’).

                Just from a very, very brief search, I find that website suspicious.

                Check out the book ‘Merchants of Doubt’.

                • TheContrarian

                  I’m not talking about the site, but the studies (the site I linked to aggregates them hence my linking to it). The vast, overwhelming, majority of studies into GMO’s and human health have found them to be completely safe. Very very few studies have highlighted serious problems and many that have done have been shown to be lacking in scientific rigor.

                  Here are some more (42):
                  http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html

                  And more (600 in total I believe):
                  http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php

                  I am not suggesting GMO’s are always safe and should be used with impunity rather I am saying that test after test they have been shown to be effective and they should continue to rigorously tested for safety in an ongoing manner as we do currently to ensure their safety.

                  • blue leopard

                    I really haven’t got the time to go and check all those links in that dodgy GLP website, nor your other links.
                    These types of checks require finding out the funding of the sites too – that GLP site ‘said’ they weren’t funded by large companies but I just happened to do a reasonable search, to discover they are strongly linked with a dodgy train of funding.
                    I’d rather stick to Union of Concerned Scientists, who acknowledge the problem with big money affecting science from the outset. Thanks for providing the links, though just the same, perhaps others will read them 🙂

                    My main problem with what you said was ‘ but GM food has been proven to be extremely safe for human consumption.’

                    I really don’t think scientists have established that GM food has been proven ‘extremely safe,’ yet and suggest to you that exaggerating facts, and making sweeping statements in the current climate of pseudo-scientific arguments that ‘Merchants of Doubt’ detailed, is a really, really, bad idea if you wish to be persuasive.

              • feijoa

                The reason children are deficient in Vitamin A is because of POVERTY. In India there is plenty of food with vitamin A, namely papaya, but poor people can’t afford to buy it.
                So how will poor people afford golden rice?
                Maybe Monsanto ( is it them who make it) will subsidise it as a publicity stunt

              • Bill

                heh -the old vitamin A argument still got legs has it?

                And prior to industrial mono-culture supplanting traditional farming techniques, do you think that just maybe (say) avocados would have been interspersed with whatever other main variety of crop was being grown, and that people could have satisfied their vitamin A needs through the simple act of growing and eating some foods rich in vitamin A?

                • TheContrarian

                  That’s great but given we are in a post industrial mono-culture supplanting traditional farming techniques culture what do you say we make use of immediately available substances until such a time as we can return to an era of traditional farming?

                  • The means are the ends, TheContrarian.

                    Those without power are always provided, by those with power, with the ‘worst option’ and also the ‘best option’ – one leads them to instant destruction; the other leads them deeper and deeper into the bowels of the prison/ the workhouse/ the labour camp.

                    I’m being a bit dramatic but hopefully you get my point.

                    The solution is to regain power – real power. Not over others, but over one’s own life.

                    • TheContrarian

                      Ah well fuck it then

                    • Not at all.

                      By all means use ‘Golden Rice’ for Vitamin A.

                      Just don’t be under the illusion that it comes along as a ‘free lunch’. Know what’s being lost.

                      The trade-off between life/security and freedom has always been around.

                      So has the tendency for people to take advantage of other people who are at a disadvantage – and to set the frame in which those others operate.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Back when we were nomadic we had a much more varied diet. As that was true of most of our evolution that means that we’ve evolved to have a varied diet. The problem now is that we don’t have such a varied diet.

                  The answer isn’t GMOs which really don’t produce anything more than the natural ecosystem – that’s another physical impossibility sown as the answer that the rich pour upon us. The answer is to massively vary our diet again. Our farms* to be turned into food forests because they have that variety and are also sustainable.

                  * I also include the vertical forests that can be grown in cities

          • Paul 17.1.1.1.2

            The naïveté is cute.

          • Murray Olsen 17.1.1.1.3

            Until we have participatory democratic control of the state, we should have nothing to do with GM food. In the meantime, the safety or otherwise is basically irrelevant. We need to maintain our food sovereignty, not hand it over to corporations.

    • yeshe 17.2

      This NZ Fed Farmers farmer who travelled on Monsanto’s ticket is too dense to understand the run-off ramifications of thousands of tonnes of poisonous glyphosate into our water ways. omfg

  18. Tamati 18

    Sad to Simon Cunliffe quit. Only been in the job a year and had a heckuva time.

    Really nice guy, used to be my cricket coach.

  19. Morrissey 19

    Competition for Jim Mora, Danny Watson and Larry “Lackwit” Williams:
    RadioLIVE has an equally crap afternoon chat show

    Thursday 2 October 2014, 2:15p.m.

    By chance, I strayed on to RadioLIVE this afternoon and heard this asinine banter. It took only a minute or so, but I fear it never got any better. I doubt it could have gotten any worse. The only interesting thing in it is how Rodney “Perk Taker” Hide unwittingly reveals just how ignorant and right wing he really is…..

    RODNEY “PERK TAKER” HIDE: You can’t respect a leader who cries when he loses! You might cry in wartime, when the Russians are coming for you!

    WILLIE JACKSON: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    CHRIS TROTTER: Haw haw haw!

    WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, I remember Roger Federer crying after he lost a match to Nadal. It made me want to S-S-S-SPEW.

    CHRIS TROTTER: [pompously and condescendingly] Haw haw haw! Rodney, you are indulging in what the Germans call schadenfreude, which means taking delight in the misfortune of others. And I would be doing just the same as you if the boot was on the other foot. Haw haw haw!

    WILLIE JACKSON: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    ALISON MAU: So does the Labour Party need a knuckle-dragging neanderthal to lead it, as these guys seem to think? Tell us what YOU think after the break…..

    At this point I could take no more, and stopped listening.

    • Puckish Rogue 19.1

      Well of course you stopped listening, I don’t blame you I mean Radiolive is very popular so listening to them might mean you get an idea of what the majority of Kiwis are thinking

      and that we can’t have that

      • Morrissey 19.1.1

        A hapless, ill-informed pogue unwisely attempted to defend the indefensible….

        Well of course you stopped listening, I don’t blame you I mean Radiolive is very popular

        Errrr, no it’s not. Its audience share is extremely low. Possibly the choice of their cutting-edge management to sound exactly like NewstalkZBigotry was not the smartest move.

        ….so listening to them might mean you get an idea of what the majority of Kiwis are thinking

        So Willie Jackson, Perk Taker Hide and Lord Haw Haw Trotter are representative of “the majority of Kiwis”, are they? What are you smoking today? I hope you’re not going to try to drive a car any time soon.

        and that we can’t have that

        Sarcasm is never an effective tactic, my muddleheaded friend.

  20. Saarbo 20

    Interesting article from Pheobe Fletcher (Punditt) , on DC and the PR shortcomings of the labour Party. http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-david-cunliffe-is-like-scarlett-johansson

  21. Saarbo 21

    Interesting article from Pheobe Fletcher (Punditt) , on DC and the PR shortcomings of the labour Party. http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/how-david-cunliffe-is-like-scarlett-johansson

    • Draco T Bastard 22.1

      About the only thing I agree with there is this bit:

      People with terrible judgement were once shunned and mocked but now New Zealand’s business, entertainment and media communities are proudly led by gibbering, empty-headed morons.

      Because it actually happens to be true.

  22. lprent 23

    In a most unusual step, I had Tim Barnett, Labours general secretary, request that I remove the Clayton Cosgrove post.

    Rather than make this leadership issue more corrosive than it already is and because I am sometimes moderately cooperative to polite requests. I have removed it from public view. It will be restored back to being visible after the election is completed.

    Unfortunately Tim tried to ring me (always a bad idea when I am working), so I only noted that he’d emailed when I pulled my head out of some code and hooked out to home for mail. If anyone ever does want to get hold of me, I’d suggest txting. I look at those every few hours.

    • Anne 23.1

      Having been offline for the past 5 days, I was just in the process of catching up what I had missed seeing when the Clayton Cosgrove post disappeared.

      What was Tim Barnett’s actual stated reason lprent?

      Last week I asked the following question on this site:

      Could someone please tell me who are the Labour MPs responsible for leaking confidential caucus information to the media? Let them be named and shamed.

      I’m grateful to Karen Price for her twitter comment because I suspect she has inadvertently confirmed the chief culprits are Clayton Cosgrove and Trevor Mallard. Since it has been going on for a very long time, I consider them to be traitors and they should be removed from parliament.

      • lprent 23.1.1

        “While aware of the motivations behind the piece. I am firmly of the view that it has the potential to damage the Party.”

        Personally I think that what Cosgrove was doing was somewhat more dangerous longer term (as my post was demonstrating, I literally copied his tactics in the Herald and made them somewhat more extreme).

        However I’m always a sucker for a request from a party organisation of the left (less so for politicians).

        BTW: There is life offline?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.1.1

          There is life offline?

          Yes. Not in the beltway though. In the beltway there is only pain. Pain and revenge. Pain and revenge and perks. Ok, pain, revenge, salaries, and perks, and that’s it.

        • Anne 23.1.1.2

          Indeed there is, but I must confess to having had some withdrawal symptoms.

          Edit: OMG I’ve just seen it. Geez… I’m floored!!!

      • Chooky 23.1.2

        +100 Anne….”I’m grateful to Karen Price for her twitter comment ….I consider them to be traitors and they should be removed from parliament”.

      • karol 23.1.3

        Duncan Garner also confirms who the ABCers are. But the conclusions he goes on to draw from that and recent developments, totally ignores the role of Labour Party members – it’s all Thorndon Bubble for Garner. I guess that’s where he lives.
        He ends totally putting the boot into the Labour Party.

        He begins supporting Karen Price:

        But, Karen Price is actually right: The ABC club never died when Cunliffe became leader – they just retired to the corner and got more bitter and twisted. It’s no secret who they are: Trevor Mallard is the life president, Clayton Cosgrove, chief plotter, David Shearer, general-secretary, Stuart Nash, head of communications, Annette King, camp mother, Grant Robertson the uncle, Phil Goff, kaumatua, and the errant ABC kids are Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins and Kris Faafoi.

        I believe many of this crew ran electorate campaigns, so they could get back in and nail Cunliffe should he lose. They wanted to stack the caucus with ABCers, that’s also why they were desperate for Kelvin Davis to win in the north. He’s no fan of Cunliffe either.

        But, after saying all that, defying logic, Garner then says Cunliffe should resign.

        I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: Labour has been heading this way for some time. The powder keg has blown. Cunliffe does not have the support of his caucus. They do not want him; neither do Kiwi voters.

        He should have seen all this last week and gone quietly for the good of the party, and the cause, but he has chosen to hit the nuclear option. It is his own personal revenge at the ABCers. It’s breathtakingly arrogant. Which part of election spanking does he not understand?

        What part of letting the LP members and affiliates have a say, does Garner not understand?

        • Chooky 23.1.3.1

          i like the first part.!!!!

          …the second part he is hedging his bets and talking crap for his masters…he is a halfway good journalist

          • Paul 23.1.3.1.1

            You do wonder what Slater and his mates have on these media folk.
            Hager said at one of the meetings he spoke at that many of the media came up to him and asked if the files he’d seen included anything on them.

            Our owned media.

            • Chooky 23.1.3.1.1.1

              unfortunately most journalists are owned in that they are paid by a msm corporation and they have editors to make sure they stay in line

              this is why we need a Left owned radio station ( and tv channel)

              …the crap that my son comes home with from listening all day to commercial radio while driving is disturbing….people need alternative Left radio and real education …especially young people…but all people… young and old and middle aged

              ….where is Dotcom?

        • weka 23.1.3.2

          Nice of Garner to name the ABCs but he misses the whole point. Labour isn’t split between people who like Cunliffe and those that can’t stand him. It’s split between neoliberals and lefties. Funny you forgot to mention that Duncan, given it’s the reason the ABCs exist.

    • adam 23.2

      I just knew it was a cold day in hell.

      I should have never wholly agree with you Iprent.

      Great read whilst it lasted.

    • Paul 23.3

      Does this mean no free discussion on the ABCs role in undermining the democratic will of Labour members can be discussed on this site?
      And no discussion of which Labour MPs have been leaking to the media and what they have been leaking?
      Sad to see debate closed down.

  23. Wreckingball 24

    Interesting that Vance in Robertson’s attack dog.

    After Vance wrote a column that was critical of Cunliffe, responding to a tweet which said the column “sums everything up extremely well”, Ms Price tweeted: “No it sums up Andrea Vance very well. She’s unidimensional and unbalanced. Grant’s been feeding her for years.”

    Thoughts?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1

      That abuse of power rewards corrupt journalists?

      That Vance is so stained by her own filth that nothing she writes has any intrinsic worth?

      That Nicky Hager was wrong to not publicly expose the treacherous hacks of the so-called fourth estate?

      That Price is simply pointing out that Vance has no clothes?

    • tc 24.2

      That Price is way too honest to ever become a politician ?

      That Vance, like most of the MSM, don’t do any actual journalism just act as a conduit for others messages ?

  24. Draco T Bastard 25

    South Korea looks to implement an interesting plan to stimulate the economy:

    Mr Choi’s scheme, submitted to South Korea’s parliament this week, will tax companies’ cash piles on the grounds that corporate stinginess is holding the country back.

    Yep, looking to tax large stockpiles of money.

  25. Draco T Bastard 26

    RSA Replay: Inequality and the 1%

    Seems I’m not the only one who realises that we can’t afford the rich.

    • Draco T Bastard 26.1

      Why an Unequal Planet Can Never Be Green

      “These summits have failed for the same reason that the banks have failed,” Monbiot explains. “Political systems that were supposed to represent everyone now return governments of millionaires, financed by and acting on behalf of billionaires.”

      Expecting these governments to protect the biosphere, Monbiot adds, makes no more sense than “expecting a lion to live on gazpacho.”

      Why should that be the case? Over recent decades, analysts and activists have made all sorts of links between the increasing degradation of our global environment and the increasing concentration of our global wealth.

      The super rich, for starters, stomp out a huge carbon footprint. The best symbol of this stomping? That may be the private jet.

      More and more evidence that we just cannot afford the rich.

    • Kiwiri 26.2

      I left the You Tube file to run while doing the dishes after dinner. And then had to sit down and watch most of it. Thanks for pointing this out. There are lots of useful stuff there to develop for discussion.

      • Colonial Viper 26.2.1

        Very very useful stuff…his point that there is more inequality in the top 1% to 2% than in the bottom 98% was utterly telling; also the idea that more equality would actually greatly help most of those in the top 10% by stopping the 1% and the 0.1% from racing away from them.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    2 days ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 week ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago