Open mike 09/05/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 9th, 2015 - 201 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

201 comments on “Open mike 09/05/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. swordfish 1
    9 May 2015 at 6:52 am

    UK Results

    UK
    LAB 30.4……CON 36.9……..LD 7.9……….UKIP 12.6…….SNP 4.7……..GRN 3.8
    LAB + 1.5……CON + 0.8……LD – 15.2……UKIP + 9.5……SNP + 3.1……GRN + 2.8

    England
    LAB 31.6…….CON 41.0…….LD 8.2……….UKIP 14.1……….GRN 4.2
    LAB + 3.6……CON + 1.4……LD – 16.0……UKIP + 10.7……GRN + 3.2

    Scotland
    LAB 24.3……..CON 14.9……..LD 7.5……….UKIP 1.6………SNP 50.0………GRN 1.3
    LAB – 17.7……CON – 1.8……LD – 11.3……UKIP + 0.9……SNP + 30.0……GRN + 0.7

    Wales
    LAB 36.9…….CON 27.2…….LD 6.5……….UKIP 13.6………PC 12.1……..GRN 2.6
    LAB + 0.6……CON + 1.1……LD – 13.6……UKIP + 11.2……PC + 0.8……GRN + 2.1

    Haven’t been able to find any English Regional percentage breakdowns yet (ie North-East, West Midlands, South-West, Greater London etc – but, then, that’s probably a plus from your point of view)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      9 May 2015 at 8:00 am

      Be pretty cool if the National Party was getting 36.9% of the vote. No wonder the Conservatives fight proportionality, tooth and nail.

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 11:05 am

        So does UK Labour. They are very comfy in a two party system.

    • weka 1.2
      9 May 2015 at 9:39 am

      Does that mean Labour’s vote increased from the last election?

      • swordfish 1.2.1
        9 May 2015 at 9:47 am

        Certainly does (though it’s cold comfort).

        Labour’s share of the vote up 1.5 percentage points and raw number of votes up from 8.6 million (2010) to 9.3 million (2015).

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 11:38 am

          Doesn’t it put paid to the idea that moving left was wrong?

          • The Murphey 1.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 12:12 pm

            Possibly

            Unless it’s presented by the LP

          • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.1.1.2
            9 May 2015 at 12:19 pm

            UK Labour “moved left”? Must’ve blinked and missed it.

            • weka 1.2.1.1.2.1
              9 May 2015 at 12:30 pm

              Trp said something about it yesterday, and I think it’s been in the media, as a reason for Labour doing badly (I’m rolling my eyes), but it sounded like the same old beat up to me, as you point out there wasn’t a real shift.

  2. phillip ure 2
    9 May 2015 at 7:06 am

    the reason the polls were so ‘out’..is because of the achilles-heel of pollsters..

    ..how they just ignore those who actually decide any election..

    ..the ‘undecideds’..

    ..all of which makes polling perhaps the most unscientific of practices..

    ..and as so many recent examples have shown/proven..

    ..both wildly inaccurate and irrelevant as far as any clear prediction of outcomes is concerned..

    ..the best they can hope for is the broadest of brush-strokes..

    • swordfish 2.1
      9 May 2015 at 8:24 am

      Yep, the Undecideds certainly comprise one of the reasons being touted for the “terrible night for us pollsters” (Chief Executive of YouGov ).

      Others include: (1) the “Shy Conservative” (though they arguably overlap with the Undecideds – about which, more below), (2) The suggestion that Polls were, in fact, correct but last-minute swing to the Tories, (3) That Pollsters may have been “herding” (ie skewing their polls towards an average) – some analysts are suspicious about just how closely-aligned the various polls were in the final days, (4) Claims that the Final Result was, in fact, within the margin-of-error for most polls, (5) Becoming more challenging to contact a representative sample of voters, (6) The large-ish minority of Labour supporters (28% in one Ipsos-Mori Poll) who told pollsters they preferred Cameron as PM (speculation they could comprise a whole new category of “shy Tory”), (7) Current polling methods haven’t adjusted to the new era of electoral politics (ie the much greater fluidity of the electorate in recent years).

      In terms of the argument that a disproportionate number of “Don’t Knows” went Tory on Election Day,…….. a couple of weeks back, I was looking through the detailed breakdowns of a particular poll and noticed that the Undecideds – when pushed to name which Party they were leaning towards – went heavily Conservative. Tories led Labour by more than 10 points among this group. It’s true that Undecideds are somewhat less likely to get out and actually vote on the Day than respondents who name a party on initial prompting, but 10+ points would still have some impact on the final result (not necessarily “shy” but certainly “hidden” Tories).

      • Lanthanide 2.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 8:59 am

        Tactical voting is another potential – not so much a last-minute swing to the tories, but a redistribution of votes on the right to make them count.

  3. swordfish 3
    9 May 2015 at 7:37 am

    This nicely illustrates UK Labour’s woes…

    Labour were targeting 106 marginal seats – most were Tory-held, some LibDem-held.

    Have a look at what happened in the most marginal Tory seats of all.

    15 Most Marginal Tory Seats of 2010 (ie with smallest 2010 majorities over Labour)

    Seat……………….2010 Tory maj over Lab…….2015 % Swing……………….Status
    Warwickshire North…………….54……………..CON + 2.1…….LAB – 4.0……….Con Hold
    Thurrock……………………………..92……………..CON – 3.1…….LAB – 4.0……….Con Hold
    Hendon………………………………106…………….CON + 6.7……LAB – 0.6………Con Hold
    Cardiff North………………………194…………….CON + 4.9……LAB + 1.2………Con Hold
    Sherwood…………………………..214…………….CON + 5.8……LAB – 2.9……….Con Hold
    Stockton South…………………..332…………….CON + 7.8……LAB – 1.3……….Con Hold
    Lancaster & Fleetwood……….333…………….CON + 3.2……LAB + 7.0………Lab Gain
    Broxtowe……………………………389…………….CON + 6.2…….LAB – 1.1………Con Hold
    Amber Valley………………………536…………….CON + 5.4…….LAB – 2.7………Con Hold
    Wolverhampton SW……………691…………….CON + 0.5…….LAB + 4.2……..Lab Gain
    Waveney…………………………….769…………….CON + 2.1…….LAB – 1.0……..Con Hold
    Carlisle……………………………….853…………….CON + 5.0…….LAB + 0.5………Con Hold
    Morecombe & Lunesdale……866…………….CON + 4.0…… LAB – 4.6……..Con Hold
    Weaver Vale……………………….991…………….CON + 4.6…….LAB + 5.2……..Con Hold
    Lincoln………………………………1058……………CON + 5.1…… LAB + 4.3……..Con Hold

    Labour won only 2 of the 15 seats it should have absolutely blitzed. And in a majority of the 13 ultra-marginals it failed in – its vote share actually fell while the Tories’ % rose.

    • Bearded Git 3.1
      9 May 2015 at 8:12 am

      Exactly Swordfish-great analysis. My sister lives in Lincoln and will be devastated. The turnout in Lincoln was 63%-pathetic in a marginal. Shows how disillusioned the UK electorate really is.

      What has been missed a bit by the analysts is that Labour polled quite well in the north of England compared with last time. That is reflected in the Lancaster vote above, in Burnley and in a number of other results.

      • swordfish 3.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 8:49 am

        Yeah, I was only going to include Tory seats with majorities of less than 1000, but the City of Lincoln’s my old stomping ground. First went to the UK in 1983 in my late teens and spent most of the time in Lincoln/Nottingham area (where I had/have some distant relatives). Did some scrutineering for the Lincoln Labour Party on Election Day – sat next to a very large Tory woman from the Shire* – (and watched one or two Lincoln City games (“The Red Imps”) at Sincil Bank – bottom half of the 4th Division, trend towards pin-striped football Kit in 83 for some bizarre reason, possibly growing obsession with Corporate culture / Thatcherism of more than a few Football Club Execs).

        Lincoln’s always been a bellwether seat, clearly still is.

        * Yeah, I know, sexist of me to mention her weight. I feel bad about it, but there you go.

  4. phillip ure 4
    9 May 2015 at 7:46 am

    john armstrong has done a column enthusing over little dragging labour to the right/tory-lite..

    (i’m not gonna link to it..)

    • te reo putake 4.1
      9 May 2015 at 7:53 am

      Not that bad an article, really. Armstrong has at least spotted the danger for his masters:

      “The other lesson to take from Wednesday night’s function – and one National would be wise to heed – is Little’s capacity to surprise, something he first did with his “cut the crap” jibe at John Key. While well imbued with core Labour values, Little is less hung-up about what means are used to reach the goals associated with those values.”

      • jenny kirk 4.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 9:07 am

        I thought it is an okay article, too – TRP. Phil Ure is just twisting what he has read.

        Little has an enormous job to make Labour into a workable election campaign “machine” again – and he’s going about it thoughtfully, carefully, and maybe a bit slowly for some but if you look back at his various statements you’ll see he’s positioning Labour as the Party for Work and Jobs – along with all the other social values that underpins Labour.

        So quit sniping at him and let him get on with that job.

        • phillip ure 4.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 9:51 am

          “.. Phil Ure is just twisting what he has read…”

          really..?

          so little isn’t moving labour right..?

          little is not endorsed as labour leader by rightwing-trouts..?

          little didn’t promise to shed those ‘radical-ideas’ (!) of the 2014-campaign..?

          am i imagining all that..?

          • Stephanie Rodgers 4.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 10:08 am

            Your quotation marks around “radical ideas”, followed by that smarmy little (!), implies this is a quote from Andrew Little. It would be helpful if you provided a citation for that quote, otherwise people might think you were still deliberately twisting things no one has actually said.

            • phillip ure 4.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 10:38 am

              i disagree with yr interpretation of the use of the marks..

              and if you don’t mind – i wd rather not engage with you..(for already stated previously reasons..)

              • Stephanie Rodgers …
                9 May 2015 at 11:52 am

                You may engage however you wish, but if you don’t want people to point out that you’re implying things that aren’t true and which you can’t back up you should probably either back up your statements, use clearer punctuation, or stop making up lies to suit your political agenda.

                • The Murphey …
                  9 May 2015 at 12:17 pm

                  Political Agendas

                  The irony

                • Hateatea …
                  9 May 2015 at 2:38 pm

                  I have taken the position of ignoring everything that p u writes on the basis that anyone who refuses to use punctuation and write in coherent sentences and paragraphs can have nothing to say of interest.

                  It just takes too much time out of my life to read people who write in a stream of thought, blurting manner. Give me someone who makes the effort to write clearly and thoughtfully and, even if I almost always disagree, I will take the time to take their thought on board.

                  • weka …
                    9 May 2015 at 3:22 pm

                    Me too Hateatea, and completely agree about the value of inention in communicating. I sometimes will attempt to read one of his comments in a situation like this (where someone has responded to him in a meaningful way). Sometimes I read the first two lines or so to see if I can make any sense. If he drops vegan links in I’ll have a look because they’re usually fundamentalist and need challenging. I virtually never read the long ones, or even the whole of the short ones. Life’s too short :->

                  • McFlock …
                    9 May 2015 at 6:37 pm

                    Yep, same here. Some of the subthreads is keyboard-mashing causes can be pretty funny, though.

                    Especially when he gets called on making shit up and then argues that someone has misinterpreted his intentionally-unorthodox punctuation, grammar, and sentence contstruction.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2015 at 12:35 pm

              Double quotation marks would imply a quote. Single ones I would take to mean an implication that some policies were radical ideas rather than a quote, but as you point out it can be hard to tell with phil.

              My understanding is that Little is suggesting backing of from certain policies that they’ve recevied feedback are wrong. I wouldn’t have seen Little as seeing those as radical policies, so without some back up, I’ll take it as phil’s interpretation.

              It’s funny really, because Little is more likely to take Labour left, and the left calling him a right mover just playes into the right wing spinners’ agenda.

              • marty mars …
                9 May 2015 at 2:09 pm

                double are quotes which phil used, singles can be used imo to imply irony, sarcasm, disbelief – the exclamation mark implied to me extreme – irony, sarcasm or disbelief.

                • weka …
                  9 May 2015 at 2:12 pm

                  I’m seeing single quotes around radical ideas

                  • marty mars …
                    9 May 2015 at 2:24 pm

                    yep me too – but double around the initial quote commented on.

                    For me if I write, Little didn’t promise to shed those ‘radical ideas’ etc then I’m saying the ideas are not so radical in my opinion although Little may have thought or even believe they are. What phil means he can explain if he wants but that’s how I read it. Whether he actually promised radical ideas or not is a fair point that Stephanie has raised and tttt {(to tell the truth) just made that up 🙂 } I don’t know if he did or not…

                    the clarity is murky

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    9 May 2015 at 2:59 pm

                    The specific usage of ” vs ‘ isn’t set in stone (hell I have an English degree and I don’t know the “rules” around them).

                    I would happily accept the idea that phil was paraphrasing the “radical ideas” quote – but then what’s the point of putting “(!)” afterwards?

                    To me, the obvious interpretation of that is “what a shocking thing to say”. I don’t know why it’s there if pu isn’t trying to imply that Little did indeed say capital gains etc were “radical” ideas.

                    • weka …
                      9 May 2015 at 3:19 pm

                      yep. I got called out on the use of double quotes a while back for something sarcastic I said about something Key had said and someone had a go at me because they thought I was literally making up quoting Key when I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss. I agree there are no set rules, which is why I talked about my impressions of phil’s comment. At this point, in all good conscience I can’t keep talking seriously about punctuation in this context (-;

                    • felix …
                      9 May 2015 at 4:42 pm

                      “I would happily accept the idea that phil was paraphrasing the “radical ideas” quote – but then what’s the point of putting “(!)” afterwards?

                      To me, the obvious interpretation of that is “what a shocking thing to say”.”

                      It’s one interpretation. I read it as ironically expressing “shock horror” at the very notion of radical ideas in general.

                      Who really knows though. As far as I can tell, phil is the owner-operator of a punctuation system entirely of his own devising.

                      (And that’s not a slight on phil btw. It’s all punc rock to me.)

                    • phillip ure …
                      9 May 2015 at 4:58 pm

                      u get the chocolate fish..felix..

                      .’b’ is the correct answer…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      9 May 2015 at 6:41 pm

                      …the owner-operator of a punctuation system entirely of his own devising.

                      Splitter!

                    • phillip ure …
                      9 May 2015 at 6:45 pm

                      is it a batchelors’ degree..?

                      from memory you learn that stuff at masters’ level..

                    • phillip ure …
                      9 May 2015 at 6:50 pm

                      @ oan..

                      “.. Splitter
                      A temporary fold at the tip/end of a penis usually caused by sitting in a uncomfortable position Ex. Crossed legs or wearing tight pants.

                      Resulting in a split stream while taking a piss..”

                      never had that happen..

                      ..whoar..!

                      ..oh..!..hang on..maybe…

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      9 May 2015 at 7:26 pm

                      ” is often speech” ‘writing’
                      But since the advent of “bald neutralising” ” ” have often been used to highlight disagreement with the quoted idea – a bit like sic.

                      Stove on ” ”
                      https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=f1BxO9yu1NIC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=stove+bald+neutralising&source=bl&ots=T7S3At5K1W&sig=ea-ci-iQ1oY_YRhQtusOZHw-Dy0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=irZNVcnxKuHHmAXy3ID4Dg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stove%20bald%20neutralising&f=false

        • whateva next? 4.1.1.2
          9 May 2015 at 2:24 pm

          Absolutely, a big “Aye” Jenny

    • Bearded Git 4.2
      9 May 2015 at 8:17 am

      Armstrong is right about Phil Twyford performing well.

  5. phillip ure 5
    9 May 2015 at 7:56 am

    rightwinger roughan has a (partial)-solution to/for the ak property-bubble..

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11445580

    • phillip ure 5.1
      9 May 2015 at 8:52 am

      and can i ask why labour don’t/didn’t have roughans’ idea as policy..?

      ..did they not think of it..?

      ..or did they shy away because it would financially effect/hurt all those property-owning/’investor’ labour mp’s..?

      ..if neither of those…

      ..why the f. not have this as policy..?..(in the 2014 election..and now..)

  6. John Shears 6
    9 May 2015 at 8:49 am

    For real Kiwi’s especially Aucklanders who are interested in the Ports of Auckland battle between the Council & the POA there is an excellent article in today’s Herald here.:-
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445757

    Also the POA publicity machine recently stated that it was essential to have the extended wharf other wise the new cruise ship ‘Quantum of the Seas’ would not be able to berth and New Zealand would miss out on lots of $$$$$$$ ‘cos the company would cancel the visit. ???????

    What they didn’t say is that this new vessel whilst a little bigger in displacement is actually similar in size to the ‘Queen Mary II’ which has been here recently with no problems about berthing. She is just two metres shorter than the Quantum but draws 10.1m against the
    Quantum’s 8.8m. The other difference is that QMII is rated at 30Knots against the Q’s 22.

    Go figure. If Bullshit was a brass band etc.

  7. Red delusion 7
    9 May 2015 at 9:16 am

    TRP you are delusional if you think little has any traction with public as the polls high light labour is now seen as perennial losers globally ( UK Au Nz) No longer is any one buying core labour values beyond those areas trapped on govt handouts ( Scotland Qld etc) , the world has moved on, labours time ( 70 years ago ) has come and gone. All we are seeing now is a slow death, A left shift will simply accelerate the inevitable

    • Sabine 7.1
      9 May 2015 at 9:42 am

      so, really what would your alternative be?

      we can’t all be landlords and bosses, really we still need a few people to work and get the various jobs that need doing done. You know, like Nurses, teachers, cleaners, admin staff, peeps working in Fonterra factories and the likes. If labour is dead as you say, who will look out for the workers? Surely not National? They have, over the last 7 years and previously under Shipley, shown that they do not believe workers worthy of consideration and might even consider the New Zealand Worker (resident and citizens) to be utterly replaceable by cheap, imported slave type labour from Asia and elsewhere?

      What do you tell your children then, if you have any? Move overseas, cause here in NZ you are not going to have a chance to survive?

      There needs to be a balance between (to parapharase Bush II) The Haves and The Have Nots or else we are going back to the dark ages where the workers were effectively owned by the Lord of the Manor.

      Is that the future that you hope for Red Delusion?

      Really what about a 40 hour week, overtime pay, accident compensation, retirement benefits, unemployment benefits, equal education opportunities, public health care and the likes do you not like and think we can do away with?

      • Craig H 7.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 11:46 am

        I’m looking forward to following the nature of work enquiry/report, as it will inform greatly as to how the country should proceed in the upcoming years.

        I also look forward to the 40 hour week reducing to 35 or 30 hours for similar pay – this should be a major push from Labour to improve work-life balance (imagine a 4 day week for the same length shifts and same pay!) and also decrease unemployment as mechanisation increases.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 2:28 pm

          The 32 hour week should have happened back in the 1980s. Instead we had the First Act Government attacking working hours and wages.

          • marty mars 7.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 6:15 pm

            + 1 yep – fuck with computers we were promised 25 hours weeks or even less – we’ve been sucked in severely

      • gsays 7.1.2
        9 May 2015 at 5:51 pm

        hi sabine. i think both you and red delusion can be correct.

        i was bought up in a staunch labour household, (my grandfather was an organizer all his life) and constantly told that labour were the party for the working person.

        i dont think that relevance is true today.
        the radical shift in the 80s to the neo liberal agenda was the final nail in the ciffin for me.
        having labour move away from the workers doesnt mean we have to go without 40hour week, overtime etc

        i do think the workers you listed do need representing but i feel we dont identify as strongly with our occupations as we used to do.

        pollys are there to get elected or re-elected. so we will not be getting a visionary or a radical shake-up from the labour party.
        you can argue that proposing raising the retirement age is an anti worker move.
        also you can argue that it is a long overdue fiscally responsible move.

        as to who is to represent these workers, politically, good question.
        probably the mana crew, as i see the greens looking to move right and be seen as respectable enough not to scare the horses.

  8. phillip ure 8
    9 May 2015 at 9:53 am

    is simon bridges over-exuberant in his use of hair-oil..?

    and does that have an environmental-impact..?

    ..and is that why he is so ‘oily’..?..in so so many ways..?

    • David H 8.1
      9 May 2015 at 1:46 pm

      He’s trying for that Superman hairdo, where the hair never moves. But he’s looking more like Hosking’s misbarbered look.

      • phillip ure 8.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 3:12 pm

        spiv is as spiv does..

        • Once was Tim 8.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 3:41 pm

          shouldn’t you be apologising for being sexist with that comment @PU ?

          • phillip ure 8.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 4:03 pm

            for calling bridges an oily-spiv..?

            i don’t think so…

            • Once was Tim 8.1.1.1.1.1
              11 May 2015 at 1:51 pm

              🙂 – I’d be calling him a lot worse, but then if we delved into it too much, we’d have to start having an in depth discussion on power relations (where Bridges is actually a 40 watt banana masquerading as something quite a few people think is worthwhile), and I’d be living in utter, absolute fear of being ‘sanctioned’.

  9. phillip ure 9
    9 May 2015 at 11:02 am

    in labours casting around for the reasons why they lost in 2014..

    ..i hope they don’t discount how toxic to so many of their erstwhile voters/supporters was their policy to raise the superannuation-age…

    ..and that heaping too much blame on the capital gains tax ‘rejection’..

    ..is pointing the bone at the wrong target..

    • David H 9.1
      9 May 2015 at 1:48 pm

      And now they want to alienate the few voters that they have left, with this bullshit stunt.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11445759

      Looks like LabourNZ will go the same way as LabourUK as just another also ran.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 2:45 pm

        They’d be better off saying that they will be introducing compulsory voting. At least then people would be more willing to accept the penalties.

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1.1
          10 May 2015 at 12:50 pm

          Inplementing compulsory voting (which I am against) would be a gutsy, definitive, concrete policy statement. Not just talking about considering a policy of talking about policy. So unlikely to come out of Labour.

  10. Penny Bright 10
    9 May 2015 at 11:18 am

    FYI – here is the EVIDENCE which proves the improvement in ‘transparency’ at Auckland Council, for which. in my opinion, I can claim some credit as a result of my uncompromising ‘one person rates revolt’?

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/mediareleases/Pages/councilmovestoimprovetransparency.aspx

    Council moves to improve transparency

    8/05/2015

    Auckland Council has launched a section on its website providing information on a variety of council activities as part of a commitment to more openness and transparency.

    The proactive publication of information on the More about the council webpage, which can be found via the Auckland Council Media centre helps to provide Aucklanders with better, timelier and more accurate information about how council works.

    The first release of information includes Auckland Council Group staff numbers, information about annual average rates increases, debt, efficiency savings and progress updates on the NewCore project.

    It also includes contracts awarded by the council with a value of $100,000 and greater from 1 July 2014 to 31 March 2015 and spends with suppliers with a value of $100,000 and more from 1 October 2014 to 31 March 2015.

    All of the information in the section will be updated regularly to ensure it remains relevant and current.

    Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town says the proactive publication of information aims to strengthen Aucklanders’ trust in the council.

    “Central government and other local authorities already have similar initiatives, meaning Auckland Council will now be aligned with best practice across the public sector in New Zealand in making information more accessible to the public,” he says.

    “In the future we will also be providing more details about how we work and what we do, including information about employee costs, travel expenses, key statistics about council activities and other useful information as and when it becomes available.”

    In addition to the proactive publication of information, the council also today began publishing on its website Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act (LGOIMA) responses where the council deems the information to be in the interests of the wider public.

    More about the council and LGOIMA responses are available to view now.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/mediacentre/Pages/moreaboutthecouncil.aspx#awarded

    Awarded contracts and supplier spend

    We will regularly publish details of awarded contracts and spend with suppliers.

    These reports are for Auckland Council (excluding CCOs) and will be updated twice a year, in April and October.

    Awarded contracts report

    For contracts valued at $100,000 and greater awarded by the council during the period stated (including provisional spending commitments in some instances), this report lists:

    a description of the goods and/or services being supplied
    the general type of goods and/or services being supplied
    the name of the successful supplier
    the start date and end date of the contract.

    Awarded Contracts Report (PDF 313KB)

    Supplier spend report

    This report lists the total spend per supplier (across all contracts and purchase orders) for the period stated, where the total is greater than $100,000.

    Supplier spend report (PDF 265KB)

    All procurement activity at Auckland Council, including tendering and awarding contracts, is subject to the Auckland Council Procurement Policy.

    For reasons related to commercial sensitivity and privacy, we do not publish the details of sole traders (ie. individuals who are not contracting through a company).

    Detailed information about spend and contracts may be commercially confidential.

    We believe that the information we provide in the reports is accurate at the time of publication (subject to the report disclaimers). The information is subject to change if projects, priorities and timeframes are varied for awarded contracts or if financial reconciliations or adjustments are made in respect of prior payments.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    This, in my opinion, is a VERY belated start, for which I should not have had to put my freehold home ‘on the line’.

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  11. phillip ure 11
    9 May 2015 at 11:20 am

    is this a ‘brain-fart’..?..or not..?

    ‘Labour has proposed withholding state support such as tax credits and Working For Families – from people who are not enrolled to vote.’

    (this is an idea proposed by tim barnett..)

    more from barnett:..

    ‘Asked if withheld state support could include benefits – Mr Barnett said there could be more of an issue with targeting such a defined group.’

    ..is this what passes for ‘new ideas’ in labour..?

    • jenny kirk 11.1
      9 May 2015 at 11:45 am

      Where did you find this, Phillip Ure ?

      And remember, Tim Barnett is the general secretary – he is neither Leader nor President – and has just ordinary member’ s voting rights on policy stuff.

      • te reo putake 11.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 11:50 am

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445759

        It was part of Labour’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

        From the Herald article:

        Mr Barnett said the submission was from the party, which did not set policy, and wanted the committee to investigate the idea – not necessarily recommend it.

        “It’s not party policy, it’s merely saying, what are the things that could be done? And in Australia that is the system which they formally adopt.

        “There is widespread concern, not just Labour, with non-enrolment … there is pretty compelling evidence that there is a continuing pattern of people not enrolling.”

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 12:43 pm

          “And in Australia that is the system which they formally adopt.”

          Yeah but Australia is also the country currently introducing fascist policy that means citizens lose social security entitlements if they don’t vaccinate their children. Just to make that really clear, they’re targeting beneficiaries as a class of people. So probably not the best country to use as a comparison at this time.

          • te reo putake 11.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 12:59 pm

            Gotta say the similarity to the vaccination idea is interesting too. The irresponsibility of those parents is astonishing, of course, so I suppose something has to be done. I suspect that beneficiaries are targeted in the enrolment suggestion because they make up a large number of the non- enrolled. If I get a chance later I’ll do some digging or maybe someone else can do some research on what and why Labour are proposing it. For me, footy calls. Ciao.

            • weka 11.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 1:14 pm

              If this was about irresponsible parenting, the Australian government would make vaccination mandatory across the board. You don’t vaccinate your kids then you get fined and eventually go to prison. But it’s not about that at all, it’s about buying into narratives that beneficiaries are bad parents and punishing them accordingly.

              There is nothing wrong with small numbers of unvaccinated kids. If governments want to improve vaccination numbers they can introduce better health policy so that the people who aren’t vaccinating but probably would given the chance can access better health care. But hey, why bother addressing education and poverty issues when you can just bene bash.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                9 May 2015 at 2:51 pm

                <blockquoteThere is nothing wrong with small numbers of unvaccinated kids.
                You’ve been proven wrong on that several times already.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  9 May 2015 at 2:57 pm

                  So the theory of herd immunity is wrong then? Herd immunity does not work? Do say more, Mr Scientific one. How about the medical ethics framework of patient consent before any treatment? Is that wrong too?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    9 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

                    So the theory of herd immunity is wrong then?

                    I didn’t say that did I?

                    How about the medical ethics framework of patient consent before any treatment?

                    How about the ethics of inflicting others with disease which could easily have been avoided?

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      9 May 2015 at 3:13 pm

                      Oh fuck off with your distractions Draco the Scientific and answer the questions.

                      Does herd immunity require that 100% of persons be immunised for it to work.

                      Secondly. Do you believe that medical treatment must ethically obtain fully informed patient consent wherever possible, or do you believe that patient consent is a violable nice to have.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 May 2015 at 3:42 pm

                      Why should I answer questions when you’re twisting my words?

                  • TheContrarian …
                    9 May 2015 at 6:53 pm

                    Herd immunity breaks down when it dips below a certain level. This is evidenced in practice in the U.S. recently re: outbreaks of measles.

                    Any way, you’re completely shit at science CV so not surprised at your confusion.

                  • The Murphey …
                    10 May 2015 at 11:26 am

                    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-the-untold-story-of-measles

                    Several decades following the vaccine’s introduction, the measles death rate rose, largely because the vaccine made adults, expectant mothers and infants more vulnerable

                    Early in the last century, measles killed millions of people a year. Then, bit by bit in countries of the developed world, the death rate dropped, by the 1960s by 98% or more. In the U.K., it dropped by an astounding 99.96%. And then, the measles vaccine entered the market

                    After the vaccine’s introduction, the measles death rate continued to drop into the 1970s. Many scientists credit the continued decline entirely to the vaccine. Other scientists believe the vaccine played a minor role, if that, noting that most infectious diseases similarly petered out during the 20th century, including some, like scarlet fever, for which vaccines were never developed.

                    The credit for the century-long decline, scientists generally agree, goes to improved nutrition and improved health care, side effects of the West’s growing affluence. In the U.S., the death rate dropped by about 98%, from about 10 per 100,000 population a century ago to one fifth of one person by 1963, the year measles vaccines made their American debut. Both before and after vaccination started, victims tended to be poor

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 11:34 am

                      ‘If you really want to know just how ignorant Lawrence Solomon is about vaccines, all you have to do is to take a look at this:

                      The CDC credits the vaccine with the elimination of measles deaths, but measles deaths ended a decade before the vaccine was in widespread use across the U.S., and deaths had all but ended prior to the first child receiving a shot. While the vaccine can perhaps take modest credit for accelerating the decline in the mid-1960s, it is a stretch to claim that eradication would not have occurred without the vaccine, particularly since the 20th century also saw the die-off of diseases like scarlet fever, for which no vaccine was ever developed.

                      This is an incredibly intellectually dishonest antivaccine talking point, so intellectually dishonest that it shocks me that anyone with half a brain can seriously argue it. Let’s just put it this way: Anyone who pulls out this tired old dishonest trope is so intellectually bankrupt that I don’t really feel obligated to do anything other than link to a post I did a long time ago about this trope, which I derogatorily labeled the “vaccines didn’t save us” lie.

                      It’s amazing that in 2014 the same old long discredited antivaccine tropes have found a new mouthpiece, but they have. And that mouthpiece is Lawrence Solomon. It’s not “conservative skepticism” that is falling short. It’s Lawrence Solomon. Sadly, it’s not surprising.’

                      http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/07/a-conservative-failure-of-skepticism-over-vaccines/

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 11:49 am

                      Doc you have too much riding on your methods and practices and so you stick to your guns because that is all you have…

                      Q. Care to contest the graph ?

                      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/04/24/4222316.htm

                      The move to an artificially created vaccine for whooping cough is behind an increase in cases of the deadly disease in the US, a new study suggests.

                      The findings highlight the need to do similar research in Australia where whooping cough cases have spiralled upward in the past decade, co-author Associate Professor Manoj Gambhir, from the University of Monash, says.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 11:55 am

                      According to the authors of the study

                      “These results demonstrate that the resurgence in pertussis in the U.S. can be explained by past changes in vaccination policy. However, the authors’ findings also suggest that the efficacy of the currently-used acellular vaccine, while lower than that of the whole-cell vaccine, is not much lower (around 80% protection for the first three doses of acellular vaccine versus 90% for whole-cell), and booster doses may be sufficient to curtail epidemics while novel vaccine research continues.”

                      I believe that those are reasonable conclusions to make.

                      I do note that your rather transparent attempt to smear vaccination against pertussis.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:12 pm

                      I believe that those are reasonable conclusions to make

                      I believe people who accept the use of terms such as ‘doses’ and ‘booster shots’ when attempting to explain or accepting the manufactured explanation of ‘herd immunity’ are void of logical reasoning

                      I do note that your rather transparent attempt to smear vaccination against pertussis.

                      Q. Do you realise you just illustrated my belief – ‘void of logical reasoning’?

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:15 pm

                      Q Do you realise you’re an ill informed anti vax troll

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:21 pm

                      …ill-informed anti vax tr*ll who cites Big Pharma funded research and appeals to the authority of Big Pharma funded scientists.

                      Like a clown, only boring and lame.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:29 pm

                      Further illogical reasoning from an alleged medical ‘professional’

                      That you don’t / won’t /can’t recall previous conversations which you and I have been involved in where I stated openly and succinctly my position causes me greater concern for any patients you have may have treated

                      I have called you out on your ‘bed side manner’ previously and you have shown it once again with an irrational abusive comment

                      Forgetful illogical abusive and egocentric are not desirable traits of those in the medical profession

                      To refresh your memory – I am anti compulsion and pro informed consent

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:38 pm

                      @ The murphy troll

                      1. I am pro informed consent also.

                      2. The drivel you post has far less to do with informed consent and far more to do with promoting an anti vaccination position through half truths, mistruth and misrepresentation.

                      3. I don’t need to nor do I have any wish to be polite to a troll on a political website as you may or may not have understood by now that the opinions expressed on this website are often done so with vigour.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:02 pm

                      @ The murphy troll

                      That you believe I am a trolll serves only to enforce my understanding of your state of mind

                      1. I am pro informed consent also.

                      Q. Are you really ?

                      Q. Which information do you pass on to your patients before you stab them with chemicals that have side effects and adverse reactions which you clearly don’t understand the dangers of ?

                      If your version of ‘informed consent’ is reflected through contributions on this site you have no comprehension of what ‘informed consent’ is nor any right to claim that you do and should not be practicing medicine nor administering chemicals

                      2. The drivel you post has far less to do with informed consent and far more to do with promoting an anti vaccination position through half truths, mistruth and misrepresentation.

                      You can’t recall what I have posted

                      3. I don’t need to nor do I have any wish to be polite to a troll on a political website as you may or may not have understood by now that the opinions expressed on this website are often done so with vigour.

                      You should proof read before you post comments not that it would assist with the glaring contradictions you repeatedly make

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:32 pm

                      @ The Murphy Troll

                      1. I am pro informed consent also.

                      Q. Are you really ?

                      A. Yes

                      Q. Which information do you pass on to your patients before you stab them with chemicals that have side effects and adverse reactions which you clearly don’t understand the dangers of ?

                      If your version of ‘informed consent’ is reflected through contributions on this site you have no comprehension of what ‘informed consent’ is nor any right to claim that you do and should not be practicing medicine nor administering chemicals

                      Q. Do you think you language leaves anyone in any doubt as to your anti vaccination credentials.

                      2. The drivel you post has far less to do with informed consent and far more to do with promoting an anti vaccination position through half truths, mistruth and misrepresentation.

                      You can’t recall what I have posted

                      A. yes I can… this site also has a very good search engine.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

                      Q. Do you think you language leaves anyone in any doubt as to your anti vaccination credentials.

                      No because there are some who can read and comprehend english and accept the position I have stated previously including again to you today

                      What should leave no doubt is your lack of acknowledgement / appreciation of side effects adverse reactions and deaths caused by the ‘drug industry’ of which vaccination is a component sponsored by the the FDA / CDC

                      2. The drivel you post has far less to do with informed consent and far more to do with promoting an anti vaccination position through half truths, mistruth and misrepresentation.

                      Stop projecting and start using the search engine you referred to

                      See if the search engine can tell you how many people in the USA alone die each year due to the ‘medical industry’ approved drugs in particular that are ‘approved’ by the FDA

                      Q. FDA approved drugs kill / injure [ ] people per year in the USA ?

                      Q. How many of your patients do you inform such easily identified statistics of before you prescribe /administer chemicals to them ?

                      Credentials indeed

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 3:13 pm

                      @ The murphy troll

                      Oh no the chemicals the chemicals !!

                    • northshoredoc …
                      13 May 2015 at 11:44 am

                      Just a little something to get the murphey troll frothing…

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11447327

                      No doubt it is all a plot by the FDA and CDC ..

                    • The Murphey …
                      13 May 2015 at 12:15 pm

                      Oh no the chemicals the chemicals !!

                      You claim to be a medical professional yet post and comment like an illiterate

                      Q. What is the pupose of the link ?

                      Two kids from the same family at different schools – So what

                      No mention that ‘immunity’ is achieved through the body contracting a disease naturally

                      Quarantine is sensible and implicitly covers off natural immunity to those who understand how natural immunity is achieved

                      No mention of the how many of the 124 from last year were already ‘vaccinated’

                      You appear to still have no idea of what ‘herd immunity’ is or how it is achieved

                      Hint: You wont find it through vaccination

                      Hint2: Doses / Boosters

                      Summary:

                      A non event article which provides no useful information and appears to serve no purpose whatsoever

                      Bravo

                    • northshoredoc …
                      14 May 2015 at 7:37 am

                      @The murphey troll

                      Q. What is the pupose of the link ?

                      A: To get you frothing

                      Two kids from the same family at different schools – So what

                      No mention that ‘immunity’ is achieved through the body contracting a disease naturally

                      Quarantine is sensible and implicitly covers off natural immunity to those who understand how natural immunity is achieved

                      A: 🙄 although congratulations for finally outing your anti vaccination credentials

                      No mention of the how many of the 124 from last year were already ‘vaccinated’

                      A: None, this information is available on the public health website

                      Summary:

                      The murphy troll’s medical/scientific knowledge is woeful….. but oh no ! the chemicals the chemicals and the FDA/CDC MONEYMEN ILLUMINATI…Gaia will save us all.

                    • The Murphey …
                      14 May 2015 at 10:29 am

                      A: To get you frothing

                      Not only do you not understand ‘herd immunity’ which as an alleged medical professional is shameful but you do not even understand the even simpler definition of ‘trolll’

                      A: 🙄 although congratulations for finally outing your anti vaccination credentials

                      You either can’t read or you don’t comprehend the position I take has been stated very clearly to you on multiple occasions

                      Indications are you’re experiencing some sort of mental incapacity which is what I referred to earlier

                      Either way I hope you are no longer practicing and if you are I would suggest someone lodge a complaint to have your license removed for the public good

                      You should be struck off with the exhibition you put in through your comments

                      A: None, this information is available on the public health website

                      Yet you chose not to link to it then use a weak attempt at transference about getting me frothing – Oh dear

                      The murphy troll’s medical/scientific knowledge is woeful….. but oh no ! the chemicals the chemicals and the FDA/CDC MONEYMEN ILLUMINATI…Gaia will save us all.

                      WOW……You are disqualified as if you weren’t already

                    • northshoredoc …
                      14 May 2015 at 10:49 am

                      @ The MT

                      😆 and 🙄

                • weka …
                  9 May 2015 at 3:12 pm

                  No I haven’t Draco. I’ve had conversations with pro-vaxxers on this site where I’ve made the argument that the govt should be putting effort into reaching people who would otherwise vaccinate but don’t due to poverty, inability to access, lack of awareness etc, instead of having a go at the people that choose not to vaccinate via informed consent processes. And that argument has been supported. In fact the NZ govt has processes in place that allow people to opt out. That’s because the very small numbers (maybe 3% at a guess) who consciously choose to not vaccinate via an education process don’t matter.

                  But I don’t really want to go another round on this. The actual point I was making is that the kind of coercion the Austrialian govt is using is discriminatory and therefore they’re not a good example to use for forcing parts of the population to do something against its will.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    9 May 2015 at 4:11 pm

                    No I haven’t Draco.

                    Unvaccinated people put those who can’t be vaccinated at increased risk as has been explained to you.

                    instead of having a go at the people that choose not to vaccinate via informed consent processes.

                    There’s no such thing as choosing not to vaccinate from informed consent. If you’re properly informed you choose to vaccinate. It really is that simple. Choosing not to vaccinate from ‘informed consent’ ends up with shit like this happening:

                    And it’s not as if Williams is unfamiliar with science. He has a science degree and he’s turning his invention, the WilliamsWarne homebrew machine, into a global success.

                    He’s not stupid. If anything, he was just a little bit too smart for his own good.

                    The Williams are the one in 10 parents who opt out when it comes to vaccination, not out of ignorance, but because they think they know everything. Williams said they believed they’d done their research but now admits they were out of their depth.

                    “Parents like us make the decision to not vaccinate on very little factual information about the actual consequences of the diseases.”

                    and this:

                    But it just didn’t stop me getting childhood illnesses.

                    My two vaccinated children, on the other hand, have rarely been ill, have had antibiotics maybe twice in their lives, if that (not like me who got so many illnesses which needed treatment with antibiotics that I developed a resistance to them, which led me to be hospitalized with penicillin-resistant quinsy at 21–you know that old fashioned disease that killed Queen Elizabeth I and which was almost wiped out through use of antibiotics).

                    The actual point I was making is that the kind of coercion the Austrialian govt is using is discriminatory and therefore they’re not a good example to use for forcing parts of the population to do something against its will.

                    These points are actually why I’m for compulsory vaccination. It bypasses the ignorance that some people confuse for being informed, protects those that can’t be immunised and prevents political parties from attacking minority groups for political point scoring.

                    • weka …
                      9 May 2015 at 11:27 pm

                      “Unvaccinated people put those who can’t be vaccinated at increased risk as has been explained to you.”

                      I was talking about public health policy, not abstract theory. And like I said, my point was about what it means to target groups of people by class. I’m not interested in a debate about forcing health care on people.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:58 am

                      I was talking about public health policy, not abstract theory.

                      What abstract theory are you talking about?

                      I’m not interested in a debate about forcing health care on people.

                      And I pointed out that compulsory vaccination prevents the targeting that you want to stop. At which point I think I’ll just point you to this comment from OAB.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 11:08 am

                      Unvaccinated people put those who can’t be vaccinated at increased risk as has been explained to you.

                      Go do some more reading

                      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/04/24/4222316.htm

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:14 pm

                      I’m not quite sure why an avowed anti-Big Pharma activist is citing Dr. Manoj Gambhir, given his close ties to the medical establishment and career-long support for vaccination programs. Under any other circumstances they’d be howling about his (wholly imagined) corruption and bias.

                      Manoj Gambhir is a paid employee of IHRC, inc.

                      It smacks of desperation. Probably dishonesty, too.

                    • weka …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:22 pm

                      “And I pointed out that compulsory vaccination prevents the targeting that you want to stop”

                      Yep, and I call that facism.

                    • northshoredoc …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:24 pm

                      @ OAB The murphy troll continues to demonstrate his stupidity for all to see.

                      He is very unlike Weka who wishes to engage in a reasonable manner.

                      on the matter of pertussis vaccine it has always been one of the more problematic bacteria to get a strong and long lasting immune response to it with vaccines which is why researchers continue to try and look for improvements. It’s a hideous illness to contract in the very young and even in teens/adults can hang about for a long time.

                      Most of us are probably due for a booster.

                      http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/32/2/36/8

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:24 pm

                      @The Murphey

                      You should probably read that article yourself as it has nothing to do with what I said.

                      @OAB
                      That seems to be an Ad Hominem rather than an argument.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:26 pm

                      I’m with Weka on this issue: compulsory medication is counter-productive and opposed by the medical profession. Targeting people by class is an abomination.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:33 pm

                      @Draco – nah, just providing evidence of cherry-picking. Big Pharma can’t be trusted, until whoops! Suddenly they can!

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:44 pm

                      @Draco – nah, just providing evidence of cherry-picking. Big Pharma can’t be trusted, until whoops! Suddenly they can!

                      Your interpretation is incorrect as well as senseless

                      If you applied even simplistic reasoning you should be able to work out why

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 12:46 pm

                      @Draco – to be clear, it was a response to TM’s citation of the Gambhir study.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:01 pm

                      The Murphey, 7th March: the fraudulent and corrupt practices of the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry

                      The Murphey, 10th May: *cites a Big Pharma funded study conducted by Big Pharma employees*

                      QED.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:17 pm

                      The Murphey, 7th March: the fraudulent and corrupt practices of the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry

                      The Murphey, 10th May: *cites a Big Pharma funded study conducted by Big Pharma employees*

                      Comprehension is as weak as your interpretations and logic are

                      Q. What is it you are seeking to prove / disprove exactly ?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:31 pm

                      😆

                      Proof is what Mathematicians do. I’m just calling attention to your tactics.

                    • The Murphey …
                      10 May 2015 at 1:39 pm

                      I’m just calling attention to your tactics

                      Q. What is it you are seeking to achieve in doing so ?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 May 2015 at 2:36 pm

                      @OAB

                      I’m with Weka on this issue: compulsory medication is counter-productive and opposed by the medical profession. Targeting people by class is an abomination.

                      So how do we get everyone to vaccinate while not targeting people by class?

                      I agree that compulsion has negative overtones that will get some peoples backs up. Better education can certainly help but, as the anti-vaxxers have shown, even that will be taken badly by some people.

                      nah, just providing evidence of cherry-picking. Big Pharma can’t be trusted, until whoops! Suddenly they can!

                      Then you need to be clear about that reference to The Murphy and others.

                      to be clear, it was a response to TM’s citation of the Gambhir study.

                      Thing is, what you said came across as an Ad Hominem against Gambhir while the study itself and its findings seemed quite reasonable.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 May 2015 at 3:20 pm

                      @DtB I see what you mean – I’d hoped to avoid that by putting ‘wholly imagined’ in parentheses, and the links to ‘Big Pharma’ are only defamatory if you buy into that narrative.

                      Still, it was unclear.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 May 2015 at 12:48 pm

                      So how do we get everyone to vaccinate while not targeting people by class?

                      Don’t use carrots/sticks that rely on class, e.g. benefits.
                      Heck, carrots/sticks are a bad way to go anyway – personally I’d ban the advertising of prescription meds, and take a damned close look at the boundary between “alternative” therapies and “practising medicine without a license”, and make “doctor” a restricted title, alongside public nuisance/recklessness charges against purveyors of some of the more dishonest anti-vax propaganda.

                      IMO the problem isn’t the number of nutters, it’s the avenues they have for publicity and claiming equivalence with legitimate researchers.

        • Kiwiri 11.1.1.2
          9 May 2015 at 1:24 pm

          Mr Barnett said the submission was from the party ..

          Can clarification be sought as to who exactly comprised this collective group of people called “the party” who had put together the submission?

          I will ask friends and workmates who are NZLP members as to whether they are indeed “the party” who were *party* to that submission.

          • Karen 11.1.1.2.1
            9 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

            If you look at Andrew Little’s twitter you will see this is not Labour Party policy and not something he supports. The submission is from Tim Barnett and I don’t know how it went through. If this is Tim’s idea then he is in the wrong job IMO. This is an appalling idea and reeks of beneficiary bashing.

            Fine to have enrolment forms to give out at government offices, but starving people into submission is not acceptable. If you want the poor to vote then maybe you should make sure your policies address their needs.

            • Sacha 11.1.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 7:16 pm

              I hope Mr Barnett will face consequences for publicly putting his foot in his party’s mouth. Need way better message discipline than that. NZ does not need another party suggesting right-wing policies. He’s welcome to resign and join another which does, if it’s important to him.

              • mickysavage …
                9 May 2015 at 8:17 pm

                Tim is way brighter than to propose this off his own back. I suspect this is someone else’s brainfart. And a brainfart it is …

                • Sacha …
                  9 May 2015 at 8:53 pm

                  Interesting. Hope that person is visibly disciplined then. You guys really cannot afford any more of this.

                • sabine …
                  10 May 2015 at 6:11 am

                  so how come this brainfart ended up in the herald, again making the labour party look like the party of brainfarts?

                  really,
                  can someone speak to the guys in the party that have any say and make it clear to them that brainfarts are not helpful, and should only be uttered in the confines of ones most private room?

                  please
                  thanka

          • SHG 11.1.1.2.2
            11 May 2015 at 12:15 pm

            Mr Barnett said the submission was from the party

            Dim-post, some time ago, still on the money:

            If I could distill the Labour Party’s woes over the last six years into just two words, I’d probably choose ‘bewildering stupidity’. The causes are manifold and complex, but the symptom is that Labour and its leaders often do bewildering, obviously stupid things despite the fact the things they are doing are obviously stupid. Think about David Shearer holding up dead fish in Parliament as his poll ratings flat-lined, or Goff dying his hair orange the day before making a major speech, or Cunliffe railing against secret trusts while financing his leadership campaign through secret trusts . . . The list is very, very long.

            Sure, this isn’t as egregious as National’s Sky City deal, or sending our troops to Iraq so we can stay ‘part of the club’. But Key, Joyce et al have reasons for the questionable stuff they do. They have agendas. It’s deliberate; calculated. They have reasons! Labour just does random bewilderingly stupid shit for no comprehensible reason. All the time. People write columns about how Labour should ‘move to the center’, or the left or whatever, but addressing the bewildering stupidity issue should be their primary goal.

    • RedBaronCV 11.2
      9 May 2015 at 11:52 am

      I just saw that. WTF are they thinking. Demanding that people behave in certain ways because they receive some state support paves the way for more right wing “do as I say” tactics.
      Receiving some form of state support doesn’t give governments the right to run anyone’s life and feeds the meme that state support identifies reckless, lazy, uncaring people who need to be told what to do. Where is the evidence that supports this ? Why don’t they target the asset rich tax dodger who is also living off their fellow taxpayer and is selfish uncaring etc etc.
      Oh and this is likely to alienate women
      Can’t they spell stupid

      • te reo putake 11.2.1
        9 May 2015 at 12:02 pm

        It’s not ‘tactics’. It’s the law. Enrolment is compulsory in NZ and it makes sense for the government to try and enforce that law at a point at which they interact with the wilfully non enrolled. Enrolling is easy. Making receiving a state benefit conditional on taking a couple of minutes to sign a form isn’t particularly onerous.

        Having said that, there is clearly going to be a minority who don’t want to enrol for compelling reasons. Visa overstayers, for example.

        • phillip ure 11.2.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 12:06 pm

          i actually see that proposal as a potent-example of the authoritarian-left running out of control…

          ..a w.t.f..!

        • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.2
          9 May 2015 at 12:10 pm

          It may be the law but when people are so disenchanted and disinterested (or dodging debt collectors or abusive spouses) that they don’t bother compulsion is only going to increase resentment. Leave the enforcement to someone else.

          • te reo putake 11.2.1.2.1
            9 May 2015 at 12:24 pm

            Who is ‘someone else’? Both enrolment and benefits are administered by the government. So who else do you have in mind? Contractors?

            • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 12:37 pm

              Maybe I should have said “leave promoting this option to another party”.

              And yes it may be the law but at this point, this is policing only one sub group that doesn’t enrol ? Are they even the biggest sub group? Do we know? Why target only this one? What happens if people enrol and don’t keep it up to date? What about people who are dropped off unbeknown to them?

              Why not go around the schools and demand that all 17 year olds or university students enrol before they can receive tuition. Or you have to be enrolled to get a drivers licence, WOF, CAR rego, passport, house insurance or if you have an IRD number you have to be enrolled if eligible ? Have a bank account?

              • te reo putake …
                9 May 2015 at 12:53 pm

                All good points. I suspect that this is indeed a target group that figures highly in the non enrolled numbers. Haven’t got time now, but if I get a chance, I’ll see if I can find the full submission and work out what is intended. Might be worth a post.

                • RedBaronCV …
                  9 May 2015 at 12:57 pm

                  Thanks TRP – if it’s a goal then a broadbrush rather than specific targeting has to be better.

                  • Anne …
                    9 May 2015 at 6:04 pm

                    I imagine this idea has been mooted out of frustration with potential Labour voters who just don’t bother to get on the roll let alone actually vote. However I don’t think its the right way to go about it. Providing an incentive to enroll is a much better idea but how do you do that? You can’t offer money because all the people who have voluntarily enrolled (the bulk of the population) would be up in arms and rightly so.

                    Some may say the incentive would be in good policies but that ignores the fact that Labour and the Greens have consistently produced policies that would have assisted the poor, the unemployed and those who, for one reason or another, have been left feeling disenfranchised. But the potential recipients don’t even bother to acquaint themselves of such policies.

                    I guess the answer is acquiring money, money and more money so you can “sell” them to a resistant public. Oh dear…

        • The Murphey 11.2.1.3
          9 May 2015 at 12:26 pm

          Making receiving a state benefit conditional on taking a couple of minutes to sign a form isn’t particularly onerous.

          Q. Onerous for whom ?

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.1.3.1
            9 May 2015 at 12:31 pm

            This is a prevalent kind of comfy authoritarian middle class led Labour thinking, piling requirements on to beneficiaries and the under class so that they will maybe vote for you. And if you don’t comply you get your already miserable benefit taken off you or docked. It’s fucking absurd. But this is what the Labour Party has come to.

            • weka 11.2.1.3.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 12:45 pm

              Yep. And irrespective of the value of investigating such a policy, the timing is beyond belief. Labour need to be rebuilding trust with voters, and this just undermines that.

            • The Murphey 11.2.1.3.1.2
              9 May 2015 at 12:47 pm

              Not particularly onerous for ‘The State’ ….

              To force people to comply ….

              To the demands of ‘The State’ ….

              Whatever the demands consist of….

              It is ‘The Law’ …..

            • millsy 11.2.1.3.1.3
              9 May 2015 at 12:49 pm

              You want more people voting you give thrm decent people and policies to vote for.

              It isnt rocket science.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                9 May 2015 at 12:52 pm

                Seems to have eluded some thus far

                • Kay …
                  9 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

                  Beneficiaries don’t even vote for Labour anymore so it’s obviously not a ploy to get more votes from us. Just add it to the bashing list.

        • weka 11.2.1.4
          9 May 2015 at 12:48 pm

          “Making receiving a state benefit conditional on taking a couple of minutes to sign a form isn’t particularly onerous.”

          Except as you point out for overstayers. Or people with highly dysfunctional lives for whom this kind of bureaucracy IS onerous. I’m sure we’ve had this conversation before, and your comment seems either largely ignorant of the realities of some of the most vulnerable people in NZ, or you think the impact on them is worth the gains of the policy. Both are politically unproductive as well as being punitive.

          • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.4.1
            9 May 2015 at 12:54 pm

            I forgot another sub group above. Why not make people enrol when they go for some form of medical treatment. That costs the state plenty and nothing onerous about signing a form while you wait and wait.

            • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.1.4.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 12:57 pm

              If it is a requirement which applies equally to unenrolled millionaires, then I’m all for it.

              • RedBaronCV …
                9 May 2015 at 1:01 pm

                and why shouldn’t it? Why just target those on a particular sub group of
                state support. And while they are there we could target vaccination measures, contraception for any kids they have that are 16 and over. and all the other welfare indignities. if it’s good enough for one group then it’s good enough for all.

                One nation you know..

              • cricklewood …
                9 May 2015 at 3:40 pm

                You could do that, tax all income at %100 if you aren’t enrolled to vote. Makes more sense than the take away the benefit option. At least it is somewhat equitable and not just a stick to hit the vunerable with…

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.2.1.4.2
            9 May 2015 at 12:56 pm

            Except as you point out for overstayers. Or people with highly dysfunctional lives for whom this kind of bureaucracy IS onerous.

            You can’t see your WINZ case officer until you make an appointment. (It’s a security precaution). What do you mean you don’t have money to get the phone or internet connected to make an appointment? See your WINZ case officer to sort that out. You’ll need to make an appointment.

            The comfy middle class don’t have a fucking clue on how the other half of NZ live, is the issue.

            • RedBaronCV 11.2.1.4.2.1
              9 May 2015 at 1:03 pm

              Exactly – those on a benefit frequently don’t have the resouces to even contact the state

            • weka 11.2.1.4.2.2
              9 May 2015 at 1:19 pm

              +1000 CV

              Ok, so you have an appointment. But I don’t have a car and there’s not cheap public transport and the appointment is during the day when my mate with their car is at work.

              Why did you miss your appointment? My kid was sick. Why didn’t you phone? I have no credit on my phone until next pay day.

              etc, etc, etc ad nauseum

              The list of barriers to what trp said is huge. His ignorance or lack of care on this matter is actually pretty gobsmacking for a leftie.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                9 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

                And once you’ve missed a couple of appointments even for reasons out of your control you get classed as a waste of time and its pretty much all over from there.

              • RedBaronCV …
                9 May 2015 at 7:54 pm

                Or I have three kids under 5, no child support because father has done a runner , live 5 miles from the nearest library (or maybe in the wilds of the provinces 50 miles) don’t have a mate with a car and there is no public transport.

            • The Murphey 11.2.1.4.2.3
              9 May 2015 at 1:24 pm

              ” You can fill out the ‘forms’ online”

              “I don’t have the money for a computer let alone the internet”

              “You can use the internet for free at the local library”

              “I don’t have money for transport”

              “Do you live close enough to walk”

              “I am on an ‘invalid’ benefit”

              ” We will continue to send the paper forms by post”

            • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.4.2.4
              9 May 2015 at 3:20 pm

              It’s actually a requirement that beneficiaries have a phone nowadays. This despite the fact that many beneficiaries can’t actually afford a phone. Even topping up a prepay by the minimum of $20 can be daunting.

        • Sabine 11.2.1.5
          9 May 2015 at 3:45 pm

          nope the state benefits should not depend on wether someone has the money to call for an appointment, then find the way to a Winz office (no car could be an issue, busses? cost a lot of money that no benefit caters for, somone to look after the kids – ah just fuck it).

          Oh so maybe they could go to a Library and use the computer there? And down load the paperwork to fill out and stuff….? See above, no car, no transport etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

          Benefits should be given to people in Need. The only factor that should count in the giving out of benefits to people should be NEED! not an enrollment to the electoral votes.

          The people that I know that did not vote the last time, where White, Male, Working, MIddle Class and they could not be fucked!
          The ones that I know voted, included the mother on a 0 hour contract and winz benefits. The elderly lady that paid herself a taxi to get to vote, the rumanian migrants and so on and so on.

          Again the ones that did not vote, white, working, male, middleclass and a can’t be arsed or fucked attitude. Go figure.

        • gsays 11.2.1.6
          9 May 2015 at 5:57 pm

          hi trp, can you or anyone else enlighten me as to why enrollment is compulsory?
          cheers.

      • jenny kirk 11.2.2
        9 May 2015 at 5:21 pm

        Once again – I just have to let you all know that probably what Tim Barnett was saying is NOT Labour Party policy, nor do I ever think it will be Labour Party policy, and they would not be stating its Labour Party policy.
        Whoever it was putting up that submission was merely making a suggestion to the select committee.

  12. jenny kirk 12
    9 May 2015 at 11:58 am

    I think the basic point is this: a comment from the general secretary :

    “” <> “”

    and it is not at all clear from that Herald story as to who in the Labour Party might have made such a submission – but it is quite clear that Tim Barnett is saying this is NOT a current LP policy, but its something other countries are doing and is this something NZ should look at. A question. Not a recommendation.

    Its bad enough when the MSM twists things that Labour people say – its blinkin’ lousy when supposedly leftwing posters on The Standard do it too.

    • phillip ure 12.1
      9 May 2015 at 12:15 pm

      i wd submit that a component of a labour party ‘ submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’…

      ..is not a matter of no significance…

      (or are you saying it is..?..)

      and how exactly is the reporting of this fact of this submission..’twisting things”..?

      ..this is what the submission – by the labour party (authored by whoever..?..won’t the proud parent stand up..?..)- to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee..said..

      ..and the comparison with australia – used by barnett – is putting the cart before the horse/comparing apples and oranges.. – as aust has compulsory-voting..we don’t..

      ..and jenny – if national were proposing something like this – would you not be protesting that..?..in this forum..?

    • jenny kirk 12.2
      9 May 2015 at 12:17 pm

      Oops – dunno what happened to it, but my post above didn’t include the Barnett quote – about it being just a question to the committee, a request to investigate it – and that it is NOT Labour policy.

      This is what he said. (And incidentally, I don’t agree with him on this matter, and I bet heaps of other Labour people don’t either !)

      “It’s not party policy, it’s merely saying, what are the things that could be done? And in Australia that is the system which they formally adopt.”

      • greywarbler 12.2.1
        9 May 2015 at 12:45 pm

        Why would we want to follow the policies of a country that elected someone who might be related to a 20th century family called Abbottini, neighbours of Mussolini?

        • phillip ure 12.2.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 1:55 pm

          this is now the lead-story on the herald online..

          ..isn’t that great publicity for labour..?..(these things stick in peoples’ minds..)

          and i think my original question:..’is this a brain-fart’?..

          has been answered..in the affirmative..

          • marty mars 12.2.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 2:30 pm

            not a brain fart but a testing of the waters

            • phillip ure 12.2.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 3:02 pm

              why “test” polluted “waters”..?

              please..!..tell me what you think is possibly ‘good’ about this idea..?

              ..tell me how it is not just a total authoritarian brain-fart..

              • marty mars …
                9 May 2015 at 5:15 pm

                did I say anything was good about it?

                you test waters to see what the reaction is going to be like and then adjust your plans accordingly – and to ensure there is no further misunderstanding from you – I do not like the idea or the ideology behind it – I hope that is sufficient for an understanding, of what i am saying, from you.

              • jenny kirk …
                9 May 2015 at 5:24 pm

                Its not a brain-fart PU – from any official Labour Party policy or statement.
                It was just one person’s comment.
                Can you please get that into your head. refer to my post at 12.2

                • phillip ure …
                  9 May 2015 at 6:28 pm

                  it wasn’t “just a comment”..j.k..

                  ..it was a labour party submission to a select committee..

                  ..there is a difference..eh..?

    • Charles 12.3
      9 May 2015 at 1:57 pm

      I miss the good old days when Labour said good/constructive things would happen that would benefit people’s lives, and then shortly afterwards, they did. When did it get so muddled and complicated? Is there any way we could go back to that kind of politics?

      Yeah yeah I know, things have “changed” and only “dinosaurs” want clear policy statements or action anymore. Hooray for TXTSPK and rumours… mumble mumble…

    • Rosemary McDonald 12.4
      9 May 2015 at 7:28 pm

      “Labour has proposed withholding state support such as tax credits and Working For Families from people who are not enrolled to vote.

      The measure could be justified if it lifts New Zealand’s low voter turnout, the party says.

      Getting the vote out is a priority for Labour and in its submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, written by Labour’s general secretary Tim Barnett, the party argues for the idea to be considered.”

      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445759

      It makes it pretty clear who made the submission…if the Herald got it wrong….sue them.

      If this is even remotely a Labour policy…well…ffs…has Labour gone all “club them and drag em by the hair” on us?

      For some people…not voting is a concious action.

      A declaration that there are none worth voting for.

      Perhaps….non voting and non enrollment should be seen as a criticism of the whole godamn political circus.

      Those who would rule should do better.

    • sabine 12.5
      10 May 2015 at 5:26 pm

      maybe such confusion would not be coming up if the supposed leftwing party of New Zealand would finally come up with something that would exite people.

      You know….like building houses for young people so they can get married and have kids. ( i know of a few couples that would love to rent a nice place to start their lifes together, alas they are not making enough to cover $ 2200 per month before any expenses or food).

      You know…. like promoting long tenancies in private rentals so that families with kids could send their kids to THE ONE SCHOOL for like two years in a row, instead of having to pack up and move about ever friggin 6 month.

      You know…..like upping the benefits for unemployed, single parents, the young ones etc etc etc could have a phone to phone WINZ for an appointment and eat….I know its a novelty.

      I only want Labour to speak about these things…not about finding a way to punish the already punished for not being on the electoral roll….

      How does Labour suppose to punish those not on the roll and not on a benefit? Like National punishes Tax Evader? With even bigger loopholes?

      ffs…this is why no one is bothering to Labour and some of their die hard supporters anymore, because of some fuckwit that wants to out do Paula Bennett.

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.1
      9 May 2015 at 12:34 pm

      It’s poor people driving which causes the problems. Ban them from the roads.

      • Maui 13.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 1:41 pm

        I’d also like to see rich people who drive Hummers and Porsche cayenne’s banned.

        • Charles 13.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 2:00 pm

          #buildroadsboosteconomy

          If roads weren’t so rough, the older engines wouldn’t work so hard. Resurface all roads to be glass smooth.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 3:36 pm

            I hadn’t really considered that until I started riding my bike. On that I can feel the rough roads slowing me down, making it harder.

      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2
        9 May 2015 at 3:39 pm

        It’s not banning poor people, but banning older vehicles. Sure, that will impact on poor people most under current conditions but we should be questioning if everyone should have a car anyway as doing so costs so much. Or perhaps that should be a question of if anyone should have cars.

        • b waghorn 13.1.2.1
          9 May 2015 at 6:46 pm

          A government with guts would make it law that all personal cars would be electric in 10/15 years. Just have to put ruc charges on them to pay for the roads.

          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1.1
            10 May 2015 at 12:49 am

            Need to go to RUCs on all vehicles anyway so as to kill the subsidies that trucks get from cars.

  14. greywarbler 14
    9 May 2015 at 1:01 pm

    I’m looking at heat exchange from brick paved back yards.
    Wikipedia on geothermal energy is interesting. What other countries do to use this for domestic use rather than just industrial as we do is interesting. (I don’t think Maori use, which extends back centuries is being counted here.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heating

    This is the sort of thing that progressive, thoughtful, and smart countries are doing to use technology that could be thought of as green and sustainable.
    The cities of Reykjavík and Akureyri pipe hot water from geothermal plants under roads and pavements to melt snow. Geothermal desalination has been demonstrated.

    Geothermal systems tend to benefit from economies of scale, so space heating power is often distributed to multiple buildings, sometimes whole communities.
    This technique, long practiced throughout the world in locations such as Reykjavík, Iceland,[5] Boise, Idaho,[6] and Klamath Falls, Oregon[7] is known as district heating.[8]     Turkey seems to be high in this use.

    Background –
    ” Most high temperature geothermal heat is harvested in regions close to tectonic plate boundaries where volcanic activity rises close to the surface of the Earth. In these areas, ground and groundwater can be found with temperatures higher than the target temperature of the application….
    even cold ground contains heat, below 6 metres (20 ft) the undisturbed ground temperature is consistently at the Mean Annual Air Temperature[3] and it may be extracted with a heat pump.”…

    “Direct geothermal heating is far more efficient than geothermal electricity generation and has less demanding temperature requirements, so it is viable over a large geographical range.

    If the shallow ground is hot but dry, air or water may be circulated through earth tubes or downhole heat exchangers which act as heat exchangers with the ground.”

  15. bearded git 15
    9 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

    @ swordfish (above) went to sincil bank in February-saw the imps lose to chester 1-0.

  16. greywarbler 16
    9 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

    Looking at an old BBC History magazine I saw they were recalling an earlier September attack on New York than 2001. This was in 1920 when ‘a cart packed with explosives was detonated’ outside the headquarters of JP Morgan. The perpetrators,causing 38 deaths, were never confirmed but may have been followers of the Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani.’
    The site 23 Wall Street still bears the shrapnel scars of 90 years ago.

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    9 May 2015 at 1:40 pm

    War and Peace and the Steady-State Economy

    International “free trade pacts” (NAFTA, TPP, TAFTA) are supposed to increase global GDP, thereby making us all richer and effectively expanding the size of the earth and easing conflict. But growth in the full world has become uneconomic–increasing costs faster than benefits. It now makes us poorer, not richer. These secretly negotiated agreements among the elites are designed to benefit private global corporations, often at the expense of the public good of nations. Some think that strengthening global corporations by erasing national boundaries will reduce the likelihood of war. More likely we will just shift to feudal corporate wars in a post-national global commons, with corporate fiefdoms effectively buying national governments and their armies, supplemented by already existing private mercenaries.

    In fact, that latter bit is inevitable. There’s no real difference between and the feudal society that preceded it. both are about putting a few people above everyone else in wealth and power and having everyone else pay for it.

  18. tinfoilhat 18
    9 May 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Shakes head in disbelief….

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445759

    “Labour has proposed withholding state support such as tax credits and Working For Families from people who are not enrolled to vote.

    The measure could be justified if it lifts New Zealand’s low voter turnout, the party says.”

    • Kiwiri 18.1
      9 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

      Yup. And is being discussed above at 12 and 13.

      Is Labour, or rather the hierarchy (cf. membership), trying immensely hard at working, full steam ahead and on the offensive, on connecting with ‘voters’ ?

      • jenny kirk 18.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 5:26 pm

        Whatever was said in that select committee meting, tinfoilhat and Kiwiri – that is NOT Labour policy, nor has anyone raised it as a possible Labour policy.

  19. barry 19
    9 May 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Forget about the UK. Worry about us.

    Labour is going 1984 again.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11445759
    As if National is not punishing beneficiaries enough already.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11445665
    It predates the internet (so hard to find links), but i remember Roger Douglas doing pretty much exactly the same thing.

    IN 1984 we were taken unawares and they hid the economic agenda behind the antinuclear credentials. If they do the same again what are they going to fob us off with to try to pretend to be a Labour party.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1
      9 May 2015 at 5:45 pm

      It’s good of you to run with The Herald‘s framing of the issue. When they say “proposed”, what exactly did Labour say?

      There are advantages and potential disadvantages to the approach, but it is utilised in other countries and we submit that it is incumbent on us to examine all options to see if they are feasible in our context.

      So, not “proposed” then.

      • phillip ure 19.1.1
        9 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

        come on oan..!..don’t give us the raw prawn..

        ..it was indeed ‘proposed’..in a labour party submission to the electoral reform select committee..

        ..and we have the party secretary seemingly pimping it to the media..

        ..so it was ‘proposed’..with bells on…eh..?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1
          9 May 2015 at 5:59 pm

          Yes, Phil, people who want to spin it in a negative light (something you and The Herald have in common) will spin it in a negative light.

          As Chomsky says, the key is to severely limit the areas that can be discussed, and allow robust discussion withing those narrow constraints.

          Bravo.

          • phillip ure 19.1.1.1.1
            9 May 2015 at 6:17 pm

            please do enlighten us with the ‘positive’ aspects of this pile of steaming shit of an idea..

            ..i am not the only one seeming to be unable to see them..

            ..do bring us up to speed..

            ..and nothing is being ‘spun’..

            ..this is a proposal in a labour party submission to a parliamentary select committee..

            ..what are you finding so difficult to understand about that..?

            ..i am not spinning it..i am seriously slagging it..

            ..for the piece of shite idea it is..

            ..and i am gobsmacked that it got that far through the labour party internal processes..without someone ring alarm bells..

            ..so many bloody questions raised with just that..

            ..it only took me a nano-second to smell the rot..

            ..who/which grouping within labour think this is a ‘goer’..?

            ..and pushed it through..?

            ..are there no internal checks and balances within labour..?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.1.1.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 6:27 pm

              That’s the way: it’s important to confine all ideas to the ones you approve of, and a good way to do that is to pretend discussion of outliers is exactly the same as supporting them.

              Nice one.

              As for the merits of the proposal. I think that before penalising non-enrolled voters, we should penalise anyone who adopts a deliberate strategy of voter discouragement.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                9 May 2015 at 7:49 pm

                “…a deliberate strategy of voter discouragement.”

                The expression “political suicide” comes to mind.

                Godallmighty….this is so depressing…

            • Karen 19.1.1.1.1.2
              9 May 2015 at 6:51 pm

              +1 PU.
              I can’t imagine how this appalling idea got to the submission stage. It may not be current policy, or even likely to become policy, but the idea that someone in a senior position in the Labour Party should even consider it is a good idea is beyond me. Very, very damaging.

        • Sacha 19.1.1.2
          9 May 2015 at 7:27 pm

          No evidence Barnett sought coverage. Media will have been covering the committee, and the Labour Partry should simply be smart enough by now to not provide leads to them like this.

          • Rosemary McDonald 19.1.1.2.1
            9 May 2015 at 7:52 pm

            “…the Labour Partry should simply be smart enough by now to not provide leads to them like this.”

            You’d think, wouldn’t you?

            Maybe someone in the Labour Party is really smart…or thinks he/she is?

            • Sacha 19.1.1.2.1.1
              9 May 2015 at 7:56 pm

              There seem more than a few in there who are not as smart as they believe. I wish they would get out of the way.

    • miravox 19.2
      9 May 2015 at 8:08 pm

      Not that I agree with the proposal to look at the idea (or maybe I do – seems logical to look at things that may provide the desired outcome) but it’s not in the realms of beneficiary bashing is it?

      I thought working for families was an employment-related payment?

  20. phillip ure 20
    9 May 2015 at 5:57 pm

    i just saw this tweet..

    “..Sam Lotu-Iiga quoted Nelson Mandela as he opened a private prison run by a company with a terrible human rights record & I wish I was joking..”

  21. NZSage 21
    9 May 2015 at 5:59 pm

    It’s worth taking a look at the comments on this crazy website National have set up to somehow try and get populous buy-in of this change the flag diversion.

    http://www.standfor.co.nz/#entries

    Roughly 3/5 comments disagree with the proposed change altogether. This could turn into another Northland type misfire for Key and another nail in his coffin.

    Something I hadn’t considered is raised by this comment:

    “…the government tell us the cost to change the flag is $26,000,000 for referendum but the cost to change every flag in every school, building, businesses, NZ Army uniforms, vehicles, NZ Police, NZ Navy the list would be endless – it’s a joke. $26 million is only the start”

  22. marty mars 22
    9 May 2015 at 6:37 pm

    The archdruid has been very provocative over his last few posts I have thought but the logic is inescapable and like all great writers with ideas he presents them with a style and content that I find complete and beautiful.

    Energy needed to extract energy, again, can’t be used for any other purpose. It doesn’t contribute to the energy surplus that makes economic development possible. As the energy industry itself takes a bigger bite out of each year’s energy production, every other economic activity loses part of the fuel that makes it run. That, in turn, is the core reason why the American economy is on the ropes, America’s infrastructure is falling to bits—and Americans in Detroit and Baltimore are facing a transition to Third World conditions, without electricity or running water.

    I suspect, for what it’s worth, that the shutoff notices being mailed to tens of thousands of poor families in those two cities are a good working model for the way that industrial civilization itself will wind down. It won’t be sudden; for decades to come, there will still be people who have access to what Americans today consider the ordinary necessities and comforts of everyday life; there will just be fewer of them each year. Outside that narrowing circle, the number of economic nonpersons will grow steadily, one shutoff notice at a time.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/the-whisper-of-shutoff-valve.html

  23. Maui 23
    9 May 2015 at 9:26 pm

    There’s pictures on John Key’s facebook page of him handling a puppy and showing it to Prince Harry https://www.facebook.com/pmjohnkey

    Kinda weird.. is it that hair/fur thing again..