Open mike 08/05/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:35 am, May 8th, 2014 - 197 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 …

197 comments on “Open mike 08/05/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    8 May 2014 at 6:51 am

    Geez! This is meant to be a good price for a taxi from Auckland airport to the CBD or North Shore? Just about more than some airfares.

    Easier to get a bus around NZ, or a ship traveling overseas, than to fly.

    • Populuxe1 1.1
      8 May 2014 at 6:57 am

      The shuttle from the airport to town is reasonably priced

      • Paul 1.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 7:00 am

        This is what happens when there is no train from an airport to a city.

        • Grumpy 1.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 8:23 am

          Cheaper by far to hire a car.

          • Hayden 1.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 8:38 am

            Yep, it’s about 3 days’ hire, probably. Hell, I could drive my own car from Wellington to Albany for less than that, if I had nothing better to do.

            As an exercise a little while ago I worked out how cheaply I could get to Albany (for business reasons); the best I got was about $41 from Karori by overnight bus.

            On taxis, remember it being about $100 from the airport to Albany in 1999, which shocked me at the time. This was before Albany really took off, SH1 went straight through the middle and the Western route was a rural-ish road from Glenfield through Whenuapai and Hobsonville.

        • Hayden 1.1.1.2
          8 May 2014 at 8:49 am

          In Wellington you can just walk, if you’re not too worried about your hairstyle.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.1
            8 May 2014 at 9:21 am

            and getting wet..

            • Hayden 1.1.1.2.1.1
              8 May 2014 at 9:28 am

              As of this exact minute, it’s not raining in Wellington.

              • phillip ure …
                8 May 2014 at 9:37 am

                are the residents thronging the streets..?

                ..dancing and singing ‘hallelujah!’..?

                ..up here in the best city in the country..

                ..it is sunny..balmy even..

                • Hayden …
                  8 May 2014 at 10:16 am

                  That’s a funny way to spell “biggest car-park in the country”!

                  :p

                • Rosie …
                  8 May 2014 at 11:31 am

                  When was the last time you were in our stunning city, admiring our glittering harbour, being spoilt for choice of music venues every single night and marvelling at the abundance of public transport options phillip?

                  I’ll also have you know we have had an unnaturally balmy warm windless time of it lately…………..

                  • Naturesong …
                    8 May 2014 at 11:48 am

                    I get all the Wellington news I need straight from the horses mouth 😀

                  • phillip ure …
                    8 May 2014 at 11:57 am

                    i once stayed there for a whole week of ‘good days’…

                    ..so i have experienced its’ charms..

                    ..and fwiw..it would be my second choice nz city to live in..

                    ..i don’t mind ‘interesting’-weather..

                    ..i’m just riffing..really..

                    • Rosie …
                      8 May 2014 at 12:48 pm

                      It’s OK, I was just joshing around myself. As a matter of fact I lived in your city for the biggest chunk of my life so far.

                      It was good however to return to the place of my birth and reconnect with those aspects of the region I loved as a child, wind, earthquakes, the sea and the hills. Don’t love earthquakes any more though.Not since Christchurch.

                      And speaking of wind, Sarah Palin may have been able to see Russia from her house but I can see the construction of wind turbines. The majestic glorious wind turbines of the Mill Creek Project. They look amazing set against a pink sunset. That’s your brighter future right there Noo Zuland. Green energy.

    • Bearded Git 1.2
      8 May 2014 at 10:12 am

      $17 from Brisbane airport to Brisbane city centre by train. Time Auckland airport had rail access like almost every other major airport in the world.

  2. Paul 2
    8 May 2014 at 7:14 am

    Michael Woodhouse, immigration minister, met Donghua Liu at Maurice Williamson’s friend at his hotel.
    Dodgier and dodgier.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/243704/minister-rejects-claim-of-preferential-access

    • Plan B 2.1
      8 May 2014 at 9:43 am

      he met at a hotel, may as well have been a carpark

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 6:21 pm

        a seedy encounter in the ‘stay-a-while motel’..

        ..on the wrong side of town..

        ..money for services rendered..

        ..this money paid to the national party..

  3. Paul 3
    8 May 2014 at 7:18 am

    2 days running the Nats don’t front on Morning Report to discuss cash for their mates.
    And both times Labour fronts and Espiner attacks them!
    What about attacking the Nats for their failure to front?
    What a biased Tory supporter Guyon is.
    How did he get the job at RNZ? He is not an impartial observer.

    • tc 3.1
      8 May 2014 at 7:55 am

      RNZ under griffin is very govt friendly, check the board out. Joyce was in radio so RNZwas always going to be brought in line.

      Gluon better have a good contract treating his potential future ministers as we does.

      • Gosman 3.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 9:33 am

        Do you have any evidence that the board is interfering in editorial decisions?

      • captain hook 3.1.2
        8 May 2014 at 12:13 pm

        I cant understand why RNZ employed gluon. He is the biggest whiner ever on the radio and the prospect of him whining on till he retires is enough to make one want to emigrate. This country seems to be getting crummier and crummier by the day!

    • ianmac 3.2
      8 May 2014 at 9:08 am

      Guyon does put interviewees through the mill. But the good thing is that credibility develops if the response is well founded. And so far Labour has developed credibility. Re Mallard, Cunliffe, Norman etc.
      This morning my guess is that Mr Key will be fuming as Money for Access and Influence has gained traction. And his lot have failed to front.

      • framu 3.2.1
        8 May 2014 at 9:25 am

        i just wish he would leave asking the same question over and over again to mary wilson

    • grumpy 3.3
      8 May 2014 at 12:39 pm

      Not correct. Labour and Greens have made accusations that they cannot substantiate and in doing so have exposed their hypocrisy. They have put themselves in this position through their incompetence, surely it is the job of the media to expose their lies?

      • Tracey 3.3.1
        8 May 2014 at 1:18 pm

        paula bennett lied on camera about her knowledge of the cabinet club. evidence is her answer to a question about it in the house in april.

      • greywarbler 3.3.2
        8 May 2014 at 8:19 pm

        Grumpy
        Examples?

    • Lanthanide 3.4
      8 May 2014 at 1:02 pm

      Guyon seems to have a regular politics spot these days.

      Anyway, it’s pretty clear that his approach is to come up with a question that’s related to the topic at hand that appies to the politician he’s asking, and then ask them it.

      He did it with Colin Craig, asking about Colin breaking the law by smacking, which was a stretch from whatever the interview was actually supposed to be about. He did it with Russel Norman, asking him if he would give equal time to someone who donated $60k vs a random Joe Bloggs constituent. He’s done it with Grant Robertson and Cunliffe about Cunliffe’s so-called ‘secret trust’.

      Also I don’t think it’s very fair to say “National didn’t front, so when Labour front, gang up with Labour against National”. The interviewer is supposed to be impartial, which means any party going to be interviewed should not expect kind treatment or for the media to champion their cause.

      • Tracey 3.4.1
        8 May 2014 at 1:23 pm

        agree. some here complained the left didnt get enough coverage…now too much?

  4. tricledrown 4
    8 May 2014 at 7:31 am

    Mallard kept him in his place all the left have been bagging Mallard for along time.
    Mallards experience is priceless he is Labours best attack dog.

    Its time for left to stop whining about bad treatment in the Media Mallard and Winston Peters no how to deal with Espiner.
    The left should take note

    • Chooky 4.1
      8 May 2014 at 8:53 am

      +100 trickledown….Mallard and Peters are good for the Left win of 2014

    • Paul 4.2
      8 May 2014 at 9:13 am

      Yes the left need to front for the media.
      e.g. Mallard could have commented today about the governments failure to turn up for an interview about the topic, saying they were running scared. Then said something to Espiner like” I look forward to hearing you asking them some difficult questions if they ever turn up.”

  5. Tiger Mountain 5
    8 May 2014 at 7:37 am

    Grant Hall, Star Trust (legal highs) with the PM. ShonKey gets photographed with a lot of people I guess. Image is screen shot of a fb share.
    https://db.tt/DzlQl0Pe

  6. philj 6
    8 May 2014 at 8:54 am

    xox
    RNZ morning Report, bring back Geoff Robinson. Much better quality journalism. Guyon must be getting a fortune to spin so fast! The government has frozen the funding for RNZ so the quality is declining.

    • phillip ure 7.1
      8 May 2014 at 9:39 am

      “..Pot’s a Cancer Killer..

      It’s been shown by a large number of investigators to [reduce] growth of brain – lung – breast – prostate –

      and thyroid cancer cells..”

      (cont..)

      http://www.weather.com/health/shocking-things-you-dont-know-about-weed-20140407

      • bad12 7.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:32 am

        Oh dear Phillip, talk about kicking an own goal while exposing yourself as an utter fucking hypocrite over testing drugs on animals,

        Why didn’t you re-publish the whole quote from Dr Tashkin MD, here let me help,

        ”Its been shown by a large number of investigations to (reduce) growth of brain, lung, breast, prostate, and, thyroid cancer cells in ANIMAL MODELS” unquote Donald P. Tashkin MD,

        Tsk tsk Phillip how dare people test legal highs on all those lovely furry animals, BUT, when it comes to the drug of Phillips choice its a damn good thing to infect said furry animals with various cancers and then feed them Marijuana, (talk about being hypocritical),

        Then laughably there is this, and, i stopped reading and started laughing at page 6 of Phillips link,

        ”It impairs the activity of immune cells in your lungs”
        ”Substantial loss of airway cells”
        ”Faster progression of aids”
        ”Clusters of tuberculosis in users”

        And last but not least from only reading 6 pages out of 16, ”Pre-cancerous changes in the airways of heavy Marijuana users, (is that you Phillip), who don’t smoke tobacco,

        Yeah a real ”wonder drug” and we havn’t even delved into Dr Tashkin’s information on mental health and psychological changes in users yet…

  8. ianmac 8
    8 May 2014 at 9:20 am

    During Question Time yesterday Grant Robertson asked Mr Key a careful question about the content of the information on whether Judith Collins was a conflict of interest or not.
    Did the Cabinet Committee (is that the right name for the experts who check the legalities?) get all the information that has since emerged or just the preliminaries?
    Mr Key of course gave a non-committal answer and joked in response. (Aha?)

    It is possible that if it can be shown that the Committee was not given all the information then Mr Key has mislead the House. Watch this space I think.

    • yeshe 8.1
      8 May 2014 at 9:29 am

      ianmac .. It was reported that Wayne Eagleson spent hours grilling Collins’ staff in the past few days … this surely suggests the possibility info had been hidden … keep the popcorn hot …

      • bad12 8.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 9:56 am

        Slippery the Prime Minister actively looking for a good enough reason to sack Collins i would suggest,

        i imagine that the ‘weeks leave’ the PM has given Collins is an open offer for Her to ‘reconsider Her future’ based around the current red herring being dragged across the trail, Collin’s health scare,

        Collins has mounted the classic compulsive liars defense in the face of Grant Robinson’s pit bull tenacity, from the superior smirk to anger to emotion and now to ‘a health scare’ Collins has played the drama queen to the nth degree,

        Clever stuff from Labour yesterday in discontinuing Her cross examination in the face of the ‘health scare’ spin dreamed up by the Beehives 9th floor in an attempt to spike Labours line of attack,

        Slippery the PM is now between that rock and a hard place, it’s too close to the election to sack Collins and the only means of getting Her away from being front and center is the dreamed up ‘health scare’, something i should expect the PM would wish to become permanent,

        Collins of course must know that the only way She can have any hope of leading the National Party is if they lose this election and act fast to stage a quick coup befor the Joyce camp can recover from such a loss,

        In the smoke and mirrors of politics Collins may yet come out of this as the winner…

      • Tracey 8.1.2
        8 May 2014 at 1:32 pm

        i think he was looking for a leaker… or finding the person who created a paper trail.

    • Hayden 8.2
      8 May 2014 at 9:37 am

      Didn’t he say that no new information had emerged, as far as he was concerned? From that can we infer that he was aware of the meeting brief that described improving the profile of Oravida Ltd, of which David Wong-Tung is a director?

    • veutoviper 8.3
      8 May 2014 at 10:02 am

      “Cabinet Office” ie not a committee, Ianmac.

      “The Cabinet Office is a ‘government secretariat’ that provides impartial support to central government decision-making processes. ”

      I doubt that we will ever know what information was given to the Cabinet Office by Key and his people which led to them (supposedly) advising Key that Collins’ actions were kosher. Key has consistently refused to release the CO advice despite repeated pressure in the House and by the media. IIRC there are rules etc that allow Key not to do so; and CO advice is not disclosable under the OIA. (Sorry, don’t have references to the rules on this, and don’t have time to research/refresh my memory on these today.)

      • ianmac 8.3.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:20 am

        Thanks Veutoviper. I am not clever enough to find out about the Cabinet Office for myself but now I do know. 🙂 Pity that the Committee is not discoverable. I wonder if submissions are only available to the Government? Could Grant submit a full dossier?

        • veutoviper 8.3.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 10:38 am

          Cabinet Office is part of the parliamentary administration, but I am not familiar enough with the CO rules etc to know whether Robertson or someone else in Parliament could submit the full MFAT disclosures for a further assessment.

          Would love to have the time today to research this; but achievement against this week’s To Do list is looking absymal so this must take precedence today. But it will bug me(!) ; so will try to do a search in the next few days and get back to you.

      • yeshe 8.3.2
        8 May 2014 at 10:30 am

        Morning to you Veuto .. pse would you hv a look at my question at #10 ? Thx 🙂

  9. Gosman 9
    8 May 2014 at 9:33 am

    Question for the anti-fractional reserve banking crowd.

    The main objection seems to be that banks can create money based on lending out a proportion of their deposits continuously.

    How does that impact on the supply of actual currency in the economy i.e. is there more physical currency circulating as a result of the banks lending actions?

    • RedLogix 9.1
      8 May 2014 at 9:53 am

      The physical supply of M0 currency (notes and coins) is usually controlled by a govt. authority like the Reserve Bank. For most economies M0 is usually some very small fraction (0.1 -2.0%) of the total credit (M3) available.

      The absolute M0 supply does increase over time to match population growth, but it’s an insignificant aspect of the economy as a whole. I have not seen anyone explain how M0 creation is linked in any direct manner to the creation of M3 credit by the private banks.

      • Gosman 9.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:41 am

        What about economies who don’t control the amount of currency in circulation. How does fractional reserve banking creation of money impact those nations?

        • McFlock 9.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 3:15 pm

          Which economies are you talking about? Not New Zealand’s at any rate.

    • freedom 9.3
      8 May 2014 at 10:00 am

      “The main objection seems to be that banks can create money based on lending out a proportion of their deposits continuously.” 🙄

      You must have missed the plethora of statements from the central banking community these past months that clearly admit they just make up zeroes as often as they wish and that there is no longer any factually structural relationship between deposits and distributed funds.

      You have been lied to for a long long time.
      Here is one article Gosman that hopefully will send you out on a mission of realisation.
      There are many more out there.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

      • Gosman 9.3.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:08 am

        No, I asked if the amount of money the banks supposedly create out of thin air actually impacts the amount of money in circulation (even indirectly via the RB putting more notes and coins in to circulation as a result).

        • dv 9.3.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 10:11 am

          Yes

          • Gosman 9.3.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 10:37 am

            So it does in you mind then. This should be easily idenitifed then in the amount of notes and coins in circulation increasing over time then.

            • dv 9.3.1.1.1.1
              8 May 2014 at 10:40 am

              No

            • Draco T Bastard 9.3.1.1.1.2
              8 May 2014 at 11:52 am

              Nope, most transaction these days are electronic. Don’t need notes and coins for electronic transfers. So we end up with exponential amount more money in the system without there being an exponential increase in notes and coins.

      • Tracey 9.3.2
        8 May 2014 at 2:50 pm

        do you know how, in these electronic days, a bank can take the money from an account electronically but it doesnt turn up in the destination account for 24 hours?

        does the bank gain much from having the money in limbo for 24 hours, and which bank benefits?

    • thatguynz 9.4
      8 May 2014 at 10:07 am

      Not capable of doing your own research Gosman? I seem to recall you saying you saying you had a financial background so I’m sure it shouldn’t be too tough for you.

      • Gosman 9.4.1
        8 May 2014 at 10:10 am

        Can’t you answer a reasonably straight forward question? Given the anti-fractional reserve bank people’s asertions that their view of the world is so blindingly obvious surely someone can explain how it impacts on the amount of physical money in circulation.

        • freedom 9.4.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 10:17 am

          It means the money in circulation does not mean what those using the money in circulation thought it means because the money in circulation is just a means to an end and that end is to make you believe what is in circulation is money.

        • thatguynz 9.4.1.2
          8 May 2014 at 10:36 am

          Yes I can however I’m not going to play your strawman game. Do your own research and if you then have a point to make, make it.

          • Gosman 9.4.1.2.1
            8 May 2014 at 10:44 am

            What strawman game? This is Open Mike and I am asking questions in relation the the whole Anti Fractional Reserve Banking theory. How is that a strawman?

            • Molly 9.4.1.2.1.1
              8 May 2014 at 10:55 am

              Because it is Open Mike and not Ask.com

            • thatguynz 9.4.1.2.1.2
              8 May 2014 at 10:57 am

              Gosman, you have operated in the same manner since you first came here. Like I said, with your self-confessed background I’m sure that 15 minutes of googling and reading will provide an initial answer to your question (although to be honest, I doubt you haven’t done that already). Come back with the REAL question that you are angling towards.

            • framu 9.4.1.2.1.3
              8 May 2014 at 12:50 pm

              “What strawman game?”

              you

              remember how you outed your own MO a while back?

        • Frank Macskasy 9.4.1.3
          11 May 2014 at 2:54 pm

          Gosman 9.4.1
          8 May 2014 at 10:10 am

          Can’t you answer a reasonably straight forward question? Given the anti-fractional reserve bank people’s asertions that their view of the world is so blindingly obvious surely someone can explain how it impacts on the amount of physical money in circulation.

          But Gosman, you’re not remotely interested in anyone’s answers to your inane questions.

          You’re simply playing silly little games and trying to set up a person with a rhetorical question, so you can make whatever “cunning” reply you have in mind.

          God, you’ve done it enough times. That’s why no one can be bothered responding to you.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.5
      8 May 2014 at 11:48 am

      The main objection seems to be that banks can create money based on lending out a proportion of their deposits continuously.

      That’s not actually how it works. None of the deposits the banks have are loaned out – not even a fraction of them. When a bank makes a ‘loan’ it creates the full amount. The amount that they can create is, supposedly, limited by their capital reserves but the Reserve Bank acts as lender of last resort. What this means in effect is that if the banks don’t have enough reserve they get to loan from the Reserve Bank and that loan will never be turned down. Thus the private banks can create unlimited amounts of money.

      How does that impact on the supply of actual currency in the economy i.e. is there more physical currency circulating as a result of the banks lending actions?

      No, we end up with lots more electronic money. I’ve read articles (many years ago now so don’t remember where) that estimated that between 50% and 80% of inflation in the is due to the banks printing money.

      EDIT: My bad, missed Gosman’s reference to physical money.

      • thatguynz 9.5.1
        8 May 2014 at 12:17 pm

        +1. And of course when the bank creates the loan “money” they don’t create the interest due on said loan so it is never repayable in the macro picture.

      • greywarbler 9.5.2
        11 May 2014 at 3:01 pm

        Thanks for explaining that DTB it seems that we proceed with systems in place and think we understand them but often not. So this fractional business keeps being named, and yet using that term is incorrect.

  10. yeshe 10
    8 May 2014 at 9:40 am

    Anyone know — is there any information available anywhere about how Stone Shi/DeyiShi made his millions in China ?

    Veutoviper .. have you been able to find anything in your excellent researching ? Big thanks to you and Frank MacSkasy.

    (He does appear to have many names under which his holdings are/were registered in this country. And his connection with Jenny Shipley seems to have been hidden in the morass of changing company names and directors .. but for sure she was in there with Pure and Natural before it obtained a new identity.)

    Oh, there is just so much more to be found out about the levels of this gross corruption and it has to be exactly why Collins still holds her Ministerial warrant… here’s hoping we will find it all before the election.

    • veutoviper 10.1
      8 May 2014 at 10:50 am

      Hi yeshe, I have not done any specific research on where Deyi (“Stone”) Shi made his millions – and the lack of information on this jumped out at me when researching Collins’ China trips and connections with him. But there are obviously big bucks there, considering the millions he spent to buy Mark Hotchins’ mansion in Auckland.

      As you pointed out, Frank M has done excellent research on the company connections which are eye opening.

      There are a lot of links on Google if you google “Deyi Shi”, but I don’t have time currently to check these in detail. But there seems to be little on his background prior to coming to NZ from a quick glance. Curious.

      But must go right now. Sorry.

      • yeshe 10.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 12:03 pm

        thx veuto .. we can keep exploring … who knows what is really out there ? see you here soon …

  11. freedom 11
    8 May 2014 at 9:52 am

    This is a somewhat trite comment, but goes to the comprehension level of those supporting the Government. I have been watching the progress of the Stuff poll on Judith Collins over the last few days. It has been clear what the public think, 63.4% think Collins should go. The ratio has been very stable between yes and no. There are two yes sectors to the vote, a “Yes, but only just”, 8.9%, the majority of yes votes are in the other sector, which says

    27.7% voted for “Yes, the controversy doesn’t affect how she works”

    Well and good I thought, but something had bothered me about the those voting Yes
    and then it struck me

    The issue is how she works!

  12. jh 12
    8 May 2014 at 10:10 am

    NZIER:

    ”We think population growth is a really good thing for New Zealand,” author Kirdan Lees said, but the flip side was housing pressures.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-needs-grow-become-global-city-5958405

    NZIER claim to be independant.

    2.3 Changing policy expectations
    While useful, models do not capture all the effects policymakers expect from immigration.
    When New Zealand moved to increase the numbers and skills of immigrants in the 1980s
    and 1990s, policymakers appear to have considered that these changes had the potential
    to have major beneficial impacts on the New Zealand economy, reinforcing the gains from
    22
    the other liberalising and deregulating economic reforms undertaken during that period.
    At that time, it was considered that skills-focused inward migration could: improve growth
    by bringing in better quality human capital and addressing skills shortages; improve
    international connections and boost trade; help mitigate the effects of population ageing;
    and have beneficial effects on fiscal balance. As well as “replacing” departing
    New Zealanders and providing particular help with staffing public services (for example,
    medical professionals), it was believed that migration flows could be managed so as to
    avoid possible detrimental effects (such as congestion or poorer economic prospects) for
    existing New Zealanders.

    Since then, New Zealand has had substantial gross and net immigration, which has been
    relatively skill-focused by international standards. However, New Zealand’s economic
    performance has not been transformed. Growth in GDP per capita has been relatively
    lacklustre, with no progress in closing income gaps with the rest of the advanced world,
    and productivity performance has been poor. It may be that initial expectations about the
    potential positive net benefits of immigration were too high.

    Based on a large body of new research evidence and practical experience, the consensus
    among policymakers now is that other factors are more important for per capita growth
    23
    and productivity than migration and population growth. CGE modelling exercises for
    Australia and New Zealand have been influential in reshaping expectations.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-needs-grow-become-global-city-5958405

    so how do they get away with it? They get away with it because of commercial interest (on the one hand) and comfortable progressive elites (on the other) who are blind to the negative effects of competition from offshore, choosing to believe that (really), there is a great store of loot guarded by a dragon which just needs to be unlocked and redistributed..

    • ianmac 12.1
      8 May 2014 at 10:27 am

      We get told that population growth is essential to maintain economic growth. So they say! To continue that growth what is the end point by which we change to “Enough! We will stop now!” -or is it a long term problem for future economists and polititians?

      • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 12:10 pm

        We get told that population growth is essential to maintain economic growth.

        Actually, it is. Without population growth you don’t have more people to sell things to which means that the amount of products being sold will always be in decline (except food and other essentials which will be static) and not be in growth which would mean that the interest charged by the banks can’t be paid. End result will be an economy that will crash and default on all debt.

        This is why NZ tends to chase export growth – there’s far more population overseas. Of course, those populations are quite capable of producing their own goods from their own resources and will eventually do so meaning that exports from NZ will also be in decline.

        • jh 12.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 2:28 pm

          “We get told that population growth is essential to maintain economic growth.”
          There is no certainty as to what population growth will do to percapita incomes:

          3.4.2 Large population increase?

          In theory, a high rate of immigration over an extended period could greatly increase
          New Zealand’s population, allowing productivity gains from economies of scale, both from
          conventional sources and the particular effects identified by economic geographers.
          However, the 2025 Taskforce, set up to provide advice to the government on how to close
          the income gap with Australia, did not favour greatly expanding immigration and
          68
          considered this approach unrealistic and potentially “enormously disruptive”.

          If in New Zealand’s situation a much larger population would greatly improve viability,
          69
          growth and resilience, disruption may be worth the cost. A larger population is
          technically feasible; New Zealand has similar land area to countries with much larger
          populations (for example, the United Kingdom or Japan). The historical growth of Australia
          over the 19th century, or California during the 20th century provide precedents for large
          population increases.

          However, just because greatly increasing population is feasible does not mean it is a wise
          strategy. While there is clear evidence that within countries, large urban agglomerations
          70
          have higher incomes and productivity, there is no such evidence across countries
          (bigger, more densely-populated countries are not richer than smaller countries with more
          71
          scattered populations). The observation that the very highest productivity is found in
          large urban areas producing knowledge-based products does not mean all societies can
          or should attempt to recreate the San Francisco Bay Area or London. When what is now
          the United States rust belt was the global productivity leader, many other regions
          improved their wellbeing through industrial development on a less extensive and less
          productive scale. Today New Zealand or other productivity “followers” may be able to
          materially improve productivity and living standards from current levels without adopting a
          large scale agglomeration strategy. Silicon Valley also illustrates the limitations of such
          strategies; notwithstanding the presence of Silicon Valley, the State of California has
          serious economic and fiscal problems. Similarly, Israel has a thriving innovative hi-tech
          sector, similar population, and comparable overall productivity to New Zealand.

          To make a judgment on whether a large increase in population is necessary or wise more
          information would be required on both costs (including environmental, social, and cultural
          costs) and benefits. Two key questions are how large the increase would need to be to
          realise the benefits, and to what extent New Zealand’s level of geographic isolation would
          continue to act as a brake on performance even with a large population.

          http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-10

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 2:56 pm

            That just tells me that you failed to understand what I said. Increasing productivity requires a larger market (more people) else prices must go into deflation and unemployment increase.

            And, yes, I agree with that article as well. Increasing population no longer improves economies of scale as they did in the 19th century.

  13. philj 13
    8 May 2014 at 10:37 am

    xox
    Exit Business Round Table, enter NZIER. They have changed the label to ‘refresh’ the tired old crock of a wealth and power. The mantra is the same old snake oil, with a twist.

  14. phillip ure 14
    8 May 2014 at 10:42 am

    given the possible/pending(?) mana/internet-party deal..

    ..this piece from robert reich is kinda interesting..

    “..The Six Principles of the New Populism (and the Establishment’s Nightmare)..

    More Americans than ever believe the economy is rigged in favor of Wall Street and big business and their enablers in Washington.

    We’re five years into a so-called recovery – that’s been a bonanza for the rich –

    but a bust for the middle class.

    “The game is rigged and the American people know that.

    They get it right down to their toes” says Senator Elizabeth Warren.

    Which is fueling a new populism on both the left and the right.

    While still far apart – neo-populists on both sides are bending toward one another – and against the establishment.

    And it’s not only the rhetoric that’s converging.

    Populists on the right and left are also coming together around core principles..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-six-principles-of-the_b_5277568.html

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    8 May 2014 at 10:50 am

    Should governments run surpluses? (video)

    Answer: No, as it crashes the economy.

  17. bad12 17
    8 May 2014 at 11:06 am

    Interesting, a lawyer acting for the US Government has asked the Court in Auckland to make public the information that has so far been suppressed by the Courts in the DotCom extradition proceedings,

    So the Courts should, our system of Justice requires there be a full disclosure of all information that a prosecution plans to put befor the Courts, and our system of Justice cannot be seen to be ‘bent’ to the will or norms of what occurs in other jurisdictions,

    Source: RadioNZ National news at 11.00…

    • dv 17.1
      8 May 2014 at 11:24 am

      But what about the US giving back the dot com data they have been told to by our courts?

  18. ianmac 18
    8 May 2014 at 12:02 pm

    In view of the publicity about Money for Influence there may be something in store for the Minister of Immigration in this Question today:
    “Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Immigration: Did the Government instruct Immigration New Zealand to review the Investor Plus scheme of $10 million; if so, for what reason?”
    Does it suggest smoke to you?

    • yeshe 18.1
      8 May 2014 at 1:11 pm

      popcorn ready !!

      • ianmac 18.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 3:30 pm

        Holly Walker had a good go at the Money for Privilege today. It must be a worry as Gerry Brownlie spent a lot of time trying to protect Michael Woodhouse.
        Winston asked his questions about the Woodhouse involvement which was very embarrassing for Woodhouse. In particular the change to Immigration law towards lower entry fee ($10mil) and the dropping of the requirement to speak English. With a letter of support apparently ref Mr Key.
        And Now question “12Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Immigration: Why did he personally call on Donghua Liu to receive his representations on immigration policy following Donghua Liu making a donation to the National Party?”
        Trevor has been kicked out for questioning if there was money from Mr Liu for meeting Woodhouse.
        Interesting times. Mr Woodhouse is not looking his chirpy self.

        • Tracey 18.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 3:41 pm

          more interesting was woodhouse said pm knew nothing about the meeting and, i think he said, the pm did not support a policy change along the lines peters suggested.

          • ianmac 18.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 4:28 pm

            I think that Peter’s letters contradicted Woodhouse ignorance. Not sure who wrote them.

    • yeshe 18.2
      8 May 2014 at 3:30 pm

      Was there ever a more biased Speaker than David Carter ?

      Please, did anyone hear and is able to write the interjection from Trevor Mallard that caused his exit just before close of QT this afternoon ??

      • Tracey 18.2.1
        8 May 2014 at 3:43 pm

        ianmac said it was for asking if woodhouse got paid to meet with liu.

        woodhouse said his meeting with liu was for about an hour.

      • Anne 18.2.2
        8 May 2014 at 3:48 pm

        Posted on it at 26.1.1 yeshe.

        It was a supplementary to his original Qustion 12 on the order paper. He asked if Liu had offered Woodhouse cash for a particular law change. Woodhouse took offence. Mallard was already walking out before the Speaker told him to go.

        • Tracey 18.2.2.1
          8 May 2014 at 4:30 pm

          thanks anne. i didnt see it.

          i did see woodhouse say the meeting was for an hour, that key knew nothing of the meeting and key did not support lius desired law changes.

          look forward to reading the docs peters tabled.

        • ianmac 18.2.2.2
          8 May 2014 at 4:33 pm

          Mallard refused to withdraw his money supplementary question. So left. Anne Tolley called out the same remark against Labour. She was asked to withdraw it and did so. Too much happened to track it all actually.
          Worth watching Q4, 9, 12.

  19. aerobubble 19
    8 May 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Species that get too specialized are likely to become extinct.
    The history of organisms is the history of the adaptable winning over
    the overly specialized. So the question are human too specialized?

    I would say Yes, we are the intellectual organism, the more
    we disconnect from our environment, our mother earth, the more
    unfit we become, by being too specialized. e.g the uber unfit,
    neo-liberals are wholely disconnected from the reality of the
    economy; through their intellectual ideology that openly ignores
    and belittles, the biggest player in the market (government
    – however detestable you find government ignoring it is moronic),
    and has a whole mythology that removes working parts of our
    economy from any mention. Its marvalous listening to the ACT
    party, hearing them spout economic myths that dictate we must
    ignore the impact and input from everyone from unions on down
    (and offer up policy that hands over profits to the few at the top).

    And right at the bottom of the ACT list is the reminder, theres
    the ‘always attack Green’.

    If you were wanting dinosaurs of politics, what
    better than a free market party, that freely dictates ignoring
    all of the actors in the market place, using foresinc cutting edge
    dismal science, and misappropriated measuring tools when that fails.

    You see the trade, the reason for specialization, is immediate
    profit, in nature or on wall street, the ubiquity of a
    food-energy source see the few specialize on a single source, i.e.
    the oil economy.

    Why fascism fails, its reliance on cheap short term emotions,
    which eventually dies up when serious facts cannot be ignored
    (Hitler destroyed Germany).

    Immediate profitability, conditions as selected by parliaments in
    the west, is now exposing our species to extinction. China is moving
    away from it holistic view as its politburo becomes billionaires,
    Russia has long forgotten communism as Putin uses the history…

    Unfettered capitalism corrupts capitalism completely. ACT the
    party most likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  21. Penny Bright 21
    8 May 2014 at 12:26 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong-on-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502865&objectid=11251436

    John Armstrong: Red hot PM hits back in withering style

    BY TELLING ‘RED HOT’ LIES TO PARLIAMENT?

    http://polity.co.nz/content/key-lies-parliament-proof#.U2qlNplmZ4B.twitter

    Key lies to Parliament: The proof

    ROB SALMOND | 8TH MAY 2014 | 0 COMMENTS

    Yesterday, John Key lied to Parliament. He made a very specific claim about a set of official documents, and those same documents show clearly that the claim was false.

    First, here’s Key’s statement in Parliament, in response to a question from Labour’s Grant Robertson:

    The [MFAT] paperwork shows right through this that not only did the Minister have a very busy programme, which the member wants to gloss over, all on judicial and justice issues, but, secondly, all the way through it talks about a private dinner.

    I added the underlining to the critical phrases, in which Key assures Parliament that there was complete consistency throughout the planning process for Collins’ visit, and that the now infamous dinner with Oravida and the mystery Chinese border official was always intended to be private.

    Well, let’s go to the tape, provided by those very same documents, as I summarized yesterday:

    8 October
    Collins specifically requests that MFAT invite Stone Shi and Julia Xu to whatever official event [redacted] attends1.

    This document shows Collins attempting to engineer an official meeting between herself, Oravida, and [redacted Chinese Border Official].

    15 October
    MFAT officials learn2:

    It appears Stone Shi has organised directly for the Minister to meet with a [redacted] (do they mean [redacted]) on Sunday evening. She would like you [NZ Ambassador to China] and Connie to attend.

    Collins’ office directly requests briefing for the dinner, and also asks for Ambassadorial attendance3.

    This document shows Collins not only arranging an official dinner for herself, Oravida, and [redacted Chinese Border Official], but requesting the New Zealand Ambassador to China attend, giving it even more official clout.

    16 October

    Collins’ office demands MFAT explain “why the Sunday dinner with [redacted] has not been included in the visit programme.”4

    This document is utterly damning. It shows Collins wanted the dinner to have official status so badly that she question’s MFAT’s decision to leave it off the official programme.

    These documents clearly contradict Key’s statement to Parliament not once, not twice, but three times. He was referring specifically to these documents in his statement. He lied.

    If Key is anywhere near Wellington today, he simply has to come to the House to correct his answer. Deeply embarrassing that may be, but he cannot allow such blatant untruths to stand uncorrected.

    They say its never the crime that gets you, it’s the cover up. How wretched must Judith Collins feel now that she has reduced the Prime Minister to lying in Parliament on her behalf, all in order to conceal an obvious and ugly truth.

    In my considered opinion, I predict that the longer Prime Minister John Key continues to defend the indefensible Judith CORRUPT Collins, by lying about the FACTS of her now infamous ‘increasing the public profile of Oravida’ (the company owned by her CLOSE personal friend (Stone Shi) , of which another CLOSE personal friend (Julia Xu) , plus her husband David Wong Tung are Directors ) – then the more National will continue to plummet in the polls.

    Then again, I guess that ex-Wall Street bankers like John Key, don’t have much idea about serving the public or the public interest, thus can’t really be expected to ‘lead from the front’ when it comes to following the ‘highest ethical standards’?

    How is lying to Parliament and the public exhibiting ‘the highest ethical standards’ Prime Minister John Key?

    http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/files/manual.pdf

    Conduct of Ministers

    2.52 A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities:

    (a) in a ministerial capacity, making decisions, and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios;

    (b) in a political capacity as a member of Parliament, representing a constituency or particular community of interest;

    (c) in a personal capacity.

    2.53 In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.

    What happens when it is the PRIME MINISTER who does not ‘uphold or is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards’?

    What is HE going to do about that?

    Sack himself?

    An unlikely turn of events.

    Seems we will have to leave that to the public on 20 September 2014……

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

  22. Pete George 22
    8 May 2014 at 12:32 pm

    Does anyone know details about Labour’s Kiwisaver policy?

    As far as I know they’ve said the minimum employee+employer contribution will be raised from 6% to 9% in 0.5 annual increments.

    They have also said that the Reserve Bank/Minister of Finance will be able to vary the Kiwisaver contribution. Will this be on top of the 6-9% or is 9% the maximum. If it’s not the maximum how high could it go?

    If the variable savings rate is only going to be varied by small amounts (how small?) in conjunction with a continued variable Official Cash Rate and alongside a Capital Gains Tax how will it be possible to know if the VSR has had any effect?

    • Paul 22.1
      8 May 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Google?

    • dv 22.2
      8 May 2014 at 1:16 pm

      Does anyone know details about Labour’s Kiwisaver policy?

      Yes.

    • Lanthanide 22.3
      8 May 2014 at 1:17 pm

      My impression is that the idea is that the rate will go up at 0.5-1% annually, but that the RB will also be able to vary the same figure.

      So for example if the RB had to stimulate the economy more, then perhaps instead of going up at 0.5% in a given year, it might only go up at 0.25% in that year.

      Then once it’s “topped out”, the RB might be able to lower it and then raise it back up later, and possibly with permission from the government, raise it over the 9% cap.

  23. Penny Bright 23
    8 May 2014 at 1:16 pm

    FYI –

    7 May 2014

    ‘Open Letter’ /OIA request to Prime Minister John Key :

    “Why has New Zealand STILL not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)?”

    Dear Prime Minister,

    Please be reminded that according to the 2013 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’, New Zealand, (along with Denmark) is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world.

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

    However, New Zealand is still one of a handful of countries which has STILL not ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).

    (UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)

    http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf

    (Signatories to the UN Convention Against Corruption

    https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html

    In a letter to Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ), dated 7 August 2013, your Minister of Justice Judith Collins stated:

    “New Zealand ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption

    Thank you for your correspondence of 31 May 2013 to myself, Hon Murray McCully, and Hon Tim Groser regarding New Zealand’s ratification of the
    United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

    Like you, I also believe that ratifying UNCAC would be advantageous. Ratification of the Convention is important to ensure New Zealand retains its international reputation for transparency, integrity, and trustworthiness, which can have flow-on economic benefits for the country.

    It is for these reasons that I have announced a package of legislative reforms that will allow New Zealand to ratify UNCAC. the reforms will be progressed as part of an Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill which I intend to introduce into Parliament later in 2013.

    As you may be aware, it is the policy of the New Zealand Government that binding treaty actions such as ratification is not taken until New Zealand’s domestic law is compliant with the treaty obligations. As you state in your letter, only minor amendments are necessary to bring New Zealand into compliance with the UNCAC obligations.

    The Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill will contain the required amendments. After the Bill is passed and the changes are enacted, officials will promptly take steps to deposit New Zealand’s instrument of ratification of UNCAC.

    Yours sincerely,

    Hon Judith Collins
    Minister of Justice.”

    NZ Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill

    http://www.transparency.org.nz/docs/2013/Hon-Judith-Collins-Minister-of-Justice-Letter-to-TINZ.pdf

    Your Minister of Justice Judith Collins’ press release of 18 October 2013:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1310/S00301/bill-supports-zero-tolerance-for-organised-crime.htm

    Bill supports zero-tolerance for organised crime

    Friday, 18 October 2013, 10:03 am
    Press Release: New Zealand Government
    Hon Judith Collins

    Minister of Justice

    18 October 2013 Media Statement

    Bill supports zero-tolerance for organised crime

    Justice Minister Judith Collins says the Government’s comprehensive approach to fighting all forms of organised crime will help safeguard New Zealand’s economy, international reputation and public safety.

    This month a number of international bodies are evaluating New Zealand’s compliance with international standards related to financial crimes – including the OECD, which will report on New Zealand’s compliance with an international convention to combat bribery of foreign public officials.

    “I welcome the release of these reports.

    This Government takes all forms of organised crime and corruption very seriously,” Ms Collins says.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/New-laws-to-fight-organised-crime/tabid/1607/articleID/317781/Default.aspx

    New laws to fight organised crime
    Friday 18 Oct 2013 10:33a.m.

    The Government will bring in a bill before the end of the year to strengthen laws against money laundering, identity theft, human trafficking and corruption.
    Justice Minister Judith Collins says she intends to have a comprehensive set of laws in place to fight all forms of organised crime.

    “It’s important to consider bribery and corruption within the big picture of organised crime, which undermines public safety, national security, economic development and good governance,” she said today.

    “This bill will help ensure New Zealand maintains its reputation as a responsible international citizen and that our domestic law enforcement agencies have the tolls they need to fight all forms of organised crime.”

    Unfortunately, it is now May 2014, and your Minister of Justice Judith Collins’ Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill, has STILL not been presented to Parliament:

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/?Criteria.Keyword=Organised+Crime+and+Anti-Corruption+Legislation+Bill%2C&Criteria.Timeframe=&Criteria.Parliament=-1&Criteria.DocumentType=&Criteria.Status=&Search=Go

    Legislation
    Bills
    This section lists bills before the House and its committees, and provides access to more detailed information about each one. You will also find the schedule of divided bills and progress of legislationhere. To find out more about bills before select committees, see the committee business summary.

    Close Bills search
    Keyword
    [ ]
    Date
    [All \/]
    Parliament
    [All \/]
    Document type
    [All \/]
    Status
    [All \/]
    [Go]
    No documents were found

    OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST:

    Please provide the information which explains why Minister of Justice Judith Collins’ ‘Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Bill’, has STILL not been presented to Parliament.

    Yours sincerely,
    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

  24. phillip ure 24
    8 May 2014 at 1:29 pm

    what’s with all the neat-lawns..?..people..?

    ..let it grow..!

    ..if we all stopped mowing our lawns..

    ..and stopped growing animals to eat..

    ..we could all drive around in suv’s..

    ..climate-warming..?..meh..!..

    “..The revenge of the lawn..”

    ..’.ecocidal obsession with nice grass’..”

    http://boingboing.net/2014/05/07/the-revenge-of-the-lawn.html

  25. Marius 25
    8 May 2014 at 2:02 pm

    I wonder if Lockwood Smith is still doing it tough in his 4000 pound ($7500) p.w rental accomodation in London or has settled into something a little more affordable in say…Scunthorpe or even Brixton. What a thoroughly distasteful rodent he is.

    • Once was Tim 25.1
      8 May 2014 at 8:27 pm

      God almighty Marius – you tempt me!
      Still, a diplomatic residence on Hampstead Heath would probably be a stretch even for this gubbamint – but it would be kind of fitting.

  26. Puckish Rogue 26
    8 May 2014 at 3:13 pm

    So what do the lefties on here that defended Martin say now?

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/12773294-martin-sorry-over-letterhead-saga

    Don’t want to upset WinstonFirst eh…

    • Tracey 26.1
      8 May 2014 at 3:19 pm

      pop over to wo, then come back and tell us what you think about it and what you think should happen to martin now and why.

      • Anne 26.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 3:40 pm

        Trevor Mallard has done it again. This time he asked the Minister of Immigration (Woodhouse) if Lui offered cash for a particular law change. Woodhouse chose to take offence and accused Mallard of alleging corruption on his part. Speaker demanded Mallard apologise. Mallard walked out without apologising on the grounds he had made no such allegation which was correct.

        I wonder of this is a deliberate ploy. I find it difficult to believe Mallard asked the question without prior approval. If that is the case then it would suggest they know something not yet in the public arena.

        • Tracey 26.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 3:49 pm

          if they dont have something my gut tells me mallard is risking a backlash but t.i agree it must be part of a strategy.

          i dont like this style of politics, its not my cup of tea.

          • karol 26.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 5:50 pm

            Mallard probably leading a challenge to Speaker’s bias and running cover for Nat Ministers.

        • Puckish Rogue 26.1.1.2
          8 May 2014 at 4:00 pm

          Mallards fishing around

    • Murray Olsen 26.2
      8 May 2014 at 5:30 pm

      I defend her. I don’t think she did anything wrong,even if she should have used the other letterhead. Your case is incredibly weak, Pukish Rogue. Why do you bother?

      • ScottGN 26.2.1
        8 May 2014 at 5:51 pm

        Me too. The Nats (and their proxies) can play the ‘pox on all your houses’ strategy all they like but Martin’s actions are not in the same league as that we’ve seen from Govt Cabinet Ministers.

  27. ianmac 27
    8 May 2014 at 3:34 pm

    By the way Winston’s hands had the shakes. Hope he is well. May have been excited?

  28. Puckish Rogue 28
    8 May 2014 at 4:13 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11251436
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23283863/key-turns-the-tables-on-the-greens/

    Some advice to Labour, taking on John Key directly is a bad idea…no on second thoughts keep going after John Key and ignore the weaker links in National 🙂

    • thatguynz 28.1
      8 May 2014 at 4:23 pm

      You must have been a real joy as a kid with “….but xyz did it too” as your standard rebuttal when you were called out on anything? I truly hope you’ve learnt some accountability in your (seemingly stunted) transition into adulthood.

      John Key is a proven liar. The fact that you see nothing wrong with that does in fact speak volumes about you.

    • Murray Olsen 29.1
      8 May 2014 at 5:36 pm

      Hint: what does it say about opposition fundraising in the Cabinet Manual?

      • chris73 29.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 5:38 pm

        Theres nothing wrong with it, just like theres nothing wrong with National doing it except that the left is trying to make something out of it

        Basically National does it = Bad, the left do it = Good

        • Murray Olsen 29.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 5:44 pm

          The Cabinet Manual disagrees with you when ministers are involved. Is it a bit like the Geneva Conventions when the Coalition of the Willing needs to invade another country? Quaint and outdated?

          • chris73 29.1.1.1.1
            8 May 2014 at 5:57 pm

            John Key disagrees with you and I’ll take what he says over you:

            For a bit of a laugh try watching from about 11:40 onwards

            • Murray Olsen 29.1.1.1.1.1
              8 May 2014 at 6:04 pm

              I tried to watch that but I can’t understand a word the stand up comedian said. The captions say he’s Prime Minister. I find that hard to believe. What country is he from? His accent is really strange.

              Really, what you should do is have a look at the Cabinet Manual for yourself and learn not to take things on faith. It only hurts the first couple of times.

              • chris73 …
                8 May 2014 at 6:11 pm

                You might find it hard to believe however hes the most popular PM of the MMP era and has a popularity rating Cunliffe can only dream about

                • Murray Olsen …
                  8 May 2014 at 6:18 pm

                  Popularity helps when we look for winners of New Zealand’s Got Talent. Honesty and competency are more desirable in politicians. I see more of that among the Greens and Mana than anywhere else.

                • tricledrown …
                  8 May 2014 at 6:39 pm

                  Christ 10 /7
                  What utter Bull Helen Clark was more liked for longer her popularity was just as high for longer .

                  • ScottGN …
                    8 May 2014 at 6:50 pm

                    Actually Clark’s personal preferred PM rating was higher right through to the 08 election than Key’s is now.

                  • chris73 …
                    8 May 2014 at 6:51 pm

                    Now thats bollix or do you not remember the 2% rating she had (you’re a lefty so of course you don’t), she did become very respected but respected and liked are two different things

                    • ScottGN …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:00 pm

                      Yeah I remember the low rating she had when she was Leader of the Opposition before the 1996 election. Look what happened though. She got elected in 1999 on the back of the 3rd term shambles that was the Shipley Govt. Went on to become the most popular PM ever. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel here bro and failing to learn the lessons of history.

                    • chris73 …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:17 pm

                      Now compare the ratings when Key was leader of the opposition and did you just say the most popular PM ever?

                    • Paul …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:36 pm

                      How do you think the government is managing Christchurch, chris 73?

                    • chris73 …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:46 pm

                      Very well. there’ll always be issues after a couple of big earthquakes but all things considered its going very well

                      Shame the councils not doing as well though

                    • Paul …
                      8 May 2014 at 8:01 pm

                      “Very well.”
                      You clearly don’t live in Canterbury then.
                      Please don’t tell what bad would be!
                      By the way, the present council has only beren in charge for a short time.
                      Brownlee has had the job since 2011.
                      39 months and counting.

                    • felix …
                      8 May 2014 at 10:30 pm

                      That’s right chris, the way this govt is fucking around in chch it looks like there will “always” be issues.

                • ScottGN …
                  8 May 2014 at 6:48 pm

                  All of which is irrelevant given there’s a very real prospect he’ll be the first National Party PM not to win 3 terms in the post WW2 era.

                  • chris73 …
                    8 May 2014 at 6:55 pm

                    I wouldn’t worry about that, he’ll get his third term

                    • ScottGN …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:04 pm

                      Are you sure mate? It all looks a bit shaky right now. And let’s face it – he did such a good job in the last campaign (with Natioanal at a high of 47%) he managed to get a marvellous one seat majority (if everything goes well on the day).

                    • chris73 …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:35 pm

                      Well yes because all of Labours (or Cunliffes more accurately) stuff ups of late haven’t been forgotten and will be brought out in the election campaign

                      Do you think Key has forgotten that tricky Cunliffe had to “refresh” his CV or won’t bring up Cunliffes leafy suburb or baby bonus debacle or the secret trusts and anything else that I can’t remember off the top of my head

                      That Key won’t hammer home a vote for the Greens is a vote for Dot Con (hes gone awfully quiet recently hasn’t he…) and Labour and finally, in your heart of hearts, do you really see Cunliffe defeating Key in the debates?

                      At best Cunliffe is mono tonal and hasn’t had to deal with anyone of note whereas Keys gone up against the best Labour can produce…Clark (You might be used to shouting people down at home, but you’re not shouting me down), Cullen, Goff, Shearer and even Campbell admitted defeat (didn’t go on much about the GCSB after the interview did he)

                      So yeah John Keys my pick to form the next government

                    • Paul …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:37 pm

                      What was NZ’s debt when Key came to government in 2008?
                      What is it now?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 May 2014 at 7:51 pm

                      you missed the memo from blinglish – don’t be too overconfident about a national victory.

                    • chris73 …
                      9 May 2014 at 7:11 am

                      I always vote, just hope the rest of the supporters do as well…

                • Paul …
                  8 May 2014 at 7:39 pm

                  What has happened to unemployment under ‘our most popular PM ever’ since 2008?
                  How many people have emigrated to NZ under ‘our most popular PM ever’ since 2008?

                  • chris73 …
                    8 May 2014 at 7:45 pm

                    New Zealand migration rose to an 11-year high in March, the second-highest gain on record, as fewer kiwis left for Australia.

                    The country gained a seasonally adjusted 3,800 net new migrants in March, the most since February 2003, said Statistics New Zealand. A net 400 people left for Australia in March, down from 600 in February, according to seasonally adjusted figures.

                    In the year through March, New Zealand gained a net 31,900 migrants, a 10-year high, as 98,000 people arrived while 66,100 departed. That’s more than 12 times the 2,500 annual net migration gain in the year through March 2013 and compares with an average net gain of 11,700 migrants over the past 20 years.

                    Employment grew strongly in the first three months of the year but so did the supply of workers, leaving unemployment unchanged and wage pressures subdued.

                    Statistics New Zealand’s household labour force survey recorded a rise of 22,000 or 0.9 per cent in the number of people employed in the March quarter, but that was matched by a 22,000 increase in the labour force, leaving the unemployment level unchanged at 147,000 and the unemployment rate steady at 6 per cent.

                    Over the year ended March the working age population increased by 50,000, boosted by a strong net inflow of migrants.

                    But the labour force grew by 82,000 over the same period as the participation rate (the employed and those looking for work, as a share of the working age population) climbed to 69.3 per cent – a record high and up from 67.9 per cent a year ago.

                    So.

                    More jobs to go around at the same time as more people joined looking for work.

        • Tracey 29.1.1.2
          8 May 2014 at 5:44 pm

          your last sentence is half right.

        • ScottGN 29.1.1.3
          8 May 2014 at 5:55 pm

          You’ve wilfully decided to ignore the further complications that the Cabinet Manual outlines in the instance of access to CABINET MINISTERS! There’s no point in even debating this with you.

          • chris73 29.1.1.3.1
            8 May 2014 at 7:41 pm

            Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean its wrong

    • Draco T Bastard 29.2
      8 May 2014 at 5:46 pm

      I know that you’re really too stupid to understand this but there’s a difference between access to MPs and access to ministers. Ministers have power and influence that MPs, especially opposition MPs, don’t.

      • Tracey 29.2.1
        8 May 2014 at 5:51 pm

        this is what happens when you engage with people who have stopped thinking for themselves and refuse to read documents, relying instead on slater to think for them

      • chris73 29.2.2
        8 May 2014 at 6:02 pm

        Try watching this then:

  30. ianmac 30
    8 May 2014 at 5:38 pm

    NZ Fact Checking. Just read “Do National ministers attend Cabinet Club meetings ‘in their ministerial capacity’?”
    Not very impressed with the logic/methodology of this report. Is inconclusive wishywashy. Hope that to gain credibility it becomes more rigorous.
    http://nzfactcheck.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/do-national-ministers-attend-cabinet-club-meetings-in-their-ministerial-capacity/

  31. Draco T Bastard 31
    8 May 2014 at 5:50 pm

    More than $1 trillion is being gambled on high-cost oil projects

    The Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI) research found that $1.1tn of capital expenditure is expected in the next decade in expensive oil sands, deepwater and Arctic projects but that this investment will be lost if policymakers agree to slash carbon emissions.

    And that is where all the opposition to policies to prevent climate change is coming from.

  32. captain hook 32
    8 May 2014 at 6:34 pm

    I nearly puked about 10 minutes ago while eating my dinner andwatching the news. Every time I looked up there was john keys or one of his simulacras leering out of the box. This is not news! It is just bullshit and TVNZ is complicit. Is the National Party paying for all this free advertising. I wouldn’t mind if they were worth looking at but keys greasy smile is just too much for any food to not gag at.

    • Paul 32.1
      8 May 2014 at 6:53 pm

      What was the story about??

    • Chooky 32.2
      8 May 2014 at 6:55 pm

      lol…this is why i dont watch tv except on Election Night and for debates the week before…much better for your health!

  33. Paul 33
    8 May 2014 at 7:17 pm

    Be good if someone in the know could do a post on Christchurch.

    Watching Campbell Live and hearing about the half billion dollar debt, which the government pressuring the council to sell its assets, reminds me of Naomi Klein and Shock Doctrine.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    Frank Mackasay wrote a great blog on a tale of two cities, comparing the rebuild of Christchurch with the rebuild of Napier after 1931.
    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/08/a-tale-of-two-tragedies/

    Terrible.

    • Paul 33.1
      8 May 2014 at 7:33 pm

      Just finished watching Campbell Live.What of an indictment of this government and its neo-liberal approach.
      Listen to the people, Mr Brownlee.
      Front on T.V.

      • Once was Tim 33.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 9:01 pm

        That last item in the history of Gerry’s engagement with the media summed it up. (the 10%/50% waffle from Brownnose)
        I well remember a discussion (I think involving Gerry the woodwork teacher) whereby analogies with the Brizzy floods were dismissed out of hand – missing the point completely relating to the whole insurance scam that he and others have allowed to take place.
        Given that both Council and the Zillun government have bits of land in safe places which could have been ‘swapped’ for ‘badland’ – WHY did what was obviously diminished rateable land values ever figure in the equation?
        Cudda shudda wudda just done a land swap and have insurance companies pay for the bricks and mortar (in a relatively safe place).
        Christchurch (my birthplace) has been subjected to a real scorched earth policy.
        And even NOW … the future of rail is being ignored in the grand plans – especially given that there is basic rail infrastructure going North, South, West and Lyttleton. The idiocy is astounding. It’s not somewhere I’ll ever return to but the best of luck to those that choose to stay whilst consultants and tories hold sway.
        4 fuckn years later! There’s been one helluva lot of ticket clipping going on (anyone remember those ozzie assessors in the early stages? followed by RE-assessors, dithering, excuses…. etc.)

  34. blue leopard 34
    8 May 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Brownlee said in parliament today that the govt has spent 15 Billion on the Chch rebuild … yet when govt debt is mentioned National say it is due to the Chch earthquake, so what was the other 35+ Billion of debt spent on?

    • Paul 34.1
      8 May 2014 at 8:17 pm

      If you just watched Campbell Live, it is hard to describe what has happened in Christchurch is a ‘rebuild.’
      They haven’t even finished the demolition yet.
      It looks like a desolate wasteland.
      $15 billion, Gerry. On what?

      • blue leopard 34.1.1
        8 May 2014 at 8:22 pm

        Yes, I saw it in January, it is more shocking in real life than seeing pictures on TV. I can’t recall his precise wording – it may be that he said the 15 Billion was spent on Chch he may not have said
        ‘on the rebuild’ – which clearly hasn’t occurred yet – although it requires a lot of planning, so what that money has been spent on may not be visible but still necessary. Perhaps some of that 15 Billion was spent on pies to help Brownlee cope?

        • ianmac 34.1.1.1
          8 May 2014 at 9:30 pm

          I think Government wants Christchurch City in a hole so it can take over and sell assets build what it wants done, and maybe do an ECan on Ch Ch City Council especially since Leanne is Mayor.