Open mike 06/02/2015

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, February 6th, 2015 - 230 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Norm Kirk WaitangiOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

230 comments on “Open mike 06/02/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AsleepWhileWalking 1
    6 February 2015 at 7:12 am

    This weeks best quote:

    [Gerald Celente in an interview with Sydney radio show talking about the election of the Syriza party and how it is portrayed in the media]
    “So anytime there is a new party…you read the financial times for example, they look at the new party in Greece and they call them Left wing radical parties…Who are the people in power? How about status quo madmen criminals!”

  2. phillip ure 2
    6 February 2015 at 7:18 am

    cd someone plse rush/courier a special war-pimp-award to rawdon christie..

    ..in an interview with key..this fawning-fool was so jonesing for war..

    ..even key seemed embarrassed at this/his strident over-egging of the case for the inevitability’ of this fools-rush-in –

    – to a war that has absolutely nothing to do with us..

    ..and which has no u.n.-mandate..(as just one of a list of reasons to stay away..)

    ..and a problem that should be solved by the regions oil-rich/armed-to-the-teeth regimes of corrupt-dictators..

    ..not us..

    ..rawdon christie was carrying on like he was humping keys’ leg all during the interview..

    ..it was quite unseemly..

  3. North 3
    6 February 2015 at 8:01 am

    Again Key demeans New Zealand; on this latest occasion spittling Crosby Textor construct all over Waitangi Day. Waitangi Day blithely given up to nouveau riche gaucheness and the game ‘PMONZ crawls up POTUS’. Seems there is nothing, no institution, no convention, no standard of behaviour MrSelfieKey will not molest.

  4. veutoviper 4
    6 February 2015 at 8:04 am

    Well, this is interesting , even although C/T already have a big foot in the door here in NZ.

    A Crosby/Textor Media Statement dated 4 February 2015, tweeted by Andrea Vance last night http://t.co/eyGHq9DeDy

    As it is relatively short, here it is in full:

    Kiri Hannifin and Jo de Joux today announced the formation of Hannifin de Joux, an integrated public affairs and campaign consultancy that will form a strategic partnership with CrosbyITextor Group in New Zealand.

    The unique part of the Hannifin de Joux service is political, corporate and public sector campaign management.

    CrosbyITextor is the world’s leading market research, strategic communications and campaign management agency. The company has offices in Australia, the UK, Italy and the UAE.

    “Our collaboration with CrosbyITextor enables us to share their global best practice with local clients. It means we can provide our clients with sophisticated and targeted strategies based on the solid foundation of market research and insights,” says Ms de Joux.

    The creation of political strategists Lynton Crosby and Mark Textor, the CrosbyITextor Group draws from an unrivalled bank of campaign experience and expertise to advise corporate clients, investors, industry associations and governments worldwide.

    Ms Hannifin and Ms de Joux have extensive knowledge of New Zealand politics and strong track records providing advice across a range of issues at the highest levels of government and the public sector.

    Jo de Joux is a seasoned campaigner, having managed four consecutive election campaigns for the New Zealand National Party.

    Kiri Hannifin, a former political advisor to Helen Clark’s government, has been working in and around government for nearly 20 years in New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    More information on Hannifin de Joux and CrosbyITextor can be found at http://www.hdj.co.nz and http://www.crosbytextor.com.

    • veutoviper 4.1
      6 February 2015 at 8:39 am

      And the replies to date to Andrea Vance’s tweet of the media statement for your amusement https://twitter.com/avancenz/status/563244850829463552

    • saveNZ 4.2
      6 February 2015 at 9:43 am

      Well Kiwi’s need to be persuaded that we need to go to war that is not mandated by the UN, hate Catton and intellectuals or actually anyone with a voice, get rid of (or even better NationalLite) Labour, Keep National in power, destroy Winston and Greens and Maori and Mana, keep Northland, Keep Herald and MSM in line, Keep Act and Peter Dunne afloat but with no power, make NZ part of the TPPA, sell assets off without anyone stopping it, Get Slater back inline, and the sleeze sites in business, try to resurrect Key and Collins careers and reputation, destroy the burgeoning left wing blogs and news sites like The Standard, TDB, No right turn etc, to have abolute control the media, keep investigative journalists silenced in NZ, deport Dotcom, make the police and SIS tow the National line, keep Jason Ede and Slater sedated against biting the hand that created them, etc

      Be prepared, NZ is no longer an offshoot of Crosby/Textor OZ offices. Their slime trail around the Beehive is about to reach new levels…

      Saying that all is not well in Abbot land too, maybe the slime has reached critical levels there as well…

    • Incognito 4.3
      6 February 2015 at 4:45 pm

      Is Jo de Joux related to Phil de Joux?

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.3.1
        6 February 2015 at 5:12 pm

        These links will answer your question, Incognito, but will probably give you more to worry about.

        This is from November 2011by David Fisher.

        “Key’s inner circle of advisers is headed by Joyce, who led National’s campaign in 2005 and 2008. The National Party’s campaign manager is Jo de Joux.

        She had a strong role in the Mana byelection campaign last year, which gave rising National star Hekia Parata the chance to show her potential.

        The links between the party machine and the Prime Minister’s inner sanctum are close. De Joux’s husband Phil is Key’s deputy chief of staff. His immediate boss is chief of staff Eagleson, who caused a stir last year when it emerged he was partying in Las Vegas with lobbyists. He has been a strategically important manager for Key.”
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767258

        Also worth reading from Otago Daily Times titiled “Is democracy under threat?” written by Bruce Munro on Sun, 18 May 2014

        “Updated this month, the ”Approved visitor list to Parliament” has mushroomed from 25 people last year to 63 now.

        The list of those given their own swipe card to enter Parliament without the usual security checks is heavily, but not exclusively, populated by professional paid lobbyists seeking to influence politicians to the point of view of their organisation or client.

        Among those on the list are Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly; Sky Television’s Tony O’Brien and Chris Major; Air New Zealand’s Phil de Joux, who used to be John Key’s deputy chief of staff; Anadarko’s Anita Ferguson, who was Steven Joyce’s press secretary; and Fonterra’s Nicola Willis, who was an adviser and speech-writer for Mr Key. There is also New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly and secretary Peter Conway, and Food and Service Workers Union’s James Sleep.

        Making up almost a third of the list are a group going by various job titles, including third-party lobbyists, public lawyers and government relations consultants. They include Saunders Unsworth’s Barry Saunders, Charles Finny and Mark Unsworth; SenateSHJ’s Scott Campbell; Silvereye’s Jo Coughlan, who was a press secretary to the National government’s minister of foreign affairs in the mid-1990s; Franks and Ogilvie’s Jordan Williams, who was spokesman for anti-MMP lobby group Vote for Change; and Webling Media’s Brent Webling, who was press director for former minister of justice Simon Power and whose clients include food industry lobby group the Food and Grocery Council.”

        • Incognito 4.3.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 10:17 pm

          Ta. It is clear that they like to keep it ‘in the family’. So, we can fully expect more DP. Now all we’d need is a bit of Freed to top it off; I can’t wait.

        • veutoviper 4.3.1.2
          7 February 2015 at 8:37 am

          Thanks for that anwer, TMM.

          The current Approved Visitor List to Parliament on its website updated as of 11 November 2014 still includes both Jo and Phil de Jeux, with the organisation listing for Jo showing as NZ National Party and that for Phil as Air New Zealand.

          So they both still seem to have free access to the Beehive.

  5. Jenny Kirk 5
    6 February 2015 at 8:56 am

    Claire Trevett has a story in today’s Herald clearly designed to demote Andrew Little and put him down. But the comments following it are fascinating – they look to me like they’re 20 to 1 in favour of Andrew Little and telling CT to stop being such a Nat biased journalist. Here’s the link :

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11396754

    • Te Reo Putake 5.1
      6 February 2015 at 9:12 am

      Not a particularly well written article. Trevett seems to be reaching desperately and unreasonably to tie Little in to her treatise about flags and nationhood, but without success. You’re dead right about the comments, Jenny. It’s great that the readers can spot the weakness of the argument, rather than simply put their views on Little, Labour or flagwaving.

      • Skinny 5.1.1
        6 February 2015 at 10:19 am

        I’ve never rated her seriously, too flakey. The big political story is Key & the Police. Must buy the Sunday Star Times, I hear they have crunched a few details that don’t stack up surrounding Key’s handling of Sabin.

        Next week Key will call on the services of snake oil Joyce during question time to try drag him out of the hole he has dug this week.

        • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 11:31 am

          Yep! I reckon Key may have a bad dose of the flu shortly before question time which will sadly prevent him fronting up in person.

        • Treetop 5.1.1.2
          6 February 2015 at 8:38 pm

          On TV3 news at 6pm there was a brief comment from Bush, that the police did not drop the ball when it came to informing the minister of police about Sabin. I assume it was Tolley, even though Woodhouse became minister of police early in October 2014.

          How did Bush inform the minister of police?
          A file
          Verbally

          When?

          When a case is ongoing and there is a new minister of police.

          Does Bush need to reinform his minister and keep them up to date, even though the commissioner is in charge of day to day operations?

          I will be most interested to see how this plays out between the police and the government.

          Note: I think Woodhouse was a cop.

          • mickysavage 5.1.1.2.1
            6 February 2015 at 8:45 pm

            Thanks Treetop. Tomorrow’s post!

            • Clemgeopin 5.1.1.2.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 9:05 pm

              I will look forward to your post.

              Depending on who knew what and when, and Who did or did not inform whom and when, Who is telling the truth or who is lying, One or more of these characters in the short chain of command in this murky, dodgy, conflicted of interest involving possible political fraud on the country and very expensive saga has to be sacked or must resign:

              Police commissioner or
              Tolley or
              Woodhouse or
              Eagleson or
              Key!

              ‘The Strange Case Of The Elusive Five Eyes’!

            • Anne 5.1.1.2.1.2
              6 February 2015 at 9:32 pm

              Thanks for that Treetop. I was planning to bring it up too.

              An interesting timeline mickysavage:

              As far as we know, the police began the investigation early August 2014. However they would probably have known that an investigation was going to commence a few weeks in advance of that time. Let us say around mid July?

              You will recall that both Cunliffe and Key took some time off prior to the start of the campaign – Cunliffe took a few days which greatly exercised the MSM, and Key took 10-12 days and flew to Hawaii. (Key’s overseas holiday didn’t bother the MSM at all – funny that.) The dates of Key’s holiday was between the 11th July and 21st July – 10 days.

              So, is this what happened?

              1) a senior police officer contacted Anne Tolley and gave her the heads up.
              2) because Key was out of the country she passed the information on to Bill English or Steven Joyce – or both.

              What happened after that we don’t know, but there is no way in a million years John Key was not informed by one or other – or both of them – as soon as he returned.

              So, when Key claims that he knows other people knew about the investigation earlier but he was not informed until much later, he was actually referring to the earlier July/August time-span even though he knows everyone thinks he’s talking about the Nov/Dec period. He can then say he’s not lying with a straight face.

              I mean he’s done it before! SIS-OIA -Slater-Key on holiday in Hawaii – I know nuffink… anyone?

              • Clemgeopin …
                7 February 2015 at 12:05 am

                @Anne:
                Well, if English and/or Joyce received that serious information, but did not let Key know, then either one or both of those must be sacked or should resign immediately. There IS no excuse!

          • Treetop 5.1.1.2.2
            7 February 2015 at 3:55 pm

            Correction, there is no evidence of Woodhouse being in the police. His background is accountancy, and health administration.

    • greywarshark 5.2
      6 February 2015 at 9:14 am

      We might be meant to be reading this Trevett piece as satirical!

      …Unless you are Labour leader Andrew Little. Little appeared to be taken by surprise when he was asked for his views on titular honours and the flag this week.
      The week before, he had set out his determination to focus on big issues, not “small beer” issues.
      He apparently felt it meant he could only ever bang on about jobs and houses.

      She seems to be a jonolist talented at writing either satirical or farcical items! I fear that this one is from the farcical side. Sheesh. How did she get to be political editor or sub or deputy – do they pick Hairy’s ones from names in a hat?

      • North 5.2.1
        6 February 2015 at 10:33 am

        Can’t readily identify as satirical or farcical Grey’. Guess I’ll go with farcical – as to writing/writer both. Satire does not flow from the pen of a jonolist whose raison d’etre is to fellate TheGodKey. We are well familiar if unimpressed with Trevett’s styles. Sloppy exhortations to sweat the small stuff are unintelligible. As you were Trevett.

        • Murray Rawshark 5.2.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 5:29 pm

          I think it’s more likely to be irrumation by the GodKey that she’s hoping for.

          • Clemgeopin 5.2.1.1.1
            7 February 2015 at 12:17 am

            I learnt two new words today :

            Irrumation from you and Tetrapyloctomy from OAB.

            Thanks. Hopefully irrumation does not sometimes result in tetrapyloctomy.

            • ropata:rorschach 5.2.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 12:30 am

              Claire Trevett can’t be as bad as that fucking idiot Paul Thomas. Every thing he writes is pro establishment inanity. I wrote a couple of replies to his latest piece of crap, to remind him that yes journalists and activists are mistreated pretty overtly in GodKeyZone. Nicky Hager, Bradley Ambrose, Jon Stephenson have been hassled by cops, spied on, and had stuff confiscated. Judith Collins and Cam Slater try to destroy careers of principals, teachers, and scientists who don’t toe the government line. Paula Bennett has no problem releasing personal details of beneficiaries who complain about government policy. National are a bunch of power abusing bullies, and any journalist with a brain and a conscience would recognise that.

      • ankerawshark 5.2.2
        6 February 2015 at 11:28 am

        Trevitt did exactly the same to Cunliffe early on in his leadership.

        So the polls have been favourable about Little, “quick what can we focus on to make him look bad???? Oh yes knighthoods, etc, etc,”

        She selectively pays attention to any detail, no matter how minor to attack the leader of the opposition and make him look incompetent.

        That the Deputy Political Editor of the largest daily paper in NZ pays attention to issues that are red herrings (knighthoods, flags) when there are far more significant issues speaks volumes.

        Trevitt is shameless writing on behalf of John Key and the National Party.

        • greywarshark 5.2.2.1
          6 February 2015 at 4:45 pm

          Yes Anker shameless for Hairy to call her Dep Ed, never Deep Throat! Just part of the Beehive Circus Troupe. Her role is to run up to a plank with Key on one end, jump on the other end, and fly him high into the air to a position of elevation for the delectation of the masses.

      • phillip ure 5.2.3
        6 February 2015 at 1:48 pm

        grey..trevett is as funny as a door-handle…

    • tc 5.3
      6 February 2015 at 9:38 am

      Trevitt has long been a shill for team key, she gets to go on Shonkeys junkets like the PR poodle she is.

      Christie is even worse with his smugness and lickspittle behaviour.

      What a pack of synophantic knobs they all are.

    • BLiP 5.4
      6 February 2015 at 10:33 am

      ‘

      Yeah, typical Trevett. It does seem to highlight one thing: Little needs to be more aware of what’s going on around him and prepare for such questions. John Key has, for more than six months, been lying non-stop about sending troops into the Middle East. Now, after his trip to the UK for a little girl’s birthday party and a meeting with the “Five Eyes Club”, and especially since the arrival here of a top UK Tory, John Key is moments away from finally telling the truth: our soldiers are off the help kill Arabs. The MSM has been pumping out helpful horror stories with nightmare scenarios next to TINA solutions all provided by approved sources and designed to build tension as the sabre rattling reaches its crescendo. Of course useful idiots in the media like Trevett are going to be wandering around asking questions about nationalism and flags and colonial links to New Zealand’s English masters. That should have been obvious and prepared for, IMHO.

      On the other hand, it does reveal something about Little which I find appealing: he is unable to spontaneously rattle off ambiguous political platitudes concerning matters he hasn’t properly considered. This, however, is a vital skill for a politician in today’s world. As much as I regret saying it, Little could do with some impromptu theatre training in order to provide the MSM soothing balm for feeding out to the sheeple.

      • greywarshark 5.4.1
        6 February 2015 at 4:36 pm

        Impromptu theatre training. Just the thing for pollies. Now they are on show so much with vids and paper and vid together. They have to think on their feet and keep the patter going and Labour needs to break through the gold curtain (not the iron one).

        Also listening to some of the comedians talking about their start and experiences they would be good exemples and teachers, they know all about hecklers. I believe that the northern English working mens clubs are the pits. One comedian said they sit on their hands and look stonily at you with a ‘make me laugh then, I dare you’ hostility.

    • music4menz 5.5
      6 February 2015 at 12:53 pm

      Hi Jenny- did you mean ‘denigrate Andrew Little’ rather than ‘demote Andrew Little’? I didn’t get the impression from Trevett’s article that she was trying to undermine him as Leader of the Labour Party. Or was that in fact your take on the article? I think Andrew Little is very secure as Leader.

      • Jenny Kirk 5.5.1
        7 February 2015 at 8:42 am

        To music4menz – yep – denigrate would have been a better word. I agree, Andrew Little is looking (and sounding) very good as Leader, and apparently the caucus has agreed “to draw a line under 2014” and get going again !

    • newsense 5.6
      6 February 2015 at 7:56 pm

      On the subject of this:

      I’m certain I watched on 3 news a clip about Little’s speech about sovereignty and Key responding by saying sovereignty was ceded in 1840.

      And now I can’t find it anywhere on the 3 news site.

      Did anyone see it? Anyone got the clip?

    • Ad 6.1
      6 February 2015 at 12:06 pm

      Will erase that word from the upcoming performance review round.

      Stroppy staff, well directed, are the ones that broker the hard problems across difficult people. Need more of them.

  7. Philip Ferguson 7
    6 February 2015 at 9:35 am

    By-and-large workers here prefer to lay down and be walked over than to stand up and fight. Announcements of workplace closures are more likely to be met with tears and counselling than with “No, we’re not accepting this shite”. It is like two generations have been enfeebled.

    It doesn’t have to be like this. There are all kinds of ways of fighting back. Closure threats, for instance, can be met with occupations. Occupations challenge the property rights of bosses. Occupying means workers – the people who have created the new, expanded value from which profit comes – asserting their right to work. In effect, it is saying “We produce the wealth, we don’t recognise your ‘right’ to take away our jobs and income; given that you obviously can’t run the workplace, we will.” Occupations are a much more advanced form of struggle than strikes because, instead of just going home, or standing around outside the workplace, we are inside and running it.

    Occupations become schools for workers’ control and workers’ management of workplaces and, if undertaken across the society, for a new form of society altogether. One in which those who produce the wealth own and control the means of production, along with developing new means of distribution and exchange.

    Occupations help transform workers’ sense of their own capabilities and their political consciousness:
    https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/when-workers-occupy/

    Phil

    • saveNZ 7.1
      6 February 2015 at 9:51 am

      Sounds good. Corporations need to have some sort of corporate and social responsibility. In the absence of that, there needs to be a way that makes it harder to just sack people and close plants down.

      It is too easy for corporations to sack people on mass and they are doing it too often.

      • BLiP 7.1.1
        6 February 2015 at 10:01 am

        . . . corporate and social responsibility . . .

        Those two forms of responsibility are mutually exclusive.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 11:56 am

          +1

        • adam 7.1.1.2
          6 February 2015 at 12:36 pm

          Yes I thought the accepted norm was to say corporate and corruption. Why do people persist with such out of date modes of speech.

          • phillip ure 7.1.1.2.1
            6 February 2015 at 1:55 pm

            a useful resource for those wondering just who the bastards are..

            “..There are now 2,089 billionaires in the world: This is who they are, where they live – and how they made their fortunes..

            ..Annual Hurun Global Rich List now gives all the world’s richest people a score-

            – for how ‘self-made’ they are..”

            (cont..)

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/there-are-now-2089-billionaires-in-the-world-this-is-who-they-are-where-they-live–and-how-they-made-their-fortunes-10026128.html

            • Clemgeopin 7.1.1.2.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 3:03 pm

              From your link, I found this list of 10 jobs in Britain that make people scared to go back to work.

              1. Media and publishing (86 per cent)
              2. Marketing, advertising and PR (80 per cent)
              3. Creative arts and design (75 per cent)
              4. Teaching and education (71 per cent)
              5. Science and Pharmaceuticals (69 per cent)
              6. Information Technology (63 per cent)
              7. Property and Construction (62 per cent)
              8. Health and Social Care (62 per cent)
              9. Accounting, banking and finance (60 per cent)
              10. Recruitment and HR (59 per cent)

              I found the list interesting. While numbers 1 to 4 seem understandable, others seem a little intriguing/unexpected.

              • fisiani …
                6 February 2015 at 3:24 pm

                In New Zealand I reckon it’s top 3
                1. Media Advisor to Labour Party
                2. Labour MP
                3. Labour Party spin doctor.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  6 February 2015 at 5:04 pm

                  The nasty bull shit buggers are in your crooked National party, you idiot!
                  Have you read the Dirty Politics book yet?
                  http://www.craigpotton.co.nz/store/dirty-politics

                  How is the management of the Sabin scandal and Key’s relentless litany of laughable lousy lies going? Any more to come?

                  • Realblue …
                    6 February 2015 at 7:01 pm

                    Calm down Princess. The election result should have shown you that few gave a toss about Hagar and his criminal use of stolen information. The latest polls seem to confirm it, so save your tantrums, you’ll do yourself a mischief.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      6 February 2015 at 7:54 pm

                      @ Real blue “Calm down Princess”.

                      Cut the crap and your biggety blue balderdash and tell us WHEN did Key REALLY get to know about the police investigation of Sabin?…2011? April 2014? Before the election or Only on 1st Dec? Time for Key and the ‘Real’ blue team to come clean and fess up honestly to the country. Don’t you think so, Real blue?

                  • The Murphey …
                    6 February 2015 at 9:25 pm

                    @ Clem

                    All sides in the political landscape are controlled

                    People want to believe the system is for changing but it’s not

      • James 7.1.2
        6 February 2015 at 10:22 am

        saveNZ I assume that you understand the difference between sack and make redundant. There is a big difference.

    • James 7.2
      6 February 2015 at 10:21 am

      “Closure threats, for instance, can be met with occupations. Occupations challenge the property rights of bosses. Occupying means workers – the people who have created the new, expanded value from which profit comes – asserting their right to work. In effect, it is saying “We produce the wealth, we don’t recognise your ‘right’ to take away our jobs and income”

      Hilarious.

      Of course most corporations choose to close businesses when there is wealth being created. /sarc

      Since NZ is full of SME’s. Lets use a local example.

      You own a coffee shop, all is going well until a new, better one opens down the road.

      You have everything you own in this business, you invested 250k in the fitout of the place, which you borrowed, and you signed a 10 year lease on the building as you thought it a great location. Because you are a new business and not a franchise you had to personally guarantee the lease (Not uncommon). say there is a 6 month guarantee.

      But now revenue / profits have tanked. You are working there 7 days a week, but you simply cannot afford to keep the business running – its costing you and every week you are further into a financial hole.

      So you sadly decide to close. You owe 000’s and have nothing to show for it. You also are without a job.

      But, no – the ‘workers’ decide they have a right for that job and that wage. So occupy the store and decide to run it. quote: “given that you obviously can’t run the workplace, we will.”

      So – How exactly do they pay for the rent, materials etc – you cannot put it on the owners account – he has closed accounts with suppliers. You have no legal right to be there, you are using equipment that is not owned by you. Who is responsible to pay the wages, PAYE, ACC, Kiwisaver, suppliers when there is a shortfall?

      In short your entire solution is ridiculous.

      • Philip Ferguson 7.2.1
        6 February 2015 at 10:31 am

        Try reading the material about the factory occupation at Vio.me in Thessaloniki; you might learn something.

        Phil

      • gsays 7.2.2
        6 February 2015 at 10:49 am

        hi james, a few things potentially come to mind.

        when the business is taken over by the workers (shall we say 10 employees, part and full time), under a different business model (shall we say cooperative), novelty will engender enthusiasm and loyalty.
        eg rather than the previous boss buying lemons for $4-$6 a kilo, the kitchen hands parents donate the lemons.

        a surplus table is started where people bring their surplus produce fruit and veges in to share. this prompts a local school to set up a vege garden and donates the salad leaves three times a week.

        the chefs sister in law is a bookkeepper (i love that word ookkee), she takes on the books for gratis.

        the second chefs mum wants to be part of the action and does the laundry for nothing.
        …..
        i would heartily reccomend looking up the moosewood kitchen for an example of getting part of the way to what i describe.

        hope this helps bro.

        i am now off to cook for people who want to go out to just the business you describe.
        cheers.

        • James 7.2.2.1
          6 February 2015 at 10:54 am

          Thats all very well and good. But what about the BIG items that you miss?

          Who has the responsibility to pay the rent / wages / acc / kiwi saver etc if there is not a profit at the end of the week?

          What about the money to pay for the items that are not donated?

          Who pays for the equipment that is not owned by the “workers” who are occupying?

          Takes more than donated lemons – but that is a problem with ideas like this that sound great until you look at any of the detail?

          • Molly 7.2.2.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 11:07 am

            The point is – this approach is working in other parts of the world.

            And if the business still fails, it is not without passing on some new skills and benefits to the unemployed workers.

            • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.2.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 11:17 am

              James has got a panic pulse going that workers are figuring out that they don’t need marching orders from business owners, and that these businesses can be run better democratically, not as dictatorships.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.2.2.1.2
            6 February 2015 at 12:03 pm

            Who has the responsibility to pay the rent

            The government steps in and buys the building and declares that the taxes that the businesses pay is enough to cover basic maintenance. This gets rid of the rentiers that are destroying businesses through their greed.

          • greywarshark 7.2.2.1.3
            6 February 2015 at 6:57 pm

            The equipment is leased, or second hand, donated.
            And they could read the part of Maeve Binchys Scarlet Feather where the young chefs are working to get a business going and then suffer malicious damage and burglary. How they get out of it successfully after a meeting of decision where all committed because they had personal goals that could be met by the business succeeding.

        • James 7.2.2.2
          6 February 2015 at 11:02 am

          Actually I will put it in even more simple terms…

          First month of occupation…

          Revenue is $7.5k
          Outgoings $10k

          Who pays the missing $2.5k?

          • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.2.2.1
            6 February 2015 at 11:14 am

            The workers and their families have come up with $50K to recapitalise the business, no sweat. Not only that, the worker-owners have agreed to all accept the minimum wage for the first 3 months until their turn around plans take effect.

            Outgoings are lower than the $10K you state because the rent break which was negotiated, is in effect.

          • weka 7.2.2.2.2
            6 February 2015 at 1:50 pm

            So why is the cafe unsuccessful? The main thing I see about the story is that another cafe opened up nearby. But isn’t that normal for cafes to open in areas where there are other cafes?

        • Gosman 7.2.2.3
          6 February 2015 at 2:21 pm

          “…rather than the previous boss buying lemons for $4-$6 a kilo, the kitchen hands parents donate the lemons.”

          LOL! That is classic and just goes to show the mentality of some on the left. Scale that thinking up to a Steel mill. Perhaps the workers parents could donate some scrap metal for them to smelt.

          • fisiani 7.2.2.3.1
            6 February 2015 at 4:23 pm

            This is predicated on the false assumption of the far Left that everyone is entitled to a job. That assumption in turn means that employers have a duty to provide jobs. Nonsense. that’s simply not how the world works.
            i can understand rights such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness but there is no such thing as a Right to a Job.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.2.3.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 4:49 pm

              Article 23 of the UDoHR, which New Zealand has signed and has already set precedent in our courts, says you haven’t the first idea what you’re talking about.

              It’s right there in black and white:

              Article 23: Fisiani’s ignorance is limitless.

              • fisiani …
                6 February 2015 at 4:57 pm

                Let me quote you article 23 read it carefully.
                (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
                (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
                (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
                (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

                I am correct. Everyone has a right to work and seek work. Of course they do. I never claimed that. No one has a right to a JOB. Do you not know the difference?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 February 2015 at 5:04 pm

                  Tetrapyloctomy, sweety.

                • gsays …
                  6 February 2015 at 9:55 pm

                  hi gosman, i will leave the steel mill to someone with relevant experience.

                  reading thru the comments i am coming to the conclusion that the naysayers have decided it cant happen and want to shoot any idea to bits.
                  what dreary company.
                  i would rather work towards making something happen using the skills, talents, and imagination of enthused company.

                  has it occurred to y’all that profit could be measured in a myriad of non-financial ways.

                  i have come to know when there is a will there is a way.

                  also has any of you naysayers checked out the moosewood kitchen example?

                  • ropata:rorschach …
                    7 February 2015 at 12:42 am

                    Having worked in a poorly run steel mill (with scars to prove it), where a few blokes have been killed, I have to say that
                    a) gosman is a [expletive deleted]
                    b) workers couldn’t run it any worse than the previous bunch
                    c) it’s now gone out of business, mercifully.

      • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.3
        6 February 2015 at 11:13 am

        James, apart from being a dick

        (Seriously, who signs a 10 year lease nowadays – are you fucking mad?)

        1) The workers and their families pool together $50K to recapitalise the business
        2) They pick up the commercial kitchen and equipment for a tiny fraction of their original cost
        3) A state bank offers them 1% pa financing because they are starting a workers co-operative
        4) The lease is renegotiated with the landlord, including a 3 month rent free period.
        5) Suppliers are more than happy to open accounts for the new business as the worker-owners are happy to pay on 7 day credit terms for the first year of business.
        6) The workers and their families turn the place into a fun, family, foody place to hang out, far more social than the corporate cafe down the road.

        • The lost sheep 7.2.3.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:21 pm

          Rather than sit around waiting for the current business that employs them to go broke, why don’t the workers just start their own cafe anyway?

          Why is this not already happening on a wide scale?

          Have some of you here who are promoting the benefits of worker control actually been involved in a successful example of such a initiative?

          If not, when are you going to do so?

          As you are arguing, the benefits are obvious?

          • Draco T Bastard 7.2.3.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 12:30 pm

            Why is this not already happening on a wide scale?

            IMO, because people have been conditioned into believing that they need to work for others rather than working with others. This is compounded by our atomised society making it difficult to find people of like mind to work with and other difficulties.

            Have some of you here who are promoting the benefits of worker control actually been involved in a successful example of such a initiative?

            How about you ask these guys?

            • The lost sheep 7.2.3.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 1:17 pm

              All looks good Draco, there is help available then.
              And interesting to see the link to the UN report that rates NZ as already the number one on the co-operative economy index, and links that to the fact that we are also number one in the Social Progress Index…

              But I don’t agree at all that NZ workers are ‘conditioned’ and this prevents them starting their own businesses / Co-ops.

              Are you a worker Draco? Would you say that of yourself?

              How many other workers here would say that they have been rendered psychologically incapable of doing anything else than be a serf?

              • weka …
                6 February 2015 at 1:40 pm

                “And interesting to see the link to the UN report that rates NZ as already the number one on the co-operative economy index,”

                Is that something to do with Fonterra?

                If the govt put the same degree of infrastructure and support into worker co-ops as it does other business models, I think more workers would be in to it. As it is, most people wouldn’t know how to go about this.

                • Gosman …
                  6 February 2015 at 2:24 pm

                  What resources are available to non-cooperatives that co-operative run businesses cannot access?

                • The lost sheep …
                  6 February 2015 at 2:33 pm

                  I am not aware of aware any govt. infrastructure and support that is not available to businesses merely on the basis they have co-operative ownership Weka?

                  And there are vast amounts of information, support, assistance, and mentoring available to new business, from both Govt. and Private sector.
                  The internet age has made that all so much more readily available than ever before.

                  There is no reason at all why capable workers should not be able to easily shift to ownership of their own labour through a number of business models.

                  Come on, those of you workers who back your ability to run a business at least as well as the boss who is currently making profit out of your labour should just do so.

                  I’ve seen this concept raised so many times as a positive theory on this blog, I’d love to see someone posting a concrete example of it happening in the real world.

                  Of all the ways to ‘revolution’ I can think of, large scale worker control of business would be the most realistic and practical form of it?

                  • Gosman …
                    6 February 2015 at 2:50 pm

                    There are lots of co-operative models that have no problem taking advantage of the infrastructure in place in NZ. Fonterra is a good example. Partnerships are similar in concept to co-operatives and again they seem to have no problem. I think th left just likes to put obstacles in the way that they can blame on someone else so they don’t have to actually do anything substantive. Keep belly aching that it is the fault of the nasty 1%.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2015 at 4:24 pm

                      🙄

                      That would explain why per capita GDP is always higher under Labour led govts in NZ, the books always balance, and incomes rise faster.

                      Please try and not be so full of shit, Gosman.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      6 February 2015 at 5:27 pm

                      There are lots of co-operative models that have no problem taking advantage of the infrastructure in place in NZ. Fonterra is a good example.

                      LOL

                      Fonterra had specific laws passed for it so that farmers could operate as a guild which is illegal for anyone else.

                      I think th left just likes to put obstacles in the way that they can blame on someone else so they don’t have to actually do anything substantive. Keep belly aching that it is the fault of the nasty 1%.

                      Need to identify the obstacles so that they can be effectively removed.

                  • weka …
                    6 February 2015 at 6:16 pm

                    Gosman and lost sheep, can you please find the sections on worker cooperatives in the following govt run business support websites? I’ve looked and can’t find them.

                    http://www.business.govt.nz/

                    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/brochures/start-your-own-business.html

              • Draco T Bastard …
                6 February 2015 at 5:23 pm

                But I don’t agree at all that NZ workers are ‘conditioned’ and this prevents them starting their own businesses / Co-ops.
                Are you a worker Draco? Would you say that of yourself?

                It was the realisation of that conditioning within myself that allowed me to identify it. It was the get an education, get a job rhetoric that I got from my parents and others that led to it. I’ve seen and heard similar at university and polytechnics. It’s subtle and I suspect that most people don’t even realise that that’s what they’re doing but it’s most definitely there.

                How many other workers here would say that they have been rendered psychologically incapable of doing anything else than be a serf?

                Probably not many, there’s very few people who are as introspective as I am.

                And do remember that it’s not the only barrier either. Getting ahead requires access to resources and a large number of people don’t have that access.

            • gsays 7.2.3.1.1.2
              6 February 2015 at 9:59 pm

              couldnt agree more draco.

              every thursday night at scouts this is demonstrated to the youth.

              we are far more effective when we cooperate than when we compete.

              i suppose this gives a tory the chance to spit ‘communist’.

          • McFlock 7.2.3.1.2
            6 February 2015 at 2:39 pm

            Rather than sit around waiting for the current business that employs them to go broke, why don’t the workers just start their own cafe anyway?

            In addition to draco’s conditioning argument, the other point is that the workers are intimately acquainted with the problems and issues of that cafe. They know the customer base and they have all the data they need to optimise the layout and routines of that kitchen, simply because they’ve put in, if you will, several months or years of workplace dynamics research on that specific site.

            They might not have agreement on what the right location for another cafe is, but they know how to adapt that cafe to its current market location.

            • Gosman 7.2.3.1.2.1
              6 February 2015 at 2:47 pm

              Set up a competiting café up near by . It will be trying to attract the same customers.

              Alternatively they can choose to buy out the existing owner. If the business was really doing that badly then the owner is most likely open to getting out quickly and they can pick up the equipment cheaply. Not as cheaply as stealing them by occupying the place admittedly but they will be doing the moral and legal right thing.

              • McFlock …
                6 February 2015 at 6:32 pm

                🙄
                “most likely”.
                More weasel words.
                Because someone who can’t adapt their business to the changing environment is never in denial about it /sarc

            • The lost sheep 7.2.3.1.2.2
              6 February 2015 at 3:33 pm

              So how about you McFlock. Are you a worker?
              If so, would you actively seek to own your own business or help form a co-op to start or take one over?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                6 February 2015 at 4:41 pm

                Are you for real, Sheep? You think something gives you the right to pry into people’s occupations as though that will what? What exactly are you trying to say?

                That the left has no business experience? That worker owned co-operatives don’t exist? That you have to jump through hoops for Sheep before you’re qualified to make observations?

                You know what, it looks like a zombie, it shuffles like a zombie, and it moans like a zombie. Looks like it eats Sheep’s brains too.

                • lprent …
                  6 February 2015 at 5:10 pm

                  That the left has no business experience?

                  Doesn’t describe me. I worked in, managed, started, and built businesses my entire life apart from a few stints at university, time in the army, and a year as a farmhand. One of those uni stints was getting a MBA (ie a master of business administration) at Otago.

                  As an intelligent person of business (ie not a sheeple like some of the blowhards I see from the right) I am always acutely aware of just how much businesses depend on the government built and operated infrastructure that no business interested in making a profit would run in a way that benefits its society in the long term.

                  That government input is required for everything from having a working legal system to having available skilled employees to useable roads. I’m also aware how much that modern economies depend on having a lot of well paid employees who then power economies. Having people marginalised and not used to the extent of their abilities because some rent-takers and crony capitalists find it convenient is simply daft and short-sighted.

                  Having a feudal style of politics and economy (in the way that the USA is rapidly heading) with wealthy parents sucking tithes off the poor and pumping it into advantaging their own children isn’t the way to help anyone apart from a few mindless knucklehead kids.

                  That is the end point of the process that I usually what I see unthinking fools like The Lost Sheep advocating. Of course they never seem to take the time to think it through.

                • The lost sheep …
                  6 February 2015 at 5:44 pm

                  Spare me the mock outrage about privacy OAB.
                  FFS it is an anonymous blog where no one is under any compulsion to answer anything!

                  What I am saying is very clear.
                  Many on times on this blog, and in the real world, I have heard people advocating the benefits of worker control of business.

                  I agree completely with that concept, having done so myself, and given that it is so easy to run a business, I genuinely do not understand why many more workers do not take that step themselves.

                  This being a worker oriented blog, I thought at least I’d get a little bit of positive feedback by advocating that this is a very practical and possible initiative workers can take to regain control of their productive effort.

                  And the problem with saying all that is?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    6 February 2015 at 6:04 pm

                    Where are your grounds for believing that, in your words, “many more workers do not take that step”?

                    The fact is they do. Which renders your entire argument moot, or deliberate mendacity.

                    Who can tell?

                    • The lost sheep …
                      6 February 2015 at 6:21 pm

                      From reading this blog OAB, I got the impression that there was a general agreement that the current economic situation was heavily dominated by Capitalists who exploited workers labour?

                      And many workers are not happy with that situation, and, there is a general agreement here that workers would be perfectly capable of running businesses successfully themselves?

                      Have I got it right so far?

                      So by that definition, not nearly enough businesses are under ‘worker’ control.
                      And so to follow the logic through…..it being entirely possible for more workers to take control of their own productive effort – they should do so.

                      FFS. I’m on a so called ‘workers’ blog, advocating workers wresting control of their own lives from capitalists, and some of the workers champions are finding that offensive?
                      No paranoia here then.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2015 at 6:25 pm

                      No, you haven’t got it right so far.

                    • ropata:rorschach …
                      6 February 2015 at 7:14 pm

                      Working for giant corporations really sucks if you are just a replaceable cog in the machine. But if you’re seen as a valued asset it is completely different. Management can get away with treating people like crap in times of job scarcity, weak unions, and skewed labour laws.

                      After a decade of working for others, for wages well below market rates, and in jobs far below my capabilities, my self confidence was at a low ebb. After a bit of encouragement from someone who could see what was happening, I started working freelance and it’s been 100% better in every way (except having to do my own taxes).

                    • The lost sheep …
                      6 February 2015 at 9:18 pm

                      Your weakest reply yet OAB

                    • ropata:rorschach …
                      7 February 2015 at 12:15 am

                      lost sheep I just gave you an example of why “more people don’t work for themselves”. It’s a matter of experience, education, and confidence.

                      But for people in less-skilled segments of the labour market it is better to join a union to improve their bargaining power. And the best thing for such workers is to have a voice in the board room.

              • McFlock …
                6 February 2015 at 6:47 pm

                Why is that a relevant response to my comment? Does my employment status in some way affect whether or not my comment was realistic?

                If you can reasonably demonstrate the relevance and good-faith purpose behind your request that I share personal details, I will answer your question.

        • Gosman 7.2.3.2
          6 February 2015 at 2:23 pm

          Here’s an idea. Instead of stealing someone elses property maybe the workers could have pooled their resources together in the first place and set up their own business.

          • ropata:rorschach 7.2.3.2.1
            6 February 2015 at 7:18 pm

            Here’s an idea. Instead of stealing the surplus value from others’ labour, maybe the owner could buy some slaves?

          • Colonial Rawshark 7.2.3.2.2
            6 February 2015 at 10:28 pm

            Here’s an idea. Instead of stealing someone elses property maybe the workers could have pooled their resources together in the first place and set up their own business.

            Gossie, creative destruction is an integral part of capitalism. So is seizing opportunity when opportunity arises.

            Surely you haven’t already forgotten that hanging out with us socialists, have you?

  8. BLiP 8
    6 February 2015 at 9:58 am

    ‘

    So, John Key is about to send New Zealanders off to participate in the unlimited slaughter of innocents on behalf of US corporate interests. Unlimited because there is no exit plan. Slaughter because that’s what war is. And innocents because, well, they just get in the way of John Key’s simpering lick-spittle acquiescent colonial cringe. Fingers crossed John Key doesn’t have to deal with anything too complicated when the body bags start coming home.

    • Philip Ferguson 8.1
      6 February 2015 at 10:41 am

      I don’t think he’s doing it on behalf of US corporate interests. He’s doing it on behalf of *NZ capitalist interests*. Just like Helen Clark sent a contingent from the NZ Army to Iraq in time to meet the deadline for NZ companies to bid on ‘reconstruction’ contracts.

      The NZ government represents the interests of NZ capital. Usually those interests coincide with those of US capital, but not always. And when they don’t, NZ doesn’t join in.

      Actually, NZ capital is especially aggressive. In the late 1800s NZ was called “The Prussia of the South Pacific”. It was always trying to grab this or that island. Nothing whatever to do with the US or Britain. In fact, NZ capital was so aggressive that the Brits had to restrain it from time to time.

      During WW, NZ did manage to invade and take over (western) Samoa and what a horror story that was.
      See: Samoa – what New Zealand did: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/samoa-what-new-zealand-did/

      The left in this country is, in my view, far too nationalist. We always blame someone else – like America – when actually the problem is often our own ruling class. It’s them we have to fight first and foremost.

      Phil

    • Philip Ferguson 8.2
      6 February 2015 at 10:41 am

      I don’t think he’s doing it on behalf of US corporate interests. He’s doing it on behalf of *NZ capitalist interests*. Just like Helen Clark sent a contingent from the NZ Army to Iraq in time to meet the deadline for NZ companies to bid on ‘reconstruction’ contracts.

      The NZ government represents the interests of NZ capital. Usually those interests coincide with those of US capital, but not always. And when they don’t, NZ doesn’t join in.

      Actually, NZ capital is especially aggressive. In the late 1800s NZ was called “The Prussia of the South Pacific”. It was always trying to grab this or that island. Nothing whatever to do with the US or Britain. In fact, NZ capital was so aggressive that the Brits had to restrain it from time to time.

      During WW1, NZ did manage to invade and take over (western) Samoa and what a horror story that was.
      See: Samoa – what New Zealand did: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/samoa-what-new-zealand-did/

      The left in this country is, in my view, far too nationalist. We always blame someone else – like America – when actually the problem is often our own ruling class. It’s them we have to fight first and foremost.

      Phil

      • BLiP 8.2.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:00 am

        ‘

        Fair nuff – but – what is the difference between NZ capitalist interests and US corporate interests?

        Yes, I am aware of what New Zealand did to Samoa. shame on us. And yes again: I agree that the working class in New Zealand has a staunch, if somewhat myopic, nationalism about it. Nothing wrong with maintaining a strong emotional attachment to New Zealand and being ready to fight on its behalf but, as you suggest, its wise that we know exactly who the enemy is and what the battle is really all about, Without a rational approach to counter the myopia, emotions are far too easily stirred up by whomever is paying the Crosby/Textors of this world. Those sorts of New Zealanders in our midst far prefer to see the working classes in different nations fighting amongst themselves while each country’s treasury and resources are looted.

        Nice web site, by the way. While somewhat familiar with some Marxist terms I’m feeling the need to get a better grasp of his work. Got a “Dummies Guide To” link at all?

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:54 pm

          emotions are far too easily stirred up by whomever is paying the Crosby/Textors of this world. Those sorts of New Zealanders in our midst far prefer to see the working classes in different nations fighting amongst themselves while each country’s treasury and resources are looted.

          QFT

  9. Philip Ferguson 9
    6 February 2015 at 10:33 am

    It’s important that progressive people in New Zealand gain familiarity with the background in Syria and Iraq in order to organise effectively against NZ state intervention in this part of the world.

    To help, we’ve put up links to all our material on Redline about Syria. It can be accessed through: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/on-syria/

    Phil

    • Molly 9.1
      6 February 2015 at 12:30 pm

      Thanks, Phil. I’m going to go through your posts when I have a bit of quiet time in the evening.

      After watching Years of Living Dangerously, a good, but in parts flawed look at climate change, I was interested in Thomas Friedman’s segments regarding the impact the Syrian drought (2007-2010) had on creating the conditions for unrest. A few of the episodes interviewed Syrian rebels that were essentially traditional farmers, who were unable to provide for their families because the drought had made their generationally farmed land arid. The government ignored their calls for assistance.

      There is a good brief article on his website Wikileaks, drought and Syria.

      I will admit very scant knowledge of the ongoing Syria conflict, but if being unable to provide for your family is why so many got involved, I can understand that compulsion.

  10. Morrissey 10
    6 February 2015 at 11:08 am

    Labour puts up a cordon of black-suited thugs to block out protest sign.
    Do they think this is the way to protect Andrew Little?
    Waitangi, 6 February 2015

    On television this morning, Labour leader Andrew Little was being interviewed. As all too often, sadly, his words were vague and fairly confused: he failed to condemn John Key’s disgraceful and inappropriate misuse of his Waitangi platform to push for New Zealand to join in the “fight against ISIS”. Instead of saying something principled and intelligent, Little babbled about “effectiveness” and lack of mission clarity. He could have mentioned the fact that the U.S. and U.K. governments have armed and rhetorically supported ISIS in its murderous insurrection in Syria, that New Zealand has endorsed all of this bloody dealing, and that stopping THAT support would be the most immediately effective means of combating ISIS.

    While Little droned on, behind him, protestors were holding up a sign that read “MAORI SOVEREIGNTY IS GOOD FOR ALL NZERS”. I know that’s what it read, but viewers watching this morning’s interview were prevented from reading the words because a phalanx of black-suited thugs deliberately stood in front of the sign.

    I could identify one of the thugs: it was Palmerston North’s undistinguished M.P. Iain Lees-Galloway. I don’t know if the other thugs were Labour Party apparatchiki, but I strongly suspect they were.

    A couple of women, clearly frustrated and disgusted at Lees-Galloway and his fellow censors, were politely remonstrating with them, and perhaps asking the police to move them away. No matter how polite they were, the police did nothing.

    Why is the Labour Party trying to block democratic, peaceful protestors?

    And why don’t the television crews simply walk past the likes of Lees-Galloway and his black-suited mafia lookalikes and interview the protestors?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/waitangi-live-little-wants-explore-maori-self-governance-6228885

    • weka 10.1
      6 February 2015 at 11:37 am

      Little’s interview in that link is clear and useful. Can’t see the problem.

      • Morrissey 10.1.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:46 am

        Can’t see the problem.

        That is the problem, sadly. If you know nothing about what the United States has been doing in Syria for the last three years, then you will not be aware of the hypocrisy of Key’s words yesterday, or of the failure of Little to put that hypocrisy into any kind of context.

        If you do a little reading, weka, and actually school yourself up on the situation, you WILL see a problem with what Little said, and with what he failed to say.

        Actually, make that a LOT of reading.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 1:22 pm

          Little isn’t talking about Syria or the US or FJK, or anything other than Māori sovereignty and that NZ needs to look at self-governance in the context of modern nation stated. Not a blacksuit or protestor in sight.

          Which leaves us with a bunch of slurs from whatever it is you saw that you haven’t linked to. As TRP points out below, you are notoriously uneven in your accuracy, so your comment just came across as pretty useless for anything other than demonstrating what you think of Little and a Labour MP.

          Maybe instead of being a patronising fuckwit you could do some research of your own.

          • Morrissey 10.1.1.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 2:35 pm

            1.) Little isn’t talking about Syria or the US or FJK, or anything other than Māori sovereignty….

            The link I provided is not that clear, sorry. Here’s one from an interview he did on RadioLive this morning….
            http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Andrew-Little-on-Waitangi-day-and-ISIS/tabid/506/articleID/70576/Default.aspx

            Little DID talk about ISIS this morning, even though he failed to say anything that made much sense about it. And you’re quite right—he did not talk about Syria. That’s the problem—he’s too frightened to state the glaringly obvious, because the government would immediately whip up an hysterical political firestorm about how Labour supports Assad.

            2.) Not a blacksuit or protestor in sight.

            The blacksuits were in sight this morning for anyone watching television, as Little droned on confusedly about why it’s maybe not a good idea to get into the “fight against ISIS.” The protestors were pretty much blocked out by the blacksuits.

            3.) Which leaves us with a bunch of slurs from whatever it is you saw that you haven’t linked to.

            I reported factually about the deliberate blocking off of peaceful protestors in a public forum, by a cordon of Labour Party men. The only possible “slur” in my reporting was my labeling of Lees-Galloway and his cronies as “thugs”. If they are were not behaving as thugs, what word would YOU use to describe people who deliberately stand in front of peaceful protestors in a public space?

            4.) As TRP points out below, you are notoriously uneven in your accuracy, so your comment just came across as pretty useless for anything other than demonstrating what you think of Little and a Labour MP.

            Could you cite an example of my being inaccurate, let alone “notoriously” inaccurate on this or any other forum? I described exactly what Lees-Galloway and some other men did to block off some peaceful, silent protestors this morning. Are you trying to say they did not do that? You might disagree with my interpretation of what Lees-Galloway and his cronies did; I think their behaviour was sinister and profoundly anti-democratic, whereas you evidently think it’s acceptable for a political party to use people to shut down law-abiding protestors. I obviously don’t approve of such anti-democratic behaviour, but my description of the action was perfectly true. Not according to YOU, however. So please tell us: how exactly was my report of Lees-Galloway’s actions “uneven in accuracy”?

            By the way, my friend, here’s a little advice: on this blog, starting a sentence with the formula “As TRP points out” is a sure-fire way to instantly discredit oneself. Your co-opting of our favorite Party apparatchik is about the funniest mis-step since…. well, since THIS howler, when a bloke cites Winston Peters to bolster his case….
            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06022015/#comment-964230

            • Te Reo Putake 10.1.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 3:02 pm

              “could you cite a case of me being inaccurate…?”

              Comedy gold!

              • Morrissey …
                6 February 2015 at 3:05 pm

                So can you?

                Thought not.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  6 February 2015 at 3:17 pm

                  Ha ha ha, keep ’em coming, Moz, this is quality stuff! We’ve really gotta get you on the telly. I’m thinking a sitcom, maybe a monkey sidekick? All we need is a catchphrase and a title. The rest just writes itself.

                • weka …
                  6 February 2015 at 3:22 pm

                  ffs, you do a rant, and provide a link that doesn’t show anything of what you are ranting about. A few people point out that you’re not making sense. You ignore this and continue with the rant. And now you want to claim you were being accurate?

                  “The link I provided is not that clear, sorry.”

                  No. The link is perfectly clear, it’s Andrew Little talking about Māori sovereignty. What isn’t clear is your post, and subsequent comments when you already knew the link didn’t match your story.

                  You’ve been called many times on how you write up the ‘transcripts’ off things like RNZ, so don’t make out you are not aware of this reputation.

                  At this point in the conversation I don’t give a shit about your views on Little and Lees Galoway, because you’ve demonstrated that what’s important is your view rather than communicating what happened with accuracy or respect for the people reading here. By all means keep justifying and defending, but your original comment is full of slurs, not just one slur but many. That wouldn’t be so bad (this is ts after all), but there is nothing in your comment that has substance beyond “I don’t like what Little and LG just did”.

                  “If they are were not behaving as thugs, what word would YOU use to describe people who deliberately stand in front of peaceful protestors in a public space?”

                  I don’t know, because I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. All it’s assertion, done badly, and with so mych ego shit in it it’s too hard to see what’s real. Up your game, mate. You’re better than this and IMO Waitangi Day is not the day to do this shit.

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 February 2015 at 3:54 pm

                    1.) ffs, you do a rant

                    I described, clearly and unambiguously, the anti-democratic actions carried out by Andrew Little’s self-styled security corps. I labeled those fellows “thugs”, which you might disagree with—but I see you have not come up with any better description of them.

                    Little DID talk—foggily—about ISIS and our response to the “threat” it poses. You can pretend he didn’t if you like—it’s your credibility on the line.

                    2.) You’ve been called many times on how you write up the ‘transcripts’ off things like RNZ, so don’t make out you are not aware of this reputation.

                    This has been done to death many times on this forum. Yes, sometimes I’ll miss out something from one of my rush transcripts, and sometimes I might emphasise the stupidity and inarticulateness of, say, Hekia Parata, a little too much for some people’s liking. But inevitably, those objections have been shown to be politically motivated—the shenanigans started with poor old Lanthanide, who objected to my transcripts because they showed up the moral idiocy of not only a bewildered politician, but also of his own thinking…..
                    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30082011/#comment-369467

                    Others to jump on the “inaccurate transcripts” bandwagon were such nasty and disreputable customers as McFlock, Populuxe and of course Te Reo Putake, formerly known as The Voice of Reason. In every case, the “inaccurate transcripts” line was used as a way to attack me in the absence of their being able to muster a convincing argument against me. Their absurd and wildly exaggerated shouting about the “inaccuracy” of my transcripts started almost as soon as I started to post up stories about the U.K. regime’s persecution of Julian Assange—articles by people like Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Daniel Ellsberg. My posting of those articles enraged McFlock, Populuxe and Te Reo Putake, because they contradicted and thereby exposed their own credulity and viciousness in that shameful matter.

                    Of course, I like everyone else make mistakes—this morning’s dud link for the Andrew Little interview is a case in point. However, to magnify and absurdly jump up and down about the odd missed word, as Te Reo and his chums have done consistently, is neither fair nor reasonable.

                    3.) …IMO Waitangi Day is not the day to do this shit.

                    So ordinary citizens should not say anything on Waitangi Day. I presume, then, that you are also opposed to Andrew Little and John Key talking about anything on Waitangi Day?

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2015 at 6:05 pm

                      Not even going to bother reading that. If you won’t listen to what other people are saying, then there is no point. I read your first comment, followed the link and there was nothing in that video that matched what you are claiming. All the mess that has followed is a consequence of you thinking your views are more important than communicating effectively. If you had stopped and listened to what TRP and myself had said, you could have clarified and relinked. But instead you are just reposting the same old shit.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 February 2015 at 6:55 pm

                      lol – nice to know I’m still loved.

                      Did you invent a “transcript” again, moz?

      • Te Reo Putake 10.1.2
        6 February 2015 at 11:48 am

        To be fair to poor, bewildered Moz, he presumably saw an earlier clip than the one that is in the link. But he is wrong to characterise the Labour MP’s as thugs and Winston also told them the ‘protesters’ to do one. The one photo I’ve seen seems to show middle class pakeha holding the banner, so probably not all that authentic anyway.

        • Morrissey 10.1.2.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:00 pm

          …poor, bewildered Moz

          I described something—a cordon of black-suited men blocking off a protest sign—that no one can dispute happened. Could you explain your use of the prejudicial epithet “bewildered” please?

          But he is wrong to characterise the Labour MP’s as thugs

          They were deliberately blocking off a sign held by peaceful protestors. They are anti-democratic thugs.

          …and Winston also told them the ‘protesters’ to do one.

          Winston Peters! And John Ansell! And Allen Titford! And Matthew Hooton! And Blubberguts Slater!

          The one photo I’ve seen seems to show middle class pakeha holding the banner, so probably not all that authentic anyway.

          I neither stated nor implied that the protestors were Māori. Is it Labour policy now that only Māori are “authentic”?

          • Te Reo Putake 10.1.2.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 12:12 pm

            Poor Moz, life really is passing you by, isn’t it? I’m not Labour, bud, and I can laugh at middle class tossers trying to keep the spirit of Rick from the Young Ones alive whenever I feel like it.

            Ps, this morning’s word ‘o’ the day is hyperbole. Look it up if you have time.

            (Me, I don’t have any more time. Off to Wembley Park, Whanganui to huff and puff around the football field in the NZ Masters. Wish me luck Standardistas, I’ll need it!)

            • Morrissey 10.1.2.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 12:26 pm

              Poor Moz, life really is passing you by, isn’t it?

              And there’s that trademark abuse again! As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this does nothing for your credibility, my friend.

            • The Al1en 10.1.2.1.1.2
              6 February 2015 at 12:54 pm

              “and I can laugh at middle class tossers trying to keep the spirit of Rick from the Young Ones alive whenever I feel like it.”

              Me too. Among the nuggets of informed opinion, The standard gives me a daily dose of guffaws and chortles, though I doubt very many are middle class, in fact, some are quite classless if you know what I mean.

    • whateva next? 10.2
      6 February 2015 at 11:42 am

      Thanks for the link Morrissey, great stuff Andrew, thoughtful, talking about complex issues is not easy in a “soundbite driven media society”

      • Morrissey 10.2.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:50 am

        The trouble is: Andrew Little did not talk about the issues, he avoided them. He is mealy-mouthed and afraid to speak plainly. It’s an on-going problem with Labour leaders, I’m afraid.

        • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:04 pm

          Wow. Labour leader fail to consult notoriously innacurate blog poster before speaking to media. So that’s where we’ve been going wrong these last few years. I’ve let McCarten know and no doubt he’ll be in touch pronto, Moz. Stand by your phone!

          • Morrissey 10.2.1.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 12:23 pm

            ….notoriously innacurate blog poster

            How is what I described at all inaccurate? Did Lees-Galloway and others in black suits deliberately block out that protest sign or not?

            You have recently, I note, been taken to task by Paul over your strategy of launching into demeaning personal attacks. It’s an unpleasant habit that does nothing to enhance your credibility.

            • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 3:06 pm

              Ha, nice backtracking. This morning they were thugs, now they’re merely blocking the view. 🙄

              • Morrissey …
                6 February 2015 at 3:21 pm

                “Backtracking”? Everything you say is couched in the most demeaning and negative fashion possible. I conceded that the word “thug” is a value-laden term. I think it is appropriate for people who illegally block the right of peaceful protestors to hold up a sign, but some people might disagree with that.

                I do not “backtrack” or resile from what I wrote this morning: it is quite clear and beyond refutation what Lees-Galloway and his cronies—yes, that’s another value-laden word—were up to.

                What do YOU call people who illegally stop citizens from protesting in a public place?

                • freedom …
                  6 February 2015 at 4:03 pm

                  Woah, wait a minute,

                  “What do YOU call people who illegally stop citizens from protesting in a public place?”
                  and you have used the term “illegally” a few other times when referring to this incident.

                  How does being ‘blocked’ from view during an on camera interview suddenly equate to people being “illegally” stopped from protesting?

                  Were the protesters you referred to manhandled away?
                  Were they evicted from the grounds of Waitangi?
                  Or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera?
                  Rude, certainly, but illegal?

                  At http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06022015/#comment-964190 You wrote “but viewers watching this morning’s interview were prevented from reading the words because a phalanx of black-suited thugs deliberately stood in front of the sign.”

                  How is this an illegal act?

                  Do you concede that your language use is getting a bit extreme in describing a situation which is no different to almost every other TV broadcast ever held at Waitangi?

                  • Morrissey …
                    6 February 2015 at 4:18 pm

                    …you have used the term “illegally” a few other times describing this incident.

                    I used the word advisedly, and accurately.

                    How does being ‘blocked’ from view during an on camera interview suddenly equate to people being “illegally” stopped from protesting?

                    You put the word “blocked” in scare quotes as if it didn’t actually happen. It did happen, and it was illegal, just as it would be illegal for me to accost you and prevent you from carrying out an entirely legal action, such as walking down the street or looking at a sign on a shop-front. The Labour Party is not the police force. They had no right to prevent those protestors from showing that sign.

                    Were the protesters you referred to manhandled away?
                    Were they evicted from the area?
                    or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera?
                    Rude, certainly, but illegal?

                    Rudeness is not the issue here, the issue is that they formed a physical barrier, and illegally prevented the protestors from making their protest in a public place. The action of Lees-Galloway and his cronies was illegal.

                    How is this an illegal act?

                    Nobody—certainly not the Labour Party—has the right to stop a citizen legally stating an opinion in a reasonable, orderly way, in a public place.

                    Do you concede that your language use is getting a bit extreme in describing a situation which is no different to almost every other TV broadcast ever held at Waitangi?

                    If there was a problem with order, it was the job of the police to sort it out. The Labour Party is not permitted to employ anyone to stop people protesting. Protestors, just as much as politicians, have the right to be seen, and heard, in a public forum.

                    • freedom …
                      6 February 2015 at 4:29 pm

                      The ‘blocked’ was meant to be in quotation marks as it was taken directly from your comments. My apologies for that error.

                      Please don’t take this the wrong way Morrisey, or think I am telling you to be quiet but maybe take a break and go for a walk or something, fresh air is a good thing and it helps with perspective.

        • whateva next? 10.2.1.2
          6 February 2015 at 6:38 pm

          Well, we must be listening to a different Andrew Little, I am constantly reassured how “on the nail” he is , and find him very refreshing when listening to any other “soundbite, poll driven “politician.

          • Morrissey 10.2.1.2.1
            7 February 2015 at 10:32 am

            You think he was “on the nail” when he was making his wandery, confused remarks about ISIS?

            • whateva next? 10.2.1.2.1.1
              7 February 2015 at 1:21 pm

              I think it is black and white thinking that got us into this mess, the issue is one to grapple with, not dog whistle

              • Morrissey …
                8 February 2015 at 8:57 am

                I think it is black and white thinking that got us into this mess,

                What on earth do you mean by “black and white thinking”?

                the issue is one to grapple with, not dog whistle

                And Little will not grapple with the issue. If he did, he would raise the issue of our government’s continued support for ISIS in its bloody campaign in Syria.

    • mac1 10.3
      6 February 2015 at 12:02 pm

      Haven’t seen the video etc but when my leader is being interviewed I would not want to have other messages becoming distractions to his message.

      What would we have said had the interruptions come from youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers?

      It could be argued that the ones breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, those at fault might be the sign holders. As in the case of the t-shirt protester in Australia, or others who are rude, boundaries can be crossed where even Popes have their tolerance stretched.

      As I say, I’ve not seen the situation. All I am doing is saying there could be, and usually is, another point of view. And ‘thugs’, morrissey, might be just too strong a word. Do you have another agenda involving Little or Lees-Galloway?

      Black suits can be, by the way, a sign of respect shown by visitors wearing their best formal clothes.

      I also acknowledge the sign holders who have strong views and feel they need to get their message across. Their particular issue was referred to positively by Little in his korero, was it not?

      • Morrissey 10.3.1
        6 February 2015 at 12:19 pm

        when my leader is being interviewed I would not want to have other messages becoming distractions to his message.

        Then “my leader” needs to conduct interviews in a studio, and not in a public space.

        What would we have said had the interruptions come from youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers?

        The protestors were doing none of those things. They were quiet, orderly and dignified.

        It could be argued that the ones breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, those at fault might be the sign holders.

        No, that could not be argued. The protestors were quiet, orderly, dignified throughout.

        And ‘thugs’, morrissey, might be just too strong a word.

        Do you have another agenda involving Little or Lees-Galloway?

        I have often criticised Little before today—not for being “colourless” as some trivial media naysayers have done, but for the very qualities he showed today: a failure to speak plainly and honestly. I have taken little notice of Lees-Galloway before his disgraceful performance this morning. Maybe I shouldn’t blame him however; perhaps he was merely carrying out orders from one of those clever Labour Party tacticians who have done so much to make Labour a respected political voice for the last six years.

        Black suits can be, by the way, a sign of respect shown by visitors wearing their best formal clothes.

        In this case, however, they were a sign of disrespect and contempt for the rights of people to demonstrate in a public place.

        I also acknowledge the sign holders who have strong views and feel they need to get their message across. Their particular issue was referred to positively by Little in his korero, was it not?

        If Little was sincere about that, he would have told Lees-Galloway and the others in that cordon to sit down.

        • mac1 10.3.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:38 pm

          Thanks for the reply, Morrissey.

          You say “Then “my leader” needs to conduct interviews in a studio, and not in a public space.’

          I would ask where the studio is upon a marae? Also, politicians are most often interviewed in open, public spaces. That is generated by being where the politicians actually are, and by the needs of the interviewers.

          And you say, “In this case, however, they were a sign of disrespect and contempt for the rights of people to demonstrate in a public place.”

          They were a sign for you, Morrissey, but they would have worn the clothes out of respect for the place and occasion. This is the heart of my disagreement with you. An action takes place which you disapprove of, and everything becomes coloured by that- black in this case.

          I am glad that the sign carriers were quiet and dignified. To have been other wise would have reflected upon their message. So, too, does exaggeration (black suits, thugs) reflect upon your message.

          • Morrissey 10.3.1.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 2:50 pm

            1.) I would ask where the studio is upon a marae?

            There were any number of rooms available if, as seems to be the case, Little wanted to exclude any possible demonstrations by ordinary citizens. He chose to do the interview in public territory.

            2.) I am glad that the sign carriers were quiet and dignified.

            I am pleased that you recognize that. Perhaps next time you will think carefully before equating democratic, responsible, law-abiding demonstrators with “youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers… breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, … rude”.

            3.) …exaggeration (black suits, thugs)…

            The men in the cordon were wearing black suits, which is what I described. How is that “exaggeration”? You may reasonably disagree with my labeling those men as “thugs”—so what would YOU call people who—illegally—block off signs held up in a public forum?

    • phillip ure 10.4
      6 February 2015 at 2:51 pm

      @ morrissey..

      ..two questions:..

      ..why did you link to something showing not what you describe..?

      ..in fact contradicting what you claim..

      ..and..are you sure u aren’t getting confused with the interview with key..

      ..where two large burly men wearing small backpacks..

      ..stood backs to camera..blocking protestors/a sign/banner from view..

      ..if not..cd u plse link to the footage u describe….

      ..’cos if u do..and it is as u say..

      ..i also will link to it..

      • Morrissey 10.4.1
        6 February 2015 at 2:59 pm

        1.) Why did you link to something showing not what you describe..? in fact contradicting what you claim..

        I clicked on the link, as it was the first one that came up after I googled “andrew little waitangi isis” this morning. You’re correct that it doesn’t exactly show what I described, but how does it “in fact contradict” what I claimed?

        2.) ..and..are you sure u aren’t getting confused with the interview with key….where two large burly men wearing small backpacks….stood backs to camera..blocking protestors/a sign/banner from view….if not..cd u plse link to the footage u describe..

        No, Phillip, I am not confused between Key and Little. I didn’t see Key’s interview, but I did see Little’s, and I did see a phalanx of Mafia types, including Ian Lees-Galloway, deliberately masking out the protestors’ sign. It was on either Television One or TV3 this morning, live. I think it was TV3.

        • phillip ure 10.4.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 3:22 pm

          have u looked for it..?

          ..and..

          “..I clicked on the link, as it was the first one that came up after I googled “andrew little waitangi isis” this morning…”

          ..pretty bloody sloppy..eh..?..

          • Morrissey 10.4.1.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 3:58 pm

            pretty bloody sloppy..eh..?.

            “Sloppy”? Boolean algorithms? Surely you jest, Phillip.

            • phillip ure 10.4.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 4:27 pm

              you don’t think that is sloppiness on yr part..?

              ..these are yr ‘standards’..?

              ..seriously..?

              ..u go blah! all over the page..making allegations of thuggery against a sitting mp/the apparant connivance of little to such thuggery..

              ..and then u can’t b fucked finding the clip that proves yr point..

              ..and just post ‘the first thing that comes up on google’..?

              ..so sloppy u need paper-towels…

        • mac1 10.4.1.2
          6 February 2015 at 7:43 pm

          Morrissey, the link you provided had an interview with Little. A wharenui in the background, two people standing in the porch. No mafia, black suits, dark glasses, thuggery, stand over tactics, deliberate blocking, masking, not even Ian Lees-Galloway.

          Sorry I’ve been wasting your time writing about something that doesn’t seem to have…….. happened.

          • Morrissey 10.4.1.2.1
            7 February 2015 at 10:34 am

            Sorry I’ve been wasting your time writing about something that doesn’t seem to have…….. happened.

            It happened all right. Little spoke, and his “minders” put up a cordon to prevent the Maori Sovereignty sign being seen.

  11. Te Reo Putake 11
    6 February 2015 at 11:23 am

    And in real world news, Andrew Little has raised the possibility that Labour would allow maori self governance:

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/waitangi-live-little-wants-explore-maori-self-governance-6228885

    Ps, Moz, Iain LG is a long way from “undistinguished”. He has held Palmy against a concerted effort from the Tories for 3 elections and for one term was the only provincial Labour MP. He successfully promoted David Cunliffe for the leadership, and was elected as junior whip. He clearly has Andrew Little’s ear as well. Even more significantly, he has also built a formidable local electorate team that is easily the best in Labour for canvassing and publicity and is a model for how to campaign successfully. Even John Key acknowleged his work, commenting to Banksie in the teapot tapes that he was unbeatable in the seat.

    • ankerawshark 11.1
      6 February 2015 at 11:36 am

      Didn’t Ian Lee’s Galloway also work hard on private members bills around alcohol???
      which then got taken up and became law.

      Sorry I am very sketchy about these details. But I remember at the time being impressed by him.

    • Skinny 11.2
      6 February 2015 at 11:45 am

      He also turned off many workers who enjoyed 3 or 4 handles of beer after work
      , by pushing a bill to cut alcohol limits for drivers. National were forced to lower the limit against their will, something that wasn’t lost at the booths.

      • Te Reo Putake 11.2.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:55 am

        Eh? NZ lining up with the rest of the developed countries in their driving/alcohol limits was not an issue for anybody at the election. I like a beer or three myself, but I cut my consumption to match the new limit if I’m driving. Simples.

        • mac1 11.2.1.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:25 pm

          I note that brewers are brewing to the new laws. My favourite brewery now puts out a 2.4% golden ale which is very enjoyable but far less destructive than my favourite tipple of theirs which is 7%- basically three times the strength. My own Friday night drinking mates hoe into the 2.4% with no complaint.

          • Skinny 11.2.1.1.1
            6 February 2015 at 1:42 pm

            Yes my local watering hole has started putting out a superb 3% pilsner, usually have 3℅ triple hops pilsner at home, 2 stubbies = 2 standard drinks. Friends visiting know where they stand if driving afterwards.

          • David H 11.2.1.1.2
            6 February 2015 at 4:24 pm

            And I’ll bet they charge you as much, if not more, for the ‘New legal limit’ beer.

            No thanks. I’d rather take the Full tasting and Full Alcohol beers home, to enjoy them where I won’t be ripped off over the price of Beer, finger foods or soft drinks/water. The last time I went to the Pub they wanted $9.00 for a stubbie of Heineken, I said no went to the Supermarket and bought a dozen for $23.00 and went home.

            • mac1 11.2.1.1.2.1
              6 February 2015 at 7:26 pm

              My pub $8-9 for 500ml craft beer. of whatever strength. Brewed next door. 15 minutes walk. Fish and chips on the way home.

      • grumpystilskin 11.2.2
        6 February 2015 at 12:28 pm

        Skinny,
        So you condone drunk driving then, as long as you’ve had a hard day at work?

        • mac1 11.2.2.1
          6 February 2015 at 12:44 pm

          I had a close look at skinny’s numbers with the same concern. Four 500 ml handles at 4% equals six standard drinks which would put an 85kg male on the doubtful limit after two hours drinking at the old 80 mg limit.

          http://sciblogs.co.nz/visibly-shaken/2010/04/13/drinking-and-driving-how-much-is-too-much/

        • Skinny 11.2.2.2
          6 February 2015 at 1:27 pm

          There was nothing wrong with the old limit. Drinking sensibly with a bite to eat, knowing your limits up to the legal limit. Very few road deaths were recorded up to and under the old limit. Tourist’s account for far more road fatilites. Alcopop’s and the young not a good mix. Fast cars green drivers, the list goes on.

          • phillip ure 11.2.2.2.1
            6 February 2015 at 3:26 pm

            the solution to all this is a sobering-drug..

            ..much like there is now a strain of cannabis u can smoke if u have smoked pot that is too strong 4 u..

            ..or if u need to be straight to do something..

            ..and it makes u straight again..

            ..we need something like that for alcohol..

            (brand-name..?..’sober-up!’..)

            • ropata:rorschach 11.2.2.2.1.1
              6 February 2015 at 7:21 pm

              Cocaine will do that for you. You can drink a bottle of vodka and the next morning do a line of coke and go to work totally straight as an airline pilot or whatever. Drugs are good!

              • phillip ure …
                6 February 2015 at 7:45 pm

                yeah..but cocaine can also take you over..

                ..back before drugs were that common..

                ..i had a mate..who was a skinny/weedy/hairy/unpreposessing individual..

                ..and what he used to do was to go into pubs..

                ..and would challenge the big-drinker of the pub..

                ..to a drinking contest..with a large wager involved..

                ..he wd taunt/laugh them into a contest..

                ..and he would then drink them thru the floor..

                ..but the thing was..he was also a fan of methamphetamine..

                ..so would be loaded up on that..

                ..and so would win..

      • Murray Rawshark 11.2.3
        6 February 2015 at 6:03 pm

        I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the old limits. They were difficult to exceed by accident. The new ones aren’t, and therefore raise more revenue.

  12. Richard@Down South 12
    6 February 2015 at 11:52 am

    I see the NZ National Debt is close to going over $100 Billion… I wonder what our credit limit is

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 12.1
      6 February 2015 at 12:07 pm

      If, IF, and when Labour comes in, the corporatised media and banksters will be screaming about the debt and pushing Labour to impose austerity.

    • freedom 12.2
      6 February 2015 at 12:08 pm

      i think it’s now indexed to troop deployment quotas 🙁

  13. Te Reo Putake 13
    6 February 2015 at 11:59 am

    Ricky Gervais nails social media; it’s bollocks:

  14. greywarshark 14
    6 February 2015 at 1:33 pm

    This link has got it all. A look at how multistorey housing can look good even in close confines. Set on a beautiful river and not dominated by huge hotels blocking the scenery. A pleasant looking architectural style for accommodation adopted as a standard for a large area, doesn’t have to look like our property developers South Auckland edifices with porticos you might stab yourself under, which seem an impediment to feelings of happiness and enjoyment of home when viewed from outside.

    And on top of it all a large proportion of the music makers of the area acting out a flashmob event of the Blues Brothers theme, accompanied by drums on land and river.

  15. phillip ure 15
    6 February 2015 at 2:38 pm

    at that party for sell-outs held at shane jones’ taxpayer-funded pad..

    ..(where jones..sporting cheap/tacky looking..but no doubt expensive) sunglasses..

    ..insulted his second centre of northland poverty in two days..

    ..sneering that he was ‘going to the seychelles’..(great hotel-room porn there..)..

    ..and that he wd ‘rather do that than campaign in dargaville’..(accompaied by a snort of derision..)

    ..yesterday it was moerewas’ turn to get the jones-sneer..)

    ..anyway..at that party..a large number of the local poverty-stricken should have gathere/massed at the gate..

    ..and stared silently in at the festivities/sell-outs..

    ..(shearer might even have been able to be persuaded to come out and bang out a protest song or two on his gee-tar for them..

    ..it’s lovely how/when he does that..eh..?..)

    • millsy 15.1
      6 February 2015 at 3:40 pm

      “….rather than campaign in Dargaville…”

      One in the eye for those who think that Jones was/is the key for Labour to win the Dargaville’s of this country.

    • phillip ure 15.2
      6 February 2015 at 4:37 pm

      then afterwards the sell-outs roll back into their comfortable/taxpayer-funded lives..

      ..so far from struggle st..from those they claim to represent..

      ..they can’t even hear the crying/see the pain of the hungry children…

      ..the rustlings as the homeless turn in their hard-sleep..

      (c.f..labours’ ’14 election-policies for the poorest:..

      ..treat them hard/give them s.f.a..

      ..arbeit will make them frei..

      ..will cure their poverty..)

  16. kiwigunner 16
    6 February 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Wondering about Northland. Is there anything to stop people on the Maori roll transferring to the general roll and back again after the by election?

    • Colonial Rawshark 16.1
      6 February 2015 at 4:17 pm

      I read a previous commentator say that the only time you are permitted to change rolls is at a set time every 5 years.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 16.1.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:12 pm

        Correct, and the last option was offered in 2013:
        http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events/maori-electoral-option-2013

        This is – anecdotally – one reason for the high number of disqualified votes in Maori electorates: many people wrongly assume they’re on one roll or the other and thus use the wrong voting form (I’m not sure of the technicalities, just reporting what I’ve heard.) There’s a real lack of information for people at election time about needing to check which roll they’re on, or when they’re able to make the decision to change rolls.

  17. BassGuy 17
    6 February 2015 at 3:59 pm

    A man is taking steps over low paid jobs.

    Don’t have much to add to this, except to verbally support him and wish him luck.

    • freedom 17.1
      6 February 2015 at 4:17 pm

      I think you posted the wrong link BassGuy
      that link goes to Samsung SyncMaster 2333sw Problems

      A cryptic comment on the reliability issues of contemporary mass-production certainly 🙂

    • David H 17.2
      6 February 2015 at 4:30 pm

      Try again I can already detect a screwed monitor!

  18. greywarshark 18
    6 February 2015 at 6:41 pm

    i was listening to a Kiwiana goes pop cd I bought and heard Dave Jordan’s State House Song. I was thinking what a negative put-down. by someone who thinks that houses grow on trees.

    So I looked him up. He had a reasonable start, teachers college, teacher, uni, overseas – just a little ignorant of reality. He married overseas, the wife returned to Brazil after he got mutiple sclerosis and so had to fend for himself. Finally some friends provided him with a home till he died.

    So he knew the importance of a stable secure home himself when he needed it. Pity he ever wrote his put down about state houses.
    These are the mean words to the song.
    http://folksong.org.nz/dave_jordan/state_house_song.html

  19. newsense 19
    6 February 2015 at 7:57 pm

    I’m certain I watched on 3 news a clip about Little’s speech about sovereignty and Key responding by saying sovereignty was ceded in 1840.

    And now I can’t find it anywhere on the 3 news site.

    Did anyone see it? Anyone got the clip?

    • weka 19.1
      6 February 2015 at 11:41 pm

      Not video, but here’s a report including quoting Key,

      Mr Key says he doesn’t think there is room for Maori to have self-rule or self-governance in some areas of the country.

      “The Crown’s view is that sovereignty was ceded in 1840, but ceded to a modern New Zealand that was built for all New Zealanders,” he told reporters at Waitangi.

      http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=201528

      Typical for Key, his statement doesn’t make much sense.

      • ropata:rorschach 19.1.1
        6 February 2015 at 11:52 pm

        Have to agree with Key on that. Don’t want to see a divided New Zealand.

        • Clemgeopin 19.1.1.1
          7 February 2015 at 12:28 am

          I heard that the the Ngāi Tūhoe tribe already independently manage some of their tribal affairs. So, need not necessarily divide the country. No harm in discussing and exploring the possibilities and see how and if it can be mutually beneficial. There may be other countries with precedents.

          Would be interesting to see ACT’s and Seymour’s view on this, as well as that of the Maori MPs, Parata etc in the National party.

      • newsense 19.1.2
        7 February 2015 at 12:09 am

        that’s the mad money quote.

        I couldn’t find the video of Andrew Little on the TV3 website. I wonder if the leaders office have someone monitoring that kind of thing.

        as for sovereignty- we are happy to cede some to farmers in Canterbury or to a casino in Auckland or to a movie company…

        surely that bonkers quote has been quoted by one of the major news organisations????

  20. McFlock 20
    6 February 2015 at 8:17 pm

    Key wants to change the flag but not the system the flag represents – he doesn’t want NZ to be a republic.

    Typical.

    All style, no substance. A “prime minister” who can’t even run a department. Had no idea what the DPMC was up to, tourism is run by MBIE, and he fobbed the security services onto Finlayson.

  21. Chooky 21
    6 February 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Maybe this is why Key wants our flag changed?….to get rid of NZer’s sense of sovereignty?

    A Very interesting discussion and debate on Crosstalk and relevant to NZ and TPPA ie issues of financial control imposed and loss of sovereignty/democracy and dictatorship by wealthy bankers and corporates in Europe …and now revolt in Europe …and maybe internationally it is just beginning as the German analyst/ commentator suggested

    ‘Euro-revolt?’

    “Euro-revolt! First Greece and now maybe Spain. Grassroots democracy from the left appears to be making a comeback in Europe. This is interesting in itself because the political right is doing the same. Can Europe’s elitist political status quo be maintained?”

    CrossTalking with Iain Begg, Robert Oulds, and Ernst Wolff.

    http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/229023-euro-greece-spain-comback/

    • Jim Hawthorne 21.1
      7 February 2015 at 9:12 am

      yes- the flag change is exactly that – a corporate buy out made official. under the TPPA.