Open mike 03/02/2010

35 comments on “Open mike 03/02/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   3 February 2010 at 7:07 am

   What’s this?

   National is using my tax money to pay for propaganda?

   Hypocrites. I wonder what Whale and Farrar think?
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     3 February 2010 at 8:32 am

     Farrar thinks whatever John wants him to think, Slater doesn’t think at all.

     Watching the clip on the telly last night, it struck me that the cover of the pamphlet looked remarkably like a National Party election flyer. Similar colours, typeface etc. Glad to have it confirmed that it is in fact just that. Shouldn’t be long before the ACT trolls start ripping into this appalling abuse of taxpayer money.

     Waiting, waiting ….
   • lukas 1.2

     3 February 2010 at 9:00 am

     Micky, did you complain at the “propaganda” sent out when KiwiSaver was first introduced? What about when WFF was started? Cervical cancer vaccines?

     It is a standard practice of any Government to send out information on initiatives that they have started that are going to affect so many.

     Get over it.
     • Tiger Mountain 1.2.1

       3 February 2010 at 9:10 am

       What is difficult to get over is your inane comparison and use of “any government’. There is a difference between tory anti-unionism and a social democratic government advertising beneficial (for the majority) initiatives.
       • lukas 1.2.1.1

         3 February 2010 at 9:16 am

         so it all depends on who you agree with?
         • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1

           3 February 2010 at 1:08 pm

           No, it depends on what you’re saying. Labour sent out pamphlets that told people about the services. National sends out pamphlets attacking the unions for pointing out that the policies that NACT are implementing are BS and not related toreality.
     • mickysavage 1.2.2

       3 February 2010 at 9:10 am

       Actually lucas I did not and I believe that all political parties should have a set budget to communicate with citizens. I am referring to the hypocracy of the right and National who railed against Labour using its budget to do so. It is completely hypocritical for them to now do the same.

       I thought that Key was going to be different?
       • lukas 1.2.2.1

         3 February 2010 at 9:15 am

         So Micky (do you need me to buy you a new keyboard? Your ‘K’ key seems to be broken), how do you think the masses are going to know about the new policy that will effect every person in the country that is in school and every New Zealander that is born from now on?
         • Pascal's bookie 1.2.2.1.1

           3 February 2010 at 9:18 am

           Were you asking that question when national and ACT were complaining about the last government?
           • lukas 1.2.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2010 at 9:22 am

             I never complained about it. I think it is a necessary function of any government. How else do they get the information out? Would you prefer them to use TV ads as per KiwiSaver?
     • Pascal's bookie 1.2.3

       3 February 2010 at 9:17 am

       I’m pretty sure that National party complained.

       And ACT.

       Was it all just bs then?
       • lukas 1.2.3.1

         3 February 2010 at 9:20 am

         Any links to back that up?

         I am not a member of the National or ACT Parties, so you will have to ask them that.

         I have no problem with Government sending out informational pamphlets/leaflets/booklets for a policy as big as this. How else are people going to know what the changes are??
         • lprent 1.2.3.1.1

           3 February 2010 at 9:47 am

           I remember the whining of the right when the information about working for families and kiwisaver were sent out. According to the wingnuts at the time this was all just propaganda. I guess that they will be doing the same with the National waste of teachers and parents time?

           On the other hand, I’ve never noticed wingnuts being anything apart from inconsistent.
           • lukas 1.2.3.1.1.1

             3 February 2010 at 9:59 am

             Likewise myself with loony lefties.

             I do not recall any criticisim from National on the flyers myself, happy to be corrected with a link to a story though, otherwise there is no hypocrisy here from National. I would still love to know how the likes of BLiP and Anne expect the public to learn and know about these policies that are being introduced without any information being sent out.
             • lprent …

               3 February 2010 at 12:55 pm

               I have little issue with putting out information. However if it looks like National advertising itself (as I understand the leaflets do), then they can get stuffed.

               When I finish work, I’ll dig out some wingnut and hansard links about WFF and Kiwisaver education campaigns (if I have time). But basically if it is good enough to put those programmes promotion under scrutiny, then so is this policy.

               Besides I disagree with it as adding extra workload for teachers, with no proven benefits – and a bloody great pile of issues with similar programmes offshore.
             • lukas …

               3 February 2010 at 1:22 pm

               Has anyone here actually seen the letter?
             • mickysavage …

               3 February 2010 at 1:41 pm

               Here it is

               This is in response to LuKKKKas’s request if anyone had seen Key’s education propaganda brochure.
             • lukas …

               3 February 2010 at 2:12 pm

               Thanks Micky (good to see your ‘K’ key is working now), but I want to see the actual letter and what it says rather than a journalists and has been politicians view of what it is.
             • mickysavage …

               3 February 2010 at 9:43 pm

               Here tis

               Looks like standard National party propaganda to me.

               What, my tax money went into it?
           • lukas 1.2.3.1.1.2

             3 February 2010 at 9:54 pm

             Micky, looks OK to me, the only language in there that I am not comfortable with is the “We stand for” section on the front page… that is probably too close to the line as a campaign type thing… the rest is more informational than campaigning.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               3 February 2010 at 10:45 pm

               Wonder why it’s hosted on National’s website rather than the Ministry of Education,

               …and how for more info you email parliament or the National Party rather than the Min of Education.

               It’s quite explicitly a National party leaflet, unlike for example, the things IRD put out about kiwisaver.
   • BLiP 1.3

     3 February 2010 at 9:26 am

     By all means, lets delight in the political hypocrisy and inevitable lolz stemming from the upcoming education squabble, but remember: the tories care as much about an educated populace as they do about protecting the environment: zilch.

     John Key’s alignment with the standards kerfuffle has all the hall marks of a Crosby / Textor sideshow: it keeps the media distracted, shelters the “brand” in a cloak of “its all about the kids”, gives the clown something to do, generates a sense of fear amongst the mums and dads concerned for the future, and eases the way for harsher, more damaging policy in other areas to slip through without proper scrutiny.

     Vigilance, comrades.
     • lukas 1.3.1

       3 February 2010 at 9:39 am

       Do you actually believe what you write?

       “the tories care as much about an educated populace as they do about protecting the environment”

       You are mistaking (as many on the right were when your lot were in power) the Nats initiating policy that is differing to your view with the government not caring about an issue, that is an immature view at best.
       • Ron 1.3.1.1

         3 February 2010 at 11:55 am

         lukas

         It’s not that many of us simply “disagree” with the policy. It’s that it’s a shit policy. If it was any good then Tolley would have a clear explanantion as the why’s and wherefore’s of the policy. She doesn’t. She is all over the place trying to justify a policy that has no basis in educational practice but a huge basis in political expediency.
         Sometimes it’s not just that our political opinions differ from the Government’s. Sometimes the Government’s ideas are just stupid. This is one of those times.

         In my opinion the anti-union rhetoric that is emerging is revealing the true thrust of the new policy. Get into a fight with teachers and then start in on the union. The anti-uinion thrust can’t be justified simply on the grounds of union opposition – the Principals’ association has also stated their opposition as have many school Trustees.

         Simple questions that Trolley refuses to answer because the answers would reveal the idiocy of her new policy.
         If we’ve idfentifed that 20% of students who are failing – why do we need a new system to identify them?
         If the new system doesn’t need a trial why are Kura being givenm the option of trialing it?
         If the government is so confident about the new system and refuses to “cave in to unions” why has it so easily caved in to the Maori Party?
         If the system is being introduced because of “overwhelming demand from parents” why a PR campaign to convince parents of the need for the system?
         Given that we’ve already identified these failing students – how – exactly – will the new system improve the educational outcomes of these failing students?
         I have heard most of those put to her and her answer is alost always “we have to do something!”.
2. Bored 2

   3 February 2010 at 7:43 am

   Telecom to slash 400 – 1500 jobs, read the headline in todays Dominion. High tech jobs at that.

   Remember the push, we were into the information age, we would become a high end “information economy” (what ever that means). The above numbers represent the “geeks”, techos with high skills, once worth a fortune, now it appears dispensible for lower paid techos on the Indian subcontinent. Distance to market slashed by internet age telecommunications, expertise can reside anywhere…..hey presto, go where its cheap. This is the immutable logic of the market at work in a globalised economy.

   The States has instead of the motor towns that drove their rise to industrial power an area referred to as the “Rust Belt”. We will now have the “Ex Tech Belt” of displaced workers, ready to be retrained for low skilled jobs at Mackers.

   What is richly ironic here is that the industrial revolution in Britain that began when cotton mills powered by coal, full of machines that did in seconds what hands took hours ripped the bottom out of cloth production in India. The rule of laissez faire, now recycled as “globalisation” stifled Indian industry for a couple of centuries. Now we come full circle. We are to be the dependent and impoverished ones.

   A theory proposed by capitalist economists says that we now have to move on to a higher stage of development. This is quite frankly a crock, a smokescreen to disguise that the same owners of capital are still taking the same profits elsewhere whilst their fellow nationals suffer the consequences of the free movement of capital and services. We might pause to reflect that prior to the war Gandhi visited a depressed UK and gathered support for the Indian cotton workers from British cotton workers. Despite their (comparatively) priveleged position the British workers could see that they had common cause and a singular opponent.

   So right wing bloggers, you might argue the mechanics of the system in minute detail, how the carburettor works, the efficiency of the McGurkinflog etc. I challenge you to stick your heads above the parapet and defend the reality of this to Telecom workers in broad based terms that relate to peoples personal reality, their emotions etc. This is the rubber of the theory hitting the road, tell us whats good about it?
   • Tiger Mountain 2.1

     3 February 2010 at 9:04 am

     Exactly, eventually captial will run out of places to hide. International solidarity of workers, customers and communities will play an increasing role in future. The Geneva based IUF http://www.iuf.org (with millions of affiliated union members) is doing good work in this field with companies such as Nestle and Unilever which behave somewhat reasonably in Europe and are beasts elsewhere. The twin spanners in the works re organising Chinese, Indian and Brazilian workers will be arising “atomised’ middle classes, captured by consumerism and aspiration, and if needed that old favourite-state violence-to enforce the property rights of the capitalists as they do now in Philipines, Mexico (where Fisher and Paykel scuttle off to) etc.
   • infused 2.2

     3 February 2010 at 9:14 am

     Not really. Eventually these countrys are going to demand more, health care benefits etc. Won’t take too much longer. Anyway, look at what’s happening. Telecom customers are leaving in droves.
3. The Chairman 3

   3 February 2010 at 9:23 am

   Will Iceland say no?
   http://tinyurl.com/yb3afnz
   (Note: Part two can be found in the sidebar)
4. randal 4

   3 February 2010 at 11:08 am

   i fink lookiss might bea hootontroll?
   he is still playing the man and not the ball.
   no policy analysis.
   just kneejerk attack.
   if the nats policy intitatives had any merit then they would not be under such severe scrutiny.
   • lukas 4.1

     3 February 2010 at 11:14 am

     ?????????

     “i fink lookiss might bea hootontroll?”

     Translation required….

     “he is still playing the man and not the ball.”

     Serious? The only thing close to that on this thread was this comment by me “Likewise myself with loony lefties.” in response to a lprent “I’ve never noticed wingnuts being anything apart from inconsistent.” You can not seriously think either of those comments are personal attacks.

     “no policy analysis”

     This discussion is not about policy analysis, it is about the use of tax payer money to send out information.

     “just kneejerk attack”

     See above RE personal attacks.

     “if the nats policy intitatives had any merit then they would not be under such severe scrutiny.”

     See many above comments made by myself on this.
     • felix 4.1.1

       3 February 2010 at 11:57 am

       If you really needed a translation you wouldn’t have responded.

       Dontchareckon?
5. The Chairman 5

   3 February 2010 at 12:43 pm

   Gordon Campbell on the government’s tolerance of white collar crime

   Cartel activity is predatory, price fixing collusion between companies that costs consumers big time, while reducing economic efficiency and performance.

   It rewards bad and lazy managers, and puts good ones at a comparative disadvantage. It slows the uptake of new technologies, and strangles and suppresses healthy competition for the sole benefit of their shareholders.

   A light handed approach to cartel behaviour will now put us offside with current best practice in Australia – where they take cartel detection and prosecution seriously

   In these circumstances, you’d think cartels would be a priority area for extra funding and wider powers of detection?

   Essentially, the discussion paper is an exercise in tokenism.

   It meets a need to assure the Australians that we are doing something about cartels, while doing as little as possible.

   What is the point of criminalizing cartel behaviour – as this discussion paper recommends – if you are going to give yourself nothing in the way of extra funds or powers to detect it and prosecute it ?

   Should we be surprised that a National-led government is gung-ho about cracking down on boy racers, and yet so gun-shy about investigating the misdeeds of business, and cracking down on white collar predators?

   Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/yk9a4t8
6. prism 6

   3 February 2010 at 1:08 pm

   Radio this am that NZ already have barn based dairy units supplying Fonterra no prob. Fonterra are also planning and praising them for their Chinese associated business.

   WTF – these profit-focussed high fliers will wreck NZ completely. So much of the economy is already sacrificed for dairy producers interests, who want no doubt to live like Onassis far from the mucky, animal health responsibility of traditional dairy farmers. We are specialising in a few industries while others go to the wall. Its a recipe for disaster and doesn’t provide the range of jobs needed across society.

   Now Telecom is going to outsource jobs. People have heard that to upskill to the new technology is the sensible thing to ensure a job and good living. But word came out of Britain awhile ago to be prepared for a drop in wages, partly on supply and demand economics.

   Telecom are bleeding the country if they do business and make profits here but do not employ here which heavily contributes to the NZ economy. Their purchasers have bled the country since Telecom was privatised.

   Big business round the world sucks the profits up, often buying with inadequate deposit like buying one of those shonky house mortgages. Then when repayment times arrive but the money isn’t there, they strip the business to raise money. This madness of international open borders and free trade is degrading our basic living standards and economy while offering us cheaper consumer items to distract us.
7. BLiP 7

   3 February 2010 at 10:41 pm

   Is LuKKKas our duty troll for today?
   • lukas 7.1

     4 February 2010 at 7:12 am

     The whole week BLiP, we have a schedule you see.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS