- Date published:
6:00 am, March 10th, 2023 - 52 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 …
According to Chris Luxon, forestry is the only business sector that has made profits while imposing massive costs, in the form of environmental damage, on the community.
He really does need to get out more. A significant proportion of those in the dairy industry have operated that way for decades.
and lets not forget the airline industry and its emmissions, an industry Luxon keeps telling us he was a ceo in – what emmissions reductions did he achieve. Tourism is an extremely environmentally damaging industry on many levels.
Air New Zealand has been flirting with biofuels since about 2008. They seem to buy a bit of the stuff but it is still less than 1% of the fuel they use I believe.
It would be great for Labour to have any identifiable economic development policy at all, other than "recover", from whatever fate throws next.
I wonder if, after the Poll yesterday where ACT is currently a fair distance above 5% but the Green Party are flirting with the threshold, there will be a flip-flop in attitude by supporters on both the left and right of politics?
I suspect that 10 years ago ACT supporters would have tended to be in favour of the coat-tail rule and Green Party members would have leaned against it.
It's hardly strong evidence but in 2014 there was this comment here, quoting the Green Party on Facebook
"“Do you want to see political parties coat-tailing into Parliament? Neither do we.
We’ve been championing honest politics in New Zealand for years, that’s why we’ll implement all of the MMP review recommendations, including scrapping the coat-tailing rule.”
I suspect that today the Green enthusiasts, if they fear that they could dip below 5% may be coming to think that the coat-tail rule is a good one but the ACT fans may not care as much about it as they did.
Not all of them of course. Only the true pragmatists who believe the winning is the only thing that matters.
The Greens will get back in on about what they had last time.
The real ones to track are NZFirst who are on track for back.
It takes so little airtime for Winston to translate into poll share, whereas Shaw gets plenty of airtime and finds it very hard to improve his poll share.
The pressure is all on the Greens now.
lol 2014, and an unlinked comment from marty, so we can't see the full context. Scraping the bottom of the barrel there alwyn.
I don't feel guilty in any way for the fact that it was unlinked. That will have to be on Marty's conscience. I am certainly not going to try and expand it as that would require signing up with Facebook. That, like joining a Political Party, is something that I am never going to do. There is no spoon long enough to get me to sup with such groups.
It was just an illustration of the view. There were probably comments at the time from ACT enthusiasts about what a great idea it was to have coat-tailing. I am curious to see whether the views alter.
fortunately we have this thing called the internet. I'm sure if you put some effort in you can find the GP position on coat tailing, then and more recently. My guess is that the GP position in 2014 included lowering the threshold.
I'm not too sure that would be acceptable as a reply to someone on this site if I were to quote an unreferenced statement about something silly a Labour MP perhaps might have said.
Do you think that a request to me by a Moderator for a link can be answered by the response "Look it up yourself"?
[one month ban for trolling (twice the last ban). Next time, put up a proper reference, at the start, for your argument. Also know that we are handing out long bans until well after the election to keep the space clear for robust debate as the election period progresses – weka]
?????????????? Oh dear!
[Long time not seen, Jimmy.
Since you never complied with your Mod note (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-02-2023/#comment-1935070) I assume you’re taking the one-year ban. It’s fine with me – Incognito]
Actually I couldn't stay here due to flooding and we were all sent home. Home computer doesn't log me in. I provided a couple of examples and the commenters names but as to why they were banned best to ask the moderator. Another one bites the dust.
[I’m sorry to hear that you were flooded (at work?).
I have given you more than enough opportunity to provide a simple explanation rather than twisting facts and rewriting TS moderation history. You didn’t even make an attempt, which would have incurred you only a one-week ban for wasting Moderator time. It shows that you are lazy, disingenuous, and that your comments cannot be taken in good faith. This confirms your pattern behaviour of commenting here.
Take a year away from this forum – Incognito]
Off topic, but does anyone know how @martymars is doing healthwise?
(Haven't noticed him posting for a while now)
Looks like marty mars' last comment was over three years ago (17 November 2019) – maybe the 'tone' of TS moderation wasn't to his liking?
I (still) like the way weka sometimes moderates re bans, i.e. short bans at first, getting progressively longer if a commenter can't take a hint.
a moderation practice that's been used by a number of mods here over the years 👍
I also prefer to give warnings, but with regulars who've been modded a lot in the past, I don't feel the need to waste my time now.
I've been thinking about marty lately too. I didn't know he had health issues, my memory was he left TS because he was sick of aspects of the commentariat. But it has been a number of years.
This is an old tune, played before every election since 1999. Very tedious, and always wrong.
This is the 9th election for the Greens under MMP (in 1996 they were part of the Alliance). In all 8 previous elections, they have been above the 5% threshold … despite the wishful thinking on the Right masquerading as "analysis".
Whereas ACT, for 15 years (2005-2020) was entirely dependent on the National party for its existence.
(There is a separate and reasonable debate to have about coat-tails and thresholds, but it sure as hell isn't about saving the Greens. The voters save them, every time).
PS The most recent MMP review actually recommended lowering the threshold as a trade-off on the coat-tail rule. That fact must have slipped Alwyn's mind … as it simply destroys his argument.
If the argument was made by party supporters for a party that was hovering near the 5% figure but looked quite safe with a 3% threshold it would actually support, rather than destroy, my hypothesis.
You don't supply a link. Who was it that wanted to lower the cutoff? Was it by any chance a party then polling near to 5%?
It was the independent review. This was very widely covered in the media at the time, so any "link" would take one second to Google.
Parties naturally make a case for their own interests. Facts don't change though: the Greens have always been above 5%.
The last review was over 10 years ago! Natzos/ACT/NZ1 did not want to go there in terms of revising the threshold from 5% to 4% as recommended by the Electoral Commission.
when polls are taken over such a small number of people(less than 1/4 of a percent of the population) ,the diff between act and greens is very very small. historically act is only above 5% when the nats are close to going under. majority of act voters arent committed to act, but will jump back to nat, very flakey base, no surprises there. greens have a far more stable and committed base, AND ,all parties are spruiking their green credentials(real,or imagined). hah!
Accidentally I watched Kerre Woodham interview our PM Chris Hipkins. Kerre tried really hard to "gotcha" Chris but to my eyes he was brilliant. Answered concisely and credibly. Kerre seemed a bit exasperated by the end as he was so hugely different from the shambles by Luxon.
Starts after 4 minutes.
Woodham is incredibly thick – perfect for talkback radio – so no surprises there.
yes, for yrs she traded on her looks, not talent. like duplicious-alien and hawksby, the cupboard is bare.
I'm beginning to like Hipkins despite all my instincts against it.
Fronts up with a lei and a dance at Polyfest. Likeable for a reptile.
He scores highly on self-awareness, even self-deprecation. It's painful to watch politicians who don't have it (Luxon is the latest example, and one of the worst, trying to be relatable and failing dismally).
Hipkins is not an Ardern and won't get mobbed by fans, but he knows it, and doesn't project that "Office boss trying way too hard to be cool" vibe.
The smart concise answers from the PM were great especially for a politician. Think back to Luxon's ability to confuse the issue, contradict himself then have to explain what he really meant.
Which of those two would make a good PM? Mmmmmmm…
(Actually one would hope that Luxon stays on as the LOTO.)
properly cool people dont have to try. kief, jack etc.its painful/funny to watch tryhards try to get down .seymour KNOWS he;s a dork, and doesnt hide it. luxon is so fake , even he doesnt know the man in the mirror.
Hipkins was excellent here. Woodham's job is easy: Gish Gallop, that's all. Hipkins quashed/squashed each "point" Woodham floated.
"The pair eventually separated, but Rajesh continued to live in a room in the house."
This isn't the test for whether the marital bond has severed. If the relationship has ended, as it seems MSD and the court has accepted, continuing to live under the same roof does not mean that two people remain "married" for benefit purposes.
If this is the factual situation MSD believes has given rise to the offending, then the decision is wrong. Two people whose relationship has ended cannot be regarded as still together just because they live under the same roof. But MSD do this all the time.
Business as usual down at MSD, wrongly criminalising receipt of a benefit, setting people up for a lifetime of debt they'll never repay.
I suggest you don't rely on a Stuff article for the facts in any legal case. They and many other media do not understand the law, and often compound their ignorance by not even trying to. Read the court documents before making a decision on what was decided and why, and what legal test was used by the court.
That's a test that's almost impossible to achieve.
The legal documents (court records) are not easily available, and may, indeed, be sealed.
Unless you know of some simple and transparent way to access this information….which has passed me by.
Perhaps you could link to the legal information which is available in this case.
I'm happy for you to do your own homework.
A clear admission that there is no easy access to this information.
Therefore your recommendation was entirely pointless.
Don't be childish. I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that relying on media to provide accurate advice on court cases/legal decisions was unwise, and that if they want to understand what was decided and why they should read the relevant court documents. I did not volunteer to search for them.
It's entirely childish to claim that people have routine access to court documents.
You might want to read and consider the process that you’re required to go through to apply to have the information (no guarantee you’ll get it) – and certainly not in a timely fashion.
It's good to see you have learnt how to find the information you might want. It wasn't that hard was it.
Repeating for the apparently hard of understanding.
There is *no* online access to these routine court documents available to the ordinary public.
If you want to claim that there is – you need to provide some evidence.
The link (which you don't seem to have even opened, let alone read) was to the explanation of how you can (attempt) to access this information. Note, there is no guarantee that the court will approve your access, and certainly no guarantee that the information will be provided in a timely manner.
Turning this around. Since you don't have the court documents, either – you have no way of knowing that the media haven't reported it accurately.
Hoist by your own petard.
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments has decisions by the High Court (since 2003), Court of Appeal (since 2005) and the Supreme Court (all). Decisions are published quickly – the most recent High Court decision is 3 March 2023.
District Court decisions are here: https://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/search/SearchForm
https://www.districtcourts.govt.nz/all-judgments/ministry-of-social-development-v-dodunski-2022-nzdc-9060/ is a decision from May 2022 that was published in January 2023, suggesting it could be some time before this one is published, but I think there's a reasonable chance it will be published eventually.
Just searched. No results under the name of the participants.
Unsurprising. The delay in the publication of judgements at the District Court level has been an ongoing issue in the court system. As you comment, delays of months are the rule, not the exception.
And, in any case, this would only provide access to the judgement – not to the "court documents" which is the high bar that Nordy apparently requires for informed comment.
Fair point, can't see any other supporting documents being uploaded/provided, just the judgments themselves.
If I read this correctly, they deny being a couple from 2001/2003 through to 2017.
 Another incident was witnessed by Yogita Dhani, who is the wife of Rajesh Dhani. In her statement she recalls an incident which occurred on 25 April 2007. She and her husband had invited family members for dinner, including S and his family.
Usual caveat (it's Roy Morgan) but today's latest poll is in line with other recent polls … Hipkins gains, Luxon stalls:
It's worth scrolling down to see the breakdown by age and gender. Men 50+ (that's me!) are the most right-wing, and of course also the dominant voices in talkback, commentary and general angry cloud-shouting. That's why it's always a mistake to confuse the "media reckons" with real public opinion.
Fortunately they are outvoted by the rest of us.
Not much difference in the major parties to the Curia poll, which dropped yesterday.
But a big difference in the 'wasted vote' totals (5% rather than nearly 15%).
The headline seems to ignore that these figures would almost certainly result in a left-coalition government – with TPM either in coalition, or giving confidence and supply on the cross-benches (yes, of course there are different variations in support possible – just giving a broad outline, here).
And has NZF as well outside the 5% threshold.
Well this surprised me.
Government Confidence Rating of 109.5 for men 18 – 49.
Can understand older men having a confidence rating of 70, there's plenty of bitter and twisted old fukas out there, especially in the country, but a majority of younger men thinking the government was on the right track came as a surprise.
There might be hope yet.