Open Mike 09/12/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 9th, 2016 - 123 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

123 comments on “Open Mike 09/12/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Cinny 1
    9 December 2016 at 7:04 am

    Wows the ring of fire has been rather busy of late, sending good vibes to those in the Solomons. Stay safe, thinking of you all over there.

    Solomon Islands hit by a magnitude 8 quake this morning.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/87378899/81-magnitude-earthquake-hits-solomons–usgs

    • Wairua 1.1
      9 December 2016 at 11:24 am

      The northern structure at Stone Street studios exhibits horizontal cracks at its SE corner, visible over the black covered fence next to the gatehouse.

      The main studio appears undamaged, but bears an uncanny resemblance to the
      sarcophagus covering the impaired Chernobyl nuclear reactor. It is unclear whether base isolation on geologically unstable terrain was involved.

  2. Nick 2
    9 December 2016 at 7:53 am

    ShonKey had the exact same smile telling the nastzis cor(p)kus as he did when he fired all his trader buddies….. The light went on and they all realized he didn’t give a fuck about them …..NZ voters will click soon too…. When they realize the mess he’s made and is running from…

  3. Carolyn_nth 3
    9 December 2016 at 7:54 am

    Pfft! And then he was gone in a puff of smoke.

    From his appointment as leader I asked “Why was he decide to be here?” Now I’ll be forever asking, “Why did he go?”

    #themanwhofellfromplanetkey

    • Puckish Rogue 3.1
      9 December 2016 at 8:41 am

      Well hes gone now (more or less) so maybe just…

      • Robert Guyton 3.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 8:50 am

        So quickly forgotten, Pucky? Was he that insubstantial? The wistful memory of a dream? An echo of a love song half-forgotten? A puff of fetid halitosis? The impalpable whiff of a little blue fart?
        Your people are so expendable.

        • Puckish Rogue 3.1.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 9:02 am

          John Key was like Jonah Lomu, one of the greats, but the National party, like the All Blacks, will keep on keeping on

          Only now its going to be Winston taking more of the centre stage…

          • Provocateur 3.1.1.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 10:16 am

            Like Jonah he shot through leaving roadkill behind.
            What does that make the ‘national’ party .. a deflated rural cabal ?
            My sympathies to Bill in trying to keep his waka together.

      • The decrypter 3.1.2
        9 December 2016 at 1:03 pm

        Pukeritis.

  4. Gabby 4
    9 December 2016 at 8:20 am

    His blind trust is full.

  5. Ad 5
    9 December 2016 at 8:29 am

    What do the Auckland westies think of Laila Harre as MP for New Lynn?
    I don’t think it’s a dumb idea.

    • Cinny 5.1
      9 December 2016 at 8:47 am

      I love Laila she is a star, but she’s not stupid, I doubt she will want to jeopardise the left by standing in New Lynn, which is already labelled as a ‘safe labour’ seat. After all she stood in Helensville last time. And I’m not sure if Laila is running this time, are you Ad?

      So I guess dreams are free, one of my dreams is for Laila to come back to parliament if she so desires, her life her choice. The other dream is about to become reality, which is a new government.

    • Olwyn 5.2
      9 December 2016 at 9:10 am

      While I would really like to see Laila Harre back in parliament, in the case of New Lynn I think someone who is already part of the New Lynn set-up, like Greg Presland for instance, may be a better option. If Laila stands there, her pluses are her high profile, the fact that she really is of the left and that she knows how to campaign. But someone who is already part of the area, and able to continue with existing networks, might stand a better chance. I also think that winning the election should take priority over gender balance under current conditions and in the short term. That said, if Laila ends up getting the nomination, I will not be disappointed by it.

      • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1
        9 December 2016 at 9:28 am

        I seem to recall that Harre stood in the Waitakere electorate early in the century – when that electorate covered at least part of what is now the New Lynn electorate.

        • Olwyn 5.2.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 10:15 am

          Yes, I just had a sniff about – it seems she stood for Te Atatu in 1999 and Waitakere in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laila_Harr%C3%A9

        • Karen 5.2.1.2
          9 December 2016 at 10:22 am

          Laila definitely has links to the area but I am not sure that she wants to be an MP at the moment. Also she is going to get criticised for having abandoned the Green Party to lead the Internet Party only 3 years ago. Maybe 2020 if she wants it.

          Deborah Russell is a high profile candidate who has declared her interest in New Lynn. She says she will give up her job at Massey University to live and campaign in the area if she gets the selection. Don’t know who else is putting their hat in the ring for New Lynn – Mickey will know.

          If Jacinda goes for Mt Albert (it makes sense to me) then there will be a vacancy for Auckland Central but it will be hard to win. The last lot of boundary changes meant a lot of Labour areas were added to Mt Albert and there will be a sympathy vote for Nicky Kaye.

          • Carolyn_nth 5.2.1.2.1
            9 December 2016 at 10:37 am

            New Lynn is going upmarket, though there’s still some of low income/working class people in the area. Kelston has been split off it in the last election, and that area is more solidly Labour and working class.

            • Incognito 5.2.1.2.1.1
              10 December 2016 at 8:11 pm

              Not just New Lynn; many areas in West Auckland are changing and you can see that reflected in the demographics of the secondary schools. Schools are an excellent barometer of the communities.

      • Puckish Rogue 5.2.2
        9 December 2016 at 10:05 am

        Oh hell yes, Greg Presland for New Lynn!

      • saveNZ 5.2.3
        9 December 2016 at 10:17 am

        New Lynn might not be as safe as people think for Labour, there has been a lot of change in that area. I think no matter who runs there for Labour, it will be a tough race. Property will be a key factor – families are sitting on big mortgages there – it depends what Labour have as their policy.

        Next year in my view, property is going to go stagnant in Auckland so there will be jitters and interest rates will probably start rising and already are. At the same time people will start fearing for their jobs and businesses. This is nothing to do with Labour but it is their response to it that will be important as will be the Natz response prior to next years election.

        I have huge respect for Laila – and want to see her back. With a down turn probably coming up next year – it will be important for Labour to try to get steady policy that can handle another GFC without doing a Greece or USA while transitioning away from the outrageous state the Natz have left our country. (poor diversification, fraud and corruption such as student visa scams, large government and private debt).

        • saveNZ 5.2.3.1
          9 December 2016 at 10:46 am

          P.S. How Key managed to get his unpopular privatising assets policy through was saying he would not implement it until the next election if he was elected. It buys time for the public to get used to a change.

          The point is, Labour should not count their chickens in an election if they want to implement potentially un popular policy in particular on housing or superannuation.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.3.2
          9 December 2016 at 11:26 am

          Next year in my view, property is going to go stagnant in Auckland so there will be jitters and interest rates will probably start rising and already are.

          If/When the bubble flattens out/bursts interest rates are likely to fall – well, the OCR will anyway. Low interest rates are there to encourage people to borrow and thus create more money which gives a boost to the economy. Of course, what interest rates the banks gives to the borrowers is another question.

          With a down turn probably coming up next year – it will be important for Labour to try to get steady policy that can handle another GFC without doing a Greece or USA while transitioning away from the outrageous state the Natz have left our country.

          ATM, IMO, Labour only have one option and it’s similar to the one that they used in 1935 to pull us out of the Great Depression.

  6. Pat 6
    9 December 2016 at 8:35 am

    election pre budget……march /april

  7. Cinny 7
    9 December 2016 at 8:41 am

    An early election is needed to prevent the education minister whom is quitting from bullying Salisbury School anymore. Leaving them in limbo over Christmas, just give it up Hekia, let it go, you’ve damaged so many people and families by pushing these vulnerable girls around. It’s obvious you don’t care about them.

    Looking forward to the new education minister making the most of this valuable school, the whole community and beyond, in which it resides, as well as the local mayor are absolutely 100% behind Salisbury staying open, and there are so many ideas to diversify the options that Salisbury can offer.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/87373421/decision-on-salisbury-school-delayed-until-next-year

  8. Morrissey 8
    9 December 2016 at 9:34 am

    Bill English, without a hint of irony, praises
    John Key’s “relentless optimism and positivity”
    RNZ National, Friday 9 December 2016, 7:16 a.m.

    His colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman blows smoke in the face of women, but this morning Bill English blew smoke in the face of Guyon Espiner. Incredibly, Espiner didn’t seem to even register what had happened. The incident came near the end of a fawning six and a half minute “honeymoon” interview….

    GUYON ESPINER: What’s the main thing you’ve learned from John Key?

    BILL ENGLISH: [pause] Ohhhh look, just the relentless optimism and positivity, and the way that that UPLIFTS people, the way that it gives them ROOM to express their own confidence in the future, ahhhh, and I think that’s had an impact on the way New Zealanders think, we’re a more positive, self-assured country, and, ahhh, that’s BACKED UP by theeee, by the strength of the economy, by the relative position compared to other countries, and we want to maintain that.

    GUYON ESPINER: [pause] All right. Thank you very much for joining us this morning, appreciate your time. That is, well, the PRESUMPTIVE prime minister, are we calling him Jane?

    SUSIE FERGUSON: I suppose we WOULD call him something like that, wouldn’t we Guyon!

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201827042/will-bill-english-call-an-early-election

  9. saveNZ 9
    9 December 2016 at 10:01 am

    So creative on air is not prepared to fund alternative current affairs in NZ (Waatea 5th Estate) but has used more than 1.7m of public money to give to MediaWorks Jono and Ben. They have also given 1.4m for a comedy called Paranormal Event Response Unit.

    With the growing homelessness, inequality and corruption in NZ, creative on Air feels the need to spend millions on comedy. Because NZ on Air and the government are a joke.

    Thanks for keeping the public in the dark about real local issues and keep the NZ Ponzi scheme going into the next election, creative on air (sarc)!

    • james 9.1
      9 December 2016 at 10:13 am

      Good call – it was a show that could only get a couple of hundred views an episode even when free.

      And most of them were prob bomber watching himself.

      • saveNZ 9.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 10:26 am

        Of course TV3 putting crap on prime time and endlessly promoting their ‘favourite shows’ has nothing to do with ratings. Put Waatea on TV3 at 7 pm and see how they start stealing from Hoskings.

        TV Ratings are the biggest joke out there, with only 600 people being checked in the most ludicrous way possible out of a population of 4.5 million. It’s actually creative on air and advertisers that still believe the TV ratings mean something that are the joke!

        Of course creative on air have probably not heard of the Internet so can’t respond to the changing methods of media in their funding. Or are just told what to fund by the government.

    • james 9.2
      9 December 2016 at 10:17 am

      Gee – I wonder if bradbury had the following :

      A commitment to broadcast is required before applying for funding. This is because we don’t want taxpayer money going to waste. The support of an Online Aggregator is required for Type 3 applications.

      The broadcaster/online publisher will confirm their support, including their financial contribution, to us separately using the Broadcaster Commitment form or Type 3 Broadcaster Commitment Form.

      I bet he didnt even have the basics covered in his application.

      • saveNZ 9.2.1
        9 December 2016 at 10:31 am

        James you seem to know so much about paperwork you should join WINZ and push 65 pages of paperwork on the homeless to fill out before you will help them, while at the same time pushing $$$$ into double dipper English’s hands for his housing needs or hiding white collar criminals and money launderers in our 0% offshore tax havens that John Key and his favourite non practising lawyer set up.

        After all, it’s not about fairness or logic anymore it’s about process, cronyism and bureaucrats ticking all the boxes the right (wink, wink) way under Natz rule.

        • james 9.2.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 10:59 am

          No – its about meeting the basics for funding before bitching about not getting them.

          Everything else you wrote is just ramblings and got nothing to do with the thread.

          • framu 9.2.1.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 11:56 am

            actually – you’re both right

            it is about meeting the requirements, but there is also a huge amount of back scratching and cronyism in the way funds are designed and allocated

  10. Morrissey 10
    9 December 2016 at 10:26 am

    Tau Henare declares: “I could’ve been SPEAKER!”
    Guyon Espiner: “We haven’t got time for that.”
    RNZ National, Thursday 8 December 2016

    The best thing Trevor Mallard ever did in his entire career was when he punched that waste of space Tau Henare. Incredibly, Henare, instead of being shunned as he would be by any decent or serious media outlet, is still being given time to clog up the airwaves with his nonsense. Yesterday morning he was at his David Brentian worst….

    The restless backbench–their one chance for relevance. We look back at a turbulent week in politics with the former National Party press secretary Ben Thomas and the former National Party MP Tau Henare.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201826896/the-restless-backbench-their-one-chance-for-relevence

    GUYON ESPINER: The prime minister John Key is stepping DOWN at the top of HIS career and the race is ON to replace him. It very much looks like BILL ENGLISH has the numbers, but also in this race are Jonathan Coleman and Judith Collins. I’m joined now to discuss their prospects by the former National Party press secretary Ben Thomas. Good morning to you Ben.

    BEN THOMAS: Hi Guyon.

    GUYON ESPINER: And National Party—former National Party M.P., ahhh, Tau Henare, also a Minister of the Crown back in the day. Good morning to both of you.

    TAU HENARE: Morning chief!

    GUYON ESPINER: Now, let’s have a look at Bill English. It looks pretty much like he’s GOT this doesn’t it Tau?

    TAU HENARE: Yeah, I mean I always thought that, uh, the way it panned out, um, Bill would, uh, win on the day whenever the election for, for leader was. It’s just a, it’s a, A typical National Party, uh, succession plan.

    GUYON ESPINER: A stitch up?
    BEN THOMAS: Hyeeeee! A ha ha ha!
    TAU HENARE: You could say that. But hey I mean—-
    GUYON ESPINER: He was given what, he was given how long, a couple of months heads up and he’s been allowed to do it in a week when he’s announcing some pretty rosy numbers—
    TAU HENARE: That’s right.
    GUYON ESPINER: —that are going to be announced today on the books, and the vote comes on Monday.
    TAU HENARE: Yeah that’s right. And look, I mean it’s better than rolling around in the mud for three months publicly and, and, um, I, I think, um, I think it’s been pretty cool. I think, I think it’s given the party a bit of a, a kick up the backside, uh, in terms of, hey!, get your, get your STUFF together, ahhhmm, we have an ELECTION to fight next year.
    GUYON ESPINER: Ben do you think that damage has been done? Things that are said can’t be unsaid. You’ve got Judith Collins running around saying, y’know, talking about tax cuts, that she wouldn’t be pursuing those. Is damage done in these sort of battles?
    BEN THOMAS: Well I guess there’s been no public announcement about whether we will have tax cuts or whether we’ll have, y’know, family incentives or whatever, um, so in that way they’re not really deviating from—
    GUYON ESPINER: It leaves him in a difficult position to go ahead with it doesn’t it?
    BEN THOMAS: No, I think you’re allowed to, you’re allowed to express an opinion probably before, y’know, before the budget next year, ahhhhmm, I think everyone’ll be expected to fall into line by then.
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah. What do you make of the bids then from Collins and Coleman?
    BEN THOMAS: There’s a real issue with the National Party leadership post John Key, which is, if you’re in Labour, you can kind of wait for another eighteen months for your turn to come around. Whereas, here, y’know, this is the first time most of, this is the first time this job’s come up, y’know, in a decade, um, and I think you’d be looking at a guy like Coleman, or perhaps even Collins, and they would think, you know, if it’s another FOUR years, if Bill were to take over, or even longer if it was one of the contenders, y’know, whose names were thrown around but didn’t pan out, you know you would be looking at being maybe in your mid-fifties, in your early sixties before you had another opportunity.
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah but Coleman can’t seriously believe he’s got a CHANCE, can he? Is he going for something else?
    TAU HENARE: I, I, I, I think that, ahhhmmm, it’s been a, um, a, a DOG’S BREAKFAST, ahhh, frankly, ahhhmm—
    GUYON ESPINER: From what?
    TAU HENARE: From Coleman AND from Judith.
    GUYON ESPINER: Really? Why is that?
    TAU HENARE: Yeah well from Judith, I think she’s gone out as if it’s some sort of presidential race. Well I’m sorry: if you don’t realize that FIFTY-NINE people vote for you, not, ahhhmm, y’know, one point five million, then I think there’s something SERIOUSLY WRONG with you.
    GUYON ESPINER: So it’s been a matter of not really knowing who your audience is, you mean?
    TAU HENARE: Well exactly. I mean, Coleman came out with he’s the new, you know, generation, as if he was a MILLENNIAL, but there’s only seven years between him and Judith Collins.
    GUYON ESPINER: He’s fifty, he had relative youth. [chuckles]
    TAU HENARE: I mean I, I just think that it’s silly. Yeah I mean, I, I, I actually think that, that um, ahhh, the Deputy Prime Ministership is, ahh, the one to watch. I think that’s, that’s—
    GUYON ESPINER: Who do you think’s gonna get it?
    TAU HENARE: Um, it could be ANYBODY.
    GUYON ESPINER: Someone from out YOUR way.
    TAU HENARE: Listen mate, I, I, I’m a mate of Simon’s AND a mate of, uh, Paula’s, and I wouldn’t like to pick between them. And then, I, I—
    GUYON ESPINER: Who WOULD you vote for if you had a chance?
    TAU HENARE: Who would I vote for?
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah.
    TAU HENARE: Oh, uh, y’know if I was IN there, in the caucus, I would be the Manchurian Candidate.
    GUYON ESPINER: Ha ha ha ha ha!
    BEN THOMAS: Ha ha ha ha ha!
    TAU HENARE: Hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk!
    GUYON ESPINER: Ha ha ha! Let’s—Ben?
    BEN THOMAS: There IS that issue though, because there IS some discontent among the back benches, you know, you’ve got a HUGE back bench to manage in National—
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah.
    BEN THOMAS: —partly because of John Key’s electoral success and a lot of these guys, you know, are sort of chomping at the bit for their chance—-
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah so what’s gonna—
    BEN THOMAS: And there is—
    TAU HENARE: Oh look, they should, they should just HANG ON. I mean, for GOODNESS’ SAKE—
    BEN THOMAS: [beginning to lose patience] We-e-e-e-elll….
    TAU HENARE: Who got them IN there in the first place? I think that they’re a bunch of JUMPED UP—
    BEN THOMAS: Hyuh! [snickers]
    TAU HENARE: —y’know, I tell ya what, I tell ya what—-
    BEN THOMAS: Ha ha, HA!
    TAU HENARE: There’s not a lot of back benchers that I would, ahhhhmmm, present to Cabinet. Y’know?
    GUYON ESPINER: Well, Ben, what do you think would satisfy the appetite of the restless back bench then?
    BEN THOMAS: Well, they, they only get ONE SAY, you know, this voting caucus is pretty much the only say they have—
    GUYON ESPINER: So they’re relevant for a short time.
    BEN THOMAS: So they’re relevant and they’re not going to just sacrifice it easily, um, you know, to go with a handover, even with Key’s sort of mana and standing, right?
    TAU HENARE: Can I—
    GUYON ESPINER: [reluctantly] Yeah.
    TAU HENARE: I could’ve been SPEAKER!
    GUYON ESPINER: Ha!
    BEN THOMAS: A ha ha hyeeeeegh!
    GUYON ESPINER: There’s not, we haven’t got time for that.
    BEN THOMAS: Ha ha!
    GUYON ESPINER: I did want to look back in history though. ‘Cos look at the ones who’ve taken over from P.M. without being elected. Rowling takes over after Kirk dies, he loses to Muldoon. Lange resigns, Palmer picks up, Moore loses. Shipley takes over from Bolger in ’97 and loses to Clark in ’99. Four-nil, in terms of people who have taken over in office without being elected.
    BEN THOMAS: Yeah.
    GUYON ESPINER: How do we see Bill English, presuming he does win, going from here?
    TAU HENARE: I, I, I think that Bill’s campaign IS about stability, IS about “look at what we’ve done, near, NEARLY five per cent unemployment, you know, around that—
    GUYON ESPINER: Yeah. But isn’t that dangerous after eight years, oh I’ve got “Steady as she goes” when the electorate might be saying Well look I’ve—
    BEN THOMAS: Voters bank gains pretty quickly. There is an opportunity, even Key pointed this out, he said there’s gotta be, you know, rejuvenation. Key was actually GOOD at that, in his cabinets. So you can’t probably just have this situation where you have exactly the same faces. And in terms of the race for Deputy, perhaps, you know, you might see that Bennett, you know, for all her talents, is seen as the Key candidate, as part of the master plan, as part of business as usual. You might see that Bridges is sort of the outlet for the expression of the back benches.
    GUYON ESPINER: Hmmm. Just finally on Bill English though, performance-wise, I mean, he’s gonna be a very DIFFERENT prime minister. Can’t see him sort of mincing down the catwalk on a fashion sort of parade, or doing any of that sort of stuff that John Key did as a sort of cheerleader—
    BEN THOMAS: Do they have fashion parades in Southland?
    GUYON ESPINER: A ha ha ha ha….
    TAU HENARE: Fashion parade in GORE!
    GUYON ESPINER: A ha ha ha ha.
    TAU HENARE: Eh?
    GUYON ESPINER: But it wasn’t, seriously, it wasn’t a great success was it, Bill Mark One as leader?
    TAU HENARE: No, but I, and I also think that’s a different time as well. I mean the National Party WERE at their lowest ebb anyway. There’d been a HUGE crap fight about the leadership and, um, now-w-w-w, I mean the National Party are hovering around FIFTY per cent, the economy is good, people I sense don’t actually want THAT much change—they’d like to see something NEW, ah, but they don’t want that much change.
    GUYON ESPINER: Change with continuity then?
    BEN THOMAS: Hyeeee…Yes. Ha ha ha. Look, Bill, Bill English is a MUCH more polished performer these days and he’s got a track record that, you know, NOBODY’s going to, like, second-guess. Um, I think this is going to be a much more successful second act in public life.
    GUYON ESPINER: All right. Thank you for that. That’s Ben Thomas and Tau Henare.

    • Wayne 10.1
      9 December 2016 at 12:37 pm

      I note that various commenters on The Standard put up transcripts like this usually to try and show that everyone in the interview is a mentally challenged idiot.

      But having full transcripts with every little thing; “eh”, “now-w-w-w” having the same emphasis as the substantive points is completely misleading.

      When we listen to the radio we tune those things out unless they are so distracting as to completely disrupt the interview.

      It might seem like a cute trick to do this, but in my view is quite stupid. For instance if you do it with Trump you would completely miss why he gets his message across.

      • Rosemary McDonald 10.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 12:46 pm

        “….unless they are so distracting as to completely disrupt the interview.”

        Exactly.

        Thanks for pointing out the obvious Wayne.

      • Tricledrown 10.1.2
        9 December 2016 at 1:17 pm

        Wayne you point out that people don’t listen to the oohs and ums.
        Your right but then they turn off when the points are made.
        Poor articulation in the modern media
        Is more important than ever.
        Key was articulate English is far from that .
        English sounds as if he has verbal constipation.
        Ah ooh a ummmmmm.

      • weka 10.1.3
        9 December 2016 at 2:21 pm

        “I note that various commenters on The Standard put up transcripts like this usually to try and show that everyone in the interview is a mentally challenged idiot.”

        Morrissey is pretty much the only person on ts that does this. He gets criticised for his transcripts regularly.

        • Paul 10.1.3.1
          9 December 2016 at 4:19 pm

          I admire his transcripts.

        • Morrissey 10.1.3.2
          9 December 2016 at 6:32 pm

          So what aspect of this transcript would YOU criticize, weka?

          • weka 10.1.3.2.1
            9 December 2016 at 7:51 pm

            I don’t read your transcripts any more Morrissey.

            • Morrissey 10.1.3.2.1.1
              10 December 2016 at 10:56 am

              I don’t believe you.

              • weka …
                10 December 2016 at 11:00 am

                you think I am lying?

                • Morrissey …
                  10 December 2016 at 11:08 am

                  How can you comment on my transcripts if you don’t read them? That’s a standard of seriousness I would have attributed to the likes of Mike Hosking or Leighton Smith, not to someone working for a reputable outlet like The Standard.

                  • weka …
                    10 December 2016 at 11:14 am

                    I’m not commenting on your transcripts in terms of content (and I haven’t read the current one which is what you asked me about). I just pointed out that you are pretty much the only person that does such transcripts here (because Wayne was implying that it’s common), and that you have been criticised for them fairly often. Are either of those things untrue?

                    • Morrissey …
                      10 December 2016 at 11:27 am

                      So they get criticised. Wayne, for instance, has written a fair and thoughtful response to my transcript of David Brent Henare’s performance the other day. I’m fine with that, just as I’m fine with the (far more numerous) people who praise my work.

                    • weka …
                      10 December 2016 at 12:54 pm

                      so what’s the problem then?

      • Morrissey 10.1.4
        9 December 2016 at 4:15 pm

        You were his colleague, so of course you’re going to defend him. Good on you for your stubborn loyalty, Dr Mapp.

        But of course, you are well aware that a politician’s eloquence, or in this case lack of eloquence, is crucial to his or her credibility.

        Should we clean up and airbrush the dimwitted umm-ing and ahhh-ing of second-rate broadcasters like Larry Williams and Leighton Smith, and of second-rate politicians like Hekia Parata and Tau Henare? Of course not.

      • Red Hand 10.1.5
        9 December 2016 at 7:05 pm

        On the other hand, by including interjections these carefully written transcripts add emotional expression, enriching the text and making the reading more pleasurable and informative. Thanks Morrissey.

      • Sacha 10.1.6
        9 December 2016 at 7:09 pm

        Most of us are too busy to do what Mr Breen does. Which is a good thing.

    • marty mars 10.2
      9 December 2016 at 1:08 pm

      “GUYON ESPINER: Ha ha ha ha ha!
      BEN THOMAS: Ha ha ha ha ha!
      TAU HENARE: Hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk!:”

      dirty – why didn’t Tau get ha ha’s – was he speaking te reo Māori? Is your bias showing? Why have you doctored the transcript? What are you trying to hide? Why didn’t you mention the Obama years? Why are you selling out? What other things are you not telling us? Why don’t you read more? Why didn’t you abuse Kim Hill like you did last week for not mentioning Obama – JUST AS YOU didn’t mention him? Why are you not apologising for misleading people? Who do you work for? Why have you not answered yet?

      • ropata 10.2.1
        9 December 2016 at 1:26 pm

        UF party mole sent here to monitor and report back to his bouffant overlord

      • Siobhan 10.2.2
        9 December 2016 at 4:47 pm

        Ben Thomas gets in a few “Hyuh”s throughout the transcript.
        Maybe its the only te reo Māori he knows.

      • Morrissey 10.2.3
        9 December 2016 at 6:41 pm

        why didn’t Tau get ha ha’s – was he speaking te reo Māori?

        That’s his way of laughing. He also laughs like that when he scoffs at cleaning women after he’s reduced them to tears.

        Is your bias showing?

        My bias is against nasty, shallow, vacuous politicians like Tau Henare. But, just like the dead, he is entitled to fair and truthful treatment—which he got here. I made nothing up. Nothing. The vacuity, the idiocy, and the pathetic self-aggrandizement—“I could’ve been SPEAKER!”—is all Henare’s.

        Why have you doctored the transcript?

        I haven’t. It’s a precise transcript.

        The rest of your angry little rant defies analysis, unfortunately.

        • Wayne 10.2.3.1
          9 December 2016 at 7:01 pm

          Morrissey,

          Well, the transcript might be literally correct, but in practise, it is wrong.

          As I noted before very few of us actually listen to anyone in that manner (although perhaps you do). Otherwise most of us would barely make sense in interviews and conversations.

          It is only if the “umms” and “ahhs”, or the partially completed sentences become distracting that we actually notice them.

          I made a real effort to speak in complete and short sentences during interviews, but when I read the actual transcripts at best I only did it about 70% of the time.

          People take much more notice of energy, variation, tone and sincerity than grammar.

          • Morrissey 10.2.3.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 8:17 pm

            People take much more notice of energy, variation, tone and sincerity than grammar.

            Quite true. Even great thinkers and speakers like Noam Chomsky will say “uh” occasionally.

            You were and are a good speaker, Mr Mapp. It’s clear you did think before you spoke, and your verbal fillers, when you did lapse into them, were not significant.

            I have emphasized the “umms” and “ahhs” of certain broadcasters and politicians precisely because, as you point out, their verbal infelicity does indeed distract and sometimes even becomes the substance of whatever they’re trying to say.

            Filling up every potential silence with “ummm” and “ahhh” is not merely a symptom of verbal clumsiness and/or unpreparedness, it’s a way of dominating an interlocutor, and not allowing him/her to speak through that wall of noise. If you want to hear the most grievous user of “ummmmm” and “errrrrr, ahhhhhhhh, ummmmmm”, I advise you to listen to NewstalkZB on a weekday between 8:30 a.m. and noon for a few minutes.

            There’s another verbal device often used by New Zealand politicians: repeating the phrase “y’know” throughout one’s speech—as Ben Thomas does in the above transcript. Helen Clark is one of the worst and most persistent offenders here, although she shortens it to “Y’ow”, often accompanied by a snicker.

        • marty mars 10.2.3.2
          9 December 2016 at 7:12 pm

          Why didn’t you mention Obama? Dropped ball, went forward, take it back at the mark.

          • Morrissey 10.2.3.2.1
            9 December 2016 at 8:18 pm

            Suddenly we’re playing football? Suits me.

            • marty mars 10.2.3.2.1.1
              9 December 2016 at 8:31 pm

              Why aren’t you denouncing Obama as you expect others to do from Kim hill to me.

              • Morrissey …
                9 December 2016 at 8:50 pm

                marty, my objection to your post the other day was that you had simply repeated a vile piece of propaganda, in which three official enemies—Pol Pot, Stalin and Putin—were classed as the bad guys, and Obama was classed along with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi. That’s ludicrous, and offensive to anyone who cares about truthfulness and decency.

                I accept your word that you presumed it was so obvious that no further comment was needed; I’m sorry if you construed it as a personal attack. It wasn’t.

  11. Anne 11
    9 December 2016 at 10:27 am

    Simon Wilson has been producing some good stuff over the past week or so. Here’s another one:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/320005/have-we-just-been-played

    … winter is coming, at the exact same time we start the build-up to the election. There was widespread dismay this winter at the discovery of so many families living in cars. As we head into the cold months next year will that happen again? The underlying causes have not remotely been addressed and it’s not clear yet that emergency help will be geared up well enough either.

    Any more TV coverage of kids trying to do their homework, huddling in the cold under dim torchlight in the backs of parked-up vehicles, and Bill English can kiss goodbye to his hopes of winning the election right then and there.

  12. gsays 12
    9 December 2016 at 10:36 am

    i am saddened to hear on rnz news about a victim of the violence of the state, being further disadvantaged.

    he received $20,000 compensation from the state.
    this was for harm done while in the ‘care’ of the state.
    he has been told by winz that next year, any money left will cause a reduction in benefits such as accomadation supplement.

    he wished to put the money in a trust for his child/children, but can not do so.

    i hear paul’s words ringing in my ear, a cruel and heartless country we are becoming.

    • framu 12.1
      9 December 2016 at 11:36 am

      “he wished to put the money in a trust for his child/children, but can not do so.”

      that had me scratching my head a bit – if you put money in a trust doesnt it cease to be yours?

      ie: if you give your kids 20k via a trust it now belongs to your kids not you

      maybe theres something ive missed there

      • Rosemary McDonald 12.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 11:46 am

        https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/documents/forms/supported-living-payment-application.pdf

        page 21, Section 68

        right down the bottom of the list.

        • framu 12.1.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 11:58 am

          yes – but if its for his kids hes not getting income from the trust

          not disputing the crapiness of it all – just the bit about trusts didnt seem to make sense if the $$ goes to his kids

          • Siobhan 12.1.1.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 5:00 pm

            Its like the Departments statement that beneficiaries should get ‘independent financial advice’. Yeah right.

            The whole point of being a beneficiary, especially one who has had a life of trauma and disadvantage, is that you are probably unable to understand how to get advice, or how to make canny financial decisions.

            The second you get a formal letter from a lawyer (as this chap did), you are probably going to totally freak out and spend the money ASAP.

            The Government knows these people are vulnerable. They have whole files and history on each and every one of them.
            As voters and tax payers we entrust Government departments to help these people.
            We have been, yet again, let down.

    • Rosemary McDonald 12.2
      9 December 2016 at 11:43 am

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/319979/law-gives-abuse-victims-'incentive'-to-blow-compo-money

      You beat me to it gsays…

      I heard of another compensation payment to someone for wages they had not been paid (by a government department). When the check was about to be handed over, they were told they would have to pay IRD the penalty on the tax they had not been paid on the wages they had not been paid, illegally.

      Arseholes.

      • gsays 12.2.1
        9 December 2016 at 12:39 pm

        cheers for the link, rosemary.

        the late tax penalty, from denied wages, is unbelievable, and yet not surprising.

        it would be foolish to assume, that the much needed culture change within winz, ird etc, would occur immediately after a new government wins office.

  13. Paul 13
    9 December 2016 at 11:11 am

    Half the world’s species failing to cope with global warming as Earth races towards its sixth mass extinction.

    A leading evolutionary biologist, Professor John Wiens, found that 47 per cent of nearly 1,000 species had suffered local extinctions linked to climate change with populations absent from areas where they had been found before.

    Professor Wiens, who is editor of the Quarterly Review of Biology and a winner of the American Society of Naturalists’ Presidential Award, said the implications for the future were serious because his review showed plants and animals were struggling to deal with the relatively small amount of global warming experienced to date.

    So far the world has warmed by about 1C above pre-industrial levels, but it is expected to hit between 2.6 and 4.8C by 2100 if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gases.

    In his study, published in the journal PLOS Biology, the scientist examined academic papers about 976 different species from all over the world that had been studied at least twice, once about 50 years ago and again within the last 10 years.

    “In almost half the species looked at, there have been local extinctions already,” he said.

    “This is stuff that’s already happened with just a small change to the climate. We’re looking at a two to five-fold increase [in warming over the next century].

    “What it shows is species cannot change fast enough to keep up with a small change in climate. That’s the big implication – even a small change in temperature and they cannot handle it.”

    The study looked at 716 different kinds of animals and 260 plants from Asia, Europe, North and South America, and elsewhere.

    Local extinctions were found to have occurred among 47.1 per cent of species at the “warm edge” of their traditional range, as it became too hot for them. There were few areas of the planet that were unaffected.

    “Overall, the frequency of local extinctions was similar across most climatic zones, habitats, gradients and clade,” the PLOS Biology paper said.

    However Professor Wiens found climate-related local extinctions were “substantially higher” among freshwater species at 74 per cent of the 31 studied.

    The current rate of global extinction of animals and plants is believed to be faster than some of the five great extinction events in the Earth’s history, but so far the total number lost does not compare to the species lost when the dinosaurs were wiped out about 65 million years ago.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-mass-extinctions-species-study-donald-trump-kill-himself-joke-a7464391.html

    This supports the argument we heard from another scientist who has just visited New Zealand.

    Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world’s sixth mass extinction.

    • marty mars 13.1
      9 December 2016 at 12:04 pm

      do you think all humans will be dead in 10 years? – if no why put this bullshit up, if yes why put this bullshit up – genuine question because I am totally sick of the airtime doomer guy gets. Failed at academia and failed at dooming – gets pissed off because he isn’t put into guru status. Egowanker imo.

      • Psycho Milt 13.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 1:08 pm

        Fuck yes. “…if no why put this bullshit up, if yes why put this bullshit up…” – couldn’t have put it better myself.

        • Paul 13.1.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 4:02 pm

          And your view of Professor John Wiens’s research?
          ‘The current rate of global extinction of animals and plants is believed to be faster than some of the five great extinction events in the Earth’s history.’

      • weka 13.1.2
        9 December 2016 at 2:23 pm

        +2 marty. Plus, McPherson is now as bad for the planet as the deniers. He’s given up and thinks the rest of us should too. That’s dangerous.

        • Paul 13.1.2.1
          9 December 2016 at 4:02 pm

          And your view of Professor John Wiens’s research?

          Nearly half the species on the planet are failing to cope with global warming the world has already experienced, according to an alarming new study that suggests the sixth mass extinction of animal life in the Earth’s history could take place in as little as 50 years.

          • Andre 13.1.2.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 4:34 pm

            While biology isn’t my strong point, I find Wiens plausible. Not least because many other credible researchers are also saying similar things.

            McPherson on the other hand has made an extraordinary claim, contrary to the consensus of experts, without producing extraordinary evidence.

            Being an engineer, I’m on firmer ground when it comes to physics. The idea of the earth heating beyond human habitability within 10 years is utterly implausible. First, the oceans are a massive heat sink, which slows the heating way down. Second, the heat radiated back to space increases as the fourth power of temperature, That’s a massive increase in re-radiation for a small increase in temperature, which also slows temperature rises.

            So while the climate change situation is dire, McPherson’s claim of 10 years is just plain nuts. At least until he presents good evidence and a good argument. But until he presents that evidence and argument, that 10 years claim is so kooky that it really trashes his credibility for any topic.

            • Paul 13.1.2.1.1.1
              9 December 2016 at 4:36 pm

              Have you heard him?
              He does present a lot of evidence in this talk.

            • Paul 13.1.2.1.1.2
              9 December 2016 at 4:37 pm

              You should also read ‘A Farewell to Ice’ by Peter Wadhams.
              Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice.
              Do you dispute his conclusions?

              https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

              • Andre …
                9 December 2016 at 5:05 pm

                I’m really not interested in sitting through over an hour of that kind of stuff. If you’ve got links to anything written and published, preferably peer-reviewed, then I’ll be more interested. But so far McPherson strikes me as more of an end-of-career academic that’s gone off the rails and has discovered the joy of YouTube to attract an uncritical audience (and revenue).

                Wadhams doesn’t claim end of humanity in ten years, he claims serious permafrost melt and methane release in twenty years, together with loss of Arctic ice and consequent extra heating from albedo effects. Which is dire and plausible, and almost certainly unavoidable by now. But that’s a long way short of extinction of humanity in ten years, and its even a long way short of extinction of humanity within the next century or millenium. I suspect if you asked Wadhams his opinion of McPherson’s claim of extinction in ten years, it would likely be scathing.

                • Paul …
                  9 December 2016 at 5:08 pm

                  This is shorter.
                  https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/introduction.

                  I’m not saying I agree with McPherson. However, Iike Rachel Stewart, I am open to listening to his ideas.
                  However, there are increasing numbers of scientists speaking up and talking about abrupt climate change.

                  • Andre …
                    9 December 2016 at 5:40 pm

                    Thanks. That’s an impressive collection of alarmist quotes (that have a definite whiff of being cherry-picked). The quotes paint a picture that is dire, and fairly so. But unless I missed it in my skim-read, there’s nothing in there that even vaguely supports an assertion of human extinction within 10 years. Or even human extinction within a century, although it does support an assertion of widespread and rapidly increasing climate-change-induced human and eco-system suffering and early death starting from at least a decade ago.

                    But then when there’s passages like this “Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does.” in what’s pitched as a serious overview of the science, it really trashes the credibility of the piece and the author.

          • weka 13.1.2.1.2
            9 December 2016 at 7:57 pm

            Not sure what your point is Paul. You should know by now that I think CC is the most urgent issue we face by a long shot, and that we are in serious danger of collapsing major ecosystems on the planet (including by species extinction). My objection to McPherson is that he claims his opinion is the Truth, and proselytises from that. So he doesn’t say that he thinks we are in danger of going extinct, he says we are going extinct and there is nothing we can do about it. He has no way of knowing that yet he speaks as if he does.

            As I said, that shit is dangerous, because it will stop some people from changing. If McPherson is right, that’s bad because it’s throwing away the last chances to mitigate for the planet. And if he’s wrong, it’s bad because it’s throwing away the last chances to mitigate for the planet.

      • Naki man 13.1.3
        9 December 2016 at 3:10 pm

        I am sure Paul gets a stiffy spaming the blog with his doomsday shit.

        • Paul 13.1.3.1
          9 December 2016 at 4:11 pm

          Yes’ let’s just keep the dialogue on this site at the infantile level you like it to be.
          By the way, my post mainly referred to the scientific research of Professor John Wien.
          You dispute it.
          On what basis?

          You should read ‘A Farewell to Ice’ by Peter Wadhams.
          Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on sea ice.
          Do you dispute his conclusions?

          https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/21/farewell-to-ice-peter-wadhams-review-climate-change

      • Paul 13.1.4
        9 December 2016 at 4:01 pm

        And your view of Professor John Wiens’s research?

        Professor Wiens said: “It’s true that in terms of global extinction of entire species that have already happened, I think we’re not there [at the sixth mass extinction] yet.

        “But I think unfortunately we are on track for that to happen.

        • garibaldi 13.1.4.1
          9 December 2016 at 5:37 pm

          We are in unchartered territory with CC now and extrapolation of all the possibilities give varying results of how we are going to go. The sad fact is it points to worst case about 10 years. With all other factors. eg Human stupidity, water wars, nuclear wars etc then who knows? Time to change our ways? Or carry on with free market Capitalism?

  14. alwyn 14
    9 December 2016 at 11:47 am

    I was really fascinated by one item that seemed to be on every Morning Report news summary this morning. This was the statement the Bill English was under pressure to call an early General Election in order to save the tax-payer money.
    At first I was in awe of the professional sangfroid of the newsreaders who managed to get through this risible story without bursting into giggles at Little’s stupidity.
    Then I began to worry that after so many years in the hard-left fetid depths of the RNZ news organisation they might actually believe that Andrew had something to his argument.

    If the Labour Party have any principles, and a genuine wish to avoid unnecessary costs to the taxpayer they should be coming out with a statement like this
    “This by-election is caused by one of our members who has forgotten his obligations to New Zealand in order to chase a job he prefers. We take responsibility for his actions and do not think they should cost the taxpayer anything. We are therefore going to pay all the costs incurred by the taxpayer in this matter. We will be making a down payment of $1,000,000 toward this on the day he resigns”.

    On the other hand if they think that all by-election costs are a weight on the taxpayer Andrew should also announce
    “If we ever become the Government we will amend the electoral act in order that the resignation of any MP representing an electorate shall automatically trigger a General Election within six months.”

    Better to have $50 million spent on each of frequent General Elections than $1 million on the occasional by-election I suppose is his view.

    I seldom agree with Winston Peters but his comment about Mt Roskill seems appropriate to that electorate and to this one.

    “The Mt Roskill by-election was brought about by the electorate MP deciding to pursue a new job.
    He cut the cord with his electorate, despite having promised to serve them for the full three-year term, and triggered the by-election. The MP’s pursuit of personal glory will cost the taxpayer well over a million dollars.”
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11744327

    • Tricledrown 14.1
      9 December 2016 at 1:23 pm

      So how did Winnie get to become MP for Northland.

      • alwyn 14.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 2:48 pm

        You would hardly argue that the person who resigned in Northland had found a new job that he liked better I hope?

        • s y d 14.1.1.1
          9 December 2016 at 4:10 pm

          GM of a luxury resort or backbench Nat MP? You’d have to ask ‘the person who resigned in Northland’ which they liked better. Although I get your point that they didn’t resign for that reason, but then again, I don’t recall the leader of the National Party stating “This by-election is caused by one of our members who has forgotten his obligations to New Zealand in order to defend child abuse allegations in the courts”

          • alwyn 14.1.1.1.1
            9 December 2016 at 6:37 pm

            Is that what he is doing now. It sounds like a better job, doesn’t it?
            Was he found guilty of anything? If he is running a resort now it sounds as if he must have been not guilty of any charges laid.

            There are a few things to remember of course.
            1) National must have pushed him to quit.
            2) They didn’t grumble that there shouldn’t be a General Election rather than a by-election because their party is broke.
            3) Wasn’t there a heavy dose of name suppression in place. They would have been breaking the law to make any such statement, wouldn’t they?

            I never really followed this, once he was out of Parliament. Leave anything more up to the Courts.

            As a general rule there is only one position where the incumbent should be allowed to quit even though they accepted the job for three years and are still in good health.
            That is a PM who has been beaten in an election. Very few do it of course.
            Clark went but Shipley, Moore and Muldoon hung on.
            Anyone whose health gives out is of course perfectly entitled to go.

  15. marty mars 15
    9 December 2016 at 11:58 am

    thought provoking short animation of how we got to 7 billion

    “It took 200,000 years for our human population to reach 1 billion—and only 200 years to reach 7 billion.”

    https://youtu.be/PUwmA3Q0_OE

  16. Pat 16
    9 December 2016 at 1:09 pm

    National will lose the next election with Bling as front man……how do I know this?….my politically disinterested but voting wife has said she could never vote for him (a number of reasons given which may or may not be accurate/valid)….you may scoff at this unscientific method, but be warned her record is impressive.

  17. Tricledrown 17
    9 December 2016 at 1:28 pm

    Pat no government has lost an election while the economy is in going along so well.
    The only way Labour Greens will this election is if the economy tanks very unlikely.
    Or if all the activist’s get out door knock help register existing non voters and help them to the polling booths.

    • Pat 17.1
      9 December 2016 at 5:04 pm

      Tricledrown I have learned from long experience that logic and reasoning seldom outperform her (often baseless, misapplied observations)…..perhaps her views are typical of that large segment of the voting public who take little interest in politics in-between elections …..time will tell.

      • garibaldi 17.1.1
        9 December 2016 at 5:44 pm

        The thing is the economy is only going well because of immigration and that is having powerful social consequences, which will come to haunt this govt more and more in housing, infrastructure and ‘corruption’ in the job/education market.

    • KJT 17.2
      10 December 2016 at 1:14 pm

      “Economy is going so well”.

      Thanks for that. I needed a laugh this morning.

  18. The Chairman 18
    9 December 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Green Party policy offers green light to pot smokers, which Labour mostly supports
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87388713/legal-cannabis-in-nz-green-party-offers-green-light-to-pot-smokers

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      9 December 2016 at 2:42 pm

      “It’s pretty obvious that we need to modernise our drug laws to keep up with the rest of the world.”

      No, we don’t do it because we want to be the same as the rest of the world. We do it because it’s the right thing to do.

  19. marty mars 19
    9 December 2016 at 2:24 pm

    trigger alert – for milk drinkers

    https://youtu.be/nDaxt8hmMJU

  20. marty mars 20
    9 December 2016 at 2:59 pm

    can’t get this out of my brain – Donovan – first, first name only needed?

    https://youtu.be/Nm3yKy1hL1M

    must be the season of the witch…

  21. The PInk Postman 21
    9 December 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Collins is certainly looking very sour sitting in Parliament/.
    My advice to

  22. The PInk Postman 22
    9 December 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Collins looses very sour in Parliament.My advice to English is watch your back.

  23. The PInk Postman 23
    9 December 2016 at 6:01 pm

    Collins looking very sour in Parliament.My advice to English watch your back.