Open mike 09/04/2014

146 comments on “Open mike 09/04/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. JanM 1

   9 April 2014 at 7:12 am

   Hands up who feels sorry for Tau Henare? – if you choose to swim with sharks …
   • Enough is Enough 1.1

     9 April 2014 at 9:10 am

     Hell NO
   • felix 1.2

     9 April 2014 at 9:53 am

     What’s going on in the National Party is nothing short of a purge.

     Anyone who won’t have the stomach for the extreme right-wing blitzkrieg the central committee has planned for the third term is out, and will be replaced by obedient, subservient little Randian ideologues and proto-fascists who owe their entire career to the leadership.

     National is transforming into ACT on steroids.
     • JanM 1.2.1

       9 April 2014 at 10:08 am

       And don’t forget to mention not too bright – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that Simon Bridges signed over a national park in pristine condition to the oil drillers and then cheerfully announced he’d never heard of the park in question before!
       The Nats are starting to expose their hubris to an astonishing degree – more astonishing are the number of twerps in Aotearoa who are just not getting it!
       Though, alternately the right may figure they don’t actually want to grind away at another 3 years in power and figure they will have legislated a sufficient number of our rights away to be able to carry on without us by September – let Labour etc. try and unpick the mess, probably to no real avail as too many evils will have escaped from Pandora’s box. We live in interesting times (read Chris Trotter’s latest offering in Bowally Road)
       • Bearded Git 1.2.1.1

         9 April 2014 at 10:13 am

         I’ve posted the Bridges TV3 clip below JanM. A must see.
       • felix 1.2.1.2

         9 April 2014 at 10:16 am

         “Though, alternately the right may figure they don’t actually want to grind away at another 3 years in power and figure they will have legislated a sufficient number of our rights away to be able to carry on without us by September”

         Don’t believe it for a moment Jan.

         The Nats want another term, and if they get it the hammer is coming down hard.
         • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2.1

           9 April 2014 at 10:26 am

           +1
         • srylands 1.2.1.2.2

           9 April 2014 at 10:40 am

           Oh yes the hammer. Does that mean that we will no longer be the number 1 ranked country in the world for social freedom and choice?

           http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/201414/progress.pdf

           That nasty centre left National government that presides over economic freedom and a giant welfare safety net will send us plummeting in the rankings. Oh the humanity.

           What a load of crap.
           • felix 1.2.1.2.2.1

             9 April 2014 at 11:01 am

             This is a conversation about NZ matters.

             It has nothing to do with you.
           • Tracey 1.2.1.2.2.2

             9 April 2014 at 11:03 am

             do you also accept this recent report?

             “A United Nations Human Rights Council report says New Zealand needs to do more to combat issues such as child poverty, domestic violence and racial crimes.

             It’s just the second time New Zealand has been included in the report, which is issued every four years and provides recommendations on global human rights issues.

             This year’s document contains 155 recommendations for New Zealand, up from to 64 four years ago.”
             • fisiani …

               9 April 2014 at 3:45 pm

               United Nations Human rights Council members
               Algeria
               Argentina
               Austria
               Benin
               Botswana
               Brazil
               Burkina Faso
               Chile
               China
               Congo
               Costa Rica
               Côte d’Ivoire
               Cuba
               Czech Republic
               Estoni
               Ethiopia
               France
               Gabon
               Germany
               India
               Indonesia
               Ireland
               Italy
               Japan
               Kazakhstan
               Kenya
               Kuwait
               Maldives
               Mexico
               Montenegro
               Morocco
               Namibia
               Pakistan
               Peru
               Philippines
               Republic of Korea
               Romania
               Russian Federation
               Saudi Arabia
               Sierra Leone
               South Africa
               The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
               United Arab Emirates
               United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
               United States of America
               Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
               Viet Nam

               HRC Membership

               Do you really think anyone cares what sort of report come out of that nest of appalling regimes.
               • Rob …

                 9 April 2014 at 5:16 pm

                 Come on dude , keep up

                 The United Nations only has something useful about to say about NZ if Helen Clark or some other Labour retread is saying it, anything else is lies, damm lies.
               • Marie Tern …

                 9 April 2014 at 11:41 pm

                 Austria and Ireland have appalling regimes? Please explain.
           • McFlock 1.2.1.2.2.3

             9 April 2014 at 12:32 pm

             How did we go on basic needs, ecosystem sustainability, or clean waterways?

             Oh, but we’re free to choose – choose australia, like you did.
             • srylands …

               10 April 2014 at 12:32 am

               Good grief – there are no New Zealanders who do not have their “basic needs” met. You seem so miserable and angry that nothing will please you. No evidence will change your mindset. Everything is doomed, when all evidence points to the exact opposite. You are very strange.
               • felix …

                 10 April 2014 at 2:12 am

                 Guess that explains why there are no New Zealanders living in cars, in garages, under bridges etc etc.

                 Not that you’d know, you live in Australia and know nothing about life here.
               • McFlock …

                 10 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

                 You didn’t read the report you linked to. You are very stupid.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.3

         9 April 2014 at 10:24 am

         let Labour etc. try and unpick the mess, probably to no real avail as too many evils will have escaped from Pandora’s box.

         Forget unpicking the mess – just dump the whole lot and put in complete new legislation. Especially for taxes.
         • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.3.1

           9 April 2014 at 10:48 am

           Yep. Trying to incrementally undo bits and pieces of the damage done (e.g. using the Employment Relations Act to moderate the Employment Contracts Act) is a useless centrist approach.
         • The Lone Haranguer 1.2.1.3.2

           9 April 2014 at 4:59 pm

           Even if Labour and its mates were to accidentally win the election (and they wont as the caucus would hate to admit that Cunliffe was the right man for the job so wont help him) then you are working on the false assumption that the Labour Caucus would actually WANT to change anything.

           Look at history – apart from Roger Douglas, there have been stuff all major changes in economic policy brought about by a change of Government in the past forty years.

           Even Helen Clarks first Government didnt reverse Ruth Richardsons welfare “reforms”

           And in foreign fields, the French Presidential candidate Hollande spoke the big words about not being bullied into austerity by the Germans and the banks, and once elected, within weeks changed his words 100% and eventually morphed into a poodle.

           Whatever makes you think a Cunliffe led government will be any different?
           • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.3.2.1

             9 April 2014 at 5:51 pm

             Whatever makes you think a Cunliffe led government will be any different?

             Nothing which is why I’m not a Labour supporter. Still, they could always listen to what I say and the Greens, whom I do somewhat support, will be there as well and so we may get some needed legislative reform.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.4

         9 April 2014 at 10:33 am

         Noises-Off Democracy’s Stage

         A powerful telling.
     • tc 1.2.2

       9 April 2014 at 11:07 am

       ‘subservient little Randian ideologues and proto-fascists..’ Bridges, JLR, Guy, Foss, Adams etc.

       Bill’s on the list to make a quick exit should one be required, watch for others swapping out in this manner as it’s effectively preparing for a departure as you just slip away and another sock puppet comes in off the list, no by-election.
     • greywarbler 1.2.3

       9 April 2014 at 2:12 pm

       +100
       That sums it up absolutely felix. It is the conclusion that makes sense of all that is going on in NACT. It reminds me of once when I had to coat my kitten with lindane to get rid of the fleas years ago. They fell off in staggering amounts, it was definitely a purge.
   • Chooky 1.3

     9 April 2014 at 10:07 am

     I dont feel sorry for Tau…he sold his soul to the devil….really he could have been so much more
2. Corokia 2

   9 April 2014 at 7:14 am

   The downward slide continues on Morning report. More of Oscar Pistorius crying, complete with long pauses. As a special treat we got a story about a married US politician no one here has ever heard of, apologising for a video showing him kissing another women, apparently he ran on a platform of ‘family values’, oh the irony! Of course we have the royal playdate and at 6.30am traffic congestion as a result of earthquake repairs in Christchurch made the bulletin. Who else left when Geoff retired? Is the programme being produced by year 12 media students or what?
   • bad12 2.1

     9 April 2014 at 7:39 am

     Opinion would say, an unkind one at that, that Oscar sure as hell deserves one for His performance in the witness box…
     • Lanthanide 2.1.1

       9 April 2014 at 9:11 am

       I don’t see why someone can’t be genuinely remorseful and upset, even if they did actually commit murder.
       • Tracey 2.1.1.1

         9 April 2014 at 9:20 am

         Agreed.

         Today he said he heard a window in the bathroom, panicked. he said he yelled to Reeva to get under the bed, yelled at her to call the police, yelled at the intruder, then he heard the toilet door close…

         My partner suggested that reeva, hearing him, not knowing she was the alleged intruder, took refuge in the toilet. He then proceeded tot he toilet door and shot…

         That doesn’t explain any calls tot he person behind the toilet door, warnings to them etc which would have alerted reeva to the fact she was the alleged intruder that bothered him.

         It’s one explanation.

         Also we need to recall that even those who commit awful violence on their partners are often remorseful very soon after…

         Is this an all or nothing charge for the Crown? Or if it is not premeditated murder, it’s still murder or manslaughter?
       • JanM 2.1.1.2

         9 April 2014 at 9:35 am

         Sounds as though you could do with some background reading on sociopaths
   • ianmac 2.2

     9 April 2014 at 9:07 am

     It is a concern that Morning Report seems to have descended into repetition and trivia. Maybe it is just another slow news day – again. Guyon and Susie seem to be struggling with what they are given but who is giving them the material and who is standing over them to make sure that the program fades away during election year?
     Tomorrow will be better perhaps.
   • Ron 2.3

     9 April 2014 at 11:01 am

     Oh come on we re so lucky to now have ‘Gyro’ Espiner frantically trying to sound like a commercial station every time he speaks. If we do get a left party in power again then a thorough overhaul of Radio and Television is a must and it should be done in a way that it cannot be easily undone without a solid proportion of NZ voting to change it.

     The downward slide continues on Morning report
     • idlegus 2.3.1

       9 April 2014 at 12:45 pm

       plus 100. i switched to radio live (after guyon talking about how ‘lucky’ the babies who were going to meet the royals were, blurgh!) but hit their sport panel (double blurgh!) so i listened to some mp3s instead…aphrodites childs ‘666’ mega epic psychedelic greek rock!!!!
   • greywarbler 2.4

     9 April 2014 at 2:32 pm

     I have noticed the Radionz News fascination with the endless Oscar piss stories. And his crying. Specially brought to you the educated listener to inform you about what important things are happening in the world. He should get an ‘Oscar’ all right. And a boot up his bum. It sounds to me like a Special Boy who has been fated and feted to get everything that he wants.

     Which reminds me also of the young man whose girlfriend woke up beside him in bed only to find she was dead. The Guardian said that Emily Langley’s killer was a millionaires son. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/22/millionaire-jewellers-son-jailed-murder

     An underlying learning that comes from those two examples is that girls have to watch their boyfriends aren’t actually boyfiends. Watch your spelling ladies, or your mistake could mean your death.

     Then as Corokia says the USA Christian who was Sooooo Sorry that he kissed another woman besides his wife and has stepped down from something political. And not only do we give him a brief report in our news, we get USA feed giving us the rundown on it. The excitement of it all. Someone has got something sexual, a touch, a kiss, a brush of the bodies, nooky or something.

     Heaven help us. Can we get people and our heretofore respected Radionz who respect our need for real news, and not some tripe suitable for the tripey women’s magazines or the defunct Truth newspaper. No wonder it had to close down. It’s erstwhile readers are so well served by all the latest Titbits and Tittle-tattle, it couldn’t compete. Why don’t we have some page 3 nudes, both men and women. Let’s have real pictures of real bodies and be honest that we like that some of the time. And the rest of the time we can stop having little everyday indecency blown up into major news. And hear some of the important news that is presently sidelined so we can share in the horror of an illegitimate kiss.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   9 April 2014 at 7:24 am

   Best Looks

   At the offices of Cosmopolitan magazine, however, the staff seemed to forget that Ms Geldof had a life and career. In fact they seemed to forget altogether that she was a real, flesh and blood woman with friends and family who are shocked and grieving, and decided that their “tribute” to her would be this:
   • anker 3.1

     9 April 2014 at 8:03 am

     Sickening and disgraceful. What has the world come to if this is Cosmopolitan response. Shame on them
   • Tracey 3.2

     9 April 2014 at 9:22 am

     and describing her as a fixture… a freudian slip of sorts?
4. Adrian 4

   9 April 2014 at 7:25 am

   Couldn’t agree more, I never thought Morning report would end up being so lame and vacuous. And it only took a couple of days.
   • JanM 4.1

     9 April 2014 at 10:10 am

     Going down the same drain as the Listener
   • tc 4.2

     9 April 2014 at 11:12 am

     as designed Adrian, not one everyone is privvy to except probably Griffin the other nat cronies on the RNZ board so they all chirp as one along with the nact backers who provided the design.
   • Bearded Git 4.3

     9 April 2014 at 6:50 pm

     Wallace is doing a great job on Sunday though.
5. srylands 5

   9 April 2014 at 7:45 am

   Yep. Much better to listen to some uplifting Mahler or Lesbians on Ecstasy on your morning commute. Or a Podcast of The Economist.
   • Ron 5.1

     9 April 2014 at 11:06 am

     Of course why am I not surprised that you would choose that right wing rag The Economist. A magazine that still hides the names of its reporters, probably because we might recognise their names in the Tory register.
     One could do so much better reading a reputable news publication.

     Yep. Much better to listen to some uplifting Mahler or Lesbians on Ecstasy on your morning commute. Or a Podcast of The Economist.
   • greywarbler 5.2

     9 April 2014 at 2:40 pm

     srylands
     The Standard must be the main post of your life, that keeps you upright, your mainstay. You poor old person who has to sit on your hill and make snide remarks at the hoi pollio down below.

     Why don’t you do something useful now. You have no doubt acquired money over your life, sticking one of your tentacles to the lifeblood of the right wing institutions that you have belonged to. Now you are so empty, you can only fill yourself by writing critical remarks about people who are trying to do something.

     Have you ever said anything positive, offered a positive and effective comment to ideas expressed on this blog that would help carry NZ forward keeping in mind its financial and other difficulties and the long mismanagement of the economy? I think you would have to look hard to find it. I wonder if you can bother to.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   9 April 2014 at 7:54 am

   The Four Horsemen

   Haven’t watched it yet but it will probably be of interest to those interested in economics. It’s from The Renegade Economist.
   • Paul 6.1

     9 April 2014 at 7:58 am

     Seen it.
     It’s excellent.
   • bad12 6.2

     9 April 2014 at 8:24 am

     ”They gave us the grapes that went ripe in the Sun,
     That loosen the screws at the back of the tongue,
     We still told nothing ’bout what was to come”,

     Four Horsemen–the Clash…
   • geoff 6.3

     9 April 2014 at 9:22 am

     It’s ok but I think it eventually advocates for a free market solution, so kinda misses the point entirely.

     I thought ‘Inside Job’ was much more informative but that doesn’t advocate for any particular solution.
7. bad12 7

   9 April 2014 at 8:12 am

   From yesterdays question time, Bill English asked a question by David Parker about superannuation, an attempt to skewer English with the news story of the mega-billions that would have been in a previous superannuation fund if an incoming National Government had not cancelled it,

   English retorted, fishing or with inside knowledge???, that Labour currently had an unspoken of plan to ‘means test’ all superannuation payments which certainly got Parker looking like He had just pee’d on an electric fence,

   My view is that English was simply using a bullshit line to avoid actually answering the question, i doubt Labour have a ‘plan’ to means test superannuation at all, why would they promote such an electorally kneecapping policy when they already have a perfect ‘turn off’ to 2–5% of voters with the ‘plan’ to raise the age of entitlement to 67,

   If anything should Labour gain the numbers in the Parliament to actually further this policy, i would suggest an impossibility unless they commit electoral suicide and use National to ram such Legislation through,after individual compulsory superannuation savings Legislation will come a future ‘imperative’ to raise the age of entitlement to 70,

   Given the current state of political polls it is not unreasonable to suggest that NZFirst will be a feature in the next Parliament which would make the Labour plan to raise the age of entitlement basically null and void and it is beyond me to understand why Parliamentary Labour continue to push this vote losing policy,

   The fact that David Cunliffe cannot ‘see’ this has me questioning whether He is as smart as we are lead to believe…
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     9 April 2014 at 9:19 am

     Oh, he’s as smart as we were led to believe. His problem is that he still believes in the economic paradigm that has been throttling NZ for the last thirty years. In fact, he’s well and truly indoctrinated in it.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       9 April 2014 at 2:49 pm

       Well, I know for sure that DC understands very well the limitations of neoliberal/Chicago school economics and monetary policy.

       Whether or not the rest of the machinery allows him much freedom to express that and act on it is another question.
   • anker 7.2

     9 April 2014 at 9:20 am

     When Paddy G interviewed DC on The Nation and the issue of lifting the retirement age was raised by Gower, I got a strong feeling from DC’s response that he was pretty luke warm about it. He was very emphatic in all his other answers and what he did say was he thought there should be a cross party agreement on the issue. This is how I remember it anyway.
     • bad12 7.2.1

       9 April 2014 at 11:31 am

       Unfortunately a ”pretty lukewarm response” from David Cunliffe on the superannuation question does not necessarily mean that He is ‘against’ raising the age of entitlement,

       Such a ”lukewarm response” might have simply been His response to a question He found it easier to equivocate over than give a straight answer, especially if that answer would have entailed confirming the Labour plan to raise the age of entitlement,

       From RadioNZ News, both on radio and online it appears that Labour have contingency plans when it comes to the question of mining if the Green party refused to support any future mining initiatives during a Labour/Green Government,

       It appears that the mining lobby group Straterra held ,(paid for), a function in the Parliaments Grand Hall a couple of days ago at which Andrew Little represented the Labour Party,

       Spoken to after this function Little is quoted, presumably full of the wine of Straterra’s human kindness, as saying that should the Green Party in a future coalition with Labour refuse to support any future mining Legislation granting new license to mine Labour would then rely on the support of the National Party to pass such Legislation in the House,

       So how far astray are those who see exactly the same ‘tactic being used to pass Legislation through the House on the raising of the age of superannuation question,

       i realize that we all want rid of Slippery the Prime Minister and this shoddy corrupt Government, BUT, rid of them at what cost, i for one cannot continue to promote ”unity” of the left when Labour look every bit the ‘other’ National Party masquerading at the ball…
       • srylands 7.2.1.1

         9 April 2014 at 12:04 pm

         Raising the age to 67 is inevitable. It is happening all over the OECD. There is no alternative. Take a look at the long term fiscal outlook Treasury put out last year. If you don’t do this, there will be no money for health expenditure growth. You choose. You need to look at this in the context of all fiscal pressures to 2040.

         Labour could win the election by promising a phased increase in super eligibility to 70 years. Another useful reform would be to unlink it from wage growth and chanage it to CPI. Do thiose two things and things will look much sweeter. Ultimately both WILL happen because there is no alternative. Labour might as well take the credit. Because the next National Government led by J Key’s successor will do it.
         • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1

           9 April 2014 at 12:16 pm

           Raising the age to 67 is inevitable. It is happening all over the OECD. There is no alternative.

           Odd then that the US Federal Reserve can print $80B a week in interest free money for the big banks?

           Odd then that the US and the EU can instantly come up with multi-billion dollar bail outs and loan guarantees for their preferred government in Ukraine?

           Odd then that the 0.1% have stashed away several trillion dollars in tax havens and high value assets like gold?

           Where is all this money coming from for these special pet projects?

           Why do you say that austerity for the 99% is inevitable when there is clearly so much money being printed and stashed away by the 0.1%?
         • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1.2

           9 April 2014 at 12:16 pm

           There is no alternative.

           Actually, there’s plenty of alternatives but they absolutely trounce the status quo and so you don’t want to listen to them.
         • vto 7.2.1.1.3

           9 April 2014 at 12:21 pm

           ha ha, fancy putting all this out there srylands. Your opinion is so shallow it is like talking to a child.

           You think everything can and should be priced and that people on earth make decisions on the basis of self-interest.

           So deluded.
           • David H 7.2.1.1.3.1

             9 April 2014 at 3:58 pm

             @vto that’s it. you have put your finger on it. SorryLands is only 9.
         • freedom 7.2.1.1.4

           9 April 2014 at 1:34 pm

           “There is no alternative.”

           srylands,
           statements like that suggest your thought process is not qualified to strain week old soup, let alone create the banquet of circumstance required to grow a healthy society
           • Tracey 7.2.1.1.4.1

             9 April 2014 at 1:41 pm

             Well said.

             Anything out of slylands personal/political paradigm cannot be workable or acceptable, no matter how necessary, workable or acceptable it is.

             slylands is driven by the myth of wealth = happy

             as opposed to reality which is success = healthy and thriving
         • bad12 7.2.1.1.5

           9 April 2014 at 3:19 pm

           The usual Nazi rubbish from SSLands, still choosing i see to vomit an absolute pile of excrement without a shred of fact into the debate,

           Here is the ACT Party view of this supposed ‘crisis in superannuation:

           ”Since 1980 the number of people over the age of 65 has doubled”. ”StatisticsNZ predicts this age group will double again by 2036”. ”In that time the cost of NZ Super is projected to increase from 9 billion dollars a year to 20 billion dollars a year”.unquote.

           So, shock horror where exactly is the problem, doesn’t the rise in the cost of superannuation from the present 9 billion dollars to 20 billion dollars in 2036 just have you all shaking at the knees,

           There is no problem with superannuation as has been shown by the ability to pay for a doubling of the number of superannuation payments from 1980 to the present day,

           In 1980 GDP was 22,967 billions of dollars
           In 2012 GDP was 208,688 billions of dollars,

           This GDP growth was achieved through any number of financial and economic crisis, if we apply the same rate of growth to expected GDB in 2036 an entirely different picture of shock horror emerges,

           The estimated GDP in 2036 394,400 billions of dollars
           plus the contents of the Cullen Super fund now at 24 billion dollars and rising,

           Estimated GDP 418,400 billions of dollars,

           So using the exact same growth rate for the years 1980—2012 in billions of dollars we can estimate the growth in the GDP from 2012–2036 to arrive at a figure of,(adding in the Cullen Super fund), 418,400 billions of dollars doubling the present 2012 figure of GDP,

           Crisis what Crisis, by 2036 the number of superannuation payments will have doubled as will the the growth of GDP,(based upon historical fact),which will simply mean that the Government will have doubled its income from taxation of that doubled GDP so where exactly is this crisis…
           • Tracey 7.2.1.1.5.1

             9 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

             perhaps slylans is worried that the trend of falling tax revenue will continue til 2036, despite so called rockstar economy.
         • Foreign Waka 7.2.1.1.6

           9 April 2014 at 6:44 pm

           Firstly, there is no such thing as this is “happening all over the OECD”. The age for many mainland Euro countries is 60 to 65 years with Ireland 66 years. These are facts, so no stories please.
           Secondly, if a state pays a benefit it has to be contributed to. So why not link it to the years worked rather then age reached. Lets say the tax contribution years of each person is 40 years – and please note this is based on individual contribution, no couples or diminishing into the wall paper if you are married.
           This would mean that if you are at university slouching off for years on end it will not get you the good life. Equally if you start working young or in an apprenticeship that often means physical work, one would retire earlier. Thus the system would be fairer. If one chooses to continue working and is able it should not be a problem.
           There is still a cap of the working age, lets say 67, by which time everybody would be entitlement to at least a minimum pension as it is paid now. The difference is that in the case of having the full 40 years contributed the pension is set at the average income of the last few years of work.
           You might say that this is a good incentive to a/ not stay on the dole, b/ go from benefit to benefit without ever contributing anything and lastly everybody knows that they are not a drain on the next person. This can be run like any other pension scheme and does not need extensive set up costs, privatization with money being paid to shareholders instead of the retiree. The question is, is the average person out there ready to take responsibility?
           • karol 7.2.1.1.6.1

             9 April 2014 at 6:55 pm

             The British system of the state pension is based on what a person pays in National Insurance while working.

             But it tends to work against women because many take time out from work to look after children.

             Many people want to work but can’t get jobs – so that impacts a lot on some sections of the popultaion.
             • Foreign Waka …

               9 April 2014 at 7:29 pm

               And this is why most Euro countries have minimum pensions for women reaching the age of 60 and this is paid on an individual basis and not as the women being the left foot of a man.
           • bad12 7.2.1.1.6.2

             9 April 2014 at 7:30 pm

             Really, an incentive to get a job???what a load of fucking shit, there are not enough jobs in the economy so other than rotational employment everyone cannot work…
           • miravox 7.2.1.1.6.3

             9 April 2014 at 7:56 pm

             “The age for many mainland Euro countries is 60 to 65 years”

             The effective retirement age is maybe more useful.

             In several European countries it’s below 60 for men and lower than men by a couple of years for women. In the OECD only Japan and South Korea have an effective retirement age that is quite a lot older than the official retirement age.
             • Foreign Waka …

               11 April 2014 at 7:29 pm

               Most Euro countries do not peg against reaching a certain age but rather on years of contribution to the retirement fund. Hence the age varies. However, 60 -65 is the minimum age by which one can get minimum retirement money without the nominal time of contributions. Yes, the effective retirement age is often lower. I know this first hand as my younger siblings are already retired whilst I have to put some considerable years into it here in NZ before I get some peanuts.
   • mikesh 7.3

     9 April 2014 at 10:14 am

     The super surcharge was, in effect, a method of means testing National Super, and I think that was introduced originally by Labour. Perhaps that was what English was referring to.
8. Karen 8

   9 April 2014 at 9:11 am

   My guess from this is that Labour intend to have a means tested superannuation at 65 and non means test at 67 as a way of allowing those who wish/need to retire at 65 to be able to access superannuation if they are of limited means. Personally, I’d rather see more money being spent on those living in poverty than being paid out to 65 year olds who are still in full-time work earning over $100,000 a year.
   • karol 8.1

     9 April 2014 at 9:20 am

     The super for those on such high incomes would largely be lost in taxes. And having applied for NZ Super – it’s a trial – requires verification of identity, documented evidence of all income, all savings, etc as well as of all assets (whether than can be swapped for money or not) – it’s a bugger of a form to complete. For those who will lose the super gain in taxes anyway, it may not be worth the effort – though I guess they’d have accountants to do it for them.
     • JanM 8.1.1

       9 April 2014 at 9:44 am

       That’s true, Karol – I was working full time when I first received Super and I was paying quite a bit more in taxes than I was getting back (and I wasn’t earning $100,000 either!) You have to pay secondary tax on either your income or your Super, so the tax payments are quite high
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1

         9 April 2014 at 1:50 pm

         And after paying secondary tax you then fill in the correct forms and get the over paid tax back. You still end up paying the same amount of tax on income.
9. travellerev 9

   9 April 2014 at 9:12 am

   Just a quick update on the adviser the “royal” couple brought with them. Sir David Manning is quite a piece of work!
   • bad12 9.1

     9 April 2014 at 9:21 am

     ”Fixer” would be a better descriptive, but please, do tell us all more,(with proof or asked as a question),

     Most English gangster clans have a ”Fixer” which saves the elite of such from having to dirty their hands,

     i must hunt out the story i read,(online), that alleges that one particular ‘Woyal’ suffering from irreversible brain damage far from ‘falling’ to His death from the step of the particular remote mansion/castle He had been hidden away in, went over a nearby cliff allegedly with the help from another Sir in the form of a ‘Woyal Fixer’…
     • travellerev 9.1.1

       9 April 2014 at 9:26 am

       Go to the post. You will find all the proof you need. I never put anything out unless I can link to proof or I put it in a question. Hence the link in the comment. By the way calling someone a piece of work isn’t what you might call libelous is it?
       • bad12 9.1.1.1

         9 April 2014 at 10:37 am

         Sorry book signed travellerev, i missed that one word in Blue reading your comment at speed on the first go round, yep have had a read and He is as you say he is…
         • travellerev 9.1.1.1.1

           9 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

           Sorry book signed. I’m gonna keep that one in
   • karol 9.2

     9 April 2014 at 9:38 am

     Thanks, interesting. So Sir David Manning was involved in preparing that dossier of mis-information in support of the UK joining the US in the 2003 attack on Iraq – misinformation about WMDs.

     And so was our Chief GCSB boss, Ian Fletcher (working for Andrew Turnbull), ex- school buddy of John Key.

     Letter to David Manning from Blair’s advisor.. – copied to Ian Fletcher.
10. Te Reo Putake 10

    9 April 2014 at 9:49 am

    Interesting opinion piece on why calling Tony Blair a war criminal is a distortion of history:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/tony-blair-labour-pride-war-criminal-iraq
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      9 April 2014 at 11:27 am

      A million excess deaths in Iraq in the years since the Blair/Bush led war. Yes, that’s war criminal level activity right there, regardless of whether or not Blair was a Saint on every other day of the week.

      And that’s also ignoring how Blair further increased the political capture exercised by the City of London bankers.
    • travellerev 10.2

      9 April 2014 at 4:30 pm

      TRP,

      One day I think and hope the Standardistas are going to look at your comments and think he is getting more and more blatant in his shill behavior by the day. You’re not even pretending anymore!
      • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 9:12 pm

        Cheers, Ev, as usual you haven’t got a clue. I’m not defending Blair, but pointing out an interesting, if contrarian, opinion piece. Not everything is an conspiracy, you know.
11. felix 11

    9 April 2014 at 9:57 am

    Hey Tau, you don’t get to call yourself a maverick. If you’re a maverick then other people will say it.

    If you have to say it yourself, chances are that everyone else just thinks you’re a dick.
    • Lanthanide 11.1

      9 April 2014 at 12:19 pm

      Sarah Palin, eh? Although in her case I think it was shorthand for “bimbo out of her depth”.
    • Tracey 11.2

      9 April 2014 at 12:41 pm

      a mavrick stands up to the failed neo lib experiment they dont run toward it with their arms out stretching yelling

      ” me too. gimme gimme gimme”
      • Mainlander 11.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 3:44 pm

        Damn thought you were describing Hone’s love affair with Kim Schmitz there for a minute
12. Bearded Git 12

    9 April 2014 at 9:57 am

    From TV3 News last night. Simon (the moron) Bridges opens up 450,000 hectares of conservation land for oil and gas exploration including Victoria Forest Park, described by DOC as “pristine and untouched” and has no idea it exists or where it is. You have to watch this.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Minister-didnt-know-park-was-in-drilling-plan/tabid/1607/articleID/339311/Default.aspx
    • karol 12.1

      9 April 2014 at 10:07 am

      Yes, lots of jokes on Twitter last night at Bridge’s expense. Is it me, or is Bridge’s usual bad-John-key-imitation of mangled speech less noticeable than usual in that vid? – His more natural speech coming out when caught on the back foot?
      • felix 12.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 10:39 am

        Yes I noticed that too. His usual yokel drawl seems to be a bit of an act.

        Don’t want to sound smarter than the boss, eh?
      • Tracey 12.1.2

        9 April 2014 at 12:43 pm

        wondered about that too
    • Ad 12.2

      9 April 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Appalling political and policy illiteracy.
      Minister Smith needs to require review of all such proposed decisions.

      Incompetent government.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.3

      9 April 2014 at 1:40 pm

      NRT on it:

      For the Minister to approve this without even knowing it raises serious questions about his competence and that of his Ministry. Was he advised about it? If so, and he ignored it, then he’s a total muppet. OTOH, if he wasn’t, it suggests serious problems with MoBIE’s economic development unit, which the Minister is ultimately responsible for. And either way, its crystal clear that National has no commitment whatsoever to conservation or our environment; if it can be bulldozed for profit, they’ll sign off on it.

      my bold
    • Foreign Waka 12.4

      9 April 2014 at 6:50 pm

      I cant stand that person, he has sold his soul and tries to have everybody else doing the same. Brrr…
13. Chooky 13

    9 April 2014 at 10:28 am

    From the Daily Blog : interesting comment

    …I have to agree with Martin Bradbury that “If the Greens are serious about being the main part in a Labour led Government, they have to start finding bridges to build with Winston.”

    “Is Kennedy Graham the Green’s secret weapon and are they getting rid of him too soon?”

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/05/is-graham-kennedy-the-greens-secret-weapon-and-are-they-getting-rid-of-him-too-soon/
    • bad12 13.1

      9 April 2014 at 11:59 am

      i have to wonder which Labour Party ‘Bomber’ is referring to when He says that ”285,000 kids growing up in poverty and a climate damaged enviroment can’t afford blah blah blah”,

      In light of my comment (7.2.1) above it appears that Labour will happily indulge in climate damaging mining and if the Green component of any Labour/Green Government objects to this the Labour Party as Andrew Little is quoted by RadioNZ National News will happily seek the votes of National to pass any needed Legislation,

      As far as addressing child poverty i have yet to see a labour Party policy that in any way addresses such poverty, as by the time all these jobs,jobs,jobs, which appears to be the sum total of the ‘plan’ materialize those kids will have lived their whole childhoods in that poverty and suffer the consequences of it for the remainder of their lives…
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

        It would cost about 1.5% of GDP (=$3B p.a.) to totally eradicate child poverty from NZ. And of course, it’s not a “cost” it’s an investment in the future of New Zealand.

        Funny how no political party seems to be giving us what we need.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          9 April 2014 at 12:34 pm

          To be clear, I am not talking about a “Ministry of Children” with another 200 head count in Wellington.
          • Tracey 13.1.1.1.1

            9 April 2014 at 12:47 pm

            as someone said today…

            the rich deserve more money to motivate them, the poor need less.
            • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.1.1.1

              9 April 2014 at 1:21 pm

              We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had much.

              Kenneth Galbraith
      • Penny Bright 13.1.2

        9 April 2014 at 1:27 pm

        How about saving potentially billions of dollars at both local and central government level, by OPENING THE BOOKS and CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS?

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1111/S00095/wheres-nationals-corporate-welfare-reform.htm

        Here’s an ACTION PLAN:

        http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

        “Where the people lead – the politicians will follow?”

        Penny Bright

        http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
        • Foreign Waka 13.1.2.1

          9 April 2014 at 6:53 pm

          AAA+++
    • Tracey 13.2

      9 April 2014 at 12:45 pm

      why do so many who dont support the greens, wont vote for them, think their advice is needed?
      • Chooky 13.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 12:57 pm

        …because they know the Greens are smart …and they themselves are dumb?….too dumb to vote Green….but smart enough to know that the Greens make sense
14. fisiani 14

    9 April 2014 at 1:39 pm

    Crim Dot Con says that he has an electorate MP (Not Hone) agreed to sign up to the Internet party
    If this is true then there is a current electorate MP who is lying to his electorate and party now because every single one has denied being in the Crim’s pocket. There is no electorate MP who could survive as an MP having lied and deceived the public like that.
    Crim Dot Con is a liar desperate to avoid extradition and jail time.
    Will Mana ignore their principles and take his thirty silver coins.
    If so they have no mana.
    • Chooky 14.1

      9 April 2014 at 1:44 pm

      fisiani are you on a mission?…to nowhere?
      • Enough is Enough 14.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 3:08 pm

        classic Chooky

        Comedy gold
    • Mainlander 14.2

      9 April 2014 at 3:53 pm

      im picking Claire Curran but by the well worn trail up to the coatesville mansion it seems anyone of those clowns would sell their soul for a dollar
      • Anne 14.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 6:45 pm

        I thought Dotcom talked of an “elected MP”. That is not necessarily the same thing as an electorate MP. Bearing in mind his first language is not English, then its possible he was referring to an MP elected by the voters to be an MP which would include list MPs elected via the party vote.
15. captain hook 15

    9 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

    chooky caught a fish.
    hohoho.
16. greywarbler 16

    9 April 2014 at 2:03 pm

    I am reading an old Simenon story first published in 1954. It’s about a French village and called Maigret Goes to School.

    This is a quote that took my fancy, describing the Deputy Mayor –
    “The expression on his face combined the cunning self-assurance of the peasant with that of the politician skilled in juggling with the village elections.”

    And the postman, who has lost a hand which has been replaced with a hook, complaining about the forms he has to deliver from the government:-

    To begin with, there are the ex-servicemen. That I can understand. Then there are the widows’ pensions. The the health insurance, the large family allowances. And the allowances for…

    Can you sort them all out? I sometimes wonder whether there’s a soul in the village who doesn’t draw something from the government….
    And I’m certain some of them have kids just for the sake of the children’s allowance.

    Simenon has Maigret think –
    It seemed to be an obsession. He must draw a pension himself, for his arm. He was paid by the government. And it infuriated him that other people benefited as well. In fact, he was jealous.

    Simenon is an observer of the human character. He notes that a war veteran who ostensibly was fighting for his fellow citizens and country and the wellbeing of the whole country, can then turn at the end of the war and resent his fellows their life and the efforts to go forward in an improved way with a new life and children for the future.

    So thinking about oneself and resenting others getting help with the duties of their roles and consideration for their situation is not new. And that applies to war veterans needing help and not getting it also.
    • Tracey 16.1

      9 April 2014 at 2:32 pm

      it describes bm in yesterday’s thread about poverty.
17. freedom 17

    9 April 2014 at 2:19 pm

    I think National are genuinely worried. On FB they are pulling out all the stops

    still, gotta be better than the alternative
    • Tracey 17.1

      9 April 2014 at 2:28 pm

      i agree they are in 2011 they hid the snarl… now its snarly and smug

      clever poster too.
18. bad12 18

    9 April 2014 at 3:52 pm

    The Rock Bottom Economy:

    ”Two thirds of the way through the current financial year the ‘tax take’ is now 1.1 Billion Dollars below estimates”,

    Shortfalls:
    GST down by 3.2%,
    Business taxes down by 6.8%,

    We were told when the ‘tax take’ was light by 500 million dollars that this was due to ‘slower than usual’ tax payments from the business sector,

    Considering that hole in the Government revenue stream has now more than doubled to 1.1 Billion Dollars we can only view such an excuse as bullshit, more lies form this National Government, it would appear from such a sizable hole in that Government revenue stream that ‘business’ has found a new means of tax avoidance and considering the doubling of the amount that business has not paid in due taxation it would appear that more of those in business are using such a ‘loophole’ to avoid paying due taxation,

    Considering the ‘upward trend’ in non-compliance from the business sector to pay due taxation the estimate for the full year of increase in tax avoidance/evasion will leave the Government income for the year 1.7 –2 billion dollars less than what the GDP growth would suggest is due…
    • Tracey 18.1

      9 April 2014 at 4:32 pm

      and yet apparently 50% of businesses are feeling really great ” moving forward”.
19. aerobubble 19

    9 April 2014 at 4:11 pm

    The board of kiwirail didn’t know their ferry was using significant amounts of lubrication, above the norm, and let the ferry sail!@#@ Inevitably leading to a failure costing millions to fix…!!!
20. aerobubble 20

    9 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Tax revenues down. Key ideological delusion thought lowering tax would raise revenue.

    Sad, really sad, that Key actually thinks neo-liberal deregulate actually creates growth.
    No. The growth of the last thirty years has been due to year on year falls in the cost
    of energy. The glut of cheap high density petroleum.

    And now that’s over, the way to increase govt revenue, create more jobs, a more efficient economy, is to pull back on government largess to industries and tax payers, and let manage the economy so the most have the best opportunity to compete and innovate. And you don’t do that by giving relief to those who have already ensconced themselves and use the tax cut to solidify their positions (as they have). Innovation comes from stress, Key’s soft on industrial approach is naive now, was naive for the last thirty years, since it hands an easy ride, and so boost the financial sector. We don’t generate new science by dictate to scientist what they can research, we don’t generate new ideas and new products, new innovations by helping those who have a systemic interest in keeping the status quo.

    For thirty years we have dropped the ball, and been lied to by the self proclaimed geniuses of high finance. It was just one giant right wing monetary scam.
    • Tracey 20.1

      9 April 2014 at 4:34 pm

      but kate and wills are here!!!!
      • aerobubble 20.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 4:38 pm

        Yeah, Key could so easily have told us of the forth coming election after they leave.
21. aerobubble 21

    9 April 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Just the indignity of having to explain to a government official that your child has died and you need to travel aboard to keep getting basic income assistance to eat. This when Collins, paid for by tax payers, to fly, to live it up in hotels, to get free feeds, can have a private dinner (not so private she didn’t have to inform the ambassador about). I mean its the same abuse surely, using tax payers money to do with it for some purpose that you shouldn’t. In a beneficiary were to travel overseas, wined and dined because of who their husband is, because of their husbands company, Ms Bennett would be out drolling how she saved money, but should that person be a minister!!!
22. Asterix 22

    9 April 2014 at 4:45 pm

    . There is a disconnect between the rhetoric of a “rock star economy” promoted by a writer at the NZ Herald, and more than 40 people turning up at an information evening for a probation officer position in Wellington a few days ago.
23. ianmac 23

    9 April 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Hey! I have seen TWO photos of Katherine where she did not have a smile on her face. She looked quite nice.
24. captain hook 24

    9 April 2014 at 6:43 pm

    who read the dinkum oil by chalkie in todays dompost. “how the forex traders fixed the market”. Ithink I heard that around here lately too. good job if you can get it.
25. Jenny 25

    9 April 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Labour, National, Labour, National, Labour/Greens? (a final step to far?)

    Does the National Labour Business As Usual duopoly preclude any Labour/Green government?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-rejects-green-party-coalition-offer-5898618

    Is Labour’s refusal to stand up to the fossil fuel lobby behind their refusal to work with the Greens?
    • Draco T Bastard 25.1

      9 April 2014 at 8:41 pm

      Yeah, after that ballsup you’ve really got to ask who’s actually running the Labour Party. It certainly isn’t the members.
      • Jim Nald 25.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 9:03 pm

        As an increasingly greater number of people within my social and work circles have been saying, as I have heard many times in recent months, some Labour MPs would prefer to be in control of a losing Labour Party than not be in control of a winning Labour Party.

        Good luck to Cunliffe!
26. Draco T Bastard 26

    9 April 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Loved to Death

    Power is shifting: to places in which we have no voice or vote. Domestic policies are forged by special advisers and spin doctors, by panels and advisory committees stuffed with lobbyists. The self-hating state withdraws its own authority to regulate and direct. Simultaneously, the democratic vacuum at the heart of global governance is being filled – without anything resembling consent – by international bureaucrats and corporate executives. The NGOs permitted, often as an afterthought, to join them intelligibly represent neither civil society nor electorates. (And please spare me that guff about consumer democracy or shareholder democracy: in both cases some people have more votes than others, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to press for change).
27. Ad 27

    9 April 2014 at 9:44 pm

    I simply want to express how pissed off I am that Labour’s caucus have rejected a formal coalition with the Greens – as reported on the tv news tonight.

    I am unlikely ever to vote Greens for a whole bunch of reasons. I also delivered and donated for them at the last election.

    There is little to be gained by Labour for doing this – it is abundantly clear that there will be little shifting of the major blocs (at least those visible to public polling) leading up to election. In fact Labour’s David Cunliffe has admitted as much by stating regularly that it will not be fresh voters that win Labour the election, but instead it will be those who already have a predisposition to vote Labour anyway but who simply chose not to vote last time.

    We have also heard regularly on television and on sites such as this that the vast majority of those who vote Labour would prefer a Labour-Green coalition. Like my wife and I.

    The rump end of Labour’s caucus are simply chickenshit conservative egotists who think they can go it alone until the very end, but in fact are signalling that they would prefer not to have to deal with the Greens at all.

    The Greens could quite well determine that there is less to be gained by being pushed around and excluded like they were last time Labour was in power, and decide it’s better not to have a progressive government if it means having to be relentlessly done over by Labour’s bullying thugs.

    We met these hard-assed ugly caucus members head on when we changed the rules to force the Labour membership to have a say in the leader. We met them again when we campaigned successfully to get David Cunliffe to be leader of the Labour Party. They were bitter fights, but on the surface at least unity was re-established in order to gain re-election.

    And now we get to meet them again, that same sad bitter old rump without courage or whit to get another job (while National completely clears house for the next generation). They are a pathetic excuse for a caucus if they explicitly slap down a generous and constructive coalition offer from the Greens. Labour’s caucus could not generate a united political vision throughout the entire leadership debate, and have just made Cunliffe go on television and state it in black and white.

    I am in complete despair at the coldness and meanness of the Labour caucus response. I noted Cunliffe’s careful wording. However the optimism and youth of the Greens look a whole lot more attractive right now.

    Shame on the Labour caucus.
    • Te Reo Putake 27.1

      9 April 2014 at 10:09 pm

      “I simply want to express how pissed off I am that Labour’s caucus have rejected a formal coalition with the Greens – as reported on the tv news tonight.”

      Well, it’s a good thing that’s not what happened, eh. All that actually has happened is that Labour has decided against using coalition style language prior to the election (and before the negotiations that will form the Labour led Government). It’s not my preference, as a supporter of explicit pre-election blocs, but it ain’t the end of the world.
      • blue leopard 27.1.1

        9 April 2014 at 10:37 pm

        Labour had better figure out how people are reacting to such lack of cooperativeness – because yes it isn’t the end of the world – but I could see Labour becoming a minor party if they persist in competing with the other main (biggest) party of the left.

        Humans get further cooperating with their associates. If they want to compete – how about they focus on National and Act as their targets to compete against? (…now there is a novel idea)
    • blue leopard 27.2

      9 April 2014 at 10:26 pm

      I am having a similar reaction – the only clause out for Labour in my book, is that if this was reported in a manner that made it look particularly bad for Labour – One News is usually fairly fair (unlike 3News) – however I am suspending drawing firm conclusions until I find out more via other sources.

      The items that were mentioned by One News that the Greens had presented to Labour sounded sensible and very workable. I agree with Russel Norman’s comment – that people wish to see the future government and how these parties will work together.

      If this item is confirmed accurate – Labour have managed to lower their chances of a vote from me – they will just have to access how many others will react in a similar way ( – because obviously just one person being put off matters very little ) I am sorry for the members who did a wonderful job of getting their voices heard in changing the Leadership rules and let’s be very clear if Labour was going to get my support it would be due to these members’ efforts. yet now after hearing this news, I am unlikely to vote Labour.

      This lack of cooperation and particularly not providing a decent reason for this choice by Labour, simply makes Labour look really pathetic and power-trippy in my view. A cooperative, ‘can do’ attitude is needed on this matter of the parties they are most likely going to be working with – not a misaligned cupidity toward power they may not even get if they don’t start showing some cohesion with their peers and assertiveness toward issues that matter to people. Or at least explaining where they are coming from.

      This looked pathetic Labour just pathetic is my initial reaction – final conclusions, as mentioned earlier, are pending.
      • geoff 27.2.1

        9 April 2014 at 10:45 pm

        On the surface it doesn’t look great does it. You’d think that a united Left coalition would stand in positive contrast to National which is essentially on its own.
        Maybe Labour have some strategic reason?? Dunno.

        Here’s the link to the clip
        http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-rejects-green-party-coalition-offer-5898618
        • miravox 27.2.1.1

          9 April 2014 at 10:51 pm

          “Maybe Labour have some strategic reason??”

          I guess that the floating centre vote may not switch to Labour is there was a formal coalition with the Greens. Although no formal coalition may send some floating Lab/Green votes to the Greens it’s not going to hurt the overall left-ish vote. I think Labour have made the correct decision here.
          • blue leopard 27.2.1.1.1

            9 April 2014 at 11:04 pm

            This was one of the thoughts I had too – however Winston is likely to have captured this market of these types of voters and what about the issue of people who don’t see Labour ‘as being any different from National’? – from my point of view this perception is wrong – Labour governments are a lot different to National because they invest in people and people issues that bear fruit in the future – however perceptions count for a lot with elections and if Labour made some sort of clear stand that would counter such perceptions it would be excellent. It may be that this defining of Labour as different to National is more of an issue – it is certainly the comment I hear most regularly.

            Instead of making clear statements, however Labour choose to go all woolly about parties that they are going to have to work with. It would have been good to have a clear explanation of why it was that Labour rejected this coalition plan and a positive comment re the Greens whilst doing so. Instead we are just left in the dark – left to guess – why Labour wouldn’t find some common ground with the Greens. What are the chances of Labour getting enough votes to be in Government without them?
          • geoff 27.2.1.1.2

            9 April 2014 at 11:07 pm

            That sounds reasonable but is it in consistent with their stated goal of turning out the disenfranchised 800,000 non vote?
            • miravox 27.2.1.1.2.1

              9 April 2014 at 11:37 pm

              It’s not inconsistent with the goal of turning out the disenfranchised vote. I’m generally a Labour voter (not sure this year), but I’m not concerned about where the left vote goes in terms of left-ish parties – as long as it goes somewhere – maybe the outrage will send a few more people to the ballot box to vote Greens or Mana?

              BL – Labour and the Greens have both been pretty clear about what they agree on. I guess from a personal perspective I know a few people that are thinking about switching from Nat to Lab, but won’t have a bar of the Greens. Whereas people who are going vote left will do so anyway.

              I think rejecting a coalition with the Greens is a safe strategy for the left generally, maybe there are many who would prefer Labour to be bold… Interesting that this is leading the news, not Simon Bridges, because it’s not news at all, imo. When was the formal proposal put forward? It’s talked about before and I don’t think there has ever been an indication that Labour would agree to such a deal if it was proposed.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                10 April 2014 at 5:37 am

                If the concern is that being explicit will turn centrists off, then the make up of the left wing block is important.

                Voters who won’t vote Labour ‘because of the Greens’, will be at least as aware of what sort of coalition they will need to form as anyone else.

                If Labour keep distancing themselves from the Greens in order to woo ‘centrists’, and this causes left voters to switch to the greens, then those centrists will notice that.

                Labour can’t help anyone by pretending. there are people who really don’t want a left wing government. They are called tories, and they vote for National, and Labour should stop trying to woo them. They should woo the people who are likely to be wooed.

                I largely think the athe blue/green thing is a myth. They are far more blue, than green, but if there is a block of Nat voters labour should target, it’s them. Those voters don’t vote green because of whatever reason, but Labour is far closer to those voters than the Greens are.
                • miravox …

                  10 April 2014 at 7:13 am

                  I respect what you’re writing, but I can’t really see a downside for the left block in general due to Labour’s position. Although I can see a downside for Labour. Lab voters who prefer an alliance with the Greens, are very unlikely to move to the right if they’re annoyed with Labour. I do agree it’s not going to necessarily maximise the Labour vote, but I doubt it will damage the left vote.

                  I definitely think there are disaffected National voters who will vote Labour if they think Labour is not ‘giving in’ to the Greens. I’m not calling for Labour to go after that vote, far from it, I just think the Left might lose more than it gains by explicitly agreeing to a coalition with the Greens.

                  As for the Blue-Greens, yes, I agree they are an almost extinct species. I reckon their environmental perspective is likely to be a consumerist one, not a social one. I think that if they exist they’re unlikely to vote Green, but are even more unlikely to vote a Green party explicitly coalescing with Labour. The Greens recognised that last election when they refused to ‘rule out’ National (I think they found that the Blue-Greens are mostly blue, but).
      • Jim Nald 27.2.2

        9 April 2014 at 10:48 pm

        My first thought was:

        party vote Green to give Labour truly green & social justice credentials, or

        party vote Winston to give Labour a strong super(annuation age-retention) spine.

        Labour caucus – losers; fail.
        • Pascal's bookie 27.2.2.1

          10 April 2014 at 5:40 am

          Winston? nope nope nope.

          Only vote for winston if you care more about having Winston on TV, than you do about who the next PM will be.
          • Jim Nald 27.2.2.1.1

            10 April 2014 at 8:05 am

            Yes, that is true.
      • Ant 27.2.3

        9 April 2014 at 10:54 pm

        Seems like such an arrangement would benefit the Greens more than Labour both in potential votes and subsequent power in a coalition government. If such a coalition failed to take the treasury benches they’d have far more MP’s, perhaps even nearing a parity with Labour. A cynical play by the Greens, Labour are smart to reject it, they’d be signing the death warrant of the party.
        • blue leopard 27.2.3.1

          9 April 2014 at 11:15 pm

          I can certainly see your point, however I see the Green’s proposal as more in touch with the voters than Labour’s position on this one (and quite a few other issues too). i.e if 70% of left wing voters would like to see a working relationship between Labour and the Greens – the Greens proposal delivers that and also gives us voters something very defined to base our decisions on – i.e if we want a more Labour flavour it makes it clear to vote Labour and if we want Greens to have that much influence – we vote Greens. This is still the case – yet the Green’s proposal emphasises this – and this doesn’t necessarily mean that more people would vote Greens.

          Labour could have responded by putting forward some limits i.e. no finance portfolios (for example) and then the ball would be in the Green’s court.
        • Pascal's bookie 27.2.3.2

          10 April 2014 at 5:46 am

          “Seems like such an arrangement would benefit the Greens more than Labour both in potential votes and subsequent power in a coalition government”

          Can you explain your reasoning? I know a few voters who currently say they’ll vote Green simply to force Labour to work with them. They feel burned by Labour’s constant pandering to soft tories like Winston and Dunne. They don’t agree with the Greens on a lot of things, prefer Labour on many, but would simply rather Labour be negotiating with the Greens than with Winston or Dunne.
          This announcement is likely to have confirmed they’ll be voting Green. 68% of Labour voters said they’d rather Lab work with the Greens than with Winston in a CB poll late last year. Those are Labour voters at risk of voting Green to force that party to do what they want. A deal like that proposed would leave them comfortably red.
28. Jenny 28

    10 April 2014 at 9:24 am

    I wonder if we will see a post on this subject at The Standard?

    I wonder if I will be banned for asking this question?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS