Open mike 03/12/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 3rd, 2011 - 93 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

93 comments on “Open mike 03/12/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    3 December 2011 at 6:49 am

    Team Cunliffe is staging a fight back.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6079460/Cunliffe-cleanout-needed-now

    The Shearer bid has the backing of a powerful faction within caucus, including outgoing leader Phil Goff and deputy Annette King, and party strategist Trevor Mallard.

    But that team may also be counselling Mr Robertson – seen by many in the party as a future leader – to hold back from announcing his intentions until the largely untested Mr Shearer vies with Mr Cunliffe in a series of television debates. Later, they will hit the hustings at meetings with Labour rank and file.

    Mr Robertson could still emerge as a contender if Mr Shearer’s bid falls over. However, his rival seemed to gain momentum on Thursday after Mr Parker’s shock withdrawal.

    But Camp Cunliffe were back on an even keel yesterday and are understood to have spent the day crafting a direct pitch to grassroots members about a radical plan for change after Labour’s election thumping.

    That will pit them against the party’s old guard, whom they will paint as no longer representing the new generation of activists.

    It seems to me that if Cunliffe gets to lead Labour, by countering the media, astroturfer and centrist/right-leaning campaign against them, he is well on the way to mounting a credible challenge for a Labour-led government in 2014.

    Good move to characterise the apparent “newness” of Shearer, as a new face for the old guard. And to indicate an inclusive, non-factionalist party by signalling a front bench role for Shearer in a Cunliffe-led Labour caucus.

    • Pete George 1.1
      3 December 2011 at 7:16 am

      Camp Cunliffe…crafting a direct pitch to grassroots members about a radical plan for change after Labour’s election thumping.

      Good. Seriously exploring radical plans for change are probably more important than who heads the eventual changes.

      Good move to characterise the apparent “newness” of Shearer, as a new face for the old guard.

      That’s an interesting (and valid) twist.

      • Brett 1.1.1
        3 December 2011 at 7:23 am

        The Labour party is going to split in two.
        Old Labour vs New Labour.

        • Mickysavage 1.1.1.1
          3 December 2011 at 7:37 am

          I don’t think so but post vote behaviour will be important. Cunliffe has offered Shearer a front bench position, Shearer so far has not done the same.

        • Tigger 1.1.1.2
          3 December 2011 at 7:38 am

          Along what grounds Brett?

          • Brett 1.1.1.2.1
            3 December 2011 at 8:09 am

            That will pit them against the party’s old guard, whom they will paint as no longer representing the new generation of activists.

            Anyway in an MMP environment would that really be a bad thing?.

            I know nobody here will agree but NZ needs to have it’s two main parties just on either side of central you can’t have the country lurching one way or the other every three,six, nine years.

            The wastage is immense, the people hate it and the country never moves forward because we are in a constant state of change all the time.

            This is why Shearer must lead the Labour party as he will pull Labour back to the center where the majority of the votes are.
            Cunliffe should take the activists, the union delegates and form his own party, then he could form a coalition with the Labour lead Shearer party.
            That would make a pretty powerful block.

            • rosy 1.1.1.2.1.1
              3 December 2011 at 8:22 am

              More like the Nats should get rid of the neo-libs so they’re more centrist. The centre has moved way to right in the last decade or so

              • Olwyn …
                3 December 2011 at 8:46 am

                It is extremely hard to be clear about what people mean by the term “centre” and in fact they tend to mean different things. Key & his cronies tend to mean assuaging fears while continuing with the neoliberal project, and pulling back where there is danger of losing popularity. Dunne seems to define it as some sort of golden mean, while supporting Key’s policies.

                When a Labour person is described as “more centrist” I often have no idea as to whether this means that they have little time for identity politics (as seems to be the case with Damian O’Connor) or whether they think that our best bet is to find some accommodation with neoliberal economics, perhaps at the expense of the already poor. Or something else again.

                Colloquially the term often simply means “me” – as in those fatter than me are fat, those older than me are old, etc. Someone mentioned a few days ago (I cannot remember who) that NZers tend to see themselves as middle class, often against the evidence, which adds another layer of occlusion to the term.

                • Pete George …
                  3 December 2011 at 9:01 am

                  To me being centrist doesn’t mean always having middle of the road views and always supporting middle of the road policies. Rather, it’s a starting point where I hope I’ll look properly at both sides of an issue and decide what I think is best from there.

                  Being centrist means I can still support social policies and I can still support capitalist policies instead of feeling bound to lean one way or the other.

                  I try to pick the best of whatever policies are proposed, and look for the best ways of implementing them.

                  This approach can be fair to those in need of assistance, and fair to those who work harder.

                  • mik e …
                    3 December 2011 at 9:23 am

                    PG you have defended Nationals policies at all costs during the campaign now you are defending the ever reducing popularity of the one man band Unbalanced Follicles you have no principles so nothing to defend boring people to death.Your 160 odd and i mean ODD votes in Dunedin North they must have been so fed up with you harassing them they gave you their vote to get rid of you . I don’t imagine you have that many family or friends.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 December 2011 at 10:35 am

                      I haven’t defended National policies at all costs.

                      Most candidates of both Dunedin electorates (there were 16) and all MPs I talked to (3/4) indicated support for what I’m initiating in Dunedin.

                      The fact that I get abused by a handful of off-topic posters here is no reflection on what sort of reception I have got elsewhere, especially around Dunedin.

                      Why the ignorant speculation on family and friends? Do you them to be put off Labour for good as well? I’m surprised how much nastiness there is on political blogs, doesn’t seem to be a great way to attract support.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 December 2011 at 12:38 pm

                      Wait for Peter Dunne to vote for National’s policies at all costs.

                      Pete G when are you going to come out and take a principled stance as a United First candidate against asset sales.

                  • Olwyn …
                    3 December 2011 at 9:23 am

                    Yes, but the terms “centre” tells me nothing about the criterion on which you base your idea of what is best. Nothing about the position from which you determine what is in the balance.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  3 December 2011 at 12:27 pm

                  Dunne seems to define it as some sort of golden mean…

                  Dunne and the rest of UF have fallen into what I call the Myth of the Middle

                  These people who have so fallen take two positions, label them extremes and then say that the answer to all our woes is in the middle. These are the people who have taking the truism Everything in moderation – even moderation to heart (although they seem to have missed the warning at the end) and will oppose doing anything that they see as radical.

                  The thing is that they can claim any position as radical and what they want as the “middle”. Of course, if you need a radical change plotting a middle course doesn’t help either and we need radical change. Continuing with failed capitalism isn’t doing us any favours.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2.1.2
              3 December 2011 at 8:24 am

              lololololol

              you have no understanding of the Labour Party.

              Chasing votes in the centre is someone else’s job, not Labour’s.

              • Brett …
                3 December 2011 at 8:43 am

                Then they shouldn’t be a main party.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  3 December 2011 at 10:26 am

                  Says who? Says you? And on what basis?

                  Are give you a clue mate – its the electorate which decides whether or not Labour is a main party. And having done signficantly better than Bill English’s 20.9% I suggest that Labour still has a broad base to rebuild from.

                  • Brett …
                    3 December 2011 at 10:44 am

                    If the party goes the way you want it to, I doubt Labour would be able to scrape together 10%.
                    Your political views probably represent about 5% of the population.
                     
                     

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      3 December 2011 at 12:31 pm

                      If they went radical left I suspect that they’d be able to pick the majority of the people who didn’t vote. They may lose a few centrists and neo-liberals but, IMO, they’d actually have more votes (and probably members) after.

                      Brett, at best your political views only represent 1% of the population – the top 1% who want to rule us all in a dictatorship. You just don’t realise it.

              • neleoftie …
                3 December 2011 at 1:57 pm

                sorry cv but i disagree – centre on the voter identifier matrix is defined by a ever shifting double peak extremely wide and flat bell curve. people base there vote and identity on a wide range of aspects not just left right centre..and more importnantly the double dip centre if not really in the middle but a dynamic flux situation with outliers, and falloff tails to the right and left.
                then each electrorate is different as well that why its importnant the local labour candiate go after both perosnal and party vote based on the elctrorate bias i.e damian oconnor,grant robertson.

            • mik e 1.1.1.2.1.3
              3 December 2011 at 9:16 am

              Brett you know the left block came within a whisker of vicTory and with special votes low majorities in some seats the left may still win though unlikely with up to five seats hanging by a thread it could cause an over hang.
              Brett you are obviously a Tory and one of your main weapons through out hisTory has been to divide and conquer with any means possible
              Can’t wait for Winnie to have his cup of tea under parliamentary privilege The thin Teflon will be worn somewhat more and the yellow press will be exposed some what more
              Brett this is MMP and its left block verses right the right has less versatility now National has all the power.

              • Colonial Viper …
                3 December 2011 at 12:48 pm

                Exactly. Labour up 2% on 29% and National down 2% on 46% and Key would have been toast.

                • neleoftie …
                  3 December 2011 at 1:59 pm

                  with 1 million non voters what 1/3 not voting – hardly a represenation of the electrorate

            • Jackal 1.1.1.2.1.4
              3 December 2011 at 12:02 pm

              Brett

              The wastage is immense, the people hate it and the country never moves forward because we are in a constant state of change all the time.

              Although I don’t agree with the premise of your argument that Shearer is more centrist than Cunliffe, you make a good point about the financial cost of our political process whereby one party makes huge changes that the other party will simply change back when they gain power. Both National and Labour are guilty of this dysfunction. However it is more to do with our hierarchical structuring and an outdated mode of representation.

              The solution is to allow the public to vote directly on policy with parties being advocates for their respective policies. The stability of the general public is preferable to the combative and wasteful political process that is clearly failing to engage many New Zealander’s in decision making.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                3 December 2011 at 12:35 pm

                +1

                That’s why I’m so in favour of online voting. It’d make it easy to have the discussion and vote on policies.

                • Deborah Kean …
                  4 December 2011 at 4:59 pm

                  That’s why I’m so in favour of online voting.

                  That would be a terrible thing – there’s no upside to it! I keep hearing that it would be oh-so-secure, linked to everyone’s online banking etc – but not everyone does online banking (it took me years to decide that it was probably safe.) My son just told me about a colleague of his who has – along with her husband, just been wiped out by a hacker – $50 000… Luckily their bank is reimbursing them. But safe is relative! I just watched last night, the curiously passionless documentary ‘Hacking Democracy’, about Diebold and the 2004 election – although Kerry had proof that the Bushites stole the election with the connivance of Diebold, he  caved, and whilst some of his supporters were angry, most Americans shrugged and said “meh’, which is what I mean about passionless. If Americans won’t stick up for themselves, it’s absolutely true that New Zealanders won’t. On-line voting would see us more completely fried than we already are.
                   

              • neleoftie …
                3 December 2011 at 2:00 pm

                perception perception and more perception – just give me an honest leader someone not so tied up in party spin and poli speak and i will give you one million voters

            • logie97 1.1.1.2.1.5
              3 December 2011 at 3:35 pm

              Perhaps we could have some basics explained here.
              Brett, you could start by telling us what
              “…the country never moves forward …” actually means.

              Are you suggesting that every enactment of every piece of legislation is taking the country forward. In whose perspective, and where or what is this future exactly?

            • millsy 1.1.1.2.1.6
              3 December 2011 at 5:06 pm

              We already had that a few years ago. Labour held the centre, and the Alliance held the more socialist left. Then both Anderton and McCarten got too stubborn for their own good, and look where we are now.

              If the Alliance had held itself together, the period of 2002-08 would have seen a lot more left policies than there actually was. Remember: Kiwibank was an Alliance initiative and now has support across the political spectrum (I think even Don Brash was lukewarm on selling it). Same with paid perental leave.

              In addition, the Greens would have been able to focus on environmental issues, rather than try and be a socialist party as well.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.3
          3 December 2011 at 8:20 am

          The Labour party is going to split in two.
          Old Labour vs New Labour.

          For the brief duration of this scrap, maybe. But its one of those necessary things.

          • chris73 1.1.1.3.1
            3 December 2011 at 8:53 am

            Yes but more importantly its hugely entertaining to watch

            • Galeandra 1.1.1.3.1.1
              3 December 2011 at 9:25 am

              Ever so funny, ha ha ha. If politics is just another RWC circus for the right, then it makes sense that we’re only aspiring to muddle through. That’s why prison building, more motorways and National Standards are apparently all the political outcomes we need. Dinemic. Dig more coal.

          • mik e 1.1.1.3.2
            3 December 2011 at 9:28 am

            Labour has always aired its dirty linen in public . Thats good democracy at work ,not like National Act who do nearly all their dirty deal behind closed doors.Unfortunately Act has done its dirty dealings in public recently and has now been absorbed back into National.
            A prickly subject as Cacti Kate would say.

            • Tigger 1.1.1.3.2.1
              3 December 2011 at 10:12 am

              Exactly. Labour need to do this.

              Anyway, righties, I’d be far more worried about who will lead National than Labour at the moment. Key has already asked party leaders if he can step down (closed door meeting, Marie Quinn and others in attendance). Who will replace him. I’m delighted that Labour has a bevy of potential leaders. Far better than National who literally have nobody palatable.

              • seeker …
                3 December 2011 at 10:23 am

                @Tigger-when/where did you hear about Key possibly stepping down?
                And you are correct, it is a real plus that Labour is spoilt for choice as regards potential leaders, whereas National is definitely ‘leader lite.’

              • Lanthanide …
                3 December 2011 at 10:24 am

                “Key has already asked party leaders if he can step down (closed door meeting, Marie Quinn and others in attendance)”

                Got any links for this, or is this from personal sources?

                • Armchair Critic …
                  3 December 2011 at 9:16 pm

                  Early on in his term as PM I thought I’d read his CV to see how long he typically stayed in roles. It’s one of the things I look at when I interview people, because their past behaviour indicates how long they might stay in the role they are being interviewed for.
                  From what I could see most of John Key’s roles have lasted two or three years, and his longest in any role is about five years. If he does two full terms as PM it will be the longest he has ever stuck at one role, so on this basis I think it is unlikely he will be leader of the National Party for an election in late 2014.

              • aerobubble …
                3 December 2011 at 10:38 am

                Given that righties play on emotional voters how is Cunliffe going to help Labour, he’ll make an excellent Finance Minister but to beat the right the Labour party need to grab voters by their emotional tails.

                Goff had trouble with putting gst off, cgt on, threshold free into any emotional terms.
                Universal tax cut, healthy fairer tax system.

        • the pink postman 1.1.1.4
          3 December 2011 at 3:47 pm

          Well who the hell are you to comment on the Labour Party.It appears to me that every damm Tory ,rightwing nutter and those Right-wing
          columnists /Bloggers like Holmes .Garner ,Farrar and all the rest of the of the Right -Wing neo fascists know better than the Labour Party itself . My message to this cunning lot is piss of look after your own sleazy party .Labour is well able to manage its own affairs.
          I mentioned a few days back that Garner said there was going to be a blood bath over the leadership .he is looking a bit green ,Because the leadership is being run very well and involving grass roots members . Its certainly run more democratically than the Nats BRT dominated Leader elections. Remember “No Brash no Money ‘ a couple of elections ago

    • seeker 1.2
      3 December 2011 at 9:27 am

      @ Carol 6.49am

      Good comment Carol. Agree with all your points. Thought the same myself when I read this article earlier.

      I was really heartened by Cunliffe’s intelligent ‘fightback’, as well as Nanaia Mahuta’s pertinent shut down of Tamihere’s ignorant remarks yesterday.

      Cunliffe and Mahuta could be a formidable team. Just what Labour needs.

    • pollywog 1.3
      3 December 2011 at 10:24 am

      Shearer >>> foreign affairs…FTW!!!

      • seeker 1.3.1
        3 December 2011 at 10:30 am

        Excellent idea pollyw.

        • Ianupnorth 1.3.1.1
          3 December 2011 at 12:26 pm

          I find it very odd that the prospective leaders are being drawn into televised debates, something National and their ministers avoided at all costs.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.1.1
            3 December 2011 at 12:42 pm

            I don’t. Hiding everything from view is normal behaviour of the RWNJs in their attempt to create a dictatorship with them in control. Actually involving everybody else is how you build a community that governs itself.

  2. Pete George 2
    3 December 2011 at 7:11 am

    Getting to know the other David Labour MP – David Clark.

  3. aerobubble 3
    3 December 2011 at 10:48 am

    So let me understand this. Long ago Maori sold their assets cheap to foreigners.
    Now MSM believe that Maori Party will survive politically by working with National in any shape or form?
    I thought Maori had more integrity, but no, they still want to work with National.
    which is perplexing since shoring up National only makes the inevitable collapse worse for Maori.

  4. randal 4
    3 December 2011 at 11:22 am

    well my opinion is it is ttrime to get rid of leighton smith from newstalk zb.
    this monster is a cretin of the first order.
    all last week he used his position to denigrate the candidates for the NZLP leader.
    then he got stuck into Helen Clarke, the United Nations and last but not least the president of the unites states Barack Obama.
    there is nothing nice about this person but yet he keeps spewing his filth and ignorance all over us daily.
    no wonder kiwis are so messed up. on one hand they are told they are wonderful people because they won the world cup but on the other this fountain of bile runs rampant every day.
    time to make some radical changes in this country starting with the pinheads in the media.

  5. Jackal 5
    3 December 2011 at 11:50 am

    National’s privatization dreamland

    Despite the National party only gaining 23% of the populations vote, John Key believes National has a mandate to sell off our best performing SOE’s…

  7. Glenn 7
    3 December 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Goebells Smith finished me with ZB talkback.
    Right wing (virtually Fascist) slants on everything.
    Laws finished me with the other talkback lot.

    Why is the Labour leadership battle being fought so publicly when the only media coverage is certainly prejudiced against the left?
    And why are the National groupies all favouring Shearer?

    • Anthony 7.1
      3 December 2011 at 2:11 pm

      This is what I think, it publicly airs the winners and losers and if anything build future stories about factionalism in Labour.

      Not to mention, yet once again, the focus is all on Labour for the wrong reasons, and National just gets to cruise along without any scrutiny – you would think last term would have taught them something.

      The “TV debates” were pure hubris, they should have kept it at a grass roots level and then come from that with unity or at least the perception of it.

      • Carol 7.1.1
        3 December 2011 at 5:01 pm

        I think, for a Labour leadership team to be successful, they have to find a way of dealing with, or operating successfully inspite of, the right wing MSM and astroturfers. These right wingers will try to undermine Labour and their leader, however they go about things.

        So the leadership contest is a kind of baptism of fire.

    • Uturn 7.2
      3 December 2011 at 2:29 pm

      “And why are the National groupies all favouring Shearer?”

      At a guess I would say that because his efforts have sought the complete opposite end of theirs, they consider his achievements to be totally worthless, so he too is totally worthless. At the centre of their thinking is the rule that anything not like them is wrong and worthless – the sneers follow from there.

      I am merely a spectator to the LP leadership process, but I would like to emphasise that just because National want Shearer, it should have no bearing at all on the decision of the LP and it’s members to choose as they see fit.

  8. joe90 8
    3 December 2011 at 2:23 pm

    http://annieappelphotography.blogspot.com/

    Every Thursday since October 13 I’ve driven 20 minutes up the highway with my Rolleiflex camera and a handful of film and asked the activists at Occupy Los Angeles their greatest hope for a positive outcome in this global movement toward change

    • seeker 8.1
      3 December 2011 at 11:39 pm

      WOW! Terrific idea and commitment.
      Thank you Joe for something wonderful that I would not have seen or ‘heard’ if it were not for you. Thanks too to all the occupiers for sharing their hopes and occupying for change.

  9. Penny Bright 9
    3 December 2011 at 2:42 pm

    3 December 2011

    ‘Blowing the whistle’ on Transparency International’s 2011 ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – where NZ is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world.

    http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/

    WHAT UTTER GARBAGE IS THIS??

    In my considered opinion, as a GENUINE ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner – if NZ is perceived to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ then Transparency International’s ‘Corruption Perception Index’ is not worth the paper upon which it is written.

    As a delegate – I personally distributed about 400 copies of the following ‘NZ Corruption Reality Checklist’ amongst the 1200 delegates from 135 countries who were represented at the 2010 Transparency International 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference which I attended in Bangkok last year.

    (Funded by donations received from fellow concerned citizens who support the work I am doing as an ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner.)
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    CORRUPTION REALITY CHECKLIST – NEW ZEALAND

    1. Has NZ ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption? ……… NO

    2. Does NZ have an independent anti-corruption body tasked with educating the public and PREVENTING corruption? ……. NO

    3. Do NZ’s laws ensure transparency in the funding of candidates for elected public office and political parties at central government level? …………………. NO

    4. Do NZ Members of Parliament have a ‘Code of Conduct’? NO

    5. Do NZ Local Govt elected reps have a ‘Code of Conduct’? ……. YES

    6. Is it an offence for NZ Local Govt elected reps to breach the ‘Code of Conduct’? NO

    7. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt elected reps? …………………NO

    8. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Central Govt staff responsible for procurement? ……………… NO

    9. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt staff responsible for procurement? ………. NO

    10. Is there a lawful requirement for details of ‘contracts issued’ – including the name of the contractor; scope, term and value of the contract to be published in NZ Central Govt Public Sector, and Local Govt (Council) Annual Reports so that they are available for public scrutiny?……. NO

    11. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? ………NO

    12. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Local Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? ………NO

    13. Does NZ have a legally-enforcable ‘Code of Conduct’ for members of the NZ Judiciary? ……NO

    14. Are all NZ Court proceedings recorded, and audio records made available to parties who request them?……………NO

    15. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ Judicial ‘Register of Interests’? …. NO

    16. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ ‘Register of Lobbyists’ at Central Govt Ministerial level? ………… NO

    17. Is there a legal requirement at NZ Central and Local Govt level for a ‘post-separation employment quarantine ‘ period’ from the time officials leave the public service to take up a similar role in the private sector?………………NO

    18. Is it a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central Govt or Local Govt level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnerships? …………………. NO

    19. Is it unlawful in NZ for politicians to knowingly misrepresent their policies prior to election at central or local government level? …………………………. NO

    20. Do NZ laws promote and protect individuals, NGOs and community-based organisations who are ‘whistleblowing’ against ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices at central and local govt level and within the judiciary? ……………………………. NO

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    BACKGROUND INFORMATION

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1112/S00005/new-zealand-tops-latest-global-anti-corruption-index.htm

    Transparency International is a global civil society coalition leading the fight against corruption. It compiles a number of measures of different aspects of corruption including the Corruption Perceptions Index, the Global Corruption Barometer, and the Bribe Payers Index. Information on Transparency International can be found at http://www.transparency.org and detailed information on the Corruption Perceptions Index can be found at http://www.transparency.org/cpi

    Transparency International New Zealand is the local chapter of Transparency International and is an independent registered charity. Information on TI-NZ, including New Zealand’s performance in the Global Corruption Barometer and the As Good As We Are Perceived? report can be found at http://www.transparency.org.nz

    The Office of the Auditor General’s report Cleanest public sector in the world: Keeping fraud at bay can be found at http://www.oag.govt.nz/2011/public-sector-fraud/docs/overview-report.pdf

    Information on the UN Convention Against Corruption can be found at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/

    http://www.oag.govt.nz/whats-new/2011/corruption-perceptions-index-2011

    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/
    I-42146 United Nations Convention against C…
    See Details 31/10/2003 14/12/2005 Open Multilateral

    Signature/ratification status

    The Convention entered into force on 14 December 2005, in accordance with its article 68 (1). For each new State or regional economic integration organization becoming a party to the Convention, the Convention enters into force on the thirtieth day after the date of deposit by such State or organization of the relevant instrument.

    Status: Signatories: 140 ,Parties: 154.

    Authoritative status information on treaties deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption, is available on the United Nations Treaty Collection.

    [Link to Full Status Page]

    http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=XVIII-14&chapter=18&lang=en#Participants

    Country

    Signature Ratification, Acceptance (A), Approval (AA), Accession (a), Succession (d)

    New Zealand 10 Dec 2003
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Penny Bright
    [email deleted]

    • seeker 9.1
      3 December 2011 at 11:50 pm

      We don’t do too well on the ‘corruption reality’ check list do we ? Perhaps we are a banana republic after all?
      Thanks for all your ‘watchdogging’ Penny. You are one brave,principled lady.

  10. Jackal 10
    3 December 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Young Natz are boring

    Six young natz show just how brain dead boring they are in a video negatively endorsing Cunliffe. I transcribed it because the audio is shite!

  12. Anthony 12
    3 December 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Well at least they are sticking to the approved script for forcing a meme.

    “Dishonesty, disloyalty, and arrogance”.

  13. Georgecom 13
    3 December 2011 at 4:43 pm

    John Armstrong offers his opinion on some policy changes Labour needs to put in place in order to be electable
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10770511

    Rethink opposing asset sales and a Capital Gains Tax, welfare reform, National Standards.

    Apparently, in Armstrongs world, voters don’t care about asset sales and parents like National Standards. Polls on the issues suggest otherwise.

    A CGT isn’t necessary and looking at ways of alleviating poverty (anything other than make/compel people to be work ready in the absence of jobs) is unpopular.

    Labour also has some ‘1/2 baked ideas’ amongst its policies.

    I guess there is a difference between mimicing the ‘do nothing’ ‘grab bag’ of ideas run by the current Government, in order to be elected short term, and actually doing some hard thinking about the countries future needs.

    What Armstrong hasn’t bothered to factor in are the economic, social and environmental turmoil we are going to experience in the next 10 years. Doing nothing may have been most popular this year but won’t do much to help NZ in 5 years time. If Armstrong thinks that things are going to quickly default to pre 2008 conditions and be benign enough for a do nothing neo-liberalism to remain popular, I suggest he is deluded.

    Rather than lurch toward the brand of neo-liberal ‘grab bag’ politics, Labour needs to continue doing thinking about appropriate long term answers to the questions now being posed. The 2011 election manifesto was a good start.

    Mister Armstrong can no doubt continue to be a cheer leader for brand ‘do nothing’.

    • logie97 13.1
      3 December 2011 at 9:02 pm

      Wonder what Centre-bet odds are for Armstrong getting recognition in the New Years Honours Lists? What the category might be …

  14. logie97 14
    3 December 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Well, well, why so silent during the election campaign Brian Gaynor? What a disgrace!

    How many would have voted for JokyHen if they had seen this sort of commentary?

    “…Key and Finance Minister Bill English have a reputation for being prudent financial managers yet their three-year deficit of $35.5 billion
    compares with a $35.6 billion surplus by the previous Labour Government
    and a $5.7 billion surplus by the 1990 to 1999 National Government…”

    “…But the best way to look at Government debt is as a percentage of GDP. The last two Labour Governments reduced Government debt as a percentage of GDP but only one of the three National Governments – the Bolger/Shipley Administration – has produced a similar result…”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10770465

  15. vto 15
    3 December 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I wonder if the wild west is spreading its stench of contagion……

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6081514/Shooting-outside-Tokoroa-police-station

    In addition to various wild shootings in Wairoa amongst weekend activities, fires in the far north, asians being blown sky high in the Urerewas, …

    There are without doubt incidents of rampant violence in the face of authority going on more and more. Has anybody else noticed this? And what does it mean? And should we all of us buy guns? Like the US government? Or even our government? Do we follow our leaders in declaring war? Or do we circle the wagons?

  16. prism 16
    3 December 2011 at 7:27 pm

    A bit of a wobble in Nelson guessing more than 4. Centred in Wellington I think – that place needs a shake-up. 5.7 40 km from Wellington towards Picton.

  17. ianmac 17
    3 December 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Significant earthquake top of the South 7:20pm 10seconds approx. Hope it is not a more serious one further away?

  18. ianmac 18
    3 December 2011 at 7:30 pm

    There it is:
    Reference Number: 3620927
    NZDT: Sat, Dec 3 2011 7:19 pm
    Magnitude: 5.7
    Depth: 60 km
    Details: 30 km east of Picton

    That must be close to Wellington????

  19. vto 19
    3 December 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Phewee, at least it’s deep. Bloody hell. Are there more quakes or are we just more aware of them? That is )one of( the question.

  20. prism 20
    3 December 2011 at 8:56 pm

    NZ plates are slipping under Oz’s aren’t they? Hope that it is a nice deep quiet settling but sounds like it’s deep enough for plates to be moving.

  21. Jackal 21
    3 December 2011 at 9:01 pm

    Bullshit reporting from TV One

    On the TV One six O’clock news tonight, reporter Matt McLean informed us that the shellfish in Tauranga was safe to eat. However there’s still a Waikato District Health Board warning out for Tauranga and other areas saying the shellfish is toxic…

  22. millsy 22
    3 December 2011 at 10:10 pm

    Is it just me, or is the New Zealand cricket team completely and utterly useless?

    • Galeandra 22.1
      4 December 2011 at 12:37 am

      Yeah it is. They’re bloody average, but you’re the useless one.
      They won’t even let you carry the drinks 🙂

  23. Afewknowthetruth 23
    3 December 2011 at 10:26 pm

    This map shows very clearly where to live and where not to live with respect to active fault lines.

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/active-faults/1/1

    Note that back in the mid-1800s NZers decided to move the capital to one of the worst possible places.