Open mike 03/05/2011

64 comments on “Open mike 03/05/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   3 May 2011 at 6:34 am

   Standard diversionary tactics from Shonkey on the issue of the SAS in Afganistan..attack the credibility of the messanger, then repeat the oft repeated “reconstruction” do goood nonsense…

   Questions John….what reconstruction do the SAS undertake? Can you get a Victoria Cross for fixing a leaky well in Kandahar?
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     3 May 2011 at 7:09 am

     And if what I hear about the press gallery having a good laugh when he attacked the journo is true, they need to have a good long look at themselves.
2. Bored 2

   3 May 2011 at 7:22 am

   Another question for John….”Now Osamas gone and we are safe can we have the anti terrorist crap we have to go through in the domestic airports turned off please?”
   • the pink postman 2.1

     3 May 2011 at 4:15 pm

     And can we now bring home our young men home before anymore are killed.?
     What the hell are we doing there anyway.This war has been going on for years and will continue to. Now is a good time to call it quits .
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       3 May 2011 at 4:22 pm

       carcasses of old empires lay strewn across the Hindu Kush.

       Best we not join them.
3. mickysavage 3

   3 May 2011 at 8:34 am

   So it sounds like Rodney Hide’s political corpse is going to be taken out the back of Parliament today, shot repeatedly and set fire to.  You have got to admire the brutal efficiency of the right wing, they are so good at this sort of thing.  If only they would put the same effort into reducing unemployment or alleviating poverty.
    
   • PeteG 3.1

     3 May 2011 at 8:39 am

     If Brash doesn’t negotiate a mostly “business as usual” ministerial agreement with Key he may consign Act to the pile of minor coalition parties who couldn’t be relied on the last the distance.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       3 May 2011 at 8:46 am

       he may consign Act to the pile of minor coalition parties who couldn’t be relied on the last the distance.

       ACT has already qualified for this pile.
   • Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2

     3 May 2011 at 9:13 am

     @mickysavage: Mike Moore might deny that the right have a monopoly on this.
     • Rex Widerstrom 3.2.1

       3 May 2011 at 4:24 pm

       Heh. Yeah, mickey et al would like to forget that Helen’s skill with a knife makes Don look like a blind butcher with meat axe.

       That makes me think… with Labour’s polling the way it is, isn’t it time Moore demanded to lead it from outside Parliament?

       Now there’s a thought…
       • mickysavage 3.2.1.1

         3 May 2011 at 6:09 pm

         Nooooooooooo
       • Jum 3.2.1.2

         3 May 2011 at 11:23 pm

         Well Rex,

         Given your earlier reply to me stating your hatred of women, no doubt you’ll be wanting to join Act where you and Don Brash can play out your hate fantasies together.

         Silly Heather Roy thinking that she would stand a chance of promotion in that misogynistic dingbat of a party.
4. vto 4

   3 May 2011 at 9:50 am

   Further fuel for the fire that will consume the nats come November in Christchurch, Canterbury an Westland… tried getting a building consent in post-quake Christchurch? Harder to get than a straight answer from a politician. You would think that in order to get the re-build underway building consents would be flying out the door.

   But nope. Even standard designs which have been goven consents for years and years no longer get consents.

   Risk averse in the extreme.

   Just like the post-September quake, builders sitting around with no real decent work. Fingers up their arses while Council and Cera do …. um,… well I’m not quite sure.

   If you lefties wish to cement a dismal return for the nats down these parts then I would suggest this is a big target. And if you righties wish to reverse the current trend then I would suggest you get the Council to start letting consents go so that people can pull their fingers out and get on with it.

   It is a like a giant and growing cow pat.
   • Armchair Critic 4.1

     3 May 2011 at 8:45 pm

     Do you know what CERA actually do, yet, vto? There was another press release on the RSS today, but it still didn’t say much.
5. ianmac 5

   3 May 2011 at 10:13 am

   Herald: “An image of Osama bin Laden after his death yesterday has been revealed as a fake.

   The photo, which shows a bloodied bin Laden with a gun wound to the head, is the photo-shopped combination of two images.”
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10723030
   Well who would believe it. And fancy bin Laden (George W Bush, Blair) hiding in a safe house many miles from the real action but sending troops to their deaths.
   • Vicky32 5.1

     3 May 2011 at 6:31 pm

     Corriere delle Sere had that story (about the fake photos) out about 01.50 our time! (My friend Gianluca sent it to me, saying “told you so!” and he had..)
      
6. ZeeBop 6

   3 May 2011 at 11:43 am

   Lose-Lose for banks, they let some farmers over leverage to the hilt and now the world
   economy changes they are either lumbered with indebted farmers who if they foreclose on means a drop in farm property prices (undermining the value of their other loan collateral) or they have to carry the farmers. Who says the private sector can deal with greed better? Bank greed has harmed their shareholders, and nobody is asking for the bonuses bank when the banks were heaping out loans to already heavily leveraged farmers.
7. felix 7

   3 May 2011 at 3:38 pm

   Last question today: (paraphrasing)

   Trevor: Will you rule out ever having Don Brash as Minister of Finance?

   Key: I absolutely rule him out for this term.

   Everyone get that?

   k then.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     3 May 2011 at 3:44 pm

     Well seeing that Key is not going to be PM for long whether or not NAT win the election…and “this term”, Don is not even an MP so of course he’s not going to be Finance Minister.

     I wonder how English liked the response.
     • Anne 7.1.1

       3 May 2011 at 8:18 pm

       Could be some more leaked emails coming up in the not too distant future?
   • Pascal's bookie 7.2

     3 May 2011 at 3:44 pm

     So only as long is it would be illegal to do it then.

     Rightio.
     • logie97 7.2.1

       3 May 2011 at 5:41 pm

       A question or two…

       Will the unelected and electorally meaningless Leader of Act be party to any confidential government discussions and decisions that Hide enjoyed while he held ministerial positions? Will his parliamentary minions be obligated to tell him everything they know?

       Just what is the legal position of Brash?

       The situation is mind boggling – just imagine, for some reason, some “knight of the Round Table” was to do the same to the National Party, Leader outside parliament. Decisions would be directed from outside the Beehive. (Some might argue that we already are…)
8. logie97 8

   3 May 2011 at 6:32 pm

   Joky Hen in his press conference with the throng of journalists in the Beehive advised us that the world is a whole lot safer now that OSB is dead. Perhaps he will advise his fellow leaders all around the world who appear to be telling their citizens that there is a real threat of reprisals … but then he’s realtively new in his job, having done his apprenticeship on the trading floor.
9. William Joyce 9

   3 May 2011 at 6:46 pm

   National did have a plan for the economy after all…
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/19473099@N05
10. Pascal's bookie 10

    3 May 2011 at 7:07 pm

    ACTies probably won’t be happy with Duncan Garners’s coverage tonight.

    The narrative is formed, and it’s mockative with a sideline of ‘ACT still rife with division’.
    • Carol 10.1

      3 May 2011 at 7:10 pm

      I don’t know. I think the PR machine for NAct is busy trying to make a separation between Act & National to counter the idea that NAct are joined at the hip.
      • Armchair Critic 10.1.1

        3 May 2011 at 8:46 pm

        So we can’t refer to them as the Brashional Party?
        • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1

          3 May 2011 at 9:02 pm

          Nope, and no talking about Prime Minister John Brash either you impudent kids.
    • rosy 10.2

      3 May 2011 at 7:14 pm

      I like this bit…

      Dr Brash says Mr Hide stays on to push through two very important pieces of legislation – but he struggled to name them, as did the Prime Minister.
      “One is the taxpayers bill of right – I can’t be sure, what is it called, John?” Dr Brash asked.
      “I guess one area is the telecommunications bill,” Mr Key said.
      For the record;
      One is about Government spending
      The other is about limiting regulation
      Neither will pass before the election.

      http://www.3news.co.nz/ACT-A-bitterly-divided-party/tabid/419/articleID/209619/Default.aspx
      • Carol 10.2.1

        3 May 2011 at 7:22 pm

        Curiously, no-on seems to know why Brash didn’t support a promotion for Roy. NAct/Brash just doesn’t like women being in too powerful a position?
        • William Joyce 10.2.1.1

          3 May 2011 at 7:42 pm

          I don’t know, he seems to be able to “pull the birds”. Who could refuse him? Soft lights. Romantic music. Corned beef sandwiches. It”s worked before

          I suspect your right tho’, Carol. There is something going on with that crowd and women. Far too much male menopause compensatory behaviour going on.
          Perhaps they are threatened by women who can think for themselves – and not some compliant over-aged pixie doll.
    • William Joyce 10.3

      3 May 2011 at 7:47 pm

      Sometimes you just want to scream when some journo is not paying attention or is too lazy to call the pollies on their inconsistencies and duplicity. Then you get some gem like tonight.
      “Duncan, I’m sorry for all those times I doubted you!”
      • Pascal's bookie 10.3.1

        3 May 2011 at 8:56 pm

        Heh. I know what you mean, but it’s not so much about doubt for me. Garner is what he is, and he does what he does.

        As a bit of an attempt at showing just how garnered this piece was, I’ll give it a run through, emphasis mine, my comments on subtext in italics:

        New ACT leader Don Brash has been stared down by former leader Rodney Hide.

        Don is weak and not in full control. Worded as a statement of fact.

        Mr Hide – who was again described by Dr Brash as “tarnished” today – has hung on to his ministerial job. In return, he will leave politics at the next election.

        Don had to cut a deal with Hide even though he thinks he sucks

        “I have not been rolled,” he told 3 News.

        “He has an important job to do until the next election and, as I have said many times, he has a somewhat tarnished brand,” says Dr Brash.

        “By agreement, he wont’ stand at this year’s election.”

        Here we have Don saying that he wasn’t stared down, contra the initial statement from Garner; Don just feels that there is something important Hide needs to do. Setting up for the fall.

        So Mr Hide keeps his $210,000-a-year job and all the perks.

        Hide – perks – trougher. No mention of the important jobs Hide has.

        Dr Brash says Mr Hide stays on to push through two very important pieces of legislation – but he struggled to name them, as did the Prime Minister.

        Don and John’s stated excuse for keeping Hide in the job might be bullshit. Can they name name these important things that he supposedly has to do?

        “One is the taxpayers bill of right – I can’t be sure, what is it called, John?” Dr Brash asked.

        “I guess one area is the telecommunications bill,” Mr Key said.

        No, they can’t. The excuse is bullshit; ergo Don got stared down as stated in the opening line.

        For the record;

        One is about Government spending
        The other is about limiting regulation
        Neither will pass before the election.

        Duncan Garner, 3News, laying it out straight for the people. Don and John just got busted, they shouldn’t have tried to fool the Dunc.

        ACT’s other minister, John Boscawen, has lost his job as Minister of Consumer Affairs – but remains deputy leader and new Parliamentary leader, despite never backing Dr Brash in last weeks’ coup.

        “I said publicly I was 100 percent behind Rodney Hide,” he said.

        Don is weak and not in control

        Missing out today on any job was ACT’s former Deputy Leader Heather Roy. 3 News understands Dr Brash didn’t support her.

        “I said I would put my name forward if I had the support and confidence of the new leader,” Ms Roy said.

        Roy expected support but didn’t get it

        Dr Brash then appeared on the floor in Parliament, leaving Labour joking that he was there pulling the strings of the Key Government. Dr Brash appeared to love the attention.
        But the ACT takeover is a real mess;

        -Dr Brash wanted Mr Hide gone from his ministerial jobs. He failed. weak Don

        -Dr Brash’s deputy, Mr Boscawen, never supported him last week. But remains, just not as a minister. weak Don

        -Ms Roy – who wanted to be promoted – didn’t have Dr Brash’s support. Possibly traitor Don, who may need to watch his back

        -ACT is a party that remains deeply and bitterly divided. ends
        • mickysavage 10.3.1.1

          3 May 2011 at 9:38 pm

          The real story PB I believe is what role did National play in the ACT takeover.

          IMHO the story probably went something like this:

          1. National realised that the chances of an outright majority were not good. Labour in 2002 is a good historical lesson of what happens to these expectations.
          2. The MP is looking really bad, they may not survive apart from Tariana.
          3. ACT is comatose. Between dead babies identities, misogyny and perk busting hypocrisy it would not normally survive.
          4. National realised that it needs another party on the right.
          5. The proposed conservative party had a problem in that it would have no TV access during the campaign. So the idea of a reverse takeover of ACT was formed.
          6. Major funders such as Gibbs and Heatley were obviously in agreement and backed Brash.
          7. Brash was able to go to the ACT Caucus and Board and say if he was not installed as leader then the funding would be cut. Everyone then buckled. Big time.
          9. Hide has been bought off. Can you imagine why otherwise he would bow out in such a wimpish way?

          The interesting question is who in National organised this. If they can be identified then major damage to National could be caused.
          • Pascal's bookie 10.3.1.1.1

            3 May 2011 at 9:51 pm

            Yeah I pretty much think that’s how it went down. The only qualifier I’d have is that I think it’s a faction of National rather than the party as a whole. It’s the same old ‘no brash no cash’ offer the Auckland business mafia roundtable goons pulled last time, but this time using ACT as a shelf company. Look for Rodney to take Kerr’s job at the BRT, as has been floated explicitly by Fran O’Sullivan.

            I’m not sure about how pushing that angle would go to be honest. Sure, it’s probably the truth, but proof is hard to get and it would tie in pretty easily to memes about labour dirt digging about secret bagmen. I think there is more than enough toxin flowing from the pores as it is. Keep it simple.
            • Armchair Critic 10.3.1.1.1.1

              3 May 2011 at 9:59 pm

              I think there is more than enough toxin flowing from the pores as it is.
              There’ll be a number of very unhappy individuals in ACT ATM (I’d estimate at least five), all with vendettas to pursue. They’ll fully self-destruct eventually, without any dirt being dug up by their opponents.
              Meanwhile they are no prettier with their new head.
            • mickysavage 10.3.1.1.1.2

              3 May 2011 at 10:05 pm

              I’m not sure about how pushing that angle would go to be honest. Sure, it’s probably the truth, but proof is hard to get and it would tie in pretty easily to memes about labour dirt digging about secret bagmen.

              Aye, fingerprints and blood stains do not matter sometimes. I am interested by your comment which I acknowledge is valid. When Mike Williams went to Aussie to look for Key’s fingerprints on the Equiticorp transactions I thought it was perfectly appropriate. Our elected representatives should be clean and should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Of course they should be checked out.

              The nats dig for dirt all the time with far more efficiency than Labour.

              I think that Labour sometimes buys into the nat lines and should step back and be themselves sometimes.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                3 May 2011 at 10:20 pm

                Yeah that’s fair enough. But it’s vitally important to be aware of what your opponents lines are, aware if they are working, and if so, not reinforce them.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.3.1.2

          3 May 2011 at 9:52 pm

          Dr Brash wanted Mr Hide gone from his ministerial jobs.

          Conversation would, IMO, have gone something likethis:

          DB to RH: Sorry roders, but we’re going to take your portfolios off you. Nothing personal.
          RH to DB: Sure Don, I’ll resign, not a problem.
          DB (panicking): ummmm, err, that’s not quite what we had in mind….

          If RH had resigned it would have caused a by-election – just after NACT had attacked Hone for doing the same thing. Also, IMO, neither Act nor National are ready for an election in Epsom – has either officially named the person that they will be standing in there yet? – and having a National member win it would give momentum to having the same member win it at the General Election in November which would defeat all the planning that NACT had just gone to to ensure that Act won Epsom.
          • Pascal's bookie 10.3.1.2.1

            3 May 2011 at 9:54 pm

            +1
          • Armchair Critic 10.3.1.2.2

            3 May 2011 at 10:06 pm

            has either officially named the person that they will be standing in there yet?
            Aren’t they waiting until either (a) Winston announces where he will be standing, or (b) one minute before the deadline?
            Similar with party lists?
    • felix 10.4

      3 May 2011 at 8:40 pm

      What was that in the TV3 piece about Brash being in Parliament today?
      • Pascal's bookie 10.4.1

        3 May 2011 at 9:00 pm

        Apparently they have some special seats for ex-parliamentarians to relive their salad days in. Who knew?
11. William Joyce 11

    3 May 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Did anyone see Jabba in question time this avo. He was fine when asked straight forward questions but when Clayton Cosgrove started questioning him about his dictatorial powers and if he would use them to sell Ch’ch assets he got his back up.
    In so doing, he showed us all why we are so concerned that someone who doesn’t play well with adults should have such powers.
    The issue of the sale of Ch’ch assets is probably a non-starter at this point, but if all it does is get Gerry’s back up, and remind him that we are watching him, then it serves it’s purpose.
12. felix 12

    3 May 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Oh dear.

    Katrina Shanks, digital media expert and recipient of the Queen’s Special Award for Oratory, seems to have been told she’s not allowed to freestyle in the house anymore.

    ‘Just read the words you’ve been given and sit the fuck back down’ is how I imagine the briefing went before she spoke today about the TVNZ charter.

    Of course, she probably should’ve given it the once over first just to make sure she didn’t sound totally mental informing the house that TVNZ’s “current character was unworkable.”

    No, reading her script (and that’s what it is) in advance would be too much work and she already has a full day trying to turn the computer on. Is she even going to be on the list? If so, why?

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/8471
13. Jum 13

    3 May 2011 at 8:42 pm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1105/S00018/together-launched-to-support-fairness-at-work.htm

    Excellent news, very good lateral thinking Helen Kelly and Co.
    • Draco T Bastard 13.1

      3 May 2011 at 9:57 pm

      That sounds awesome.

      Wonder if it’s flexible enough for contractors to join. Young people starting out in contractor only industries like construction really need some help with the contracts etc.
      • Jum 13.1.1

        3 May 2011 at 11:51 pm

        Draco T Bastard,

        Perhaps someone could copy it to the movie industry…
      • felix 13.1.2

        4 May 2011 at 12:47 am

        Yep. FTA: “Membership, costing just $1 per week ($52 per year), gives employees and contractors, in industries and locations without union support, access to help and expert advice.“
14. marty mars 14

    3 May 2011 at 9:03 pm

    I really concerned about the latest mining initiatives. We have petrobras of course but we also have had “US independent energy giant Anadarko Petroleum confirming it intends drilling a well in what is known as the Deepwater Taranaki Basin.”

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2011/05/old-one-two.html

    and now Greywolf, a Chinese-backed Australian mining company wanting to drill near tthe Able Tasman National Park and Golden Bay

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2011/05/polluting-paradise.html

    There are battles up and down this country fighting against the greedybastardexploiters – we need to support tangata whenua and the activists as much as possible and we need good coordination and communication.
    • vto 14.1

      3 May 2011 at 9:17 pm

      We just need to get hold of the resource consent before they do.
15. prism 15

    3 May 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Yes very good thinking by unions in starting Together. Good name.. The isolated worker or small group have been hard to help in the past.

    Also
    Don Brash was a topic on Rod Orams radio time with Kathryn Ryan after 11am today. Rod gave him thumbs down so far that they were dangling on the ground.
    • M 15.1

      4 May 2011 at 12:52 am

      prism, thanks for heads up on Oram’s interview as there’s precious few hours in the day to get to everything.

      Oram was polite but to the point especially his comments about Brash being a nightmare as a finance minister and his not understanding compromise to the point of possibly forcing a second election.
16. Samuel Hill 16

    3 May 2011 at 9:15 pm

    I think the recent activity of the ACT Party is an absolute disgrace. The only reason ACT are in parliament is because Rodney Hide won the seat of Epsom, and now Don Brash has taken over the leadership of the party, and Hide is being forced out of the party.

    If Hide had any guts he would resign from parliament.

    But lets consider this case.

    What happens if Rodney Hide decides to leave parliament and cause a by-election. What happens if ACT lose? Would ACT be removed from parliament?

    Would John Key HAVE HIS REASON to call an early election if Rodney Hide resigned?

    I’d love somebody with more knowledge than me on the subject to enlighten me.

    I am afraid that this is all a ploy for National to stand John Banks in Epsom, win the seat and eliminate ACT. This will secure the right wing vote for National and mean that they can push further to the right without deterring too many central voters.

    Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton currently sit in parliament having each won less than 1% of the total Party Vote. NZ First won over 4% of the vote at the last election, and are unrepresented in parliament! Don Brash-led policy initiatives are being created, to be forced into law through parliament via four puppet MPs who are only in parliament due to Rodney Hide winning Epsom!!!
    • Pascal's bookie 16.1

      3 May 2011 at 9:40 pm

      What happens if ACT lose? Would ACT be removed from parliament?

      Nope. Lists seats are determined on election day. ACT got the seats, so they keep ’em till the next election.
      • Samuel Hill 16.1.1

        3 May 2011 at 10:14 pm

        Thats kind of a stupid system then.
        • Pascal's bookie 16.1.1.1

          3 May 2011 at 10:25 pm

          Yep.

          Personally I think the stupid is introduced with the threshold. I can’t really justify disenfranchising people purely on the basis that their views are more unpopular than mine.
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1

            3 May 2011 at 11:38 pm

            Perhaps the threshold could be lowered to 3.3%.

            If a political party can’t convince even 1/30 voters that it has serious merit then it probably needs to go away and do a bit more work on itself first.

            I personally would prefer not to force our political scene into a huge splintering of 1 and 2 MP, single issue parties, which I believe is the result that we would get if we dropped the threshold to 1% or less.
            • Samuel Hill 16.1.1.1.1.1

              4 May 2011 at 12:06 am

              Why don’t we just have one seat for each electorate and then parties get roughly a seat for every 2% they have, and 2% is the threshold for any one Party that doesn’t win an electorate to have seats.
              • Colonial Viper …

                4 May 2011 at 12:16 am

                That’s sounds like FPP, you would still have to win each electorate by getting the most votes in that electorate, all other votes are subsequently wasted, and parties like the Greens and NZ First will be annihilated.

                (OK I clearly didnt read your post carefully enough, sorry. 2% threshold, I do think that is too low, and on first glance the math doesn’t add up e.g. what if you have numerous parties sitting on 2-3% of the vote).
                • Samuel Hill …

                  4 May 2011 at 10:26 am

                  Then they get one seat each. The maths will never work out perfectly.
            • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1.1.2

              4 May 2011 at 1:55 am

              IMO, if a party can get enough votes for 1 seat then they should be represented. I don’t think you’d see too many 1 seat, 1 issue parties. Inevitably small parties would come together in to a larger grouping as it’s going to be better covering multiple issues – voters really don’t vote for one issue parties which is why the Greens are covering more than the environment now.

              Throw in STV voting for electorate seats so that the person elected there has the support of the majority of voters and we’d have the near ideal electoral system.
17. Jum 17

    3 May 2011 at 11:46 pm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1105/S00051/mediaworks-radio-appointed-rwc-2011-radio-rights-holder.htm

    The Media Works Radio that Paul Henry joined recently…
    Steven Joyce?
18. millsy 18

    4 May 2011 at 12:26 am

    Sigh. Paul Moon is bitching about how Tuhoe couldnt get their filthy mitts on a taonga that should remain in public ownership for all eternity

    Im getting sick of these iwi kingpins eyeing up out outdoor recreation estate, and you quislings on the left aiding and abetting them, even though it will mean the average new zealander NOT BEING ABLE TO ACCCESS THE BIRTH RIGHT OF OUR BEACHES AND NATIONAL PARKS.

    Te Urewera National Park should remain owned by the government for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders, and not be transferred into an elite brown table grouping that will restrict access.

    Public ownership tends to fly out the window when iwi are involved.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS