Open Mike 07/04/2017

136 comments on “Open Mike 07/04/2017”

• Comments are now closed

1. LivinInTheBay 1

   7 April 2017 at 8:02 am

   Question

   What will the Labour leadership team look like come Monday should, as is likely, he loses the defamation case?

   Things to consider:

   The party didn’t vote for him
   Caucus didn’t vote for him
   He’s only leader because of the Unions
   Jacinda already polls better than him
   Labour rates lower than when Shearer was rolled

   Does making Jacinda leader improve Labour’s chances in September? And who do you think would be her deputy? And can she improve Labour’s numbers enough to ensure they win without having to rely on duplicitous people like Winston First?

   • Cinny 1.1

     7 April 2017 at 8:15 am

     The case brings to light the questionable donations made to the national party by wealthy business people who go on to get government support in one way or another. Any good opposition leader would question the governments actions, which the incoming PM has, those with money and business interests do not like those types of questions shining a spotlight on their dealings. And it’s all in the view of the public.

     I’ve heard of so many Nat party supporters and voters deciding to vote for Winnie this year, so many and I can’t say I blame them.

     I have not heard of one Labour voter or supporter who will not be voting for Labour because of this court case, rather I’ve heard people tell me they support him even more.

   • Anne 1.2

     7 April 2017 at 8:44 am

     The party didn’t vote for him. Wrong. The party voted in huge numbers for him.
     Caucus didn’t vote for him. Half wrong. Nearly half the caucus voted for him.
     He’s only leader because of the Unions. Wrong. Union votes represent only 20% of the final result – if my memory serves me right.
     Jacinda already polls better. Inevitable. In a shallow consumer obsessed society you have to expect a good looking young woman is going to register well in the polls. Its more a negative reflection of the ignorance and shallowness of many voters. Its not the vote that counts.
     Labour rates lower than when Shearer was rolled. Bullshit and jellybeans. There’s been a lot of murky water flowing under that bridge and Shearer may well have ended up faring a lot worse than Little. Labour and the Greens are now close enough to the Nats backs they can almost touch them.

     Trying to resurrect the fractious times of yesteryear are you LivinInThebay? Who are you working for? Slater and Carrick?

     • weka 1.2.1

       7 April 2017 at 8:51 am

       +1. NZers don’t party vote PMs. Putting Ardern in because of a popularity contest would be daft.

       • Carolyn_nth 1.2.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 8:52 am

         There’s more to being a leader than public popularity.

         • weka 1.2.1.1.1

           7 April 2017 at 10:03 am

           Exactly. And while I think that Ardern is skilled as an MP and has good potential as a future leader, I think putting her in as leader now would be purely for the advantage of the show pony effect (a reflection on NZ politics not Ardern) but to the detriment of all the other things Little has achieved.

           Besides, I think Anne is right and LivinintheBay is concern trolling.

     • saveNZ 1.2.2

       7 April 2017 at 10:16 am

       +1 Anne

       Also if Andrew does lose, the righties will try and frame it as should Andrew go as leader to try to get Natz in by default again and distract from the real issues about their terrible performance and their constant taking of public money to the private sector.

       Instead the question should be back to should big business be funding political parties and should our aid money being spent on aiding business not those that actually need it?

       There is a David and Goliath issue. The average joe is unable to even stand up for their rights anymore, let alone speak them.

       Do we still have freedom of speech in this country?

       Are we now unable to question where public money goes in case some rabid right winger with too much dough litigates from their near grave, because that’s all they believe in and can get a cool $2 million for their troubles?

     • greywarshark 1.2.3

       7 April 2017 at 10:18 am

       Thank you Anne for bringing us back to the facts from the alphabet soup of reality-deniers.

     • LivinInTheBay 1.2.4

       7 April 2017 at 10:21 am

       @Anne

       I’m not sure where you got your numbers from:
       https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Labour_Party_leadership_election,_2014

       In the first round of votes he got only 15.63% of caucus, and only 25.71% of party votes. The Unions’ votes of 64.12% of the Union vote is all that even kept him in the voting. In fact he didn’t receive over 50% of any of the votes of than from the Unions in any of the rounds of voting.

       Moving on to the alleged defamation – why didn’t he apologise straight away and issue a retraction? Why when it came to light a trust board awarded the contract and not the Govt (a board that Mr Ardern was on by the way) didn’t he also make that known? Leaving it as long as he did could make one think he isn’t really sorry for the accusations he made.

       Holding the Govt to account is important, and we need a strong opposition but at the same time we also need our politicians to know how to go about that.

       • Anne 1.2.4.1

         7 April 2017 at 11:37 am

         From the Election Rules governing Parliamentary Leadership elections:

         3.2.3 The votes of each candidate in each section will be calculated as a percentage of the total votes cast in that section, and shall then be apportioned as follows:
         Section 1, individual members of the New Zealand Labour Party – 40%
         Section 2, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party – 40%
         Section 3, the affiliate vote as detailed above – 20%.

         Yep. I was right. Union votes represent only 20% of the total vote count under the preferential system adopted by the conference delegates in 2012.

         Concern troll LITB sounds like someone I used to know. If so, he was once an LP member but ‘turned’ some years ago under a massive cloud.

         • LivinInTheBay 1.2.4.1.1

           7 April 2017 at 12:07 pm

           I’ve never been a LP member so doubt I’m someone you know.

           My point is that if it weren’t for the Unions he wouldn’t be leader. Like it or not, that much is fact.

           • bwaghorn 1.2.4.1.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 12:41 pm

             ooow gee a labour party leader having the backing of the unions (those people that protect workers from scum) shocking news !!

             • LivinInTheBay …

               7 April 2017 at 1:50 pm

               My point was that without their support he wouldn’t be leader as the party membership clearly wanted someone else, as did caucus.

               • McFlock …

                 7 April 2017 at 2:56 pm

                 Without support in caucus he wouldn’t be leader.
                 Without support in the membership he wouldn’t be leader.
                 Little happened to outright win the sector that had the weakest vote weighting, but he still wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without significant support from the other sectors.

                 keep spinning, though

                 • LivinInTheBay …

                   7 April 2017 at 7:20 pm

                   That is true enough, but again misses the point.

                   His support from both caucus and the wider membership was very very low. And if it hadn’t been for the fact that Unions get to block vote he wouldn’t be leader.

                   Whatever happened to one person, one vote?

                   • McFlock …

                     7 April 2017 at 8:02 pm

                     They don’t “block vote”. Different unions cast different votes according to the internal processes determined by their members. Because lots of union members aren’t party members, and vice versa, yet the Labour Party and the union movement are closely aligned.

                     A bit like the relationship between the nats and rich fuckwits, only the left are more honest about it.

           • Anne 1.2.4.1.1.2

             7 April 2017 at 2:29 pm

             If it weren’t for the Unions he wouldn’t be leader.

             Bullshit!

             If you were to say… if it weren’t for the membership dah,dah… then you would have a point. Since your reading ability appears below normal, let me reiterate… the union vote counts for 20% of the final tally. Got it? 20%.

             Andrew Little won the leadership because during the leadership candidate meetings around the country he convinced the majority of the membership that he was the best person for the job of leader. End of story.

             You are NOT a member and you say you have never been a member, so you can bow to the superior knowledge of those of us who ARE members and who know a darn sight more than you do what happened.

             Go and do your lying elsewhere.

             • LivinInTheBay …

               7 April 2017 at 2:39 pm

               Go read the article I posted which shows clearly the voting % in each round of voting. He lagged a long way behind other candidates in the caucus and membership votes. That is a matter of public record. He got over the line because he had massive union support, even if that support ‘only counted’ for 20% of the vote.

               But hey, accuse me of lying all you like.

             • LivinInTheBay …

               7 April 2017 at 2:45 pm

               Here’s the figures for you:

               Candidate Andrew Little Grant Robertson
               Percentage 50.52%[1] 49.48%
               Caucus 6.25% 17.5%
               Members 10.28% 15.3%
               Affiliates 12.82%. 3.78%

               That was the final round – so Little won by 0.04% of the vote, and the only vote he won was the Union vote. So tell me again how the Unions weren’t responsible for him winning?

               • McFlock …

                 7 April 2017 at 2:58 pm

                 No more than any of the members and caucus who voted for him, but whatever.

                 How many national party members voted for Bill English as caucus leader/pm?

       • McFlock 1.2.4.2

         7 April 2017 at 11:53 am

         lolnice.

         The Little/Ardern combination really gives you guys the shits. The “cosmetic change” approach tanked so you’re rehashing the Labour caucus leadership election? How democratic was the fucking change in prime minister?

         Careful, your tory hypocrisy is showing…

         • LivinInTheBay 1.2.4.2.1

           7 April 2017 at 7:24 pm

           Little is an awful leader. Which is probably why he polls at 7%.

           For the right Ardern could actually be a god send as she’d be eaten alive in debates. She really is an example of form over substance.

           As for the PM, I hate the fact someone can resign as PM and another can come in without having faced the electorate. That said someone on here posted along the lines of “we don’t vote for the leader” so on that basis given National won they are entitled to do it. Still something I don’t like myself and personally don’t think English has a mandate.

           But carry on with the insults – note that I haven’t once resorted to insulting anyone here.

           • McFlock 1.2.4.2.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 7:59 pm

             Except for insulting everyone’s intelligence.

           • Psycho Milt 1.2.4.2.1.2

             7 April 2017 at 8:32 pm

             That said someone on here posted along the lines of “we don’t vote for the leader” so on that basis given National won they are entitled to do it.

             As one of the people who posted along those lines (truthfully, at that, because Prime Ministers genuinely aren’t chosen by a poll of voters), I can tell you that Bill English has the same mandate to be Prime Minister as every other Prime Minister in recent history – he was handed the job by his colleagues. If Little becomes PM, at least he can say the franchise for his mandate extended a little further than his parliamentary caucus.

   • weka 1.3

     7 April 2017 at 8:48 am

     Changing leader at this stage in the electoral cycle would destroy Labour’s chances completely. At this point winning is dependent on presenting as competent as a party and yet another leadership change would undermine that.

     Little will make a good PM and he’s been doing a good job at leading Labour. Focus on the strengths.

   • Carolyn_nth 1.4

     7 April 2017 at 8:50 am

     The court case highlights the need to take the money out of election politics.

     • Heather Grimwood 1.4.1

       7 April 2017 at 9:58 am

       to Carolyn_ nth at 1.4 : Really good point …long time since I’ve heard it.

       • saveNZ 1.4.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 10:09 am

         Agree – take the money out of election politics.

     • LivinInTheBay 1.4.2

       7 April 2017 at 10:24 am

       @Corolyn_nrh

       Money is needed in elections to find pretty much everything.

       How would you see it working ifnthere wasn’t money involved?

       Similarly, in a democratic society l, with the right of free speech isn’t it a right for all of us to be able to donate to whoever we want to?

       These people seem to have donated to pretty much all the major parties over the years. And also, just because one party is better than another at fund raising should that be a reason to stop donations?

       • Sacha 1.4.2.1

         7 April 2017 at 10:30 am

         You appear to be confusing money with speech.

       • AB 1.4.2.2

         7 April 2017 at 5:38 pm

         The rule of one person one vote is built on the principle that each individual should have an equal influence over the result of an election.
         If money can be used to exercise influence then its use must also conform to that principle.
         Therfore:
         – no donations from organisations of any sort.
         – transparent donations from named individuals only not exceeding 0.05% of the median fulltime income in any one year
         – topup funding from the state especially during election campaigns. Most likely proportional to a party’s level of support.

         I think these are very clear principles that would be supported by all true democrats.

         • LivinInTheBay 1.4.2.2.1

           7 April 2017 at 7:12 pm

           Ok, so let’s say funding from the State was to happen – I don’t agree with it but I’ll play along.

           How much do parties get, and howndo you allocate it? Does everyone get the same? If so why should a party polling a lot lower than another get the same? After all they’re not as popular.

         • LivinInTheBay 1.4.2.2.2

           7 April 2017 at 7:13 pm

           Oh and if money = election wins, why didn’t Clinton won given they spent a significant amount more than Trump?

           • Psycho Milt 1.4.2.2.2.1

             7 April 2017 at 8:25 pm

             Money has a powerful effect != money trumps all other factors.

   • Psycho Milt 1.5

     7 April 2017 at 10:08 am

     Thanks for listing the National Party’s talking points for us, but if you want to do this on a regular basis you need to learn how to dress it up so it looks more like a personal opinion and less like you’re reading it off a piece of paper.

     • LivinInTheBay 1.5.1

       7 April 2017 at 10:30 am

       Hi @Psycho Milt

       Not reading it from a piece of paper. And am not a National party member either. I would call myself a Capitalist/Socialist.

       I believe in strong leadership, strong government, and also strong opposition. I dislike oppos My goodnpolicy for the sake of opposing. I’d think much more of politicians if when things are good for the country they admit it regardless of political persuasion – that’s probably naive of me but there you go.

       I also believe in choice. Choice of schooling, choice of healthcare, choice of where I can live/work/play.

       I believe that the Govt should only be providing essential services as they do a crap job running businesses, and that the private sector run business far better than any politician ever will.

       I believe in freedom of speech and association. I’m not religious, but believe in freedom to worship who one wants to worship.

       I believe in law and order and a strong police force. I believe there’s consequences to ones actions.

       And I definitely don’t get my views from a piece of paper 🙂

       • McFlock 1.5.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 11:55 am

         I would call myself a Capitalist/Socialist.

         Cognitive dissonance exemplified.

         • LivinInTheBay 1.5.1.1.1

           7 April 2017 at 12:16 pm

           Haha maybe, maybe not.

           Let me explain myself.

           I believe in capitalism. Without it we wouldn’t have the great things we have. We wouldn’t have some of the fantastic products we all take for granted – the phone I’m using to make this post for instance.

           What I don’t like, is the obscene profits some of these companies make – how much money does one person need?

           I also firmly believe in the welfare state – to a point. Helping those who genuinely can’t help themselves is something a civilised society should be proud of. The problem with the welfare state though, is some, not all, but some take advantage. It’s also hugely costly. Same with NZ Super – it’s amassive cost that is only going to increase as we get older, and have children later, and live longer.

           I also dislike Govt control. The Govt should control very little of our lives. The vast majority of us can get on just fine without it.

           Free speech has been mentioned – this is another bastion of a free society and should not be infringed. But that doesn’t mean you can defame someone which if you take off your Labour bias you’d admit that’s what Andrew has done here – linking a donation to potential corruption automatically links the person ornpwolle who made that donation.

           Anyway, that’s why I call myself a capitalist/socialist. Maybe it is an oxymoron, but it fits how I think and view the world.

           • McFlock 1.5.1.1.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 12:24 pm

             Basically, you’re a tory who wants the government to assist the “deserving poor” just enough that they don’t put you off your restaurant dining experience.

             linking a donation to potential corruption automatically links the person ornpwolle who made that donation.

             In the same way that checking to see if a person was struck “automatically links” them to a potential assault.

           • DoublePlusGood 1.5.1.1.1.2

             7 April 2017 at 12:33 pm

             It’s an oxymoron because what you describe is not socialism.

       • Psych nurse 1.5.1.2

         7 April 2017 at 12:03 pm

         The one thing private enterprise does not do well is run public services, think Serco, think private hospitals who dump their private patients back on the public system as soon as there is a complication, think private schools who do not cater for the special needs of some children, think NGO,s who dump there difficult clients back on to the State system,
         Livininthebay i think you are livininfools paradise and not livininaninclusivesociety.

       • Psycho Milt 1.5.1.3

         7 April 2017 at 12:33 pm

         OK, not a National Party member, just someone whose beliefs fit with the National Party and who happened to post the Party’s talking points on this thread. Glad we could clear that up.

         • LivinInTheBay 1.5.1.3.1

           7 April 2017 at 1:56 pm

           Which talking points in particular?

           Do you mean the fact that Mr Ardern sat on the board that awarded the contract to Scenic? Or is that just an inconvenient truth?

           • garibaldi 1.5.1.3.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 4:18 pm

             LivinInTheBay….. strikes me you are too young to know what a good society was/is like.

         • Psycho Milt 1.5.1.3.2

           7 April 2017 at 4:22 pm

           Which talking points in particular?

           Er, every sentence in comment 1. None of them is particularly more of a Nat talking point than the others.

           Do you mean the fact that Mr Ardern sat on the board that awarded the contract to Scenic? Or is that just an inconvenient truth?

           That wasn’t in the comment, but provides a handy example. It’s an irrelevant piece of information that might at first glance appear relevant to casual readers not familiar with what the term “relevant” means, and also sounds like it ought to be politicially damaging to Little in some way, although not in any way you could actually put your finger on. It’s a true statement that implies malfeasance or incompetence without actually claiming it or having any basis for claiming it, which makes it perfect propaganda material for dropping into conversations about the case. This is why it’s been handed to you for insertion here, although “handing it to you” may just have consisted of you reading it on Kiwblog, Whaleoil or similar.

           • LivinInTheBay 1.5.1.3.2.1

             7 April 2017 at 7:17 pm

             But he was in the board, and still people here in particular seem to think the Govt awarded the contract.

             The inconvenient truth is the above – Mr Ardern is really neither here nor there, it is ironic though.

             I know you won’t believe it, butnthe above are my thoughts and mine alone. And for what it’s worth, I’m permanently banned from WhaleOil for providing dissenting opinion on his/her articles. Which is also ironic given he says he welcomes debate.

             • Psycho Milt …

               7 April 2017 at 8:23 pm

               Ok, your own thoughts exactly match the talking points being distributed by Nat blogs. Not something I’d be proud of myself, but each to his own.

               …still people here in particular seem to think the Govt awarded the contract.

               Well, some maybe. I’d phrase it more like “people here in particular know that anything in which Murray McCully is even peripherally involved can be assumed likely to be well dodgy.”

2. Robert Guyton 2

   7 April 2017 at 8:15 am

   Livinginthebay – your use of the word, “duplicitous” sounds very natural.

3. Ray 3

   7 April 2017 at 8:59 am

   “If” it goes against Andrew Little I hope those in New Zealand who feel it is the duty of the leader of the loyal opposition to hold the Government to account, are prepared to put their hand in their pockets to group fund his costs.

   • Anne 3.1

     7 April 2017 at 9:02 am

     Here’s one who will…

     • Heather Grimwood 3.1.1

       7 April 2017 at 9:59 am

       to Anne at 3.1 : and another…

   • saveNZ 3.2

     7 April 2017 at 10:08 am

     I’ll support Andrew

   • JanM 3.3

     7 April 2017 at 10:26 am

     It’s the least we can do for a man of honour

     • fisiani 3.3.1

       7 April 2017 at 11:11 am

       The man of honour is Mr Hagaman and the defamation case is because Chicken defamed a man of honour.

       • Barfly 3.3.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 11:24 am

         Are you paid per comment or per word?

       • JanM 3.3.1.2

         7 April 2017 at 12:01 pm

         Oh really! I knew some nincompoop would come up with something like that!

       • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1.3

         7 April 2017 at 1:25 pm

         National Party gutter scum don’t have ethics let alone honour.

         • Alan 3.3.1.3.1

           7 April 2017 at 1:45 pm

           So about 46-48 % of voters in NZ are gutter scum without ethics or honour.
           Good work OAB, you are a great advocate for the left, keep it up.

           • garibaldi 3.3.1.3.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 4:23 pm

             Alan you are pretty close to being correct. However , many of that 46% are too stupid to realize that they are basically ‘scum’ of this planet.

         • LivinInTheBay 3.3.1.3.2

           7 April 2017 at 1:53 pm

           OAB – why the need to resort to name-calling?

           Surely civilised debate should be above that? I never understand the need to belittle people with insults such as “gutter scum”. To me it goes a way to negating your argument.

           • McFlock 3.3.1.3.2.1

             7 April 2017 at 4:41 pm

             It’s not a need.
             It’s often a pleasure when the opponent is not interested in genuine debate.

     • Jilly Bee 3.3.2

       7 April 2017 at 1:47 pm

       Absolutely, count me in.

4. Anne 4

   7 April 2017 at 9:26 am

   Superb reflections on Hit & Run aftermath by Paul Buchanan over at Kiiwipolitico:

   http://www.kiwipolitico.com/

   An abridged version of last few sentences:

   The bottom line is that the government appears to be running scared with its quick acceptance of the NZDF clean up job. One video from a US helicopter and the NZDF report on the raid – a chronicle of events that leaves numerous questions unanswered – is all that it took to convince PM Bill English that all was hunky dory that night. Given that there were likely to be multiple camera angles and audio communications recorded during the raid… the fact that just one served to convince the PM of the veracity of the NZDF account leaves me with only one simple conclusion with regard to Mr. English. In the words of Jack Nicholson playing a Marine Colonel under investigation for covering up a homicide… in the movie “A Few Good Men:”

   YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

   Perfectly sums up the current Govt. stance on the story.

5. The decrypter 5

   7 April 2017 at 9:41 am

   Ray .If we don’t the Hagamans will seize Andrews house, gift it to the double dipper to add to his collection. Double dipper will then in turn rent it back to Andrew. Claim a grand a week back on it, and become Triple dipper.

   • saveNZ 5.1

     7 April 2017 at 10:18 am

     +100 The decrypter

6. Janet 6

   7 April 2017 at 9:43 am

   Leave all as is . I don,t believe he set out to “defame” whatever the court outcome is . It would have been stupid to and he is not stupid. This is said by someone who is not necessarily a Labour supporter or an any party supporter , but one who votes on the year and the issues in front and the qualities of the people standing for the electorate.
   BUT this round I definitely will not be voting National! I wish Winnie for PM and Little his righthand man – somehow – with lots of Green MPs ! Then National will be kicked for touch !

   • weka 6.1

     7 April 2017 at 10:05 am

     While I understand the attraction for some of Peters, the only parties committed to changing the govt and preventing National from a 4th term are Labour and the Greens. NZF could choose National under the right circumstances.

     • LivinInTheBay 6.1.1

       7 April 2017 at 10:36 am

       @weka 6.1

       Gosh I don’t understand anyone voting for Winston.

       I understand people voting Greens or Labour or National or Act. They’ve all shown consistency in their thoughts and policies over the last election cycle.

       The only consistency Winston has shown is that he is an opportunist and will jump at most news cycles to get more exposure. He literally never delivers, and is a proven liar. NZF are still, as far as I am aware, to repay the money to the tax payer they spent illegally.

       As a left or right supporter, why would you vote for someone that could jump either way depending on how big the bauble is?

       No, if Winston is the answer the question is definitely wrong.

       • Cinny 6.1.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 11:45 am

         If you are an avid watcher of Parliament and have been for many years, you would have observed on many occassions how Winny gets on with the outgoing government, no love lost there.

         • garibaldi 6.1.1.1.1

           7 April 2017 at 4:30 pm

           Don’t trust NZF. How many times does their track record have to be regurgitated?

           • Cinny 6.1.1.1.1.1

             7 April 2017 at 9:59 pm

             The outgoing government are freaking out about New Zealand First, as well they should be.

             Move aside and let the man go through..

       • Janet 6.1.1.2

         7 April 2017 at 10:06 pm

         You obviously don’t live in Northland.
         I have always found Winston to be consistent on the big issues for years and years.
         He consistently “listens” and correctly reflects back the views of the majority – the “silent” majority.
         We all know he is very experienced at getting his vocal messages out but I am amazed at just how visible and available he has been in Northland. I hear he also works solidly behind the scenes for individuals.
         But most importantly he has the experience, confidence and presence needed of a PM. I hate to see this go to waste and National get in again!

   • saveNZ 6.2

     7 April 2017 at 10:22 am

     Based on the fact that the Natz even can arrange for the SIS to work for them and defame opposition like in the Phil Goff case, then it looks more like a set up for Natz cronies to cheat and cling to power by creating a scandal that takes the focus off their appalling running of this country into the ground and the theft and exploitation of it.

   • ianmac 6.3

     7 April 2017 at 10:48 am

     Wasn’t there a famous court case involving Defamation and David Lange? I think it ended with the right to opinion especially re politics.

   • Cinny 6.4

     7 April 2017 at 11:53 am

     Hey Janet, I like your ideas 😀 A friend and I thought that Winston would make a wonderful “Speaker” of the House, as well as the Minister for Seniors (would be great to have a new ministry looking after the seniors). He was brilliant as Minister of Foreign Affairs and would make a very fine PM. It will be a great day when we can finally feel proud of our PM, it’s sure been a long time coming.

     It sure is going to be an exciting election this year.

     • LivinInTheBay 6.4.1

       7 April 2017 at 2:41 pm

       “He was a brilliant minister of foreign affairs”

       Really?

       You do know that it took years to rebuild relations with some of our closest partners after her was foreign affairs minister?

       • McFlock 6.4.1.1

         7 April 2017 at 2:59 pm

         I know you just said it. Does that make it fact?

       • Cinny 6.4.1.2

         7 April 2017 at 10:11 pm

         Yes really… ask Condoleeza Rice ex US Secretary of State.

         LITB you’ve been busy as on here today, how about you back up your reply to my comment with some facts.

         https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Winston_Peters_Condoleezza_Rice_Auckland_2008_DSC_4939_a.jpg

7. greywarshark 7

   7 April 2017 at 10:22 am

   SCOOP NOW! Get the facts and support our good journalists, make them our plat du jour this Friday – tonight!

   ‘Opening the Election’ Forum Event

   Scoop invites you to a night of new ideas, innovative thinkers, music and fun this Friday 7 April as part of our ‘Opening the Election’ crowdfunding campaign.

   We invite you to a Scoop crowdfunding campaign event with Speakers and Panel Discussion on innovative ideas and solutions for our future.
   7 April from 7pm – 10pm @ 17 Tory St, Wellington
   Streaming online at this page – Bookmark it now!
   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1704/S00003/scoop-opening-the-election-forum-event.htm

   The event will feature Nicky Hager, Geoff Simmons (TOP), Susan Cullen (VP Maori Party), Mike Joy, and many more.
   It will also feature music by Mara TK, Ruth Mundy and Lake South all of whom explore social themes in their music.

   This event will focus on potential positive ideas and solutions we can harness to move New Zealand towards becoming a better society for all by 2040 (200 years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

   Speakers will discuss solutions to the following top 5 election and societal issues as identified by Scoop readers in our recent HiveMind participatory engagement exercise:

   1. Environment, 2. Housing, 3. Health, 4. Inequality and 5. The future of work.

   Full event details and list of speakers are available here

   If you are not in Wellington you can view the whole event live on this Scoop page or on Facebook. You can even get involved by asking questions or submitting comments via twitter.

   Please check in and spread the word online to help us reach our goal of $30,000 to make this ambitious project to “open the Election” in 2017 a reality.

   We will have books, t-shirts and diaries for silent auction as well as giveaways and tasty food and drinks.

   • Cinny 7.1

     7 April 2017 at 11:49 am

     Awesomesauce, thank you for the link, will tune into the stream, sounds like it will be a brilliant event. Enjoy 😀

     • greywarshark 7.1.1

       7 April 2017 at 11:52 am

       Cheers Cinny

8. joe90 8

   7 April 2017 at 10:29 am

   Meanwhile, far far away, in a parallel universe……

   President Hillary Clinton quietly sent her son-in-law, investment banker Marc Mezvinsky, to Iraq on Monday, adding “winning the war against ISIS” to his growing list of responsibilities, which also include “solving Middle East peace,” “heading the new White House Office of American Innovation,” “managing the U.S.-China summit,” and “ending the opioid crisis.” The Chinese government, convinced of Mezvinsky’s importance in the Clinton White House, not only has established a “back channel” to him through its ambassador in Washington, it has also quietly encouraged a Chinese state bank to invest in his troubled hedge fund. While Clinton’s husband has largely stayed out of the White House and remained at home in New York, her daughter Chelsea has also taken a unpaid role in the administration while continuing to run the family foundation and earning five- and six-figure fees giving speeches to corporations with interests in Washington. Meanwhile, most top sub-Cabinet level positions are still unfilled, though in one piece of unexpected news, longtime Clinton confidante and political adviser Sidney Blumenthal has been removed from his brief stint as a member of the National Security Council.

   https://civichall.org/civicist/imagine-the-alternatives/

   • Sabine 8.1

     7 April 2017 at 1:20 pm

     +1

     • garibaldi 8.1.1

       7 April 2017 at 4:34 pm

       +2.
       You missed out the results of Hillary’s war against Russia!

9. J'Accuse 9

   7 April 2017 at 10:29 am

   https://28pages.org/2017/04/06/complaint-in-911-suit-reveals-depth-of-case-against-kingdom/

10. Maui 10

    7 April 2017 at 10:52 am

    ‘Where Britain’s Regions Fit in the Brexit’

    .. free article from a well-known US publisher

    https://www.stratfor.com/sample/image/where-britains-regions-fit-brexit?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_3E0tg1_cgmXuMH2WnSO0xOcNRbHR-OblrnVjROQuHVwywDpUpQ8ecOZvRBgjy7j3k97UGNP1oWFjipmlUK82-Jf9oiQ&_hsmi=50112927&utm_campaign=LL_Content_Digest&utm_content=50110662&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email

11. tsmithfield 11

    7 April 2017 at 11:14 am

    The statement from Little that some could interpret as defamatory to the Hagamans is still on the Labour Party website. Is that wise, given the defamation proceedings that are happening at the moment?

    http://www.labour.org.nz/auditor_general_must_investigate_niue_deal_for_donor

    I can imagine the Hagamans would not have been too happy about this from the statement:

    It is why I have today written to the Auditor-General asking her to investigate whether Earl Hagaman – who was the largest living financial donor to the National Party – giving money to the party at the same time his company was tendering for the Niue contract was above board.

    • Barfly 11.1

      7 April 2017 at 11:27 am

      You think that is defamation? Wow.

      • LivinInTheBay 11.1.1

        7 April 2017 at 12:20 pm

        It’s the 5 or 6 statements to the media he then followed that up with that are where the defamation allegedly occurred.

        I quote:

        “The Hagamans’ lawyer Richard Fowler QC said Little’s comments went beyond a neutral position that the issue required investigation, as his use of the phrases “stinks to high heaven”, “murky” and “dodgy deals” showed.”

        • DoublePlusGood 11.1.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 2:20 pm

          The Hagaman’s lawyer is being paid a lot of money to say stupid nonsense like that. Such statements do not constitute defamation.

      • saveNZ 11.1.2

        7 April 2017 at 3:19 pm

        Yep might as well be in a political police state if that’s considered defamation! Oops maybe we are….

12. mauī 12

    7 April 2017 at 11:34 am

    US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson “those steps are underway” in reference to an international coalition to remove Assad. Shit, not good.

    • Johan 12.1

      7 April 2017 at 11:58 am

      Yeah Right! Now that Assad is holding all the aces when it comes to defeating his enemies and the fact that Trump’s approval rating by the American public is below 35%, the major aggressors in the middle east can ease up.
      Trump is playing the American public like a fiddle, just like during the election campaign. The USA will never send boots on the ground to fight Assad and sending the air force against Russian planes is out of the question, even Donald won’t be forced to play that game against Putin.

    • McFlock 12.2

      7 April 2017 at 12:06 pm

      Fucking stupid statement.

      So basically Putin can back down publicly, or the Trump administration can back down publicly/disown the statement, or we’re looking at a war where both sides officially have troops on the ground.

      • Johan 12.2.1

        7 April 2017 at 2:03 pm

        Watch as Porter & Ross with 50+ tomahawks gives Assad a subtle message. No reply by the Russians, which means Putin is put on notice despite their two military bases. Trump is singing a different tune as the Generals call the shots in Washington.

        “Fucking stupid statement”, Yeah Right!

        • McFlock 12.2.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 2:13 pm

          …and what if Russians at this base were killed?

          edit: I’m not opposed to the strikes as such, and if the generals are in charge that’s not too bad. But the Russian committment is a massively complicating factor that to me requires serious input from diplomats, as well.

          • Johan 12.2.1.1.1

            7 April 2017 at 2:33 pm

            Before the tomahawks hit their target, the Russian top brass in Syria were notified/warned what was going to happen.

            “But the Russian commitment is a massively complicating factor that to me requires serious input from diplomats, as well”. What the FUCK are you on about? The reason for Russian involvement in Syria is quite elementary. Do a little bit of research before shooting off your mouth.

            • McFlock 12.2.1.1.1.1

              7 April 2017 at 2:52 pm

              Bases and internal prestige, as well as some nice systems evaluation opportunities.

              But my point is that it’s all very well retaliating against someone who doesn’t have significant support from a dominant power, leave it to the generals. Fine.

              But the changes in the state department, trump’s appointments, and his personality suggest that when it comes to nuances about international diplomacy, the US is a blind bull in a china shop (giggles @ appropriate metaphor).

              So they warned the Russian top brass. Did they leave time for it to filter down to evacuate troops on the ground? Were they damned sure there weren’t even a couple of airplane mechanics advising the syrians on maintenance at that base? You know, genuine reasons for the Russians to get pissed rather than “yeah, fair call, Assad deserved a slap in the face”. Is the damage from the attack so bad it changes the picture in the battle zone, or is it just an inconvenience?

              This isn’t like launching cruise missiles at Afghanistan or even Saddam’s Iraq: you might piss off someone who can do something in response. Do you trust trump to know how to deal with that sort of situation? I sure don’t.

              • Johan …

                7 April 2017 at 4:14 pm

                You may want to get back to your readers, when you have some pertinent info instead of spouting off your fairy tale opinions.
                You seem to have no idea about the time line of this event, who was informed and why Shayrat Air Base was targeted.

                • McFlock …

                  7 April 2017 at 4:22 pm

                  🙄

                  Well, if you have any you can feel free to present it, rather than just doing a TS-typical “you know nothing you silly person, educate yourself while I offer no evidence or even formulate an explicit contrary opinion”.

13. roy cartland 13

    7 April 2017 at 11:34 am

    Anyone watching RNZ’s Prime Minister retrospective series by Guyon? Quite enlightening so far:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/programmes/the-9th-floor/story/201839427/the-reformer-geoffrey-palmer

14. greywarshark 14

    7 April 2017 at 11:51 am

    Like national radio? Like to keep public national radio? Like to keep RadioNZ from becoming a talkfest or the Natquest?

    Then CBB is looking to you for help.

    Coalition for Better Broadcasting
    Become a Member and help us improve media and broadcasting in New Zealand
    You’ll get entry to the AGM as well – bonus!

    Kia ora

    We’re getting excited about our first ever AGM outside of Auckland.

    It’s at 1pm, this Sunday, April 9th at the Thistle Hall on Upper Cuba Street in Wellington.

    We’ll unveil our new logo, discuss a very interesting 12 months, and later we’re going to have a bit of fun with four guest speakers and a video screen.

    We’d love you to come but you need to be a paid up CBB Member. It’s only $40 waged and $20 unwaged.

    Head over to our website to register so you can be a part of our Wellington AGM. You’ll also be helping us promote public media and broadcasting, before and after the election later this year.

    If you’ve previously been a CBB Member, you’ll also need to re-register. If there’s any problems or you’re already a wonderful CBB Member please contact me here.

    Thanks
    Myles Thomas

    You can unsubscribe by clicking here.
    Opt out of all Coalition for Better Broadcasting mailings.
    88 Sackville Street
    Auckland, AUK -1021
    New Zealand

15. The Chairman 15

    7 April 2017 at 11:57 am

    Seems the Greens want to make Aotearoa great again.
    
    Does their new campaign commercial inspire you to vote Green? Or do they need to go back to the drawing-board?

    I’m sure the Greens would appreciate your feedback.

    Say what you like about Trump, but I personally found this ad inspiring:
    

    • greywarshark 15.1

      7 April 2017 at 12:51 pm

      Had a look at the Great Greens and it looks pretty good to me. It emphasises it is onto the modern pace, that any age, nationality, can be for the NZ life and citizenship. They are thinking of the future, that life should have its fun times that everyone can enjoy, that others out there care about the country and want friendly interaction with others, and they introduced a bit of humour, a cute animal, and I give it 100%. Time later for more definite details. We have lost our vision of NZ as a good place to live in, and this gives us a series of images to hold onto and showing the sort of outgoing, non pretentious people that it is easy to warm to.

      That’s my feeling.

      Donald Trump can show off to the media that he can walk on water, and the sooner the better.

      • The Chairman 15.1.1

        7 April 2017 at 1:20 pm

        It’s cheery, bright and full of smiley faces, but politically it doesn’t inspire me. It’s more like a send yourself to Wellington ad. Unlike Trumps ad that hits at the core of the problem. Thus I would have preferred something more along those lines.

        • greywarshark 15.1.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 1:44 pm

          The Chairman
          Perhaps they are tailored to the progress of the campaign. Could it be they start off smiley before we get into the teeth baring when they may look too lightweight? Hitting the core of the problem at this moment may be too much of a punch, and they are saving that for the ko at the end. Woohoo for that.

          • weka 15.1.1.1.1

            7 April 2017 at 3:18 pm

            Anyone who wants serious information about the Greens would look at their website, esp the policy and press releases.

            The Chairman has a ratio of something like 90% negative criticism to 10% positive (Greens and Labour). Comparing the Greens to Trump tells me they don’t know much about the Greens, what they are doing or why. It’s a complete no-sequitur.

            I like the video and agree that it’s part of a tailored campaign. Their strategy this year is showing voters who they are as people and as a party (they reckon that people know what their environmental stances are), and that they’re engaged and competent. This is the start of that.

            • greywarshark 15.1.1.1.1.1

              7 April 2017 at 3:20 pm

              Thanks weka for that about the Greens. That sounds very wise and media sussed to me.

            • The Chairman 15.1.1.1.1.2

              8 April 2017 at 12:31 pm

              weka
              Any party seriously wanting to grow their support and voter interest to go look at their website would want to ensure they have an effective ad/marketing campaign to entice more to go there in the first place.

              I wasn’t comparing the Greens to Trump. The Trump commercial was an example of the type of hard hitting political ad that inspired me.

              The Greens ad didn’t relay they are engaged with the issues we are facing. Nor did they come across as professional and competent, but it did portray them and their supporters as a diverse, warm and cheery bunch.

              However, those with serious political concerns and those doing it ruff will be wondering what they are so happy and cheery about? Therefore, to some, this ad would paint the Greens as being somewhat out of touch.

            • The Chairman 15.1.1.1.1.3

              8 April 2017 at 1:01 pm

              weka
              As for being critical, am I not allowed to dislike the Green’s ad? Moreover, to express that dislike?

              Does ones criticism have to fall within a certain ratio (negative positive) to be acceptable or considered? Was insinuating I’m more critical than not your attempt to somewhat invalidate me, thus imply any criticism from me holds no merit?

              Surely it’s the criticism you should be looking at and addressing, not the ratio of ones criticism.

              Can you not see how the Greens could benefit from the feedback (albeit if it’s criticism)? If a large number feel like me, it would be in their best interest to change tack. If I’m the odd one out and it’s widely liked, then they will know they are on the right track.

              Additionally, if the Greens were confidently and genuinely happy with their ad, then wouldn’t any criticism merely be water off a ducks back?

              The same applies to any party and the positions (and policies) they take or propose. Fear of criticism doesn’t relay confidence in their stance. And if they don’t believe in it, why would voters?

          • The Chairman 15.1.1.1.2

            8 April 2017 at 12:29 pm

            greywarshark
            One certainly hopes they will progress and improve as they go. I wouldn’t rely on this one drawing in the crowds.

16. ianmac 16

    7 April 2017 at 12:06 pm

    The Little jury is out now.
    Jastice Karen Clark said to the jury: “…As Lani Hagaman had not been named by Little in any of his comments, the jury had to decide whether an ordinary, fair-minded reader would identify her as being criticised.

    Clark said she had ruled that Little’s comments were protected by qualified privilege as he had a duty, “whether legal or social or moral”, to comment.

    However, that defence could be “defeated or effectively negated” if the jury found his comments were predominantly motivated by ill will targeted directly at the Hagamans, or if he had taken improper advantage of the occasion….”

    There is s smidgen of hope then.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91320547/jury-retires-in-labour-leader-andrew-littles-defamation-trial

    • bwaghorn 16.1

      7 April 2017 at 12:48 pm

      ”Clark said she had ruled that Little’s comments were protected by qualified privilege as he had a duty, “whether legal or social or moral”, to comment.”

      if that isn’t judge code for chuck this case in the trash were it belongs ill eat my cow shit stained hat.

      • McFlock 16.1.1

        7 April 2017 at 1:10 pm

        Yeah, that “predominantly motivated by ill will or targeted directly at the Hagamans” was a good line, too.

        Either way I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s appealed.

        • weka 16.1.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 2:28 pm

          what would be the timeframe for an appeal?

          • McFlock 16.1.1.1.1

            7 April 2017 at 2:38 pm

            no idea. I just think one side has money to burn, and the other side might well be irked at falling foul of an injustice.

            • weka 16.1.1.1.1.1

              7 April 2017 at 3:53 pm

              just wondering if it would happen before the election. In which case there is probably added motivation for the Hagaman’s to go to appeal.

              • McFlock …

                7 April 2017 at 3:54 pm

                agreed

                • Jilly Bee …

                  7 April 2017 at 5:27 pm

                  Apparently the jury has retired for the weekend. Can’t find anything on the Stuff or RNZ websites but the Herald’s Claire Trevett gives me the impression that she really, really, really want’s the jury to find in the plaintiffs’ favour. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834187

                  • JanM …

                    7 April 2017 at 9:17 pm

                    Yes, she’s a thoroughly nasty piece of work, that one , isn’t she!

17. Carolyn_nth 17

    7 April 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Tweet from Vernon Small today:

    Stats NZ fun facts: Private dwellings estimate: 1,836,000 (at March 31, 2017). Households estimate: 1,718,500.

    It’s here on the Stats NZ website.

    So, if that’s an accurate measurement, it means there are over 100,000 unoccupied dwellings in NZ. How so?

    • greywarshark 17.1

      7 April 2017 at 1:03 pm

      When housing problems became overwhelming in London in the 1960-70s young people would squat. And though frowned on it didn’t mean that you would be evicted by uniformed armed men. Does anyone have a tale to tell about those days?

    • weka 17.2

      7 April 2017 at 3:55 pm

      Holiday homes are part of it. Lots of holiday towns have high rates of housing not permanently occupied. You can find the stats on line by city/town (can’t remember where).

      • weka 17.2.1

        7 April 2017 at 4:28 pm

        e.g.

        More unoccupied dwellings

        The number of unoccupied dwellings rose 16.4 percent between 2006 and 2013. There were:

        185,448 in 2013
        159,276 in 2006.

        In 2013, 1 in 10 dwellings were unoccupied. Nearly one-quarter were classified as unoccupied because all the occupants were temporarily away at the time of the census, but about three-quarters had no occupants at all.

        Every region had more unoccupied dwellings than at the last census, although there was little change in the Auckland region. The largest percentage increase was in the Canterbury region, which had 28,317 unoccupied dwellings in 2013, up from 18,117 in 2006. This was a 56.3 percent increase, and was related to the 2010–11 Canterbury earthquakes.

        http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-housing/occupied-unoccupied-dwellings.aspx

        Can’t find the Auckland or Welly numbers but here are some SI ones,

        “There are 46,590 occupied dwellings and 3,915 unoccupied dwellings in Dunedin City.
        …
        There are 186 dwellings under construction in Dunedin City, and 9,756 under construction in New Zealand.”

        http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-a-place.aspx?request_value=15022&tabname=

        “There are 11,508 occupied dwellings and 4,467 unoccupied dwellings in Queenstown-Lakes District.
        …
        There are 237 dwellings under construction in Queenstown-Lakes District, and 9,756 under construction in New Zealand.”

        http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-a-place.aspx?request_value=15000&tabname=

18. katipo 18

    7 April 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Bill English is just like us….
    http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/opinion-i-too-am-a-human-look-at-my-failure-it-is-like-your-failure/

19. joe90 19

    7 April 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Woolsey’s beaten John bomb Iran Bolton to the punch.

    Former CIA Director James Woolsey stopped by Jake Tapper’s show on CNN* to talk bombs, Iran and Syria. His goal, apparently, was to make the case that not only should the United States bomb Syria in retaliation for the gas attack earlier this week (because killing more innocents is clearly a way to punish Assad?), but also Iran

    http://crooksandliars.com/2017/04/former-cia-director-argues-two-fer-bomb

    • joe90 19.1

      7 April 2017 at 1:30 pm

      They’re off.

      Breaking: U.S. launches cruise missiles at Syrian regime airbase in response to chemical attack https://t.co/JjOtG3LE6O— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 7, 2017

      • The Chairman 19.1.1

        7 April 2017 at 1:43 pm

        Reacting on the balance of probability? Where’s the proof, the smoking gun etc…

        • Bill 19.1.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 2:36 pm

          Nice video. Obvious parallels.

          I sincerely hope, that if this is the first of a series of steps by western governments that we, ordinary people, see to it that it all blows up in the fuckers faces like nothing they’ve ever seen before.

          • The Chairman 19.1.1.1.1

            8 April 2017 at 1:21 pm

            Yes, unfortunately the parallels are far to similar.

20. Sabine 20

    7 April 2017 at 1:52 pm

    the world is full of fuckwits.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

    ” The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at his estate in Mar-a-Lago in Florida, sending an unmistakably aggressive message about Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the military power at his disposal.

    Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.

    Unlike Mr. Obama, who weighed — and ultimately rejected — the use of a similar strike at targets after Syria used chemical weapons in 2013, Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.”

    • Bill 20.1

      7 April 2017 at 2:24 pm

      the world is full of fuckwits.

      Depressingly true.

      • garibaldi 20.1.1

        7 April 2017 at 4:52 pm

        Exactly , and it turns out Obama was one of them!

        • Sabine 20.1.1.1

          7 April 2017 at 5:37 pm

          I know, and Labour did it too.

          I mean, gosh, golly and here have some pudding.

21. John G 21

    7 April 2017 at 3:53 pm

    With all the denial going on over Hit and Run, this interview on Hardtalk nine years ago is a very telling reminder of what we should be doing our utmost to avoid.

22. fisiani 22

    7 April 2017 at 4:47 pm

    Wow. Never thought the damages would be that much.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS