Open mike 10/01/2013

104 comments on “Open mike 10/01/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kiki 1

   6 January 2013 at 10:10 pm

   Morrissey: “I Shall Return”

   [deleted]

   As the French would say, quelle hypocrisie. Certainly, I am not without fault, but surely we should all be worried that someone as crude and vicious as QOT is able to set herself up as some kind of moral arbiter.

   This message has been solicited and published by me as an act of support for my colleague and friend Morrissey.

   [lprent: Oh piss off. The policy is clear on self-martyrdom offences

   Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site – including telling us how to run our site or what we should write. This is viewed as self-evident stupidity, and should be added as a category to the Darwin Awards.

   Morrissey was acting like a complete arsehole. But he isn’t the only one who can do that.

   Oh and see that other nice self-martyrdom offence….

   Generally wasting a moderators time is just not a good idea. We’re there to deal with isolated problems. People persistently sucking up our voluntary time won’t like the results.

   Since you’re such a friend then please explain to him that you just got a two month ban and collected him another another month. I’m uninterested in people acting like complete fuckwits and wasting my time.

   Besides, after he e-mailed with some pathetic idea about what constitutes “defamation”, I had another look at the first comment he left for QoT on her post. Seeing it again just got me even more irritated with the pretentious dildo. ]
   • QoT 1.1

     10 January 2013 at 5:30 pm

     @lprent: Oh my sweet *headdesk*.
   • karol 1.2

     10 January 2013 at 5:36 pm

     As an aside: I’m just puzzled by the date on the above comment.
     • bad12 1.2.1

       10 January 2013 at 6:08 pm

       Ah it might be a warning to ALL, could have sworn when i looked this morning that the first 3 comments were from ‘Jenny’,

       Course if your in the ‘chair’ you probably get to move things about…
       • lprent 1.2.1.1

         10 January 2013 at 8:09 pm

         They sort on date/time.
     • felixviper 1.2.2

       10 January 2013 at 6:10 pm

       Our Mozza was always a bit behind…
     • lprent 1.2.3

       10 January 2013 at 8:04 pm

       Yeah odd. There have been some other database oddities…
       • Jenny 1.2.3.1

         10 January 2013 at 10:27 pm

         Maybe you could make it up to me by giving me a guest post.
         • lprent 1.2.3.1.1

           10 January 2013 at 10:43 pm

           🙂 I have been slack processing the e-mails. Been pretty busy looking at the server speeds and that dratted paid employment keeps interfering.

           I will set aside some time either in the morning on on the weekend.
           • Jenny 1.2.3.1.1.1

             10 January 2013 at 11:18 pm

             Ta for that Lynn. No pressure. I openly admit that some of my output might be no better than drafts. As always off the record critiques are appreciated.
2. Jenny 2

   10 January 2013 at 6:21 am

   The climate change refugees. Are on their way.

   Ask yourself.

   40 degree heat what’s that like?

   50 degree heat what’s that like?

   Uncomfortable?

   Unbearable?

   What’s it like for parents with small children?

   What’s it like for the elderly, the infirm, for those too poor to afford air conditioning?

   What’s it like for those who have to work in it?

   Sickening, dangerous, life threatening?

   Though we only produce 0.2% of the world’s CO2 emissions, New Zealand has a chance to make a major contribution to stopping global climate change.

   Sir Peter Gluckman the science adviser to the Prime Minister’s office has said that New Zealand’s greatest contribution to stopping climate change would be to set an example for the rest of the world to follow.

   Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal, and as such is one of the biggest contributors to global warming.

   It is very clear what example New Zealand should set.

   I call on the Green Party to immediately, and without delay, put a private member’s bill in the ballot, calling for a total ban on all coal exports.

   Will they do it? Will they heck! They might embarrass their Labour Party colleagues.

   But that is the point.

   If enough Labour MPs are sickened by what’s happening in Australia, and also sickened with voting alongside ACT and National to keep up this dirty and dangerous trade. Then they may be vulnerable to being lobbied to defy their party whips to vote for such a bill.

   Would this be significant?

   Yes. Because if they vote for it in opposition, they are then honour bound to vote for it in government.

   Famously. It was this sort of private members bill, put up by the opposition Labour Party that helped make New Zealand Nuclear Free.
   • Fortran 2.1

     10 January 2013 at 1:46 pm

     If India and China cannot buy coal from Australia they will simply go elsewhere. They may have to pay a slightly higher price for coal but will get their own pricing structure in time.
     And the Australian dream will falter faster than it is now.
     • Jenny 2.1.1

       10 January 2013 at 7:57 pm

       But at least there will be an Australia.
3. Jenny 3

   10 January 2013 at 6:24 am

   ‘

   If New Zealand, in a world first, banned all export (and import) trade in coal what global political effect would this have?

   Colonial Viper has asked me how could this make Australia give up coal exports as well.

   I have thought long and hard on this. Personally I agree with Professor Gluckman in thinking a positive example should be enough. But if it is not, then the carrot should also be accompanied with the stick.

   I would call on the Green Party to put up another private members bill. One that will start a firestorm of public debate, here and across the Tasman. Giving the issue of climate change the publicity and attention it needs.

   This bill will be the threat and the stick to accompany the carrot.

   No climate refugees will be accepted from Australia until they also give up coal exports.

   I call on the Green Party to immediately, and without delay, put a further private members bill in the ballot. This bill calling for parliament to rescind Australian citizens free right of entry into New Zealand.

   Too harsh?

   What do you think
   • marty mars 3.1

     10 January 2013 at 10:32 am

     I’ll jump in jenny firstly by saying that you are doing well highlighting the disaster here with the effects of climate change being felt now.

     This country since it was colonised has always accepted others from other countries for all sorts of reasons – some goodreasons, most bad and a few ugly. I’d probably put denying climate refugees entry here into the bad reason area simply because it is so unfair on those trying to protect their families and themselves. Maybe if individuals from companies, corporations and government both local and national that contributed to, or activelly worked against mitigating the disaster, were identifed and denied entry I’d be happier. Oh dear can’t see many getting through that net. might have to chuck a few back from here too 🙂

     the climate refugee area must be debated and IMO huddling down with outwardly pointing pointed sticks is not the answer
     • Jenny 3.1.1

       10 January 2013 at 9:43 pm

       the climate refugee area must be debated and IMO huddling down with outwardly pointing pointed sticks is not the answer

       marty mars

       I take your point marty, And I am quite happy to welcome climate change refugees from anywhere in the world. But why should the citizens of one of the countries most responsible for climate change have preferential treatment over all other immigrants? Free to come and go as they please, to work, or as visit as long as they like?

       No other immigrant group has these rights!

       I have suggested this course of action to goad Australian citizens to take action against climate change, (specifically against coal exports).

       I am of the opinion that being aware that their escape hatch is being closed off and that they might have to endure the same sort of humiliation and detention that they mete out so readily to refugees themselves, might sharpen their minds to the problem.
     • weka 3.1.2

       11 January 2013 at 12:05 am

       How are CC refugees defined? I have no problem taking in Pacific Islanders who’s land has been swamped. Well off Australians shifting here once they’ve bled their own land dry while living off the carbon gravy train, not so much. We already have wealthy immigrants and people buying land from overseas because they see the future and figure NZ is one of the better places to be in when the shit hits the fan. How many are we going to take in though?

       Most of us are culpable for CC.

       I agree Marty, the debate needs to happen.
       • Jenny 3.1.2.1

         11 January 2013 at 5:37 am

         Weka, only by us taking action will that debate happen. It is called leadership. We don’t need to define climate refugees. We just need to take away Australian’s special privileges to come here and to say why.
         • rosy 3.1.2.1.1

           11 January 2013 at 7:36 am

           “We just need to take away Australian’s special privileges to come here and to say why.”

           And why would that be, Jenny? Especially since Australia allows freedom of movement for New Zealanders and that suits us just fine at the moment. There is a time for returning the favour. Especially since many thousands of of climate change refugees are going to have rights of citizenship in New Zealand.
           • Jenny 3.1.2.1.1.1

             11 January 2013 at 5:18 pm

             And why would that be, Jenny? Especially since Australia allows freedom of movement for New Zealanders and that suits us just fine at the moment. There is a time for returning the favour.

             rosy

             There also is a time for returning the favour for recklessly destroying the biosphere for short term profits.

             Australians may be less willing to continue down this path knowing they may have to live and die with the results of their actions, with no chance of an easy escape to a cooler country.

             The sooner Australians stop the dirty coal export trade, the sooner their special immigration privileges may be returned.
             • rosy …

               11 January 2013 at 9:25 pm

               “Australians may be less willing to continue down this path”

               More like more willing to start a war (at least at the diplomatic level, at first).

               If New Zealand opted out of buying all those Chinese goods made with energy from Australia’s coal, you might have a point about isolating ourselves. But we buy those goods and sell China product from our flatulent cows. We totally buy into the system that produces them so as a fully incorporated, paid up member of the climate change club we have no right to dictate terms over the fall-out, only to negotiate them.

               I don’t see how New Zealand has a moral right to close of the legal right Australians have to live here, assuming the Aussie’s would want to. A little bit of arrogance creeping into your argument with the assumption that they would. Canada probably looks quite inviting from where they stand.

               And all that is aside from the ethical and moral duty to help your neighbour when in need.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 11 January 2013 at 10:02 pm

                 I don’t see how New Zealand has a moral right to close of the legal right Australians have to live here,

                 NZ might need to be gutsy and say, you can’t come over unless you have a confirmed job, or you have family here, or meet various strategic criteria.

                 We do what works for the people already here, which includes helping others, but we make sure that any sacrifices and compromises are very well signalled.
                 • rosy …

                   11 January 2013 at 11:00 pm

                   Yes, we do need to be gutsy.

                   Sacrifices, compromise and sharing are the only way through this. Not some power-crazed fantasy of punishing people by leaving them to figuratively stew. I’m not sure there are any political or historical precedents that prove such punishment is a long-term solution to resource allocation (in this instance water and climate), especially when the people you’re punishing are socially and culturally so close but much more powerful.

                   So if not because it’s the right thing to do, negotiate, compromise and share to avoid being taken over by the bigger, more powerful neighbour because it’s in our self(ish)-interests.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     11 January 2013 at 11:13 pm

                     You’ve got it. We last through this by tapping into those things which have worked for millenia.
                   • rosy …

                     11 January 2013 at 11:32 pm

                     🙂 Exactly
                   • Jenny …

                     12 January 2013 at 8:14 am

                     Using an advertising spoof unrelated to climate change to evoke the fantasy of a brutal military takeover and invasion of this country through use of overwhelming powerful Australian military might in response to New Zealand legislators tinkering with our immigration laws, weird.

                     rosie, don’t you think tapping into fear of the sort of last measure, desperate responses that climate change will engender in governments and states as a counter to my suggestion a little bit over the top?

                     Can’t you think up something better than this to justify your arguement for doing nothing?

                     Though I admit that the crisis is upon us now. I think we still have a long way to go, before Australian military strikes will greet any symbolic New Zealand legislation against climate refugees.

                     If and when, Australia becomes largely uninhabitable due to climate change, no amount of legislation will stop the wave of desperate refugees heading for these shores.

                     I am only suggesting this move as a wake up call to start the necessary (figurative) firestorm of nationwide and trans-Tasman debate that will create the political environment which will allow the implemenatation of the solutions needed, that (hopefully) will avert the need for militaristic solutions.

                     All I can say about your contribution to this debate, rosie, is at least you think that climate change is such a serious problem that at some time in the future it will engender brutal military conflicts. You may have grounds for thinking this. But I don’t think we are there yet. I want us to make sure that we never get there. I would hope rosy that you would join me and others in this effort.
                   • rosy …

                     12 January 2013 at 8:29 am

                     Jenny, I was simply taking your notion of using our legislative power to exclude to the next logical step for powerful refugees banging at New Zealand’s door. I’m sorry that you didn’t find a little humour illustrated this point. My mistake.

                     I thoroughly dislike your notion of denying Australian’s entry to NZ given our close ties and our own complicity in climate change and I see it as completely unfeasible because it’s a). morally wrong and b). they’re bigger than us 😉 (not just militarily, but also financially and diplomatically).

                     I’m sorry, but I have no wish to join any ‘solution’ that advocates people be excluded because of where they come from. We have truckloads of reasons to deny entry already without adding another completely discriminatory one to the list.
                   • Jenny …

                     12 January 2013 at 9:39 am

                     rosy, maybe you are right, compunction may not be the way to go. It was not my first choice anyway.

                     I was responding to critics and naysayers like Colonial Viper and weka who pooh, pooh any suggestion that New Zealand should set an example, or that it we did, it wouldn’t have any effect.

                     These two are both long standing apologists for BAU and I have butted heads with them many times over many threads.

                     I disagree strongly with their expressed opinions that we should do nothing, (or that nothing can be done).
                     In my considered opinion, if New Zealand did give a positive example of what could be done. Other countries, Australia in particular, would be put under considerable popular pressure to follow suit. (If Australia did this, then other countries would be under pressure to follow as well.)

                     There is some evidence coming out of Australia that may make this viewpoint more plausible to my critics.

                     “An uncomfortable time for Australians, especially climate-change sceptics”

                     Some climate experts are convinced the 2013 heatwave will prove a turning-point in how Australians respond to warnings about human-induced climate change. In a country that relies on fossil fuels for much of its well-being (coal is the second-biggest export and produces about four-fifths of electricity), climate-change sceptics have often swayed political debate.

                     When she visited areas devastated by fire in Tasmania, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, avoided blaming global warming directly. But she added that climate change would, over time, bring “more extreme weather events”. Aaron Coutts-Smith, of the Australian meteorology bureau, is less equivocal about the prospects. He says all six of the nation’s states over the past decade have had a “predominance” of new record temperatures.

                     The Economist “The Australian Heatwave”

                     I might mention here that the weakening of the monsoon, one of the factors that caused the build up of heat in central Australia, which created the heatwave, is one of the weather effects predicted by computer modeling of climate change. Climate change modeling predicts that if CO2 forcing continues, at some point the seasonal monsoon will in future years occasionally not make an appearance at all. This would be devastating for Australia, allowing tropical heatwaves to build up to unprecedented levels before sweeping south. This is what has happened in this case, with only just a “weakening of the monsoon“.
                     Apart from Australia, a complete failure of the monsoon would be devastating for the many south east Asian countries in the tropical regions which depend on the monsoon to sustain their agriculture. Resulting in drought and famine. If this failure was repeated over more than one growing season, we could be witness to one of the biggest famine disasters in human history. And which could see Australia becoming mostly uninhabitable.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 January 2013 at 9:54 am

                     I’m not an advocate of BAU, Jenny. I’m just noting that a righteous dictatorial approach will not work in our democracy.

                     Also, you fail to appreciate that politicians can only do what the electorate will allow them to do.

                     Jenny, you have a shocking tendency to talk down to people who challenge your positions and the realism of your strategies, instead of answering the serious concerns raised.

                     While you might get some window dressing, no government in the world is going to force upon their people steep cuts in energy use and consumer society activities until they are absolutely forced to.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 January 2013 at 10:04 am

                     Using an advertising spoof unrelated to climate change to evoke the fantasy of a brutal military takeover and invasion of this country through use of overwhelming powerful Australian military might in response to New Zealand legislators tinkering with our immigration laws, weird.

                     Jenny, it could happen quite quickly and smoothly eg. with political co-operation on both sides of the Tasman.

                     You need to look over what has happened previously during major famines and disasters in history. Resource wars, mass migrations and political/societal instability. Blurring of sovereignty.

                     One of my concerns with your approach Jenny is that you do not seem to have learnt any lessons from history (both contemporary and ancient).
                   • Jenny …

                     12 January 2013 at 10:06 am

                     It is in the above grim scenario, that your so called “joke” about a military takeover becomes something more, something much more serious.

                     Watch your clip again, rosy. Especially the second part. And think about the huge military investment and financial and sheer human cost involved in maintaining these forces over many years. And know in your vitals that these resources will not be sitting idle under such conditions.

                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenRILqwhJs

                     Still laughing?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 January 2013 at 10:13 am

                     I thought you said a military takeover was a “fantasy” Jenny. Seems like you changed your tune fast. Good to see you getting a dose of realism.
                   • rosy …

                     12 January 2013 at 10:26 pm

                     The best humour (and advertising) always contains an essential truth, Jenny and what you were advocating when I posted that comment would lead to the use of state power, from a much more powerful state, against us.

                     CV @9:54 + 10:04 that’s about the sum of it. Thanks.
         • weka 3.1.2.1.2

           11 January 2013 at 9:33 am

           “We don’t need to define climate refugees.”

           So Jenny, you think that rich people who want to live here because it’s getting too hot at home should be called refugees and treated as refugees alongside poor people who’ve lost their homes to rising sealevels created by the developed world? Where are we going to fit them all? And do you think by chance that the rich people will get preference over the poor people?
           • Jenny 3.1.2.1.2.1

             11 January 2013 at 6:21 pm

             What on earth are you talking about weka?

             I thought I made myself pretty clear.

             New Zealand is responsible for only 0.2% of green house gasses. Even if New Zealand magically cut our emissions to zero it would have negligible quantitive effect.

             Our greatest contribution in the fight against climate change will be symbolic.

             This is the considered opinion of New Zealand’s top science advisor to the government.

             The single most contributing factor to climate change identified by James Hansen is coal. According to Hansen, if we cannot stop coal then we are doomed to a global temperature increase in excess of 6 degrees .

             I would go even further and suggest that if we cannot even contemplate stopping this one easily stopped causative factor of climate change, then there is no chance of moving past this to other lesser causative factors.

             Banning all coal exports and imports is the one concrete and achievable symbolic action that New Zealand can do, that would threaten an axe to one of the root causes of climate change.

             If New Zealand put a ban on all coal exports and imports this would be a clarion call to all other countries, especially our greatest friend and nearest neighbor, Australia, to do the same.

             If the contemplation of this positive example is not thought to be enough, then I suggested this should be followed up by a private members bill calling for the removal of all special immigration status this country gives to Australian citizens.

             Especially since many thousands of of climate change refugees are going to have rights of citizenship in New Zealand.

             As for all expat Kiwis fleeing the heat. Australian citizens seeing their expat kiwi friends neighbors and workmates taking this option and knowing that this escape is denied to them because of their country’s leading role in causing climate change. May find that this concentrates the mind no end. Giving them even further incentive to question whether their country can continue digging up all the coal it possibly can.

             Of course this is all academic as not one of New Zealand’s three main political parties are contemplating taking any action at all against coal mining or use.

             The fact that you a Green Party supporter are aghast at me daring to raise the idea as a possible course of action speaks volumes. You are angry that I am puncturing the narrative that there is nothing that could be done about climate change. Which is basically a defeatist argument and an excuse for doing nothing.
   • jaymam 3.2

     10 January 2013 at 8:37 pm

     Here’s a new tactic by coalming protesters in Australia, and endorsed by several Green MPs.
     Do you think this is a good idea for NZ as well?

     “On Monday, anti-coal activist Jonathan Moylan issued a media release purportedly from the ANZ Bank withdrawing a $1.2 billion loan to Whitehaven Coal, which is developing a project in Maules Creek in the Gunnedah Basin.

     The hoax wiped $314 million from the value of Whitehaven Coal before the company and ANZ confirmed the hoax, although the share prices recovered after the ruse was revealed.”

     http://www.leadingcompany.com.au/strategy/anz-hoax-marks-new-age-of-climate-tactics/201301093398
     • Jenny 3.2.1

       10 January 2013 at 9:23 pm

       Thanks for this jayman.

       In answer to your question: Do I think this is a good idea for NZ as well? In my opinion, actions like this though amusing, not really that useful.

       Personally I don’t think much of this sort of individualist guerilla action. Coal will only be stopped by a mass democratic movement that shifts the whole political spectrum to the left. Similar to that that stopped nuclear ships or racist sports teams visiting New Zealand.
       • jaymam 3.2.1.1

         10 January 2013 at 9:45 pm

         Of course you are aware that my job entails burning coal, so if there’s no coal I lose my job!
         • Jenny 3.2.1.1.1

           10 January 2013 at 10:23 pm

           I have just the job for you. That will make full use of your special talents.

           This goes for all other coal miners.

           PS. How do you get your rebreather over that beard?
     • millsy 3.2.2

       10 January 2013 at 11:36 pm

       Green parties seem to have a habit of letting some idiot in a few minutes undo years of work by GP staffers..
     • weka 3.2.3

       10 January 2013 at 11:57 pm

       Jonathon Moylan is a brave person.

       “Although highly creative, the Whitehaven deception is not the first such action. In 2008, US environmental activist Tim DeChristopher attended an auction of oil and gas mining leases in Utah and outbid everyone else. When he could not pay the $1.8 million he was arrested and charged with defrauding the federal government. In July 2011 he was sentenced to two years in jail.

       The Utah land auction was eventually abandoned by the Interior Department and a federal judge ruled that the administration of the sale was improper. DeChristopher’s action had the desired effect.”

       “Recognising this new reality, perhaps Jonathan Moylan and Tim DeChristopher are pioneering a new phase of climate campaigning aimed at making it more difficult for coal and oil companies to do business. What might be dubbed “virtuous malfeasance” — hostile actions motivated by the public good aimed at damaging a company’s interests — may be a new form of civil disobedience practiced by a market-savvy generation of young activists.

       Often those who engage in civil disobedience are otherwise the most law-abiding citizens. They are those who have most regard for the social interest and the keenest understanding of the democratic process, including its failures.”

       Makes sense to me. While I agree that we also need mass action within the general population, it’s hard to argue against individuals willing to put their freedom on the line for such an urgent problem. Puts the rest of us to shame really, including you Jenny, who is unwilling to give up your western comfy lifestyle to mitigate CC, but who castigates the GP for making pragmatic choices that have real effect in the world.
       • Jenny 3.2.3.1

         12 January 2013 at 8:58 am

         Dodgy individualist actions are no alternative to building an open mass democratic political movement against climate change. Such individualist actions are easily countered, and are easily shrugged off by the fossil fuel industry backed by the state. The only final result from these individual actions will be more and harsher counter measures. The sort of measures we saw Solid Energy deploy against Happy Valley protestors.

         There are no short cuts. But it requires leadership. Unfortunately it is this necessary political leadership that is missing.

         Because of this missing leadership, no doubt we will get to see more of these brave individual type stunts which are often carried out at great personal cost, but which will all prove to be ultimately futile.

         Also handing the struggle against climate change over to a few “brave individuals” lets the Green Party and other political parties and movements off the hook.

         It is just another tired excuse by them for doing nothing themselves.
4. GeoffC 4

   10 January 2013 at 6:26 am

   Nice idea Jenny, can you balance the books.
   Value of coal to nZ, effects of the ban, employment replacement?
   Provide a neutral solution and you might get traction.
   From one climate change acceptor to another.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     10 January 2013 at 6:31 pm

     I think that Jenny’s suggestions are totally and completely unworkable, from a political and democratic perspective. In a previous comment she’s already said that thousands of coal mining related jobs need to be destroyed by lunch time. If the Greens do as she dictates, it’ll simply make martyrs of the Green Party at the polls.

     Once they have exited Parliament, where too next?

     Basically a 3-4 deg C temperature rise is already baked into the cake as far as I can see.

     To get any real traction, you’d have to get a mass semi-spiritual style movement of people committing to living simpler less energy intensive lives, and opting out of the mainstream economy. Up to quarter of a million NZers to have any real impact.

     Who here thinks that is going to happen any time soon? Jenny?
     • Jenny 4.1.1

       10 January 2013 at 9:05 pm

       CV I can rely on you to continually come up with new excuses to do nothing about climate change.

       What mineral being mined in Australia pays the workers to mine it, more than mining gold or opals or iron ore?

       What is black, is more poisonous than yellow cake, and more dangerous than asbestos?

       What gives off deadly suffocating and explosive fumes that when ignited collapse mines, and globally kills mine workers by the thousands?

       What mineral gives off thick dust that when inhaled on a regular basis leads to silicosis of the lungs and emphysema, and is commonly known as miners lung?

       What industry founded in 17th century should have been left in the 19th?

       What fuel burned in London for heating houses first gave rise to the term smog?

       What fuel when burned releases sulfur into the atmosphere that combines with water to become acid rain that sterilises mountain lakes and kills forests hundreds of miles away.

       What singular mineral that if continued to be mined at the current rate will almost certainly guarantee runaway global climate change?

       CV you may picture yourself as some kind of an advocate of the mine workers. In fact you are nothing but a dirty tool of the venal profit driven fossil fuel bosses. If you really had the interest of the workers at heart you would be fighting to get our coal miners the best possible exit packages and training to enable them to leave this sunset industry as soon as possible. Instead through your cowardice and apologist treachery you are ensuring, that when this industry finally collapses, which it will. Those workers it leaves behind, like the rest of us, will be suffering with a degraded environment that will be a living hell.

       Workers have names for people like you.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.2

       10 January 2013 at 11:13 pm

       Nothings going to happen to change course politically until the world is actually being crippled by full blown climate crisis. Am I happy about this? No. But the Titanic has too much damn mass, and it’s going too damn fast, and the iceberg is far too close.

       Workers have names for people like you

       *Shrug* I’m not here because I want to be liked.
       • Jenny 4.1.2.1

         12 January 2013 at 8:40 am

         CV your analogy using the Titanic already on an unavoidable collision course with the iceberg, may be quite accurate as a description or the dilemma our world is in.

         This still doesn’t excuse doing nothing.

         Unlike the passengers on the Titanic we know what is happening to us.

         To use another Titanic analogy your continual excuses for BAU is as irresponsible as organising for a game of soccer on the foredeck with the blocks of fallen ice.

         To use another more famous and time worn Titanic analogy, The Green Party prioritising of social change over climate change will in the long run amount to no more than rearranging the deck chairs.

         The Green Party need to heed the prophetic words of Naomi Kleine;

         ….Climate change has the ability to undo your historic victories and crush your present struggles. So it’s time to come together, for real, and fight to preserve and extend what you care most about — which means engaging in the climate fight, really engaging, as if your life and your life’s work, even life itself, depended on it. Because they do.

         Naomi Kleine “I’d Rather Fight Like Hell”
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1.1

           12 January 2013 at 11:57 am

           But its not going to happen that way Jenny. People do not generally band together and fight hard for immediate reductions in their lifestyles, convenience and consumption.

           Do you see how unrealistic your approach is?
           • Jenny 4.1.2.1.1.1

             13 January 2013 at 3:44 am

             People do not generally band together and fight hard for immediate reductions in their lifestyles, convenience and consumption.

             Colonial Viper

             You obviously haven’t got a clue about history CV.

             This is exactly what people had to do to win the war against fascism.

             Do you see how ignorant your approach is?
             • Colonial Viper …

               13 January 2013 at 9:04 am

               We’re not soldiers in your imaginary war, Jenny.
     • Jenny 4.1.3

       13 January 2013 at 5:23 am

       To get any real traction, you’d have to get a mass semi-spiritual style movement of people committing to living simpler less energy intensive lives, and opting out of the mainstream economy. Up to quarter of a million NZers to have any real impact.

       Who here thinks that is going to happen any time soon? Jenny?

       Colonial Viper

       It will never happen without leadership.

       And not a mass semi-spiritual style movement you imagine.

       Not only are you abrogating the lack of political leadership on climate change, now you are trying to palm it off to some sort of mystical religious leadership?

       Are you crazy?

       CV, I think you have lost the plot.

       To expect millions of people to ignore business and government leadership, to go in the opposite direction, spontaneously responding to some mystical spiritual movement (coming from nowhere) to move to a less energy intensive lifestyle, in opposition to the government policy direction is wacky even for you.

       Social change requires leadership. By attempting to blame everyone else, for not spontaneously making these changes, you are hoping that people will not notice the criminal lack of leadership coming from the government, and in particular, the Labour Party in the face of this existential crisis.

       Most working people caught in the 9 to 5 struggle to keep their jobs and pay the rent cannot afford the options available to middle class people to drop out and get back to nature. We don’t have the leisure time or the resources. We can’t use bicycles or walk to work because we would never be able to get to work that way. We can’t use public transport because it doesn’t exist or is painfully unreliable. We are stuck in dormitory suburbs with no other means of getting across the city than using private cars that we can barely afford to run.

       We don’t have any resources or even the leisure to grow our own food because of the long hours we have to work, and so are reliant on super markets, even takeaways.

       These so called “lifestyle choices” are all the result of policy direction by local and central government and business.

       Serious action on climate change requires leadership, it requires state action, it requires political will and policy direction, it requires government resources put into it, and most of all it requires courageous leadership from those whose responsibility it is to deliver it.

       Instead we get spineless scapegoating of citizenry as excuses for the lack of leadership. And Labour Party supporter CV wishing for some spiritual movement to take the terrible responsibility of leadership off their shoulders.

       Instead of blaming everyone else, maybe CV could heed the political advice of Napoleon on leadership. He wrote:

       There is no such thing as bad soldiers. Only bad generals.

       Napoleon
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.3.1

         13 January 2013 at 9:03 am

         We’re not your soldiers in your imaginary war, Jenny.
   • Jenny 4.2

     10 January 2013 at 8:11 pm

     I’m sorry Geoff but CCA stands for climate change apologist in my book.

     Climate change is an existential threat on par with and even greater unfortunately, than a fascist takeover of the world.

     Did people worry about the cost to jobs, when fascism threatened the world? Did they worry about the expense of waging world war, or balancing the books?

     Is the world a better place for nations and governments ignoring those lessor concerns?
5. Jenny 5

   10 January 2013 at 6:26 am

   ‘

   We are well past the time of niceties

   Links that haven’t made it to The Standard link roster yet, but that just might embarrass the Labour and Green MPs into taking immediate parliamentary action.*

   http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/get-used-to-recordbreaking-heat-bureau-20130108-2cet5.html

   ‘‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the timescale is contracting.’’

   Liz Hanna convener of the human health division at the Australian National University’s Climate Change Adaptation Network.

   http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/08

   “The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau’s model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees,” David Jones, head of the bureau’s climate monitoring and prediction unit, toldreporters.

   Indicating that the worst may yet to come, Jones added that, “The air mass over the inland is still heating up – it hasn’t peaked.”

   Climate scientists in Australia—with Jones among them—say the fires and the heat are unprecedented in scale and intensity, but that Australians should understand the destructive temperatures and ensuing fires across Tasmania and southern sections of the country are the new normal of runaway climate change.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/08/australia-bush-fires-heatwave-temperature-scale?CMP=twt_fd

   http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/08-7

   “Most striking was the number of locations across the country that broke their average annual temperature record,” a statement from NOAA reads. “More than a dozen of these locations also experienced their driest year on record.”

   “This disturbing news puts the heat on President Obama to take immediate action against carbon pollution,” said Dr. Shaye Wolf, climate science director with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The blazing temperatures that scorched America in 2012 are a bitter taste of the climate chaos ahead. Science tells us that our rapidly warming planet will endure more heat waves, droughts and extreme weather. The president needs to start making full use of the Clean Air Act to fight greenhouse gas emissions, before it’s too late.”

   “The blazing temperatures that scorched America in 2012 are a bitter taste of the climate chaos ahead,”

   Dr. Shaye Wolfe of the Center for Biological Diversity.

   http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/08-5

   Climate Change, Lack of Political Will Leading to ‘Global Perfect Storm’: Report

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-a-climate-change-apocalypse/2013/01/07/f440d704-58e4-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html

   Certainly, it will take much more research to understand whether there’s a direct link between Sandy and climate change. But we do know that storm’s impact was made worse by rising sea levels, increasing ocean temperatures and unusual weather patterns, all of which are definitively connected to climate change.

   2012 was the hottest year on record. Arctic sea ice is melting. Sea levels are rising faster than projected. And extreme weather events — droughts, storms, heat waves — are increasing in number and intensity, disproportionately harming the world’s most vulnerable populations.

   * (But whose only affect so far, is to deprive me of sleep at night.)
   • Fortran 5.1

     10 January 2013 at 1:53 pm

     The Australian bushfires current are of a disasterous proportion unprecented in “know” history – but that is only just over 200 years in a country which has lived by fire for hundreds of millions of years.
     Is man to blame or is it just Australia ?

     Similarly New Zealand is built on New Fold Volcanic structures which have produced volcanoes and with that earthquakes for hundreds of millions of years.

     ps – my sisters house got wiped of the earth yestrday in NSW.
     • Rogue Trooper 5.1.1

       10 January 2013 at 2:04 pm

       very sorry to hear that; prayer regrettably, I read this morning, will only change the person engaging in it. We had a front-page photo locally of the family sheltering under a pier in the sea in Tasmania , in prayer, must have been terrifying for the children.(Over the forty years that I have experienced HB weather, the frequencies of extremes, wind, rain, temp, do appear to have increased, yet that’s only my memory. Sure is hot today though.
     • bad12 5.1.2

       10 January 2013 at 3:28 pm

       Actually they aint, the most disastrous bushfires in ‘known’ history that is, There were fires in Tasmania in the 1960’s which killed 60 odd people, burnt a greater area, (including parts of the State Capital),

       I flew by a bit of info on the Northern Territory fires the other day while looking at info on the fires in NSW and Tassy and from memory in the North fires burn across 1/3rd or 1/2 the land mass of the Territory every year,

       Will see if i can dig out the link…
       • bad12 5.1.2.1

         10 January 2013 at 3:39 pm

         Here it be, the page title= Australia savanna fire regimes:context, scales patchiness,

         fireecology.org/docs/journal/pdf/volume03/issue01/048.pdf

         The land mass burned in the Northern territory EVERY YEAR is 21% of the Territory’s total land mass,

         The page is a pdf. but it’s got a quick view’

         Edit,damn made a mess of the link,(as usual), second attempt=

         fireecology.org/docs/journal/pdf/volume03/048.pdf
     • Jenny 5.1.3

       10 January 2013 at 9:25 pm

       Ask her this for me the next time you talk to her Fortran. “Are you thinking of immigrating to New Zealand?”
6. KhandallaViper 6

   10 January 2013 at 9:27 am

   http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/why-a-labour-reshuffle-just-aint-enough

   “The irony is that the only way to get the attention of the voters you need to win over and earn their respect is to actually stand. for. something.”

   Tim Watkins, 7th October 2012 in The Pundit.

   “So, David Shearer’s planning a reshuffle of his front bench and folk such as John Tamihere and, well, just about everyone, reckons it’s about time. The carping has started, so the Labour leader had better get on with it. But what he needs to realise is a reshuffle is only the beginning. In many ways it’s the smallest part of the job.”

   The membership wants a full reform of the party, not only the re-shuffle/retirement gig in the Caucus.

   What are the changes we want?

   The full implementation of the resolutions from the conference in word and in spirit: that is a membership connected with all sections of the community empowered to forge policies and leadership that will bring health and prosperity to all Kiwis.

   Over the next few weeks we have too see evidence that changes are taking place that will implement this reform.

   What we do not want to see is a re-shuffle that entrenches power in the few that are fighting the reform.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     10 January 2013 at 9:34 am

     The membership should be permitted by caucus to confirm the Leader. It would energise the party, bring onboard new blood and new members, and fire up the on-the-ground activisits going into the 2014 campaign. It is a full on win scenario for Labour.
     • Colonial Weka 6.1.1

       10 January 2013 at 9:52 am

       Do you mean the membership should be permitted by caucus to confirm Shearer as leader? Or something else?
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

         10 January 2013 at 9:59 am

         Yes, caucus IMO should pull the consitutional caucus trigger in Feb. Thereby allowing the wider membership to vote and confirm the leadership of the Labour Party. There are huge campaigning, momentum and growth advantages available to the party if it chooses that democratic road. IMO.

         The other perspective is the one we have heard consistently from TRP – there’s nothing left to talk about, everyone please move on. That path IMO would leave Labour with a very half hearted activist base going into the 2014 campaign.
         • Colonial Weka 6.1.1.1.1

           10 January 2013 at 10:06 am

           How does that work with the new rules?

           Can caucus just decide to have a membership vote without caucus voting on the current leader? Or does it require caucus to vote against the current leader, thereby triggering the membership vote?

           If/when the membership vote gets triggered, how are the candidates for leadership selected?
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             10 January 2013 at 10:17 am

             This post explains a few of the points…some of the questions you are asking are matters of perspective and intent, however. Remember, the ABCs took Cunliffe breathing at Conference as evidence of an imminent coup.

             My view is that both Shearer’s leadership position and Labour’s on-the-ground momentum would be greatly strengthened going into 2014 with a full membership confirmation.

             http://thestandard.org.nz/labour-conference-day-2/
             • Colonial Weka …

               10 January 2013 at 10:57 am

               Re-reading that link from last year, my understanding is still that giving the membership the chance to vote requires 40% +1 of caucus to actively vote against Shearer next month (and this is a once in a three year opportunity).

               Where does it say it is possible for caucus to bypass that and just go straight to a membership vote? You are suggesting that caucus “pull the constitutional caucus trigger” in Feb, but how can they do that without essentially having a vote of no confidence in Shearer? It’s a nice idea that caucus should give the vote to the membership at this stage, I just don’t yet see how that can actually be done. Some specifics would be nice.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 January 2013 at 11:08 am

                 I think you got that right. The caucus vote would have to be technically “against Shearer” in order to enable a membership vote “for Shearer”. It won’t be hard for the MPs to realise that this pathway provides an opportunity to strengthen Shearer’s position, Labour’s democratic credentials, and the party’s momentum going into 2014.
                 • Dr Terry …

                   10 January 2013 at 11:24 am

                   I fear Shearer’s methods of “punishment and reward” will yet again win the day.
                 • McFlock …

                   10 January 2013 at 1:05 pm

                   What happens if more than 50% vote no confidence? Is it a caucus vote for replacement or straight to membership for the replacement?

                   What I’m thinking is if shearer publicly asks for a no confidence vote so it can be taken to the membership, that would be a cool way of bypassing the entire “ooo shearer’s in the shit/ party crisis” yellow journalism from certain TV news politics editors.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 January 2013 at 2:53 pm

                     If the caucus trigger were pulled, it would then allow a 40/40/30 caucus + members + affiliates postal vote to confirm Shearer as Leader.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 January 2013 at 3:03 pm

                     So all future elections of new leaders are under the new rules? Cool.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 January 2013 at 3:33 pm

                     Yep. The issue re: Feb is simply one of whether caucus will let the members have a say to confirm the leadership, or whether they will choose not to give members that chance.
                   • Colonial Weka …

                     10 January 2013 at 4:50 pm

                     “If the caucus trigger were pulled, it would then allow a 40/40/30 caucus + members + affiliates postal vote to confirm Shearer as Leader.”

                     Or to replace him. Still don’t know how the rest of that process works.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 January 2013 at 6:25 pm

                     In that respect you are in the same boat as everyone else. This has never been done before you see.
                 • QoT …

                   10 January 2013 at 6:26 pm

                   The caucus vote would have to be technically “against Shearer” in order to enable a membership vote “for Shearer”.

                   Just want to add – though I haven’t seen anyone cite the “but if they support Shearer how could they vote against him” – that the reasoning is a lot similar to (what I understand was) Chris Finlayson’s vote against marriage equality – it’s not that he doesn’t support treating same-sex couples equally, but he opposes State intervention in marriage at all. So a seemingly-illogical vote can be very easily justified.
                   • karol …

                     10 January 2013 at 6:30 pm

                     Doesn’t it just require 40/1% of the caucus to vote against Shearer to trigger a full leadership contest?
                   • lprent []

                     10 January 2013 at 8:07 pm

                     Just 40%
                   • QoT …

                     10 January 2013 at 8:09 pm

                     Indeed, but hypothetically >60% of the Labour caucus could absolutely sincerely support him as leader, meaning the choice to send the decision to the membership would involve voting “against” their actual inclination.
                   • Colonial Weka …

                     10 January 2013 at 8:32 pm

                     Which is why I’m not sure that CV’s idea would work – asking for caucus to voluntarily give the membership the vote. It requires MPs to vote against their support of Shearer.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 January 2013 at 9:28 pm

                     CW
                     Not if he asks them to turn the vote to the membership and affiliates. What they’d be voting for is that affiliates and membership should have a say as to who should be leader.
                   • weka …

                     10 January 2013 at 9:42 pm

                     Not being a Labour party member I have no way of finding out, but I’m still not convinced that what you say is possible McFlock (Shearer instructing the MPs to vote against him in order to hand the vote to the members). Doesn’t it depend on what got written in the rule changes? Is it really ok for the leader to make it up as he goes along at this point? If I were a Labour party member, I would be wanting to know exactly what the processes were (not least because I don’t expect the ABCs to play fair). Just saying.

                     Bill’s idea about abstaining is interesting, but again, were I a member, I would want to know the processes and implications AHEAD of time (esp if I were lobbying my local MP).
           • Bill 6.1.1.1.1.2

             10 January 2013 at 9:20 pm

             Shearer needs the endorsement of 60% of caucus. There is no need to vote against him. Abstention would do.
7. Rogue Trooper 7

   10 January 2013 at 12:35 pm

   Child In Time
   http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6869.The_Child_in_Time

   RNZ- asbestos ceilings in CHCH being ripped out shit and busted breathing to flow on

   Shattered Glass
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan#Mirror_stage
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bakunin_to_Lacan
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Marxism

   bbrrrrrrrrrrr All Shook Up (Elvis is still in the building)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n3ebuL1cPA

   -Od onata Anisoptera (whose round, and whose paying?)
8. Rogue Trooper 8

   10 January 2013 at 12:54 pm

   Back to the pelvic thrust…

   Best Practice:
   Restless Leg Syndrome 🙂

   oops,From the Mountain (not under it)
   http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/mt-zion-2013

   this HAARP does play tunes (sample of one)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP (the caravan may act as an aerial) , fine, I’m between homes anyway, any way interesting construction, can you Send Me An Angel next time? Shall I tell you I had a dream?…na don’t wanna bore you with the details, suffice to say it was counter-motivational.

   Feedback- “Well I stand up next to a mountain, and I chop it down with the edge of my hand…
   Well I pick up all the pieces and make an Island, might even raise a little sand 🙂

   We’re all gonna die so lets get High? I prefer Raw Power or Well my Baby she wrote me a letter, aint got no time to take a fast train (I’d make a good spook 😉 )

   -Iggy ( http://www.footsteps.co.nz/ footsteps in the sand)
9. Rogue Trooper 9

   10 January 2013 at 1:11 pm

   back to Fear and Trembling,
   (and there were some interesting symbols, flange, inert gas, gearboxes, escort, hard to understand scottish accents off exercising for lunch, thinking for other people…)
   anyway,
   Restless Leg Syndrome, oh look, it’s all there in lovely Living Color.
   http://www.bpac.org.nz/magazine/2012/december/restlesslegs.asp

   Oh well, better check out the Real News.
10. Rogue Trooper 10

    10 January 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Some “entitlements”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement_%28fair_division%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement_theory

    oh well, off for a sausage now (hard habit to break)
11. Rogue Trooper 11

    10 January 2013 at 2:49 pm

    oops, some Brewers Yeast
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

    -The Illusionist ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443543/)
12. kiwicommie 12

    10 January 2013 at 5:18 pm

    The National party is just a corrupt subsidiary of Australian owned banks, their party supporters must be high on residual Pinochet fumes.
    • Rogue Trooper 12.1

      10 January 2013 at 5:51 pm

      when we read the compilations put together by posters and comment providers on The Standard the “facts” of the matter are more than Beyond Belief, Objective lie speaking.
13. Rogue Trooper 13

    10 January 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Dom
    -60% of those folk surveyed did not exercise 30min / 5X week, up from 50% surveyed in 07-08 –
    SpNZ
    Reason? TIME-the winner, with “expense” and “convenience” close runner ups (gotta work on being less judgy / more on “perceptive” according to my “minders” ) soooo just the facts. TIME.

    -the Ed Ministry employs and pays consultants to do their basic homework; speech writing and OIA assignments

    -Corrections the naughtiest in school when it come to watching porn at work (cha know? a guy was openly staring as close to the screen at it here where I “work” earlier, noz Right up to the screen; I was more laid back when caught in that particular fly-trap)

    -An anti-China moralizing editorial; and we know which broadsheets serve the function of propaganda officers here in the land of the long opaque cloud… apples and mandarins.

    -Anti-Muslim advertisements paid to be placed on NY subway walls are the Graffiti Crimes allowed by “free speech” in the west.

    -fortunately they published a letter by a Dr Anne Jenkins that identifies how they stir the racist pot; there is some foolish regular writer in the local paper who thinks it’s appropriate to lampoon “Engrish” or, alternatively ‘Chinglish”; it’s an uphill battle when students must look up to people like this.
    Eden in The East?
    http://books.google.co.nz/books/about/Eden_in_the_East.html?id=C01yQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

    Reefer Madness is in the air again.
    oh those British; the “Met Office” downplays planet warming (peas not mushy enough yet) ’til 2017 with an “experimental” computer model, one of ten internationally yet acknowledges warming trend has not gone away (who writes these twisty-turny articles?)
    Living Dolls http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/31/living-dolls-natasha-walter
    raising girls that are now a soft target for big business propaganda with concomitant mental health issue increases (why, thank so much Hollywood for the mammary )

    How about some New York Dolls.W O W
14. Rogue Trooper 14

    10 January 2013 at 5:44 pm

    While locally they rabbit on about sarin loaded into bombs
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article7151349.ece
    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=298991
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-rejects-israeli-offer-to-allow-refugees-from-syria-to-enter-west-bank-and-gaza/

    p c plus http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/1/10/business/20130110122238&sec=business

    asian markets advance
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/global-markets/asian-markets-advance-as-china-trade-data-beats-forecast/articleshow/17963975.cms

    NZ / US $ was 83.80 when I last checked

    I want money…thats what I want…the best things in life are free? lets just keep killing the birds and bees…in fact I want so much money…thats what I want-The Flying Lizards
15. Socialist Paddy 15

    10 January 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Chris Trotter has posted again about Shearer at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2013/01/behind-mask-whos-backing-david-shearer.html

    Asks some interesting questions:

    1. What did Shearer think of Roger Douglas and the 4th Labour Government?

    2. Will he advocate a neoliberal approach to NZ’s economic problems just as he advocated a neoliberal approach to building up peace keeping forces in the 1990s.

    3. Says “The next genuine policy aggressor will be a politician possessing both the courage and the imagination to go beyond the maintenance of a discredited orthodoxy – someone willing to forge a new political, economic and social consensus” and obviously does not think this will be Shearer.

    4. Says that the right believe that Shearer “will not only leave the neoliberal settlement intact, but that he may also, with Esko Aho’s example set firmly before him, seek to extend it into the spheres of welfare, health, housing and education. It will not have escaped their attention that Labour’s “Affordable Housing Plan” is really just a glorified PPP on behalf of the professional middle-class.”

    5. Says that “the prognosis for those who entered Parliament with honest left-wing intentions is grim. Promotion to Cabinet will depend not only on making ritual obeisance to Shearer and his clique, but also, following the tragic precedent of the Rogernomics Era, on abandoning their former social-democratic ideals. Such self-inflicted injuries to the soul do not heal quickly.”

    This makes grim, grim reading. I hope it is not true.
    • KhandallaViper 15.1

      10 January 2013 at 8:26 pm

      These are is very strong accusations against the leader of the Labour Party.

      David Shearer must respond to the allegations. Trotter is a respected and published political historian.

      Shearer should call a press conference and dismiss, refute or whatever each point.
      • Anne 15.1.1

        10 January 2013 at 8:34 pm

        Beat me to it SP. Was about to link to the post.

        Oh dear… was starting to feel a little bit optimistic and now it’s gone. What to make of it? Trotter is a respected political historian – arguably the best we have.

        I am sure Trotter would dearly love to be proven wrong, but he is right to put forward the hypothesis.
        • Olwyn 15.1.1.1

          10 January 2013 at 9:00 pm

          If someone appears as a virtual unknown, refuses to declare their position, and has predominantly right wing active supporters, then they must expect people to hypothesise from whatever facts they are able to access. Trotter has given Shearer something to answer to. Whether he will take up the challenge or not remains to be seen.

          As I have said before, I would like the party to be able to eject those that break ranks with its values, even if they keep their plans under their hat until they have become prime minister. It seems to me a far graver offence to hijack a party by betraying its values than to put silly notes in mail boxes. I am not saying that Shearer does intend to betray the party’s values, since I am in no position to know such a thing, but we would all rest much easier if we had the tools to discourage such behaviour. It would also give the MPs themselves the necessary backing to resist outside pressure.
          • weka 15.1.1.1.1

            10 January 2013 at 9:49 pm

            Well quite. Given that the Labour party (and NZ) was massively betrayed in the 80s, it stands to reason that transparency is a deal breaker. If Shearer (or any high ranking Labour MP or official) can’t respond to Trotter’s points openly and honestly, you’d have to wonder why.

            Personally, I think SP’s synopsis of Trotter’s article is the clearest thing I’ve read on the whole Shearer issue. Come on Labour, stop wringing your hands and do what needs to be done. Are you really willing to trust that everything might be ok?
    • Rogue Trooper 15.2

      10 January 2013 at 8:28 pm

      interesting article
16. Te Reo Putake 16

    10 January 2013 at 8:38 pm

    Big ups to LP re: the PG B.S.!

    “Here I sit broken hearted,
    Spent a penny, only farted”.
    • weka 16.1

      10 January 2013 at 9:50 pm

      Lynn Prent? Pete George? Bull Shit??
      • Te Reo Putake 16.1.1

        10 January 2013 at 9:53 pm

        Yeah, PG got caught over-reaching again over at Yawn NZ. LP put him right.
        • millsy 16.1.1.1

          10 January 2013 at 10:59 pm

          I noticed that PG thought that Clare Curran chased me off this site. Not bloody likely, not really scared of that ditsy cougar. I have dealt with worse…
          • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1.1

            10 January 2013 at 11:21 pm

            😯

            😀
    • lprent 16.2

      10 January 2013 at 11:02 pm

      No problem. Was bored waiting for a slow serial routine to run so I could debug the unpack. So I scanned my feeder and saw that pile of tripe and wrote a comment. Was meaning to mention it to you… but the usual interruptions happened.

      Later, when I was scanning the wordpress notifications (useful that – shows up in the dashboard if you’re logged in and displays replies on this site and other wordpress sites), that he’d replied at least 3 times. But the first paragraphs looked more apoletic than informational, I had work, so I ignored them.
17. just saying 17

    10 January 2013 at 9:24 pm

    There’s not really any point in my saying this. I know how it sounds, I know I have no authority to say it. But I have to say it straight just once:

    Shearer is a nasty piece of work and a very dangerous man.

    I’ve seen a bit of shit in my life. Known a few wolves who disguised themselves as saints. It can be a very successsful strategy.

    I genuinely hope I’m wrong about him, but I’ve been watching and listening pretty closely for a while now. The more I know of him, the stronger the conviction

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS