Open mike 08/02/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:51 am, February 8th, 2014 - 216 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

 

216 comments on “Open mike 08/02/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. North 1
    8 February 2014 at 7:59 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11198248

    The Herald this morning – not before time, in fact well past time, the ever rationalising, ever patient John Armstrong has turned.

    This is scathing.

    • karol 1.1
      8 February 2014 at 8:51 am

      Saw that. So much for “moral mandates”.

      • ianmac 1.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 9:39 am

        That is one of John Armstrong’s columns that wins my vote!
        And his last lines especially so:
        “That is not sufficient excuse, however, to remove the stench of something rotten in the state of New Zealand’s democracy.”

        • Tiger Mountain 1.1.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 11:53 am

          Don’t get me started on the simpering Armstrong, his column strike rate is 99 to one in favour of the torys. Like an old farm beast presented with a salt lick he can’t help himself.

          Does he really deserve kudos for stating the obvious months after the fact?

    • Meg 1.2
      8 February 2014 at 1:59 pm

      Ouch! But the more important thing to note is note the negativity towards national, but that this is a scathing attack on both Key and National by someone like John Armstrong.

      When the right leaning opinion writers start in with attacks like this, the party is over. I would expect to see more and more negative press from nationals opinion writer supporters in the coming months. They smell blood in the water and know change is very likely come the election. So gotta get in good with the possible new leaders of nz before the changing of the guard.

      So, we have national mp’s “retiring” this year by the truck load, we have polls developing a downward trend for National, and now we have the right wing opinion writers turning on the government.

      Party’s over Mr Key.

      • felix 1.2.1
        8 February 2014 at 2:49 pm

        Haha nice try. Party’s over for the lot of you.

        Bye.

      • srylands 1.2.2
        8 February 2014 at 2:58 pm

        “So, we have national mp’s “retiring” this year by the truck load, ”

        Seriously, you are portraying this as a negative for the government?

        • Meg 1.2.2.1
          8 February 2014 at 3:45 pm

          It is a sure indication when things are going pear shaped for government, their mp’s start “retiring”.

          Even more so when the supporters of said government portray it as “renewal”.

          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.2.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

            +1 Meg

          • srylands 1.2.2.1.2
            8 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

            OK well you stick to that story. There is a horde of Labour MPs who I am sure most contributors to this blog would love to see “retire”. It would be renewal.

            You think the National powerbrokers were saying to those MPs who left “Oh god don’t go. It will look like rats leaving the ship. Panic panic.” For at least 8 of the MPs it was totally the opposite.

            By all means root for your own team but you might like to think before you try to portray this situation as a negative. It is nothing of the sort.

            If some these guys decided to “retire”, tell me with a straight face that most commentators here would say “oh no”.

            Ruth Dyson
            Phil Goff
            Nanaia Mahuta
            Damien O’Connor
            Trevor Mallard
            Moana Mackey
            Darien Fenton

            • Meg 1.2.2.1.2.1
              8 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

              You can get as pissy as you like, but it is one of a serious of indications that National will struggle to hold on to power, which is why they are doing deals with parties that cannot even get 0.1% in the polls.

              And as for your list, if they all left within the same timeframe as National has been losing MP’s, yes that would be something to worry about for Labour and wether they want them gone or to they would be stupid to ignore why all these MP’s are suddenly “retiring”.

              And lastly, I would take any one of those labour mp’s over almost any national mp any day of the week, and twice on a Sunday.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.2.1.2.2
              8 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

              It needs to be seen in the context of Simon Lusk’s indiscreet remarks about National Party MPs trading on their time in parliament to build lucrative business careers, and the party’s practice of paying for favours with directorships.

              • phillip ure …
                8 February 2014 at 4:37 pm

                bloody hell.!…i have to agree with sryland on this..(‘renewal’)

                ..as would many here..

                ..if they were being honest..

                ..you really wouldn’t like to see that (named) coven of neo-lib retreads/apologists/followers/operators/poor-bashers unceremoniously ushered to the door..?

                ..really..?

                ..i would..

                ..phillip ure..

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 February 2014 at 4:45 pm

                  I’m happy to see them go, just not sure whether the “churn” that occurs between National Party dim bulbs and boards of companies is in anyone’s best interests.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.2.1.2.3
              8 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

              @ Srylands

              The argument you present is very weak [as usual].

              Whether the Labour party needs rejuvenation or not has no relevance for why the National party seem to think they need ‘rejuvenation’ (if it is not Nats jumping off the ship because they can’t bare the stench).

              If this economy is as shit hot as the msm-and-Nats would have us believe – if they have done such a brilliant job of economic management and governance as they continually falsely present to the public I-mean-tell-us – why would they feel the need to get rid of so many MPs?

              Sure rejuvenation is a good thing – however the numbers of MPs leaving National is more than a normal amount required simply for a bit of a ‘freshen up’.

              Meg’s comment still stands because your response doesn’t address the point she correctly makes.

            • mac1 1.2.2.1.2.4
              10 February 2014 at 6:25 pm

              Some choose retirement and others have retirement thrust upon them.

              It’s a good time to choose to come into politics in the National Party. Two or three terms to learn the ropes in a cruisy way as an opposition MP whilst those who have retirement (willingly or unwillingly) will cruise onto the directorships and the rewards for being faithful servants.

              And for those National MPs staying on who really have their electorates at heart, they have the comfort and solace of their fellow MP who also took an early retirement when confronted by the mysogyny of Brash as National Party leader- “That you can actually do more for your electorate when in opposition.”

        • felix 1.2.2.2
          8 February 2014 at 3:47 pm

          Well they’re not leaving because they’ve all suddenly decided to spend more time with their families, S. R.

    • gem 1.3
      8 February 2014 at 4:17 pm

      I don’t think this column is too significant, JA styles himself as a constitutional watchdog.
      Note he went against the press bully pack in defending Nicky Hager in 2011 following the otherwise disgraceful reaction to Other People’s Wars. On Hager’s book: ”With the help of well-placed informants and thousands of leaked documents, Hager exposes the cynical manner in which the Defence Force has purposely misled the public by omission of pertinent facts and public relations flannel.”
      He can be quite sincere in his own way, but he’s also inconsistent and petulant. He reminds me of Peter Dunne in the moral hypocrisy stakes a wee bit.

      • karol 1.3.1
        8 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

        Methinks it’s Colin Craig that’s a step too far for Armstrong – he is fairly positive about Whyte & ACT in contrast.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    8 February 2014 at 8:06 am

    *sigh* I see Deborah Russell is busily focusing on the issues that count.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11198182

    Perhaps she should devote her time to telling us why, given her key role on Labour economic policy formation, she supports the retirement age going up to 67 rather than making sure everyone knows that the Labour party hates pretty girls in bikinis.

    *double sigh*

    • just saying 2.1
      8 February 2014 at 8:28 am

      Perhaps the clue is in the description of her role as a “feminist commentator”.

      If she was a trade unionist and union-blogger as well as a Labour candidate, should she be prevented from being a union-commentator in the media, because she has some other role in the party?

      What else should she give up to devote her time to her “key role on Labour economic policy formation”, gardening, hockey, drinking….?

      • Sanctuary 2.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 8:42 am

        Why do you think the media went to Deborah Russell in particular for comment? Because is a LABOUR CANDIDATE as well as a feminist. She is being set up as the time bomb that will explode by saying something stupidly PC during the election campaign.

        Labour candidates are expected to be just that – Labour candidates, not feminist commentators (or union officials). They are expected to show a certain degree of self-discipline and circumspection, especially in an election year. If she doesn’t accept that party discipline around what she says in public trumps her feminist views then she shouldn’t be a candidate.

        The line “…why do they need to mess that up with white women in bikinis..?” is particularly politically stupid. Why introduce race? That is insane. Why make it clear that to the Labour party pretty women in bikinis “mess things up”?

        Imagine if this story came out in, say, September. “Labour hates pretty white girls in bikinis” is a fish in the barrel stuff for the populist right wing media. Deborah Russell’s political stupidity is a ticking time bomb for a party that is very vulnerable to this type of dogwhistle attack.

        If Russell can’t display enough discipline, or is so arrogant/stupid she couldn’t see she was being baited by a media clearly hoping for the story it got, then she should step down as a candidate.

        • just saying 2.1.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 8:49 am

          What do you reckon Colonial Viper?

          There are probably loads of Labour candidates that have other interests that they comment on in public. Maybe they should be give a list of subjects they are allowed to talk about.

          • karol 2.1.1.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 8:58 am

            Can’t wait for Sanctuary to get upset when Labour candidates support sports teams etc. not relevant to election campaigns.

            • marty mars 2.1.1.1.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 11:21 am

              The thing i noticed is that the descriptor of her being a labour candidate seemed a ‘by the way’ sentence in the middle of the article – it wasn’t front and centre or even emphasized at all.

              • weka …
                8 February 2014 at 11:37 am

                That’s probably because Russell has been a go to feminist commentator for a lot longer than she has been a Labour party candidate. I would think that there is some obligation or custom to mention that the commentator you are using is also a political candidate. But like you, I don’t think that she was asked to comment as a Labour bod.

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.1.2
            8 February 2014 at 9:05 am

            Personally, I will be upfront about what I think of Deborah Russell – and that is I think Labour needs a capital L liberal, middle class, feminist, soft left palace intellectual in parliament like it needs a hole in the head.

            Russell isn’t just some earnest but lowly list candidate. She chairs the Labour Party policy formation committee. It has been put about that her economic and intellectual credentials have her earmarked for rapid promotion to lofty heights in any future Labour administration. The media knows this. She needs to be mega-careful about what she says in public in election year.

            • Anne 2.1.1.1.2.1
              8 February 2014 at 10:21 am

              She needs to be mega-careful about what she says in public in election year.

              I’m sticking my neck out here and saying that Sanctuary has a point. Unlike most regulars here I’ve spent 40 years involved in the Labour Party both within the inner circles and later observing from the periphery. There’s virtually nothing that has happened in recent years that I haven’t seen in some form or another before. I’m not going to name them but I recall two high-flying Labour women activists who at some point or another fell into a trap laid for them by the media. Their political opponents had a ball and they were left high and dry. But one political high flyer never fell into the trap and look where she ended up… PM of NZ for nine years and probably the next General Secretary of the UN.

              I don’t know Deborah Russell but she sounds like an highly intelligent and competent candidate. All the more reason why she must watch what she says in public and who she says it to. The media will be training their guns on her and looking to trip her up before the election.

              Edit: I see Sanctuary has summed it up at 2.2.1

              I think that the media will frame things, and ask particular candidates particular questions framed in a particular way in order to get a specific answer that will then generate heat rather than light that will sell papers both immediately and as part of a narrative.

              That is exactly what they will do and the stronger the candidate the harder they will try.

              • Bill …
                8 February 2014 at 10:33 am

                But she didn’t say that she ‘hated pretty girls in bikinis’ – as Sanctuary implied. She didn’t indicate anything even close to such sentiments. There was nothing wrong with her comment which was, like the article, focused on Air New Zealand’s rubbish branding.

                • Anne …
                  8 February 2014 at 1:48 pm

                  I know that what she said is true Bill. But my linked comments courtesy of Sanctuary are also true. Therein lies the dilemma. Already there’s heated debate on this site and that’s without media provocation.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.2.2
              8 February 2014 at 11:40 am

              “Personally, I will be upfront about what I think of Deborah Russell – and that is I think Labour needs a capital L liberal, middle class, feminist, soft left palace intellectual in parliament like it needs a hole in the head.”

              Pity then that you didn’t just lead with that instead of trying to wrangle something she was doing as a feminist into her failure as part of Labour.

        • karol 2.1.1.2
          8 February 2014 at 8:57 am

          Given it’s an ad promoting Pacific culture in the Cook Islands, I would have thought race was relevant.

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.2.1
            8 February 2014 at 9:15 am

            Why? The Island boys on the canoe didn’t seem the least upset.

            • Bill 2.1.1.2.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 9:17 am

              Sanctuary. You are way off beam here – seriously off beam.

              • greywarbler …
                8 February 2014 at 12:40 pm

                Bill
                Sanctuary is referring to what will be strategic comment by a core Labour Party official. Like it or not, she is one and her first responsibility is to further the Party’s standing in this most important election year.

                When you have a leadership role you cannot cause confusion or distract from the group’s mission which will be to influence, gain acceptance and support for those purposes.

                Comment needs to be carefully tailored to advance Labour’s
                rise throughout the year to a successful election. There is a line that needs to be understood, in releasing stories that will interest but not give fodder to those in opposition who will minutely study them for suitable points to inflate so that they can ridicule that person in the present, with an ongoing taint.

                Winners think and act in a strategic way when they are concentrated on achieving their goal. If Labour wants to win they will have to drive carefully and skilfully and not have their leaders give opportunity to others to damage their image, and the message.

                • weka …
                  8 February 2014 at 3:09 pm

                  Yes. But, given that, what is wrong with what Russell said or did?

                  • greywarbler …
                    8 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

                    weka
                    I don’t know. You can decide for yourself. I am making the point that uttterances have to be judged from a number of points, all of them having to be favourable to Labour, while Ms Russell is a leading light in Labour. And the opportunities for RWNJs to find some idiot thing to grab and exploit at any time this year, need to be minimised. Fin.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 February 2014 at 3:56 pm

                      Do you think bullies need you to do something for them to grab and exploit before they’ll bully you?

                      This is the whole problem in the Labour caucus: if we offend bigots they won’t vote for us: well newsflash, dearies, bigots also respect strong leadership, and if you can’t step up then perhaps the Labour movement needs more caucus members that know how to stand up to bullies.

                    • greywarbler …
                      8 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

                      OAB
                      Please stay back in your corner, I’m a snivelling coward.
                      I’m interested in a great election finish not wasting my energy arguing endlessly with dickheads and time-wasting mischievous, malicious and partisan self-interested greedies.
                      That is why I suggest that people high up in Labour save their energies for comments that advances Labour, not idle chit-chat that is on the edge of being provocative, for the sake of it.

                      I don’t waste time running around on this blog after the busies that hang out here except to poke a little fun. I suggest if you consider yourself smart, you do the same.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 February 2014 at 5:03 pm

                      But the time-wasting dickheads are going to stick it to you whatever you do. When they do, they reveal their rotten National Party underbelly and you skewer them and leave them in the sun to dry.

                    • greywarbler …
                      8 February 2014 at 6:19 pm

                      OAB
                      You do sound as if you have got a strategy worked out. So good for you. It has a sound of pig hunting, getting the dog to hold the pig while you do the knife work. Could be dangerous!

                      I’ll just run up a tree and cower. You have seen how fierce the animals can be, almost felt their hot breath on our cheeks and their teeth grating by our ears already over some contentious issues. So my advice holds.

                      Here’s a good wild pig story.
                      http://nelsonweekly.co.nz/fishing-for-wild-pigs/

        • just saying 2.1.1.3
          8 February 2014 at 8:58 am

          Imagine if this story came out in, say, September. “Labour hates pretty white girls in bikinis”
          laughed out loud.

          1. Russell was a feminist commentator way before she was a Labour candidate. Her public profile may well have been a factor in her selection.
          2. Equality is Labour policy and philosophy. Are you suggesting party members keep quiet about issues related to the philosophy and policy of the party in case people find out?

          • Sanctuary 2.1.1.3.1
            8 February 2014 at 9:07 am

            “…1. Russell was a feminist commentator way before she was a Labour candidate. Her public profile may well have been a factor in her selection…”

            If feminist commentator is where her true loyalties lie, perhaps she step down as a Labour candidate.

        • greywarbler 2.1.1.4
          8 February 2014 at 9:49 am

          Sanctuary
          +100 The ability to filter outspoken comments so as to ‘keep this for a private rant’ and what is going to ‘hold up to minute scrutiny for derision-fodder by the opposing side’ is a precious jewel not possessed by just every female, or male. Labour may have to give Deborah some texie-sexy crosby-crooning tips.

          Is she being influenced by Deborah Coddington’s performances that have made her name and who is now a go-to person for the media knowing that she will have a bright opinion on anything? Perhaps it’s the influence of the name, it conveys some cultural effect perhaps?
          Something metaphysical? (Trivia for today: Deborah means bee.)

          And I think just saying made a very good suggestion – that Labour candidates should be given a list of subjects they are allowed to talk about. Because this is a really important election and not just an opportunity to run stream of consciousness, sort of Bridget’s Diary, confidences.

    • Bill 2.2
      8 February 2014 at 8:55 am

      Being a bit reductionist there Sanctuary. Are you saying that all mps can and ought only to comment on matters directly associated with their portfolio? Of course, if every time a female Labour mp responded to an issue of sexism or racism, people of the left were to jump up and down telling them to stfu – then, if I was a right wing media publication, I’d make it policy to ask Labour and Green mps – specifically women – what their thoughts/opinions were before getting out the popcorn while elements of the left did my hatchet job for me.

      • Sanctuary 2.2.1
        8 February 2014 at 9:12 am

        I think that the media will frame things, and ask particular candidates particular questions framed in a particular way in order to get a specific answer that will then generate heat rather than light that will sell papers both immediately and as part of a narrative.

        And @just saying “… Maybe they should be give a list of subjects they are allowed to talk about….”

        Yes they should be told what they can speak about in public. This is called “staying on message” and “party discipline”.

        • Bill 2.2.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 9:14 am

          ffs Sanctuary – staying on message is about staying on message when there is a particular line and not being sidetracked from it. Is DC guilty of that here? Can’t see how party discipline applies here either.

          • Sanctuary 2.2.1.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 9:28 am

            DC? But I don’t agree – Thematically, Labour needs to start setting the agenda with battles it can win, not reactively taking the bait on a narrative they’ve already lost.

          • RedLogix 2.2.1.1.2
            8 February 2014 at 10:09 am

            I think Sanctuary’s point should be read in the context of a media that will do no favours to the left.

            As we all should have learnt by now here at TS, discussing anything to do with gender or sexuality is a minefield. When a hostile media invites Labour MP’s to wander about said minefield during election year – you are entitled to apply even more skepticism than usual.

            • Bill 2.2.1.1.2.1
              8 February 2014 at 10:18 am

              Except the negativity was, rightly on this occasion, focused on Air New Zealand and their fucked up branding.

              • RedLogix …
                8 February 2014 at 10:42 am

                Nah – you miss the point. Anything to do with sex in the public arena is fucked up these days. If it ‘s fucked up for Air NZ to brand like this, it’s fucked up for DR to open her mouth about it.

                No possible win.

                • Bill …
                  8 February 2014 at 10:53 am

                  The ‘public arena’ – in this case Mathew Dearnaley’s NZ herald piece – is stating that Air New Zealand’s branding is fucked up. DR merely concurs.

                  I take the point about mps not walking into media traps. But that’s not the case in this instance – there is no trap. Besides, do we want people feeling intimidated and unwilling to offer reasonable or thoughtful opinions when asked – note, I’m saying reasonable or thoughtful; ie, that avoid offering up any ‘off the cuff’ snippets for sound bite hell roastings.

                  • RedLogix …
                    8 February 2014 at 11:07 am

                    Fair enough Bill. No quibble at all with this.

                    Personally I don’t usually see much point in using sex to sell things. It gains attention very efficiently but often as not it creates the wrong kind of response. Sex probably creates more uncomfortable responses than positive ones.

                    And fair enough when your crammed into economy class, with your personal space already uncontrollably invaded, many women and not a few men, probably don’t need the whole nasty, squishy and messy business of sex arising so to speak. (And modern research shows clearly that women are as physiologically aroused by sexual images as much as men- they’re just usually a lot less aware of it.)

                    But the risk with dragging DR into it is the unspoken sub-text – along the lines of ‘another bloody egg-head feminazi condemning all us men for having a sex drive’. Probably not a net win.

                    • Anne …
                      8 February 2014 at 2:04 pm

                      But the risk with dragging DR into it is the unspoken sub-text – along the lines of ‘another bloody egg-head feminazi condemning all us men for having a sex drive’. Probably not a net win.

                      Couldn’t be better put…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 February 2014 at 2:48 pm

                      Looks like an opportunity to me. How hard can it be to turn public sentiment against a bunch of media bullies?

                    • Sanctuary …
                      8 February 2014 at 3:13 pm

                      “…No possible win….”

                      This.

                      And:

                      “…unspoken sub-text – along the lines of ‘another bloody egg-head feminazi condemning all us men for having a sex drive’. Probably not a net win…”

                      This.

                    • weka …
                      8 February 2014 at 3:15 pm

                      “But the risk with dragging DR into it is the unspoken sub-text – along the lines of ‘another bloody egg-head feminazi condemning all us men for having a sex drive’. Probably not a net win.”

                      How do you think Russell could have expressed her view differently? Or are you suggesting that any discussion from a feminist perspective by a Labour candidate or MP is off limits until… when exactly?

                      “along the lines of ‘another bloody egg-head feminazi condemning all us men for having a sex drive'”

                      So, we know that that’s not what Russell said, and instead is a parody of what some people think some voters in NZ think. If you think that fear of that reaction from Labour voters is a good reason for Russell to shut up, then you are essentially saying that feminists have no reason being in the Labour party. I agree that Labour need to be careful, but there is a line beyond which Labour should stand its ground. Otherwise, why not just stay a middle class neoliberal party, wait another 3 years for NACT to fall apart and then they can be govt again for a bit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      8 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      I think silence is an insane strategy.

                      If Labour isn’t going to stand up to media bullies how is it supposed to represent its constituency?

                    • RedLogix …
                      8 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

                      @weka

                      Yes I did think about what you have said. And it is a valid counterpoint to the view I’ve expressed.

                      1. The intersection between politics and the personal can be extremely fraught. For instance the S59 Reform debate. Every reason to enter these debates cautiously.

                      2. I know that the ‘egg-head feminazi’ line is a parody, but it’s one with real resonance all the same.

                      3. Still I agree it’s not a reason for DR to shut up. But it is a reason for her to be pretty smart about what she says and how the media will portray it.

                    • weka …
                      8 February 2014 at 4:04 pm

                      +1 @OAB

                      Red,

                      “1. The intersection between politics and the personal can be extremely fraught. For instance the S59 Reform debate. Every reason to enter these debates cautiously.”

                      True, although the issue today isn’t even in the same galaxy as that in terms of how it might affect Labour or the left.

                      “2. I know that the ‘egg-head feminazi’ line is a parody, but it’s a real one all the same.”

                      Yes. I wasn’t trying to get you to see it as a parody. I was pointing out that Labour has to push back at some point, not retreat and let the bigots have their way.

                      “3. Still I agree it’s not a reason for DR to shut up. But it is a reason for her to be pretty smart about what she says and how the media will portray it”

                      As far as I can tell the only reason we are even talking about this is because Sanctuary needed a reason to have another go at Russell who he dislikes as a candidate for Labour. If Russell had actually done something stupid then we might find some value in offering the advice to be smart about what she says.

                      It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other examples of Labour needing to sort it’s PR shit out. Why the focus on Russell for something so minor? (that’s not a rhetorical question).

                      I have no idea if Russell will be a good candidate for Labour or not. Nothing in this conversation today has made me any the wiser.

                    • karol …
                      8 February 2014 at 5:42 pm

                      Well, seeing that ad reminds me of why I avoid ads as much as possible – ad blockers on my browser; recording TV & skipping through ads. Too much sell of the glossy lifestyles, and the colonising gaze of the tourist industry on the “pristine natural” environment, and exotic “foreign” locations – foregrounded by idealised white women livign the luxury lifestyle.

                      Subtext, rl? – ie feminism is unacceptable?

                      I don’t get why it’s unacceptable to comment on the gender angle of the neoliberal commodification of everything by people on the left, when about every other aspect of neoliberalism is fair game for left criticism. It just seems to be colluding with one aspect of turbo-charged capitalist spin. It’s deeply interwoven with the whole agenda.

                      I recall there being some headway made on the way advertising uses impossible ideals of white female attractiveness to sell almost anything. Then along came neoliberalism with lines about feminists being anti-sex – and promoted a commodified version of “feminism” – ie assertive women, within the narrow confines of conforming to old ideals of feminine beauty.

                      Myself, I just try to ignore the whole dire advertising industry. By why get so exercised about someone pointing out what’s wrong with such ads for our national airline?

      • greywarbler 2.2.2
        8 February 2014 at 12:49 pm

        Bill
        Bananarama ‘It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it that;s what gets results” They tell it like it is.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3sD0i8VYH4

        If the Labour people just keep concentrating on getting elected and talking about the things they need to talk about, in the way they need to, and don’t listen to you and just saying they will get there.

    • BM 2.3
      8 February 2014 at 9:35 am

      Do you think the labour candidates should be a reflection of New Zealand or a reflection of the labour party members?

      • Sanctuary 2.3.1
        8 February 2014 at 9:40 am

        Hopefully they will be both. After all, if you don’t reflect NZ you won’t get elected to government, and if you don’t reflect the party you won’t be selected to run.

        • Bill 2.3.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 9:48 am

          So, lowest common denominators and deep conservatism. Way to go!

        • BM 2.3.1.2
          8 February 2014 at 9:51 am

          Do you think Deborah Russell’s views on bikini clad woman would represent the views of the majority of labour party members.?

          From what I’ve seen and read I’d say they would do, therefore what she said, is what she should be saying because she’s there to represent the views of the labour party members.

          • Bill 2.3.1.2.1
            8 February 2014 at 10:22 am

            Only one mention of bikinis in that article.

            Dr Russell, who is Labour’s candidate for Rangitikei, said she was also annoyed Air New Zealand was spoiling a celebration of Pacific culture.

            “They seem also [in the video] to have some lovely scenes of fabulous Pacific men and women – why do they need to mess that up with white women in bikinis?”

            Absolutely appropriate and fair comment, no? And not a comment on women wearing bikinis per se.

            • bad12 2.3.1.2.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 11:15 am

              The point of the Air New Zealand ad is that it is cast at the holiday aspirations of a cross section of New Zealand cultures, hence the ‘white women’ along with the appearance of an Asian woman and one from the Indian sub-continent,

              That’s the target audience and it is intended to show the ‘beautiful NZ holiday makers among the equally happy ‘natives’,

              My view is that creating any sort of furore about such advertising is counter-productive to any notion of equality anyone’s trying to put forward, shall we ban the bikini and have only those gorgeous swimsuits of the early 1900’s as the only allowable beachwear,

              The whole argument is simply one of whether we think that we have the right to impose our views of what other’s should wear???…

    • Draco T Bastard 2.4
      8 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

      Perhaps you need to read this:

      If we are dominated by a media that sexually objectifies women and shows them as something to be acted upon then it should not come as a shock that over 1 billion women on this planet today have survived rape and violence.

      Your comment enforces that objectification.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 2.5
      8 February 2014 at 5:36 pm

      I think a point which has been missed above is that Deborah is running in Rangitikei, an electorate held by National with a 10,000 vote majority, and which she’s a new candidate for. It can’t hurt for her to get media profile as she tries to make inroads on that majority. And her comments are very mild, I saw far angrier things being said all over Twitter about these videos.

    • Murray Olsen 2.6
      8 February 2014 at 7:06 pm

      I watched the video about the ad. I thought they could have used a cross section of Kiwi actors instead of models from some American magazine, but that’s par for the course for the advertising industry. Women do wear bikinis at the beach in Rarotonga, and other items of clothing. Men often go topless and wear lavalavas, but the target audience is unlikely to look much like the models. It does look a bit like beautiful white people gracing happy nobel savages with their presence.

      Overall though, I found the video less annoying than the Hobbit rubbish they normally put on, which seems a celebration of corporate welfare and neoliberal union busting. I think Deborah Russell could learn that it is not necessary to personally fight every skirmish in a war, and that attempting to do so makes her a target more often than necessary.

      I’m a man, my views on this may be flawed, but I’m not Sealord Jones. They’re not that flawed.

      • karol 2.6.1
        8 February 2014 at 7:32 pm

        Maybe the journo asked Russsell after having heard some criticisms of the vid?

        • Murray Olsen 2.6.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 8:09 pm

          Maybe, but even then, my experience of journalists is that they choose whom they ask questions of depending on the answers they want. I did find it a bit strange that she was worried about sitting next to a man who might be leering at the video. It made me think a bit of thought crimes, and I would suggest that many men can even go to the beach or a swimming pool without “leering” and the connotations involved in that. Of course, I suppose that if the video hadn’t been made, the issue wouldn’t have come up.

  3. Tracey 3
    8 February 2014 at 8:13 am

    Tony invited John to the g20 to showcase australasia. But thinks removing nz products is ok. Perhaps John will embarrass Tony by mentioning it in every meeting at the g20 and every press conference. Cue tui.

  4. greywarbler 4
    8 February 2014 at 8:15 am

    A report on the Brit health system replay from 2012 on RadioNZ.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2532399/aeron-davis-spinning-the-nhs
    Aeron Davis: spinning the NHS
    Originally aired on Saturday Morning, Saturday 15 September 2012

    Professor of Political Communication at Goldsmiths College, University of London, on David Cameron and changes to the health system.
    Duration:  24′ 22″ 
    (Has these controls)
    Play now
    Download: Ogg  |  MP3

  5. North 5
    8 February 2014 at 8:22 am

    Variously, John Armstrong:

    Rotten smell…..

    ……for so blatantly putting naked self-interest ahead of public interest…….

    ……should forever be a large blot on John Key’s Government.

    ……just how manipulative this is all beginning to look.

    ……”gerrymander”…….

    ……National has become too blase in turning parliamentary seats into playthings…….

    ……akin to the “rotten boroughs” of old England…….

    ……in order to engineer a parliamentary majority…….

    ……the wider public are justified in feeling they have been cheated.

    National’s response…….was cunning but also predictably self-serving.

    Justice Minister Judith Collins loftily announced……

    …….played on public ignorance……

    …….giving voters a nod and a wink……can come badly unstuck……

    …….the stench of something rotten in the state of New Zealand’s democracy.

    The photograph of the weirdo Colin Craig which heads the article is the icing on Armstrong’s report of his tasting of the bitter cake.

    • fisiani 5.1
      8 February 2014 at 10:20 am

      So when Jim Anderton is gifted a virtually uncontested seat in Christchurch and brings in Alliance MP’s that’s a good thing. What hypocrisy. Get over it. Stop making excuses for losing again. Have faith in The Cunliffe. He is the Messiah of the Left.

      • mickysavage 5.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Gee Fisi always needs to be fact checked. The Alliance and Labour battled it out for this seat in the 1990s and it was not “virtually uncontested”. In fact Labour has stood candidates against Anderton every election.

        Anderton won it under his own steam. There was no Epsom type shenanigans here.

        • McFlock 5.1.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 6:10 pm

          in some ways, it’s possible that labour would have fought Wigram less hard in the 1990s if it had been held by a nat incumbent with similar electorate support. Never underestimate the motivational power of bad blood.

      • North 5.1.2
        8 February 2014 at 1:02 pm

        More stupid lies from FizzyAnus – you really should apologise FizzyAnus for your deceit – poor person you can’t help your stupidity so no apology sought there:

        Firstly Jim Anderton won his seat under his own steam as MJ says. No cup of tea bullshit.

        Secondly in that election The Alliance polled more than 10% of the Party vote. The Alliance was in parliament anyway FizzyAnus without the need to ride on Anderton’s coat tails. Even if Anderton hadn’t won his seat the Alliance would still have been in parliament. Check it out in the following link FizzyAnus.

        http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_1996/pdf/4.2%20Percentage%20of%20Votes%20for%20Registered%20Parties.pdf

        You’re talking fizzy kaka. As usual.

      • mac1 5.1.3
        8 February 2014 at 1:37 pm

        Remember also, Fisiani, that Anderton had already won this seat as a Labour candidate and was returned as an MP. He’d already got credit as a serving MP in Sydenham. One helluva difference from the dirty rats that Epsom voters were told to swallow in Hyde and Banks.

        Anyway, good to see you here, Fisiani. As I’ve said before, when you come into bat for the Blue team, I know they’re six runs down in the ninth and facing defeat when they have you as a pinch hitter.

      • Tracey 5.1.4
        8 February 2014 at 7:38 pm

        Where do you get your misinformation. Have you even heard of google?

    • bad12 5.2
      8 February 2014 at 11:47 am

      Phillip, on the surface, at first reading, John Armstrong’s comment appears to strike the right note, obviously you have bitten, and, on first reading i tended to agree with Armstrong’s ‘rotten stench’ argument as far as the obvious attempt at ‘gerrymandering’ the result of the 2014 election by Slippery’s National Government,

      Think a bit deeper tho Phillip, has Armstrong suddenly taken ‘the pill’ which has given Him a blinding rush of ‘electoral purity’, if not, then what really is the intent of this particular piece of ,(quite clever),Jonolism,

      Take it as a ‘given’ that Slippery WILL attempt to ‘gerrymander’ the outcome of the 2014 election and is likely to have some success at doing so,

      Who then is Armstrong appealing to when He decries such interference in the ‘vote’, YOU Phillip, you, me, and the broad left are being asked to sit still in our little comfort zones by Armstrong, the Herald, and, by obvious deep association with the former, the National Party, and not dare think of attempting to counter the ‘gerrymandering’ efforts of Slippery the Prime Minister,

      Should we do so, relax in our coma’s in the knowledge that WE have taken the supposed moral high ground the payment for our saintly behavior is likely to be awakening to a third term National Government which is oh so fine if your in the position of being financially secure but the growing underclass of have not’s can neither eat or pay the rent with the ‘moral high ground’,

      Ohariu, Epsom, Waiariki, these 3 electoral seats, two of which will be a feature of National’s attempt at a ‘gerrymandered’ election result are open to having such interference in the democratic process countered by both Labour and the Green Parties convincing as many of their supporters as possible to electorate vote for the National Party candidates,

      In my opinion to do anything else is stupid, a demand to spend another 3 years as opposition…

      • bad12 5.2.1
        8 February 2014 at 12:48 pm

        Ooops, apologies, my reply above addressed to Phillip, should actually be addressed to North, the …’s fooled me…

        • phillip ure 5.2.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 1:27 pm

          @ bad..

          ..fwiw..i do agree with you..

          ..re countering keys’ game-playing..

          ..by lab/grns advising their followers to strategic-vote in those seats..

          ..(and i wd advise..)

          promising to fix that anomaly in mp..

          ..when elected..

          …and painting key/nats/the right as the villains..screwing the system/spirit of mmp..yet again..

          ..and thus forcing this counter-action..

          (but i emphasise..)

          ..with the accompanied promise of fixing in first term..

          ..that should both sort that one/’game’ out..

          ..and help guarantee victory..

          ..phillip ure..

          • bad12 5.2.1.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

            Phillip, probably an easy ‘fix’ would be to move the thresh-hold for gaining representation to 3-3.5% and ditch the MP’s that can coat-tail off an electorate seat until the party vote has also reached that level,

            i am not entirely in favor of such a solution as that disenfranchises a reasonably significant % of voters,

            The left would serve it’self far better to educate it’s voters in how best their vote in a particular electorate would serve the interests of gaining the Treasury Benches,

            Epsom 2011 was the classic example of this, both the Labour and Green candidates gained enough votes each that had they convinced half their respective voters to vote for the National candidate John Banks would have been but a memory instead of the current pus stain having to be forced from office by private prosecution…

            • phillip ure 5.2.1.1.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 2:32 pm

              banks should send the greens regular thank you notes..

              ..as they have done this for him twice..

              ..banks gained the domination of council in his time as mayor..

              ..’cos of green vote-splitting/spoiling..

              ..i hope they have learnt from this history..

              ..and don’t do it again..

              ..too much is at stake..

              ..phillip ure..

              • bad12 …
                8 February 2014 at 2:41 pm

                Think as far as Epsom goes Labour’s David Parker is as guilty as the Green Party’s David Hay in collecting electorate votes in 2011, had either convinced half their voters to vote ‘strategically’ for the National candidate Banks would have been defeated,

                The difference, the Green Party hierarchy ‘spanked’ David Hay,(which was the reason for His brief burst of publicity as a leadership challenger), meanwhile the elusive David Parker might just get to be the next Minister of Finance although i would suggest that is probably conditional on Him waking up His fucking brain should He again contest the Epsom electorate…

                • phillip ure …
                  8 February 2014 at 2:45 pm

                  @ bad..

                  ..aye..

                  phillip ure..

                • srylands …
                  8 February 2014 at 3:25 pm

                  Perhaps if David capitalised his personal pronouns he will be a more successful Minister of Finance.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    8 February 2014 at 3:52 pm

                    Ladies and gentlemen, we bring to you exclusively in today’s Politics 101 Lecture: Why People Mock Objectivists, Part One: S Rylands.

                  • bad12 …
                    8 February 2014 at 4:32 pm

                    Perhaps SSLands if you stopped whining like a beaten female dog someone might take more notice of you,

                    On second thoughts scratch that no-one has any interest in the ravings of a minor bean counter employed by a little firm of tax lawyers to count other peoples money 9 to 5 every week of His miserable life as a slave to both His employer and the system He so slavishly promotes….

      • veutoviper 5.2.2
        8 February 2014 at 1:04 pm

        I am with you on Armstorng’s ‘surprise’ article today, being a cynic. Leopards don’t change their spots. A bit of an attempt to use reverse psychology, methinks.

        This remark at the second to last paragraph of Armstrong’s piece is the give-away, IMO

        Now that voters are far more conscious of what might be required of them, Key’s desire to be more direct and transparent is the right call.

        • bad12 5.2.2.1
          8 February 2014 at 1:39 pm

          VV, Aha, and Armstong’s use of the Reid-Poll data is another giveaway of His underlying motives, in a previous comment last year,(sorry i havn’t got a link),Armstrong directly stated that Reid-poll deliberately asked leading questions in an effort to get respondents to supply the required answer thus being able to ‘skew’ poll results,

          Had the Reid-poll asked Labour/Green voters ”if National’s ‘gifting’ of electorates would lead to a third term National Government at the 2014 election, should Labour/Green engage counter measures,like advising identified Labour/Green voters in those electorates to vote FOR the National Party candidate”, i am sure that the poll would have told another story,

          My view is that Labour/Green should in the Ohariu, Epsom, and any seat National attempts to ‘gift’ Craig’s Conservatives, take such measures as necessary to counter such ‘gerrymandering’,

          In the face of National obviously hell bent upon such electoral tactics i am also of the belief that Labour/Green should take a serious look at the Waiariki electorate with a view of simply beating Slippery the PM at His own game ensuring that the Mana Party win that seat thus adding 1 more seat to the ‘lefts’ total…

        • North 5.2.2.2
          8 February 2014 at 1:41 pm

          Actually I agree with you both Bad and Veuto it’s just that early morning I was pretty bowled over by those comments from KeyHasCharismaMan.

          One swallow does not make a summer of course. In fact as I read the article it did occur that “Now that voters are far more conscious……..Key’s desire to be more direct and transparent is the right call.” was almost congratulatory of Key.

          Yes, the sensible and thoroughly justified counter to KeyStench must be to encourage all Labour/Green voters to vote National in Epsom and East Coast Bays, and Green voters to vote Labour in Ohariu. Apply the same approach in Waiariki as you suggest Bad.

        • Anne 5.2.2.3
          8 February 2014 at 2:15 pm

          Yes veutopiper that sentence reared up and hit me in the eye too. On the one hand he was throwing everything including the kitchen sink at John Key and then suddenly he’s saying John Key made the right call. Weird.

          Can you imagine him being so ‘forgiving’ if the boot had been on Cunliffe’s foot? Nah, not a show.

          Thanks bad12 for filling in the gap.

      • srylands 5.2.3
        8 February 2014 at 1:54 pm

        “Should we do so, relax in our coma[?]”

        Yes I think you should definitely relax in your coma. 🙂

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.4
        8 February 2014 at 4:22 pm

        +1

        Just read the last few paragraphs of Armstrong’s article. It’s all a kowtow to John Key and National and how good it will be that National will be transparent about its gerrymander.

        No one knows better than Key that giving voters a nod and wink as to how they should tick the ballot can come badly unstuck – as in the case of the Epsom “cup of tea” with John Banks which partially derailed National’s election campaign in 2011.

        Using such exercises as symbolic means of communicating how people should vote had some value when voters had to be gently prodded to tick for the first time the name of someone not from their favoured party.

        Now that voters are far more conscious of what might be required of them, Key’s desire to be more direct and transparent is the right call.

        He’s pretty much saying there that now that National voters understand what National require of them then it’s alright for Key to tell them outright who to vote for.

  6. Lionel 6
    8 February 2014 at 8:42 am

    The latest meeting with Tony Abbott again shows up Key as useless not a cracker for NZ he lacks any courage when it comes to sticking up for this country hopeless

    • phillip ure 6.1
      8 February 2014 at 9:17 am

      @ lionel..

      ..yes..key is as weak as weasel-piss..

      ..(“..would you like me to also hold my ankles..?..tony..?”..)

      ..but in the interests of historical-accuracy..

      ..let’s not forget it was the neo-lib labour govt of clark that signed off on that ‘deal’ with australia..

      ..where they stripped away all these rights from new zealanders living there…

      ..remember how clark was so ‘relaxed’/shoulder-shrugging about that at the time..?

      ..i do..

      ..phillip ure..

      • greywarbler 6.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 9:22 am

        Don’t be unkind to Jokeyhen. Perhaps he and Abbott couldn’t get out and play golf together? That is when you have a chance to get away from the minders and really talk, perhaps have a wee wager about concessions on whether you can get a hole in one. Perhaps Jokeyhen is just not up to the game. He has done his best, and got some concession, good for him the wee feller.

        We know we only have to ask Australia for anything we want, and they will say… not today.
        Google has a collection of suitable words that describe our position vis-a-vis Oz.

        … solicitor; suitor, beseecher, pleader; applicant, bidder, solicitant; candidate, aspirant, … appellant, party; beggar, cadger, Inf. panhandler, beadsman, mendicant, … Inf. sponge, SI. schnorrer, parasite, leech, hanger-on, user. supplicate, v.

        • phillip ure 6.1.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 10:00 am

          @ greywarbler..

          ..this saying ‘fuck you!’ from the australians..

          ..just gets me musing again on the idea of partial-nationalisation..

          (..this is the flip-side of key/nationals’ partial-privatisation..)

          ..where the state ‘buys’ a 51% controlling interest in key industries..

          ..say..food-retailing..?..banking..?..as just two examples..

          ..(the cost of buying this controlling share is of course paid out of future profits..nothing is ‘stolen’ from current owners/shareholders..)

          ..and in food-retailing in particular..

          ..this 51% control will make it so easy to implement the upcoming raft of regulations designed to ensure what is peddled as ‘food’..is actually food..

          ..and not sugar/fat-laden crap..falsely marketed as food..

          ..and to counter the sugar-driven obesity-epidemic..

          ..plus of course..partial nationalisation is the best of both worlds..

          ..the 51% control means 51% of the profits return to the people..

          ..but the efficiancies of the industry are retained..

          ..’cos of that remaining 49% shareholding..

          ..what’s not to love about all that..?

          ..phillip ure..

  7. freedom 7
    8 February 2014 at 8:59 am

    Three years on since the revealing Hard Talk interview on the BBC I wonder if Stephen Sackur is interested in revisiting the views expressed by John Key?

    I wonder if John Key would have the stones to front up?

    Either way it would be a great story

    (requests have been sent btw)

    • Will@Welly 7.1
      8 February 2014 at 5:07 pm

      Best interview of John Key, I think, perhaps ever.
      Stephen Sackur would be a starter, no doubt.
      John Key, ah, the moral dilemma, front and lie, or simply just walk away. I think the second option would be his preferred stance.
      You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

  8. greywarbler 8
    8 February 2014 at 9:05 am

    Also on Radionz – regular programmes
    Knowing is increasing understanding. Knowing about more than the bods in the private media choose to broadcast/publish increases understanding.
    They limit your knowledge with their selective choice that is slanted to fish and chip fodder – the shape of face and teeth, the size of breasts, the amount of money made, or lost, or misspent, the fine details of competition in physical activities undertaken, won or lost ie sport, war, and where you can get outside your reality today – films, TV, bars.

    Maori life is full of events, people buzzing with ideas, and can restore hope for NZs future if a listener is depressed. Some may have given up on forward-looking activity and creativity but not Maori. They are a powerhouse of what is actually happening in NZ.

    What are Maori thinking about, and what do they and their leaders say about the way forward, and back.
    Te Manu Korihi
    Providing news on Māori issues, Te Manu Korihi features four times each weekday, in Radio New Zealand National’s leading news programmes Morning Report and Checkpoint. A longer weekly edition, Te Waonui, is broadcast on Sunday evenings.
    Weekdays at 6:27am, 8:45am, 5:40pm, 6:45pm, and Sundays at 5:35pm
    You can also read news text.
    and
    Te Ahi Kaa
    The philosophy of Te Ahi Kaa is to reflect the diversity of Māori in the past, present and future. While bilingual in delivery, the programme incorporates Māori practices and values in its content, format and presentation.
    Sundays at 6:00pm, repeated at 1:05am Monday

    Rural areas’ happenings, is there anything apart from mass dairying? Lots, and this country doings being broadcast is very enjoyable and fascinating.
    7:08 am Country Life
    Memorable scenes, people and places in rural NZ (RNZ)
    A weekly programme of issues and stories of particular concern to the rural community, and also of interest to a general audience.
    Friday 9pm and Saturday 7am
    Produced by Carol Stiles, Susan Murray and Cosmo Kentish-Barnes

    • Chooky 8.1
      8 February 2014 at 9:46 am

      thanks Greywarbler …I like this

      “Maori life is full of events, people buzzing with ideas, and can restore hope for NZs future if a listener is depressed. Some may have given up on forward-looking activity and creativity but not Maori. They are a powerhouse of what is actually happening in NZ”.

      I think the blending of Maori with Pakeha culture is what makes New Zealand special….many New Zealanders only realise this when they go overseas….that New Zealand culture and New Zealanders are unique ….on the one hand a heritage of ferocious fighters, on the other a deep spirituality with the land….. our Mother Papatuanuku …and with this comes a deep sense of belonging…and generosity

      I think the early Europeans learned an incredible amount from the Maori spirituality wise….there is a generosity of spirit and inclusiveness, if one is willing to partake….this is how Europeans became Pakehas and proud of it….and of course today many New Zealanders have both Maori and Pakeha blood, or if not blood then spirituality( i know of one Pakeha without any Maori blood but who is more imbued with Maori culture and ways of thinking than many Maori)….so if you insult one half you are insulting the other half yourself

      • greywarbler 8.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 11:28 am

        Chooky
        Thanks for feedback. You mention how open most Maori were to pakeha, so many willing to share food, give shelter when needed, and misunderstandings, animosity have had to be settled and ways of living adopted that respected that there were two approaches with both being considered. A

        I remember one commentator recalling one leader coming to class with the children to learn the English language and other things. Viewing practically that this was useful, there was opportunity to learn here, this big man sat by the children without embarrassment or feeling it diminished his mana.

        And so we must all be, for our greater knowledge, wisdom, width of understanding, success and comfort through future changes, problems and trials.

        • North 8.1.1.1
          9 February 2014 at 6:00 am

          There’s a church, St Michael’s I think, visible from SH 12 between Ohaeawai and Kaikohe, adjacent to a site of battle in which the English suffered numerous fatalities. Decaying corpses of English militia were removed from where they fell and afforded decent and dignified burial in the environs of where the church now stands.

          By whom ? By the “savage” ungodly Maori of the day. The “savages” to whom the English were bringing “civilisation” with wholesale plunder and pillage the quid pro quo. That continues with ongoing dehumanisation, demonisation, and impoverishment of Maori. It is all the more beastly for the weasel words which accompany professions of apology, care and acknowledgment.

          Living and working in the Hokianga/Kaikohe/Bay of Islands area for the last decade I am humbled as the beneficiary of a generosity of spirit and inclusiveness (Chooky @ 8.1 above) – aroha afforded me on a daily basis by Maori. Quite simply I would not be without my appreciation that “Maori” is magnificent.

          Broadly, such “defects” as Ansell (“Kiwi not Iwi”) and his sad ilk identify and carp incessantly about, I see as the defects of Ansell and his sad ilk in the first place.

  9. phillip ure 9
    8 February 2014 at 9:22 am

    (um..!..don’t we have here in nz what is often described as an ‘epidemic’ of suicide ..

    ..by our young men..?..)

    “..Legalizing Medical Marijuana May Lead To Fewer Suicides..

    ..A team of economists’ newly published report in the American Journal of Public Health –

    – suggests states that have legalized medical marijuana –

    – may see a reduction in suicide rates in young men..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/marijuana-legalization-suicide_n_4726390.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    phillip ure..

  10. Chooky 10
    8 February 2014 at 9:26 am

    Metiria Turei’s Waitangi Day Speech

    It begins:

    “This is an historic opportunity for me, as a Māori woman and political leader and for the Green Party, the most consistent voice in parliament for the interests of Maori over the past 15 years.”

    https://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/metiria-turei-s-waitangi-day-speech-te-tii-marae-powhiri-party-leaders

  11. Rosie 11
    8 February 2014 at 10:05 am

    @ Warbly. just shifting this little snippet of info, relevant to my point about unionised Vs. non unionised supermarkets, from yesterdays Open Mike, that I put there at 6am (insomina)

    Furthermore, there is an interesting article about Union membership on stuff of all places. Robert Reid of First Union has this to say about pay rates for Union members at Countdown Vs. Foodstuff’s stores.

    “First has negotiated a collective agreement for employees of Australian-owned Progressive Enterprises which operates Countdown supermarkets in New Zealand, he says.

    Strength in numbers has earned Countdown workers pay rates of “high” $15 an hour to “low” $16 an hour; well above the industry norm according to Reid.

    Staff of non-unionised New Zealand co-operative Foodstuffs earn around the minimum wage of $13.75, Reid says.”

    Foodstuffs North Island HR manager goes on to respond.

    It’s worth a read.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9696643/Are-unions-a-good-deal-for-workers

    • phillip ure 11.1
      8 February 2014 at 11:07 am

      @ rosie..

      ..partially-nationalise those bastards..too…

      ..(hate to be seen as just picking on the australians..eh..?..)

      phillip ure..

    • bad12 11.2
      8 February 2014 at 11:59 am

      Nice link Rosie, adds weight to my long held belief that based upon low wages as the measurement there should be compulsory unionization of parts of the New Zealand workforce…

      • srylands 11.2.1
        8 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

        seriously? compulsory unionization? Bring it on please as Green Party policy.

        • McFlock 11.2.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 6:17 pm

          I’d vote for that. I’m surprised sspylands is against it – from a certain perspective it’s just user-pays for the benefits of worker representation.

        • bad12 11.2.1.2
          8 February 2014 at 9:06 pm

          SSLands, as usual for a brainless turd you have a bad habit of taking two words from a sentence and attempting to skew the debate around the false assumption made from simply concentrating on those two words,

          i realize that you are bereft of an intellectual capability other than to copy and paste that which looks to you like it might support some point you are attempting to make and this is the reason you are treated with such deserved contempt,

          Until you learn to put forward your point of view in a form other than that of the robotic repetitions of an idiot you will always be classed as an ‘it’…

      • Murray Olsen 11.2.2
        8 February 2014 at 8:33 pm

        I’m all for compulsory unionism enforced by the union members. Legislated compulsory unionism allowed a caste of bureaucrats to get lazy and depend on Labour governments for favours, which were seldom given. Then when the first ACT government went into full frontal assault mode on the proletariat, they had no answer. We must learn from that.

    • Tracey 11.3
      8 February 2014 at 7:48 pm

      Hence the concerted attack on unions since the 80s.

      Funeral payout. Free lawyers. Health insurance for under 10 bucks a week…

      Srylands employer doesnt give the shop floor that.

  12. fisiani 12
    8 February 2014 at 12:23 pm

    The Greens are fanatics. They are not normal people. They are zealots who want to impose their beliefs on us all. They truly want to
    1.Ban fizzy drinks from schools
    2.Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
    3.Ban all gaming machines in pubs
    4.Ban the GCSB
    5.Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
    6.Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
    7.Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
    8.Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
    9.Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
    10.Ban field testing on production of GE food
    11.Ban import of GE food
    12.Ban Urban Sprawl
    13.Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
    14.Ban further corporate farming
    15.Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
    16.Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
    17.Ban crates for sows
    18.Ban battery cages for hens
    19.Ban factory farming of animals
    20.Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
    21.Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
    22.Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
    23.Ban cloning of animals
    24.Ban use of animals in GE
    25.Ban GE animal food
    26.Ban docking of dogs tails
    27.Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
    28.Ban smacking
    29.Ban advertising during children’s programmes
    30.Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
    31.Ban coal mining
    32.Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
    33.Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
    34.Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
    35.Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
    36.Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
    37.Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
    38.Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
    39.Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
    40.Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
    41.Ban any additional use of coal for energy
    42.Ban fixed electricity charges
    43.Ban further large hydro plants
    44.Ban nuclear power
    45.Ban further thermal generation
    46.Ban private water management
    47.Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
    48.Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
    49.Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
    50.Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
    51.Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
    52.Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
    53.Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
    54.Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
    55.Ban food irradiation within NZ
    56.Ban irradiated food imports
    57.Ban growth hormones for animals
    58.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
    59.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
    60.Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
    61.Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
    62.Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
    63.Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
    64.Ban new casinos
    65.Allow existing casinos to be banned
    66.Ban promotion of Internet gambling
    67.Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
    68.Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
    69.Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
    70.Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
    71.Ban new prisons
    72.Ban semi-automatic weapons
    73.Ban genetic mixing between specieis
    74.Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
    75.Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
    76.Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
    77.Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
    78.Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
    79.Ban new urban highways or motorways
    80.Ban private toll roads
    81.Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
    82.Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
    83.Ban landfills
    84.Ban new houses without water saving measures
    85.Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

    • bad12 12.1
      8 February 2014 at 12:28 pm

      Thanks Fish-head, that’s damn nice of you to publish 85 reasons why so many of us are Green Party members,

      Keep up the good work…

      As a postscript Fish-head, i would suggest that you be fed entirely on a diet of your (21),

      Mmmm yummy mad cow disease…

      • fisiani 12.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 12:35 pm

        bad12 these may be 85 reasons for being a Green Party member but if they were known to the public then the public would never dream of wasting their vote on the Greens.

        • phillip ure 12.1.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 12:46 pm

          well done fisani..!

          ..for that list of logical/populist-policies/policy-ideas….

          ..hard to argue against any of them..really..

          ..eh..?

          ..or are you really ‘for’ feeding antibiotics to animals that are not sick..?

          ..and if so..

          ..what sort of braindead fucken idiot are you..?

          ..you are ‘for’ all those things..

          ..eh..?

          ..you used to astound with yr regular bare-faced displays of yr stupidity/ies @ kiwiblog..

          ..you clearly haven’t lost that ability..

          ..phillip ure..

          • bad12 12.1.1.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 1:16 pm

            Lolz, Fish-head has yet to come to terms with the relationship of feeding farmed animals en masse with anti-biotics and the continuing loss of efficacy such anti-biotics have when they are used against infections within the human population,

            Answering the query put to Fish-head on ‘its’ behalf i would suggest that ‘it’ is EVERY sort of brain-dead idiot imaginable and a few yet to be thought of…

          • felix 12.1.1.1.2
            8 February 2014 at 2:58 pm

            “well done fisani..!

            ..for that list of logical/populist-policies/policy-ideas….

            ..hard to argue against any of them..really..”

            I guess that’s why he didn’t.

        • bad12 12.1.1.2
          8 February 2014 at 12:58 pm

          Fish-head, 12-15% of the public will be doing just that at the 2014 election, voting for the Green Party that is,

          (84), Ban new houses without water saving measures, in the year 2040 Fish-head, every house in the Auckland city boundary is going to Need a split water system where the washing machine, shower and out-side water taps will Need to be attached to a 5000 liter tank which collects water from the houses guttering,

          Auckland City already is applying for resource consent to considerably up it’s take of water from the Waikato River with major opposition from competing water users such as farmer groups,

          The rising population of that city will force either the Council or the individual to make use of the zillions of liters of storm-water currently wasted or face ‘water-blackouts’…

          • Naki Man 12.1.1.2.1
            8 February 2014 at 1:46 pm

            That is a good idea, did you know that Hamilton’s treated sewerage goes into the Waikato River and then it becomes part of Auckland’s water supply. Mmm tasty.

            • bad12 12.1.1.2.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 2:19 pm

              Yes, along with what Taupo and every small town on the River in between had for breakfast,not to mention farm run off,

              Along with a fair dose of ‘black-water’ from the Kinlieth Mill just down the road from Tokoroa via it’s exit into the River at Mangakino,

              Apparently most of the Waikato River water is consumed in the South of Auckland and while they all aint dropping dead yet there might in 10 or 20 years be some very ‘interesting’ health effects becoming apparent…

              As a postscript, i believe the Kapiti district council, having ‘tapped’ out the local resources of fresh water require all new houses to have a 5000 liter rain-water tank as part of the building consent…

              • srylands …
                8 February 2014 at 2:44 pm

                “As a postscript, i believe the Kapiti district council, having ‘tapped’ out the local resources of fresh water require all new houses to have a 5000 liter rain-water tank as part of the building consent…”

                Ummm yes plus they are building a new dam. Did you think we were all going to rely on rainwater?

                http://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/Documents/Downloads/Water-Supply/Project-Maps/Maungakotukutuku-Dam-location-map.jpg

                P.S. I have put you down for “signwave”. Not sure what it is but it sounded you.

                http://www.act.org.nz/?q=civicrm/profile/create&gid=25&reset=1

                • felix …
                  8 February 2014 at 3:03 pm

                  Don’t say “we” when you talk about us. You’re not “us”.

                  Also you know fuck all about water tanks. 5000 litres is for rainwater, to be used in the garden, on the lawn, washing the car, etc etc.

                  Moron.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  8 February 2014 at 3:06 pm

                  It probably means that ACT enablers can write letters to the media then pretend they aren’t from paid hacks by signing false names. I’m assuming that being ACT enablers, their English skills failed at “waive”.

                • bad12 …
                  8 February 2014 at 4:12 pm

                  ??? building a new dam SSLands, guessing you to be close to sixty you will be lucky to get a sip of water from it befor you end up as trash buried in the ground,

                  Hope you enjoy the inevitable rates rises which should be quite considerable, even buying the land to be submerged has at least doubled in price in the last few years, imagine what ‘inflation’ will do to the 33 odd million the dam is supposed to cost,

                  What’s 66 million look like on the rates bill, assuming of course that ‘the dam’ can over-come the hurdle of resource consent, something the former Mayor Jenny Rowan wasn’t so sure about…

                • Murray Olsen …
                  8 February 2014 at 8:55 pm

                  I liked this piece from the ACT site (with changes in the interests of accuracy):

                  The ACT Party has always had a strong focus on law and order, and how to avoid our personal responsibilities. It is the prime responsibility of government to keep its citizens safe from dark skinned South Aucklanders.

                  With the ACT Party in Government under National, we have ensured that National puts this responsibility at the top of its list. Since ACT has been in Government, we have seen the following:

                  • 100% of ACT MPs are currently facing criminal charges;
                  • In fact, every year since David Garrett got his new passport, reported crime has dropped;
                  • Murder has dropped 36.5 per cent since 2008. Giving Police officers immunity has really helped;
                  • Serious assault since 2008 has dropped 9.2 per cent. Our new initiative to use the 2007 figures will see serious assaults since 2008 drop to zero.

                  These trends will make it much easier for SERCO to make record profits. Our transparency in investment initiative will mean that no ACT member will need to declare their shareholdings in private prisons.

          • srylands 12.1.1.2.2
            8 February 2014 at 11:15 pm

            Silly Bad 11

            You seriously think the Greens will get 15%?

            The smart money has them on 9.5% – 10.5%? at election time. Their floor support is 7%.

            If you seriously think they will get even 12% you can make some real money. Drop a stack on ipredict drip fed over the next 6 months and you will clean up.

            And who the hell is “fish head”?

            You seem to have that Green Party love of “banning” things. It must be in the water. My assessment is that your regulatory proposal to ban houses is likely to fall over in its RIA:

            http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/regulatory/impactanalysis

            There is no need to ban anything. Simply price water to recover costs from all users, including farmers, and users can figure out their own water conservation measures. Bring in water metering and charge everyone.

            One thing New Zealand doesn’t have to worry about is water. As David Lange famously said in his eloquent tones.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.2.2.1
              8 February 2014 at 11:39 pm

              too much stupid from SSpylands – assuming the higher end of of a range is the expectation, that ipredict counts as a reliable predition of reality, that anything from treasury is worth a damn when their predictions are way off even in the six month timeframe, etc etc etc.

              What runs this bot – a ZX81?

            • bad12 12.1.1.2.2.2
              9 February 2014 at 9:56 am

              SSLands, ban houses???,this your latest of comments reads like the ramblings of a tired drunk…

        • joe90 12.1.1.3
          8 February 2014 at 1:01 pm

          if they were known to the public then the public would never dream of wasting their vote on the Greens.

          Too funny.

          2008 – +1.42 %

          2011 – +4.33 %

      • greywarbler 12.1.2
        8 February 2014 at 12:59 pm

        fishhead
        Runner-up to Blip for list making but not in the same class, so can never come close. But Fishy has been working – you really have. Pity all your stuff is so negative usually and I just don’t bother to read it. If I miss something good, somebody will repeat it amongst those whose comments I do read. But good marks for trying.

        What are you like at cryptic crosswords?
        You have the fortitude and screwiness to break through those enigmatic clues I would think.

      • veutoviper 12.1.3
        8 February 2014 at 1:00 pm

        Perhaps fisiani ALREADY has mad cow disease? Could be the explanation for his comments here?

        I ticked yes to most of that list. Perhaps I should join the Greens.

      • srylands 12.1.4
        8 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

        You are a Green Party member?

        • bad12 12.1.4.1
          8 February 2014 at 2:44 pm

          LOLZ, SSLands, i am stealing my answer off of Joe90, Clueless fuck you need to ask…

          • srylands 12.1.4.1.1
            8 February 2014 at 3:10 pm

            But I have you down as my ACT buddy – you can be the Hamilton frontier for freedom.

            The greens have a core support level of about 7%. The extra 5 percentage points have zero clue about Green policies. They are (1) the young and confused and (2) the prosperous wine sippers in Oriental Bay and Kelburn who think the Greens are about making the flowers grow.

            If the Greens get into power, this latter group will desert them in a flash once they see what the Greens are about.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.4.1.1.1
              8 February 2014 at 3:25 pm

              Nah, you’re thinking of what happened to ACT.

            • weka 12.1.4.1.1.2
              8 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

              “If the Greens get into power, this latter group will desert them in a flash once they see what the Greens are about.”

              So how come these NACT lackeys know about all the GP’s evil plans, but the general public doesn’t? The GP are pretty up front about their policies, and have one of the best websites for communicating their values and policies. They are certainly far better than National at being honest about what they want and intend.

            • Tracey 12.1.4.1.1.3
              8 February 2014 at 7:54 pm

              Run rabbit run.

              More nzers vote green that act and uf combined.

          • srylands 12.1.4.1.2
            8 February 2014 at 3:14 pm

            I actually had you down as a Mana member. All that misdirected anger and entitlement issues, pure Mana. I thought you would be too scary for most Green Party branches.

            It does show how far the Greens have moved from that nice Rod Donald. I worked with him closely on the Overseas Investment Bill. He was a nice guy. He would be spewing looking at the Green Party today and how far it has strayed from its mission into basically a communist party in green drag.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.4.1.2.1
              8 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

              He was a nice guy. What about people who co-opt the dead, though, and put words in their mouths? Are they “nice guys”, or are they self-serving scum?

            • bad12 12.1.4.1.2.2
              8 February 2014 at 4:20 pm

              Stupid comment again SSLands, the Green Party has had the same two arms since it’s formation, Green and Social Justice issues have been at its core all along…

            • fender 12.1.4.1.2.3
              8 February 2014 at 5:20 pm

              Piss off Roger Sowry Lands..

              • phillip ure …
                9 February 2014 at 8:28 am

                @ fender..

                ..ew..!..really…?

                ..(but if so..good to see them in their true colours/masks off..

                ..as greed-driven/uncaring arsewipes..)

                phillip ure..

            • McFlock 12.1.4.1.2.4
              8 February 2014 at 6:24 pm

              Fucking tory robots, always making files on people.

              piss off, SSpylands

            • Tracey 12.1.4.1.2.5
              8 February 2014 at 7:52 pm

              Your imaginary green voting wife might have known him but you insult his memory with your shallow pap.

      • fender 12.2.1
        8 February 2014 at 1:07 pm

        OMG! It’s not even his/her own work, it’s a regurgitated Farrar wet-fireworks fizzer!

        Thanks for the LOL fizzer..

        • joe90 12.2.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 1:18 pm

          From Bill via the research unit to the boy penguin and latterly the bro-in-law picks and runs.

        • felix 12.2.1.2
          8 February 2014 at 3:09 pm

          Not necessarily plagiarism though. fizzy may well be one of David Farrar’s many sockpuppets.

          Certainly thick and arrogant enough.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.2.2
        8 February 2014 at 4:56 pm

        Yep, thought I’d seen it before. I believe it was fully debunked as well.

    • Will@Welly 12.3
      8 February 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Fiss – what a great idea.
      On one side of the wall BLiP’s poster, on the other side, a modified version of your list. I like it.
      No. 80 for example – ban all private toll roads – I can’t see any New Zealanders being outraged, except a few Nats. Thanks fiss-mog !!
      No. 44 – Ban Nuclear Power – in New Zealand – already done, you f**ken moron !!

    • fender 12.4
      8 February 2014 at 12:52 pm

      86. Ban (my suggestion, not Green policy) ‘fizzer’ imitations of the famous BLiP (who ALWAYS provides a link).

    • phillip ure 12.5
      8 February 2014 at 1:15 pm

      are you a plagiarist there..fisi..?

      ..is that yr own work..?

      ..if not..where are the speech-marks to indicate authorship by another..?

      ..’cos as you posted it..it reads as yr work/words..

      ..but it ain’t..

      ..eh..?

      ..phillip ure..

    • Anne 12.6
      8 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

      Fisi didn’t think up all those bans himself. Where did you get the list from Fisi? Is it an answer to BLiP’s list of John Key lies?

      • srylands 12.6.1
        8 February 2014 at 8:21 pm

        “Fisi didn’t think up all those bans himself.”

        No he did not. It is a work in progress. They are mostly spot on but some are a little OTT. It is a great concept for electioneering. A four metre high “soon to be banned” list on SH2. Target – the 2.5 percentage points folk from Kelburn and Oriental Bay who vote Green. These are the Green voters with rental properties and who want to make the flowers grow.

        • McFlock 12.6.1.1
          8 February 2014 at 8:27 pm

          please run that campaign, SSpylands!

          To anyone except a goddamn neolib robot like you, a whole chunk of those things aren’t that bad, and a whole chunk more are so outlandish as to be as successful as “the Green delusion”.

    • Tracey 12.7
      8 February 2014 at 7:49 pm

      This was a party political broadcast from the office of steven joyce.

    • David H 12.8
      8 February 2014 at 8:34 pm

      86.Ban Fishi from polluting our pristine space!

  13. North 13
    8 February 2014 at 4:58 pm

    Never an answer to BLiP’s LiST, although imitation/flattery and all that. The BLiP LiST is a famous and ever expanding chronologue of the devious mutterings of an effete shifty-eyed US bankster domiciled in HaWhyKey. The BLiP LiST stands on its own. It is read and respected all over The World. It is a taonga Aotearoa which ultimately will be taken from the pages of The Standard and housed in Te Papa as Aotearoa’s Founding-Out Document !

    Arise SiR BLiP……..

  14. freedom 14
    8 February 2014 at 5:32 pm

    PPP info
    Hi Blip & co

    – awaiting replies from printers for quotes
    – sent mails’ content:

    Hello xxxxxx xxxxxx

    I am in need of a quote for some posters, to be used for a nationwide paste up operation that is still awaiting funding. Once there is a price I will have a better idea of when the project can get a green light but at this time I am looking at an April start for distribution.

    If you could let me know a price per 1000 posters and per 500 posters

    I am looking at a 3 colour poster which at this time involves only text and Q- codes.

    if you could quote for A0, A1, and A2 sizes it would be appreciated.

    There will be no design services required as you will receive the files in whatever format and with any specifications you require.

    Thank you
    xxxxxxx xxxxxx

    Except for some personal contact info, no other information about the posters was divulged.
    Until we have an initial price pool, it seemed unnecessary.

    p.s.
    any one feel like offering legal advice on the PPP concept yet?

    be well
    freedom

    • Tracey 14.1
      8 February 2014 at 7:58 pm

      Thanks freedom.

      Have delved into defamation law in the last week or so but am no expert in this field. What about mickey savage?

      My offer for dosh remains.

  15. North 15
    8 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Not sure I get the PPP acronym but I’m assuming it’s around the wide dissemination of The BLiP LiST.

    Not my area but I’m ruminating on measure of privilege attaching to fair comment, honestly held belief/opinion, matter of public interest ? Surely it wouldn’t display essential malice like (Condom) Ansell’s “Kiwi Not Iwi”. However, lets deal with first things first – how about justification ?

    • freedom 15.1
      8 February 2014 at 11:51 pm

      ” how about justification ?”
      North, would you care to elaborate a bit please?.
      Not being a lawyer, I am not following the context of the use of justification.
      thank you

      • North 15.1.1
        9 February 2014 at 7:30 am

        Justification = what is published is true.

        • freedom 15.1.1.1
          9 February 2014 at 8:59 am

          thanks, I thought for a minute you were asking what was the justification for delivering published information about incorrect and conflicting statements by our Prime Minister to the voting public of New Zealand?

  16. greywarbler 16
    8 February 2014 at 6:03 pm

    North
    +1 😀

    And I have just been listening to a replay of interviews from Waitangi Day.
    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/290651/labours-snubbing-forum-rankles
    Sonny Tau of the Maori Leaders Group says that they haven’t got time to talk to Labour and only want to talk to the government of the day. If they included any other political party, they would have to include them all. As Labour is the only other major party, I hardly think that holds water.

    Another comment from NACTs on radio was that Paula (Bennett) was up north finalising something apparently relating to Treaty settlements up there. I may not have understood that correctly. But Maori don’t want welfare included as part of their settlements I understand. Settlement is about getting land returned, or money. And often that money will mostly be used up if they have to buy back the land they want. And I think they have legal costs to pay. Getting an economic base is a big job in itself and shouldn’t be confused with welfare concerns.

    Then there was a comment from Key that because of the size of the northern tribes, the settlement would be bigger than some. This is directly in contrast with what Maori want, which is reparation for land taken, not amounts allocated on a per head basis. So it sounds as if NACT are trying to play around with the settlement process. If they are not all settled on the same basis then there will be repercussions later. And a feeling of pakeha pollies being tricky and mendacious. Which pakeha have in the past levelled at Maori. The settlements must be done in such a way that this type of accusation cannot be levelled.

    People of note – Dr Muriel Newman and Mike Butler. And her chosen quote from Paul Holmes from 2012 is indicative of the deep antipathy to Maori that right wing pakeha often feel.

    NZCPR
    Dr Muriel Newman is the founder and Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research – a public policy think tank she established in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. Her background is in business and education. A former Chamber of Commerce President, she currently serves on the board of a children’s trust. (Also see Mike Butler Breaking Views blog.)

    Her page starts off with this quote from Paul Holmes from 2012. Odious little man.
    ““I’m over Waitangi Day. It is repugnant. It’s a ghastly affair. As I lie in bed on Waitangi morning, I know that later that evening, the news will show us irrational Maori ghastliness with spitting, smugness, self-righteousness and the usual neurotic Maori politics, in which some bizarre new wrong we’ve never thought about will be lying on the table.”

    • Tracey 16.1
      8 February 2014 at 8:00 pm

      Cos she would never be nasty to anyone who scoffed at the theft of her properties and murdered her ancestors…

      • Anne 16.1.1
        8 February 2014 at 8:53 pm

        Muriel Newman is of English origin. Arrived in NZ at the age of 8. My pick is, her parents were ignorant of New Zealand’s history, and inculcated in her mind that Maori were inferior to them as they were from the Mother Country and Maori were not long out of swinging in the trees wearing grass skirts. She’s never ever bothered to research the truth and doesn’t have the ability to empathise with anyone but her own kind of English bred prejudice. She and Alf Garnett would get along fine!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Newman

  17. joe90 17
    8 February 2014 at 6:22 pm

    To avoid moderation –link.

    This afternoon, the American N*** Party had more than 4,000 followers on Twitter, and at least two of them were influential think tanks.

    Until they were called out on Twitter earlier today, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute were both followers of “America’s premier 21st Century National Socialist Organization.”

  18. gem 18
    8 February 2014 at 9:00 pm

    Just like Key Tony Abbott is a ”relaxed” PM, Fairfax says.

  19. gem 19
    8 February 2014 at 9:35 pm

    Food scandal in Britain as testing of 900 samples reveals 38% not as labelled, including use of banned flame-retardant additives.
    I wonder what similar testing would reveal here. It’s a shame the Greens have de-emphasised food issues in recent times.

  20. North 20
    9 February 2014 at 5:14 am

    This wouldn’t have happened on the day of the Destiny Church “Enough is Enough” march on the New Zealand Parliament a few years ago ?

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1128646/rights-group-releases-video-of-russia-anti-gay-attacks-ahead-of-sochi/