Open mike 06/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, April 6th, 2014 - 101 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open 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 …

And don’t forget to change your clocks back one hour …

101 comments on “Open mike 06/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Philj 1
    6 April 2014 at 7:05 am

    Xox
    I wonder when the majority of people will wake up to the reality of increasing misery and poverty. Also increasing migration and population growth, global and nationally ,will only worsen our situation, long term. Who will revolt first? The young, the poor or the increasingly screwed middle class?

    • Ad 1.1
      6 April 2014 at 8:07 am

      I am sure it’s an utterly devastating place to be in one’s life. But I believe it has very limited political value in an election year other than on a tiny political fringe.

      People do not want to be told they are weak, or cold, or abject, or hungry. We want to be told that we can succeed, we will find a way out of this, we have people who believe in us, and that there are benign powers who are on our side.

      Personally that’s what I expect of anyone who is selling themselves as the next Prime Minister.

      • just saying 1.1.1
        6 April 2014 at 8:58 am

        lol

        You’re quite right Ad, “people” don’t want to be defined by the likes of you.
        But when people speak of being cold and hungry they want and deserve to be heard and heeded.

        Your words “weak and the “abject” speak volumes about your attitudes.

        • Ad 1.1.1.1
          6 April 2014 at 9:49 am

          You are welcome to generate an entire revolution about it.
          Sorry about the political reality – Mana Party seem to have a lock on it, and their one vote in Parliament will I am sure be important whether it’s in or out of coalition.

      • ghostrider888 1.1.2
        6 April 2014 at 9:25 am

        Intermission
        And who by fire, who by water
        Who in the sunshine, who in the night-time,
        Who by high ordeal, who by common trial
        Who in your merry month of May
        Who by very slow decay
        And who, shall I say, is calling…

        And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate
        Who in the realms of love, who by something blunt
        And who by avalanche, who by powder
        Who for his greed, who for his hunger,
        And who, shall I say, is calling.

        And who by brave assent, who by accident
        Who in solitude, who in this mirror
        Who by his lady’s command, who by his own hand
        Who in mortal chains, who in power
        And who shall I say is calling.

        -Cohen

  2. mickysavage 2
    6 April 2014 at 7:46 am

    In the SST this morning Stephen Joyce confirmed that the polls during the last election were erroneous. The specific quote is:

    In the 2011 election I think there were quite a few people that thought, certainly erroneously, because of the nature of the polls the election was a foregone conclusion.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9909573/Its-the-digital-election-race

    • Pete George 2.1
      6 April 2014 at 7:55 am

      Joyce didn’t claim the polls were erroneous, he said people made erroneous conclusions because of the polls.

      It’s impossible to know if any poll was erroneous, they are snapshots of opinion at the time they are taken. None polled on election day and opinions and voting decisions are known to change in the last couple of weeks of a campaign in particular.

      Polls can affect how people vote – I think it’;s fair debate whether this is a good or a bad thing. Do polls adversely influence voters? Or do they help inform voters so they can decide how to vote? Probably both. I use polls to make my voting decisions.

      • karol 2.1.1
        6 April 2014 at 7:59 am

        Joyce said the erroneous conclusions that people made were due to “the nature of the polls”. Does that not mean there was something wrong with the polls? and/or the way they were reported?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          6 April 2014 at 8:01 am

          Of course it does.

          Micky’s point stands.

        • Pete George 2.1.1.2
          6 April 2014 at 8:09 am

          I don’t think it means there was anything wrong with the polls. That a number of polls showed similar results suggests they were around about right at the time, it wasn’t just an outlier or two.

          My guess is they were reported inaccurately or misleadingly as they usually are, so I think “the nature of poll reporting” plus general public ignorance of what polls mean.

          I don’t know how many people think this way, but if I saw polls suggesting one party may get enough votes to rule alone I’d probably vote against that, in general I don’t think single party rule would be a good thing.

          National support dropping late in the campaign would have been due to a number of factors including:
          – complacency of people who might vote National
          – avoidance of letting National rule alone
          – a late swing to NZ First
          – a reaction to the cup of tea fiasco

          • felix 2.1.1.2.1
            6 April 2014 at 9:06 am

            Fact check:

            “That a number of polls showed similar results suggests they were around about right at the time”

            There is no such suggestion inherent in the results. The facts might equally “suggest” that the polls were all equally wrong.

            “National support dropping late in the campaign would have been due to..”

            The word you’re looking for is “could”, not “would”.

            • Pete George 2.1.1.2.1.1
              6 April 2014 at 9:14 am

              “Suggests” is a reasonable assumption. There’s a one in twenty chance of one poll being outside the margin of error. There’s a much smaller chance of several polls being similarly outside the margin of error at the same time.

              Yes, ‘could’ may be better than ‘would’ there but I think it’s very likely some or all of those factors played a part.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                6 April 2014 at 10:00 am

                There’s a much smaller chance of several polls being similarly outside the margin of error at the same time.

                Unless they are all using very similar methodology with an unidentified bias. One way to test that would be to look at results going back several elections, and ooh, look at what you find!

                What are the odds that over several elections a majority of polls would overstate support for National, purely by chance?

              • felix …
                6 April 2014 at 10:34 am

                The question is why did the polls differ so greatly from the actual real-world result. Essentially there are two hypotheses being considered.

                One is that the polls were an accurate reflection of voters’ intention when they were taken and that voters’ intentions changed significantly enough in the final week that the polls no longer matched the actual real-world result.

                The other is that the polls were not measuring the voters’ intentions as accurately as they thought.

                I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying there’s no way of really knowing because as you point out there is no real-time polling on election day to compare. But there is nothing in the facts that suggests one scenario over the other, the suggestion has come from you.

        • lurgee 2.1.1.3
          6 April 2014 at 8:20 am

          Joyce said the erroneous conclusions that people made were due to “the nature of the polls”. Does that not mean there was something wrong with the polls? and/or the way they were reported?

          I don’t think so. Opinion polls are not presented as definitive, precise measures of anything. They all include margins of error and if people ignore that, and focus on individual polls, then they are reaching erroneous conclusions based on valid polls.

          Bit like climate change deniers looking at 1998 and screaming that temperatures have been falling for 17 years.

          • karol 2.1.1.3.1
            6 April 2014 at 8:29 am

            And that has nothing to do with the over use of polls and the way they are reported?

            Myself, I’m not a poll watcher. I think they are part of what is wrong with the media and the way politics is portrayed as a game within the public sphere.

            • lurgee 2.1.1.3.1.1
              6 April 2014 at 8:38 am

              Overuse and reporting of polls is nothing to do with the polls as such, though. ANd that’s kinda Joyce’s point. People (even reporters count as people) reached erroneous conclusions based on the polls.

              Though not hugely erroneous conclusions. national still won handsomely, unless the last 3 years have all been a bad dream. Is Phil goff Prime Minister?

              That might also count as a not-too-pleasant dream.

              Polls can not really be erroneous because they don’t claim to be accurate. they can be ‘more likely to be accurate’ or ‘more likely to be accurate,’ depending on sample size and methodology and so on, but nothing more than that.

              There are a lot of them and they are poorly reported. But I like them. Heck, I check UK Polling Report every day, sometimes multiple times, to see if there is a new one reported …

              If anything, I suspect we don’t have enough polls. If there were more, it might be a bit easier to weigh their merits and the media might get a bit less excited about them.

              Still, with a population of 4 million, it probably isn’t feasible.

              • Pete George …
                6 April 2014 at 8:51 am

                This is what Colmar Brunton state in their detailed One News poll report:

                The data does not take into account the effects of non-voting and therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome of an election. Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support.

                The results are therefore only indicative of trends in party support, and it would be misleading to report otherwise.

                http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/images/140403_ONE_News_Colmar_Brunton_Poll_report_22-26_Mar_2014_prelim.pdf

                That statement should be learned thoroughly by every political journalist.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  6 April 2014 at 10:04 am

                  Yes, so the reason they shouldn’t be used to predict election outcomes is?

                  that they aren’t an accurate reflection of what is happening. They are a best estimate that will contain errors. Those errors in the poll are why you shouldn’t make absolute claims about them.

                  So making absolute claims about them is wrong, not because making claims is wrong, but because the polls aren’t good enough, ie, there is something wrong with them in that regard.

                • Mark …
                  6 April 2014 at 11:25 am

                  Pete, the polls are a joke. 18% who won’t give an answer coupled with the 15% who don’t have a land line means the Colmar Brunton poll was of 67% of eligible voters. It is just a nonesense to try to make that result anything but a joke. The last two elections the Nats election day vote has been 5/7% below what the polls have been indicating leading up to the election. When you see that the polls published are only how two thirds of the country feel, then that drop seems easy to understand.If the Nats go into the election this year under 45% in the polls as they were in the last Roy Morgan, history would suggest they will struggle to hit 40% on election night

                  • Pete George …
                    6 April 2014 at 11:44 am

                    18% who won’t give an answer coupled with the 15% who don’t have a land line means the Colmar Brunton poll was of 67% of eligible voters.

                    Mark, pollsters say that with cellphone polling or without cellphone polling doesn’t make much difference. And they say that those who don’t know (13%) and won’t say (5% in the last Colmar poll) don’t make much difference either to overall results, they are in similar proportions to the poll results.

                    The last two elections the Nats election day vote has been 5/7% below what the polls have been indicating leading up to the election.

                    I don’t know where you get 5/7% from. According to research by Gavin White at UMR:

                    Take the average (mean) error for these four parties across the 19 final polls included in this dataset. That shows us that the average error is:

                    National: 2.7% too high
                    Labour: 0.7% too high
                    Greens: 1.0% too high
                    NZ First: 1.5% too low.

                    Counting all mainstream media polls since 2005 (i.e. excluding UMR but including TV3 and Fairfax / Research International polls in 2008 and 2011) leaves 14 polls, and an average error of:

                    National: 2.4% too high
                    Labour: 0.5% too low
                    Greens: 1.5% too high
                    NZ First: 1.1% too low.

                    http://sayit.co.nz/blog/what-political-polls-tell-us

                    That was then, polling compaigns keep refining what they do to try and improve accuracy. Colmar stated in their last poll:

                    Note: The interview introduction was changed in this poll to remove any reference to politics, and the weighting specifications were updated. This may impact comparability with the previous poll.

                    History is history, polling methods change and the party circumstances this year are quite different to 2011 and 2008.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      6 April 2014 at 1:21 pm

                      What do you think will be the party support for United Future at the election this year?

                    • Pete George …
                      6 April 2014 at 1:41 pm

                      Unless something significant changes I doubt it will increase much if at all from last election’s level.

                    • Mark …
                      7 April 2014 at 1:09 pm

                      With all due respects Pete, I have never heard such self serving crap in my life. 15% of New Zealanders don’t have a landline. To suggest leaving 15% out of the polls makes no difference is total bunkum. You need to take the blinkers off Pete. Roy Morgan includes cellphones and their polls are very accurate where as the Colmar Brunton poll before the last election had the Nats on 52%– they got 47%– By averageing the polls out and including Roy Morgan they don’t look so bad. The reality is they are shite. And then to say that those that don’t know or won’t tell fall in the same proportion as the people who will state a preference is utter rubbish.The polls as they are are crap except for Roy Morgan (cellphones and very small undecided) and no PR spin from the companies can alter that fact.

                • Tracey …
                  6 April 2014 at 7:21 pm

                  i cant tdecide if you are being naive or stupid

        • Once was Pete 2.1.1.4
          6 April 2014 at 1:42 pm

          Not necessarily, it could mean that some people think that they couldn’t effect the result, or that it was a foregone conclusion, and therefore they wouldn’t vote.

      • mickysavage 2.1.2
        6 April 2014 at 8:09 am

        Joyce didn’t claim the polls were erroneous, he said people made erroneous conclusions because of the polls.

        So let me get this clear, the polls were accurate but people misread them?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1
          6 April 2014 at 8:26 am

          Nah, he means that he’s going to feebly wave his hands around some more.

          Your point stands.

        • lurgee 2.1.2.2
          6 April 2014 at 8:30 am

          People certainly placed far more value on them than was due.

          All polls are an estimation, based on research; they all include a margin of error, typically 3-4%. And even that is only a 95% confidence indicator – every poll essentially admits it could be totally wrong.

          No poll can definitely claim to be accurate, which is a weasel term you’ve decided to introduce, which no-one else has used or claimed is the case. But they can be reported and interpreted sensibly – which did not happen, according to Joyce.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.2.1
            6 April 2014 at 8:45 am

            If that’s what Joyce meant – that the reporting and interpretation was at fault – then he has a point.

            He says people “thought” the outcome was certain. Could this have anything to do with ad nauseam “National can govern alone” stories accompanying each and every one of them, one wonders…

            Perhaps the jonolists that wrote those stories really believed them too.

        • Pete George 2.1.2.3
          6 April 2014 at 8:44 am

          No, polls aren’t “accurate” as lurgee points out at 2.1.2.2. They are an indication with certain defined confidence factors, with a one in 20 chance of being less accurate than a +/- 3.1 margin of sampling error.

          People (and most journalists) commonly misread and misunderstand polls.

          There’s an excellent discussion with polling expert input on this here – http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/gower-speaks/

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.3.1
            6 April 2014 at 8:45 am

            🙄

            Micky’s point stands.

            • lurgee 2.1.2.3.1.1
              6 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

              Not really, as no-one other than the Legal Eagle has claimed polls are ‘accurate’. He’s introducing a straw man. He is the only claiming the choice is a zero-sum game between the polls being accurate or people misreading them.

              The polls do not claim to be definitive – they merely report the findings of the research, and acknowledge the possibility of error. And people still misread them.

        • Disraeli Gladstone 2.1.2.4
          6 April 2014 at 10:03 am

          I have to admit I read that line as Joyce not saying the polls were erroneous but that people made wrong conclusions based on them.

          For instance, a person going “the polls show National on 50%, the election is done I might as well not vote.”

          Whether the poll was right or wrong doesn’t matter, people made the conclusion that their vote didn’t matter. And that’s what Joyce was saying was the erroneous conclusion.

          Also, grammatically speaking, that’s what the sentence says.

          • kenny 2.1.2.4.1
            6 April 2014 at 7:06 pm

            Based on what the polls said!!! FFS.

            Polls should be banned for the 3 weeks preceding election day.

          • Tracey 2.1.2.4.2
            7 April 2014 at 8:22 am

            “Joyce not saying the polls were erroneous but that people made wrong conclusions based on them.”

            Of course he leaves the bit out about how they come to draw the wrong conclusions. Through carefully crafted campaigns, slogans, hot button phrases, PR strategy etc… and he is at the core of National strategy and has been since the days of Brash and the hollowmen…

            It’s like advertisers putting subliminal messages into their advertising and expressing surprise people took the main ad the wrong way.

      • Rosie 2.1.3
        6 April 2014 at 12:05 pm

        Pete says” I use polls to make my voting decisions.”

        Wow. So you can’t think for yourself? You want to follow the sheep?

        You’ve just summarised the perfect argument against polls right there.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.1
          6 April 2014 at 12:07 pm

          Not to mention validated the ubiquitous contempt he generates.

        • alwyn 2.1.3.2
          6 April 2014 at 1:07 pm

          I can’t really be bothered tracking down examples but I have seen quite a lot of comments from people on this and other blogs saying exactly the same thing.
          It is generally when they are talking about tactical voting considerations and the certainly aren’t “following the sheep”.

          They tend to say things like, and the party chosen here is only to give an example, “If the poll says that NZF are on 4.8% I’ll vote for them to try and get another centre-left party into parliament as an ally”, as opposed to “NZF are only on 2.0% and have no chance. I’m not going to waste my vote”.

          If you are thinking along those lines it makes a great deal of sense to take note of the polls before voting.

        • lurgee 2.1.3.3
          6 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

          While it is a very odd comment, it isn’t inherently insane.

          If the Greens were polling at 4.9%, I might vote for them to help get them across the 5% line. If they are looking healthy at 10%, I might be more inclined to vote for Mana in the hope of getting Annette Sykes into parliament.

          too many people seem to be letting their visceral dislike of Peter George could their branes.

          • Rosie 2.1.3.3.1
            6 April 2014 at 1:39 pm

            ok, get your points alwyn and lurgee re tactical voting, but really how often would that consideration arise? I can’t say I have ever been influenced by the polls in my voting decisions, but then again I’d be happy if we never had polls again, no matter who was in power and who was in opposition. I simply don’t pay any attention to them.

            I agree with what karol said above:

            “Myself, I’m not a poll watcher. I think they are part of what is wrong with the media and the way politics is portrayed as a game within the public sphere.”

            I’d rather voters consider Parties policies that ally with their own values rather than jump on board with some manufactured media “race”.

            And as to” too many people seem to be letting their visceral dislike of Peter George could their branes.” I was a bit confused on the “could their branes” “cloud their brains” perhaps? In all honesty I’ve had about 5 exchanges all up with Pete over the last 3 years and I can’t say I have a visceral dislike of the guy – he did get banned for a reason though and it’s those reasons that make me apprehensive about taking him too seriously. I just find it a bit alarming when folks say “I use polls to make my voting decisions”. I think using your noggin would be more helpful.

            • alwyn 2.1.3.3.1.1
              6 April 2014 at 4:09 pm

              “how often would that consideration arise?”

              If your basic support was for the policies of a small party it might be more often that one might imagine. Would many people I think that ACT, when Rodney was leader, would have got a lot less party votes if people didn’t think that Rodney was safe in Epsom and their vote for a party polling about 3% would not be wasted.
              When Rodney was dumped I think a fair number of their voters decided “to hell with it”.
              I think the same might apply to Mana. You think that they are well down in the polls but that Hone, if he can hold his seat, has coattails.

              As far as I am concerned I’m not bothered. I can’t see either National or Labour dropping out of Parliament. The Greens won’t either as long as they are never in a Government. If they were though, all bets are off. Every minor party that has been part of a Government gets massacred very soon thereafter.
              Only NZF managed to stagger back with more than a token presence. Whatever did happen to The Alliance? What happened to those people in United Future?
              If the Greens were to form part of a Government they would catch all the flack for the unpopular decisions and get none of the credit for the popular ones and they to would be out the door.

              • bad12 …
                6 April 2014 at 5:47 pm

                The Green Party tho is its own thriving entity with an electoral base over 5%, with the exception of ACT and NZFirst all the other parties that have not fared well in Government under the MMP system have usually been those which are established by a defector or defectors who quit their parties while still being MP’s,

                i would suggest that it is this that voters punish as opposed to dishing out such electoral punishment for having been part of a Governing coalition, the lack of defections and new parties springing up during the past two Parliaments would suggest that MP’s themselves have come to realize this,

                i am sure a 14–15% Green party in a Government will get to deliver enough clear Green Party policies to its supporters to satisfy them and once such a Government,Labour/Green were established it would be stupid for the larger side of the coalition to starve the large but smaller coalition partner of visible policy victories…

          • Clemgeopin 2.1.3.3.2
            6 April 2014 at 1:43 pm

            I dislike Peter Dunne more for his support of this government and many of its stupid and evil policies such as Asset sales, Private charter schools with public funds, GCSB spying legislation without thorough review, Tax cuts and GST that helped the wealthiest the most and affected the poor the most, Cutting of various public services and jobs, Killing of community education night classes etc

            • alwyn 2.1.3.3.2.1
              6 April 2014 at 2:48 pm

              The first “Charter Schools” in New Zealand were brought in by a Labour Government.
              They were introduced by the Kirk/Rowling Government during their 1972-1975 term.

              These were the “Integrated Schools” and many still exist. They were introduced mainly because the Catholic school system was about to collapse under the burden of having to hire more and more lay teachers with the reduction in the number of people entering such orders as the Marist Brothers. (Society of Mary is it?). The way they were set up was quite tricky and was designed in such a way that only Catholic schools found it easy to qualify. Kirk, et al, didn’t want to support the other private schools and he really wanted to get the Roman Catholic vote. The continued fall in “Religious” teachers meant the model had to be opened up a bit later on though.

              You can call them something different but it is very hard to distinguish them from the “Charter School” model isn’t it?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                6 April 2014 at 7:14 pm

                It’s completely different you moron. The integrated schools (which I think we should stop supporting) at least have to maintain the national curriculum and trained teachers. Charter Schools don’t.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  6 April 2014 at 9:36 pm

                  And integrated catholic character schools get equal (if not less) per pupil amount compared to Charter schools.
                  The integrated schools are finding it very hard to manage economically because they get much less finding than state schools and their fees are low compared to purely ‘private’ schools.
                  Charter schools are a swindle by this government to private individuals/entities at huge public cost, in terms of pupil-teacher ratios, lax teacher qualifications and open accountability as well as per pupil based funding. It is an unfair crooked con.

          • Tracey 2.1.3.3.3
            7 April 2014 at 8:23 am

            did we not have polls pre MMP?

  3. Rogue Trooper 3
    6 April 2014 at 9:05 am

    Reading up on ‘social banditry’ : Hobsbawm before giving time and consideration to Changing the world (not Gangnam Style). 😎

  4. Jenny 4
    6 April 2014 at 9:08 am

    The Western World’s sanctions against Russia in the Crimea, are proving so far to be laughable.

    Mac Donalds Hamburger chain and microstate Tuvalu express their displeasure with Russia.

    Let us pray for the sake of peace between the super powers, that international action, continues to remain in the farcical zone.

    • tc 4.1
      6 April 2014 at 9:32 am

      I find those sanctions are for theatrical purposes, all part of the big show put on to give the illusion of concern.

      Putin considers all those firmer ussr countries his domain and the rest can do sfa about it except put on a show.

  5. Morrissey 5
    6 April 2014 at 10:30 am

    “I’m so sorry, I truly am.” …[choke, sniff]
    Rachel Smalley earns her patch for radio’s most obnoxious gang
    NewstalkZB, 3 April 2014

    Over the last twenty years, NewstalkZB’s early morning show has been the venue for not only inane and dreadfully ill-informed comment but also some of the most despicable and brutal behavior. The most infamous example is Paul Holmes’s wandery, barely coherent attack on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2003; Holmes raved for several minutes that Annan was “a very cheeky darkie” for refusing to support the United States’ illegal invasion of Iraq.

    That was probably the nadir, but nothing at all changed on that station. NewstalkZB has continued to be the vehicle for loud-mouthed support for torture (Holmes again), for the destruction of hospitals and schools and the mass killing of civilians in Gaza (Holmes again, amplified by Leighton Smith and Larry “Lackwit” Williams) and for the thuggish aggression by Chinese “security” guards against Russell Norman in front of our parliamentary buildings (Holmes, Smith and Lackwit Williams). And, of course, NewstalkZB was also where Leighton Smith called Muhammad Ali a “nigger”, and where the victim of a frenzied knife-killing in South Auckland was demeaned and defamed round the clock for several months, and his killer praised as a “decent man” who had been driven over the edge.

    Last week, NewstalkZB’s new morning “talent” Rachel Smalley continued this ignoble tradition. Smalley read out a news item about how New Zealand women are getting fatter. Foolishly–or was it accidentally on purpose?—she “forgot” to turn off her microphone before muttering that they were “heifers” and “lardos”. The usual furore ensued, and next morning Rachel Smalley uttered a tearful apology….

    RACHEL SMALLEY: It was stupid, it was judgmental and offensive. It was not made as a statement of fact and it was in no way representative of any opinion I have ever held, ever. And I’m so sorry, I truly am. …[choke, sniff]…. My role as a journalist has always been to inform and not to offend and yesterday I crossed that line. …[blub, choke]…I’m so very sorry that I said what I did and I’m very sorry for the hurt that I caused and the many people that I let down, not least my self, my friends and my family …[sniff]….

    Of course, the question that has to be asked is: if Rachel Smalley sees her “role as a journalist” to “inform and not to offend”, what on EARTH is she doing working for NewstalkZB?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/rachel-smalley-s-tearful-air-apology-after-calling-kiwi-women-lardos-5883829

    • Rogue Trooper 5.1
      6 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

      I don’t love Rachel (in that ) way, anymore!

    • Once was Tim 5.2
      6 April 2014 at 2:58 pm

      I’d say she’s caught in the culture.
      Plus she has a mortgage to pay – probably one larger than she actually needs, and there’s always twee little cafes and restaurants whose custom she needs to maintain.
      It’s a bit like Lianne Malcolm having to slum it on the Paul Henry Show as a reporter (she might even think he’s a bit of a laugh).
      Mortgages and debt trump principle – and prostitution is becoming semi-normal these days anyway.
      But I mean Christ!!! Paul Henry!

      • Rogue Trooper 5.2.1
        6 April 2014 at 8:29 pm

        I choose not to watch that fool on principle, despite the ads touting his nonsense in prime-time; and Hosking’s round-up at the end of Seven Sharp…well, I ask you Tim. 😉

    • Tracey 5.3
      6 April 2014 at 7:01 pm

      how can it no represent an opinion she has ever held?

      • Murray Olsen 5.3.1
        6 April 2014 at 11:45 pm

        The only explanation I can think of for that is that she was being sarcastic. In my opinion, it is not a reasonable explanation. We seldom blurt out things we have never thought.

  6. geoff 6
    6 April 2014 at 10:31 am

    John Armstrong says Key is dopey and Cunliffe is clever:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11232543

    • Bearded Git 6.1
      6 April 2014 at 11:04 am

      Yes geoff National may have shot themselves in the foot with the “Rockstar” stuff. Not only does this leave them open to the argument that they are not spreading the goodies to the less well off but it also gives Labour the ammunition to argue that some spending is justified. And with Parker (otherwise known as joe 90) the smart accountant in charge Labour will be able to offer goodies while still forecasting surpluses.

      I’m convinced that Key has blown this by having a 6 month election campaign-it gives the opposition parties masses of exposure.

  7. RedbaronCV 7
    6 April 2014 at 10:33 am

    Seen the bit over in the Herald where maori tv is goimg to be passed to iwi control. Does this mean no more pesky investigations that hatm someone’s Mana?

    • Tigger 7.1
      6 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11233058

      This is the important quote: “The Herald on Sunday has seen draft Cabinet papers that confirm the two agencies would “cease to be Crown entities” and would be reconstituted as companies, subsidiaries to the new iwi organisation.”

      So they will be beholden to corporations, not the public. A desperate move by Sharples to save his party. Even worse, the ‘racism’ charge. Harawira thinks it’s a bad idea, Pita. So he’s racist too?

      • tc 7.1.1
        6 April 2014 at 1:33 pm

        A clever way of gagging maori tv by getting your mates in the iwi to do it for you. Cant have that pesky native affairs and decent informative shows now can we.

  8. Penny Bright 8
    6 April 2014 at 11:07 am

    FYI – seen this?

    Journalist Jane Burgermeister played a HUGE role back in 2009 in helping to expose the $WINES INVENTED FLU scam, and I have great respect for her considered opinion and gutsy investigative work:

    WHO ADMITS MAN INFECTED WITH EBOLA IN LAB AS ANGRY CROWDS ACCUSE TREATMENT CENTRES

    by Jane Burgermeister

    The World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted that a man was infected in a laboratory with Ebola, fuelling fears that the Guinea outbreak of the deadly virus could be orchestrated.

    WHO Fact sheet °103, updated in March 2014, says:

    “People are infectious as long as their blood and secretions contain the virus. Ebola virus was isolated from semen 61 days after onset of illness in a man who was infected in a laboratory.s

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/

    In Guinea, some people clearly believe they are the victims of a biological assault. The Telegraph reports that angry crowds attacked an Ebola treatment centre in Guinea, accusing staff from Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) of bringing the deadly disease to the town.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/guinea/10746237/Mob-attacks-Ebola-treatment-centre-in-Guinea.html

    The Handelszeitung notes that the US Military has been conducting research on the Ebola virus. Also, a company belonging to Glaxo Smith Kline is engaged in developing an Ebola vaccine.

    This begs the question as to whether the man was infected with Ebola in a GSK or US bioweapons research laboratory and also whether he was the only one infected?

    http://www.handelszeitung.ch/unternehmen/ebola-pharmariesen-kehren-dem-virus-den-ruecken-zu-589677

    MSF — accused by angry crowds of bringing the Ebola — is currently conducting a mass vaccination campaign in Guinea.

    http://www.msf.org/article/guinea-challenges-vaccination-campaign

    Five hundred thousand children have been vaccinated ostensibly against measles even though MSF admits that a mass measles vaccination campaign in Chad brought no decrease in the disease.

    http://www.msf.org/article/chad-despite-mass-vaccination-measles-cases-n’djamena-not-decreasing

    Penny Bright

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      6 April 2014 at 12:12 pm

      Go and check the medical facilities for corruption. Make sure to interview victims.

  9. captain hook 9
    6 April 2014 at 11:34 am

    has leighton smith choked on his sausage roll yet?

  10. Penny Bright 10
    6 April 2014 at 12:19 pm

    FYI – although New Zealand is ranked as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark) according to Transparency International’s 2013 ‘Corruption Perception Index’ –

    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

    according to the ‘Financial Secrecy Index’ – NZ ranked 48th out of 82 countries surveyed by the Tax Justice Network:

    If New Zealand was truly the least corrupt country in the world – wouldn’t we be the MOST transparent, and the LEAST secretive?

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/NewZealand.pdf

    Report on New Zealand

    New Zealand is ranked at 48th position on the 2013 Financial Secrecy Index.
    This ranking is based on a combination of its secrecy score and a scale weighting based on its share of the global market for offshore financial services.

    New Zealand has been assessed with 52 secrecy points out of a potential 100, which places it in the lower mid-range of the secrecy scale (see chart 1 below).

    New Zealand accounts for less than 1 per cent of the global market for offshore financial services, making it a tiny player compared with other secrecy jurisdictions (see chart 2 below).
    …………………….

    Next steps for New Zealand

    New Zealand’s 52 per cent secrecy score shows that it must still make major progress in offering satisfactory financial transparency.

    If it wishes to play a full part in the modern financial community and to impede and deter illicit financial flows, including flows originating from tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance practices, corrupt practices and criminal activities, it should take action on the points noted where it falls short of acceptable international standards.

    See below for details of New Zealand’s shortcomings on transparency.

    See this link http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/kfsi for an overview of how each of these shortcomings can be fixed.

    (Database for information relied upon for New Zealand’s ‘Financial Secrecy Index’ position of 48th out of 82 countries surveyed:

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/database/New%20Zealand.xml

    http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/NewZealand.pdf

    INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND COOPERATION – New Zealand

    Anti-Money Laundering: Does the jurisdiction comply with the FATF recommendations?

    New Zealand does not comply with international anti-money laundering standards

    So – how truly SHONKY was the New Zealand International Convention Centre (or, as I prefer to call it – the Sky City MONEY-LAUNDERING) Act 2013?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation Public Watchdog

  11. aerobubble 11
    6 April 2014 at 12:41 pm

    Key was wrong about Coal, and he’s wrong about future
    returns from oil.

    Everyone knows oil is high density fuel, and there are huge
    demands to replace said fuels as their carbon cost is too large.
    Knowing how much of the resource remains is essential to add into the
    debate over climate change. Knowing how much means we know
    how long we can cling onto petroleum for (and so move faster
    to ditching) since once we are in the mindset of reduction the
    reforms will accelerate. Also economically once we make the decision
    to shift away from such fuels, the cost of using those fuels
    will rise (and from lower demand the price of the fuels will lower
    and the taxes on top adverse to their use).
    So it makes sense to look for them now, while we are still
    locked into the petroleum paradigm and the oil discovery technology is
    peaking. So as a Green I have no problem with looking, and
    essentially the three reasoned positions political are,
    i.) continuation of the petroleum paradigm, the delusional
    head in sands position, National. You can tell National understand
    this as they are calling Greens delusional,
    ii.) linear switch over to low carbon economy, Labours position
    which ignores economic shocks from markets downgrading huge
    wealth as energy intense processes become worth much much less,
    iii.) the Green position, that we should get out in front and
    secure the benefits early, and consider that National are
    either lying or are just delusional about the high prospects of
    a oil money rush, like usual National have missed the boat
    on the economic gains of petroleum, building roads now and
    not thirty years ago (it always cost too much to National,
    so they get away with do nothing policies, until too late).
    iv.) the completely unreasonable ACT position based solely
    in calls to ideological prayer, about the true economic faith
    in free markets according to the obnoxious perfect view of
    economics that doesn’t discuss specifics and denies inevitable
    consequences (as if it were purposed for the sole end, to
    avoid democracy).
    As to NZF, whoever wins Winston Peters will be our next foreign
    minister should he be return to parlliament, he will bend
    accordingly. Naff said.

    So looking ain’t a problem, Greens know the inevitability of Climate
    Change will make profits from any discoveries a pipe dream.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    6 April 2014 at 1:00 pm

    BitCoin’s fatal design flaws

    The fanaticism of some BitCoin enthusiasts, along with the claims that BitCoin – specifically – will become the currency of the future, is a bit like someone in 1902 insisting that in the future we’ll all be flying across the Atlantic in individual gliders that look like this: [pic of Wright Brothers glider]

  13. captain hook 13
    6 April 2014 at 2:08 pm

    has pete geroge got one of them?

  14. Rogue Trooper 14
    6 April 2014 at 2:45 pm

    try putting these prophecies back in the lamp. (Hi Draco, and one and all).

    • Rosie 14.1
      6 April 2014 at 2:50 pm

      Always nice to see you when you ride back into town Amigo.

      • Rogue Trooper 14.1.1
        6 April 2014 at 2:59 pm

        gracias; may return this way again. (sat huffing a short fat cuban (cigar) after church before walking with mate and dog to the Bluff lookout). Right back at ya’ shining one. 😀

        • Once was Tim 14.1.1.1
          6 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Far be it from us to judge if the bracketed “(cigar)” was missing.
          We’re from a ‘broad church’ after all – judging by the various comments and the intent of this site

          • Rogue Trooper 14.1.1.1.1
            6 April 2014 at 8:33 pm

            very clever, no, it was a real cigar; close though, with the observation. Anyway, all hands to the pump, there’s fire at the well!

  15. bad12 15
    6 April 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Doesn’t seem like the Brits restrict the travel of their beneficiaries, a couple of really overpaid ones are dropping in tomorrow to sup at the trough here and provide support for their favorite charity,(the National Party), and its re-election hopes…

  16. Bearded Git 16
    6 April 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Wonderful images just on TV3 news of Young Nats quaffing champagne on the balcony while Sue Bradford et al protested against poverty below.

    • ffloyd 16.1
      6 April 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Saw that. Looked very Tory. Feel very sad for those little nats. Life ahead of them and all that. Did they have artful images of steffi key adorning the hallowed walls. Acceptable because daddy said ‘we are so proud’.

    • ffloyd 16.2
      6 April 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Saw that. Looked very Tory. Feel very sad for those little nats. Life ahead of them and all that. Did they have artful images of steffi key adorning the hallowed walls. Acceptable because daddy said ‘we are so proud’.

  18. Philj 18
    6 April 2014 at 8:06 pm

    xox
    Mike could be the smartest man on TVNZ. He’s a total nitwit. Doesn’t reflect well on NZ’s state broadcaster.

  19. joe90 19
    6 April 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Sunday evening smiles.

    “Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

    “What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

    “Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

    The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

    “Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

    “Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

    He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

    “Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-police-department.html

  20. Clemgeopin 20
    6 April 2014 at 8:56 pm

    BREAKING NEWS:
    Kim Dot Com to speak at Mana rally.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Dotcom-meets-with-Mana-Party-leader/tabid/1607/articleID/339013/Default.aspx

    To me it seems like the Mana.Com Alliance is a goer.

  21. Ergo Robertina 21
    6 April 2014 at 9:35 pm

    Financial writer Michael Lewis’ new book Flash Boys, previewed in the Guardian, delves into the complexity of stock trading computing systems and how it evades regulation and skews the market. Lewis is a very good writer.

    ‘These people are called high-frequency traders – “high-frequency” because they are incredibly active (they submit almost 99% of the orders on US stock markets) and buy and sell shares in milliseconds. They are not really “traders” in any normal sense of the term, but software algorithms, and they now dominate the most important stock markets in the capitalist world.

    Most of us knew that, sort of. We knew about computerised trading and probably naively assumed that it was more efficient than the old system of guys in coloured jackets bellowing at one another on the floor of an exchange. Well, it is more efficient – for some. But the significance of Lewis’s book is that it explains in user-friendly terms how the colossal profits of high-frequency traders really amount to an unconscionable tax on the ordinary investor, or at any rate on the pension funds and other financial institutions on which our livelihoods depend.’

    • RedLogix 21.1
      6 April 2014 at 9:56 pm

      A ‘modus’.

      During the story, many characters come to believe that the punch cards are a gambling “modus”, a programme that would allow the user to place consistently winning bets.

      Of course a modus always destroys the very system it preys upon.

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    6 April 2014 at 11:08 pm

    Sony claims a copyright it doesn’t have, Google complies without question

    http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/sony-demands-removal-of-open-source-indie-short-sintel-from-youtube-98182.html
    http://www.blendernation.com/2014/04/05/sony-blocks-sintel-on-youtube/

    This is the sad state of creativity in the world as the governments kowtow ever more deeply to the psychopathic corporations.

Links to post