Open mike 07/07/2016

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 6:00 am, July 7th, 2016 - 101 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

101 comments on “Open mike 07/07/2016 ”

Comments are now closed

Paul 1

7 July 2016 at 6:21 am

Another day in John Key’s neo-liberal nightmare.
We have become a cruel, greedy, uncaring and selfish nation under his wretched leadership.

Uncaring, greedy.
Power companies.

Power prices are an ongoing worry for many people, who hold back heating their homes in a bid to cut down on the power bill, a survey shows.
Figures from a new Consumer NZ survey showed 38 per cent of people said their homes were not as warm as they would like because they were restricting their energy use to keep bills down.
Asked how much they tried to cut their power bill, 16 per cent said not at all, 29 per cent said sometimes, 41 per cent said all the time and 14 per cent of people were neutral.
Those living in a rented home were more likely to turn down the heat, with 43 per cent of renters cutting back on heating because of costs.
That compares with 33 per cent who own their homes and cut heating to save.
Grey Power Auckland president Anne-Marie Coury said a lot of those choosing not to turn the heater on because of high costs were pensioners.
“In Auckland, 51 per cent that are entitled to national Super … have no other income. So if their rates go up … what do they cut back on? Food and electricity.”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669927
- Gangnam Style 1.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:25 am
  
  Yesterday afternoon I had to drop something off to an old fella at his council flat, he came to the door dressed in jacket & big wooly hat that covered his ears like he was in Antarctica! I asked if he was alright warm enough etc? He said ‘all good mate, you have a good day’.
Paul 2

7 July 2016 at 6:27 am

Another day in John Key’s neo-liberal nightmare.
We have become a cruel, greedy, uncaring and selfish nation under his wretched leadership.

Uncaring, greedy.
Landlords and real estate companies that manage rentals.

A family who huddle together in one room of their freezing mould-ridden rental to keep warm say they are fed up and scared for their health.
Seth Lougheed, and partner Amy, say their Tokoroa rental is so cold and damp that their three-month-old baby’s lips and hands turn blue.
“We are scared for our baby’s sake, she is getting colds non-stop and I have got letters from my doctor and Plunket nurse because they are worried,” Amy, whose name has been changed for legal reasons, said.electricity.”
Despite paying $240 a week for their three bedroom home the couple say they can only use their tiny lounge, dining and kitchen area because the rest of the house is uninhabitable.
That’s because substantial black mould seeps through the walls and carpet of the bedrooms. The place is also freezing despite a fire going constantly.
The majority of windows and doors also don’t shut properly, the floor under the bath is soft, the wooden deck is rotten, the back garden floods, they had to install their own smoke alarms, the heat pump is out-of-order, and the roof panel above the fire recently collapsed, they claim. The list goes on.
Amy said while they have repeatedly complained to Ray White Real Estate Tokoroa, which manages the property, little has been done to remedy the problems.
“We told the property manager six months ago about the mould and were told just to wipe it off but it’s not getting rid of the spores so it just keeps coming back,” she said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/81823651/family-trapped-in-mould-horror-house
- RedLogix 2.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 9:51 am
  
  Not good enough all round.
  
  Despite paying $240 a week for their three bedroom home the couple say they can only use their tiny lounge, dining and kitchen area because the rest of the house is uninhabitable.
  
  We’ve been in this situation too; in fact I suspect a lot of New Zealanders shut down part of their house in winter because they cannot afford to heat it all.
  
  And this is largely due to a building industry that for generations has been overpriced and under-performing. In my opinion about three-quarters of kiwi houses need renovating with a bulldozer.
  - stunned mullet 2.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:05 am
    
    Spot on.
  - Gangnam Style 2.1.2
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:27 am
    
    After the floods in South Dunedin a bunch of residents did just that, just shut off the damaged part of the house & lived in 1/2 rooms.
  - Chch_chiquita 2.1.3
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:37 am
    
    When we came to NZ we were told winter here is an indoor experience as much as it is an outdoor one. We have had wind coming from the floor as it was not insulated just like the rest of the house; there was no heating source so we had to use a portable gas heater and oil heaters at night; you can imagine the wet windows in the morning and the fight to wipe them. No amount of open windows during the day can prevent the condensation that comes at night. It pushed us to do everything we could to be out of there and into our own house, which we did exactly a year after we moved into it. But we are privileged to be able to do that and it makes me so angry there are no regulations when it comes to rentals. If landlords cannot afford to provide a decent standard of living for their tenants they should not be landlords.
    - RedLogix 2.1.3.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 11:38 am
      
      There are two types of rentals; purpose built new apartments and townhouses which are generally ok. It’s not often appreciated but historically something in the order of 10-15% of all new builds are intended as rental investments. Generally these units will be pretty good; the landlord has put in solid money upfront and wants to keep them for decades for their rental income, not their speculative capital gain.
      
      But historically the bulk of rentals are ordinary homes that are in the last 25% of their economic life … and no-one wants them as their ‘dream home’ anymore. These are the problem houses; either an energetic owner will renovate them in the hope that the capital gain will cover the considerable costs OR a landlord will just leave them to slowly depreciate and decay while the rental income makes a modest cash flow.
      
      A lot depends on the location and the long term plans of the landlord. Bear in mind that a decent reno on a run-down older house may well cost > $50k and with a rental income of only $15k pa or less, plus rates, insurance, interest and other costs … if there is no capital gain it absolutely makes no commercial sense to upgrade. You can spend a lot of money doing up a rental, and the income barely changes. The tenant gets all the benefits of warmer house and lower power bills, the landlord gets nothing except maybe an improved occupancy rate.
      
      The core problem here is a lot of mis-aligned market signals.
      - Colonial Viper 2.1.3.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 11:56 am
        
        That’s a good analysis from a front line landlord POV, thanks RL.
      - Draco T Bastard 2.1.3.1.2
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:22 pm
        
        Bear in mind that a decent reno on a run-down older house may well cost > $50k
        
        My landlord is presently renovating this house and has budgeted $80k to do it. Now that he’s started he’s concerned that he hasn’t budgeted enough.
        
        The place is ~40 years old, it’s not in bad condition but it’s the not the best either. The landlord does, as a matter of fact, live here as well (I rent a room).
        
        The core problem here is a lot of mis-aligned market signals.
        
        Actually, the core problem is that the market doesn’t really work in housing.
  - Draco T Bastard 2.1.4
    
    7 July 2016 at 4:13 pm
    
    +1
- Chris 2.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 1:20 pm
  
  Andrew Little has fallen into the same trap as Bennett by referring to the need to increase the number of “beds” for the homeless. How patronising is that? Guess it’s to be expected though, from the party for the workers – meaning those with jobs, that is.
  
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81851560/labour-leader-andrew-little-unveils-60m-plan-to-boost-emergency-housing
  - Sabine 2.2.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 6:49 pm
    
    small difference between Paula (Has got her benefits) Bennett and Andrew Little.
    
    The National MP of Do Nothing Paula B. wants to spend more money on existing beds not increase the number of emergency beds available.
    Andrew Little wants to increase the Number of emergency beds/housing as there is currently and prolly for a few years coming a need.
    
    Safe your concern for the National Party and their Do Nothing Minister of Fuck UPs.
    - Chris 2.2.1.1
      
      10 July 2016 at 1:26 pm
      
      Okay then.
- Draco T Bastard 2.3
  
  7 July 2016 at 4:12 pm
  
  That’s because substantial black mould seeps through the walls and carpet of the bedrooms.
  The majority of windows and doors also don’t shut properly, the floor under the bath is soft, the wooden deck is rotten…
  
  Ok, that place actually needs to be condemned.
  - Sabine 2.3.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 6:47 pm
    
    quote from someone at AKL Council when i called to have a property that i rented checked and condemned.
    
    “If we were to condemn all AKl houses that are below standard and even more like slum buildings we would loose over 50% of all Houses in AKL.”
    
    so you see there is a problem.
    - Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 7:56 pm
      
      I kinda realised that aspect a couple of years ago when the WOF for rental properties was first mooted. The idea would be to progressively work through them.
Colonial Viper 3

7 July 2016 at 7:05 am

Obama political appointees to the FBI and Justice Department clear the way for Hillary Clinton to run

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/folks-put-pieces-together-judge-jeanine-rages-over-comeyclinton-debacle

“This is a case, Hillary Clinton, that cries out for presentation to a grand jury. Political appointees including Jim Comey and Loretta Lynch should not be making this decision.”

“Now what we have is a country that doesn’t believe in the system anymore. This case should have gone to a grand jury. Ordinary Americans should have heard this case. You’ve got political appointees like Jim Comey, Loretta Lynch, and someone who was beneath Loretta Lynch who is also a political appointee making this decision, reeks of favoritism.”

Judge Pirro then lays the timeline out and very bluntly asks everyone to put the pieces together.

“One day you’ve got Bill Clinton meeting with Loretta Lynch, the next day you’ve got Hillary Clinton meeting with the FBI, and then after that you’ve got Hillary Clinton campaigning with the president after she says ‘I would consider Loretta Lynch as my Attorney General’, folks put the pieces together.”

Donald Trump says it more simply – under his presidency, Loretta Lynch would be out of a job. But Clinton can promise her additional terms in office if she won the presidency.

“It’s a bribe! I mean the Attorney General is sitting there saying ‘you know if I get Hillary off the hook, I’m gonna have four more years, or eight more years, but if she loses I’m out of a job'”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-06/trump-says-clinton-trying-bribe-loretta-lynch
- Muttonbird 3.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:26 am
  
  No one cares, bro.
  - Peter Swift 3.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:34 am
    
    Nailed it. lol
    - Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 11:43 am
      
      Neither of you care about political interference in due legal process. Thanks for clearing that up.
      - Peter Swift 3.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:29 pm
        
        In my opinion, born from principle and common decency, that you support a racist, misogynist, billionaire one percenter invalidates you from giving me shit over just about anything.
        To me, your opinion is as valid as nf, kkk rednecks.
        I’m underwhelmed. lol
        
        Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:36 pm
        
        Straw man me all you like, but Trump will be far better for NZ than neocon infected Killary Clinton.
        
        If only because Trump will be far less likely to start a shooting war with China or Russia in the Pacific, and he will shitcan both the TPPA and TTIP.
        
        Peter Swift …
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:49 pm
        
        I don’t mind how you try to wish it all away 🙂
        
        Anyway, I’m under orders from Bill, now.
        As you’re untouchable, you’ll be all right to carry on by yourself until the coast clears and the dust settles. lol
        
        McFlock …
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:09 pm
        
        not untouchable.
        just not obsessively touchable when it derails a post 🙂
        
        Either way, just be aware you’re goading someone who thinks he’s channeling messages from the “intrinsic intelligence of the universe”…
        
        Peter Swift …
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:18 pm
        
        Heh
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:23 pm
        
        Just make a serious political comment instead of astroturfing. That’s all it takes.
        
        Peter Swift …
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:28 pm
        
        When you say “serious political comment” you mean join you on a daily basis in rabbiting on about neolibs, Trump, Putin, RT links, Labour are shit and we’re all going die from the radiation.
        
        It’d take a heavy hammer and a willing head smacker first.
        
        Punching out now, so make sure the cheque is in the post, ta.
- bearded git 3.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:37 am
  
  Zero hedge really has it in for Clinton
  - Colonial Viper 3.2.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 11:44 am
    
    You wouldn’t be a member of the Clinton fan club if you consider the implications of the Obama White House smoothing away felony charges for her.
  - Lanthanide 3.2.2
    
    7 July 2016 at 2:24 pm
    
    Zero Hedge never met a conspiracy theory they didn’t mind repeating. Or inventing.
    - Colonial Viper 3.2.2.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 2:55 pm
      
      Be led like a lamb to the slaughter, if you wish. After all the farmer has fed you without fail every day, how could he be wishing anything bad for you? To question otherwise is to be a “conspiracy theorist.”
      - Lanthanide 3.2.2.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 3:53 pm
        
        Boy who cried wolf, etc.
- cyclone mike 3.3
  
  7 July 2016 at 8:34 pm
  
  I’ve got no time for the FBI but it’s not as simple as: An Obama political appointment so he does was the president wants.
  
  Here’s the wiki short version on James Comey:
  
  James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  
  He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush’s administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005. He was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General.
ScottGN 4

7 July 2016 at 8:13 am

An interesting article in The Age (and presumably SMH) asking how was it that, in spite of the polls throughout the campaign calling it pretty much 50-50, the Gallery in Canberra allowed themselves to get suckered in by the Turnbull government’s spin and were all confidently predicting a reasonably comfortable majority for the Coalition.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016-opinion/election-2016-the-uncomfortable-truth-is-the-media-got-it-wrong-how-did-we-do-it-20160705-gpzatm.html
ScottGN 5

7 July 2016 at 8:26 am

What an odd piece by Trevett in the Herald about Andrew Little. A complete load of rubbish, cliched writing. And, predictably, it’s been turned into a hatchet job on the Labour leader.
- Sabine 5.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 8:46 am
  
  she has got to earn a living somehow?
- Sabine 5.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 9:44 am
  
  this may have something to do with it.
  
  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11670146
- Muttonbird 5.3
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:19 am
  
  There were two pieces. One headlined ‘The Man who would be King’ which is a story about inflated egos seeking glory but failing.
  
  The other was referenced the Labour housing statements as a ‘Crusade’ which is a futile and divisive part of history still playing out on the world stage.
  
  Both suggested the datedness and futility of Labour policy and the articles themselves only explored the policy and leadership ambitions as it relates to government policy and the leader of the government, not touching on the people for which the policy aim to help. She seeked to consolidate and defend the fragmented and reluctant govt policy and present it as worthwhile but over a longer timeframe.
  
  She really is the stuff floating on the surface of stagnant government thought.
  - Gangnam Style 5.3.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:31 am
    
    The Herald currently has the Trevitt article with the headline “He’s not ready to be Prime Minister”, wankers.
    - Ben 5.3.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 10:58 am
      
      He is not. You should be applauding the fact that the Herald has produced an accurate headline.
      - Gangnam Style 5.3.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 1:54 pm
        
        I can just picture you applauding like a seal, arf! arf!
      - Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1.2
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:27 pm
        
        Technically speaking, no one is ready to be PM until after they’ve been PM for awhile. It really is the experience that counts.
        
        John Key, even after 7 years in the job, still isn’t ready to be PM.
      - Incognito 5.3.1.1.3
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:27 pm
        
        IMO this is framing it the wrong way and asking a misleading question.
        
        The question should be whether he’s capable to take the responsibility and fulfil his duty if/when he has to step up.
        
        Similarly and simultaneously, the same question should be asked about the team he’s leading now and the coalition he might be leading.
        
        I’d say that Andrew Little and his team are as capable, if not more, as John Key and his band of MPs.
      - reason 5.3.1.1.4
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:44 pm
        
        “Andrew Little: Is it not the truth that he has taken no action to stop the sale of our productive land into overseas ownership and that his pledge to ensure that we will not become tenants in our own land is just more hollow words from a hollow man?
        
        Hon Steven Joyce: Angry Andrew.
        
        Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, he is angry because he has had to wait a wee while to ask his question. But I stand by my record”
        
        ******************************************
        
        “Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government’s response in housing has been quite comprehensive”
        
        ********************************************
        “Andrew Little: Does he agree with Nick Smith that the costs of modern insulation and heating standards are not worth the benefits, given that the benefits are preventing Kiwi kids from getting sick and from dying?
        
        Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I agree with Nick Smith in the context of the statements he would have been making. ”
        **********************************************
        “Andrew Little: How proud is the Prime Minister of the company he is now keeping when the Panama Papers lump New Zealand in with such auspicious company as Belize, the Seychelles, and Costa Rica in the list of 21 tax havens?
        
        Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think New Zealand can stand quite proudly on the regime that it runs here”
        
        ************************************************
        “Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he stand by his statements yesterday that New Zealand “is not a tax haven” and that we “also have an extensive disclosure regime”, when specialist law firms on trusts for foreigners point out there is no need for disclosure of identity, or trust registration, or for any such trust accounts to be audited?
        
        Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I am right”
        
        *****************************************************
        
        “Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm whether the Bahamas is a tax haven or not—I simply do not know.”
        
        *******************************************************
        
        and we’ll finish with a inside joke between two tax haven supporters
        
        “David Seymour: In what century did the wine-box inquiry take place?
        
        Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One so far back I can hardly remember it.”
        
        haha ………. get it? ………… almost like jail house humor
- bearded git 5.4
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:41 am
  
  They are worried about how sensible and honest ,yes honest, Little is sounding. It confuses them.
North 6

7 July 2016 at 10:28 am

How’s this for rubbish writing from Deputy Trev’ of the Herald ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11669873

Starting with the slightly sneering reference to “crusade” in the headline, travelling on down to suggestion by default of a practical and moral equivalence in the parties’ respective positions, and the ever-present fascination with the ‘game’ of it all.

What a John Key botty muncher is Deputy Trev’ ! Fukn unbelievable !

And what of the vox pop they’ve had up on Herald online – what are people saying about Andrew Little ? No context, no analysis, no reporting of numbers or percentages. Just out-of-the-blue, “Ya like him, or no ?
- Sabine 6.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:29 am
  
  mind this might be only to counter this from Fran Sullivan?
  
  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11669161
  - bearded git 6.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 10:54 am
    
    Love it where Fran says it is a pretty crap society that pulls the housing ladder up on the young and less well-off to preserve their unearned wealth. Well said indeed.
- Muttonbird 6.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 10:50 am
  
  Yep. She always seeks to minimise government mistakes, and opposition advances.
  
  She must have a massive property portfolio.
Save NZ 7

7 July 2016 at 11:48 am

Yep the easiest thing is to stop reading the herald. I try just to look about once a month just in case there has been some editorial change to act like a newspaper not a propaganda advertorial for Natz and friends.

As for Little he’s doing the best job he can and has united the caucus and he seems really honest. So a good contrast to Key the liar.

The only thing I am concerned about is that Labour seem to be deciding to have some sort of rah rah housing policy coming out, and that will be falling into the Natz and MSM hands.

In times of bad news, notice Key disappears, off to Fiji, Hawaii or whathaveyou. But Labour feel compelled to be in the spot light at that time so are then appearing whenever there is bad news.

There is no knight in shining armour for housing in Auckland and New Zealand. What ever is done is gonna piss a lot of people off, either the 1 in 4 migrants in Auckland, the 67% homeowners or the renters many of whom did seem to want to vote Labour or Greens last election in spite of seemingly housing policy gains for them.

There is no possible way to look good on housing and please everyone. You are more likely to displease everyone. So the best thing is to leave the Natz alone in the spotlight to face the housing crisis alone. They choreographed the situation and now it is their time to face the music (by themselves).

Don’t make any announcements Labour/Greens! Just sit tight on housing announcements and let the swords fall and MSM talons, on who deserve it. The Natz.

Labour/Greens can fix up housing when they are elected and not let that be the downfall like last election.
swordfish 8

7 July 2016 at 12:28 pm

Wouldn’t normally link to the horrendous old Daily Telegraph … but … Defeated Labour Rebels admit ‘it’s finished’, as Jeremy Corbyn refuses to Resign as Leader

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/defeated-labour-rebels-admit-its-finished-as-jeremy-corbyn-refus/

Meanwhile, over at the New Statesman … A surge in Labour Membership has further bolstered Corbyn’s leadership … http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/labour-membership-hit-600000

And why Corbyn’s allies are confident … http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/jeremy-corbyn-s-allies-believe-they-ll-win-again-because-their-opponents-haven-t
- Ad 8.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 1:40 pm
  
  Corbyn may look like the runty guy who gets sand kicked in his face all the way down the beach, but clearly he has stones of steel. The rebel MP’s bet that the Members would not rise sufficiently to his defence.
  
  They bet wrong.
  
  Corbyn has won the people, and with that, can happily knife all the PLP Rebels as quickly or as slowly as he likes, and install his own in to the shadow Cabinet. A major payback for enduring the crap.
  
  I haven’t always warmed to him personally, but I respect a well-played political defence.
  - swordfish 8.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 2:53 pm
    
    Very happy with the broad direction Corbyn and McDonnell have set out for the Party … but I’m by no means entirely uncritical of aspects of his leadership.
    
    The core problem now is that (unsurprisingly) polls suggest an overwhelming majority of voters (including around half of Labour voters) see the Party as deeply divided and, partly as a consequence, they see Corbyn as a less than capable and competent Leader. “If they can’t run their own Party, how can they run the Country” etc
    
    There’s almost an element of blackmail here … PLP gross disloyalty undermines the leadership team and destroys confidence in Labour as a viable alternative Govt … potentially leading to ever poorer poll ratings and the prospect of Corbyn becoming a lame duck leader.
    
    Owen Jones recently suggested the Corbyn team’s plan was to nurture a Left-leaning successor to take over the leadership a couple of year’s before the 2020 Election (assuming it isn’t earlier). I’d almost be prepared to accept a Corbyn compromise with the PLP by making their favoured candidate -the Soft Left’s Owen Smith – that successor. (the PLP are well aware that the membership will never accept anyone from the Centre or Right of the Party, so have reluctantly opted for Smith).
    
    Except, the Brownites and Blairites play hardball – they’re interested in exerting as much control over Smith as possible (like they tried to do with Miliband – leading to a great deal of policy ambiguity in the lead-up to the 2015 Election) and they clearly want to inflict a historic defeat on the Left of the Party. As Tony Blair once implied – the last thing they want to see is a popular electable Left-leaning Leader.
    - Ad 8.1.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 3:21 pm
      
      Blair has been immolated by the Chilcott report, but it’s no time for Corbyn to be cocky.
      
      2020 is one helluva long time to survive in an office where 2/3 of your ‘colleagues’ utterly loathe you and will slit your hamstrings every time you move.
      
      Can Corbyn ‘smile, and murder while I smile’? Not yet.
      
      Politics is, as he is figuring very very late, a whole bunch more than speechifying and apologies.
      - Hanswurst 8.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:36 pm
        
        What evidence do you have that he’s only figuring that out now? He’s very long in the tooth politically. Your suggestion seems utterly bizarre to me. More likely he knew that he was always going to face an enormous amount of adversity, and there was no course of action he could choose that would not result in at least one major stand-off.
        
        Ad 8.1.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:47 pm
        
        I’ll leave that judgement for six months and look back.
        But so far Corbyn:
        
        – hasn’t unified the MPs he has to work with
        – hasn’t unified the MPs to the Members
        – hasn’t made a mark against the Conservatives
        – hasn’t won anything
        – hasn’t raised any money of note
        – hasn’t got a functioning shadow Cabinet
        – hasn’t convinced the only mildly leftie paper the Guardian
        – was on the wrong side of the Brexit vote and doesn’t have a plan for it
        
        (He definitely has got more ordinary members. But this isn’t an episode of Robin Hood.)
        
        Now, it’s quite possible this set of failures is all part of some astonishing masterplan that you can impute for him. Go for it. To me that list of failures signifies a poor political leader. (There were plenty here who thought Sanders was going to win as well, simply through arm waving and tent revival meetings. They were wrong)
        
        I’m just going to wait and see.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:56 pm
        
        – hasn’t unified the MPs he has to work with
        – hasn’t unified the MPs to the Members
        
        He needs to eliminate several dozen of the disloyal MPs from the party, particularly the ones who clearly don’t understand that Blairite careerism isn’t what the Labour Party stands for any more.
        
        Trying to make nice with them would be the same fatal mistake that Cunliffe made.
        
        – hasn’t convinced the only mildly leftie paper the Guardian
        
        Why would he want to do that? The Guardian can’t swing an election for him, and they have been against him from the start.
        
        Ignore The Guardian and make the news on your on terms.
        
        Ad …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:01 pm
        
        Definitely needs to eliminate a whole swathe of MPs. Hope he has the stones and the tactical acumen for it.
        
        The problem with ignoring The Guardian, or any news channel, is that they don’t ignore you. You never, ever get to “make news on your own terms.”
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:04 pm
        
        Corbyn’s constituency don’t listen to the Guardian, Ad. So why should he bother pretending that either the Guardian, or its readership, are important.
        
        Ad …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:16 pm
        
        Well, on the results of ignoring them listed above, I would just urge Corbyn a little caution going down that path.
        
        I’d love any Labour leader to be able to ignore any part of the media, MSM or otherwise. Such political romance is fun to imagine, but in reality politicians exist in ugly codependent relationships with them.
        
        Worth remembering that politicians need the media a whole bunch more than the media need politicians.
        
        Hanswurst …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:43 pm
        
        Corbyn’s constituency don’t listen to the Guardian
        
        Exactly. That is obvious in the fact that they elected him in the first place, let alone the fact that his support has failed to cave on the basis of the paper’s continued slant against him.
        
        In any case, the only way to get a publication on-side when it is systemically inimical to your programme is to give up that programme. It’s the surest path to achieving almost none of your original aims, as the course of Labour and Social Democratic parties over the last few decades has shown.
        
        Hanswurst …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:31 pm
        
        I’ll leave that judgement for six months and look back.
        
        Another bizarre statement. What, in the next six months, would be likely to indicate whether or not Corbyn had figured out prior to his leadership bid that politics is about “more than speechifying and apologies”?
        
        But so far Corbyn:
        
        – hasn’t unified the MPs he has to work with
        
        This presupposes that he sees unifying Blairites with those more disposed towards following him as being desirable in any way.
        
        – hasn’t unified the MPs to the Members
        
        Presupposes the same thing, as well as assuming that the membership, who have signed up in swathes in the wake of his becoming leader, want a bar of the MPs who trenchantly opposed him – and vice versa.
        
        – hasn’t made a mark against the Conservatives
        
        This really isn’t the timeframe to be reading anything at all into that. It is also exactly that part of politics most heavily dominated by the speechifying side of things, so I don’t see how it could be seen as evidence for what you’re saying.
        
        – hasn’t won anything
        
        And your point is…?
        
        – hasn’t raised any money of note
        
        You could be right about that; do you have a link?
        
        – hasn’t got a functioning shadow Cabinet
        
        See above.
        
        – hasn’t convinced the only mildly leftie paper the Guardian
        
        The Blairites? So?
        
        – was on the wrong side of the Brexit vote and doesn’t have a plan for it
        
        As so often evidenced in your writing, your concept of “right” and “wrong” in politics is defined by electoral success. I think that says more about how you are reading Corbyn here than anything else you’ve written, and chimes well with your willingness to accommodate a third-way position to the point of being indistinguishable from it. Ironically, it suggests an approach to politics that emphasises “speechifying”. Corbyn’s historical record as a Eurosceptic aside, what public actions apart from speeches were you expecting, especially during a campaign whose terms had been largely defined along xenophobic and populist lines well before the referendum was called? Surely he would be better off dealing with his own party, and articulating his plan (whether he already has one or has yet to formulate it) at the earliest when Europe makes its own position known. Given that, how can his actions at this point be seen as evidence of a lack of plan? Perhaps that is the judgment you should be reserving for at least six months.
        
        You’ve provided quite a lot of detail, but no real evidence that Corbyn is mainly about “speechifying”, let alone that he hasn’t worked out that there’s more to politics.
        
        Ad …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:17 pm
        
        I wish him well, truly, and I hope it works out.
        He’s a luv.
        
        Call me in January and we’ll have another go. See if he’s managed to tick a couple of those big problems of his off the list. Maybe then he’s got just the chance of a mote in God’s eye of surviving.
        
        Now hold still, here’s a little illustration for you:
        
        There’s a great line reported yesterday in Salon in the Democrat meeting where Sanders met with all Democrat Senate and Congress leaders, to come to some pre-Conference pact, and he started off his little address to them with:
        
        “The point isn’t to win elections …”
        
        …at which point he was universally booed by them. And he continued:
        
        “The point is to transform America.”
        
        And there is a really good illustration of a resolutely principled person. Who has no place being in political leadership.
        
        The one thing that politics really, really is, is a popularity contest. Not only with your party members, not only with your elected colleagues, but also with all people, and with the media.
        
        You really have to fall in love with democracy, and the particular set of processes that constitute it, if you are going to make it. You have to be so good at it, and you have to be good at it for years on end. That’s why I have a whole bunch more faith that Andrew LIttle and Mr Shorten have a shit-show, and people like Sanders and Corbyn and as we’ve seen many others don’t.
        
        See you in January on this.
        
        Hanswurst …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:55 pm
        
        Call me in January and we’ll have another go.
        
        A go at what? I thought you were trying to show how Corbyn was a waffler who did nothing but make speeches. However, now you seem to be advocating the sort of politics that involves winning people over with soundbites and speeches that appeal to their more instinctive side.
        
        You really have to fall in love with democracy, and the particular set of processes that constitute it […]
        
        You’re assuming that democracy is about voting periodically for representatives whose faces you like.
        
        The one thing that politics really, really is, is a popularity contest.
        
        So this, essentially “success=popularity”, is a statement which the paragraph afterwards is trying to substantiate?
        
        if you are going to make it. You have to be so good at it, and you have to be good at it for years on end. That’s why I have a whole bunch more faith that Andrew LIttle and Mr Shorten have a shit-show, and people like Sanders and Corbyn and as we’ve seen many others don’t.
        
        Unfortunately, you beg the question by assuming that “making it” consists in achieving popularity, rather than showing how popularity gets a programme realised. Your entire paradigm is exactly the mixture of truisms (popularity wins a popular vote) and questionable assumptions masquerading as common sense (being in government enables the realisation of the principles you had when you weren’t in government) that typefy the Right in general.
        
        Incognito …
        
        7 July 2016 at 10:58 pm
        
        @ Ad 7 July 2016 at 8:17 pm:
        
        The one thing that politics really, really is, is a popularity contest.
        
        Maybe that’s what politics has become but it shouldn’t be. Politics is about decision-making, based on sound process, and executing these decisions, i.e. “getting on with it”.
        
        The assumption underlying policy debates – their true purpose in a democracy – is to engage in a principled argument in order to reach a discernible truth. It isn’t, as we have seen more and more often, to win a short-term victory at any and all costs.
        
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11664653
        
        In a modern progressive pluralistic society with proportional representation in Parliament decision-making ideally and primarily should be based on reaching consensus IMO, through cooperation and consultation, because these decisions affect many if not all members of such society.
        
        Unfortunately, partisan politics rule in New Zealand and there still is a strong FPP mentality that dictates that the ‘winner’ is the one who reaches 51% of the vote; that’s all that’s needed to ‘win’. As a side-line, I do think that neo-liberal ideology (doctrine) plays a major role in this since it encourages competition and individualism and counters moves to unification and this has resulted in an erosion of communities and community spirit and given us a society of confused fearful individuals who feel disengaged from politics and the political process and socially powerless. Rings a bell?
        
        I’d argue that (broad) consensus makes a vote obsolete and that this also avoids the “tyranny of the majority”. A vote might only be really necessary when a stalemate has been reached, only as a last resort. An analogy would be industrial action when talks between negotiating parties have broken down. Alternatively, a vote (or poll) could be taken as a starting point rather for the political process to commence, which is the exact opposite of present practice!
        
        I could go on about how it is impossible to base decisions on popularity alone, without the necessary confidence and trust, and as the sole basis of (political) power and authority.
        
        weston …
        
        7 July 2016 at 7:32 pm
        
        strewth talk about a negative moaning bitch ad what part of the people love him dont you understand ?The people flocking to join the lp over there arent doing it because theyve been conned by the establishment theyre going there because they perceive a difference in this man and theyre gonna give him a fighting chance unlike you apparently
adam 9

7 July 2016 at 2:27 pm

And tommorow comes the song,

the song was sung,

cough, cough, splutter

done.

[lprent: I can’t see any relevance of this to the post. OpenMike and I’d suggest that you might want to explain your ideas to those of us without your enhanced visions. ]
- Colonial Viper 9.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 2:51 pm
  
  Labour can’t even bring itself to sing the Red Flag any more
  - te reo putake 9.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 3:19 pm
    
    I’ll bet you never knew the words. Or, more importantly, understood their meaning.
    - Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 3:23 pm
      
      Practicing your telepathy again, TRP? The socialist meaning of the song is exactly why NZ Labour ditched it.
      - Peter Swift 9.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:21 pm
        
        Telepathy or dodgy snake oil homoeopathy?
        Only one has any credibility.
        Can you read my mind as to which one?
        
        lol
        
        [The baiting and flaming ends now. You got away with it last night – you’re not doing it again. Speak to the post or don’t comment at all] – Bill
        
        Peter Swift 9.1.1.1.1.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 4:32 pm
        
        Sure, what ever you say, ref.
      - te reo putake 9.1.1.1.2
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:01 pm
        
        You’re so full of shit, your chin’s stained brown.
        
        adam 9.1.1.1.2.1
        
        7 July 2016 at 5:19 pm
        
        Boy I’m getting sick of this “hate in” between te reo putake and Colonial Viper.
        
        Agree to disagree already.
        
        So Colonial Viper is a late comer to the realisation that labour is, what it is.
        
        Here is another take on them
        
        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/07/07/exclusive-the-nz-labour-party-can-no-longer-avoid-the-elephant-in-the-room/
        
        Bill …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:06 pm
        
        You’re not the only one sick and tired of the shit Adam.
        
        When I’ve got people in the real world – people who know neither CV nor trp – telling me they’re way fucking over reading threads that suddenly morph into something that might have come from the ‘trade-me’ message boards or similar…
        
        te reo putake …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:18 pm
        
        There’s an easy solution, Bill. Return the standard to its original purpose, which was, as I recall, to be an intelligent, articulate voice from the movement. This place is still broken.
        
        Bill …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:30 pm
        
        The recurring message I get from anyone who brings any current state of ‘the standard’ up in conversation (not an entirely uncommon occurrence) is that it’s a far lesser place than it once was principally because of your behaviour trp.
        
        te reo putake …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:24 pm
        
        Oh, bollocks. My posts are well read and well commented on. Like it or not, I’m not afraid to call bullshit when I see it, and I’m not going to dicky lick our resident troll. Your mileage may differ. At the moment, we’re drifting into the abyss where right wing conspiracy theories collide with worker hating petit bourgeois snobbery.
        
        Is the Standard a serious left wing blog?
        
        marty mars …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:44 pm
        
        I think your plan to get the standard the way you want it is flawed. It isn’t working and won’t work imo.
        
        North …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:49 pm
        
        Can’t find a reply button on your comment finishing “Is the Standard a serious left wing blog?” Oh what arrogance of you to claim impeccable left-wingism ! Impeccable Labour Partyism is the highest I can put it.
        
        So, wherever this appears let me say this……you seem to have all the fake muscles of an unmitigated bully TRP. And you CV seem never to have recovered from Twyford’s “chinese names” business. Which while your face is brazenly and spittlingly set against it is in some measure significantly true. And now you’re lurching off into fucking Trumpism……call me Mabel and fuck me gently !
        
        You’re both egotistical, control freak pains in the arse and we’re the somewhat bored “scroll down past them” collateral damage to your ‘always gotta be right’ spats. Grow up you fucking children !
        
        marty mars …
        
        7 July 2016 at 8:54 pm
        
        Fuck I wish I’d said that north – apart from the twyford stuff ☺- Good stuff mate.
        
        te reo putake …
        
        7 July 2016 at 9:10 pm
        
        Good to hear lads. The dude abides.
        
        Hanswurst …
        
        7 July 2016 at 6:52 pm
        
        I’m sick of it, too. Having said that, even if I find a lot of CV’s writings since the last election frustratingly one-sided, especially considering the difference in that regard to his earlier contributions, they always seem to me to articulate (and generally substantiate) a point that is passionately held with a view to changing the global political discourse in the long term, and not personally directed. I would be hard pressed to say the same for all others.
- adam 9.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 5:57 pm
  
  The relevance of my post was the hopes and aims of the first labour government, and in particular Peter Fraser. Also that in the early days of the labour movement poetry, and other forms of literature were used to convey messages. Sadly almost dead aspect, when we have society full of literalist.
  
  Here is a book on Peter Fraser if you have the time, http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/book_tomorrow.htm
  well worth the read.
adam 10

7 July 2016 at 2:47 pm

This story just gets worse. This attack on whistle blowers from the Obama administration, feels very much like the Wilson play book is back on the table.

My guess, Clinton will carry on with this type of domestic suppression.

Seems that Chelsea Manning tried to take her own life and her lawyers were not told.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chelsea-manning-rushed-to-hospital-after-trying-to-take-life-a7122971.html
- Colonial Viper 10.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 2:50 pm
  
  It pisses me off how Snowden and Manning get utterly crucified by the US for doing their nation a major service while Killary Clinton’s deliberate mishandling of secret information leading to it being stolen by foreign hackers gets zero.
  - whispering kate 10.1.1
    
    7 July 2016 at 4:58 pm
    
    Couldn’t agree more CV, I wrote about that in a previous post about Clinton and how “ordinary people” would be tried for treason and wouldn’t see the light of day ever again but Clinton who enabled her mail to be exposed into the wrong hands is hit with a wet bus ticket. A law for one and a law for the great unwashed. She is tarnished now and ever was/will be with the Clinton Foundation so just like Blair her legacy isn’t looking good and shouldn’t ever be either. Trump may be nuts but he is his own man and although certainly not in a good mind frame to be President he doesn’t have the smell of corruption at a government level about him like she does.
    - Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
      
      7 July 2016 at 7:24 pm
      
      Bernie is the only decent candidate for the job of US President, so they’ve made sure he won’t get it. “They” not being Republicans nor Trump, but the Democratic Party.
    - North 10.1.1.2
      
      7 July 2016 at 10:25 pm
      
      Jesus I’m getting really worried about the equanimity, indeed the glee, of some commenters here whose Leftie stuff I’ve long respected, to the prospect of Herr Drumpf smashing Clinton in November. Careful what you wish for darlings. Yes Clinton yuk but Jesus…….arch racist and terminal egoist Drumpf ?
      
      Herr Drumpf was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Racist, cruel capitalist, vile daddy gave him 40 mill’ to start off with. Drumpf ain’t no friend of the working people. In the office of Pres’ the fucking ego-freak, trophy wife toting lunatic could cinder the whole fucking lot of us ! By accident or on a bad hair day. Which, looking down from Heaven I would have to guage as very annoying. On account of its avoidability.
      
      I don’t want the world to go up in smoke because of some (I suspect tiddly little cock) ugly like Drumpf.
- swordfish 10.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 3:02 pm
  
  More broadly … Hillary’s capacity to hold a grudge and exact revenge on political opponents is reputedly even greater than Nixon’s. She’ll be drawing up a blacklist as we speak.
Bob 11

7 July 2016 at 4:04 pm

Can someone please help bring me up to speed with Union etiquette?

So the National Union of Public Employees have agreed a deal with Aviation Security, but E tū and the Public Service Association haven’t and are going to strike. http://www.newshub.co.nz/business/the-offer-airport-security-staff-rejected-2016070612#axzz4Dgx2gZly

So do the National Union of Public Employees now have to join the picket-line with their Union comrades? Or do the now get called Scabs and abused when they turn up to work, like this: http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/wharfies-abusive-demanding–port-2012031213#axzz4Dgx2gZly
- framu 11.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 6:17 pm
  
  well POA say all sorts of things – so an article that is based solely on the claims of POA in that particular dispute isnt that robust
McFlock 12

7 July 2016 at 4:29 pm

Police reporting only “the good stuff”.
Apparently, at least one senior police officer is under the impression that knowing local police activity is not in the public interest unless it’s a good news story.

This strikes me as being indicative of a fundamental progression towards the “us vs them” policing philosophy that creates a paramilitary police force rather than a community police force. The daily activity blotter is one of those little things that’s essential, if barely noticed, in an open society. Suppressing daily police activities should only occur if the need for confidentiality (e.g. privacy or prejudice of justice concerns) outweighs the public’s right to know.

Local crime is obviously of public interest. We don’t need to know, we have a right to know, and they have an obligation to openly and efficiently report their activity to us, so we can tell if they’re doing their damned job. Stats can be juked, but the local emergency services daily blotter used to give a fair impression of how safe our community was. Removing that because the community might discover the truth that’s inconvenient for the police is an inch away from covering up incompetence and corruption.

Bad call by this police officer.
Puckish Rogue 13

7 July 2016 at 4:30 pm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/81847922/former-mp-john-banks-returns-to-high-court-after-conviction-quashed

Shameful it ever went that far, how could the judge possibly have believed KDC and his wife over John Banks and his wife
- Muttonbird 13.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 4:47 pm
  
  Banks is still a crook. No amount of wasted court time will change that.
- reason 13.2
  
  7 July 2016 at 4:54 pm
  
  your taking the piss pucker …………… banks is a nasty little piece of work ……… he thought clint rickards was a great police office ……….. when the cops were acting like his goons when he was auckland mayor ………..
  
  He like the nats is a dishonest money grubber using all sort of scams.
  
  And never forget the trash racism hoax he and his national party whip mate “Hone carter” tried to pull when banks was a radio talk back host.
  
  Banks is trash ………….. just like you puck.
- North 13.3
  
  7 July 2016 at 7:01 pm
  
  Yeah Banks is, always was, a right wee Mother Theresa……
  
  Your final paragraph PR – “…….how could the judge possibly have believed KDC and his wife over John Banks and his wife ?”
  
  You’re a crashing snob PR !
  
  Not to mention your appalling ignorance of the principle of law that the fact finder determines issues according to the evidence adduced in court. If that weren’t the story you might as well call Rachel Glucina “Chief Justice”. Or the ponytail fetishist “Lord Denning”.
  
  It is of course for the honourable judge but I’d wager there are plenty of people who know stuff about law who would question that the judge owes any apology to anyone.
  
  Must say though, it’s refreshing to see a high public office holder prepared to fashion a sense of honour and decency and have it triumph over personal ego. Cf. the scurvy, effete, increasingly brittle liar Key. And Blair. The morals of both of them missing in action always.
Rodel 14

7 July 2016 at 8:11 pm

Or did PR mean, ‘…….How could the judge possibly have believed John Banks and his wife over anybody ?’.We all know how straight up Banksy is and always has been.
……or in the authenticity of the mysterious appearance of two previously obscure American business men and their belated but oh so relevant ‘affidavits’ to save Banksy’s bacon. Old boys gotta stick together.$$$$
- North 14.1
  
  7 July 2016 at 9:12 pm
  
  I stand to be corrected of course but I recall that the LA affidavit writers, Warner Bros guys weren’t they, never ever appeared in a New Zealand court for cross-examination on their affidavits.
  
  Yet the Court of Appeal read those untested affidavits and said “No, fuck that, acquittal !”
  
  I do know a little bit about appellate proceedings and I remain troubled as to how in the name of God a few untested scraps of paper bearing signatures were ever enough to have the appellate court kill the thing dead rather than take the customary step in instances of new evidence of quashing and ordering a retrial. That’s what happens to all the brown boys (except, mercifully, Teina). Still boggles me !
  
  If in fact these guys did appear and were cross-examined on their affidavits I retract it all and Banks truly is a selfless Mother Theresa. Chartered and licensed by God!
  - Rodel 14.1.1
    
    8 July 2016 at 9:38 am
    
    Have a look on youtube at the late Christopher Hitchen’s and Penn and Teller’s opinions on Mother Teresa. Your comparison with our Banksy may be more appropriate than you think.