Open mike 05/06/2012

127 comments on “Open mike 05/06/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. travellerev 1

   5 June 2012 at 7:20 am

   For those of you who, according to Gosman, know nothing about Derivatives and who like me think that all of this countries finances should be clear, transparent and on the books, here is an excellent article from the prominent blog Washington’s post about how Derivatives to the tune of 20x the Global GDP is going to blow up in our faces and that includes the $ 112 Billion OFF THE BOOKS Derivatives this government has build up over the last couple of years.

   Here is an interesting timeline for the Derivatives market and Oops it turns out that Bankers trust bank created the first Credit Default Swap right a the time John Key was working there and that is exactly the Derivative sold to the muppets as the Hedge against the other gabling tools!

   Added to that here is an interesting list of people who visited the Bilderberg conference this year. Royalty, Bankers, Ministers (Even the prime minister of Holland) and people like Kissinger all sitting in small rooms discussing how to get rid of the cockroaches.

   No conspiracies of course. That would not happen. Our leaders love us.
   • Bored 1.1

     5 June 2012 at 8:20 am

     I wonder if the elite of the Ancien Regime ever got together for secret meetings at Versailles before the revolution. If so it did not prevent their appointments with thhe “national barber”.
     • travellerev 1.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 8:48 am

       Funny you should ask. I’m currently working on a post comparing the current circumstances with those of the Ancien Regime. 
   • vto 1.2

     5 June 2012 at 8:52 am

     I see Chris Trotter in the Press this morning describing how banks simply print money they do not have (fractional reserve banking) and calling for the money-printing factories to be taken out of private hands and placed into public ownership.

     It is rare to see a ommentator of any kind raising the subject of fractional reserve banking and its private ownership. This is a sign of the ebbing tide.
     • travellerev 1.2.1

       5 June 2012 at 9:09 am

       Must have found my blog then. LOL!
       Next he’ll be talking about a new and independent investigation of the events of 9/11!
     • travellerev 1.2.2

       5 June 2012 at 9:52 am

       Here is a great interactive time line of the development of the Derivatives bubble starting in 1991 when Bankers trust (Yes, the bank John Key was working for at the time) invents the CDS or Collateral Default Swap nick named financial weapon of mass destruction by Warren Buffet.
2. Pete George 2

   5 June 2012 at 7:32 am

   Join the cross-party cross-media campaign to push for addressing our Super issues. We need action this term, it can’t wait until 2015 – or 2018.

   Summary and bloggers: ADASS
   Facebook: FADASS
   Twitter: @TADASS1
   • Te Reo Putake 2.1

     5 June 2012 at 7:53 am

     Real world: LAMEASS
     • alex 2.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 8:17 am

       Not fair, Super does need to be adjusted. However, of more pressing concern is a cross party consensus on child poverty.
       • Pete George 2.1.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 8:20 am

         I agree that cross-party on poverty is important, but it is a much wider, more complex issue. And you could say that the ballooning cost of Super is a significant influence on that.
     • BLiP 2.1.2

       5 June 2012 at 8:34 am

       .

       Whole lotta shakin’ going on . . . I see you baby
     • Pete George 2.1.3

       5 June 2012 at 8:54 am

       Te Reo Putake, I’ll throw LAMEASS straight back at you.

       I’m not sure what’s worse, apathy, or active anti attempts to achieve anything.
       • Te Reo Putake 2.1.3.1

         5 June 2012 at 10:43 am

         “I’m not sure what’s worse, apathy, or active anti attempts to achieve anything.”
          
         Tosspot, meet kettle.
         • Vicky32 2.1.3.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 5:41 pm

           Tosspot, meet kettle.

           Wearying. Do grow up! You may disagree with PG, but spewing insults around is no way to make your point.
           • Te Reo Putake 2.1.3.1.1.1

             5 June 2012 at 5:56 pm

             It’s a perfectly fine way to make my point, thanks Vicky. Pete loves it when I talk dirty to him.
   • BLiP 2.2

     5 June 2012 at 8:33 am

     .

     There’s a whole lotta shakin’ going on . . . oh, yeah!!
   • Dr Terry 2.3

     5 June 2012 at 10:19 am

     Perhaps I missed it, but can somebody explain to me exactly WHY Key has taken this intransigent stance concerning Super? I cannot believe it is a sign of “caring” from him. Is it that there are too many wanting to retire who have the vote (he can sagely punish the young who have no vote, of course). The trouble is that many who want to retire continue to demand that “right” at 65 years. This cannot continue, and is in a number of cases selfish. Some government is going to have to “face the music” – and by delaying, Key is making it ever harder for that future body, whoever it might be.
     • Pascal's bookie 2.3.1

       5 June 2012 at 10:26 am

       Have a look at who votes for National, and how old they are. There’s your answer.

       As long as someone else reforms super, they’ll keep voting tory.
   • felix 2.4

     5 June 2012 at 1:05 pm

     Who gives a fuck what Peter Dunne thinks about this?

     As Pete pointed out on yesterday’s open mic, if any issue has budgetary implications then Dunne has to vote however National wants anyway.
   • Penny Bright 2.5

     5 June 2012 at 2:18 pm

     In defence of ‘freedom of speech’ – can you see why the NBR should effectively censor this comment – by removing it after it was initially published?

     What’s YOUR view Pete George on the OPENING OF THE BOOKS and CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS who are dependent on ‘corporate welfare’?

     http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-online-poll-massive-support-pension-age-change-gb-120388

     How about pushing for OPENING THE BOOKS so the public can see the ‘devilish detail’ which explains EXACTLY where our public monies are being spent at central (and local) government level – so we can look at where the scalpel can be taken to long-term ‘corporate welfare’ beneficiaries?

     What are the NAMES of all the consultants and private contractors carrying out work that used to be provided ‘in-house’ by staff directly employed across the full range of central government services?

     What is the SCOPE, TERM and VALUE of these private sector contracts?

     If the recent USA research is anything to go by, could NZ cut our central government budget in half by ‘cutting out the contractors’?

     http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1111/S00095/wheres-nationals-corporate-welfare-reform.htm

     Could NZ save over $40 BILLION by ‘cutting out the contractors’?

     Wouldn’t that leave a LOT more public money for public ‘social’ welfare if huge cuts were made to private ‘corporate welfare’?

     Wakey wakey folks!

     Penny Bright
     ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

     http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
3. DH 3

   5 June 2012 at 8:25 am

   A great example of how devious the thinking is from spin merchants;

   “Puzzle of Key’s extra casino jobs”

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10810802

   This bit here is strange….

   “The original Horwath report said 150 jobs could be created over a five-year construction period for a total of 750.”

   I read that as saying there are only 150 actual jobs. Surely they wouldn’t be so dishonest to calculate jobs as total employees multiplied by the number of years the jobs last…..
   • Southern Limits 3.1

     5 June 2012 at 9:02 am

     Crooked in the extreme
   • prism 3.2

     5 June 2012 at 9:29 am

     DH Smoke and mirrors, and legerdemain. Casinos and government have that in common.

     About the Greens and Russel Norman I question your careless approach to the environment and naive approach to free market economics as when you say –

     When the NZ economy recovers sufficiently we can get rid of mining & fix all the environmental problems
     • DH 3.2.1

       5 June 2012 at 10:07 am

       What’s careless about it? People have more to worry about than just the environment. We need to feed & clothe ourselves, pay the bills, raise our kids, save for our retirement… lead a life. Attempts to change this country into a more environmentally friendly one have to work in with that, no-one is prepared to go on the breadline even to save the planet. The naive approach is thinking the Greens can change the country overnight or even in an election cycle. There’s a need for common sense here and IMO the Greens are showing some. I think it’s quite refreshing.
       • prism 3.2.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 10:24 am

         DH I can’t be bothered to read past your first sentence of 10.07am comment.
         What’s careless about it? People have more to worry about than just the environment. We need to feed & clothe ourselves, pay the bills, raise our kids, save for our retirement… lead a life.

         The environment fashions our life can’t you understand you fool. Our food, our health, our living conditions, our everything.
         • DH 3.2.1.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 10:53 am

           You’ve lost the plot there mate. Like most people I’m fully supportive of protecting our environment. The discussion is about how we’re to achieve it, not whether we need to.
         • DH 3.2.1.1.2

           5 June 2012 at 10:55 am

           You’ve lost the plot a bit there. Like most people I’m fully supportive of protecting our environment. The discussion is about how we’re to achieve it, not whether we need to.
4. BLiP 4

   5 June 2012 at 8:29 am

   WTF – That Norman has gotta go!!

   The Green Party will review its policy on mining after acknowledging the importance of the industry to the economy.

   Greens co-leader Russel Norman told TV3’s The Nation today the party would consider approving some mining, which he described as “part of life” for the country’s economy.

   “You can’t escape it.”

   He said the party did not support new coal mines but “case by case” was unopposed to mining for other minerals.

   “I mean obviously you’ve gotta look at the localised environmental impact of a particular mining operation,” he said.

   Mr Norman said a transition away from mining for fossil fuels needed to begin: “If we don’t make that transition now it’s going to be very expensive later”.
   • DH 4.1

     5 June 2012 at 9:02 am

     Why? He’s right, it is an important part of the economy. You can’t turn a country green overnight. When the NZ economy recovers sufficiently we can get rid of mining & fix all the environmental problems. Until such time we have to get by on what we have. I think it’s great that the Green Party seem to recognise this. Labour need to start watching their back, if they don’t get their act together they might be a minor coalition partner after the next election.
     • Southern Limits 4.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 9:03 am

       Yup. There’s ideological blindness and then there is political reality. BliP suffers from the first, Norman understands the second.
       • McFlock 4.1.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 11:11 am

         Actually, it’s a clear indication of what some people here are saying is wrong with the Greens at the moment: moving towards the center.
              
         Basically, the greens as a one-issue party can achieve significant environmental improvement by refusing to recognise economic realities, so the realities have to be proved rather than just being accepted.
            
         Look at the Maori Party: by being focussed on one issue they are actually managing gains for Maori even out of a nat govt. The Greens can do more in coalition with labour as the extreme minority party than they can as a broad-focus party on 20+%. The reason being that to get the broader focus, they need to water down their principles.
              
         Look at “Labour”: nine years’ moderate progress undone in less than four, simply because they didn’t want to alienate their broad support with sweeping changes. The nats don’t really care – they know that the policy outcome (money for their mates) is the objective, so they’ll spend their support on getting policy in for their mates.  
                
         You can have a Green minor party, or a majority party “Green” in name only. Going for broader support by definition lessens its focus on principle. 
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 11:22 am

           I can’t see any movement in this though.

           What’s the policy change?
           • KJT 4.1.1.1.1.1

             5 June 2012 at 11:39 am

             Yes. What Green policies have actually changed.

             Greens always have been a party for social as well as environmental sustainability.

             You cannot have one without the other.

             Russel is just “telling it like it is”.
           • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1.2

             5 June 2012 at 12:02 pm

             Not so much a policy change as a change in emphasis. Slightly more business-friendly, slightly less adamant about environmental principles.
                      
             But given that I’ve never voted for them, I don’t really care. I’m just not sure how “green” they’ll be in ten or fifteen years if they start consistently getting 20-30% in the polls.
                    
             Personally I think the Left could do more with 5 issue-based parties with 11% each than two or three broad-appeal parties with ~20% each.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2

         5 June 2012 at 12:26 pm

         It’s not even a political reality, merely reality. We do need to do some mining to maintain the resources that we need but we don’t need to mine as much as we do.
         • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1

           5 June 2012 at 12:50 pm

           The Greens of all people should know that if you give the bastards an inch, they’ll take a strip mine. 
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2.1.1

             5 June 2012 at 1:07 pm

             There is that problem so we’ll need to ensure that they can’t take the strip mine.
             • McFlock …

               5 June 2012 at 8:09 pm

               But if the Greens go moderate (sorry, “recognise the practicalities”), who shift the debate beyond the practical into the aspirational?
                   
               Yeah, the nats have given “aspirational” a bad rap by using it as a euphamism for “failed to achieve even the most simple task”, but I think true policy change comes from a mixture of the idealogues and the practical – the apirational keep the practical from being merely mediocre.
   • prism 4.2

     5 June 2012 at 9:32 am

     Are the Greens against deep sea drilling for oil?
     Deep sea drilling for minerals? And if so can it be done with less danger of pollution from blowouts etc than with oil and gas which tend to go together I understand?
   • Dr Terry 4.3

     5 June 2012 at 10:27 am

     Some mining is fine, probably essential, with the proviso that it is NOT on “conservation land”. Greens have assured me that this is a rule they would abide by.
     • TheContrarian 4.3.1

       5 June 2012 at 11:08 am

       Fact is if you want your metals, your computers, your batteries and many if not all of your modern conveniences you need to mine somewhere for something. 
       • Bill 4.3.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 11:46 am

         Just idle speculation. I agree that certain resources must be mined from somewhere. But what quantity was simply landfilled in various forms during the past 50-60 years? And if the quantity is substantial, how recoverable would it be?
         • felix 4.3.1.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 2:33 pm

           The real question is how recoverable it is relative to natural deposits. There must be a point where the former becomes cheaper than the latter.
   • Vicky32 4.4

     5 June 2012 at 5:45 pm

     The Green Party will review its policy on mining after acknowledging the importance of the industry to the economy.

     Pretty much as expected… Whether he’s right or wrong, he’s showing his true colours – blue-green!
     The Greens are all about identity politics and the baubles of office.
5. Katy 5

   5 June 2012 at 9:09 am

   Seems like the Prime Minister has been economical with the truth once again, this time with the number of jobs that the Sky City convention center would provide.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10810802

   This whole Sky City convention center idea appears to be giving of an aroma that is far from plesant. What with Banks undeclaired donations, increaseing the number of gambling machines for problem gamblers to play with in return for a new bute convention center, and now we hear that Mr Keys assesment of available work and job creation for this project are exagerated.
   What else is going to come out of this? and do we need it.
   • ianmac 5.1

     5 June 2012 at 9:56 am

     Katy. Another illuminating column by David Fisher. Of course it won’t be Mr Key’s fault that he grossly inflated the figures for Sky City so someone else will front the spin-explanation.
     If you employ 100 people for 10 years, then clearly that is 1,000 jobs. Simple.
6. prism 6

   5 June 2012 at 9:48 am

   Housing problems were referred to on Radionz this morning. An advocate for needy families talked about their having to resort to caravans in their driveways to provide bedrooms and how cold and damp they are. Response from NZ Housing from one Ms Fink (good name) – a statement about this being against the tenancy agreements and that this use of caravans would result in an order to summarily remove them or else… What a vicious cold-blooded approach to essential need from what was once a welfare provision department providing state houses.

   And it is interesting how many women are getting into positions of power that detract from living conditions for poorer people. The judgmental model of early colonial days seems a default position for so many university trained women coming to notice through the media. Is that what the feminist movement in the 1970’s was about – agitating so that individual middle class women could get better opportunities and pay rather than out of concern for improvements in conditions for all women and society in general?
   • Carol 6.1

     5 June 2012 at 10:04 am

     prism, I agree with the concerns you express in the first paragraph.

     But your second paragraph? WTF?! Long-bow, much!? Would you follow any comment about the callousness of JK, Brownlee, English etc, with the failure of the women’s women to prevent the rise of such types?

     And what of such university educated women campaigning against poverty? Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei, Annette King et al….?

     And on the issue of lack of adequate housing in Sth Auckland and elsewhere…. doesn’t the buck stop with the Minister of Housing, Phil Heatley? And it’s more a feature of comfortably-off Tories, male and female, to have such a callous attitude to the less well off.

     But this is a crucial issue. Adequate housing for all should be a priority in a democracy. And there should be much more attention paid to it by the media and government. Instead, we get much more attention being given to the housing market – something of most interest to the wealthier classes. Those at the bottom of the income/wealth hierarchy just want somewhere warm, dry and safe to rent.
     • prism 6.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 10:13 am

       Hi Carol
       I have an uneasy feeling about women’s advance in the world since feminism and how I seem to hear female voices saying all the mean things there are to say from business and government (I note that the women you refer to are all politicians!). No figures to support it. I just know I hate hearing prissy, judgmental women who have found a place in the paid work force which apparently suits them, ie not being forced to do and say things from the urgent necessity to get any job.

       I was interested! to see that Dame Margaret Bazley got another gong – she was already a Dame wasn’t she? I think handing out recognition for being one of these judgmental prissy-lipped women as one of the handy small cleaner fish suckers to the great body of government detracts from their lustre.
       • Carol 6.1.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 10:25 am

         “an uneasy feeling” not based in any figures? Could that be just a wee bit of prejudice?

         One thing that is clear with this, and many past, Tory governments, is that they allocate women to front the nastiest of their social policies, while the main power behind them, pulling all the strings, are mostly men.

         I have long been a feminist, but for as long, or even longer, I have been left wing. As far as I am concerned, feminism means fair access for ALL women (and men) to all that’s necessary to live in our society. It has always been my understanding that was also the aim of the 2nd wave women’s movement. Successful Tory women don’t seem to subscribe to that view. They seem to be first and foremost, Tories.
         • Dr Terry 6.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 10:32 am

           Thanks Carol, a sound response.
         • prism 6.1.1.1.2

           5 June 2012 at 7:24 pm

           Carol

           What’s careless about it? People have more to worry about than just the environment. We need to feed & clothe ourselves, pay the bills, raise our kids, save for our retirement… lead a life.

           I have a feeling that you are right though I haven’t figurers to back it.
           • prism 6.1.1.1.2.1

             5 June 2012 at 7:46 pm

             Don’t know what I did here at 7.24pm. It’s a mess and meaningless.
             • Carol …

               5 June 2012 at 7:58 pm

               Yes, I figured there was some glitch there, prism. Meanwhile, my last long comment on the topic is stuck below in moderation. Maybe because it includes the com….ism word? It took a while to put together, too.

               I think, I’m done on this topic for tonight.
       • Olwyn 6.1.1.2

         5 June 2012 at 11:03 am

         What I am going to say takes in a thread from yesterday as well, about John Pilger and gay marriage. In the nineteenth century, in the English-speaking world, protestant Christianity provided the set of ideas with which power clothed itself. Ministers gave homilies on how the poor must know their place, and the same sort of women who now occupy boardrooms and government benches issued the same sort of spite at tennis parties and the like, usually with spurious Christian justifications. In the present day, the garment that clothes power has become a similarly degraded form of liberalism. It is not degraded that gay people should get married, but it is degraded to use gay marriage to divert eyes from very grave injustices. It is not degraded for women to share power, but it is degraded when that power is used to crush the vulnerable, and the inclusion of female crushers is presented as reason for self-congratulation.

         In the face of this, liberals can do as Dickens did in relation to Christianity, and distinguish the purer, more progressive form of liberalism from its degraded equivalent. But you cannot get away from the fact that the degraded version now provides quasi-justification to an increasingly nasty status quo.
       • joe90 6.1.1.3

         5 June 2012 at 11:30 am

         One thing that is clear with this, and many past, Tory governments, is that they allocate women to front the nastiest of their social policies, while the main power behind them, pulling all the strings, are mostly men.

         In a nutshell : Why the Pope Hates Nuns

         It’s tempting to simply view the church hierarchy as a cult of misogyny. But at its heart, it’s a cult of power; misogyny is but one tool for securing that power.
     • fatty 6.1.2

       5 June 2012 at 11:03 am

       “And it is interesting how many women are getting into positions of power that detract from living conditions for poorer people. The judgmental model of early colonial days seems a default position for so many university trained women coming to notice through the media. Is that what the feminist movement in the 1970′s was about – agitating so that individual middle class women could get better opportunities and pay rather than out of concern for improvements in conditions for all women and society in general?”

       I think this is a good point, as I see the feminist movement and Maori sovereignty movement helping to create neoliberalism.
       The feminist movement not bad itself, it was needed, but its outcome has been a disaster. Women may have found greater degree of freedom, but many are now incarcerated by our economic system…many of them went from one kind of oppression to another. The previous for of oppression was hard-power….now it is a soft-power which uses stigmatised assumptions…our myth of equality does not exist, but there are claims we are all equal and this just perpetuates the notion of individual responsibility.

       “And what of such university educated women campaigning against poverty? Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei, Annette King et al….?”

       True, but I would call Annette King one of the perpetrators, her and Helen Clark could have made a massive difference considering how long they were in power. (but I’m harsh on those two cause I consider the 5th Labour Govt to be one of our worst ever)

       Carol….didn’t you make a comment the other day about how women in the National are used to front nasty policies? That was a good point and I think that’s what prism was alluding to.
       • Carol 6.1.2.1

         5 June 2012 at 11:43 am

         Carol….didn’t you make a comment the other day about how women in the National are used to front nasty policies? That was a good point and I think that’s what prism was alluding to.

         Could be, fatty, but it seemed to me prism was going further than that and putting the blame on women and feminism generally.

         I do think there’s evidence that women’s movement into the workforce in numbers, has resulted in a re-working of gendered power relations – women have been accepted more strongly in PR,and HR occupations, and less so in the more dominant positions in business and public services.

         Olwyn:
         In the face of this, liberals can do as Dickens did in relation to Christianity, and distinguish the purer, more progressive form of liberalism from its degraded equivalent. But you cannot get away from the fact that the degraded version now provides quasi-justification to an increasingly nasty status quo.

         Well, to me liberalism is a philosophy based on individualism. Liberal feminism was always stronger in the US than in the UK and NZ. In the UK, particularly, socialist feminism was a more dominant part of the women’s movement. Thatcher et al looked to the US form of capitalism, to perpetuate a top-down reworking of the dominant discourses and institutions in the UK, in the form of neoliberalism. (see Stuart Hall’s “The Great Moving Right Show”). Thatcher’s/their aim was to eradicate the more bottom-up, grass-roots, and thriving socialist networks that incorporated feminism, as well as the gay and anti-racist movements.

         I think this is a good point, as I see the feminist movement and Maori sovereignty movement helping to create neoliberalism.

         We’ve been here before, fatty, and I think we will never agree on this. To me you seem to have a one-dimensional, uni-linear view of history, which starts with the 60s (maybe the 50s), and where boomers were the prime-instigators of all that followed. History didn’t begin with some all-powerful boomer generation – that period was one phase of the ebbs and flows of a long struggle.

         I see history more as a series of struggles with some progressive changes as the result of grass-roots agitation from below, followed by various backlashes and attempts by the dominant elites to regain the hegemony (h/t to Gramsci).

         One of the achievements of neo-liberalism was to separate the dominant feminist discourses from socialist discourses. They did this in the face of a lot of counter-struggles from feminists and the left generally – ditto for the struggle for Maori sovereignty and by the gay movement. The elites were able to do this by consolidating, co-ordinating and exercising their access to power in various inter-related institutions – government, education, media, financial institutions etc.

         The way forward is not to keep accepting this split of feminist causes, Maori movement, LGBT movement etc, from the left, but to re-unite the inter-related, overlapping (sometimes conflicting) issues and work together (i.e. a focus on intersectionality).
         • Olwyn 6.1.2.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 12:12 pm

           Carol: Yes liberal is an ambiguous word. I was using it in distinction from rigid conservatism, but I take your point re the difference between the more individualistic liberal feminism and socialist feminism. I guess the subtext of my post is that tories make very good use of ambiguous concepts in their pursuit and defence of power, wherever they garner them from.
           • Carol 6.1.2.1.1.1

             5 June 2012 at 12:40 pm

             I guess the subtext of my post is that tories make very good use of ambiguous concepts in their pursuit and defence of power, wherever they garner them from.

             Indeed they do. But also, the right can be challenged via their own conflicts and contradictions: e.g. the uneasy relationship between neo-liberal libertarians, neo-conservatives and old style nationalistic conservatives.

             PS: while Dickens did throw some light on class inequalities, I think he was more of an individualistic liberal than a socialist.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1.2

             5 June 2012 at 1:01 pm

             I guess the subtext of my post is that tories make very good use of ambiguous concepts in their pursuit and defence of power, wherever they garner them from.

             In other words, they lie through ambiguity. Use words that sound supportive of democracy and freedom while meaning the exact opposite.
         • fatty 6.1.2.1.2

           5 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

           “To me you seem to have a one-dimensional, uni-linear view of history, which starts with the 60s (maybe the 50s), and where boomers were the prime-instigators of all that followed.”

           …as you say “We’ve been here before, fatty,”…and you know that I have said before that the boomers obsession on social liberalisation was a response to oppressive social conservatism. I have never had a problem with boomers movements for social liberalisation (I am glad that changed)…but I have blamed boomers for economic liberalisation.

           “I see history more as a series of struggles with some progressive changes as the result of grass-roots agitation from below, followed by various backlashes and attempts by the dominant elites to regain the hegemony (h/t to Gramsci).”

           I agree…that is a good description of what has been happening. If we want that to keep on happening, then we are heading down the right track.
           But we need to put the work of past theorists in perspective.Marxist theory is good for pointing out power inequalities, but it was also developed largely before the TINA mantra became embedded in our psyche, so it is not much use for moving forward. It was more useful when there was another option to capitalism. To apply a Marxist perspective within a capitalist system is perpetuating hegemony, not challenging it. I think Gramsci would focus on attacking capitalism if he were alive today…so he would be critical of the direction and achievements of the 60s & 70s feminists. My guess is he would be critical of how social ideals within the feminist movement liberalised economics.
           I see the ‘good vs bad’ framing as often being detrimental when striving for social justice, and its a bit one-dimensional for me
       • muzza 6.1.2.2

         5 June 2012 at 2:17 pm

         “”The feminist movement not bad itself, it was needed, but its outcome has been a disaster. Women may have found greater degree of freedom, but many are now incarcerated by our economic system…many of them went from one kind of oppression to another.”

         –This is right Fatty, although the elites will not view the feminist movement as a disaster, given that they funded it, I can be reasonable certain that the likely outcomes of feminism will have been well understood in advance. The real trick lies in fooling people into believing it was an “organic” movement!

         A disaster it has certainly been for the masses on balance, and using stats to show its been a success (if thats possible), would be moot, as the evidence of its failure for the majority is all around us. This is not a comment agsinst the womans rights, which were necessary to have changed/improved, my commentary is only about the vehicle which was “used”, in order to achieve known outcomes!

         Where the real trick comes in, is in that for those who buy into “any given movement”, is to sell it as something it was never going to be, so once the true outcomes/consequences come become apparant, those who climbed into the movement, with all good intentions do not see themselves as having contributed to, what is, as you say a huge failure! This technique can be applied to any/all movements, and its easy to see the play book repeated for those groups you refer, and many others!

         The basic premise behind engineering outcomes, is to use groups by “selling” a product which to who know they will buy into. Once buy in has been achieved, you can then direct the journey, hence the outcomes

         Its all very simple, if only in that, being able to know how to understand human beings, and the fundamental desires we all share. The elites have been studying humanity since day 1, and as such they are almost completey able to sell night as day

         Lack of self awareness provides elites the space, to continue to execute such transparent plans, egos and narcissism provide the blockages to people seeing through them!
         • Carol 6.1.2.2.1

           5 June 2012 at 2:32 pm

           Unbelievable!… needless to say, I do not agree with this flight of fantasy, having been involved in the movement, where the elites did their best to undermine it, through police suppression etc, etc.
           • muzza 6.1.2.2.1.1

             5 June 2012 at 2:46 pm

             Hi Carol, in no way are my comments aimed at any individual.

             Who has really gained the most from the movement…I mean the majority of the benefits, not the bits and pieces. Woman did make some (deserved) ground, if thats what it was all about, but the elites have benefitted in multiple ways, and society/families/communites look as though they lost overwhelmingly.

             As I said…night as day, outcomes known!
             • Carol …

               5 June 2012 at 2:59 pm

               muzza, the most recent outcomes are not evidence of what the movement was about, nor of who supported it in it’s main activities and activism. As I’ve said above, it’s part of a long struggle. The stuff you are alluding to is just part of the way the elites have since appropriated part of the movement (and other movements), in their strive to regain control and maintain power.

               There has been some appropriation and commodification of feminism by the wealthy powerful pollies and corporates since the 80s. This was part of a backlash that also included demonising the women’s movement proper, then cherry-picked the parts of it most acceptable to the elites molded it into a saleable kind of feminism (see Madonna).

               You may not mean to, but with your line of argument you are just buying into this dismissal, demonisation and belittling re-packaging of the wider feminist movement.
               • just saying …

                 5 June 2012 at 3:45 pm

                 I don’t think it is in any way true that the products of neoliberalism are the result of feminism. The latest outcomes of feminism, as far as I’m concerned, are greater recognition of (and resistance to) rape culture, a wee bit of paid parental leave, and a kick-arse new generation of young feminists.

                 And my life has benefited enormously from the last hundred years of the women’s movement.
                 • rosy …

                   5 June 2012 at 7:07 pm

                   +100 js.
                   It never ceases to amaze me though, that women (and any other group that manages to grab a bit of power) is seen as an amorphous blob that should act differently to the traditional power – in our society white rich men.

                   Clearly there are a range of opinions and practices that are taken for granted in men, even the rich white ones, we have business leaders, community leaders, stay at home daddies… all sorts. Yet women, Maori and whoever else are meant to be this righteous touchy-feely group walking around with one aim to change/protect the world and save the powers that be from themselves. If that doesn’t happen the movement is seen as a failure.

                   The very fact that some from the group have a business bias gives people who have never had a vested interest in the movement an ‘I told you so’ moment when that is not the case at all.
                 • Carol …

                   5 June 2012 at 7:32 pm

                   And my life has benefited enormously from the last hundred years of the women’s movement.

                   Ah, indeed, it has been a long period of struggle, with many gains, but also setbacks, periods of progress, of consolidation, and of viscous backlashes.

                   I think a linear perspective doesn’t really show how there have been some long term gains for feminists. Often its 2 steps forward and one step back… or 1 forward and 2 back. That is why feminism is talked about as occurring in waves.

                   First wave feminists, around the turn of the 19th to 20th century, raised and agitated for a wide rang of issues, but in popular history, it has been relegated to a narrow struggle over votes by middle/upper class women.

                   In fact, what many 2nd wave feminists learned was that, on further investigation, a lot of the issues they were struggling for, had already been taken up by 1st wave feminists….. but then a lot of it was written out of mainstream history, and popular knowledge.

                   Many 1st wave feminists were agitating for a complete transformation of society, with a broad change in gender roles and relationships, in the family, in work etc. Though in the US and UK, there was a dominant liberal strand, there were also socialist feminist strands, and activism by and for working class and black women. In the UK and Europe, there were a lot of the same strands, but there was more focus on class struggles.

                   Many of these ideas were taken up again with each successive wave of feminism, debated, reworked and new ways sought to continue the struggles. And still we continue…..

                   http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/6236_Chapter_1_Krolokke_2nd_Rev_Final_Pdf.pdf

                   See for instance, Charlotte Krolokke & Anne Scott Sorenson, Gender, Communication Theories and Analysis (2005)

                   First-wave feminism arose in the context of industrial society and liberal politics but is connected to both the liberal women’s rights movement and early socialist feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States and Europe. Concerned with access and equal opportunities for women, the first wave continued to influence feminism in both Western and Eastern societies throughout the 20th century.
                   […]
                   Parallel to this strand of liberal first-wave feminism, a distinct socialist/Marxist feminism developed in workers’ unions in the United States, in reformist social-democratic parties in Europe, and during the rise of communism in the former Soviet Union.
                   […]
                   Radical second-wave feminism cannot, however, be discussed separately from other movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, it grew out of leftist movements in postwar Western societies, among them the student protests, the anti–Vietnam War movement, the lesbian and gay movements, and, in the United States, the civil rights and Black power movements. These movements criticized “capitalism” and “imperialism” and focused on the notion and interests of “oppressed” groups: the working classes, Blacks, and in
                   principle, also women and homosexuals. In the New Left, however, women found themselves reduced to servicing the revolution, cut off from real influence and thus, once again, exposed to sexism.

                   It was a long struggle to get feminist, ‘race’ and LGBT issues to be taken seriously within the left…. and still that struggle continues it seems.
                   • fatty …

                     6 June 2012 at 3:56 pm

                     Thanks for the link carol…I don’t dispute those goals of 2nd wave feminism. But I still see 2nd wave feminism as being one of the key ingredients in the evolution of neoliberalism.

                     Nancy Fraser critiques what 2nd wave feminism has transformed into…she notes the links between neoliberalism and feminism….and suggests there needs to be more discussion around to what degree did second wave feminism produce neoliberalism. As she says:
                     “Was it mere coincidence that second-wave feminism and neoliberalism prospered in tandem? Or was there some perverse, subterranean selective affinity between them? That second possibility is heretical, to be sure, but we fail to investigate it at our peril” (pg 108)

                     Here is Nancy in a radio interview explaining the article…@25mins is where it gets interesting, but the whole thing is worth listening to.
                     http://www.againstthegrain.org/program/274/id/041516/wed-1-27-10-feminism-and-neoliberalism

                     Nancy’s article (Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History) can be downloaded here: http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/faculty.aspx?id=10288
               • fatty …

                 5 June 2012 at 4:51 pm

                 “You may not mean to, but with your line of argument you are just buying into this dismissal, demonisation and belittling re-packaging of the wider feminist movement.”

                 I completely refuse that…I won’t speak on Muzza’s behalf, but as for me, pointing out mistakes is not the same as “just buying into this dismissal, demonisation and belittling re-packaging of the wider feminist movement”. That’s the same as someone bagging Labour and then being called a RWNJ…when in fact they think Labour is too neoliberal.
                 I am saying that the feminist movement has been misdirected and an overall failure…not a complete failure. Nobody here is trying to frame feminism in pure binary terms as either good, or bad
                 If we look at how women are still treated in society, then we must be critical of feminism.
                 Feminism has not been able to challenge modern capitalism, and for the most part has not even attempted to challenge thirdway/neoliberalism.

                 “the most recent outcomes are not evidence of what the movement was about, nor of who supported it in it’s main activities and activism.”

                 Today’s outcomes are evidence that feminism has missed the point. I don’t oppose the goals of feminism, or the movement, or the people involved…I oppose how they attempted to achieve them.
                 In my opinion feminists need to strongly resist capitalism…alongside environmentalist, the Maori movement, unions and anyone else concerned over social injustice.
                 • just saying …

                   5 June 2012 at 6:36 pm

                   It’s worth pointing out that not all feminists are socialists or social democrats, so blaming feminism for not preventing neoliberalism is a bit like bagging the women’s health lobby for not championing male health causes – that wasn’t necessarily what it set out to do.

                   Many feminists (most in my experience) however, are against neoliberalism and are involved in activisim on a a number of political fronts in addition to feminism.
                   Unfortunately, to date, those opposed to neoliberalism, including socialist feminists, haven’t had the numbers.

                   Today’s outcomes are evidence that feminism has missed the point. I don’t oppose the goals of feminism, or the movement, or the people involved…I oppose how they attempted to achieve them

                   Explicitly what outcomes and what methods are you criticising here?

                   If we look at how women are still treated in society, then we must be critical of feminism
                   Maybe the problem has been about the resistance to feminism, and again, the lack of numbers of feminists, rather than feminism itself. This is a bit like blaming, for example, prison reform activists for the terrible treatment of prisoners, rather than the perpertrators of the ill treatments, and people with the power the actually change things.

                   Finally, here is a link to the Hand Mirror, a blog of NZ socialist feminists. If you go back through the posts, you’ll find a wealth of activism on poverty, inequality, racism, heterosexism, etc. etc. Maybe this is the kind of feminism you could support.

                   http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/
                   • Carol …

                     5 June 2012 at 6:57 pm

                     Thanks, just saying. Well said!

                     The Hand Mirror does a good job in putting discussion and information out there on various important issues.
                   • fatty …

                     6 June 2012 at 3:41 am

                     “It’s worth pointing out that not all feminists are socialists or social democrats, so blaming feminism for not preventing neoliberalism is a bit like bagging the women’s health lobby for not championing male health causes – that wasn’t necessarily what it set out to do.”

                     Its not like that at all…’male health causes’ is not a system that will constrict women’s health. But neoliberalism is a system which resists and constricts feminist’s aims/goals.

                     “Explicitly what outcomes and what methods are you criticising here?”

                     The method is that feminism has been aiming to make a more gender-equal capitalism, but capitalism is a sexist-system. (i know its not all feminists accept capitalism)

                     There are social outcomes – single mothers are stigmatized and this will get worse as the economy continues to stagnate. Women’s bodies are more sexualised than ever before, its a result of capitalism. That’s consumerism and advertising. Gender stereotyping around unpaid work still exists, even though many women work as well. etc
                     economic outcomes – Women have been used for ‘flexibility’, poor wages, temporary work. Consumerism is aimed at women, to make money for men. Top job’s with power is often just tokenism. White men controlled resources 100 years ago, not much has changed. We still use childbirth as an excuse to force women into poverty. Women are disproportionally affected by capitalist crises, etc

                     Those outcomes are difficult to improve under capitalism. My critique of feminism, culturalism, environmentalism and other identity politics is not their demands, because I support them…its when there methodology is trying to achieve them under thridway/neoliberalism/capitalism

                     yeah, handmirror is good…I like reading QOT on http://ideologicallyimpure.wordpress.com/
         • just saying 6.1.2.2.2

           5 June 2012 at 6:39 pm

           Lack of self-awareness
           Your problem on this issue in a nutshell Muzza.
           • muzza 6.1.2.2.2.1

             5 June 2012 at 7:51 pm

             “And my life has benefited enormously from the last hundred years of the women’s movement”

             –JS – Unfortunately you showed your bias in the above comment, which is where the lack of self awareness I refer to comes in.

             Very few people are able to disassociate themselves from their bias in order that they can be neutral on a topic which has touched them directly..

             @ Carol, I also refute your comment – Fatty’s response to it, covers off the main reason for me around complexity, and why its not simply a case of 2 dimensional thought!
   • Treetop 6.2

     5 June 2012 at 1:34 pm

     I to heard this segment on about 8.40 am. Caravans have mushroomed in Sth Auckland in the last 36 months. 14 day notices to remove them or else a Tenancy Tribunal hearing. 15 – 25 people crammed into a dwelling. The way HNZ is being run, it is a NATIONAL DISGRACE.

     What is going to happen with the people housed in the caravans?

     The only solution I can come up with and it is a bad one, is to open up a HNZ caravan park.

     A relative who recently applied told me that HNZ sent them to WINZ for WINZ to do an assessment and they were told that they did not qualify for HNZ housing. What a load of BS as I qualified last September and I am in a better financial situation than my relative and her health is a bit worse than mine and we live in the same region. Basically they were told that they have a flat to live in.

     What is going on with WINZ doing HNZ assessments?

     Are WINZ topping up the benefit using TAS for accommodation (renewal required every three months) more than they used to, to disguise the shortage in housing?

     Who are they and why are desperate people not being housed by HNZ?
     • Carol 6.2.1

       5 June 2012 at 1:42 pm

       Thank-you, Treetop, for that info. It’s a disgraceful situation! And, in the long-run, is bad for all of us, not just those suffering most.
     • Treetop 6.2.2

       6 June 2012 at 11:24 am

       Something did not quite seem right about WINZ doing HNZ assessments so I have done some checking. It turns out that a person from HNZ comes into the WINZ office regularly.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   5 June 2012 at 10:24 am

   faaaarking check this shit out:

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

   …long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.
   • John72 7.1

     5 June 2012 at 11:44 am

     Perhaps there were not any beds available. Have a look around Christchurch after an earhquake. At least it was Summer.
     Some people are habitual complainers.
     • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 11:51 am

       Indeed. Ungrateful sods should have been grateful just doing their unpaid duty. Free trip to the city on top.
     • Jackal 7.1.2

       5 June 2012 at 11:57 am

       You would complain as well if you weren’t paid and told to sleep under a bridge.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.3

       5 June 2012 at 1:04 pm

       And some people are habitually blind to the truth.
     • Vicky32 7.1.4

       5 June 2012 at 6:08 pm

       Some people are habitual complainers.

       Are you serious? I do hope not, but I fear that you are. Words fail me… 🙁
8. travellerev 8

   5 June 2012 at 10:51 am

   Here is a nice bit of gossip you won’t find in the News papers
   After John Key’s surprise of signing a partnership with NATO he will have dinner with Prime Minister Harper of Canada who will arrive fresh from the 2012 Bilderberg meeting in Virginia at the pad of another known Bilderberger Prime Minister Cameron. Still feel John Key has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart?
   • muzza 8.1

     5 June 2012 at 1:13 pm

     “”We want to be even more closely connected with countries that are also willing to contribute to global security, where we all have a stake.”

     –All sounds very caring…I wonder what we have be signed into now, my someone who does not have the authority to sign us up for….Maybe the lawyers on here, can explain just where the authority originates from!
     • travellerev 8.1.1

       5 June 2012 at 1:15 pm

       One word. Bilderberg!
        
       • vto 8.1.1.1

         5 June 2012 at 1:21 pm

         Who is Bilderberg and what do they do? Maybe I just google or wiki it …
         • felix 8.1.1.1.1

           5 June 2012 at 2:41 pm

           Oh, just the top couple of hundred of the world’s heads of industry, banking, and government meeting in secret annually for the last 50 years by invitation only and with zero media attention and zero accountability.

           Nothing to worry about.
       • muzza 8.1.1.2

         5 June 2012 at 1:33 pm

         Its not likely that a group made up of so many “influencial” people, is simply having a get together, but given that there is much spotlight on it these days, it would not surprise me if its become a smoke screen.

         What is certain, is that there is much which happens, be it at Bilderberg or elsewhere, that the peasants will never be allowed to know about, but which will greatly impact negatively, many!

         People just need to take a look around the globe at the horrors being waged, via (all types of) wars, genetic engineering, domination of equities/commodities markets, and the resulting misery created by such entities as the I.C.E.

         Its little more than a game of chess to the elite, and human lives simply expendable!
         • Treetop 8.1.1.2.1

           5 June 2012 at 2:00 pm

           Without contradicting myself in 8.2, any gathering would have the subject of Greece leaving the EC and not repaying the borrowed euros. I think that Greece will revert back to their pre EC currency.
     • joe90 8.1.2

       5 June 2012 at 2:07 pm

       @ Treetop.

       Here’s Max Kaiser talking to Hugo Salinas Price about Greece reverting to a silver standard.
   • Treetop 8.2

     5 June 2012 at 1:54 pm

     Still feel John Key has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart?

     Key only has self interest jetsetting around the globe and partying up in London using the Queen’s 60th Anniversary on the throne as an excuse.

     Do you know where Gillard is?

     She is currently in Australia running the country with a paper thin majority. Key needs to be in NZ sorting out HNZ, education, corporate fraud, ACC, EQC/insurance and John Banks.
   • Adders 8.3

     5 June 2012 at 3:01 pm

     “. . . surprise of signing a partnership with NATO . . . “

     Oddly enough, this was foreseen on The Standard 3 years ago.

     http://www.thestandard.org.nz/keys-to-do-list/
     • travellerev 8.3.1

       5 June 2012 at 3:23 pm

       Good for you. Did you hear anything about let’s talk about this before we decide to join the biggest group of war criminals like a good democracy should have?
9. Draco T Bastard 9

   5 June 2012 at 1:04 pm

   And it now appears that Vodafone is looking at buying out TelstraClear.
   • muzza 9.1

     5 June 2012 at 1:16 pm

     There it is again…Smells like more consolidation to me, which of course takes competition out of the market..

     Argh, the sweet smell of the free market /sarc
10. ianmac 10

    5 June 2012 at 1:31 pm

    “Police have confirmed they will not press charges against Bronwyn Pullar, the former National Party insider at the centre of a massive privacy breach at ACC.”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10810873
    • Anne 10.1

      5 June 2012 at 3:41 pm

      ACC chairman John Judge said:

      ”We’re completely satisfied that the report was correct and factual.

      ”Our staff at the meeting considered a threat had been made.”

      So his staff felt intimidated by the two well dressed (no doubt) intelligent and articulate women sitting in front of them. Political bias aside, how dare two well dressed, intelligent etc. women confront his ‘sensitive wee souls’ and make then cry. Hilarious.
      • Treetop 10.1.1

        5 June 2012 at 4:01 pm

        And what will the consequences be for ACC spouting BS about Pullar?
11. Jackal 11

    5 June 2012 at 2:36 pm

    A Labour/Greens coalition on the cards

    The current averaged polling shows that a Labour/Greens coalition at 54 seats could potentially govern alone… And a Labour/Green/Mana/NZFirst coalition on 65 seats would easily beat a Nat/UF/Maori coalition on 56 seats…
12. freedom 12

    5 June 2012 at 2:45 pm

    http://rt.com/usa/news/megaupload-us-court-rothken-964/

    It does appear that our Attorney and Solicitor Generals just took the US Government’s word that we could proceed with the illegal raid and detention of a NZ citizen and seize that citizen’s business.

    I imagine the NZ end of the phone call went something like this: “Hi guys, how’s Virginia?”-” Sweet bro, what can we do for y’all?”- ” Arrest who”, oh yeah Johnny said he’s a fun guy. What is he charged with?” – “oh ok, but doesn’t MegaUpload run out of Hong Kong?” – ” You don’t care about international law anymore? So, ummm, moving on, and under what law exactly is the warrant to be processed?” – ” you will add the law later? i guess that’s ok then, we’ll meet with him at his offices in a few days ” – ” woah chill dude, you want us to what? raid his house and round the whole family up with automatic weapons and dogs and flashbangs?? Isn’t that a bit of an over reaction to what is really a white collar crime?” – ” it isn’t, oh our bad then! No problem, we’ll nab the evildoer for ya, scratch our back on the TPP eh?”-” what do you mean we better just do what you say and cut the backchat? (unclear noises emanate from the ninth floor) yes Sir, right away sir, consider it done.” endcall. the rest as they say is deleted history.
    • ianmac 12.1

      5 June 2012 at 3:29 pm

      Aha. About right too freedom.
13. joe90 13

    5 June 2012 at 5:46 pm

    America, you have a problem.
    • gorj 13.1

      6 June 2012 at 3:04 am

      Scary stuff. Thanks joe
14. Jackal 14

    5 June 2012 at 6:43 pm

    ACC’s false police complaint against Bronwyn Pullar

    Clearly the complaint to the Police was not made in good faith. ACC would have known that Bronwyn Pullar had not tried to blackmail them, as the recording would have categorically proven…
    • Te Reo Putake 14.1

      5 June 2012 at 7:33 pm

      They didn’t have the recording to rely on when they laid the complaint, Jackal. They still don’t, as Camp Boag won’t let them have a copy. They went to the fuzz on the reports of the senior managers at the meeting, who felt they were subject to a shakedown. Maybe they got that wrong, but if it was an honestly held belief, then they had no choice but to go to the police. That’s ethical behaviour, even if they were mistaken.
       
      I don’t expect the same ethical standards from a National Party hack though. Particularly when the target is the cornerstone of our workers’ health and safety and a world leader in worker’s accident comp resolution and rehab. And it’s ours, Jackal. Yours and mine. It’s a public entity, delivering 100% for the public good. Which the advocate at the centre of this issue is 100% opposed to. Cui bono, Jackal?
      • Jackal 14.1.1

        5 June 2012 at 7:46 pm

        You make a good point Te Reo Putake, in that all of this is damaging ACC, which is in my opinion what National want the most. If the devious little Nats can damage ACC enough, they think the public will be more accepting of privatisation.

        But there cannot be any question about senior management making false claims about Bronwyn Pullar trying to blackmail ACC. It’s not ethical behaviour when they knew a false police complaint was being made… That’s a serious crime, and somebody in ACC should be held to account.
        • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1

          5 June 2012 at 8:02 pm

          In what way is it a false complaint? How could they know that the tape does not contain a specific threat that meets the test for prosecution if they don’t have a copy? They relied on the recollections and judgement of their managers and obviously still do. Laying the complaint was the right thing to do.
          • Jackal 14.1.1.1.1

            5 June 2012 at 9:02 pm

            You’re arguing that senior managers don’t know what blackmail is, and perhaps that they were not aware that a false police complaint was being made… I find both contentions rather spurious! ACC doesn’t need to have the recording to know if the claims of blackmail are true… because they were at the meeting with Boag and Pullar.

            I don’t think it’s mere forgetfulness or improper judgement by senior ACC staff… as they promoted the claims of blackmail. There has been no attempt to retract the claims, or requirement to do so by the Minister of ACC, Judith Collins, even after what the tape recording contained became public knowledge.

            You don’t simply misconstrue what somebody means when they try to blackmail. ACC even made claims about what Pullar said, which if true would have been blackmail. The law is very clear, you cannot fabricate evidence by any means. If you knowingly allow somebody else to make a false statement, you are conspiring to bring false accusation.

            The punishment for somebody who commits blackmail is imprisonment
            for a term not exceeding 14 years. A person who conspires to bring false accusation against somebody for blackmail faces the same sentence.
            • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1.1.1

              5 June 2012 at 9:18 pm

              Blackmail? Says who? ACC reported what appeared to be an attempt to coerce senior management to the police, not a case of blackmail. Its the cops who decide what charges are made, if any, not ACC. Its blackmail when the cops say it is. Not that I think ACC ever said it was anyway.
               
              Look, Jackal, I’m not trying to make a big deal out of your buying the Boag line, just pointing out the nature of the person promoting the attack on ACC your post supports and the political implications that flow from trusting that quarter.
              • Jackal …

                5 June 2012 at 9:51 pm

                You would expect ACC to gain legal advice, before making a police complaint. I don’t think you can make a complaint concerning coercion in New Zealand, unless it’s to do with trafficking in people.

                It’s not legally known as coercion… It’s known as blackmail. ACC claimed that Ms Pullar threatened to go to the media about the privacy breach unless she was given a two year guaranteed benefit… the law would class that as blackmail and the police would normally require a complaint to conform to the law.

                Jackal, I’m not trying to make a big deal out of your buying the Boag line, just pointing out the nature of the person promoting the attack on ACC your post supports and the political implications that flow from trusting that quarter.

                What the? I don’t trust Boag, and have not purchased her line. Even if I did, there are no political implications. I trust what is on the tape and simply don’t by into all the faction bullshit that is being spun. I think this is about ACC bullying a claimant, which happens all too regularly these days.
              • Anne …

                5 June 2012 at 10:02 pm

                According to this stuff article, Puller provided ACC with a tape recording of the meeting in April. It also says ACC’s lawyers and chief executive Ralph Stewart were sent a transcript of the tape recording.

                I don’t recall the time lines involved so in the first instance ACC may have laid the police complaint before knowing the content of the recording. But they have had a chance to listen/read since. It seems strange to me they havn’t altered their stance given, we have been told, there was no evidence of coercion/blackmail (call it what you will) on that tape.

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7045339/No-extortion-charges-against-ACC-whistleblower
                • Te Reo Putake …

                  6 June 2012 at 7:57 am

                  That’s not the case, Anne. Boag has never supplied a copy of the tape to ACC, though a single ACC staffer was allowed to listen to it one time only. Not a lawyer, either.
      • Carol 14.1.2

        5 June 2012 at 8:10 pm

        Cui bono, Jackal?

        Yes, I worry about what Pullar and Boag’s agenda is here. It looks to be based in a c0ck-up by ACC, but, I think there’s some opportunism there from the Key/Nact fan club.

        And all the c0ck-ups etc are as likely to be from problems to do with underfunding of ACC, and, more recently, in manipulating it for privatisation, as from the basic premise of ACC serving the people.
        • Jackal 14.1.2.1

          6 June 2012 at 9:36 am

          The scandal is having a devastating effect on ACC:

          The average ranking for agency performance was 4.1 (down from 4.3 last year) and 4.4 for chief executive performance (down from 4.6).

          At ACC, the chief executive’s rating dropped from 4.5 to 3.7 and the agency overall went from 4.4 down to 3.7.

          Ralph Stewart replaced Dr Jan White in charge of ACC in September last year, and has since overseen a series of privacy blunders, including the accidental emailing of the personal details of thousands of ACC clients to Bronwyn Pullar.

          The Trans Tasman review suggested inquiries into privacy breaches at ACC were “likely to expose a lax attitude towards privacy issues” and very little in the way of systemic safeguards.
15. joe90 15

    5 June 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Some fun.

    http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
16. William Joyce 16

    5 June 2012 at 7:29 pm

    ..so here’s my mother (74), this morning, lying on the bed in the treatment room of her GP, (soon to be diagnosed with congestive heart failure at the local hospital) about to get an ECG. While desperately trying to get some air into her lungs, gets told by the person conducting the ECG, “We notice that you don’t owe us any money so you will be able to pay this off in installments.”
     
    WTF!
17. Jenny 17

    5 June 2012 at 9:34 pm

    “People make a mess”

    Like the character Nick Taylor in the movie, ‘Thank You For Smoking’

    Self admitted “Oil lobbyist”, David Robinson is a highly paid apologist for the fossil fuel lobby.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10810727

    Robinson’s job is to counter the environmental movement on one hand, and encourage the big investors to put money into expanding mining, drilling and fracking on the other.

    “The industry not only has to deal with opponents here, it needs to make itself highly visible to big players overseas.”

    David Robinson

    We, Robinson’s opponents, need to make our opposition, ‘highly visible to these same big players overseas’, – to discourage them.

    Painting himself as an admirer of the Green Movement, Robinson’s smooth veneer only starts to slip at the mention of the high profile campaign against fracking.

    “Fracking is the word du jour for people who are anti-oil and gas and there’s nothing more to it than that,”

    David Robinson

    Robinson keeps a USB stick in his pocket in defence of fracking. But concedes he wouldn’t want fracking anywhere near where he would personally live. And of course he won’t have to, with the salary he is on. Just as those who invest in coal mining never have to touch the stuff. No doubt, Robinson will make sure that he lives as far away from the results of his day job advocacy, as possible.

    In a parting piece of apologist misdirection, Robinson tries to get the spotlight off oil and gas and coal mining, to the pollution created in cities. “People make a mess.” he says.
18. felix 18

    5 June 2012 at 10:01 pm

    How much do kiwis really know about their PM?

    What are his hobbies and interests?

    Does he have any?
    • rosy 18.1

      5 June 2012 at 10:16 pm

      He drinks beer, makes money, tells non-PC jokes and likes to big note about the vips he meets. Seems like there are not many people who need to know more.
      • felix 18.1.1

        5 June 2012 at 10:28 pm

        That’s about all I could think of too. I ask because I just saw some footage of Lange indulging his passion for motor racing.

        It occurred to me that Key, by contrast, would be on the sidelines drinking. And gambling, probably.
        • Carol 18.1.1.1

          5 June 2012 at 10:39 pm

          He has his swimming pool. He played squash when he was young.
          • rosy 18.1.1.1.1

            5 June 2012 at 10:45 pm

            Oh – he did learned to play golf when he was a boy because rich people play golf. Not that I’ve any knowledge that he actually does that on his days off… agree he’d be on the sidelines drinking.
            • Carol 18.1.1.1.1.1

              5 June 2012 at 10:59 pm

              Obviously we don’t follow/read the right media:

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10697001

              John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand
              What is your hobby?

              Golf – when I have time.

              Why did you choose that?

              It’s a game played on courses in some of the most beautiful parts of New Zealand. It offers challenge, and gives me a chance to reflect and at the same time enjoy the great outdoors.

              What do you enjoy about it?

              My son Max and I sometimes play golf together, so it can be family bonding time.

              And his daughter?

              So plays golf…..

              Or does he?

              http://www.wildtomato.co.nz/articles/key-to-the-kingdom-%E2%80%93-john-key-tells-his-story.aspx

              His stated hobbies of cooking, playing golf and watching rugby cater to voters of all persuasions – there must be more to him than that. But he stands by cooking as something he really likes doing: “Even the Good Morning show commented that I was one of the few politicians that could cook and talk at the same time”. He does enjoy golf but doesn’t have the time to play, and he’d love to learn to fly “but my wife has banned it until I’ve given up politics”.

              Huh?

              Oh, well, pah for the course… JK seems to give a different answer to the hobby question to each person who asks.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/6323625/John-Key-likely-to-visit-Parachute

              His hobbies, he said, included cooking and reading.

              “My speciality is beef stroganoff,” he said,

              But some people think JK’s hobby is being a PM.
              • felix …

                6 June 2012 at 5:47 pm

                “some people think JK’s hobby is being a PM”

                😀

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS