Open Mike 08/09/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 8th, 2017 - 162 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

162 comments on “Open Mike 08/09/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AsleepWhileWalking 1
    8 September 2017 at 6:15 am

    Wards of the State work streets for money…no housing, not enough food

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11918794

    From debate last night, Bill (discussing pensions with younger generations paying for older etc) “I raised this generation”. Yes…let’s keep in mind who is to blame.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1
      8 September 2017 at 6:24 am

      From article above:

      He applauded recent strategies such as Housing First, but he said not enough was being done to address the issues that led to people being in such vulnerable situations.

      “They aren’t going to stop people before they become homeless. It’s ameliorative and helps those already homeless.”

      He said the current “renter economy” meant wealth amassed with those who already had it, while those at the other end struggled to make ends meet or were reliant on benefits.

      “This wealth concentration drives homelessness. We can’t just understand the actions of homeless people, but we also have to study people who are more affluent.

      “I think we’ve got to say, who does the economy work for?

      • Carolyn_nth 1.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 6:48 am

        The solution mentioned in the article is UBI. I attended the session yesterday at the Social Movements and resistance Conference, which included a couple of presentations on UBI.

        Bill Rosenberg: A brief history of labour’s share of income in New Zealand 1939-2016
        Iain Middleton:: Basic Income Calculator
        Lowell Manning and Michael Kane: Assessing the impact of basic income on society
        Annie Newman and Catriona MacLennan: Living Wage Movement

        (MacClennan was not there, though some of her ideas were presented).

        There were different views on whether a UBI was the solution. Most seemed for it. But there were some concerns that it would be an individualistic solution, would not be a workable solution within a capitalist economy, and/or would not be Nat-proof (ie the Nats would undermine it when in government.

        I think it was Ian Middleton who was pretty scathing about Gareth Morgan’s version of the UBI, which isn’t really one – set too low; takes from superannuitants to give to younger people, etc.

        The UBI speakers said that special needs benefits would not be touched by UBI eg disability and sickness benefits would still exist as well as the UBI.

  2. Sanctuary 2
    8 September 2017 at 6:59 am

    14 days to go. Tipping point reached last week – remember, snafus like Joyce’s budget blow up take a few weeks to work through the polls.

    I can sniff the sweet smell of napalm on the hopes and dreams of the Nats this morning.

  3. ScottGN 3
    8 September 2017 at 7:23 am

    This is worth a read.
    One young (youth-adjacent) woman is pretty much singlehandedly dismantling the government and the National Party.
    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-09-2017/the-money-fight-ardern-lights-up-english-in-christchurch/

    • Bearded Git 3.1
      8 September 2017 at 9:41 am

      Cheers ScottGN for that; very nicely written. (Except for the end where it said there are 2 weeks to go-voting starts in 3 days)

  4. The Chairman 4
    8 September 2017 at 7:25 am

    Jacinda Ardern says no one should be jailed for smoking cannabis. Saying, cannabis use needs to be treated as a health issue.

    Therefore, is Labour’s position forced rehab for all those caught using cannabis?

    • Pat 4.1
      8 September 2017 at 7:32 am

      think that question belongs in Joyce’s hole

    • Robert Guyton 4.2
      8 September 2017 at 7:36 am

      Do we force treatment for every other health issue?

      • Incognito 4.2.1
        8 September 2017 at 7:45 am

        Arguably, neoliberalism has been causing loads of (mainly mental, in the first instance) health issues and thus all neoliberals should be forced to into rehab. For the many, not just the few!

      • The Chairman 4.2.2
        8 September 2017 at 8:05 am

        Not every other health issue is illegal. And Labour aren’t offering to legalise it.

    • Cinny 4.3
      8 September 2017 at 7:52 am

      Would be helpful for many to have properly funded rehab available out there, especially for the P addicts and alcoholics

      Pretty sure cannabis addiction is a small problem compared to the above, we all know of people who enjoy a joint just like some enjoy a drink, doesn’t make them an addict, but in the eyes of national the joint makes them a criminal. Maybe because they don’t collect a tax revenue off the growers/sellers, i’d say that’s the bigger issue.

      • The Chairman 4.3.1
        8 September 2017 at 8:24 am

        “Pretty sure cannabis addiction is a small problem compared to the above, we all know of people who enjoy a joint just like some enjoy a drink, doesn’t make them an addict”

        Right. But will it result in them being forced into rehab if caught?

        Under a Labour Government it would still be a criminal offence.

      • The Chairman 4.3.2
        8 September 2017 at 1:13 pm

        “It would be wonderful if when people sought helped that it was there for them…”

        Indeed.

        The problem is more about those that you highlighted above (the casual user) being caught and being forced into rehab.

        Moreover, will rehabs be privately run? Is this going to be a new growth industry funded by the taxpayer?

    • marty mars 4.4
      8 September 2017 at 7:58 am

      Lol the fear is radiating off you chair – don’t worry your stash is safe lol

      • Nick 4.4.1
        8 September 2017 at 8:16 am

        +1 lol

      • The Chairman 4.4.2
        8 September 2017 at 8:17 am

        Seeing as a straight answer hasn’t been forthcoming, it should be clear the fear you’re sensing isn’t radiating from me.

        • Muttonbird 4.4.2.1
          8 September 2017 at 8:24 am

          Spark up another, mate. You’re getting too straight.

          • The Chairman 4.4.2.1.1
            8 September 2017 at 8:46 am

            You may opt to mock me, but it doesn’t answer the question.

            What’s with all the mocking and avoidance? Why the struggle to answer a simple yes or no question?

            • marty mars 4.4.2.1.1.1
              8 September 2017 at 8:56 am

              have you ever smoked cannabis chair?

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 10:43 am

                “This people have a right to know line is false…”

                No. That’s you lowering the bar, Marty.

                Of course voters have a right to know what they are voting for and how that policy will look once in place.

                • marty mars …
                  8 September 2017 at 10:53 am

                  rubbish – it is all nonsense because the situation now that will propagate the future options is constantly changing and therefore constantly needing to be refreshed to stay relevant.

                  the right to know line is ONLY used for some things and as an attack line against others and generally a right wing meme – you aren’t lowering the bar chair – you are the bar.

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 11:13 am

                    While changes can eventuate, thus new responses may be required, it’s no excuse for not informing voters of their current plans.

                    Therefore, this rubbish you’re spouting is you simply making excuses for your lowering of the bar.

                    The right to know applies to all parties, hence it’s not an attack line used solely from the right. It’s an attack line (with good merit) used against those that fail to front up with the details, thus are rightly in the firing line.

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 12:19 pm

                    Nobody can say for sure, Marty. But that doesn’t stop us from making plans. Nor is it an excuse for preventing us from knowing what our political leaders plan to do.

            • Pat 4.4.2.1.1.2
              8 September 2017 at 8:58 am

              the answer is no…so heres one for you….has Labour at any point said there will be enforced rehab for everyone caught with cannabis?….and when you answer that one heres the follow up….why then do you feel compelled to ask such a ridiculous question?

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 9:23 am

                “The answer is no”

                Well if that is correct, then how will it work? How will she ensure people get the help she deems they require?

                As for your questions. Jacinda has touted using rehab, but, as usual, was vague on details on how that would work/look.

                Therefore, while I haven’t heard her use the word forced, I haven’t heard her rule it out. Hence, the question.

                And as you can see, it’s far from ridiculous considering what’s been touted coupled with the lack of details.

                • Pat …
                  8 September 2017 at 9:26 am

                  will National compel euthanasia upon drug dependent young beneficiaries who fail to attend job interviews?

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    8 September 2017 at 9:36 am

                    I haven’t heard them say they won’t.

                    • Pat …
                      8 September 2017 at 9:41 am

                      i thought The Chairman may want some company down Joyces rabbit hole

                    • marty mars …
                      8 September 2017 at 10:01 am

                      I am also concerned because I haven’t heard Jacinda say they won’t deport people to the FEMA camps hidden in the US – why hasn’t she said this won’t happen? Un-nice forces are at work here methinks. Who is hiding what from whom – that is the question!!!

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 9:49 am

                    I showed you the courtesy of answering your questions, yet you failed to answer mine. Why is that, Pat?

                    As for your last question. National have touted a form of forced rehab for beneficiaries, but I doubt they will go as far as you asked. Are you thinking of voting for them, Pat? 

                    • Pat …
                      8 September 2017 at 10:00 am

                      as there has been no suggestion of a blanket rehab (except your own) under a health focused (as opposed to a criminal justice) cannabis policy i would safely state that Labours policy would not go so far as you suggest.

                      Am i thinking of voting for National?…”….i don’t want to go among mad people”

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 10:19 am

                    While there has been no suggestion of blanketed rehab, rehab has been touted. Therefore, voters have a right to know what that is going to look like.

                    Why is Labour and its cheerleaders so afraid of fronting up on their own policy?’ It fails to reinforce voter confidence or trust.

                    Moreover, the suggestion of rehab (whether blanketed or not) never came from me. I’m merely the one asking genuine questions.

                    • marty mars …
                      8 September 2017 at 10:32 am

                      oh bill chair – this people have a right to know line is false and labour and other lefties get this – why don’t you I wonder?

                      Is this the best you’ve got? seriously chair get a new hobby buddy.

                    • Pat …
                      8 September 2017 at 10:37 am

                      if you are genuinely concerned that the next government will operate in a less open and ethical way than the previous I suggest you then address your questions to your local Labour Party representative.

                    • Cinny …
                      8 September 2017 at 10:48 am

                      It would be wonderful if when people sought helped that it was there for them, doesn’t seem to be the case at present. Where does an addict go when they need help at the moment? Services are now stretched to breaking point, tragically suicide seems to be a preferred choice to deal with it.

                      Currently, it appears to be easier to lock people up in jail, lawyers are making $$$$ from that, but the courts and prisons are bursting at the seams.

                      Police now say they deal with minor cannabis matters at their descretion, maybe it’s because this year they couldn’t even afford to fly the choppers around our region, beautiful climate here js.

                      Cannabis is costing us tax payers huge ammounts of $$$, decriminalising it and offering people help if they are addicted would cost so much less but leaving the cost out of it, decriminalisation makes so much more sense.

                      Here’s an idea, binding citizens referendum.

                      Labour are well aware of the cannabis debate and recognise something needs to change, so do the Greens. That’s another reason I’m voting for change, so the oldies next door don’t have to go to the tinny house and risk being arrested to self medicate for cancer and pain because they want an alternative to highly addictive opiates.

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 12:01 pm

                    @ Pat

                    Interesting how quick your position changed. From belonging in Joyce’s hole, to being ridiculous and now you’re suggesting I direct it to my local Labour Party representative.

                    Wonder if my local will have your initial response?

                    Nevertheless, with voting beginning in three days, don’t you think the onus should be on the party to put the relevant info out and into the public domain. For example, on their website?

            • ianmac 4.4.2.1.1.3
              8 September 2017 at 9:41 am

              I think Jacinda meant that treating cannabis as a Health issue would mean taking it out of the Crimes Act. Swap one for other in some form.

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 10:03 am

                Seeing as Labour aren’t legalising it. Can it be taken out of the crimes act if it is still a crime?

                And how would that work exactly? Would users who go before the courts then be sentence to rehab instead of jail, being fined, or home detention?

                • ianmac …
                  8 September 2017 at 10:10 am

                  All Jacinda has said is that it should be in Health.
                  At some time later when the issue rises, there will be a Bill to rationalise the problems you raise. Maybe there will be a move to decriminalise because there is a mood for change but as you know National has avoided creating change but consolidated innovations produced by Labour over many decades.

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 10:33 am

                    “All Jacinda has said is that it should be in Health.”

                    No, she has gone further than that. The use of rehab has been mentioned.

                    The public mood for change is already there, it’s Labour that oppose decriminalisation, although they’re apparently open to making it a conscience vote. But voting on it is not a priority.

                    Therefore, despite the stardust generating from Jacinda, voters are still in the dark when it comes to knowing how rehab will work and who will be impacted.

                    • crashcart …
                      8 September 2017 at 1:32 pm

                      I find it annoying when parties say that Cannabis reform is not a priority. They minimise it like it is only a niche thing for a couple of pot heads who want to smoke.

                      In reality it is a massive deal for our prisons, poor, sick, and economy.

                      We can reduce our prison populations by reducing those who are sent to jail not just for use but for criminal activity that surrounds the black market. Those in lower socio economic area’s no longer become the victims and perpetrators of said crimes.

                      As others have said those who wish to use Cannabis to self medicate will have access without becoming criminals.

                      Finally a legal industry not only allows for taxation but allows for actual controls to be set up. Just like alcohol or smokes you can set age limits and licensing limits on how it is sold and grown. Quality standards can be set to ensure there is no contamination or spiking.

                      Cannabis is not a small little niche topic that can be discussed at a later date when it becomes important. It is important now. Whilst I think the argument of forced rehab is facile I would like to see some more fleshed out think from Labour in this. Why the hell are they so scared the numbers are in favour of reform.

                    • marty mars …
                      8 September 2017 at 2:40 pm

                      WOW you are quoting direct insult lines from bill english chair as in ‘stardust’

                      I’m sick of gnat spin merchants pretending to be left – that is the d of dirty politics imo I wish we could just stick to the issues and not have the dirty spin and attempts at creating murk.

            • marty mars 4.4.2.1.1.4
              8 September 2017 at 9:41 am

              Why the struggle to answer a simple yes or no question?

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 10:06 am

                I’m not struggling, Marty. Your question was irrelevant to the discussion.

                • marty mars …
                  8 September 2017 at 10:29 am

                  deleted

                  It seems relevant to me – why not just answer?

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 12:31 pm

                    My past history has no relevance what so ever on the position Labour has decided to take in this matter. Nor does it have any relevance on why Labour are holding back on the details.

                    Therefore, why do you deem it is relevant?

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 1:25 pm

                    “When you took cannabis did you think you needed rehab?”

                    Correction, Marty. I never said I did.

                    “Why would you think anyone does now?”

                    To be clear, it’s Labour that are touting it.

                    Nevertheless, some people may have a problem with it, thus may need help getting off it.

                    • McFlock …
                      8 September 2017 at 1:40 pm

                      Correction, Marty. I never said I did.

                      Well, what’s giving you the “oh mah Gerd, forced rehab!!!” jitters? P? You’re a meth-head, aintcha. I’m peeking through your window right now!

                    • marty mars …
                      8 September 2017 at 2:33 pm

                      notice “i never said I did” is not the same as “I never did” but this appears to be a major for you chair – as a lifelong left voter are you now thinking seriously of changing your vote to the gnats because of their honesty compared to Labour on this essential issue?

                  • The Chairman …
                    8 September 2017 at 2:18 pm

                    @ McFlock

                    My concern isn’t personal. I don’t require rehab.

                    My concern is for the casual user, and how will this impact them? The potential for offshore and local investors profiteering and the overall effectiveness of forced rehab.

                    And what of those using it for health reasons? Is raw cannabis going to be legalised for medical use or is Labour only talking about cannabis based products?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 September 2017 at 2:27 pm

                      I’m sure everyone is greatful for your concern of the day.

                      I, personally, am eagerly anticipating whatever will be your concern about Lab/Grn this evening, and will barely be able to sleep for contemplation of what might be your sudden concern of tomorrow morning.

                      Concern, for you, seems to be an infinitely renewable resource. We are all blessed that you shower it upon us in such copious volumes (and about such a wide variety of topics), warm and with that unmistakable “fresh from the bladder” odour.

                    • marty mars …
                      8 September 2017 at 2:27 pm

                      “My concern is for the casual user”

                      lol sure we believe you chair – FORCED REHAB – figment of your own mind. the rest of your gnat concern tr0ll lines are equally invalid – good for a laugh though ta chair LOL

                    • tracey …
                      8 September 2017 at 2:45 pm

                      How will they know the casual user to force them to rehab? Now real fear would be workplace testing for E and coke abd the like. Watch the white monied classes squeal about civil rights then

          • The Chairman 4.4.2.2.1
            8 September 2017 at 12:39 pm

            What do you think Labour are paranoid of? Turning voters off?

            • Psycho Milt 4.4.2.2.1.1
              8 September 2017 at 2:00 pm

              See McFlock 4.6 below. The fact that you haven’t been given every little detail about a “policy” that was basically an answer to a question doesn’t entitle you to start fantasising evil intent on the part of the person who answered the question.

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 2:27 pm

                “Fantasising evil intent”

                Rubbish. I asked you a couple of questions. And I see you didn’t answer them.

                But you answering a question (in fact, it was more of a correction on your part) gives you the right to imply (with evil intent) that I’m paranoid? Piss off.

                • In Vino …
                  8 September 2017 at 9:50 pm

                  More punctilious idiocy from a concern troll who has just wasted a huge amount of screen-space. Please go conservationist about screen-space, Mr so-called Chairman.

    • ianmac 4.5
      8 September 2017 at 9:40 am

      I think Jacinda meant that treating cannabis as a Health issue would mean taking it out of the Crimes Act. Swap one for other in some form.

    • McFlock 4.6
      8 September 2017 at 1:19 pm

      you went from “health issue” to “forced rehab”.
      Stop smoking so much. you’re getting paranoid.

      • The Chairman 4.6.1
        8 September 2017 at 1:46 pm

        No.

        Jacinda wants to make it a health issue and brought up the use of rehab instead of people going to jail.

        Therefore, I was questioning if it was going to be forced rehab. As in, will cannabis users going before the courts now face being sentenced to rehab?

        It’s a logical assumption (not paranoia) going off the limited details given. And another example of why Labour need to provide more details. Without them (details) people tend to suspect the worse and it allows the opposition to reinforce that perception by filling in the blanks with their worse speculation.

        • Psycho Milt 4.6.1.1
          8 September 2017 at 2:02 pm

          … it allows the opposition The Chairman to reinforce that perception by filling in the blanks with their worse speculation.

          FIFY

          • marty mars 4.6.1.1.1
            8 September 2017 at 2:06 pm

            yep – the worst possible interpretation for Labour and there is the chair digging and sifting, digging and shuffling…

          • The Chairman 4.6.1.1.2
            8 September 2017 at 2:37 pm

            The flaw in your correction is, I’m not the opposition. I’m from the left.

            Moreover, I’m not filling in the blanks, I’m merely asking genuine questions, which makes your (and a few others on here) antics look even worse to outsiders reading this thread.

            You’re not helping Labour, you (and a few others on here) just make them look more dodgy.

        • McFlock 4.6.1.2
          8 September 2017 at 2:10 pm

          I announce I will buy a car.
          A “logical assumption” would be that I could be considering vehicular murder.
          And yet if that’s the main question you have about my purchasing decision you’d still be either paranoid or shitstirring.

          • The Chairman 4.6.1.2.1
            8 September 2017 at 2:46 pm

            “I announce I will buy a car. A “logical assumption” would be that I could be considering vehicular murder.”

            On that information alone, it’s far from the logical assumption. Unlike Labour’s example (the use of rehab instead of people going to jail).

            • McFlock 4.6.1.2.1.1
              8 September 2017 at 3:17 pm

              You’re so full of shit.

              Treating something as a health issue is as close to “forced rehab” as buying a car is to vehicular murder.

              Your “concern” (lol) rests on the idea that coercion and detention needs to be replaced by more coercion and detention. This is the antithesis of successful addiction rehabilitation.

              Decriminalisation means at worst a fine and confiscation for users (not dealers). So, you take the info from the ticket and offer them free addiction services if they think they’re doing too much. Hell, the cop can just give them a leaflet, and it would still be a more effective health intervention than your wet dream of “forced rehab”.

              fuck, you can put that one by the “$11.7 Billion” hole Joyce dug himself.

              • The Chairman …
                8 September 2017 at 3:40 pm

                “You’re so full of shit.”

                Piss off. I’m merely asking questions. The use of rehab instead of people going to jail does imply it could be forced rehab. Hence, I’m asking, not stating it as fact.

                Labour could easily put this concern to bed by posting some details on their website, yet they haven’t. Why is that? It makes it look as if they have something to hide.

                And why would they want to give voters that perception if they were on the up and up?

                It doesn’t add up. It suggests they are either incompetent or they are hiding something.

        • tracey 4.6.1.3
          8 September 2017 at 2:15 pm

          What are the number of users, as opposed to dealers, oh cannabis jailed in the last 12 mobths?

  5. Cinny 5
    8 September 2017 at 7:54 am

    This is an interesting twist… Hosking has been replaced for tonights debate.

    ” Mike Hosking will not moderate the TVNZ multi-party debate tomorrow night – due to sickness.

    TVNZ announced tonight 1News political editor Corin Dann will step in at the last minute and replace Hosking as debate moderator.”

    Is he still hung over?

  6. Herodotus 6
    8 September 2017 at 8:07 am

    Whilst the election process is well underway.
    I am concerned with all the “promises” to build houses: be they Kiwibuild 10k pa or Bill’s govt building 30k pa. I have made a few comments regarding the difficulty that the building industry is having, and that there is severe pressure currently on cash flows caused by our banks reducing credit facilities. Here is another example of this with Martin Dunn on ZB yesterday (to save time go to about the 12 minute mark), banks are repatriating money back to Melbourne.
    The next 3 year term is IMO not going to be all clear sailing especially within the building industry.
    http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/ZB/auckland/2017.09.07-11.15.00-S.mp3
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/91230001/warning-that-nz-is-heading-for-peak-construction-as-banks-tighten-purse-strings
    So no matter who wins the power still resides with the banks. The same banks that caused the building slump in 07-08.

  7. DSpare 7
    8 September 2017 at 8:15 am

    The level of deception from this fishing club spokesman is something to behold. I certainly have seen dolphins south of Moeraki at places like porpoise bay (where the name is a bit of a hint):

    the “fast vessel” would focus its patrol searching for nets set illegally by recreational fishers and commercial operations between Te Waewae Bay and Canterbury Bight… Setting a net within 7.4km of the coast was illegal, as was using trawl nets within 3.7km of the coast… At the launch yesterday, Mr Meikle said the “passionate” volunteer crew would remove the nets of recreational fishers from waters, if set illegally.

    If a commercial operation was acting illegally, the volunteers would alert the Ministry of Primary Industries, he said.

    Green Island Fishing Club secretary Steve Bennett, of Brighton, said… Recreational fishers set nets in harbours, estuaries and rivers and did not set nets in the sea because it was too dangerous to travel beyond 7.4km, he said… had never seen, or heard of a Hector’s dolphins ever being south of Moeraki.

    Mr Meikle, of Dunedin, said Hector’s dolphins lived along the coastline, including a pod of 200 at Te Waewae Bay, 12 at Oreti Beach, about 50 in the Catlins and 42 between Dunedin and Oamaru, including a pod of 21 at Blueskin Bay.

    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/sea-shepherd-patrol-boat-launched

  8. Andre 8
    8 September 2017 at 8:31 am

    Election billboards: why do so few of them give any reason to vote for the candidate being touted? My reaction to anything that just says “Vote for Bloggs” is “why the fuck should I when you can’t even be bothered to tell me why?”

    Except for Winnie’s “Had enough?”. Now that you mention it Winnie, why yes, I have had enough of your smug smirk.

    • marty mars 8.1
      8 September 2017 at 8:59 am

      I have so wanted to adjust his billboard near our abode – maybe ‘bad enough’ some adjustment to the ‘had’ but sadly those days are over for me and the youf can’t be bothered or so it seems.

  9. mac1 9
    8 September 2017 at 8:41 am

    This will show my age, but Bill English’s reference to Jacinda Ardern as ‘stardust’ recalls Joni Mitchell and her version of “Woodstock”.

    It was a song of aspiration, the need and desire for change. I would adopt it, changing the intended denigration from the Prime Minister into a positive.

    “Got to get back to the land and set my soul free……..

    “And I feel myself a cog in something turning………

    “By the time we got to Woodstock
    We were half a million strong
    And everywhere was a song and a celebration

    “We are stardust, we are golden
    We are caught in the devils bargain
    And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.”

    Some real resonance here for this “child of God” as again the generations change.

  10. Muttonbird 10
    8 September 2017 at 8:45 am

    The people in Epsom must be very confused right now as their main party tanks. Having had their hand held in the ballot box for the last several elections there doesn’t seem to be any orders coming from National Party HQ in the face of impending disaster for National.

    Perhaps we’ll see the electorate vote there begin to resemble the real world where ACT has 0.1% support for their lunatic policies.

    • ianmac 10.1
      8 September 2017 at 9:49 am

      Suppose if Seymour was not elected would it make any difference?

      • garibaldi 10.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 10:02 am

        Yes, we’d get rid of the prick!
        If only everyone in that electorate who doesn’t like Act would vote National for the electorate mp then it would happen. No more Rimmer. Yay.

      • Ed 10.1.2
        8 September 2017 at 10:02 am

        It would mean the National Party would have to stop pretending extreme policies like charter schools and gutting the RMA were theirs, rather than using Seymour as their stalking horse.

        Which would mean they’d lose a whole heap of ‘middle New Zealand ‘ voters.

      • popexplosion 10.1.3
        8 September 2017 at 10:20 am

        maybe. currently he is not a overhang and sucks Nats party vote down having missed the chance to drag a further mp… …the bald one… up to parliament but also getting to many votes to get hangover. only the Maori party got hangover.

        The left don’t, well Anderson maybe… …do hangovers. The Maori party cares about people’s second home not getting new taxes, hardly left wing reasoning.

        If you want hangover, and end slipping back on the list, party vote Green the only pure MMP party party.

        • tracey 10.1.3.1
          8 September 2017 at 2:22 pm

          Epsom voters of the blue variety actually like Act too

          • popexplosion 10.1.3.1.1
            9 September 2017 at 11:10 am

            Yep. The problem is so do many living outside Epsom who make a over vote which harms National. National either want just Seymour voters in Epson or lots more ACT voters nationally.

    • tracey 10.2
      8 September 2017 at 2:20 pm

      They have their self interested instructions. They will not waiver

  11. Cemetery Jones 11
    8 September 2017 at 9:37 am

    Trying to decide what’s more likely here:

    – Mike Hosking on his knees in front of toilet bowl dry heaving uncontrollably in an unshakeable cold sweat as the reality of polling kicks in and he realises that Steven Joyce’s dirty tricks won’t save his National government

    – Middle aged man discovers that trying to starve himself and subsist largely on mildly warm lemon water in order to maintain his figure is not a good idea

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/96624856/mike-hosking-too-unwell-to-host-tvnzs-second-debate

  12. joe90 12
    8 September 2017 at 9:51 am

    This is where we’re at, folks.

    A dying man was discharged to a bus stop wearing pyjamas because Christchurch Hospital staff felt he was a “nuisance” and “faking” his illness.

    Neil David Jones, 47, then lay on the footpath for six hours while members of the public tried to get doctors to help him. He was eventually trespassed from the hospital and taken to a shelter, where he vomited blood.

    An ambulance took him back to hospital, where he died two days later.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/96602147

  13. Ed 13
    8 September 2017 at 10:20 am

    A new book by George Monbiot looks to offers solutions and alternatives to neoliberalism.

    ‘What does the good life—and the good society—look like in the twenty-first century?

    A toxic ideology rules the world – of extreme competition and individualism. It misrepresents human nature, destroying hope and common purpose. Only a positive vision can replace it, a new story that re-engages people in politics and lights a path to a better world.

    George Monbiot shows how new findings in psychology, neuroscience and evolutionary biology cast human nature in a radically different light: as the supreme altruists and cooperators. He shows how we can build on these findings to create a new politics: a “politics of belonging.” Both democracy and economic life can be radically reorganized from the bottom up, enabling us to take back control and overthrow the forces that have thwarted our ambitions for a better society.

    Urgent, and passionate, Out of the Wreckage provides the hope and clarity required to change the world.’

    http://www.monbiot.com/2017/08/01/out-of-the-wreckage-2/

  14. Cinny 14
    8 September 2017 at 10:51 am

    Bill English is taking calls from the public this morning on Radio Live, it starts at 11am and finishes at noon.

    Live stream here if you want to listen.
    http://www.radiolive.co.nz/home.player.html

    Phone number to ring in here if you have a question.
    0800 844 747

    • Ed 14.1
      8 September 2017 at 11:57 am

      What’s your question for English?

      • tracey 14.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 2:26 pm

        Will you go back to Treasury, the farm or being a house husband?

      • Cinny 14.1.2
        8 September 2017 at 3:30 pm

        Hey there Ed, was unable to ring in… but it would have been…

        Why was Barclay recording Glenis, and don’t say you don’t know Bill, because you do, and so do I, and English, who was female who was a senior level politician at the time involved, and don’t claim the confidentiality agreement, because you said you had not signed one.

        Yeah that’s what I would have asked.

        Actually there were two callers who phoned in with Barclay questions, and he LIED. Someone asked how much hush money was paid to Glenis, English claimed he did not know, Sanso even clarified with him that he didn’t know, and he said again he did not know the amount, that is an outright bold faced lie.

  15. bwaghorn 15
    8 September 2017 at 12:27 pm

    can someone tell deputy davis to stop being a macho twit , he was shit on news hub this morning

    • Ed 15.1
      8 September 2017 at 12:30 pm

      I think that his personality.
      Vote Hone.

    • tracey 15.2
      8 September 2017 at 2:27 pm

      He is doing all he can to trip the campaign

      • marty mars 15.2.1
        8 September 2017 at 3:53 pm

        I don’t like him but that seems too far – any evidence he is deliberately trying to trip the campaign as opposed to just being useless?

    • Whispering Kate 15.3
      8 September 2017 at 2:54 pm

      I agree, he permanently looks grumpy and non-positive. I don’t know if this is his usual demeanour but he needs to lighten up – he should be as the polls are looking pretty good for Labour. It doesn’t help that Paula Benefit carries on like a chipmunk on steroids and comes across like a smug know it all – she grates like hell so between the two of them – yes they need to be spoken to or removed from the AM Show.

  16. Eco maori 16
    8 September 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Big upps for the Jacinda effect that is empowering women in NZ to fight for there equal rights
    Now we need the most popular Lady in the World to help us fight for OUR WORLD.!!!!!!!!

    • Anne 16.1
      8 September 2017 at 3:21 pm

      Nice one Eco maori. Jacinda is empowering women everywhere – not just those in her own age group. She is also appealing to older women like myself who were victims of so much misogyny and abuse in our younger days. We don’t want to see the new generations of women put through the same hoops.

  17. Pat 17
    8 September 2017 at 1:30 pm

    “Only from 55 to 64 does National pull ahead, by 39 to 34 over Labour, with a commanding lead of 53 to 27 for those aged 65 and above.”

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/08/46799/labour-gap-women

    Small sample size with consequent MOE however that over 65 favourability rating is very surprising……though in total the thrust of the results are buoyant for Labour

    • Ed 17.1
      8 September 2017 at 1:40 pm

      Wonder what house ownership is amongst the +65 s?
      Wonder how many of them got free tertiary education?

      • Pat 17.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 1:54 pm

        yes, well even so….my direct experience is that over 65s haven’t been impressed with rising living costs, esp health., and concern for offspring(naturally)…and much of the antipathy to Labour was around presentation….is it perhaps JAs relative youth?

        • Ed 17.1.1.1
          8 September 2017 at 1:58 pm

          I would imagine the numbers are connected more to conservatism and wealth.
          Pale, male and stale, as they say.

    • tracey 17.2
      8 September 2017 at 2:28 pm

      Hanging on to the imaginary good old days where white men ruled. Everything

      • Pat 17.2.1
        8 September 2017 at 2:36 pm

        lol…that may be so of some (few) ….but it is well to remember that the super-annuitants of today are ourselves in 10,20 or whatever years time….will our voting predilections reduce to such a basic formula?

    • The Fairy Godmother 17.3
      8 September 2017 at 7:13 pm

      Could be rich people live longer than poor ones thus skewing opinion polls to the right in the older demographics.

  18. Eco maori 18
    8 September 2017 at 2:38 pm

    I found a low Tec way to stop my smart phone from getting tracked cost me $1.50
    It’s a lot less stress now

    • ScottGN 18.1
      8 September 2017 at 3:56 pm

      Eco maori you’ve livened things up in here no end…

      • eco Maori/kiwi 18.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 7:55 pm

        Hope fully for the better Scott for our cause. I’m old enough to no what life was like before national started there circus and life was much better for everyone.
        And It’s awesome that we have social media to assists us in our fight to oust national and there spinning shit just like there manama nups whom insult me every day and think I can not see trough there dum ass tack ticks

  19. tracey 19
    8 September 2017 at 2:57 pm

    I notice Helen Clark has now spoken up at least twice durung this campaign? Is Key in Hawaii where he used to have cellphone troubles?

    • McFlock 19.1
      8 September 2017 at 3:21 pm

      He’s run out of roles to speak from: now he’s no longer Prime minister or National Party Leader, anything he says would be in his role as “John Key, human being”. And he’s spent so long telling people what they want to hear from those different roles, he’s terrified of trying to form an opinion of his own. Hasn’t had one since the ’81 tour.

      • Anne 19.1.1
        8 September 2017 at 3:29 pm

        Hasn’t had one since the ’81 tour.

        Didn’t have one then. Or so he says.

      • tracey 19.1.2
        8 September 2017 at 3:47 pm

        Isnt he golf ambassador from some meglomanical chinese businessman?

        • ScottGN 19.1.2.1
          8 September 2017 at 3:54 pm

          Japanese.
          And on the board of AirNZ? Both of which roles would probably preclude him from wading into the fray

          • tracey 19.1.2.1.1
            8 September 2017 at 4:06 pm

            Except he talked about Ardern being the right pick for Labour. I think she had her hair in a ponytail that day

    • Ffloyd 19.2
      8 September 2017 at 10:46 pm

      Key? Who he?

  20. Tricledrown 20
    8 September 2017 at 4:20 pm

    New poll out.
    National 30%
    Labour 45%
    NZ first 11%

  21. Tricledrown 21
    8 September 2017 at 4:38 pm

    McFlock just heard at 3.55pm those figure’s when thee panel was talking about combinations of coalitions.
    Then Jim Mora had to correct them saying National had no options.