Open mike 10/01/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:51 am, January 10th, 2014 - 224 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step right up to the mike …

224 comments on “Open mike 10/01/2014”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Te Reo Putake 1
    10 January 2014 at 8:02 am

    Heard a weird and unlikely story the other day. It goes like this:

    Late last year blogger David Farrar writes several uncomplimentary posts about the proposed Government bailout of Chorus. He is then told in no uncertain terms that his company Curia will lose its polling contract with National if he continues to bag the bung.

    Now I don’t believe this to be true, because the John Key Government would never bully anyone and Farrar is so principled he would have exposed the bullying anyway.

    Whatever the actual facts are, I think we should be told.

    • Morrissey 1.1
      10 January 2014 at 8:05 am

      They probably sent round Crusher Collins to have a quiet word with him, while Steven Joyce and Bill English sat outside in the car.

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 3:25 pm

        they could have also taken the chris christie of nz politics..brownlee..with them..

        ..and threatened farrar with getting brownlee to sit on him..?

        ..that would have pulled farrar back into line..toot suite..!

        phillip ure..

  2. NZ Femme 2
    10 January 2014 at 8:22 am

    “It’s the worst example of a petty political vendetta’: Fort Lee, NJ, Mayor Sokolich on retaliatory George Washington Bridge closings”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/emails-link-chris-christie-aides-bridge-lane-closures-article-1.1569740#ixzz2pvkvNMjs

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 2.1
      10 January 2014 at 8:24 am

      Insane! The Tea Party approach to town planning.

    • greywarbler 2.2
      10 January 2014 at 4:36 pm

      That Governor needs a New Jersey, with a clean bib, and something in his brain to govern his monomania.

      This is enjoyable in a masochistic way. We have had the Canadian Toronto bully boy, both of them looking over-fed, so who can we present next. Do tell if anyone gets some goss on pollies. We can play our fiddles as functioning democracy burns.

  3. phillip ure 3
    10 January 2014 at 9:21 am

    test..

    it’s eating comments/white-screening again..

    phillip ure..

  4. Rosie 4
    10 January 2014 at 9:29 am

    The French and Brazilians have something to teach NZer’s about relaxing, and work life balance.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1401/S00126/kiwis-leaving-millions-of-annual-leave-days-unused.htm

    “This is in stark contrast to other nations – particularly the French and Brazilians – who both use all of their allocated annual leave days. Despite taking all of their holidays, 90% of employed French adults still claim to feel vacation deprived, more than any other country.”

    I’m with you there French Comrades (when I am in work of course)

    • miravox 4.1
      10 January 2014 at 10:06 am

      In Austria, also in the list of countries taking all allocated leave, and maybe others, this could have someting to do the 3 day extra leave bonus for taking all allocated leave. For companies it seems the bonus is worth it to get the leave debt off the books… And reduces the likelihood of infringing on working hours legislation.

      Working hours legislation to prevent exploitation… Weird huh?

      • Rosie 4.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 12:37 pm

        “In Austria, also in the list of countries taking all allocated leave, and maybe others, this could have someting to do the 3 day extra leave bonus for taking all allocated leave”

        Fancy that! Using reward, (as opposed to punishment),to encourage preferred behaviour in employee’s. It’s hard to imagine NZ companies being that forward thinking.

        Many years ago, the Union I worked for dealt with a work site where the employer simply rostered employee’s with what they perceived as over due annual leave, (and it wasn’t over due anyway) OFF, so they didn’t have so much accrued leave sitting in the books. This of course, could have been dealt with by discussing leave with the employee(s) but above all respecting the employee’s personal life is their own and that it’s not for the employer to dictate when annual leave should be taken.

        Onya Austrians.

    • Puddleglum 4.2
      10 January 2014 at 12:31 pm

      “Despite taking all of their holidays, 90% of employed French adults still claim to feel vacation deprived, more than any other country.”

      Looks like spending time with family and friends and following your own interests is a bit addictive – no wonder it’s not encouraged in most modern societies.

  5. Morrissey 5
    10 January 2014 at 9:39 am

    Al Jazeera is (mostly) a very good TV channel
    But viewers need to beware of its pro-Saudi political bias
    Al-Jazeera News, (Freeview Channel 16), Friday 10 January 2014, 7:30 a.m.

    I’ve been watching Al Jazeera intermittently for a few months, ever since it started to be broadcast on Freeview, along with the wonderful Sommet Sports. Occasionally I take time off watching the Bundesliga, or surfing docos, or speedway from Poland, to listen to the radio, to exercise, to read (presently reading War and Peace; just finished the War part and now onto the Peace) and to watch Al Jazeera.

    I’m sorry to say that I am very concerned about the political bias of Al Jazeera. The channel does do many things very well: there are some lively debates about all sorts of things, and a really excellent media analysis show called Listening Post. Its documentaries are thorough, thoughtful and insightful; the other day there was a brilliant one about Brazilian kids who make a living by selling sweets to passengers on Amazon river boats. There was a riveting documentary on the history of Syria, and a serialised documentary on the history of Muslims in France. These documentaries are as good as anything the BBC did in its heyday.

    But undermining all this, just as with the BBC and Deutsche Welle, is a political bias which is often overt. The station is owned by the government of Qatar, and despite its assertions to the contrary, it is quite clear that it adheres closely to the regime’s political line. The Qatari government is an ally of Saudi Arabia and the United States, and therefore an enemy of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah. Al Jazeera’s coverage of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon is unremittingly negative. There is a special animus against Iran; Al Jazeera presenters mercilessly badger Iranian interviewees and their guest “experts”, often from the same right wing “think tanks” that pollute American television, speaking from studios in “friendly” places like Washington or London or Amman, are unrestrained in their hostility, often being extremely rude and contemptuous.

    To compound things, the English language version of Al Jazeera is full of ex-BBC hacks, who don’t seem to have changed their style one whit. There is also a disconcertingly large number of former New Zealand television reporters working there. Ever wondered what happened to Wayne Hay? Watch Al Jazeera. You want to see Anita McNaught? Kim Vinnell? Barnaby Phillips? Watch Al Jazeera.

    This morning’s news provided a neat little example of this phenomenon. Another old BBC hand, David Foster, interviewed one Shuja Nawaz from another right wing think tank, the Atlantic Council, this time about the Karzai government’s decision to release 88 detainees, despite objections from the United States. The detainees have allegedly committed some “egregious” crimes, Foster grimly informed viewers. Those crimes? Wounding and killing NATO troops in their country. Egregious indeed—just like the French Resistance, the Partisans in Yugoslavia and the Chinese “bandits” who fought the Japanese, these monsters dared to shoot at enemy soldiers who occupy their country.

    Mr Nawaz pointed out that this release of prisoners won’t endear Mr Karzai to his American sponsors….

    SHUJA NAWAZ: The United States is not going to be receptive to his demands.
    DAVID FOSTER: [with maximum gravitas] Understandably perhaps, given the number of years that U.S. forces have been there!

    If you want a really chilling read, have a look at the lineup of “experts” on that think tank that Mr Nawaz belongs to….
    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts

    • Tim 5.1
      10 January 2014 at 1:43 pm

      Not JUST ‘BBC hacks’ @ Morissey – but also CNN.
      They all have an agenda and a ‘perspective’ – whether AlJaz, BBC Int, DW, CNN Int, and RT.
      Trick is to try watch ’em all from time to time and see where they’re coming from.
      The good thing about AlJaz is that – true to their word – they often tackle stories neglected by others and at least try and keep things on the menu whilst others have covered it briefly, the walked away.
      I note the growing criticism of the BBC these days from within the UK, and the manner in which they’ve caught the NZ disease (dumbing down as a Public Service broadcaster, the cult of personality, etc….). Doesn’t help I spose when they start employing TVNZers doing their OE (keeping us all “ACROSS” things).
      Credibility lost. They’ll probably wake up WHEN its all turned to shit and their journalistic integrity, credibility and trustworthiness ranks amongst below that of pollies, real estate agents, lawyers, used-car salesmen et al.

      Oh – btw….. have you noticed how the BEEB – now managed by the bean counters effectively is getting its presenters into more of that ‘personality’ oriented promotion.

      Thanks Christ its being met with the cynicism it deserves in the UK – whereas here its been going on so long its fucking Norman Normal, Max Headroom

  6. karol 6
    10 January 2014 at 9:41 am

    To steal some of the comments expressed below Stuart Nash’s lastest post on The Daily Blog:

    *Bangs head on desk against a brick wall*

    • Te Reo Putake 6.1
      10 January 2014 at 9:50 am

      An excellent post by Nash, though I’m not sure it is entirely needed from a candidate at this time. His analysis of the Green’s electoral prospects is spot on, if only because it matches what I’ve been saying for years. If the Greens feel that they are ready to be in Government, then they probably need to find a way to stitch up a coalition deal with Labour and NZFirst before the election, not after.

      • karol 6.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 10:24 am

        There’s some nasty little smears about the Greens included in that post. eg – the line about the Greens turning off voters, just plays into the MSM/right wing spin, and is not helpful.

        It shows both a fear of the Greens, and failure to understand how to develop a working relationship, while each party follows their policy priorities. Nash treats the Greens as the enemey taking votes off Labour, and seems to be really underestimating their future vote share.

        And as for saying they could choose NZ First as their main partner…..?

        • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 10:30 am

          Well, if NZF get back in, then they are likely to be in Government with someone. I’d prefer LP/NZF rather than Nat/NZF, so if it has to be that the Greens dip out to make that happen, it’s no bother to me. With NZF, you know exactly what you get, the Greens not so much.

          Like it or not, the public perception is that the Greens should not be anywhere near the purse strings. That’s not a smear, just a fact of political life. I suspect the voting public would be ok with them getting portfolios such as environment or education, but nothing that effects the economy.

          • weka 6.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 10:46 am

            “With NZF, you know exactly what you get, the Greens not so much.”

            lolz of the day. Remember that election where Peters led everyone, including his voters, to believe he would go into coalition with Labour?

            • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 11:30 am

              Whooosh! I said “in Government” Weka.

              • weka …
                10 January 2014 at 11:41 am

                Ah, hard to tell with all that smearing going on.

              • Pasupial …
                10 January 2014 at 5:45 pm

                TRP

                “His analysis of the Green’s electoral prospects is spot on, if only because it matches what I’ve been saying for years”. Not; because it has any connection with reality, but; because it confirms your own prejudices. But what else can one expect from a person who thinks that Shane Jones would be a better leader for Labour than Cunliffe & that NZF is their natural coalition partner?

          • Zorr 6.1.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 10:58 am

            There is a *lot* wrong in Stuart Nash’s piece – so much so that it should just be written off as the braying of an ass…

            “A Wgtn Green insider once told me that he believed that at least 80% of their voters would support Labour if the Green party did not exist” – yeah – because the Green Party is going to lay down and die on the say so of Labour

            “it is not a certainty that a Labour led government would be in coalition with the Greens” – is he really expecting Labour to gain 10% over the next 6-9 months?

            “The Green party received 11.1% at the last election. History will show this is the high-water mark for them. I expect them to get around the 6.7% they polled in 2008” – so, we’re going to ignore the 2011 election for the sake of a badly made point?

            “With Cunliffe firing, the Labour caucus united and the growing perception that Key is only there for his rich mates, the battle for 2014 is between a Labour-led opposition” – since when wasn’t it going to be a Labour-led opposition? Also, as much as I like Cunliffe, I have yet to see Labour fire

            It is talk like this that stokes the divisiveness on the Left and Labour need to get a clue that their allies are *not* their enemies.

            • Bill 6.1.1.1.2.1
              10 January 2014 at 11:22 am

              If it’s reasonable to suggest that 80% of Green voters would vote Labour if the Green Party didn’t exist, then isn’t it just as reasonable to suggest that a similar percentage of Labour voters would vote Green if the Labour Party didn’t exist?

              And if that’s the case, then isn’t it just as reasonable to suggest that the Labour Party and the Green Party are natural bedfellows in a parliamentary setting?

              So, vive la difference (appreciate it!) and fuck this whole idea of trying to create domineering factions within the scenario. (To clarify, not saying your doing that Zorr)

              • Zorr …
                10 January 2014 at 11:29 am

                I’m trying to say the opposite of that Bill – that we should be working together but it’s one of those cases where this type of divisive political language is only coming from one party in the relationship – Labour.

                Stuart Nash and Josie Pagani should go form their own party called “The Self Involved Morons Party” and leave the rest of us to trying to figure out how to defeat John Key.

                • Bill …
                  10 January 2014 at 11:36 am

                  Yeah – I knew where you were going. My attempt to echo your thoughts came out all assity boo though 😉

                  • Tim …
                    10 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

                    + (plus) fucking 1 (one)

                    I’m tempted to respond with my brief encounter with a former “Labour” tah (very muchly) visit.

                    These are fairly trying times, and were I to do so though, there’d be a barrage of Max Headrooms – Geeeeeeeey-ons, the Garnered, the necked-Red – the whole Cat’s Chorus and Kordia-enabled band of the fukkers: In pagani-like appearances on every and any – please, fucking please (I’ll lay down for you Mora-like please) ANY outlet willing, ditto a “i’m inclined to agree-with you Mathew (or rather Matt).

                    Play it forward …. the cnuts will eventually be the IRRELEVANT, the pleading as INNOCENT, the BITTER old Queens (who got an agenda but NOT the courage that was necessary to go with it) , the economically worried behind keypad gated clusters (not communities)……. there’s a shitload of them. The God (in our case KEY) unforsaken.

                    Please ….. roll the tape

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.2.2
              10 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

              since when wasn’t it going to be a Labour-led opposition?

              Well, it’s pretty much been a Greens led opposition since 2k8. Unfortunately, Labour seem to want to continue with this after the general election this year.

              It is talk like this that stokes the divisiveness on the Left and Labour need to get a clue that their allies are *not* their enemies.

              That and that neo-liberalism, free-trade and privatisation is bad for society and then state their understanding clearly and concisely.

              • Zorr …
                10 January 2014 at 3:20 pm

                tbh – that’s a little bit beside the point. We all have slightly different views on where we would like the grand ol’ ship New Zealand headed but I think we could all agree on one thing – time to take the Captain’s hat back off John Key because there’s icebergs ahead and he’s all “full steam ahead

              • Tim …
                10 January 2014 at 4:11 pm

                “Well, it’s pretty much been a Greens led opposition since 2k8. Unfortunately, Labour seem to want to continue with this after the general election this year.”

                Yep! …. In the true sense of the word “opposition”.
                It’s probably even been a bit before 2k8 – when ABC type factionalism became evident; when Pagani & Williams couldn’t quite get over themselves and convinced themselves they knew best; when Labour forgot its principles; when even those within (Chauvell and others) began to think pushing shit uphill wasn’t really viable ……
                That last conference or two really were a bigger game changer than the careerists could cope with – tho’ their only option is/was to continue.
                Exciting times.
                Irrelevance ….. OR …. the possibility/opportunity of beginning to rebuild and become something those lost 800k or so can identify with, have an affinity with, support, assist, ……
                Strange really how a very few can stuff it up for many. Such is the nature tho of a Labour Party – at least as it existed till recently.

                Tick Tock Tick Tock

                Thank CHrist I noticed a Chauvell back in town recently, and briefly, and busily texting away.
                I suspect he too was weighing up whether things were going to be despair and irrelevance, OR something worthwhile.

                [ABC …. not sure whether that stands for Anything but Cunliffe, OR All But Cnuts] – time will tell

          • Bill 6.1.1.1.3
            10 January 2014 at 11:08 am

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t it already been stated that the Greens will have economic portfolios? Just not that of ‘Finance Spokesperson’ or whatever.

            And what the fck is so wrong with Green representation in finance TRP? I mean, seriously, what do you think would be wrong with it? Not really interested in you trying to channel the supposed thoughts and sentiments of a ‘voting public’ that just happens to also channel to b/s line of the Nats and their cronies.

            So, putting aside any second guessing about thoughts of the ‘voting public’ (because that might be seen as a smokescreen to hide your own thoughts and sentiments behind) – what do you think?

            If you think it’s a bad thing, then just say so – and stop looking to cover your arse. And if you’re happy with it, then how about you stop reflecting the baseless fear mongering of the Nat Party?

            • weka 6.1.1.1.3.1
              10 January 2014 at 11:21 am

              But that’s TRP’s remit: to lessen the GP vote by fearmongering so that Labour get more power.

            • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1.3.2
              10 January 2014 at 11:28 am

              I have no fear of the Greens having finance portfolios, Bill. Read what I wrote before you go off half cocked. Like it or not, voters don’t like it as a possibility.

              • Bill …
                10 January 2014 at 11:31 am

                Nothing half cocked. I’d just appreciate your thoughts (whatever they may be) to be presented sans the ‘couching’. You up for that?

              • weka …
                10 January 2014 at 11:39 am

                “Like it or not, voters don’t like it as a possibility.”

                Except a whole lot do, so what’s your point exactly? That you can predict how many people will vote which way based on which policy this year? Or perhaps,

                “Like it or not, the public perception is that the Greens should not be anywhere near the purse strings. That’s not a smear, just a fact of political life. I suspect the voting public would be ok with them getting portfolios such as environment or education, but nothing that effects the economy.”

                Except it is a smear, one you are repeating. The public don’t all think one thing despite your assertion. Which just leaves your motives for taking this line.

                • vto …
                  10 January 2014 at 11:41 am

                  I think there is such a public perception. One that could be smashed by the Greens proving it wrong in the next or some other government. It must be one of their longer aims….

                  • weka …
                    10 January 2014 at 12:02 pm

                    I don’t think it’s possible to separate out ‘public perception’ from Crosby Textor et al spin, TRP/Labour Party spin, media spin (both right wing and general shit stirring), from people who have some genuine concerns, from people who are ignorant, from people who are bigoted, from people who just hate the GP.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  10 January 2014 at 12:09 pm

                  weka, the polls don’t lie. Only one in ten voters directly support the Greens and a percentage more, like me, are fine with them being in a Labour led Government. I get out and about a lot, and talk to heaps of people about politics, both at work and socially, and the theme of ‘what about the greens’ comes up all the time. The majority of voters are uncomfortable with them having real responsibility. That won’t change at least until they’ve actually been in Government, and even then, it probably won’t change by much.

                  The funny thing about this discussion is that the Green’s leadership know this stuff already. Russel doesn’t wear suits because he’s a fan of Milan fashion week, it’s about appearing sensibly middle class to try and turn the ‘hippy’ tag around.

                  • Bill …
                    10 January 2014 at 12:18 pm

                    Yes TRP. Branding. Big deal. Now – you going to state your position/thoughts on Green Party involvement in finance? (Saying, as you did, that you don’t fear it, simply isn’t saying anything about whether you think it a good thing or bad thing. It’s in line with me saying “I don’t fear having chili for tea tonight” ; it says nothing about whether I think it’s a good idea or a bad idea.)

                    • Bob …
                      10 January 2014 at 1:26 pm

                      The MSM has covered quite extensively the Australian election fortunes, and (rightly or wrongly) the Greens over there have been singled out frequently as a major factor in their current financial situation (forecasting a deficit in excess of $40Bn next year alone).

                      This may have a bearing on current public sentiment (just a guess though).

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 1:45 pm

                      I’ve stated my position, Bill. But, anyway, I don’t think the Greens are going to get any finance related portfolios anyway, because Labour already have front benchers ready to take those posts.

                      ps, “Branding. Big deal.” tells me all I need to know about your understanding of why the Greens can’t get any real traction.

                    • Bill …
                      10 January 2014 at 1:53 pm

                      And trp shimmies in an unconvincing fashion….again.

                      And everybody knows the shit about branding – on what it is and why it’s necessary. That’s why I say it’s no big deal. Geddit?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 2:14 pm

                      “And everybody knows the shit about branding – on what it is and why it’s necessary. That’s why I say it’s no big deal. Geddit?”

                      Clearly you don’t ‘geddit’, Bill. The Green’s branding keeps them above 5% but limits them to single figures, or just above. It is also part of the reason they are not trusted by the majority (that is, they are seen as a single issue party).

                    • Bill …
                      10 January 2014 at 2:31 pm

                      Well, since you’re still pretending to engage while engaging in nothing beyond the same old ducking, diving and diverting that seems to be your m.o. …what do you think of Green MP’s having financial portfolios in a future government given that Cunliffe (unless my memory is letting me down) has already stated that they will have financial portfolios?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 2:38 pm

                      jebus, have you overdone it on the obtuse pills, Bill? I’ve already said a few times today I have no problem with the Greens having finance portfolios. Can you stop shimmying and a duckin’ and divin’ long enough to actually read my words?

                    • Bill …
                      10 January 2014 at 2:52 pm

                      Thankyou for that trp. Finally.

                      Given that, you may (or may not) want to spend a wee while reflecting on what I was saying way back here

                      Open mike 10/01/2014

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 3:30 pm

                      “Mr Norman is extremely unlikely. I would rule it out, being our Finance Minister, yes I am ruling that out.”

                      David Cunliffe.

                      Bill, that’s the nearest thing I can find to support for your claim of an offer of economic portfolios. Doesn’t sound much like it, does it? Perhaps you can actually find a quote that supports your point. I couldn’t.

                      Perhaps you are thinking of Eddie’s speculative piece last year (Labour makes room for the greens or a similar title).

                  • BM …
                    10 January 2014 at 12:25 pm

                    What the Greens have to do is lose the extremist tag, until that happens the green party will always be looked at with suspicion by the voting public.

                    The only way that is going to happen is if they ditch the “labour and only labour is the party we’ll work with” nonsense.

                    They had an opportunity to develop a bit more cred with the voting public when they teamed up with national with the insulation scheme but fucked that up by pulling out and cementing themselves as a hard left alliance like party instead of an environmental party, absolute height of stupidity.

                    If the greens actually went back to being an environmental party,willing to work with whoever was in power they’d get the opportunity to show that they’re not extremist nut bars and you’d find the voting public would become more receptive to their ideas.

                    That would involve kicking out the communists though.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      10 January 2014 at 2:18 pm

                      They had an opportunity to develop a bit more cred with the voting public when they teamed up with national with the insulation scheme

                      Actually, in doing that, they lost credibility.

                      If the greens actually went back to being an environmental party

                      Ah, the old if they just stayed in their place cry from a RWNJ. They’ve got the experience and the skills within the party to be a broad party so why shouldn’t they?

                    • BM …
                      10 January 2014 at 3:20 pm

                      The greens haven’t got enough cred currently to be a fully fledged party such as National and Labour.

                      They need to concentrate on the environment aspect at the moment, once they get a track record of being involved in government they should then try to expand into other areas.

                      Currently they seem to be going from the crawling stage to the mountaineering stage in one go.

                      Rod Donald dieing at such a young age has really hobbled the greens and put them back decades.

                    • weka …
                      10 January 2014 at 3:32 pm

                      Funny how they got shit from people like you back in the day for being an environment only party (even though they weren’t).

                      Funny also how when they expanded their focus to be an all round party, not just about the environment, and got that message out better, they got more votes.

                    • BM …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:02 pm

                      They got more votes last time around because of the Rena hitting the rocks.
                      If it wasn’t for that they’d have been lucky to make 5-6%.

                      Greens concentrate on being a neutral environmental party they’ll be around 20% party vote.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:08 pm

                      @ BM,

                      So your assumption is there are 20% of voters out there whose sole concern is environmental issues and not a mix of environmental AND other issues.

                      These voters whose sole concern was the environment would have to be prepared to vote for the environment and not on which way the jobs or finances or health or education matters were managed – under your assumption.

                      I call you wrong on this.

                    • BM …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      MMP

                      No reason why a party cannot specialize, National for the economy, Greens for the environment.

                      I reckon there would be quite a few blue voters out there that would toss a party vote the greens way, if they weren’t so left, candidate vote National, party vote green.
                      Think of all the tradie fisherman, hunter types, even farmers, by saying FU to National you lost all those potential votes, bit silly really.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:25 pm

                      @ BM,

                      Yes, I did consider this aspect prior to making my comment – that point is worth considering – however omits other concerns that people have about what is going on – the more the Greens have answers to the other problems the more inclined I am to vote for them – which I never have to date.

                      One would have to assess how many votes would be lost to them for not addressing the other issues and how many would be gained by that approach.

                      I estimate more would be lost than gained.

                      The environment is extremely important – however if there is no connection made between how these environment issues can work in with other issues facing us – relevancy is not understood – I believe it becomes too abstract for many people to support. They can also more easily be put down to being ‘fixated’ i.e. ‘nutbars’ if the relevance of where environmental issues fit in is not made clear.

                      The Greens are doing well on this ‘linking’ of environmental problems with addressing other problems – and it is my view that they are gaining support from doing this – not simply ‘because of the Rena disaster’.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:29 pm

                      Of course, there is no division between the environment and the economy. The trick of the Right Wing has been to try and divorce the two.

                      In reality, the economy is a *subset* of the environment.

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2014 at 8:06 pm

                      “Greens concentrate on being a neutral environmental party they’ll be around 20% party vote.”

                      BM, “pure” environmentalism isn’t neutral. It is by definition totally opposed to the exploitative capitalism you support.

                      By suggesting they focus entirely on environmentalism you’re actually calling for the Greens to become a radical left-wing extremist party.

                      (p.s. they’re doing fine without your consultation btw)

                    • BM …
                      10 January 2014 at 8:34 pm

                      Not quite.I’m thinking more along the lines of the greens being environmental experts.

                      No matter who’s in power the greens are the go to people for anything to do with the enviromental side of politics.

                      That way they’re always in the loop and can get more longer term projects and objectives achieved.

                      Greens need to get more business savvy, to be affective.

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2014 at 8:45 pm

                      Yes, but “the environmental side of politics”, if taken seriously, is always going to be diametrically opposed to the right wing neoliberal capitalist side of politics, because right wing neoliberal economics and the consumerism on which it depends is exactly what our environment needs to be protected from.

                    • BM …
                      10 January 2014 at 9:03 pm

                      Well, they need to remove that stick from their arse and learn to work with others, not every one is as holy as thou.

                      Better to have a bit of the pie than no pie.

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2014 at 10:29 pm

                      Earlier you were saying they must drop everything and focus only on protecting the environment.

                      Now you’re saying they must forget the environment and just get on with whatever anyone else wants to do.

                      Make your mind up, fucko.

                    • weka …
                      10 January 2014 at 10:47 pm

                      I think he has one of those astroturfing jobs where he doesn’t get paid enough to make a real effort, he just has say vaguely pseudo-logical shit to tie up the local energy a bit. I’m kind of surprised to see how many people engaged seriously with his arguments.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:23 pm

                      @Weka

                      With polls still indicating Nat popularity in the high 40s the conclusion I draw is this country is being run on the infestation of pseudo logic and therefore it pays to provide arguments against it at every opportunity.

                • thechangeling …
                  10 January 2014 at 3:09 pm

                  The MSM has concocted the “Greens + finance portfolio = economic madness theory” as another right-wing narrative peculiar to political vested interest associations to chip away at any credibility the left may be procuring.
                  How much the general public really believes this message is difficult to accurately determine but what tends to happen is the ‘messaging’ that gets repeated the most often over a long period of time eventually gets swallowed by the intended recipients and becomes ingrained into orthodox thinking regardless of it’s integrity or otherwise (think advertising and neo-liberalism for example).

                  • weka …
                    10 January 2014 at 3:28 pm

                    Best thing said on the subject today, thanks.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    10 January 2014 at 3:42 pm

                    Spot on, Changeling. Whether it’s deserved or not, or logical or not, voters do not want the Greens to have a hand on the chequebook. Obviously, that feeling is strongest among Nat and ACT voters, but a significant proportion of the other 40% feel that way too. When I talk to people about the coming labour led Government, that meme comes up all the time.

                    It was well and truly reinforced when Norman quite rightly suggested we should look at quantitative easing a few years back. Despite it being a standard economic response in tough times, he was widely dissed in the media for it.

                    • KJT …
                      10 January 2014 at 3:50 pm

                      It wasn’t helped, I think, and so did a lot of people within the Green Party, when Russel backed down instead of explaining that it is a pretty conventional policy. Policy that got us and the USA out of the 30’s depression before most other countries, and used, even now by even “right wing” countries.

                      Of course the banks, which really run NZ would strongly oppose any attempt to use QE to break their monopoly on finance. They are not opposed to it when it is simply given to them. As in the USA.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2014 at 3:59 pm

                      Yep. Left supporters want to see Left parties standing strong for strong Left principles, strong Left policies and a strong Left vision for NZ.

                      This is not fucking rocket science.

                      The swaying middle (most of the top 20%) will go wherever they think their personal and immediate family interests are best served. Which for many, means that something like a UBI and a jobs guarantee for youth, is going to be more than slightly attractive. Anything to get the teenage boy off the bloody PS3 and off to work at 7 in the morning.

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    10 January 2014 at 3:56 pm

                    Yes, well said The Changeling – this is what is so distressing about a Labour member coming out and repeating the message sent out by right-wingers and MSM

                    – It is not likely that Labour are going to win the election without the support of other parties – so why diss them?

                    -So why are Labour members repeating messages that work against their chances of success??

                    Here is a novel idea: Left wing party members need to challenge the false messages that right-wing parties and the MSM send out to the public – at every opportunity they get – not propagate them geez!

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      “Left wing political parties” do not represent or lead the Left. How can they? They are establishment and privilege, not radical.

                      Left parties ALWAYS have to be pressured by the non-parliamentary Left to keep on course, because the tendency to rapidly go off on idiotic Thorndon bubble focussed tangents is well established.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:14 pm

                      @ CV

                      You really are coming out with some comments that I view as containing dubious logic to them recently CV. What is with that?

                      “Left wing political parties” do not represent the Left”

                      Oh really? Wtf are they representing then?

                      [Are you trying to get people not voting?]

                      “Left parties ALWAYS have to be pressured by the non-parliamentary Left to keep on course”

                      Yes, this is a good message to keep repeating – do remember you are saying that to a person who is of the understanding that politicians – such as the leader of the Labour Party- read The Standard!

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:36 pm

                      “Left wing political parties” do not represent the Left”

                      Oh really? Wtf are they representing then?

                      I’ll try and phrase it a bit more carefully. “Representing” is not necessarily exactly what I meant, as I also meant “reflecting.”

                      So wtf are they representing/reflecting? Different aspects of the establishment of course, which by definition, in Parliament and on pay levels of the top 2%, they certainly are.

                      The much broader extra-parliamentary left, especially the non-membership left, thats where pressure needs to build up to put these parties on course, and keep them there.

                      [Are you trying to get people not voting?]

                      People successfully made that call for themselves last time.

                    • thechangeling …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:38 pm

                      My interpretation of what CV is alluding to is that left leaning party’s, in order to stay in power know they must constantly garner whatever the centre ground voters deem as necessarily important because this is always where elections are won and lost. So because of this there’s always a conflict between non parilamentary members of a political party and MP’s (caucus), about policy priority involved with pandering to the wider centre ground electorate so power can be maintained and staying ‘true’ to whatever the stated ideology is.
                      Spin doctoring and going in absentia (from perceived negative media biases) is the primary mechanism that the National Party uses in this process of delivering core policy requirements to their business rountable confidants, whilst lying their heads off to the middle ground via spin doctoring to maintain credible to the middle ground of the electorate and to ultimately stay in power.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 4:53 pm

                      Much better wording there, CV.

                      @the Changeling

                      in order to stay in power know they must constantly garner whatever the centre ground voters deem as necessarily important because this is always where elections are won and lost.

                      I don’t agree with this

                      This is what the leftwing parties are struggling with:

                      http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=9&p=4

                      and this

                      http://theconversation.com/your-money-or-your-rights-tax-the-super-rich-or-take-away-their-political-clout-14940

                      [this last link is well worth the read by the way – gives a proposed solution to the problem]

                      And this is why you believe that the centre ground vote is what is winning and losing elections

                      and that is why I ask CV whether he wants people to not vote – because people who would vote left and who are not voting are not voting because they know how severely compromised by big money left wing approaches – and our democracy – is.

                      And telling them that the left parties do not represent the left – is going to feed into their fears – it can be changed as long as we are strong, persevering and do not give into defeatism and ensure political parties get positive feedback for left-wing policies.

                      And left-wing policies are what is going to counteract what is going on regarding big money and the power this has over politics

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2014 at 5:03 pm

                      It’s now not enough for left supporters to vote Left once every 3 years although of course that would be nice; they have to join the community groups, the protest movements, the outspoken workers unions and organisations who will keep the parliamentary left, truly left.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 5:08 pm

                      @ CV

                      It is entirely counterproductive, however, for left voters to stop voting completely while doing these good works.

                    • thechangeling …
                      10 January 2014 at 6:01 pm

                      Blue leoppard, Having read the second link as i understand it, although the centre ground of the voting spectrum is where elections are won and lost (which on its’ own is true and correct?), those voters themselves are adhered and vulnerable to decision making processes and messages, based around voting for the interests pertaining to who ever is their paymaster. Ongoing financial security is the precursor to perceived voting preferences.
                      And on top of this is the more direct financial support a party receives from lobbyists (rich corporate’s), in return for implementing their agendas. The rich corporate’s control the voting patterns of the wider populace of the middle ground in at least three different ways:
                      1. Directly owning and controlling media and messaging signs.
                      2. Controlling employees perceptions of whats good for their (and wider business and economic interests generally).
                      3. Directly funding political campaign messaging and receiving favourable policy outcomes because of this.

                      The political party with the most money and money related connections has the most power. A synonymity here?

                  • geoff …
                    10 January 2014 at 5:44 pm

                    Well said, thechangeling, mechanism explained succinctly!

              • bad12 …
                10 January 2014 at 6:31 pm

                So where TRP do you get the ‘fact’ of the voters don’t like it from, admit it, it’s simply more of you ‘thunk it therefor it is’ politics from you,

                11% of the voters have no problem whatsoever with the Green Party economic policies including Russell Norman’s advocacy of printing money, at the November election, as David Cunliffe’s newly RED Labour Party is exposed as the softest of pinks i fully expect as per the Green Party’s growth rate for it to achieve 13-14% of the Party Vote,

                Of course the neo-libs and other right wingers happily and for far too long ensconced within the Labour Party yearn for a cozy Government made up of Labour and NZFirst with the Green Party simply providing the numbers with very little gains in policy,

                This time round i don’t think that that little scenario will wash with the Green Party rank and file and watch the ructions from within the Party should the current leadership sell it’s support for what will essentially be a right leaning Labour Government for next to nothing as was done befor…

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  10 January 2014 at 6:54 pm

                  Bad 12, here’s the fact:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2011

                  89% say you’re wrong.

                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                    10 January 2014 at 7:10 pm

                    specious TRP – we can only vote for one party – just because someone has voted for one party doesn’t mean they might be perfectly happy for another one to be in power.

                  • felix …
                    10 January 2014 at 8:16 pm

                    zOFG TRP! 72% of voters don’t want Labour anywhere near the chequebook!

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:13 pm

                      Stop living in the past, felix. new dynamic etc.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:16 pm

                      How about you take your own advice TRP

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:43 pm

                      You supplied the data and the interpretation, buddy.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      10 January 2014 at 11:50 pm

                      Exackerly, felix. And the data says that, at their worst, the NZLP were 2 and a half times more popular than the Greens at their best.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2014 at 12:06 am

                      Exackerly, felix. And the data says that, at their worst, the NZLP were 2 and a half times more popular than the Greens at their best.

                      Don’t drive using the rear view mirror. It’s a dangerous and misleading habit.

                    • felix …
                      11 January 2014 at 12:49 am

                      Naughty TRP, shifting the goalposts. You were pretending to measure unpopularity, remember?

                      You were pretending that 89% of the electorate voted against the Greens when they actually voted for other parties.

                      Then you pretended that there was one specific reason that they “voted against”, namely that they don’t trust the Greens with the economy.

                      Which makes as much sense as saying – for example – 72% of voters don’t trust Labour to be in charge of the armed forces.

                      I don’t blame you for trying to rewrite it though, it was a bloody silly thing to say.

          • Will@Welly 6.1.1.1.4
            10 January 2014 at 11:23 am

            “the Greens not so much.” ????!!!!!! Wow. The Greens have never been in power let alone coalesced.’
            Old ideological barriers still exist. It seems 30 years after the start of neo-liberalism, the proponents of that scheme on the “left” still cling to those belief’s with their dear lives.
            Many of us lefties in the 70’s and 80’s admired the Values Party but couldn’t wrest our voting pattern away from Labour least National took advantage of a perceived weakness.
            Now there is a real choice on the left. Before David Cunliffe took over leadership of the Labour Party, the best performers on the left were in the Green Party, and not just their leaders.

            • phillip ure 6.1.1.1.4.1
              10 January 2014 at 4:09 pm

              @ wiil a wellly..

              ..genter for minister of transport..

              ..surely..?

              ..there is no-one more qualified for that job..

              ..in any other party..

              ..phillip ure..

        • weka 6.1.1.2
          10 January 2014 at 10:52 am

          “There’s some nasty little smears about the Greens included in that post.”

          The whole post is an intentionally crafted, nasty big smear about the GP, which presumably is the point.

        • fisiani 6.1.1.3
          10 January 2014 at 11:11 am

          The Greens have been taking votes off Labour. Where else do you think they get them? Labour/Green as a package means that every toxic quote from a Green candidate will be sheeted home to Labour. Every Green election dirty trick is sheeted home to Labour. Many of the Green votes are natural Labour voteswho despaired of Labour winning again. The Cunliffe is bound to rise in popularity even although currently polling worse than Shearer. That is just the MSM bias surely.
          There has never been a Green member in government ever for a very good reason. They are economic vandalswho want a Stone-Age society.

          • BM 6.1.1.3.1
            10 January 2014 at 11:32 am

            Well said, never have truer words been written.

            Stuart Nash is just a messenger, he’s on the streets talking to people, he’s getting endless feed back from potential voters.

            Obviously the feedback he’s getting is anti green and people won’t vote labour while it’s bolted to the greens.

            Disappointing for all the greenies who signed up to labour in an attempt to shift labour way further left, prepare for a sharp correction back to the middle where all the voters are.

            This hard left stuff is about to be shit canned.

            • vto 6.1.1.3.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 11:38 am

              BM and fisiani, have you brains been fried in the sun? It is well established that where the hippies go everyone else goes later. But you lot are always just simple followers so I wouldn’t expect any recognition of this… carry on. I won’t be looking for you in the rear vision mirror…

              • alwyn …
                10 January 2014 at 12:41 pm

                I have a couple of questions for you then.
                “Where the hippies go everyone … “. How many of the Ohu set up during the 1972-1975 Labour Government are still going? Or did all the hippies decide that they really weren’t such a great idea?
                “I won’t be looking in my rear vision”. What is the point of having a rear vision mirror on your bicycle if you don’t keep an eye on it? You don’t really want to be hit from the rear wnhen you could have avoided it do you? Incidentally as you are apparently a Green supportor I assume it is a bicycle and not a car?

            • Will@Welly 6.1.1.3.1.2
              10 January 2014 at 12:27 pm

              B.M.- you wouldn’t know what “green” was unless it was the algae growing around your back door.
              Stuart Nash is one of these nice urber middle-class Labourites, who see socialism tied to a desktop, where money is made by shoveling it around and not hard work.
              In all reality, he probably has more in common with you B.M. and John Key, than the plight of the average working man or woman, let alone someone truly on struggle street.
              Harsh words, I don’t think so. I watched in horror as the Party I once fought for, get absolutely “dogged.” Many in that Party are still trying to “dog” it!!

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.3.2
            10 January 2014 at 2:21 pm

            Oh joy, a RWNJ giving advice to the left again.

            They are economic vandalswho want a Stone-Age society.

            Nope, that’s what National are. The authoritarianism comes through quite clearly.

          • phillip ure 6.1.1.3.3
            10 January 2014 at 4:13 pm

            @ fisi..

            “stone age society’..

            ..aahh..!..retro green-slagging..

            ..(haven’t heard that one for awhile..eh..?)

            ..are you normally a kiwiblog/slater bottom-dweller..?..there..fis..?

            ..that is about the only places that one is still used/brandished..

            ..they love their retro-green-slagging..at both those places..

            ..phillip ure..

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1.1.4
          10 January 2014 at 2:53 pm

          Re Stuart Nash’s questionable article on the Daily Blog.

          Attention political strategists

          Lesson 1:

          >>How to get the diverse and colourful left-wing voters behind you –
          In three easy steps<<

          1. 'Get it' that the diverse interests on the left are not mutually exclusive

          2. Find the [vast] common ground that exists

          3. Repeat the findings of steps 1. & 2. endlessly to the general public.
          – In this way get us all on board and out there voting.

          Perfectly easy – but apparently not

    • Bill 6.2
      10 January 2014 at 10:16 am

      Nash, Pagani…hmm. I’m thinking spanners and works. Question I’m almost mulling over is whether they are loose spanners or if there is a hand behind them.

    • Sanctuary 6.3
      10 January 2014 at 12:30 pm

      Nash’s three points are pretty much statements of political fact. But the strategic conclusions he draws are much more debatable, and reflect the views of just a faction within Labour.

      But the brittle way Green supporters invariably react to criticism from Labour – by having the sort of poor-little-me tanty you’d expect from a spoilt 16 year old who has just been told they can’t borrow the car – is deeply unattractive and makes me wonder if they are politically tough enough to survive in government.

      • karol 6.3.1
        10 January 2014 at 12:47 pm

        Oh, so it’s not about the smear….. so that’s why you end with a smeary ad hominem?

      • Bill 6.3.2
        10 January 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Yeah well Sanctuary – I’m looking at it and thinking it’s crap.

        I’m not that big a supporter of either the Greens or Labour, meaning, that yes, I want a left leaning parliamentary presence forming the next government, but having said that, don’t see parliament as a mechanism that we can ever use to provide ourselves with what we need as a society.

      • karol 6.3.3
        10 January 2014 at 1:24 pm

        Sanctuary, I do agree it’s most likely that Nash is not in the majority faction of Labour, and that his strategy is dubious. But I did not respond to Nash’s post in isolation, or in some knee-jerk defence of the Greens.

        Key and NAct have signalled frequently that they intend to drive a wedge into the left by using smeary attacks on the Greens (“far left”, “printing money”, etc).

        This morning I replied to a comment by Nat Wayne, critical of his apparent use of wedge politics: in Wayne’s case his focus was on criticising Labour. His response was that he was just looking at the facts.

        Then I headed over to The Daily Blog, and see Nash using a similar kind of wedginess; this time smearing the Greens.

        My response to Nash’s post was more like: with friends like this, who needs Crosby Textor…?!

        I would prefer to see both Labour and Greens (and Mana) focusing on their own policies and arguments against the destructive policies and actions of the NAct government: focusing on a better way to create a fair, susutainable and well-functioning NZ. And not playing into, and supporting NAct’s spin lines.

    • cricklewood 6.4
      10 January 2014 at 1:05 pm

      I think there will be more of this kind of article the nearer we get to the election esp if the greens are polling well. Labour candidates with borderline list places will start getting nervous and look to protect there place as it were. Media will be more than happy to seek them out for anti greens comment as they look to increase labours vote… Challenge for Cunliffe will be to keep a lid on that kind of thing

      • greywarbler 6.4.1
        10 January 2014 at 2:45 pm

        karol and cricklewood
        Words to live by – actually …

        “”Teach Your Children” Lyrics by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young:
        You, who are on the road, must have a code, that you can live by.
        And so, become yourself, because the past, is just a good bye.
        Teach, your children well, their father’s hell, did slowly go by,
        And feed, them on your dreams, the one they picked, the one you’re known by.”
        sing365.com

      • Saarbo 6.4.2
        10 January 2014 at 4:33 pm

        “Labour candidates with borderline list places will start getting nervous and look to protect there place as it were..”

        @cricklewood, I red the Nash article last night and I haven’t been able to work out what his motivation to write an article like this would be, but I think you have hit it on the head above.

        From a big picture Labour perspective, surely the name of the game is to increase the size of the Left block, so Labour should be focusing its limited resources on getting people, anybody to vote for it instead of narrowing its focus on COMPETING with the Greens. Labour needs to COLLABERATE not COMPETE with the Greens if it wants to win, its not going to be easy to win in 2014 but I feel that collaborating will win more voters as a strategy.

        Ive never been impressed with Nash’s thinking, does anyone know what his background is?

    • QoT 6.5
      10 January 2014 at 1:57 pm

      One really does have to wonder about the Labour people who are fixated on getting votes back off the Greens, instead of the rather obvious (at least, to all three of the contenders for the Labour leadership!) 800,000 non-voters from 2011.

      Possible explanations: they’re mathematically illiterate; consumed with envy at the Greens’ success; or simply that far to the right of the party that they would rather take a bet on Winston Peters and whatever conservative radicals he brings in with him than deal with the Greens.

      In any case it just shows there are still people who don’t understand MMP. Fighting over how big the Labour share of the Labour/Greens pie does fuck all to (my apologies to the English language) grow the pie.

      • karol 6.5.1
        10 January 2014 at 1:59 pm

        Or it’s just an MP or 2 worried about their List seat.

        • KJT 6.5.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 2:44 pm

          A few more possibilities to add.

          Both Labour and National know that Green policies, if presented as policies not tied to a party, would attract more voters than theirs.
          I have seen research, unpublished, unfortunately that shows with policies separated from who is proposing them, the majority prefer Green policies.

          Similar polling in the States has shown people prefer.
          “Despite fiery campaign rhetoric, again and again Americans have spoken out in support for public investment in the structures at the core of our society and that lead to a sustainable and growing middle class. Our fellow citizens want effective and well-funded public schools and access to affordable higher education, safe and modern transportation infrastructure, robust public safety systems through fully supporting our police and fire departments, and clean air and water. They want sustainable and living-wage jobs, which means investing in research and innovation; they want Social Security strengthened for generations to come; they want health care costs reduced, and to ensure that more of their loved ones, friends and neighbors have access to adequate and affordable care. Americans want government to put these things at the top of the ‘to invest in’ priority list. They are more important to families now than ever before”.
          http://www.alternet.org/story/148738/voters_want_jobs%2C_economic_recovery%2C_and_a_government_that_will_work_to_achieve_it

          It suits MP’s, both National and Labour, to demonise the Greens to prevent the break up of their comfortable duopoly, where they can alternate power and position simply by worrying about pleasing the relatively few swing voters.

          Labour is worried they will become redundant. Greens fit comfortably within the same democratic socialist spectrum as the Labour party did, before 1984.

          • Will@Welly 6.5.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 3:10 pm

            +1

          • phillip ure 6.5.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 4:23 pm

            @ kjt..+1..

            (esp. last 2 lines..)

            ..the greens aren’t ‘scary’..

            ..they are just old labour..with a soupcon of environmental policies..

            ..and it is just a ‘soupcon’..

            ..they are still puckering up for those rosette-like farmers’ arse-holes..

            ..their co-leader loves strutting around swathed in dead-animal skins..

            ..and wiping pig-fat from her mouth with the back of her hand..

            ..and you don’t get much more green-‘soupcon’ than that..

            ..eh..?

            ..they are still some way from what really needs to be done..

            ..(hint..!..it doesn’t include green-party-bbq’s..eh..?..)

            phillip ure..

          • QoT 6.5.1.1.3
            10 January 2014 at 4:40 pm

            I have seen research, unpublished, unfortunately that shows with policies separated from who is proposing them, the majority prefer Green policies.

            This isn’t a huge surprise to me – but good to know it’s confirmed (albeit unpublished).

          • Draco T Bastard 6.5.1.1.4
            10 January 2014 at 4:54 pm

            It suits MP’s, both National and Labour, to demonise the Greens to prevent the break up of their comfortable duopoly, where they can alternate power and position simply by worrying about pleasing the relatively few swing voters.

            QFT

            Labour is worried they will become redundant.

            Labour are obsolete and have been for some time now but they, and a large chunk of the electorate, just haven’t realised it yet.

            • adam 6.5.1.1.4.1
              10 January 2014 at 9:27 pm

              What worries me – on one hand there is this call for unity/or working together and once again it is the social democrat’s in labour who smash it up. As an anarchist, I’m offended – the social democrats are being pack of back stabbing fools – It’s worse than 20 trots in a room smoking crack!

              It’s like when ever labour get a sniff of power they go nuts, and any mad dosh bag they have, comes out of the wood work and assaults the left for:
              a) being decisive
              b) not being really left or
              c) loony/crazy.

              is labour so weak, tired and visceral?

              It work together, or lose labour it’s that simple. Why? Well it is much more simpler to get people not to vote than it is to get them to vote. And quite frankly the other anarchist and myself have been talking – you keep this shit up and we will go the whole “don’t vote – politicians only win!” path – You want us to put our propaganda hats on – do you? Stop attacking the left – fight the real enemy! Poverty, unemployment, the environment and start changing the bloody economy.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                10 January 2014 at 10:16 pm

                Well said Adam

                Although I personally prefer to revenge vote rather than the ‘don’t vote’ version: for the politician who is going to rark up and annoy the most politicians when I am seeking revenge for stupid political strategies – one then gets entertainment value for the next few years every-time that politician gets into the news.

          • thechangeling 6.5.1.1.5
            10 January 2014 at 5:06 pm

            I think this clearly demonstrates why our adversarial political system is corrupted and ineffective at delivering a truly democratically balanced, fair and inclusive economic and social society. There’s so much distortion and lying going on that most people realise that their opinions count for nothing and those in power just continue to do their own and their vested interests pandering, whatever negativity occurs in communities on the ground.
            The idea of an ‘absolute democracy’ where every political policy due to be put forward by the party in power is voted on by the public after a mixture of left, right and independent analysis, research, dissection and then presented to the public, has to be a better way of constructing political, economic and social life.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.5.1.1.5.1
              10 January 2014 at 5:12 pm

              +1 The Changeling

              Yes it needs to be about the representing the greatest good for the greatest number of people – not solely about representing ‘those that voted for me’ or ‘keeping my job – regardless of what interests I serve’.

            • KJT 6.5.1.1.5.2
              10 January 2014 at 8:37 pm

              One of the big issues with “representative democracy”, an oxymoron, is the need for politicians to appeal to small proportion of the electorate, about 20%, who are swing voters.

              They enact policies and try to appear to be concentrating, on “hot button” issues that their focus group polling tells them will sway these “swing voters”.

              Judging by a lot of the policies, the swing voters appear to be self interested, bigoted, unprincipled and judgmental.

              We get “populist” polices for the 20%.

              Not for the 80%, including those who don’t bother to vote because they see no party as representing them..

          • Anne 6.5.1.1.6
            10 January 2014 at 6:53 pm

            There’s one person who won’t be demonising the Greens. David Cunliffe. My understanding is he has a good working relationship with them. He’s very strong on environmental concerns – not surprising given his wife is a lawyer specialising in environmental matters.

      • Psycho Milt 6.5.2
        10 January 2014 at 4:22 pm

        Possible explanations: they’re mathematically illiterate; consumed with envy at the Greens’ success; or simply that far to the right of the party that they would rather take a bet on Winston Peters and whatever conservative radicals he brings in with him than deal with the Greens.

        There’s a fourth: one reason many on the left are dubious about the Greens was well expressed a few years back by Danyl on his blog:

        I can’t vote for the Greens – I’m a scientist and if they ever got into power Sue Kedgley would stick me in a big wicker man and set fire to me…

        Still, if the Greens can overlook Labour’s many dubious aspects, you’d think Labour’s MPs could stir themselves to at least some level of reciprocation.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.5.2.1
          10 January 2014 at 5:03 pm

          That’s not well expressed. In fact, all it is is a load of bollocks dressed up as an excuse.

        • felix 6.5.2.2
          10 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

          Meh. Danyl votes Nat anyway innit.

        • felix 6.5.2.3
          10 January 2014 at 5:28 pm

          Meh. Danyl votes Nat anyway innit.

        • felix 6.5.2.4
          10 January 2014 at 5:44 pm

          th’ feck?

        • newsense 6.5.2.5
          10 January 2014 at 10:56 pm

          Look now the Greens are led by a nice clean shaven white guy in a suit (even if he is an Aussie ginger) it means they can be credible economic managers! All those interesting folk have gone to the retirement home of occasional tv punditry.

        • Murray Olsen 6.5.2.6
          11 January 2014 at 1:16 am

          Ha. I’m a scientist and I don’t worry at all about the Greens. The parties that worry me are on the right, with their denial of science and their worship of oil company spin. It’s a right wing government in Canada that’s stripping bookshelves, and another in Australia that did away with the science ministry, not to mention the American right and their daily strolls with dinosaurs.

    • newsense 6.6
      10 January 2014 at 11:01 pm

      Even though there nominally has been a leadership change etc-

      we still get Pagani, Jones and Nash popping up….perhaps the Labour Party is like this the whole way through and hollow to the core…?

    • Murray Olsen 6.7
      11 January 2014 at 12:39 am

      Nash needs to learn that Labour should be apologising for 30 years of Rogernomics and hanging their heads in shame over the neoliberals still spouting rubbish, not strutting their stuff like peacocks. His contribution rammed home to me how right I am to be voting Greens and Mana.

  8. Rodel 8
    10 January 2014 at 9:56 am

    Christchurch Press starts its right wing election campaign early in the new year.
    Headlines on Wednesday proclaims NZ as the ‘Rock Star economy’ illustrated by a photo of a flashy car salesman with an ostentatious display of Audi cars. (At first I thought it was supposed to be a caricature, but no I think he thought it looked tasteful).
    On Thursday the headline was ‘Retailers on a high’ on spending booms illustrated by a retailer with a $56,000 diamond ring.(Again I think it was meant to be a serious attempt at depicting the ‘Americana Dream’ to Kiwis).

    Both articles by a Cecile Meier, a recent arrival to New Zealand, but I guess the headlines belong to the (sub) editors whose political marketing intentions couldn’t be clearer.
    Expect more of the same to trickle down to Canterbury readers in this election year.
    Ho-hum.

    • karol 8.1
      10 January 2014 at 10:03 am

      And yet, accroding to the last census, the income gap in Christurch has grown.

      • fisiani 8.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 11:16 am

        You probably need to read the whole article.

        In other parts of Christchurch, some neighbourhoods have been booming. Some of the biggest leaps in income were in suburbs around Riccarton and Addington.

        From 2006 to 2013, household incomes in Riccarton rose 58 per cent to $58,300, while in Addington the increase was 49 per cent to $53,800.

        Some of the smallest changes were seen in the most affluent suburbs. Aidanfield’s figure increased by 8 per cent to $88,800 and Halswell West’s 13 per cent increase brought the area’s median household income to $98,500.

        Nationwide, the median household income increased from $51,400 in 2006 to $63,800 last year.

        In other words the brighter future is here as promised.

        • vto 8.1.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 11:34 am

          the cost of housing and the cost of food and the cost of living in general has outstripped this so they have in fact gone backwards, you nincompoop.

          you are so far behind the 8-ball…..

          • fisiani 8.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 11:59 am

            A 24.12% income growth easily outstrips food and cost of living

          • Seti 8.1.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 12:28 pm

            Au contraire. Its is you that is behind the 8-ball.

            The latest Household Income Survey shows the ratio of housing costs to income in Canterbury went from 15% in 2007 down to 13.3% this year.

            It also shows weekly food costs rising 15.6% ($158.50 to $183.20) and total weekly expenses up 12.6% ($1004 to $1131) yet household income in that time has gone from $65,537 to $83,588 up 28%.

            Perhaps fact-less rhetoric is more your strong point.

            • greywarbler 8.1.1.1.2.1
              10 January 2014 at 1:05 pm

              vto
              I don’t know if seti is talking to you. But if food is rounded down to 15% and weekly expenses to 12% as stated, then that is a 27% rise and those costs would apply to everybody at every level of income – and then if income at above median, has risen to 28%. Well that means that even the middle class aren’t ahead, and the lower income class are behind and the precariates are running closer behind the horses with shovels and brooms to get that valuable horse-shit.

              If my addition is out point out where, just don’t demur demurely otherwise I consider any attempt to make a case of us all doing well is more Far Out than Gary Larson.

              • Seti …
                10 January 2014 at 1:17 pm

                What shit are you smoking? So if toothpicks have risen 200% then we’re really in the crap?

                You don’t add the percentages together, they form part of the cost of total expenditure.
                Bottom line – total expenses (including housing and food) up 12.6%, income up 28%.

                Dolt!

                • greywarbler …
                  10 January 2014 at 1:58 pm

                  Seti
                  Okay that’s what I thought – was relying on you to set me right. Now compare the 12.6% rise overall for expenses, against the percentage rise of income for
                  those on the low income to median strata of income. I am expecting the median would be about $65,000.

                  Let’s look at how the financial situation for most people in NZ has been.

                • freedom …
                  10 January 2014 at 2:03 pm

                  “You don’t add the percentages together,”
                  tell that to all the spending boom apostles waxing lyrical over the magic of xmas.

                  They tell us of the heart-thumpingly brilliant retail sales leading up to xmas,
                  then it gets better with amazeballs record smashing sales from boxing day,
                  then it is casually mentioned that one of the biggest purchase blocks leading up to xmas was the ubiquitos prezzie card and its kin
                  which were mostly used on boxing day

                  dot join dot

                • KJT …
                  10 January 2014 at 2:55 pm

                  Unfortunately if you look at the rise in the median family income overall, it is still because of huge rises at the top end. Not significant rises at the bottom.

                  The majority still had increases well below inflation.

                  As for expenses. Expenses for low income families have risen much faster than the general inflation rates. For a long time now.

                  While some of us have enjoyed cheaper flat screen TV’s and sirloin steaks, essentials such as basic food, power, rent, transport, schooling and health care continue to rise steeply.
                  Then you add in things which used to be Government supplied at cheap or no direct cost, which are now, “user pays”.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    10 January 2014 at 4:30 pm

                    Unfortunately if you look at the rise in the median family income overall, it is still because of huge rises at the top end.

                    Large increases at the top end affect the mean, but not the median.

            • NZ Femme 8.1.1.1.2.2
              10 January 2014 at 2:01 pm

              Your link isn’t working Seti.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1.1.2
          10 January 2014 at 11:36 am

          You probably need to take some English comprehension lessons. The existence of “booming” suburbs entirely supports Karol’s remark.

    • Rosie 8.2
      10 January 2014 at 2:36 pm

      Yes, I saw that fairfax was trotting out that term “rock star economy” in it’s “paper’s” and thought immediately two things: For who? And who says that? Crosby Textor?

      From memory of the RNZ piece on it the other day, I garnered the person who coined the term works for HSBC Bank – so maybe crosby textor are getting their financial mates in on the campaign act early.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        10 January 2014 at 3:40 pm

        Yes, I saw that fairfax was trotting out that term “rock star economy” in it’s “paper’s” and thought immediately two things: For who?

        For rock stars, obviously, not for everyone else. Although, someone like Lorde might have a few relevant things to say about it.

    • greywarbler 8.3
      10 January 2014 at 4:45 pm

      I wonder where Cecile Meier came from – South Africa? That’s the home of diamonds isn’t it. There were enough on that ring to blind a mole.

      And the crowing of car salespeople about the rise in vehicles, imported of course, all adding to our overseas deficit is mind-blowing. Consumerism keeping the country going. Isn’t there some saying about the brainless leading the mindless or something. If the government said okay all vehicles imported now have to be able to run on electricity, batteries, biofuel or something slanting towards Green that wouldn’t be so bad. But no, not a change to the automatic pilot for the country. On the Aotearena goes.

      And housing is up too. So everything is all right. And the salaries are up 28%. It says so on this wafer of CD, this mark on an ephemeral page. That can vanish as soon as some questions are asked that are uncomfortable.

      • Rodel 8.3.1
        10 January 2014 at 11:11 pm

        Cecile Meier is French. Her next article in Friday’s Press is her analysis of how and what kiwi’s think.Also quite revealing of her ‘insightful’ understanding of what New Zealanders want and believe.

  10. captain hook 10
    10 January 2014 at 12:03 pm

    too troo VTO.
    There has a been a persistent price rise of everything since National engineered a TURN for themselves and the compradores and profiteers it associates with.

  12. SHG (not Colonial Viper) 12
    10 January 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Jenny Michie at The Daily Blog reveals what Labour needs to do for electoral victory: pray for economic collapse.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/10/what-labour-dare-not-hope-for/

    • Ad 12.1
      10 January 2014 at 1:04 pm

      There’s a whole blogging theme to develop along the lines of “economic growth and inequality: which has superior political upside?”

      My bet is this: unemployment gets close to 6%, there will be no change of government.

      Stays above 6.5%, Labour still has a chance.

  13. greywarbler 13
    10 January 2014 at 12:55 pm

    I was just looking at the Huffington Post and was attracted to one item praising Norway. It makes some good points about Norway that if compared to New Zealand would indicate that we could have gradually fewer and fewer tourists here.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/norway-greatest-place-on-earth_n_4550413.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    Norway is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful places on Earth. It’s home to more natural wonders than we can count and it has stunning cities, fascinating history and really happy people.

    Norway’s not cheap. But it’s worth it. Here are 25 reasons why.
    1. It’s actually one of the happiest places on Earth.

    And there are nice pictures. On my old computer they take a while to load yours will probably be faster.
    .

      • greywarbler 13.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 2:22 pm

        joe90 Interesting. A financial plan for the country. And it works. Gosh.

        Not that Norwegians will be able to access or spend the money, squirreled away for a rainy day for them and future generations. Norway has resisted the temptation to splurge all the windfall since striking oil in the North Sea in 1969.

        Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home. Governments can spend 4 percent of the fund in Norway each year, slightly more than the annual return on investment.

        Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere. Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic.

        It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work. “One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working,” Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 percent.

        Note the disapproving tone taken about work and supporting farmers. The slaves are slacking, work on two legs good etc, even though unemployment is 3.3 per cent. And farmers can probably produce sufficient food within the nation.
        Somebody is breaking through the miasma of work-will-set-you-free to be able to afford food and an inside sleeping place propaganda.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 3:44 pm

          Who owns the oil? Ireland versus Norway

          And if we want to be prosperous with a social democracy as generous as Norway’s, but we do not wish to extract fossil fuels…?

          • phillip ure 13.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 6:53 pm

            even if oil is found..the world-beating-in-pathetic royalties-rate hammered out by ‘i blinked’ brownlee..

            ..guarantees the/us mug-punters will get s.f.a..really..

            ..and will just be left praying there is no accident..

            ..and just like so much neo-lib..

            ..it is again a matter of privatise profits..

            ..and any losses will be borne by the state/mug-punters/nz environment..

            ..eh..?

            ..same old..same old..

            ..are you an oil-pimp..c.v..?

            ..and before scandanavian oil-stories are shared for comparison..

            ..how about noting the differences in how much the mug-punters get out of it..in each country..?

            ..i think you’ll find that unlike our ‘blinky’-jerry/sell-out govt….

            they didn’t ‘blink’..or ‘sellout’..

            phillip ure..

            • phillip ure 13.1.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 8:23 pm

              you will probably find the grounds to..if there is major find..

              ..to nationalise the industry..

              ..and keep the lions’ share of the profits here..

              ..not flowing straight offshore..

              ..phillip ure..

          • greywarbler 13.1.1.1.2
            10 January 2014 at 9:30 pm

            I think that I don’t understand this about Ireland owning nothing. It seems that Shell is involved but I saw that Norway’s Statoil owns 36% of the reserves and drilling and results.
            I guess then Shell owns the rest.

            It seems that the video is trying to stir up hostility towards Norway. Has Norway the smaller share and Shell the bigger? Why not get angry at Shell and/or Ireland’s politicians who have tigered their way into a green bog? Why isn’t the deal at least 30% Ireland, 30% Norway and 60% Shell.

            Surely those clever businessmen could have engineered that. They sound as clever as ours at dealing with anybody stronger, fit only for holding their coats open and dropping their pants.

        • joe90 13.1.1.2
          10 January 2014 at 7:18 pm

          The author seems to be a miserable sod less a clue about food security.

          There are four components to Norway’s food security policy: firstly, the need to protect arable land from degradation and alternative use; secondly, to maintain food self-sufficiency from domestic production, measured in terms of calories, at the minimum current level of 50 percent (57 percent including fish products); thirdly, to maintain a “fairly sizeable”, well trained and experienced farming population; and fourthly, to maintain a decentralised food production structure as being less vulnerable in times of crises.

          http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x4829e/x4829e05.htm

    • Ennui 13.2
      10 January 2014 at 2:50 pm

      My people left there 1000 years ago, prior to the invention of central heating. Natural beauty and wonders are all very well if you have a bear skin and blanket. Of course, “free trade” was respected, there was good money to be made in the international battle axe trade.

  14. freedom 14
    10 January 2014 at 1:08 pm

    Want to get some transparency back into politics funding in New Zealand?

    Tired of electoral funding skullduggery?

    I suggest NZ creates the Electoral Donation Register of New Zealand.

    THE EDRNZ:
    The EDRNZ is an escrow body which collects and distributes donations for all local and central government election candidates and or political parties.

    Any party or individual standing in local or central government elections registers with the EFRNZ and is paid donated monies minus an administrative tax.

    A small fee of perhaps 0.01% is taxed on all donations for administration of the EDRNZ.

    KiwiBank is an obvious choice to administrate the fund.

    All donations are deposited and logged with the EDRNZ then distributed to the relevant party or individual. With modern banking on-line processes this would be an efficient near instantaneous transaction from donation to EDRNZ to candidate. (especially quick if the candidate banked with KiwiBank)

    DONATIONS:
    Any individual donation over $1000 is not anonymous and is declared on a public register.

    Donations below $1,000 can be anonymous but are still declared on a public register.

    Any donations from a business or a trust for example, of any amount, would not be anonymous and must be declared on the register. (Trusts are and will continue to be a major thorn in the paw of NZ politics, until they are extracted) Occassional audits of the anonymous deposits should show up attempts to circumvent this.

    Any donation of any amount not made in the name of a NZ citizen or resident of NZ would not be anonymous and must be declared on the public register.

    All cash donations, electoral office collections and ‘raffle’ sales etc are processed/declared as per origin of funds. -this is an obvious grey area for cases where this total exceeds $1000 but it is hardly an insurmountable obstacle. The circumstances of its collection would show the totals were legitimate. E.g. the deposit slip from bucket collections. Large single donations (over the $1000 limit) are very rare from a bucket day, i am confident dodo eggs would be more common, but a donor’s details could easily be logged by the collector or alternatively the donation can be made using any number of modern technical services such as Square, for one example.

    THE PUBLIC REGISTER

    Your vote is your vote and that should always be private information between you and the relevant electoral body. When it comes to political donations however, I strongly feel if you don’t want people to know you donated to a particular party then why are you donating to that party?

    I am sure there are plenty of clever folk out there who could shape a register with the suitable oversights which also provides the necessary social protections.

    Despite the disasters in information sharing from recent years, I am confident NZ could produce a public register detailing the donated amount with an associated donor identity that does so without signing away excessive amounts of private data. The Addresses or locality of the donor for example need not be specific or even public, you might live in Tawa but that does not mean you don’t want to support a candidate in Taupo.

    The transfer of data to the EDRNZ Public Register would not need to be instantaneous and a weekly update would most likely suffice.

    In conclusion, there are numerous opportunities to massively overcomplicate the environment of a body like EDRNZ, and despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from some heavily invested interest groups, the actual mechanics of its operation are incredibly straightforward and there is no reason for it not to operate efficiently and most importantly transparently.

    just an idea ….

    • Rosie 14.1
      10 January 2014 at 2:40 pm

      ………….and an excellent idea

      • freedom 14.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 8:00 pm

        thanks Rosie,
        after the recent calls for some discussion of actual ideas, I was interested in reading folks views on it, but I guess it could not compete with discussing a hypothetical Parliament.

        see you anon, have a good weekend

  15. Te Reo Putake 15
    10 January 2014 at 2:03 pm

    Dreamer of the week, No 94: wannabee Epsom MP David Seymour.

    “… having returned to New Zealand for the Christmas break and finding “a very positive vibe” around Act he decided he would indeed seek the nomination.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11184284

  16. Rose 16
    10 January 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Strange behaviour in the suburbs. I went shopping at another supermarket than my usual today. An Asian lady came right up to me and glared at me for no reason. I jumped. It was almost as though she was saying, ‘Stay away from here.’ Weird. The other evening I parked the car and dropped a letter into the mailbox outside the Post Office. Suddenly an Asian man walked to the ATM nearby and jerked his head to the side as though he was checking that I wasn’t following him. Weird.

    • Ennui 16.1
      10 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Rosie, you represent a big threat. In places like W(h)anganui you can no longer even identify “patched” gang members to help you out if you are assailed by your common garden citizen (well known dangerous buggers, half of them vote National).

      • Rosie 16.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 4:12 pm

        Hi Ennui – that was Rose saying about the (perceived) strange behaviour in the burbs, not me.

        Something stranger is this: A woman was murdered in her home in our neighbourhood. Neighbours heard her screaming at 1am as she was being stabbed to death but no one phoned the cops. The 111call that was made came from inside her house. That fact that no one thought to phone the cops when they hear some one screaming at 1 in the morning just blows my mind.

        Hope your chickens are doing well 🙂

        • Rose 16.1.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 4:50 pm

          That is not very compassionate of the neighbours. People don’t realise that police cruise around in cars and can get there quicker than you think if a car happens to be near by.

          • Rosie 16.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 5:54 pm

            You’re right Rose. It wasn’t very compassionate of the neighbours. I found it really upsetting that they didn’t do anything, and it deepened my concern about the isolating and non engaging nature of our suburb. Also, what must the victims family and friends feel about the fact that in her last moments in life she was abandoned by those that could have helped her?

            I can’t say I ever experience anyone looking at me in a hostile way in the burbs, as you have experienced- I’m the opposite, I go about completely unseen unless I am wearing my “are you serious” meme girl t shirt. I got this image printed on to a t shirt as an expression of my consternation toward:

            A) Our National Government and their policies
            B) The voters who allowed the above to happen

            http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/208/f/0/meme_are_you_serious_girl_rubia_png_by_mfsyrcm-d58vouw.png

            I get a lot of looks then, mostly ones just as baffled as her.

        • Ennui 16.1.1.2
          10 January 2014 at 7:27 pm

          Thanks Rosie, the ladies still rule the roost!!!!!!

    • wtl 16.2
      10 January 2014 at 3:14 pm

      I don’t get your point. Are you trying to link these “weird” behaviours to the fact the these people are “Asian”? If there were “white” people behaving the same way, would you have said:

      “Strange behaviour in the suburbs. I went shopping at another supermarket than my usual today. A white lady came right up to me and glared at me for no reason. I jumped. It was almost as though she was saying, ‘Stay away from here.’ Weird. The other evening I parked the car and dropped a letter into the mailbox outside the Post Office. Suddenly a white man walked to the ATM nearby and jerked his head to the side as though he was checking that I wasn’t following him. Weird.”

      • Anne 16.2.1
        10 January 2014 at 3:35 pm

        Hang on wtl. Don’t jump to conclusions. I have a friend who has had a few similar experiences. She lives in an Auckland suburb. They’re recent experiences and she doesn’t know why it’s happening. I might add she’s not anti-Asian. She’s even taught Asians in an Asian country.

        • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1
          10 January 2014 at 3:52 pm

          Quite unusual behaviour for Asians to ‘glare’ at whites. (Although I do it all the time to certain types on the campaign trail lol)

          I wonder if this is some kind of unconscious reaction to background anti-asian behaviour or media which has been occurring (though I am not aware of anything specific that has changed).

          The other thing which would be interesting to know…are these Asians that have been seen reacting mainland Chinese, other Chinese, Koreans, Japanese or from somewhere else?

          • Rose 16.2.1.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 4:41 pm

            Just saying that I felt surprised in the supermarket and on the street when going about my daily business – and described what I saw. I feel it’s touching on human rights issues to be able to go about your daily business freely. I wondered whether anyone else has had similar experiences. Unfortunately I can’t know where these people come from unless I ask them, and I can’t see how I could ask them.

            wtl: I never said that I don’t like Asians.

            When you glare at whites, Colonial Viper, I’m guessing that’s your way of saying, ‘Back off.’ Why would a woman in a supermarket want me to back off? She did look like a National voter and maybe she could tell by the way I was dressed that I wasn’t wealthy. We were in a beautiful suburb. But still, that is nonsense as it’s not the Kiwi way.

            • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 4:48 pm

              Your last sentence or two is very interesting and revealing. Most Asian cultures are very class and status aware. Hence the endless brand name shopping bs that those who are wealthy enough seem to participate in.

        • wtl 16.2.1.2
          10 January 2014 at 4:02 pm

          The point is the there is no reason to classify those people as ‘Asian’. If it was a white person doing it, I’m guessing rosie would just have said “a lady” and “a man”, yet if a member of a minority does it the person gets described as being a member of that minority even when it is irrelevant to the story.

          This kind of thing is endemic in NZ. For example, most of the articles on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang affair contained the statement that she was “Hong Kong-born” (even in the one line summary), when this piece of information was hardly a key point to the story itself.

          • Colonial Viper 16.2.1.2.1
            10 January 2014 at 4:06 pm

            IMO it’s even better if we not only class these people as Asian (if they broadly speaking are), but to then see if we can’t find out if there is a specific subgroup or nationality acting differently than what we might expect. Admittedly, I’m just being nosey, but if some underlying social dynamic has changed it would be very interesting to figure out.

            • Rose 16.2.1.2.1.1
              10 January 2014 at 8:37 pm

              My whole experience at the supermarket checkout was unpleasant. The lady glared at me, the Kiwi cashier didn’t greet me, the Asian bag packer swung her hand out within two inches of my face pointing to another cashier, and the bag packer forgot to include some items which I luckily noticed.

              Maybe the first lady is a customer monitor who decides who they want to regularly shop in the store – rich National voters only. A sort of segregation of the rich and poor.

              • NZ Femme …
                10 January 2014 at 9:26 pm

                In my experience, when the customer service is that bad, the company culture at the top is even worse. Shitty management + crappy wages = unhappy workers giving mediocre service.

                Maybe the lady who glared at you mistook you for someone else? Or maybe you accidentally ran over her toes while making a bee-line for the last punnet of raspberries at the end of the fruit aisle? (No wait, that was me on Xmas Eve)

              • Murray Olsen …
                11 January 2014 at 1:38 am

                Which race was the Kiwi cashier? Would Paul Henry have accepted them as a Kiwi?

          • Rose 16.2.1.2.2
            10 January 2014 at 5:20 pm

            Kiwis can behave rudely too. The other evening I was walking along the footpath of a fairly busy street. Two Kiwi teenage boys came riding towards me on their bikes at full speed. I decided not to jump off the footpath to make way for them as the footpath is for foot traffic. The boy nearest the road was forced to ride onto the road which seemed a bit dangerous as a car came up right behind him.

      • greywarbler 16.2.2
        10 January 2014 at 4:24 pm

        wtl and cv
        The woman reported what had happened to her. That’s all. It was noticeable, and made her feel puzzled. Don’t start that hyper-reactive stuff.

        • Anne 16.2.2.1
          10 January 2014 at 6:02 pm

          Exactly greywarbler.

          wtl is suggesting some kind of selective racism is going on here but if there are individuals from a particular ethnic background behaving in a slightly unusual way then it’s stupid to say you can’t name their ethnicity. As I pointed out, I know someone who has had some similar experiences with the same ethnic group.

          If we go down wtl’s track then I could suggest that he/she is being negatively gender-selective in that he is questioning the right of a woman to comment about a personal experience. For instance, would he/she have made the same kind of comment if the commenter had been a man?

          It sounds to me like there might be a bit of a backlash occurring from a few people of Asian origin who have experienced anti-Asian sentiment in NZ.

          • greywarbler 16.2.2.1.1
            10 January 2014 at 6:58 pm

            Anne
            When Asian people are targetted by thieves, on the assumption they must be wealthy, I think they might look to their back at the ATM. I do. At who is there and how close as you are advised to be careful about hiding your pin number.

            I get antsy when anyone comes to stand beside me as I finish at the supermarket close enough to see my pin number. Tall people could see right over my guard hand if they wanted to. So it could be habit being careful.

            But watchfulness led to that nasty business in Florida where the black youngster might or might not have been a thief but the whole thing got out of hand and the Cuban I think knifed? the black guy after reporting him to the police

            Maori have felt targetted for decades. There was the sarcastic Maori joke about there being a law that allowed the police to stop them for being Maori in charge of a car.

  17. Tracey 17
    10 January 2014 at 4:03 pm

    ” Nationwide, the median household income increased from $51,400 in 2006 to $63,800 last year.”

    Source cos id like to read more of the breakdown

  18. Tracey 18
    10 January 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Thanks cv

    My cousins vvisitd last night. They said that a landlord was charging 590 a week for the home they charged 290 a week pre earthquake. I wonder if some landlords think if an insurance company paid it was ok? Having said that accom payouts have probably finished.

    • Lanthanide 18.1
      10 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

      “Having said that accom payouts have probably finished.”

      Surely you jest.

      EQC repairs are getting underway for a lot of people now; myself and family included. Generally for EQC work you have to move out of your house for 3-6 weeks, during which time your insurer will pay for temporary accommodation.

      Only those who homes were destroyed / badly damaged will have used up their accommodation payments by now. Those houses were in the minority, while also getting the vast amount of publicity.

      • greywarbler 18.1.1
        10 January 2014 at 8:56 pm

        My son’s family have just had last of minor cracking, repaired, filled and painted. Those who have had lots of damage have suffered. And deserve consideration and support and individual planning appointments if needed. And prompt action if to that level.

    • ScottGN 19.1
      10 January 2014 at 7:31 pm

      Aside from the fact it’s the Daily Mail, so most likely a load of old bollocks anyway this isn’t going to happen to NZ since the government you support would rather do anything than follow in the path of the Norwegians when it comes to managing the profits from resource extraction.

    • Paul 19.2
      10 January 2014 at 7:47 pm

      Have you read the Mail?
      It’s a rag.

      • greywarbler 19.2.1
        10 January 2014 at 9:07 pm

        Try the Norway report with link from joe 90. And if you don’t go there I have quoted some facts from it that can’t be written off. Of course we should not be thinking now of drilling for oil and gas, or be fully occupied with finding other energy sources, but still it is great to read of a country that isn’t English speaking. No news is good news if in English.

        Open mike 10/01/2014

    • BM 19.3
      10 January 2014 at 7:56 pm

      I agree, shame Labour wants to keep every one poor.

      • Draco T Bastard 19.3.1
        10 January 2014 at 8:55 pm

        Digging up our resources and selling them is such a way so that the major beneficiaries are foreign corporates and their stockholders doesn’t make NZ richer. In fact, it makes NZ poorer as we lose resources and get nothing for them.

    • felix 19.4
      10 January 2014 at 8:21 pm

      errr…

      BM and chris, you do realise that’s the complete opposite of what National is doing. Don’t you?

      (I know you do chris)

  20. millsy 20
    10 January 2014 at 9:46 pm

    The Greens need to understand that to be able to achieve thier goals then a massive ‘Think Big’ style program of state investment is needed. Off the top of my head, solar heating for all schools and state housing and a CRI to focus on clean renewable energy. I see no such promises in thier manifesto.

    • weka 20.1
      10 January 2014 at 10:44 pm

      C. Using the Sun

      Solar energy is most effectively used as direct heat, for water and space heating. Solar electricity from photo-voltaic panels is still very expensive but is appropriate in remote and off-grid locations. As this technology reduces in price, and with the benefit of bulk purchasing, it may become part of our grid-connected electricity system. The Green Party supports:

      Letting a Government tender for a five year programme to produce and install 500, 000 sq metres of solar water heating panels (sufficient to supply about 125,000 homes). The programme will be:
      Divided between government buildings (such as state houses, prisons, and hospitals) and suitable private buildings (with priority given to low income families, large families, and isolated rural communities) where the cost savings from the bulk purchase will be passed on to the householder, and
      Designed to build capacity in the manufacturing and installation of solar water heaters and bring down the price substantially and permanently.

      https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/energy-policy

    • Molly 20.2
      11 January 2014 at 9:26 am

      Was reading somewhere that Perth used to have a requirement for new buildings – and building lots – to be designed to allow for passive solar orientation.

      This existed for a while, and when the rules were ‘relaxed’ the increase in energy consumption was noticeable.

      A simple non-technical, no-cost rule such as this requires only designers and planners that are informed and diligent.

      I brought this up with the Unitary Plan Manager, John Duguid during a community workshop. (Where they go through the motions of listening to the community. Though to be fair, a couple of my suggestions did get picked up). The look of incomprehension was memorable. We continue to design new subdivisions and lots around how many we can fit in – and roads.

      A good reminder for me, millsy, to make sure than this is in my Unitary Plan submission for Auckland.

  21. Colonial Viper 21
    10 January 2014 at 10:49 pm

    German authorities destroying logistical bases of political change and resistance stir up riots and police crack down.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25651806

  22. Draco T Bastard 22
    11 January 2014 at 12:09 am

    Benefits Street is a ‘misrepresentation’ of life on welfare, says MP

    “What struck me is that it was called Benefits Street and then three-quarters or more of the programme actually followed one storyline which was about a petty criminal and shoplifter and how he lived on the proceeds of his crime, rather than the reality of what people face when they live on benefits,” Begg told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday morning.

    “Part of the problem of projecting the extreme cases is that people then extrapolate that and say that applies to everybody who is on benefits. There wasn’t anybody who was a typical benefit claimant featured on the programme at all. There was a huge imbalance.

    Shouldn’t be surprised though as it was Channel 4 – the same channel that brought us that load of lies The Great Global Warming Swindle. Just more beneficiary bashing which seems to be a global sport of the MSM and right-wing politicians.

Links to post

  • Comments are now closed

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Older posts

Older posts

Older posts