Open mike 10/02/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:49 am, February 10th, 2014 - 329 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 up to the mike …

329 comments on “Open mike 10/02/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • phillip ure 1.1
      10 February 2014 at 9:07 am

      at least nick clegg is talking about it..

      ..why the hell are our politicians too scared to talk about the 50 preventible deaths of young new zealanders..

      ..most years..

      http://whoar.co.nz/2014/two-cheers-for-nick-clegg-%E2%80%93-at-least-he%E2%80%99s-talking-about-drugs-commentwhoar-and-what-drives-the-silences-of-all-of-our-politicians-why-arent-they-speaking-up-argui/

      (excerpt..:)

      “..He is absolutely right in his analysis –

      – that prohibition has failed –

      – and addiction must be treated as a health issue..”

      (cont..)

      (ed:..as opposed to the stunning silences here in new zealand..

      ..it kinda does my head in..

      ..how these intelligent people..

      ..are seemingly unable to articulate the madnesses that are prohibition..

      ..from jailing people for pot..(f.f.s..!..)

      ..to the fifty young new zealanders who died from narcotics-overdose..

      ..in the last..and most..year(s..

      ..we constantly hear justications for spending squillions on roads/w.h.y..

      ..as ‘six/whatever number..of nz’ers have died in accidents in the last number of (however many) years..

      ..yet we have these 50 narcotics deaths..each/every year..

      ..and they are all ‘accidents’..

      ..some may argue being a junkie is a form of slow-suicide..(as others do with booze/food/whatever)..

      ..and they may have a point..

      ..but all of those overdoses were (preventible) accidents..

      ..junkies are not trying to outright kill themselves..

      ..they are just trying to get ‘out of it’..

      ..are drug-pigs..and take too much..

      ..and everything we have done since forever on/about this issue..

      ..is/has been wrong..wrong..wrong..

      ..and all of these intelligent people/politicians are intelligent/aware enough to know/understand this..

      ..is it fear of wowserism that scares them..?

      ..do they just lack the requisite testicular/ovarian fortitude..

      ..to be able to speak honestly/frankly..?

      ..or a combination of the two..?

      ..but whatever the reasons..

      ..all of those politicians stand guilty of a crime..

      ..a ‘crime’ that results in 50 preventible/accidental-deaths..

      ..each and every year..

      ..this must stop/change..

      (cont..)

      phillip ure..

      • phillip ure 1.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 9:24 am

        and i feel fenton deserves no kudos..

        ..she is one who has the platform/experience to talk of this issue..

        ..of the madness of prohibitions..

        ..she has said nothing..

        ..and this piece from her doesn’t call for the changes needed to prevent those 50 accidental deaths each year..

        ..it is more an exercise in self-aggrandisement..piggy-backing on the common-sense being spouted by others/the (accidental) death of hoffman..

        ..than anything else..

        ..fenton is still mirroring the (criminal) silences of all her fellow-politicians..

        ..(and i hafta say..if there is one thing i know about that vile muck that is methadone..

        ..that is it is so addictive..that users get down to small amounts daily..

        ..but that this nazi-smack has such a grip on them..

        ..that they are unable to do that final ‘kick’…

        ..and that many..20 years after taking methadone..are still trapped in/by it..

        ..and seeing as fenton herself raised this subject..

        ..i think it is fair to ask her if she too is an example of the utter fucken madness of getting people addicted to a drug more addictive than the one they were addicted to..

        ..(think about that for a minute..!..eh..?..)

        ..is fenton still hooked on methadone..?

        ..has she too..like so many others..been unable to make that final ”kick’..?

        ..and why won’t she come clean..

        ..and start talking some commonsense on narcotic-addiction..

        ..i mean..f.f.s..!..if not her..who..?

        phillip ure..

        • adam 1.1.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:19 am

          Because the idea that 40 odd years of a stupid idea(the war on drugs) is not working can’t be accepted by the right wing – even inside the labour party. If the war on drugs is wrong then, neo-liberalism is wrong. So don’t expect labour to move on it any time soon, we going to keep making criminals when we don’t need to. The police are going keep being onto a loser and wondering why the populous don’t like them. Meanwhile the state will get it’s taxes from booze and cigs. The drug companies will keep offering alternative treatments. And a 12 step programme will fail for someone whilst you read this.

          Not going to change Phillip – too much self interest, too much money involved, whats a few deaths when the drug companies and other groups can make millions?

        • greywarbler 1.1.1.2
          10 February 2014 at 11:27 am

          phillip ure
          Not everyone has your commitment to change and determination to have change and have to weigh what they have to lose as against coming out. When its addiction, one can be self-protective and for good reason.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.1
            10 February 2014 at 1:49 pm

            sure..gw..

            ..and i am not even particularly talking about fenton here..

            ..so that’s her excuse..

            ..what about all those other chicken-shit politicians..?

            ..what’s their excuse..?

            ..phillip ure…

        • Tim 1.1.1.3
          10 February 2014 at 3:06 pm

          You might be correct Phil – the kudos deserved simply being that she’s at least made an effort tp put it out there.
          But yes …. I’d agree with most of the rest, especially:
          prohibition has failed; treat it as a health issue; etc., etc…..
          If these so called “intelligent people” you speak of can;t seem to see the bleeding obvious, maybe they aren’t ekshly that intelligent after all.

          My personal view UNTIL the brain frying ‘P’ came along was that de-criminalisation of all was the way to go. That peculiar little (actually hugely large phenomenon) was a game changer ….. BUT it’s also the result of criminalising lesser evils.

          As I’ve said before – this pathetic ‘war on drugs’ is not only self-defeating and unwinable.
          …. and 30 or 40 plus years of this bullshit doesn’t seem to change the mindSET of the so-called ‘intelligent’ people you speak of.

          Thankfully I didn’t inherit the addictive personality that eventually killed (needlessly) my elder brother (….. the usual >> Hep C >> Liver Cancer >> you-know-the-rest) – however I both watched, and nursed the result.
          Through it all, I have to say my mind hasn’t changed. Criminalisation of what is a health issue sure as hell isn’t the answer.
          [Just as an aside – anyone who has nursed the sufferer of liver cancer through to their demise witnesses a very similar scenario as they would had the sufferer been afflicted with A I D S] ….. YET we seem to have grown up enough to realise AIDS is a health issue.

          Your so-called ‘intelligent’ people can’t really be that bright eh?
          Either that, or they don’t REALLY give give that much enough ‘of a fuck’ to put themselves out there to make the necessary changes (ekshly that the nature of today’s Labour Party, and the reason they’ll not get my vote till they prove themselves) – 2017 maybe – if they’re still around, and in the interim – maybe only an electorate vote (but then of course I’m dealing with Grant R – one who hasn’t exactly distinguished himself with principle, over loyalty, fame, personal over-ambition and his impending mid-life crisis).

          Criminalisation has ekshly led to the synthetics we see today. I mean …. ffs … PU (as a recovering specimen of the human race addict with a propensity towards over-use) …. do YOU have any desire to sample and indulge in fucking ‘P’?????
          Christ – I hope not! I hope if ever you decide on a lapse – it’ll be with decent and pure drugs.

          Careful though …. I wouldn’t want to see you convicted of having jumped over some 90 year old’s fence in pusuit of a purple flowering poppy with a Gillette razor-blade.
          I can see the MSM’s headline now! I’ll bet it would include the word ‘terror’, whilst, meanwhile ….(MSM: 90 yo terrorised; Police battle….etc.)

          Yea….. so called ‘intelligent people’ eh?

          The most frustrating thing for me is waiting for these so-called ‘intelligent people’ to see, and acknowledge the bleeding fucking obvious.

          And just as an aside ….. do you know how much it costs to shuv a spotter helicopter in the air (let alone spray with dye) .v. keeping afloat a Queen Mary Hospital, or a CareNZ establishment in Marton, or appear on TV from time to time; or have his ex-wife conduct and administer a done programme along with her new-found – whatever – [of course scoring on the side] ? Jeez it’s pathetic really eh? AND only possible in this environment of ‘criminalsation’.
          (not that I’m in favour of some namesake pretender Timmy-cum-lately, very overpaid CEO pretending the expertise and understanding) to make a difference.
          Baubles??

          Anyway…..
          as they say…… next!
          I’m fairly sure I’ll be out of here if the 2014 doesn’t effect some sort of genuine change.
          For me …. it’s what’s labelled the 3rd world, but is ekshly at the very least, the 2nd – and I’ll be happy to leave you all to it
          Yep Harding signals says yes to a green light to cash in!

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.3.1
            10 February 2014 at 4:53 pm

            “.do YOU have any desire to sample and indulge in fucking ‘P’?????..”

            ..no..speed/’p’ is poor mans cocaine…

            ..and i had more than my fair share of the latter..

            ..i loathe ‘p’ almost as much as i do methadone..

            ..and we have in speed/’p’ a drug that is far worse than cocaine..

            ..so once again..here in new zealand..

            ..we create a solution (successfully blocking access to cocaine..therefore punters use speed/’p’..)

            ..that is worse than the problem addressed..(cocaine use..)

            ..brilliant..!

            ..phillip ure..

            • Tim 1.1.1.3.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 6:55 pm

              Exactly…. All the supposed ‘solutions’ implemented over the past 40 or so years have proven to be worse than the problem.
              Criminalising smack use ….. we got ‘homebake’ with all its impurities and dangers …
              Criminalising and cracking (pardon the pun) down on everything else, we get ‘P’ and all its impurities, tooth and brain rot, psychotic behaviour, violence, gang involvement, etc. We’re actually at risk of losing half a generation.
              And for FUCK’s sake!!!! I hear they actually treating ‘P’ addicts with methadone (invented by the Nazis)
              You know what ….. I hear some of my brother’s contempories (now into their 60’s ffs) are STILL on the methadone programme – in the interests of ‘harm reduction!, and in the abscence of any sort of rehab programmes they could reasonably take advantage of.
              Really smart thinking eh? Thankfully I’m able to steer clear of the lot of them, though I do feel for them.
              Then I hear of those ‘P’ freaks that simply pick up their ‘done’ daily, divert and go and score a ‘point’. Harm reduction … yea right!

              If we’d been smart a decade or two ago, it’d never have come to this (and I’d probably still have a brother) – so I understand that you’re not that impressed with politicians’ weasel words.
              We seem to be medicating the masses in so many ways these days. I suspect they think its cheaper than actually dealing with problems sensibly

              • adam …
                10 February 2014 at 11:14 pm

                Like I said, too much money in it for the drug companies. The are many vested interests involved to not want changing a damn thing. They also know all they have to do is play the moral panic card, and all intelligent (it really is a health issue) debate is over. We live in sickening times, truly were just mad sheep on some issues.

        • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.4
          11 February 2014 at 3:12 am

          Methadone can work very well for some people. It depends a lot on the patient and how the actual program is run. The withdrawal from it is more extended, but less severe, than with heroin. Some people like to do things gradually, others like to get them over with asap. What has been lacking has been the treatment of the addict as the important person in the process. It should be for them, not for the lawn order freaks, the self-serving do gooders, the purveyors of the latest pop psychology cures, or the counsellors with deep set problems of their own.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.4.1
            11 February 2014 at 4:42 pm

            @ m.olsen..

            “..The withdrawal from it is more extended, but less severe, than with heroin. ..”

            ..that is a complete and utter lie..

            ..i know people who have done both..and are still hooked on methadone..

            ..and they will tell a very different story..

            ..could you plse cite the sources for these claims you are making..?

            ..and why the hell do you think there are so many people who have been on govt-methadone..

            ..for decades..?

            ..’cos it’s easier than heroin..

            ..seriously..olsen..!

            ..you could not be more fucken wrong..

            ..and why are you spreading such lies/clear miss-truths..?

            ..phillip ure..

            • Murray Olsen 1.1.1.4.1.1
              11 February 2014 at 11:24 pm

              My sources would seem to be pretty much the same as yours. The difference is that I have no desire to call you a liar, or insult you in any other way. I’m also not here looking for any weird sort of street cred. I’m here to contribute to a debate about making our society better. If you don’t like what I say, get over it. I don’t really care.

              • phillip ure …
                12 February 2014 at 12:24 am

                @ olsen..

                …your sources are not..’the same as mine’..

                you are making a claim..that flies in the face of the known medical facts about mehadone..

                ..namely..that it is much harder to kick than heroin..

                ,..and cold-turkey withdrawals can kill you..f.f.s..!

                ..heroin withdrawals don’t kill you..another medical fact that blows yr false thesis out of the water..

                ..i repeat..do you have links/whatever to support yr claim..?

                ..or is it just an orifice-pluck..?

                ..phillip ure..

  2. Paul 2
    10 February 2014 at 7:41 am

    In the news today, further evidence that New Zealand has a massive problem with alcohol that creates massive personal, social and financial costs.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9702447/Sin-bin-for-Sevens
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/9331572/One-in-10-Kiwis-now-alcoholic

    You could find stories like this every day.

    Are there any politicians with the guts to do something about it?
    Bill Meyer “We don’t need new ideas, we need the balls to implement the ideas we already know work”

    The 5+ Solution
    1. Raise alcohol prices
    2. Raise the purchase age
    3. Reduce alcohol accessibility
    4. Reduce marketing and advertising
    5. Increase drink-driving counter-measures
    PLUS: Increase treatment opportunities for heavy drinkers

    Sadly both major parties lack those politicians, They prefer to take the money and hospitality from powerful lobby groups rather than deal with NZ’s dreadful problem with this drug.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      10 February 2014 at 8:06 am

      Solution number six: stop pretending that you can fix mental health issues without tackling inequality.

      • Paul 2.1.2
        10 February 2014 at 8:56 am

        I agree.
        However, many of those causing social harm at the 7s have no inequality issues.
        It’s bigger than just an inequality issue.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1
          10 February 2014 at 9:24 am

          I suggest you inform yourself about the effects of inequality on mental health. Hint: they are not confined to decile 1.

      • greywarbler 2.1.3
        10 February 2014 at 11:42 am

        Don’t undermine the excellent points that Paul made about containing alcohol consumption.

        It seems that some prefer doing nothing small but prefer to go for the grand ideal in one or even many confused amorphous protests aimed at tackling the ghoul called ‘Inequality’. But improvement for people can be had now by doing human-style bite-sized changes that are possible. Not just waffle on about how bad things are and it’s all the fault of The Man.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:43 am

          It seems some say “something must be done! This is something, therefore we must do this!”

          • greywarbler 2.1.3.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 11:52 am

            OAB
            Yes, you.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 12:21 pm

              Nope. My position is very very very very simple. Alcohol price increases outstripped the CPI throughout the 2000s yet (according to you) people are drinking more.

              I think we should try something that works instead, something that’s supported by the evidence.

              Got a childish response to that too?

              • weka …
                10 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

                I thought the raising price one was daft too. For the people that can’t already afford their drug, making it more expensive just stresses them more and makes their need higher.

                On the otherhand, slogans of fixing inequality as the solution to all evils aren’t helpful either. Got some specific suggestions? Or should we just leave alcohol alone policy wise until the great revolution comes?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:02 pm

                  It won’t be a revolution, Weka, nor a slogan. It’ll be an election. As I said to Rosie below:

                  “That might sound like too long-term a solution but I think the effects of a Labour/Green government showing genuine concern for peoples’ well being rather than that of Sky City and Warner Bros, would be felt from day one.”

                  Certainly, if you have evidence of anything revolutionary, bring it on.

                  • weka …
                    10 February 2014 at 4:16 pm

                    Actually I think all things considered that IS revolutionary. But that’s not what I meant. I meant that solving inequality wasn’t going to happen with the current system any time soon, even with L/GP winning the election, so unless we wait for the revolution, should we not also try and do some other things about the problems with alcohol?

                    I think the absolutist stance of being anti-prohibition could be looked at. I don’t support prohibition in the conventional sense of the word, but we use prohibition (in the hyperbolic sense as per below) relatively successfully with children, and I think lowering the drinking age was completely irresponsible.

                    Addressing inequality (economic and other kinds too) would solve so many problems it’s a no brainer. However I’m not convinced that this would change the drinking culture alone, or in any meaningful timeframe. We might just all become equal drunks. I say this partly because I know that the drinking problems in my family were nothing to do with income, and my binge drinking along with many of my peers when I was teen was likewise not related to income for many of us. And partly because income is not the only thing creating drinking culture. So many other things from colonisation to AGW.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:29 pm

                      Ah, I think you’re missing the causative links between inequality and the problems it causes.

                      An example: to use a tired metaphor, the more unequal the society the further the rungs are apart on the ladder. The next rung up seems impossibly far away, and for those higher up, one step down is a major problem. As this affects everyone on the ladder, not just those on the bottom rung, so the ill effects of inequality are ubiquitous, though they do fall heaviest on those at the bottom.

                    • weka …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:38 pm

                      Are you suggesting that if we were all bunched together with a relatively ok standard of living that all the other problems in life would go away?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 8:15 pm

                      Weka, no. I’m saying that the evidence is that we’d see a reduction.

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2014 at 10:18 am

                      Can you explain that please? You can use the example of me and my middle class mates binge drinking when we were fifteen (early 80s, so pre-neoliberalism cultural change). I can see how reducing income inequality would have a generalised effect across the population (we’re all better off when everyone is doing ok), but you seem to be making a further claim that there are direct effects to the middle classes for issues that are not income related.

      • TightyRighty 2.1.4
        10 February 2014 at 4:50 pm

        lol. only poor people have mental health issues? thanks for that.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.4.1
          10 February 2014 at 8:17 pm

          Tighty, I’m concerned about your English comprehension skills. How do you go from “stop pretending that you can fix mental health issues without tackling inequality” to “only poor people have mental health issues”?

          Seriously. Perhaps you should keep a dictionary to hand. And use it.

        • tricledrown 2.1.4.2
          12 February 2014 at 10:12 pm

          tighty very brave admission.
          But people living in poverty have an 80% rate of depression.
          Plus people with mental ilnesses are much less able to work or stay in work.
          Maybe Now you can turn a new leaf in your life and not be straight jacketed by a selfish ideology.

    • BM 2.2
      10 February 2014 at 8:41 am

      Yes, if Labour had any balls they’d make all those points election promises.

      Especially the raise alcohol prices one, a vote winner there for sure.

      • Paul 2.2.1
        10 February 2014 at 8:56 am

        That’s my point. Of course it isn’t a vote winner, but sometimes the public interest comes first.
        Wouldn’t it be great if this wasn’t a party political issue where cross party support could be found to tackle this blight on our country?
        National and Labour are both parties without ideals, but are captive to corporate interests.

        • BM 2.2.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 9:11 am

          The vast majority of people have no problem with alcohol, it’s only a small amount of people who have an issue with booze.

          To punish the majority because of the minority is both foolish and undemocratic.

          The problem is how do you stop people who can’t handle their piss from drinking while not impinging on the rights of every one else.

          • bad12 2.2.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 9:17 am

            Aaaaaah Derrr BM, how would the ‘rights’ of this vast majority of people who went to the 7’s this weekend be infringed by simply banning all alcohol from the stadium,

            After all the ‘vast majority’ didn’t according to you go there to get pissed and behave idiotically, they went to watch the rugby…

            • BM 2.2.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 9:24 am

              Once again why ban alcohol because a small group got trollied and acted the drunken fuck wit.

              10’s of thousands of people had no problem, the key to it is to come down on people like a ton of bricks who do break the rules.

              Be the drunken fuck wit instant $1000 dollar fine, none of this “you’ve been a bit naughty, I’ll just give you a warning this time, but next time when you’re out drinking don’t urinate over the head of the person sitting in front of you, it’s not very nice” nonsense.

              That’s the way you get it sorted.

              • tricledrown …
                10 February 2014 at 11:39 am

                Alcohol damages NZ economy to the tune of $6billion every year look at the Wellington sevens hospital beds being wasted at $1500 per bed for alcohol poisined rugby patrons the sevens and alcohol sellers should be paying the bill
                I am paying to subsidise alcoholism the most damaging drug in NZ.

              • tricledrown …
                10 February 2014 at 11:46 am

                Any one who supports alcohol to be glamourized
                Needs to be pissed on by a drunken idiot.

                • McFlock …
                  10 February 2014 at 1:06 pm

                  People who want NZers to stop drinking
                  needs to ask why we drink.

                  Much of the time it’s because of
                  people who want NZers to stop drinking

                    • fender …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:43 pm

                      I thought it was quite witty, the suggestion people drink because others keep going on about them needing to stop drinking..

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 3:09 pm

                      pretty much, fender.

                      As far as I know, nobody (except the corporations, but that’s a problem with capitalism, not alcohol – and they fail dismally, anyway) wants alcohol “glamourized”. Then contrasting that with some of the worst behaviour associated with alcohol essentially creates a fictitious problem.

                      Which means that any real-world outcome from efforts to solve that fictitious problem is purely coincidental.

                      Wowsers can’t change human behaviour, be it sex or alcohol or smoking. The last has almost entirely been addressed by making smoking a privilege of the rich, while keeping it a curse of the poor. Wowsers had nothing to do with it.

                  • just saying …
                    10 February 2014 at 2:40 pm

                    lol.
                    You remind me of a time back when I was bar-tending. I was trying to persuade a guy who was trolleyed to let me phone a taxi for him. He said (with complete shit-faced sincerity) “it’s not drunks who cause the accidents, we’re just swerving to miss the old people. It’s the old people that cause all the accidents”.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      You show me the person who thinks Tui or DB export are “glamorous”. Seriously.

                      So as a bar tender, had that guy been served in your establishment? Nine times out of ten they have been. So the end of the problem was him being drunk and falling down a drain or hitting someone. Part of the start of the problem is the conflict between profit and under-enforced legal obligation. And if they “preload”, they shouldn’t get through the door.

              • bad12 …
                10 February 2014 at 12:07 pm

                Stupid comment BM, if the vast majority of those attending the 7’s went there to watch the rugby then a total alcohol ban at the stadium is not going to overly effect that vast majority is it,

                Those most effected by an alcohol ban will be those who go there with the intention of getting pissed…

                • fender …
                  10 February 2014 at 12:17 pm

                  “Those most effected by an alcohol ban will be those who go there with the intention of getting pissed…”

                  And the people who make megabucks from selling it, and who probably paid megabucks for the privilege of being able to trade at the stadium.

                • MaxFletcher …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:34 pm

                  “Stupid comment BM, if the vast majority of those attending the 7′s went there to watch the rugby then a total alcohol ban at the stadium is not going to overly effect that vast majority is it,”

                  Yeah but I would wager the vast majority, while not getting completely plastered, would still enjoy a beer or two while watching the games unfold.

          • Rosie 2.2.1.1.2
            10 February 2014 at 9:40 am

            “To punish the majority because of the minority is both foolish and undemocratic”.

            It is everybody’s problem when the minority you talk about kill others on the road, or injure them to the point where there the remainder of their life and their ability to earn an income is adversely effected.

            Juts think of the number of people affected there by one’s person’s actions. The victim themselves, their partner, their family, their friends, their neighbourhood, their workplace.

            Harm isn’t confined to the problem drinker and they are not isolated. They are part of society. So their drinking and the way that drinking is controlled is in everybody’s interests. Paul is right, the public need to come first, however I also wonder “Are there any politicians with the guts to do something about it?”

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2014 at 10:26 am

              Nah, Paul is wrong. Prohibition doesn’t work. The moonshine is freely available – delivery is even available in some areas – and people switch to it when retail alcohol is priced out of their reach.

              None of these measures represents a fence at the top of the cliff.

              We can waste lots of resources trying to put band aids on the multiple symptoms or we can treat the disease. The disease is inequality, and no amount of authoritarian responses will do a damn thing about it.

              • Rosie …
                10 February 2014 at 11:01 am

                Hi Blokey. I don’t see Paul talking about prohibition, and I know prohibition doesn’t work. It sends the problem underground, just for starters. I also don’t see his 5 points plus the increased access to treatment as particularly authoritarian. They aren’t impinging on anyone’s freedoms to drink, they are putting some controls in place, ones I believe would make it safer for all of us. I don’t see regulation as a waste of resources.

                I do understand your point about treating the disease – it is social in origin and it requires a society based approach (which I don’t have the answers for) but surely this can work along side regulation?

                What I do have a problem with is BM’s assertion that a minority doesn’t affect the majority. It shows that he thinks in a very individualistic way and can’t take into account that the whole of society is affected when an individual has a problem.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:13 am

                  1. Raise alcohol prices
                  2. Raise the purchase age
                  3. Reduce alcohol accessibility

                  I employed hyperbole in describing these measures as “prohibition”, but these are the measures I’m referring to. All of them restrict “the freedom to drink” as you put it, or in fact, none of them do, because as explained above, people make their own or buy it from their local illegal vendor. A perverse outcome indeed.

                  You might as well try and outlaw BM’s right wing drivel, or exterminate rats.

                  The fact is these are society’s problems; alcoholism and BM’s right wing drivel both. When individuals have problems (and we all do) society has to suck it up, so it makes sense for society to regulate the source of the problems rather than (and this is where the BM’s always want to go) jailing victims.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 February 2014 at 11:54 am

                    Reality check: alcohol price rises outpaced CPI throughout the 2000s, and yet (you say) people are drinking more. Curious.

                  • Rosie …
                    10 February 2014 at 1:17 pm

                    OAB, I am not denying that alcoholism is society’s problem – I said as much above. I also said I don’t have the answers.

                    Discussion of booze harm can be sensitive for those of us who have been victims of the boozing of others therefore I don’t’ want to get into an argument about some points that Paul raised that I support. I would though, be sincerely interested to know what socially based solutions you would suggest.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 1:54 pm

                      I’ve already said what the most effective target is: income inequality. Reduce that and you reduce a whole range of harm.

                      That might sound like too long-term a solution but I think the effects of a Labour/Green government showing genuine concern for peoples’ well being rather than that of Sky City and Warner Bros, would be felt from day one.

                      Think about the amount of harm that Dr. Bratt does, for example. One redundancy notice would save so many lives.

                    • Rosie …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:03 pm

                      Ok, now that you’ve expanded on inequality I am following you. Yes it is long term but it would be part of a holistic approach and yes to giving Dr Bratt the sack.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

                      Oh I’d go a lot further than that. I’d want to know how MSD, for example, takes “expert” advice from a physician who is excused from their oath for the purpose. Not just stop it flowering somewhere else: find out how this perversion happened and pull out the roots.

                      I can’t see why introducing evidence-free public policy should be anything other than a section in the crimes act.

            • miravox 2.2.1.1.2.2
              10 February 2014 at 10:31 am

              “Are there any politicians with the guts to do something about it?”

              not this one…

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11199319

              • Paul …
                10 February 2014 at 10:40 am

                This line stands out
                He( Key) said he would “definitely win” a game of beer pong against Labour leader David Cunliffe.
                Unbelievable.

                • Rosie …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:03 am

                  Exactly. There’s your problem right there. Boozing as a competition sport. Mind you, everything is a game to him.

                  • miravox …
                    11 February 2014 at 12:51 am

                    +1 Rosie.

                    Attitude towards alcohol is just as important as availability – moreso if the person in question has responsibility for setting availability and can legitimise social/cultural attitudes around drinking and drunkenness.

            • Paul 2.2.1.1.2.3
              10 February 2014 at 10:36 am

              People like bm think only of individual rights. Any Rand, his heroine, saw no such thing as society.

            • Naki Man 2.2.1.1.2.4
              10 February 2014 at 1:01 pm

              These repeat drunk drivers that just get a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket are a joke.
              Some of these people just don’t give a shit ,they don’t pay their fines or stop driving drunk.Someone needs to grow some balls and say third drink driving offence your car gets sold and you can walk or take the bus.

          • Paul 2.2.1.1.3
            10 February 2014 at 10:19 am

            So no societal issue then bm?

          • greywarbler 2.2.1.1.4
            10 February 2014 at 11:44 am

            BM
            Speaks for the vast majority. Take note all about everything that BM says, about alcohol anyway, and probably anything you would care to name. And lots you wouldn’t.

          • PapaMike 2.2.1.1.5
            10 February 2014 at 3:12 pm

            I hope that the Auckland League competition is more alcohol friendly to the Police than the Wellington Sevens last week.
            All booze should be banned for sale in the Stadiums, and anybody showing drinking signs, after search, should not be allowed in.

    • ianmac 2.3
      10 February 2014 at 9:31 am

      My wife went to a cricket match in Dubai with NZ playing Sri Lanka (I think.) It was a totally alcohol free match. She said there was a great deal of enjoyment, good humour and friendliness amongst and between the spectators. A great day with no violence or unpleasantness. Not sure what would happen in an alcohol free NZ match. Perhaps NZers wouldn’t go if there was no chance to drink.

      • logie97 2.3.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:49 am

        My wife and I went to Eden Park on Friday.
        Wonderful day’s cricket. Hardly a drop of alcohol visible in the North Stand around us.
        Strange that – crowd seemed to be enjoying the purpose of the day – watching international cricket.

        Might add that the age profile of the crowd was probably on the high end – not much evidence of the “yob” age group.

        • Tracey 2.3.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 1:07 pm

          I was there thursday and saturday. My observation was thaT THOSE WHO WERE DRINKING, DRANK ALOT, CONSTANTLY UP AND DOWN FOR REFILLS. mOST WERENT DRINKING ALCOHOL. wAS IN SOUTH STAND.

          oops caps lock, sorry

    • RedBaronCV 2.4
      10 February 2014 at 10:02 am

      Listening to the Radio about the sevens. Number of people commenting on the harrassment of young women. What do we expect will happen to male attitudes when all they hear are “shock jocks” on the radio and TV and the slagging of young mothers who are on a benefit by the government which is just feeding these attitudes. Abusing women has become the norm in this country.

      • Paul 2.4.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:17 am

        When people like Veitch get given the role of presenter on one of NZ’s main sports programmes, you can why we’ve got a problem.
        Laddish drinking culture a huge problem. Part of the me culture tolerated and encouraged by neoliberalism. “It’s my right to get drunk” combined with no societ responsibility.
        That’s what happens when 30 years of Randist ideology seeps through a culture.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 10:40 am

          That’s what happens when 30 years of Randist ideology seeps through a culture.

          Agreed.

          @RBCV – they feed off one another – “he’s just saying what we’re all thinking” – as though (even if it were true) that were any excuse.

          The shock jocks are required to be provocative by their employers, and it is their employers’ message that they bring.

          • weka 2.4.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 2:40 pm

            “Laddish drinking culture a huge problem. Part of the me culture tolerated and encouraged by neoliberalism. “It’s my right to get drunk” combined with no societ responsibility.”

            As opposed to the drinking culture that existed in NZ prior to 1984? You’re kidding right?

    • Ron 2.5
      10 February 2014 at 10:23 am

      We need to pressure left wing politicians to implement Doug Sellman’s plans completely. I don’t think anything would incline NatAct people to clamp down on Alcohol. The nice rewards from the Liquor industry are just too attractive to their desire for wealth and power.

      • greywarbler 2.5.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:01 am

        Have to remember that the liquor industry is ‘supportive’ of both right and left wing politicians. It is firmly embedded in their pocket books and their pukus. Can’t get rid of it, it’s like sugar, a bit of it is nice, but how much is enough? of lovely liquor or the monetary advantages it brings.

        • Belladonna 2.5.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:44 am

          So why punish the poor yet again by raising alcohol prices. That will go down well with Labour voters. Punish those who abuse alcohol not the majority who dont. Silly idea IMO. Winning the next election will be difficult enough, let’s not make it worse.

          • greywarbler 2.5.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 11:50 am

            Belladonna
            Bearing what you have said in mind might come to pass. So a good idea would be to raise the price on spirits and Ready-to-Drinks.
            RTDs are beloved by young ones who are not the ones who vote most, and if they drink less they might have time to think more and see where their interests lie, and stop lying in at hospital emergency wards.

            Target the problem then, the RTDs, the spirits with their more bang for your buck effect, and lower the alcohol limit allowed in RTDs, and make low alcohol beer more interesting by reducing taxes on the under 5%. But making sure it doesn’t start being sold to children as safe in covert advertising and advertorials.

            Some useful pathways to more controlled drinking here.

            • Rosie 2.5.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 1:25 pm

              It’s no coincidence that when the minimum purchase age was lowered alco pops (RTD’s) were launched on the market and product branding was aggressively targeted towards young people. Easy peasy, straight off the kiddy soft drinks and straight on to the alcoholic soft drinks. A whole new market was and is exploited.

              Belladonna – of course alcohol controls aren’t a vote winner and of course it won’t be an election issue – but politicians need to start having some honesty around what motivates them to turn a blind eye to the harm excessive drinking has in our society.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 February 2014 at 1:28 pm

                Belladonna – of course alcohol controls aren’t a vote winner

                They are a vote winner with the over 50 crowd.

                • McFlock …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:22 pm

                  until you touch sherry and whiskey

                  • greywarbler …
                    10 February 2014 at 3:46 pm

                    Oh dear, I don’t think he was looking at anybody personally.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 3:56 pm

                      I’m thinking of the impact of andertons alcopop tax – seemed to be a bit of an issue at the time

                    • greywarbler …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:26 pm

                      I think it is the alcopops that are connected to a memory of the late Michael wossname. Who was so sorry that young people happened to go for his alcoholic goodies, because he hadn’t made them with very young people in mind. That’s why when somebody (Anderton?) put a tax on any over say 14% strong, this restraint to trade annoyed him so much he complied with new brews at 13.8%.

                      But good on Jim for trying. Bringing them down to 8% would have been the next move. The kids could have gone on drinking them feeling that they were tough, cynical and sophisticated at the same time, cool, sexy and the right stuff, and gradually we would have weened them off down to a lower alcohol level. No way can we make prohibition work though. As someone said if they cut out the alcohol would people go to some sports.

                      5.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

                      you really don’t get the youth drinking culture (and, pro-tip, it’s not just youths), do you.

                      The attractiveness about alcopops isn’t the alcohol, it’s the synthi-sweet. They’re tailored for people who have tastebuds like their fashion sense. The bulk beer is 3-5% and tailored to lads (mostly by appropriating the parochialism inspired by the fine original brews rather than today’s lolly-water). All 8% alcopops will do is increase the size of the market that the corporates can shill to before blatantly breaking the law (like serving grossly intoxicated individuals).

                      Ban advertising. Enforce the sale of liquor act more strongly and frequently. Hit drink drivers with a stick (not a discharge without conviction). And stop pretending you know what “cool” is.

                    • greywarbler …
                      10 February 2014 at 5:09 pm

                      McFlock
                      I’ll go with that. My way as you say would just have been an introduction to the newbies, rather than weaning the others off. So Anderton was on a hiding to nowhere trying to limit the strength and just coming up against Mr Big who did very well out of the biz till he died.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 5:29 pm

                      Anderton had some funny wee ideas while an MP – my personal favourite was his “NOS” fixation. There was one car death I vaguely recall which (while tragic though it was) Anderton was bold to attribute to nitrous, what with all the MJ and alcohol in the driver at the time of death.

                    • greywarbler …
                      10 February 2014 at 5:55 pm

                      Mcflock
                      I have long run out of reply buttons. Don’t know where this will turn up. I think that Anderton never got over a family tragedy involving his daughter. He was then doubly concerned about smoking and drinking.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 5:57 pm

                      heh – just saw a photo on facebook that seems apt: “In alcohol’s defense I’ve done some pretty dumb shit while completely sober too.” Although I suggest they at the lack of commas to the list, too.

                      edit – damn, just saw the thing about anderton and now I’m inappropriate, as is my habit…

                      Anyway, yes anderton had a lot of personal issues, and for those he has my sympathy – but that’s not how you create sensible policy.

    • Bill 2.6
      10 February 2014 at 5:06 pm

      Would a minimum $ cost per alcohol unit cripple the sales of RTDs and end the sale of alcoholic ‘loss leaders’?
      Would low income people really suffer? I mean, it’s not as though alcohol is like tobacco where rampant price increases hammered poorer smokers because tobacco is a ‘fixed expenditure’…ie, only comes in certain quantities and consumption stays steady.

      Such a policy is being legally challenged in Scotland. Interestingly it had cross party support (bar the Labour Party) and studies (reported in second link) suggest ‘moderate’ drinkers – yup, big judgement call there – won’t notice any difference in expenditure.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_%28Minimum_Pricing%29_%28Scotland%29_Act_2012

      http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/minimum-pricing-will-tackle-harmful-drinking-1-3300335

    • Flip 2.7
      10 February 2014 at 9:38 pm

      @Paul

      It is funny how as soon as you mention increasing prices on alcohol all the market theory goes out the window and clearly price does not affect demand.

      Alcohol causes harm in society. The harm alcohol causes, (costs) should be paid by the users through taxation on alcohol. Less harm less tax. More harm more tax.

  3. Yoza 3
    10 February 2014 at 7:44 am

    I’ve been banned from commenting over at Kiwiblog, I suspect others have been banned for the same reason – expressing views that are diametrically opposed to the prevailing kiwiblog narrative.
    If you have also been banned without warning or for no apparent reason can you contact me over here: Banned From Kiwiblog

    I appear to have been blocked from commenting on Kiwiblog. It seems odd as my last comments were quite banal in a meandering thread about Australian supermarkets banning New Zealand goods – The flip side of protectionism. David Farrar, the National party apparatchik behind Kiwiblog, likes to describe himself as a classical liberal. In his own words, someone who likes to be seen as having:
    “… a belief in individual rights, limited government, private property, free markets, tolerance, and reason.”
    There is, however, no point in saying you believe in individual rights, tolerance and reason if you ban someone from commenting in a forum with a political bent. Silencing those who disagree with your personal political philosophy is an act of cowardice and a tactic more readily adopted by a petty tyrant incapable of tolerating vigorous dissent.

    I am still reading Kiwiblog to see who else has been recently gagged. I haven’t seen anything of late from Tom Jackson or Ross69, but this could be just them not commenting over the last couple of days. My pet theory is David Farrar is slowly snuffing out dissenting elements on his blog as this is an election year, an election year where the result could go either way.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      10 February 2014 at 7:50 am

      There is a demerits page at http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/demerits and I see you had 50 demerits as at February 9. Something happen to tip you over?

      • Yoza 3.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 8:18 am

        No, I thought my last comments in the The flip side of protectionism thread were quite tame. The 50 demerits happened after I called Farrar a dog whistling racist in a thread, ages ago, about a young Muslim woman who was complaining she was being held against her will by her in-laws and husband. From memory, the comment that followed mine in that particular thread was from Andrew Geddis or Graeme Edgeler and they pretty much accused Farrar of exactly the same thing, probably in more diplomatic language, but weren’t censured.
        Since those 50 demerits I have been very careful to be more diplomatic when posting comments. I have a record of around 1200 comments, so this was out of the blue – no warning, no explanation.
        It is annoying more than anything else.

        I’m posting here more out of curiosity as to whether anyone else has a similar experience.

        • MaxFletcher 3.1.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 8:54 am

          I have never posted there but know people who have and it is pretty difficult to get banned over there – particularly hard to get banned for not supporting the status quo (for example Penny Bright was a frequent commentator).

          • Yoza 3.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 9:34 am

            I think Penny is tolerated because she tends to dump a huge chunk of text that is difficult to read and she doesn’t engage the audience there. There are a few regular dissenters, who I haven’t seen posting there recently, who do engage with other posters and who are more succinct and easier to read, I’m thinking of Ryan Sproull, Weihana, Tom Jackson and Ross69. As I have said before it could be they have not been bothered commenting lately, but it could also be the case that they too have been ‘exorcised’.

          • phillip ure 3.1.1.1.2
            10 February 2014 at 9:47 am

            farrar still uses his demerit system as a tool of censorship/debate control..

            ..i used to receive the most random demerits..no logic/rhyme/reason..

            ..(‘off-topic’ was a farrar-fave..a nebulous/open-ticket that would apply to many in most comment-threads..)..

            ..and when i was a small number of demerits away from my next (long) ban..

            ..i thought..fuck it..!..

            ..and walked away myself..

            ..and there have been many banned at kiwiblog over the years..

            ..and often banning or not depended on the strength of farrars’ hangover..

            ..and as a manipulator of truth/organiser/runner of hate-campaigns against the chosen ‘others’..

            ..he is..(and fuck yr godwins-law..!..)

            ..he is the goebbels of our time..

            ..and that he is jewish..

            ..is just an irony too far..

            ..phillip ure..

            [lprent: I looked at a demerit system and vote-up/vote-down systems. I found them a tad impersonal and too easy to use as a crowd bully system. I prefer have some guidelines, a very sharp boundary, and to give adults the personal touch myself. I find it encourages the desired results in a direct manner while limiting “crowd” noise. ]

            • phillip ure 3.1.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2014 at 2:04 pm

              @ lprent..

              ..i agree a demerit system is riddled with faults..(and to be avoided for more reasons than worth relating..with kiwiblog the stellar example of all wrong..)

              ..but i wd echo others here in arguing the merits of a tick-up system..

              ..as i feel this would give a far more nuanced reading of crowd-will/opinion..

              ..as there are lots who may like a new idea/whatever..

              ..but don’t comment..

              ..but would like to be able to tick-up those comments they liked..

              ..and this would thus make the experience more interactive for them..

              ..they can easily make their voices heard..

              ..which is also empowering for them..

              ..and would..i feel.. only add to ‘the standard experience’..

              ..how about a trial-period..?

              ..let’s ask the crowd..

              ..what do others think..?

              (and as an interesting historical aside..

              ..farrar ditched his up-tick system..just as my contrary ideas were/started getting serious numbers of up-ticks..

              ..i’m sure that was just coincidence..)

              ..phillip ure..

            • Rosie 3.1.1.1.2.2
              10 February 2014 at 2:14 pm

              Lprent. Thank you for not introducing a vote up/down system. I find that childish, in that it can turn into some passive form of bullying and anonymous judgement. Far better that if someone has a problem with what someone has said, that they discuss, if they feel like it. That’s the adult thing to do.

              Likewise if someone makes an interesting point and you agree with the message then a simple “+1” to signify your approval is suitable if you’re rushing through comments but don’t have time to respond.

              • phillip ure …
                10 February 2014 at 2:35 pm

                “..n that it can turn into some passive form of bullying and anonymous judgement…”

                um..!..really..?

                ..and that is enough to throw that idea out..?

                ..and as commenters here using their own names are in a small minority..

                ..surely ‘anonymous judgement’ is the raison d etre of most comment-threads..?

                ..mm-kay..?

                ..so that makes yr anonymity-argument/rejoinder both false and strawman..

                ..that leaves yr claim up-ticks (only)..wd be a form of ‘bullying’..

                ..that wd be really passive-bullying..eh..?..

                ..(‘i don’t like what you said..but i shall decline to up-tick,..

                ..and you will never know..!..haha..!’..)

                ..see what i mean..?

                ..’silly’..eh..?

                ..you got anything else..?

                (and as one who would likely receive more downticks than most..were a full up/down system were introduced..

                ..can i just say..that as a form of ‘bullying’..

                ..it is pretty piss-weak..eh..?

                ..and i feel that how it can encourage/stimulate debate/more empower commenters..

                ..far outweighs that (strawman-argument part 2) passive-bullying concern..)

                phillip ure..

                • Rosie …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:24 pm

                  Crap. phil, what’s with the aggro man? Just because we don’t agree I get the south park mm-kay treatment?

                  One of the many reason’s I quit the Daily Blog was because of the up/down votes thing. Not the only reason or by any means the biggest, but it was one. I just found it kind of……….infantile.

                  Re anonymity. Yes, I like the anonymity, it’s suits me. What I do like better however is the ability to know who (or their pseudonym at least)you’re talking with. “Oh, yes, thats phil who doesn’t or does support what I am saying because he told me so, or just did a plus one”. A bunch of random thumbs up or down means nothing to me because no communication has been entered into. To me, that feels impersonal and kind of shallow. That’s my thoughts. Yours are different.

                  Then again maybe I’m not really cut out for the blogedy blog world. I really am happier sitting around a table, with a cuppa, hatching plans with like minded ones. Safer too, without flappy GCSB ears.

                • greywarbler …
                  10 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

                  phillip u
                  In actual fact we are not anonymous. We just can’t change our pseudos from day to day, we have personalities, and opinions and you let us know yours, and don’t take much notice of ours. or do you? You are a presence, not just a tick, not most of the time anyway.

                  We shouldn’t be interested in writing something just so that we can see how many people agree, disagree. Write something sincere, and get sincere feedback. Not that approach that you see with so many people, a quick nah or rude word which is all that a tick or cross or whatever indicate. I don’t give a f…k what some people think, they are rubbish. They can stick their marks up their left nostril till they look like Michael Palin in the fish Called Wanda.

                  I suggest learning about four of the faces – easy enough to put them with a colon on each side, more personal than a tick. And very expressive. Cool eh! 😎

                  • phillip ure …
                    10 February 2014 at 5:34 pm

                    sorry..warbler..

                    ..i view emoticons as a failure of language/expression..

                    ..and far from ‘cool’…

                    ..@ rosie..(should i have used an emoticon..?..)

                    ..and demolishing a palpably silly argument (‘anonymous’/’bullying’..)

                    ..is not ‘aggro’..

                    ..it is called debating ideas..

                    ..(and ‘..’mm-kay’ is my emoticon..when i am feeling too lazy for more..)

                    ..phillip ure..

                    • greywarbler …
                      10 February 2014 at 5:49 pm

                      phillip ure
                      Well that just shows how diverse we are. And having simple up or down buttons or ticks just wouldn’t do for us. I have this view, “.i view [them] as a failure of language/expression..

                    • Rosie …
                      10 February 2014 at 7:13 pm

                      You know what phil? I really am just too tired to ‘debate’ a system of up/down votes. It’s not the biggest thing on my horizon when I am coping with how to get by week to week and living in a constant state of stress and physical pain.

                      I don’t have a lot of energy left to ‘argue’ over things that are not going to change the world we live in. What energy I do have I want to channel into positive work such as making sure we don’t have a repeat of a National coalition government.

                      Over n out.

              • just saying …
                10 February 2014 at 2:56 pm

                +1

                Really don’t like the vote up/down system. Not just for those reasons.
                It’s about turning every interaction into a kind of popularity contest and how that neoliberal exaggeration of “human nature” is distorting how people think and behave socially.

                • Rosie …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:29 pm

                  lol +1 back at you just saying. Your reasons are good – popularity contests (I keep thinking of college when I think of up/down buttons) and yes, it’s all about individual competition in these narcissistic times.

                  • marty mars …
                    10 February 2014 at 4:25 pm

                    + 1 to you both – i especially agree js about the influence of ‘popularity’ and the neolib agenda – surely the + 1 system can do the job (of offering support to comments) and allow the supporter the opportunity to add their nuance to the agreement. And if there is non-agreement, well that gets noted pretty quickly 🙂

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 3.1.1.1.2.3
              10 February 2014 at 4:33 pm

              ..and that he is jewish..

              Yeah man, he’s part of the Global Jewish Conspiracy, damn I’ve already said too much *wink wink*

              • phillip ure …
                10 February 2014 at 5:36 pm

                @ sgh..

                ..i never said that..you fool..

                ..but you know that..

                ..phillip ure..

                • felix …
                  10 February 2014 at 10:20 pm

                  Don’t worry phillip, it’s SHG who has a problem with the jews.

                  For example he has previously demonstrated that he thinks “jewish” is a synonym for “greedy”.

      • ecossemaid 3.1.2
        10 February 2014 at 8:28 pm

        Oh, I note the use of a “De Merit” system from another Blog…Kiwi Blog.
        Could we test run that system on TS, it would be interesting if nothing else to see whom is the “Last Contributor Standing”? Also we could have a “Merit/De Merit” system for the “Authors” (Somehow I think certain Authors would rather put rusty nails in their own eyes that have this in operation. There are stunning flaws in this suggestion I know yet stuff it, lets give it a go?

        BTW… Karol did you think to reply to my posts re your Herald and Waitangi Day article or have you chosen to close both eyes to them?

        • karol 3.1.2.1
          10 February 2014 at 9:07 pm

          No ecosse. I’ve been busy. I work weekends. And I’ve been out most of today.

          I’ve done many posts about the news media on TS. I just just too tired last night to repeat stuff I’ve written many times before.

    • bad12 3.2
      10 February 2014 at 9:11 am

      “Tolerance’ and ‘Reason’ applied to Farrar, Ha ha ha, Hooton would probably say the same of Himself too,(until such time as either of them got their paws on the levers of power),…

    • Yoza 3.3
      10 February 2014 at 11:35 am

      I just received a message from David Farrar, apparently one of my comments went straight to an automated spam folder and following comments ended up there as well – it turns out I wasn’t banned after all.
      I am slightly embarrassed, but also glad I still have commenting privileges.

      • bad12 3.3.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:47 am

        OR, David just read this morning’s ‘Open Mike’ and took a rational self interest decision to stop criticism and you connecting with other’s who have been banned which might tarnish the ‘liberal’ image’,

        Nah David wouldn’t do that, i just have a propensity to see conspiracy where there is none, or have i ???…

      • McFlock 3.3.2
        10 February 2014 at 3:23 pm

        why even bother going there?

      • MaxFletcher 3.3.3
        10 February 2014 at 3:53 pm

        A highly doubt Farrar would have banned you outright. Have you seen some of the comments there? Awful…

  4. Paul 4
    10 February 2014 at 7:55 am

    A very weak interview by Simon Mercep of a US corporate spokesman shilling for big tobacco.
    The TPP will only make more of this happen.

  5. logie97 5
    10 February 2014 at 8:53 am

    Our “Little Battler” apparently made small gains for the Kiwis falling on hard times in Australia – he came away with a new term – special guests – apparently Abbott is quite happy with the situation that exists and doesn’t see any reason to change. With that Abbott gave our boy a pat on the head and points for a nice try on that one.
    Go get ‘im Johnnie – you little ripper.

    Did he inform Abbott that Australian residents in New Zealand who fall on hard times are entitled to the full range of support from WINZ (from the day of their arrival in New Zealand)?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      10 February 2014 at 9:42 am

      Abbott already knows that.

      The “guest workers” quip was clever. Implies that as guests one day they’ll need to say goodbye and make their way home. It also emphasises their status as second-class citizens, shades of Saudi-based migrant labourers etc…

      • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:34 am

        It also emphasises their status as second-class citizens

        Kiwi SCV holders aren’t citizens at all. They’re not even second-class. As far as Australia is concerned they’re “working tourists”, even if they’ve been here for decades – even generations.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 10:44 am

          Guest workers. Key was provided with a finely crafted line to deliver. Slow clap.

          • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 10:50 am

            This is a mess of Labour’s making – that Key has managed to secure a concession on student loans should be seen as a significant achievement.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 11:01 am

              Labour stopped John Howard severely curtailing migration between the two countries.

              It’s a shame you rush to tell lies about that, and sad that you can’t make a point without mendacity, but as I keep saying, we need better wingnuts.

              Ones who are competent enough to acknowledge reality, for example. In the meantime keep on twisting the truth, it’s a perfect expression of everything you stand for.

              • greywarbler …
                10 February 2014 at 11:15 am

                OAB
                Severely curtailing migration between the two countries, is what Howard wanted was it. And Labour bravely prevented it. And left this festering sore, that can only get worse along with worsening conditions in Oz.

                And Labour going along with Howard with a sigh of frustration from NZ meant that Labour didn’t have the urgency to deal with the problems that the migrating people were escaping. People who were hoping for better lives there, often in vain, and then with no social support from Oz or NZ.

                So what we got was the ability to escape NZ to a place that would give us work, but didn’t respect us as people. So apart from those who get USA-style job-connected welfare (do they include a dental plan they say) everybody else can go and jump. OAB’s reply to complaints is ‘It’s a jungle out there’. Nice.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:25 am

                  In stark terms yes. We are the junior partner in that negotiation. Personally I think if another right wing Australian politician threatens New Zealand we should make him a target of GCSB black-ops and destroy his career, but hey, that’s just me.

              • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                10 February 2014 at 11:27 am

                In the leadup to the 2001 Australian election John Howard was facing polling pressure over the perception that NZers were unfairly taking advantage of the Australian welfare system – the stereotype of the Kiwi lying on the beach at Bondi while on the dole.

                Moreover there was a very real problem of would-be immigrants who had been denied Australian visas using New Zealand as a backdoor. Denied entry to Australia? No worries mate, go to NZ first, they’ll take anyone. Get easy NZ residency, then Australia has to let you in.

                When the Clark Government was asked to tighten up NZ’s immigration laws it looked at the PI immigrants flooding into South Auckland and decided that restricting the entry of all those likely Labour voters would not be in its own best interests, and declined because it was all just too hard.

                So when the Howard Government said “we’ll have to cut NZ immigrants off from Australian welfare, residency, and citizenship if you don’t tighten up NZ’s immigration system”, the Clark Government – featuring among its Cabinet a certain David Cunliffe – said “fine”. No way they were going to restrict the ability of poor islanders to move to Papatoetoe and vote Labour.

                So Howard brought the hammer down, NZers on on SCVs were relegated to the status of “guest workers”, and the Australian government has saved millions of dollars as a result. Meanwhile, because the Clark Government said “changing immigration rules is too hard, not going to do it” Australians moving to NZ retain all the privileges they had before 2001. They are granted residency on arrival in NZ, can vote after living in NZ for a year, are entitled to welfare benefits after two years, and are eligible for citizenship after five years.

                • wtl …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:36 am

                  What an unbelievable racist comment. I suppose you think that NZ should only allow immigration of “white” people?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:42 am

                  Howard’s government demanded that the New Zealand Parliament cede sovereignty over immigration law. If the Fifth Labour government had gone along with this, mendacious racist trash like SHG would have been frothing at the mouth, which they were probably doing already at the prospect of a woman PM.

                  SHG, please stop being an advert for post-natal abortion.

                  • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                    10 February 2014 at 12:05 pm

                    the prospect of a woman PM

                    NZ had its first female PM in the person of Jenny Shipley and the sky didn’t fall.

                    • Tracey …
                      10 February 2014 at 1:12 pm

                      first non elected Pm was Mrs Shipley.

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      10 February 2014 at 1:17 pm

                      New Zealand doesn’t have primaries. We never elect the Prime Minister. We elect parties, who themselves choose a Prime Minister.

                      New Zealand’s first female Prime Minister was Jenny Shipley. Its second female Prime Minister was Helen Clark.

                  • MaxFletcher …
                    10 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

                    “SHG, please stop being an advert for post-natal abortion.”

                    A rather hideous turn of phrase there

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  10 February 2014 at 11:45 am

                  Oh yeah, forgot to mention, how’s this for a fair arrangement:

                  Child born to Australian parents in New Zealand? Instant NZ citizenship by birth. Welcome, new little kiwi.

                  Child born to NZ parents in Australia? Nothing. That baby is literally a citizen of nowhere – a person without nationality.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 February 2014 at 11:56 am

                    Yes, John Howard’s government was a true embodiment of right wing principles. No wonder you’re so ashamed that you keep lying about it.

                  • Tracey …
                    10 February 2014 at 1:24 pm

                    I thought Key was a world class brokerer of deals? Met his match in the budgie smuggler?

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      10 February 2014 at 1:34 pm

                      Well there’s nothing in it for Abbott. The current arrangement suits him fine and saves the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars. It fucks NZers on SCVs but they don’t vote so he doesn’t have to give a shit.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:05 pm

                      Yes, he embodies right wing principles.

                • Hayden …
                  10 February 2014 at 12:04 pm

                  …featuring among its Cabinet a certain David Cunliffe…

                  Really? In 2001?

                  …PI immigrants flooding into South Auckland and decided that restricting the entry of all those likely Labour voters…

                  You forgot to mention KFC.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    11 February 2014 at 6:42 am

                    “featuring among its Cabinet a certain David Cunliffe…”

                    Yep, SHG is lying. Again.

                • Tracey …
                  10 February 2014 at 1:12 pm

                  Cool. So the last labour govt fucked ups ot he current government of 5 years doesnt have to balls up. Great argument.

                • greywarbler …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

                  SHG and wtl
                  SHG
                  Interesting points but I fear that you are placing too much stress on aspects that detract from Helen Clark’s Labour government.

                  It would be surprising if the Clark government didn’t have some thoughts along the lines that you mentioned SHG. But to bow to Australian government attitudes on our sovereign policy on PIs, that were set in place after serious thought, would have been unsatisfactory too.

                  Wasn’t there an attempt for MZ to clean the slate over PI immigration by providing amnesty to certain long-stayers.
                  Samoa has often pressed for greater numbers allowed in, and Labour knew that there weren’t the jobs, and therefore the welfare bill would go up. The amnesty was an intelligent response, giving a legal tick to de facto citizenship of a limited number.

                  I think there was talk about more Asian people going from here to Australia after having been accepted into NZ also.

                  It is not new for the pollies to use NZ as a punching bag when they want to dominate the media and the punters minds away from other home matters that show them in a poor light.

                  and wtl
                  Firing mud pies at any argument that involves sensitive issues by the person ready for a kneejerk response, and in this case calling it racist, shows you have an intellect that ‘dingding’ requires recharging.

                  • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                    10 February 2014 at 4:03 pm

                    The “backdoor into Australia” element wasn’t the only bone of contention; the Howard Government wanted New Zealand to pay more to Australia to reimburse Australia for its increasing and unbalanced share of the trans-Tasman welfare bill. The Clark Government of the day did not want to pay any more, giving Howard even more reason to bring the hammer down.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      11 February 2014 at 3:46 am

                      Bullshit. When Howard changed the law, Kiwis were already prevented from moving over and going straight on the dole. Australian immigration policy has been totally racist for years. We used to be able to go there without passports until they noticed we weren’t all white, and they changed that before they noticed that Pacific Islanders could play rugby. Why the hell should Helen’s ACT government have let the worst elements of Australian society dictate our immigration policies?

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      11 February 2014 at 4:07 am

                      In 2000 NZ was paying Australia AUD 130 million per year to reimburse Australia for the cost of providing welfare to immigrant New Zealanders. Australia claimed that the true cost was closer to AUD 1 billion per year and asked NZ to contribute more. The Labour government of the day wouldn’t pay.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 February 2014 at 7:02 am

                      I’ve always wondered who the people who get banned from making Wikipedia edits are, and now I know.

            • Zorr 5.1.1.1.1.2
              10 February 2014 at 11:30 am

              At what point do we stop being “guest workers” and start getting rounded up in their concentration camps?

    • greywarbler 5.2
      10 February 2014 at 9:59 am

      Did he remind Abbott that Australian residents in New Zealand who fall on hard times are entitled to the full range of support from WINZ…
      FIFY
      This should be high in Abbott’s brain, and that we both had this supportive relationship to each others’ citizens.

      I don’t know about ‘from the day’ of Oz arrivals in NZ though. Though the day of arrival counts, I thought that there has been a set period of time before any claims could be made after that date, say two years?

      • logie97 5.2.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:22 am

        No WINZ apparently just adds the suffix “hardship” – “two years” was just to satisfy the bigots.

        • greywarbler 5.2.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:16 am

          Or was it to satisfy those ‘bigots’ that were aware that Australia had some time limit, and thought it was fair that we should have the same.

      • srylands 5.2.2
        10 February 2014 at 10:26 am

        “Did he remind Abbott that Australian residents in New Zealand who fall on hard times are entitled to the full range of support from WINZ…”

        Yes they are, after 2 years like all new residents.

        And Abbott’s repsonse would be “Well if you want to change that go right ahead”. If NZ reduced the rights of Australian residents in NZ, the Australian Government would not care one iota.

        New Zealand does not do this because we don’t have a problem to deal with. Prior to 2001, the New Zealand Government was paying for a large part of the cost of New Zealanders’ welfare bill in Australia. As the cost went through the roof. Howard asked Helen to pay more. The then New Zealand Government – which Cunliffe was part of – enthusiastically went along with the new Australian arrangements.

        New Zealand retaliating by redcing the rights of Australians here would be shooting ourselves in both feet. It is analgous to Argentina retaliating against Australian visa fees for Argtentine nationals by charging Australians $250 to enter Argentina. Result – Australian visitor numbers plumet. Ooops.

        Cunliffe is making a horrible rod for his own back should he become PM. National will be crowing “Get tough on Australia Cunliffe“. And it will end in total humiliation.

        [lprent: I auto-spam overworked phrases when I get irritated with them from all sides. Be advised that I frequently ban the morons who make them when they cause me too much work. It is usually safer to use the actual names unless your phrase is new because I will only correct a few times. Assess the risk. ]

        • logie97 5.2.2.1
          10 February 2014 at 6:29 pm

          Read my entry again. There is a 2 year provision in name only.
          Whether it is unemployment, sickness … you can go to WINZ.
          It will be just given an alternative name.

      • Tim 5.2.3
        10 February 2014 at 9:54 pm

        What’s particularly amusing is the way the “ANZAC spirit”/brotherhood is trotted out when convenient. It actually ceased to exist around 2001.
        Another thing that amuses me is that Bondi imagery of the bludging Kiwi. By 2001, most of the Kiwis were being replaced by South Africans – one can see the result today where anything of character has been bulldozed and replaced by the most hideous of edifices, usually behind high fences and security intercoms. Something for “good hard-working, fair dinkum, Abottiser” Australians to ‘aspire’ to. Luvly!

    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.3
      10 February 2014 at 10:32 am

      Oh I’m sure Abbott knows. But there’s nothing in it for him. He has no reason to make further concessions. The totally inequitable trans-Tasman immigration arrangement put in place by Helen Clark suits him fine.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:29 am

        Yeah, keep twisting the truth, it reveals your character.

        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.3.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:37 am

          Tony Abbott has no reason to make any changes to the system. Right now Australia gets a constant stream of healthy, educated, literate, professionally-qualified New Zealanders who work harder than the average Australian, pay more tax than the average Australian, and cost Australia almost nothing in return. For him to refuse to make changes to the plan put in place by Howard and Clark is a no-brainer.

          Thanks Helen!

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 11:49 am

            Yes, I know that’s what happened on Planet Racist Shill, but on Earth:

            “…the Howard Government had become displeased with the increased migration from
            New Zealand. The following graph illustrates the steady increase in the percentage of migrants
            from New Zealand during the 1990’s.”

            Thanks Ruth and Jenny and Bill.

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 5.3.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 11:54 am

              And in the 1990s, those migrants from NZ had rights.

              Thanks Ruth and Jenny and Bill.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                10 February 2014 at 12:07 pm

                Meanwhile, back on Earth

                “Bilateral social security agreements made in 1989 and 1994 introduced a reimbursement
                system whereby, in 2001, New Zealand was paying Australia NZD $169 million towards the cost of age, veterans, invalid and single parent benefits paid to New Zealanders in Australia.”

                It takes some pretty spectacular level of idiocy to keep on making up utter crap, SHG, but perhaps you’re so dense you haven’t grasped that I have a detailed timeline at my disposal.

                Please keep on making incompetent attempts to rewrite history, since that merely increases the body of evidence that you are stupid and deceitful.

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  10 February 2014 at 12:34 pm

                  And NZers arriving in Australia after 2001 weren’t eligible for those benefits, for the reasons explained above. Would you like me to use smaller words next time?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 February 2014 at 12:38 pm

                    The reasons being unilateral demands by John Howard’s government, as supported by real life events, as explained above, despite your gutter-level partisan hypocrisy and self-serving falsehood, which reveal you to be a bad liar.

                    • greywarbler …
                      10 February 2014 at 11:23 pm

                      What’s this ‘gutter-level etc’. OAB you can make a heated argument out of anything. Could be useful in winter. Oh damn it’s cold, must have an inflammatory argument with OAB.

                      The information about the agreement with Australia and the payments for some welfare is interesting. We were paying – in 2001, New Zealand was paying Australia NZD $169 million towards the cost of age, veterans, invalid and single parent benefits paid to New Zealanders in Australia.”

                      Probably that is what Whylands is referring to earlier. But he alleges that Helen Clark and her government was so eager not to pay them that they abandoned all the other services we had through Australia, just to prevent them limiting the free flow to Australia. Someone else reckons that this may have been done in the idea that it would soon be reversed or part regained as things improved.

                      I got some figures too that don’t seem to indicate a sharp rise in NZs in Australia. But they may not give the total story. They are listed under Settler Arrivals Top 10 countries.
                      In 1974 NZ was 4th in numbers @ 3%
                      In 1984 2nd @ 11.6%
                      (UK first 14.9%, Vietnam rd 10.9%)
                      1993-1995 2nd @11.1% and 12%
                      (UK first 12.8% and 12.2% –
                      then Vietnam & former Yugoslav Rep.
                      around 7% and under)

                      So there must have been a big rise after the accord was signed, and then it remained steady for the settler count.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      11 February 2014 at 7:10 am

                      I find the phrase “poisonous little drops” warms me up no end 😈

  6. fender 6
    10 February 2014 at 9:23 am

    Rock-star economy is clearly of the Justin Bieber variety with the announcement 120 jobs to go in Hamilton.

  7. tricledrown 7
    10 February 2014 at 10:04 am

    Spylands you forgot to read your propaganda prompts properly.

  8. greywarbler 8
    10 February 2014 at 10:21 am

    Thinking of the goods being removed from the Oz supermarkets shelves.

    Q. Have these been paid for to the NZ companies involved?
    Q. If not, what is happening to this produce that still belongs to the NZ
    companies, and may be incurring storage and/or disposal costs by our companies?
    Q. Will there be costs involved in this clearance that the Oz supermarkets will try to impose, and can these be fought in Court?
    Q. Have suppliers to the supermarkets any rights at all, or do the supermarkets ensure they contract out of responsibility when dealing with suppliers. (Think of the milk war which I have already included in the original ‘Hissy fit’ of the supermarkets, thread.)
    Q. Could the NZ companies say that they regret this abandonment of good food made by them, and that Australians would throw any NZ food off their shelves.
    Q. Could the NZ companies offer or say they would if they could, offer that food to help with the support needs of the Australian people and especially the firefighters, affected by these awful blazes, such as the ones we have lately heard abut in Victoria!

    (And someone from the NZ-Australian Trade Round Table can take a swing at those who are acting in such a restraint of trade manner. Surely there is some interested body who finds this behaviour by Oz supermarkets repugnant? And our cute little pocket-sized, miniature government in a ball can shake itself up, swirl itself round, and express the same concern about Australian wrongdoing as they have with Japanese pursuing Sea Shepherd into our waters. Even a murmur of sadness, an unfortunate lapse in good relations would be a start.)

    It would be good if someone who understands the mercantile situation and the legal aspects could give some answers to the questions above.

    • Pete 8.1
      10 February 2014 at 11:05 am

      I’d be very surprised if the NZ firms aren’t already preparing a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Further, if human rights legislation can be applied to legal persons (i.e. companies) as well as natural persons (i.e. people), they may have grounds for discrimination.

      • greywarbler 8.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:21 am

        Pete
        That business of companies being entitled to the same treatment as people, as if they were ‘legal persons’, which would be amusing if it wasn’t so unreasonable and sad, may actually offer some advantage to us? Well that would be great especially as it tends to give companies with all their resources, almost total advantage over people.

    • fender 8.2
      10 February 2014 at 11:12 am

      Yes it’s strange the Aussies don’t mind having the Kiwi fire-fighters on their shelf…

      • greywarbler 8.2.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:23 am

        I think fire-fighters have a bond of respect for their important work and for each other that transcends other considerations. They actually are a group to admire, even venerate.

        • fender 8.2.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:31 am

          I agree, wonder if the redneck section of the Aussie public feel the same.

          • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 8.2.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 12:56 pm

            I agree, wonder if the redneck section of the Aussie public feel the same.

            They do. NZ firefighters who assist during bushfire season are treated like heroes.

        • Tim 8.2.1.2
          10 February 2014 at 10:00 pm

          That’s true @grey, though its interesting (in that so-called ANZAC spirit) that in their media, fuck all is mentioned of their efforts whilst fire fighters from inter-state always are.

  9. Paul 9
    10 February 2014 at 10:26 am

    Another social blight this government allows because it is beholden to corporate interests.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11199010

  10. One Anonymous Bloke 10
    10 February 2014 at 10:56 am

    That Tony Ryall’s a sly one.

    Health Minister Tony Ryall said the Government saw its role as providing information and support for individuals and families regarding healthy eating, and had no intention of introducing more restrictive measures such as sugar or fat taxes, or stricter regulation of advertising.

    “These companies are very good National Party clients who donate substantial sums to the Waitemata Trust. We’re not going to do anything that will hurt their profits.”

    Mr. Ryall then collapsed muttering about Sky City and brown paper bags. Police are investigating a suspected case of truth serum poisoning.

    I made that last part up.

    • Little big horn 10.1
      10 February 2014 at 4:55 pm

      Mr. Ryall, who went to Melbourne to see what they were doing, when in his own constituency the programme being delivered was the one that the Victorian government based their work – go figure? Must have needed to buy more gawd awful shirt and tie combo’s!

      • Tim 10.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:04 pm

        His wife ran out of gingham tablecloths and the Elna was on the fritz. You have to put money on his wearing polka dot undies eh? Ones that are too small. Something’s gotta be causing that shrill staccato voice.

  11. andy (the other one) 11
    10 February 2014 at 11:06 am

    Key gets nasty early. Heard him on Radio live news practically spitting.

    Key calls Cunliffe an idiot.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11199327

    • BM 11.1
      10 February 2014 at 11:16 am

      I agree with Key.

      What’s Cunliffe up to?, he seems to be always leading with his chin.

      I really expected better from the man, maybe he’s just not up to the job.
      I think it’s time Shane Jones was given a go, he really can’t do any worse.

      • fender 11.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:27 am

        Don’t get too downhearted BM. Key is just lashing out because he’s aware of his own inadequacies in trying to measure up with Abbott, including in the speedos parade..

        • Chooky 11.1.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:38 am

          Key is looking balder and tired ….and more and more like old Bob Jones…time to retire to Hawaii

          ….Cunliffe, fresh and young, looks like the next Prime Minister of New Zealand….and I bet he looks better in his speedos too….He will be a better match for the cunning Aussie Mr Abbott

          ….btw if Aussie supermarkets boycott our produce ….what about all these Aussie Banks over here making hay from New Zealanders money and taking the profits back to Aussie?

          • fender 11.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 11:42 am

            Yes I’d love to see a mass-exodus of customers from the Australian owned banks taking their accounts over to Kiwibank.

            • alwyn 11.1.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 2:07 pm

              Kiwibank?
              That is the one that is the target of a class-action suit over their charging excess penalties and fees from their customers isn’t it?
              http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/kiwibank-faces-class-action-over-unfair-fees-5708782

              • fender …
                10 February 2014 at 2:18 pm

                Yeah that’s something the Australian owned banks haven’t been doing 🙄

              • Naki Man …
                10 February 2014 at 2:56 pm

                Yes alwyn
                Kiwibank the same bank that hasn’t managed to pay a dividend back to the government in 13 years.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:10 pm

                  Yes, all profits have been ploughed into growing the business, which amounts to 10% of retail banking. It must grate for you that a government owned business could be so successful and I am sure you would destroy it if you had the chance, out of spite and envy, Funi Man, spite and envy.

                  • Naki Man …
                    10 February 2014 at 3:27 pm

                    I wouldn’t call waiting more than 13years to get a return a success.
                    What was it 860million of tax payers money? I cant remember, something like that. I would expect to see a reasonable dividend years ago.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 February 2014 at 3:42 pm

                      No-one cares what you’d call it, Funi Man, you’re a partisan right wing tool with sub-zero credibility, motivated by envy and spite.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

                      naki idiot only invests in businesses that will return at an acceptable rate from quarter one.

                      Basically, the only “investment” he can imagine is a short term bank loan.

                  • alwyn …
                    10 February 2014 at 5:50 pm

                    You had better have a word with Russel Norman then.
                    He seems to think that the New Zealand owned banks, in total, only have 6% of the market.

                    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1311/S00029/record-bank-profitability-causing-long-term-damage.htm

                    That would have to include Kiwibank AND The Co-Operative Bank, TSB Bank, Heartland Bank, and The Southland Building Society.
                    I am quite prepared to believe that Russel Norman is an idiot of course but at least one of you must be a bit out.

                    • Naki Man …
                      10 February 2014 at 6:45 pm

                      Mcfuck
                      Yes I do only invest in businesses that provide a return from day 1.
                      I have invested in commercial property in Australia and in 11 years at has increased in value by 75% and is paying a 12% return on my money.
                      You probably think a bank loan is an investment .

                    • McFlock …
                      10 February 2014 at 8:43 pm

                      interesting. Looks like we might have another aussie tory pretending to give a shit about NZ.
                      Say hi to SSpylands at your next fuckwits’ convention.

                • fender …
                  10 February 2014 at 3:37 pm

                  Kiwibank profits rose 22.8% last year . If customers left the Aussie-owned banks and went to Kiwibank they would go ahead in leaps and bounds, and a healthy dividend to the crown would follow annually no doubt.

                  An extra positive would be an end to bank profits being syphoned off to Australia.

                  • alwyn …
                    10 February 2014 at 6:19 pm

                    That is certainly the headline portion of the announcement. In the first paragraph they tell us that their profit rose from $79.1m to 97.1m. That is an increase of $18 million.

                    However a few lines down they tell us that they reduced the provision for bad debts by $19 million. Bad debt provisions by banks are an incredibly slippery thing. They can make them, and therefore the final profit, almost anything they want to.

                    New CEOs, for example, tend to wind them up in the accounts for the year before they became responsible so as to have flexibility for their own results in later years. In practice of course Kiwibank are in the same cash situation as last year as the “Provision for bad debts” isn’t real money.

                    Incidentally you suggest a “healthy dividend to the crown” will follow. Just when do you think this dividend is going to start?

                  • srylands …
                    10 February 2014 at 9:00 pm

                    “Say hi to SSpylands at your next fuckwits’ convention.”

                    How rude.

              • greywarbler …
                10 February 2014 at 4:01 pm

                Oh you’re a beaut alwyn. You leave your poisonous little drops on our parade from your demands of niceness about everything, here nice meaning no faults at all, perfect, but you seem to happily ignore the main issue.

                If the Queen went past you would be complaining about her horse having dung something on the road.
                To me it’s not enough to find an anomaly or mistake in a thing, as a reason to demolish or proscribe it from being something worthwhile. Of course you might be a retired nit-picker who cannot help him or herself.

                You should offer your services at low decile schools, in fact any, because nits can be a huge problem. An official picker and head washer and comber volunteer would I am sure be appreciated.

                Kiwibank has fallen for this practice as have the other banks. Own goal I think and serves them right if they are being threatened with legal action.

          • Ad 11.1.1.1.2
            10 February 2014 at 12:43 pm

            A patriotic Prime Minister – one who looked and felt like he could really lead a country rather than just do beer-pong on a Sunday – would have turned this into a simple nationalist moment:

            – Encourage New Zealanders to shop at New Zealand-owned supermarkets
            – Declare he was off sushi for a year until the Japanese government made some apology for deliberately going into our EEZ
            – Front an ad on tv eating New Zealand fruit (which would be hilarious)
            – Make a trip deviation while he is over there to a urban marae, and hang out

            and if he were feeling particularly bold …
            – Outlined a proposal for Australians to have the same rights here as New Zealanders get over there

            • Tracey 11.1.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2014 at 4:18 pm

              Stop describing a leader. key is really polar and stuff,that’s all that matters, Yur jst jealous.

            • srylands 11.1.1.1.2.2
              10 February 2014 at 4:24 pm

              “and if he were feeling particularly bold …
              – Outlined a proposal for Australians to have the same rights here as New Zealanders get over there”

              That would be about as smart as Argentina recipricating on Visa fees for visiting Australians.

            • srylands 11.1.1.1.2.3
              10 February 2014 at 4:38 pm

              ” a simple Nationaist moment”. Seriously? Are you a New Zealand First party member?

              And don’t knock beer pong. JK is attracting thousands of Facebook likes from Beer Pong today. People like JK. They don’t like Cunliffe. He is smarmy. I know you hate that, but its so true. And it is going to cost him votes big time.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                11 February 2014 at 7:19 am

                Right winger doesn’t like Left wing leader. Stop the press!

                When Cunliffe drops to 2% he’ll be as popular as Helen Clark was before she became PM, but if he gets to zero he’ll be as popular as S Rylands’ entire political movement.

              • framu …
                11 February 2014 at 10:23 am

                nice to know the big issue for your intellect is “me like beer pong thing”

      • phillip ure 11.1.2
        10 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

        “..I think it’s time Shane Jones was given a go, he really can’t do any worse..”

        chrs 4 the belly-laugh there..bm..

        phillip ure..

      • Tracey 11.1.3
        10 February 2014 at 4:59 pm

        Of course you agree with Key. It’s been some time since you thought for yourself.

    • Ad 11.2
      10 February 2014 at 11:17 am

      Key is figuring out how many election votes are at stake in Australia.
      Cunliffe is in full harvest mode, and Key knows it.

      • BM 11.2.1
        10 February 2014 at 11:32 am

        And how is Cunliffe going to convince Abbot to give the 600,000 kiwis living in Oz the same rights as native Australians.
        Especially when Oz is staring at 50 billion dollar budget over run this year and unemployment is rising.

        Does Cunliffe think the kiwis living in Oz are completely stupid and he can just speak a pile of shit and they’ll vote for labour.?

        The best thing he can do for the kiwis over there in just keep his mouth shut for once, this is the worst time possible to be whinging about what sort of government assistance should be made available to kiwis in Oz.

        Best thing the kiwis living in Oz can do is just keep their heads down for the time being, we all know how over the top and nationalistic the Australians can get.

        • Ad 11.2.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 11:41 am

          He doesn’t have to. He just has to make Key – once again – look utterly ineffective on the international stage, and at the same time let those Australian-based Kiwis that he’s on their side and Key isn’t.

          That may be slightly unfair politics, but boo hoo in election year.

          • BM 11.2.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 11:54 am

            So this whole strategy is based around people being too stupid to realize that Cunliffe is speaking a pile of shit because he couldn’t do anything about the situation if he was PM anyway.

            Way to go Dave, just the sort of guy we want running the country.

            • Ad 11.2.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 12:36 pm

              Of two powerless Prime Ministers, I would rather had the one gave a damn, showed it, who tried. Surprising, in New Zealand’s international track record under Labour, what you win when you do.

              National’s response to the Australians is as simpering as its response to the Japanese whaler.

              • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                10 February 2014 at 1:00 pm

                The immigration clusterfuck with Australia IS Labour’s track record.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  10 February 2014 at 1:30 pm

                  Inconvenient.

                • Ad …
                  10 February 2014 at 1:33 pm

                  Yes it is. But that does not mean you don’t try and persuade partner governments to fix it. Key is the scardeycat Lion in Oz.

                  • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                    10 February 2014 at 1:39 pm

                    But what leverage does Key have? Clark signed it all away. All that Key can do is threaten to remove preferential treatment from Australians in NZ.

                    • Ad …
                      10 February 2014 at 1:59 pm

                      Do we need to rehearse New Zealand’s international policy wins since World War 2, how they did them?

                      No-one in Australian foodstuffs needs to play by any rules. Nor Japan. In fact nor most places. What’s a small country to do? Politics is not about asking permission within rules; it’s where you join battle, win, and ask forgiveness later.

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:06 pm

                      Do you think Key SHOULD threaten to remove preferential treatment from Australians in NZ?

                    • Ad …
                      10 February 2014 at 2:17 pm

                      Depends on the elements at stake, how they are weighted, and the frame of the game you are in. IMO, think ordinary in this election year, and weep when you’re gone.

                    • Tracey …
                      10 February 2014 at 4:24 pm

                      yes, poor john key, just a small fish in a big pond, with no influence…. why do you support such an impotent leader?

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      11 February 2014 at 4:02 am

                      Why shouldn’t Key make that threat? He’s already removed preferential treatment from 90% of Kiwis in Aotearoa.

        • Te Reo Putake 11.2.1.2
          10 February 2014 at 3:04 pm

          “And how is Cunliffe going to convince Abbot …”

          Cunliffe won’t have to convince Abbot, because Abbot won’t be there long. Their leaderships will overlap for 18 months or so, then DC will be dealing with Bill Shorten, someone with whom he already has an excellent relationship.

    • chris73 11.3
      10 February 2014 at 1:54 pm

      He is an idiot, his party voted it in and now hes blaming John Key for not doing a better job then Helen Clark

      • fender 11.3.1
        10 February 2014 at 2:31 pm

        Pity shonKey didn’t tell the country he couldn’t do better than Helen before he conned voters..

      • lprent 11.3.2
        10 February 2014 at 3:38 pm

        Ok – by that I think tat you’re saying understand that you’re saying that John Key is far less competent that Helen Clark… I’d agree with that.

        But is that what you’re really saying?

        • Tracey 11.3.2.1
          10 February 2014 at 4:26 pm

          snap…. it’s kind of funny seeing a couple of them pushed into that corner….

        • chris73 11.3.2.2
          10 February 2014 at 4:27 pm

          No, Labour negotiated the deal so the deals already done so whatever position of strength NZ may have had its now even less so theres not a whole lot John Key can do about it

          But if Cunliffe wants to keep reminding people it was Labour that negotiated it originally then be my guest and have at it

          • lprent 11.3.2.2.1
            10 February 2014 at 5:09 pm

            It didn’t have a position of strength in the first place. The aussie government at the time wanted to remove all welfare because of the recession after the asian flu of 97/98. That hit aussie a lot harder than the GFC has so far.

            We aren’t in that situation now. It should be possible to push for more concessions because the kiwis over in aussie are paying taxes for which they receive no benefit. The alternative to providing the benefits that they are paying for is that aussie pays us the taxes. The effective intent of the aussie system towards kiwis as it stands is that kiwi emigrants to aussie will come home to freeload on a system that they haven’t paid taxes for.

            Which is why my uncle had to travel back to NZ for medical services for cancer before he died after spending several decades in aussie. Effectively aussie is freeloading our taxpayers. It allows the aussie politicians to avoid the consequences of their decisions.

            Personally I’d go for not providing any services here for emigrants to aussie. Let the emigrants take the risk.

            • Colonial Viper 11.3.2.2.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 6:14 pm

              Then you have Kiwi emigrants to the UK, Asia, etc. Same rules would probably have to apply to them…

              • miravox …
                11 February 2014 at 9:01 am

                There are different circumstances depending on work contracts. For example, we pay tax in NZ despite being located overseas.

            • greywarbler 11.3.2.2.1.2
              10 February 2014 at 6:34 pm

              We had/have the Closer Economic Relationship with Australia and the agreements that were beyond just turning us into a useful factory yard, and finance company office. So we can respond to changes by Oz in the arrangement which allows for them, just as Oz can.

              I have been looking up info about them today but have to
              print it off I think so I can get the meaning straight.

              It has occurred to me that the changes to the tax and services arrangements came in 2001. There was a backstory of NZ in Australia at that time – in 1996 Air NZ bought TNTs shares from Ansett and then struggled till a crucial stage in 1999. That was down then for the next few years. NZ was being punished for what Oz had to do then in paying out on pensions etc.

            • just saying 11.3.2.2.1.3
              10 February 2014 at 7:29 pm

              Personally I’d go for not providing any services here for emigrants to aussie. Let the emigrants take the risk.

              That would be very harsh, especially for the less well-off emigrants.

              I have friends with a couple of kids. Her mother has moved over to be close to the moko. Like your uncle, the mother has been back and forth having cancer treatment in NZ. If their kids go to uni or polytech, they’ll have to go in NZ and tertiary education is much more expensive than the small portion students pay. And if any one of them gets seriously sick or has an accident, or any other disaster befalls them they’ll have to come back to NZanders to look after them. They pay the full quota of taxes in Aussie, but the bill here in the best case scenario will probably be way in excess of $12,000 (my own bitter benchmark of what an adult here is considered “worth”). That’s some serious freeloading by Australia.

              What do other countries do?

              • lprent …
                11 February 2014 at 8:49 am

                Most countries allow people to become residents with all of the local benefits and taxes just like NZ. The only real difference is that they usually only allow citizens to vote.

                The issue is that Australia taxes without the benefits. In other words they get us to carry the cost for our non-taxpayers.

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 11.3.2.2.1.4
              11 February 2014 at 3:41 am

              The aussie government at the time wanted to remove all welfare because of the recession after the asian flu of 97/98

              The Aussie government wanted NZ to pay its fair share of the trans-Tasman welfare bill, and to make changes to the NZ immigration system to prevent PI and HK immigrants using NZ as a backdoor into Australia.

              • lprent …
                11 February 2014 at 8:53 am

                Yes. But the effect on NZ is that we have accumulated a massive number of emigrants who don’t pay tax here and in come cases haven’t for decades, but are entitled to use the NZ tax payer funded facilities.

                I haven’t seen the aussies coughing up the massive amount of tax that they are reaping from the guest workers – have you?

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 11.3.2.2.1.5
              11 February 2014 at 3:43 am

              Which is why my uncle had to travel back to NZ for medical services for cancer before he died after spending several decades in aussie.

              If your uncle had spent several decades in Australia as an NZ immigrant then he was eligible for Australian citizenship and just didn’t apply for it.

              • lprent …
                11 February 2014 at 8:57 am

                Wasn’t continuous. He did it off and on from the 70’s to the 00’s in various 5 year blocks depending on what was happening around the family. When aussie were shutting the eligibility he wasn’t eligible.

                His kids however were. As were a number of my other relatives.

                These days family members who are working offshore tend to go further away. For instance, my brother and his family are in China.

            • Murray Olsen 11.3.2.2.1.6
              11 February 2014 at 11:42 pm

              Your uncle’s situation doesn’t make much sense to me. One of the few things I’m eligible for in Oz is Medicare, and the full hospital costs for my cancer treatment are covered. I’m just hoping that NAct don’t remain in office for long enough to negotiate this away as well.

              • lprent …
                12 February 2014 at 12:12 am

                I don’t know the ins and outs of it myself. I think it was related to the last type of job he was doing there – taxi driver. Kind of hard to ask him these days.

      • Tracey 11.3.3
        10 February 2014 at 4:25 pm

        yes, poor john key, just a small fish in a big pond, with no influence…. why do you support such an impotent leader?

  12. tricledrown 12
    10 February 2014 at 11:26 am

    Big Mouth no one likes you.

  13. tricledrown 13
    10 February 2014 at 11:26 am

    Big Mouth no one likes you.

  14. Jimbob 14
    10 February 2014 at 11:44 am

    Key calls Cunliffe an idiot. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11199327

    Only question is why did it take so long for him to state the obvious? It was an own goal all the way, he was part of the government at the time but still went on record saying Key hadn’t done enough? To be fair Helen had no choice in the matter back in 2001, as much as Key has no say in it now. Just who is advising Cunliffe and checking his statements before they go out?

    • Naki Man 14.1
      10 February 2014 at 3:12 pm

      Jimbob
      Clusterfuck Cunliffe is just shooting his gums off. We all know that Abbott will give little away now and Key cannot do anything about it. Bring on Shane Jones as Labour leader.

  15. aerobubble 15
    10 February 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Library wifi internet down to 5K/s, that’s worse than dialup.

    • aerobubble 15.1
      10 February 2014 at 12:18 pm

      Can some please explain why open souce downloads from overseas rush down at nice speeds but pods casts from national radio, and webpages from the standard and stuff, nz servers are down to 5K/s???? Its really weird.

  16. captain hook 16
    10 February 2014 at 12:18 pm

    It stinks like a rotting mackerel in the moonlight.

    [lprent: I fail to see how that relates to the post. Doesn’t look like a diversion – just looks weird. Moved to OpenMike. ]

    • greywarbler 16.1
      10 February 2014 at 4:07 pm

      That’s a great line Cptain Hook. Very enigmatic and flexible. Can be slipped into any thread to sharpen and enhance it, sort of like Chinese oyster sauce.

  17. captain hook 17
    10 February 2014 at 12:22 pm

    some people need time to actualy consider what they have written.
    anyway who saw the piece on Al Jazeera in the weekend about the left wing newspaper in Chile called “The Clinic”.

    Apparently it is filled with in depth investigation and provocative interviews.
    Somehting that is sadly lacking in the MSM here which is full of pages, words nothing.
    We need the same spirit that is abroad in Chile here in NZ now instead of all this smart asss nitpicking that passes for political dialogue.

  18. Philj 18
    10 February 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Xox
    Mike Williams and Hooten on Nat Rad, Nine to Noon. What a dismal commentary. Mike Williams is not a left winger. Possibly explains why The Labour Party is currently where it is….. Unsure of where it really is. Can’t Natrad find a leftwing commentator, expressing a left wing view? Are there any ‘left’ in the MSM in Aotearoa?

    • phillip ure 18.1
      10 February 2014 at 2:27 pm

      i missed it..

      ..how many times did he ‘agree with matthew’..?

      ..williams should be holed up somewhere..in a corner..

      ..reduced to sending out regular/detailed apologies ..

      ..for the perfidies/failures/poor-bashing of the administration that he was the president of the party that ran it..

      ..but that ain’t gonna happen..

      ..the hubris/sellout runs strong in that one..

      ..as deep as it is wide..

      ..phillip ure..

      • Tim 18.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:24 pm

        ..how many times did he ‘agree with matthew’..?

        You got that a bit wrong P U.

        its …. “I tend to agree with you Mathew” or “I tend to agree with Mathew” if he’s addressing the regular work-life-balanced/fair and balanced gal Rinny.
        (After all, she know best when it comes to poltiks – after all that vast experience in the gallery. Her creds are impeccable and no-one can accuse her of living in a bubble).

        • phillip ure 18.1.1.1
          11 February 2014 at 5:00 pm

          then there is the fact ryan is an admitted fox-news fan..

          ..she finds it compelling..

          ..and is only there..’to get the other point of view’..she told listeners..

          ..and this explains the high number of fox talking-points ryan trots out in interviews/opinions..etc..

          ..phillip ure..

    • greywarbler 18.2
      10 February 2014 at 4:14 pm

      Well you think about it Philj. And find someone who has the gift of the gab and brains to go with it and experience and is willing and suggest their name to Radionz. Put in Captain Hook’s bit that he got on his line – tell them that the present set up smells like a rotting mackerel. It’s true enough. I think we should be waving round bits of that smelly fish and get some action in appropriate ways and places.

  20. fisiani 20
    10 February 2014 at 2:53 pm

    All this whinging. Surely The Cunliffe is the electoral Messiah. When he gets the Labour vote above 45% like a major party should then it should be easy to win election 2014. Stop worrying about issues on the fringe. Nationalising the electricity market, giving government workers a pay rise and more money to beneficiaries should be a vote winner. Add in a few more bribes to other sectors of the population and the votes are certain.

    [lprent: Bears no relationship to anything in the post. I assume it is an attempt at diversion.
    Since I warned about that in the second comment, I presume that you want this 2 week ban. ]

    • bad12 20.1
      10 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

      41% for National and Slippery the PM is going to have to rig things a damn sight better than His previous efforts to keep the job…

    • fisiani 20.2
      11 February 2014 at 10:04 pm

      Open mike is a post????

      [lprent: Oh yeah, I did forget to mention – moved to OpenMike. Just shows how much care you take with making comments related to content if you thought you’d written that comment here. It was in Mike’s post about National trying to gerrymander electorate seats to potential coalition partners.

      Incidentally, there is only one sure party that you could be confident that it’d bring in a lot of MPs if a party dropped just below 5%. It is noticeable how National is not looking to make a insurance deal with Winston Peters. Instead they’re concentrating in rats and mice who are unlikely to bring anyone else in with them. I wonder how long National can hold out against the allure of the baubles of office for the next 3 years? ]

  21. Tracey 21
    10 February 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Steven Joyce is a list MP????

      • Tracey 21.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 4:56 pm

        I thought people were only list MP’s when they were too scared and incap[able of winning an electorate? I’m sure I have read that said of Labour MPs?

        • alwyn 21.1.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 5:59 pm

          That wouldn’t be very hard Tracey. And National, and Green, and NZ First of course.
          It is said about every single List MP in Parliament. A large number of people submitting to the Electoral Review wanted to have candidates who stood and lost in electorates banned from getting in via the list. God knows why. It seems to be totally crazy to me.

        • lprent 21.1.1.2
          11 February 2014 at 8:45 am

          National’s ethics:-

          It is do as I say, not do as I do.

          Ask Paula Bennett

          But Joyce does have one good excuse. He has been Nationals national campaign manager. He is pretty good at it.

  22. Morrissey 22
    10 February 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Does anyone actually care about Cambridge University’s reputation?
    Afternoons with Jim Mora, Radio NZ National, Monday 10 February 2014

    After the 3 o’clock news this afternoon, Jim Mora spent more than thirty excruciating minutes interviewing one Nicholas Boyle, a professor of German at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Magdalene College. Apparently George Steiner has called him a “critic of vivacious perspicacity”, but judging by the quality of Professor Boyle’s talk this afternoon, this raises grave questions about Steiner’s integrity and/or his sanity and/or his judgement.

    Boyle’s current claim to fame is a harebrained but simplistically attractive thesis that the first two decades of each century determine the nature of the rest of it. Thus last century was shaped by the 1914-18 war; the nineteenth century by the 1815 Congress of Vienna; the eighteenth by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1715; the seventeenth by the Thirty Years War, which began in 1618. To ram home the authority of his brilliant thesis, Prof. Boyle pointed out that Martin Luther nailed up his 95 theses in 1517. There’s DEFINITELY A PATTERN there! As Sir Les Patterson would say: ARE YA WITH ME?!?!!???!?!?

    If Professor Boyle had merely restricted himself to outlining his sub-sophomoric thoughts, his comments would simply have been consigned to the intellectual rubbish heap, along with a lot of other stuff from this once-hallowed university. For it’s a sad fact that Cambridge is not exactly the intellectual hothouse one might imagine: in 2001 some wickedly mischievous (and possibly drug-addled) souls on a professorial board appointed the notorious Saatchi & Saatchi huckster Kevin Roberts as the first CEO-in-Residence at the university’s Judge Institute of Management.

    However, during his wandery discourse, the Professor ventured onto the topic of the international economic and political situation. Showing about as much perspicacity as Dr. Kevin Roberts, he made the remarkable statement that the United States is a kind of “world policeman”.

    Without further ado, I sent the following email to Jim Mora….

    Professor Boyle’s remarkable statement

    Dear Jim,

    Professor Nicholas Boyle made the extraordinary claim that the United States acts as “a world policeman.” Surely the idea of being a policeman implies some sort of commitment to law and order. Far from being a “policeman”, however, the United States has been distinguished for its scofflaw attitude to international justice. Indeed, in 1986 the United States was found guilty of terrorism against Nicaragua by the World Court.

    In the last decade alone, the United States has been the very opposite of a policeman: it has practiced, and tried to justify, long-term detention without charges or trial, denial of habeas corpus, kidnapping, torture and terror on a massive scale in Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, not to mention the extralegal execution of its own citizens.

    To hear a Cambridge professor make such a contentious, even ridiculous, claim is astonishing.

    Yours sincerely,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point

    • Tim 22.1
      10 February 2014 at 10:40 pm

      Careful Morrissey. You’ll get a reputation for being a pusher of shit uphill (on account of Mora being a piece of shit with a liking for playing dress-ups).
      He really should stick to reality TV – even if his victims rapidly try and change his colour schemes after his departure.
      I’ve been desperately hoping Julie Christie would offer him a deal he couldn’t refuse for a few years now, but to no avail. Maybe a Kiwi version of Paul Merton at a pinch. But ffs someone!!! please get the imposter off RNZ

  23. Little big horn 23
    10 February 2014 at 4:41 pm

    Anyone know who is behind this? http://www.seek.co.nz/job/25971434

    [lprent: Presumably this is the interesting bit.

    Reporting to the Groups Managing Director in this role of NZ Director – Government you will have an exceptional understanding of the workings of government in New Zealand from having held a position working directly with politicians and preferably be aligned to the National Party side of politics. You will be highly competent with project planning and implementation of client strategies and understand how to deliver effective outcomes within the government environment.

    That is a (ummm) ‘interesting’ requirement for a MD. Basically it says a lot about how this organisation intends to gain business – probably corruptly. ]

    • Stephanie Rodgers 23.1
      10 February 2014 at 7:12 pm

      And the name “Human Solutions Group” in red on a black background is creepy! It’s like something out of Robocop or Blade Runner!

    • Jenny 23.2
      10 February 2014 at 7:13 pm

      It also implies a certain arrogant belief in the seamless continuation of National Party influence and control beyond the next election.

    • RedBaronCV 23.3
      10 February 2014 at 8:58 pm

      They boast about the medical side of their recruitment. Possibly something to do with WINZ or ACC “get people off the list” outsourcing/privatisations. Paying between $120K and $150K.

      They might be smart to negotiate a decent redundancy. Are there any jobs on .govt or tenders that reflect what they want? or has someone been shoulder tapped when they shouldn’t have been.

    • veutoviper 23.4
      10 February 2014 at 10:25 pm

      Calling srylands – have you applied?

      • McFlock 23.4.1
        10 February 2014 at 10:28 pm

        It looks like they want someone NZ-based. And not a bot.

        • veutoviper 23.4.1.1
          10 February 2014 at 10:38 pm

          Do you really believe that srylands is an Aussie or Australian based? Sorry, has too much knowledge about Wellington and the Terrace in particular … particularly No 1 the Terrace.

          • McFlock 23.4.1.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 10:50 pm

            Oh, I reckon he’s probably a ship-jumper who has main income in aus, where he lives, but comes over occasionally to service nat clients. And service them he does.

          • felix 23.4.1.1.2
            10 February 2014 at 11:24 pm

            And no knowledge of anything else about NZ? Including the rate of GST?

            No, Rylands is not a treasury official.

            • McFlock 23.4.1.1.2.1
              10 February 2014 at 11:41 pm

              maybe former – he does call them the brightest folk in the country, if I recall correctly. But he’s certainly not up to date over the last 5 years or so.

              • veutoviper …
                11 February 2014 at 12:58 am

                Wellington is a small place – particularly the area encompassing the Terrace, Parliament and surrounds where government depts etc are located ….

                IMO his GST remarks some time ago were a red herring and a number of other comments over time have indicated him as a long term Wellington resident in the past.if not currently. Over the last few days various comments have indicating his knowledge of Kapiti water issues* and that he worked with Rod Donald on the Overseas Investment Bill some years ago**. Hejalso jumped in instantly to defend Carl Hansen ( and that Treasury people are the brightest and best).***

                * http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08022014/#comment-770069
                ** http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-08022014/#comment-770089
                *** http://thestandard.org.nz/geoff-bertram-on-single-buyer-for-electricity/#comment-769155

                But we are running close to the wind re TS policy. I will just repeat one of my comments to you actually Mcflock two days ago – “He is just like a clam – or other type of Peloris – that live their lives buried in the sand of neo-liberalism”
                http://thestandard.org.nz/nz-herald-watch-history-repeats/#comment-769957

                I did not know that clams etc were a type of “Peloris” until a few months ago. Google is a wonderful tool. So is LinkedIn.

                • McFlock …
                  11 February 2014 at 11:09 am

                  meh.

                  He claims to be currently living in aussie. That would certainly explain his comprehensive lack of knowledge about current conditions in NZ.

                  As far as I’m concerned, he’s just a fuckwit.

                  • veutoviper …
                    11 February 2014 at 11:25 am

                    Agree with your last sentence! But I am not convinced he is currently living in Aussie. If he is, he must suffer from early morning insomnia going on the time of some of his recent (early morning) comments. But wherever he is, he probably lives in a bubble of like people with little or no contact with others in different circumstances – or interest in seeing this other side.

                    But enough, it is not actually raining today in Wellington, so time to do things like put the washing on the line, think about (but probably not do) gardening, lawn mowing etc that one gets to do when one is no longer working in the Terrace/Parliament/ Molesworth Street triangle. LOL

  25. greywarbler 25
    10 February 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Just had a look at The Paepae vid of the Russian police singing about being up all night to get lucky. I hope that they continue to take a break from some of their less tuneful activities. One guy was going red in the face it looked as if he had put on weight and his shirt was strangling him.

    I used to think that the singing of the Red Army Choir was excellent. How great if we could have that singing and humane policing too.

  26. Jenny 26
    10 February 2014 at 7:21 pm

    Can one country murder a world?

    Should New Zealand stand by?

    ….the country (Australia) intends to triple its coal exports by 2030 – and Abbot Point, along with Gladstone, another port near the reef, are key to that vision.
    UK Independent As wired to the NZ Herald Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014

    “Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on the planet.”
    James Hansen Former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and arguably the world’s foremost climatologist
    http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89033/

    “The worst fossil fuel from a climate standpoint is coal—responsible for 45 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a third more polluting in terms of carbon dioxide than oil, and twice as polluting as natural gas.”
    Bill McKibben 350.org founder
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

    As Australia’s closest friend, and near neighbor, we can be very influential on our big brother across the Tasman.

    What we do here counts.

    We could put into place (latent) but highly symbolic legislation banning all future climate refugees who are citizens of Australia immigrating to this country, implementation circa 2025, (unless things change).

    We could set an example.

    We could ban all coal exports (and imports) across our borders.

    We could prohibit the start up of new coal mines.

    We could cancel all fossil fuel subsidies.

    Or,

    We could start opening up new coal mines around the country, and triple our own coal exports, while continuing to subsidise coal mining with $tens of millions of taxpayers money, while starving sustainable technologies, through unfair legislation and lack of funding, to become active partners in destroying the planet. While collaborating with the Australian government to discriminate against New Zealand migrants to Australia. (All current National and Labour Party policies).

    Ask yourself this:

    Which of the two above alternative strategies – Do You perceive to be unfair, bizarre and extreme?

  27. srylands 27
    10 February 2014 at 8:16 pm

    I see that the price of Ipredict stocks in “There will be a Labour Prime Minister after the 2014 General Election” has fallen to a new record low, breaking the 37 cents barrier at 8pm today.

    PM.2014.LABOUR
    Last Trade Price: $0.3659

    Bad 12 You (with a capital “Y”) can ridicule this all you want, but if a National win was trading at this price, you would be like a bitch in heat.

    • srylands 27.1
      10 February 2014 at 8:26 pm

      Also, if you look at the order books on the stock, sellers are outnumbering buyers by 10:1

      • BM 27.1.1
        10 February 2014 at 8:30 pm

        Yep, looks like the Cunliffe’s status has moved from messiah to false prophet.
        The only surprise here, is that it has taken people that long to work it out.

      • mickysavage 27.1.2
        10 February 2014 at 8:30 pm

        Only because a pillock with $1k spare sold a thousand Labour PM shares at .38 and bought a thousand National MP shares at .62. If Ipredict was controlled by the stock exchange someone would have their credentials taken off them and be done for manipulation …

        Good try though SR.

        I actually quite like IPredict. It has an inherent right wing bias and it is easy to make money if you have an understanding of reality.

        • srylands 27.1.2.1
          10 February 2014 at 8:33 pm

          “Only because a pillock with $1k spare sold a thousand Labour PM shares at .38 and bought a thousand National MP shares at .62.”

          OK so this one person is doing this every day? Why does the order book look totally different to your theory?

          • wtl 27.1.2.1.1
            10 February 2014 at 9:30 pm

            You really are useless aren’t you, you can’t even read the orders info on the ipredict page:

            For the stock in question, here are the top sell orders for a Labour PM:
            920 $0.3800
            3 $0.3853
            10 $0.3854
            6 $0.3891
            1 $0.3915
            1 $0.3997
            1 $0.3998
            37 $0.3999
            102 $0.4000
            1 $0.4011

            And buy orders for a National PM:
            940 $0.6200
            3 $0.6147
            10 $0.6146
            5 $0.5988
            5 $0.5987
            1 $0.5830
            1 $0.5829
            1 $0.5828
            1 $0.5827
            10 $0.5826

            Certainly looks like manipulation to me.

            • bad12 27.1.2.1.1.1
              10 February 2014 at 10:40 pm

              LOLZ, ipredict manipulated, how could you say such a thing, you only have to ask wee Matty Hooton, he swears it’s all above board,

              i tracked NZFirst on that site for months leading up to the 2011 election and no matter how often NZFirst were ‘bought’ up to 5% of the vote or over, in a matter of minutes some of the time it was sold back down below the 5%,

              i tracked what i thought was ‘manipulation’ and on another site i was commenting on at the time was able to predict within a point NZFirst’s election result, yep for all i know it might have been a good guess…

    • RedBaronCV 27.2
      10 February 2014 at 9:01 pm

      I’ve looked at prices on there and seen opportunities to set up a straddle that is about 98% certain to make money. Some one is fixing the system when that happens. Perhaps I should mosey over for a look. Could be profitable. On the other hand crooked is as crooked does . Not a good crowd.

    • bad12 27.3
      10 February 2014 at 10:23 pm

      Ha-Ha-Haaaa, SSLands, still whoring for ipredict i see, you with a miniscule Y as befitting your status of having a miniscule intellect should quote to the folks the current Party prices shown on the pathetically shonky betting site that is all you have to clutch as National/ACT go glug glug glug down the gurgler at election 2014,

      Last time i looked, yesterday when your whoring provided a link to ‘i can’t get my decimal points in the right place predict’ National’s share of the Party vote was 41.6%, Labour’s 33.2%, and, the Greens 9.5%,

      The reason for the elongated Ha-Ha-Haaaa SSLands is that your bed-time comforter of a prediction site had Kim DotCom’s Internet Party polling 14.2%, a rather large OOOPS on both you and the gambling sites part,

      Your OOOPs being for supporting such a shonky piece of rubbish and theirs for being that shonky piece of rubbish…

      PS, as a good flunky perhaps you would care to email your bedtime comforter and advise them they have a certain decimal point in the wrong place…

  28. Tautoko Viper 28
    10 February 2014 at 9:15 pm

    Is Five eyes really Six Eyes?
    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/02/09/nsa-maintains-satellite-facility-in-israel/

    And metadata used to target drone strikes?
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

    NZ should not be associated with NSA criminals. Time to gut the GCSB powers.

  29. Draco T Bastard 29
    10 February 2014 at 9:57 pm

    Irony Alert:

    It would also “sterilise and degrade the land” and “cause environmental damage”, Forrest’s submission to the WA warden’s court said.

    “Forrest regards the Ashburton river to be significant to its pastoral operations on Minderoo as a source of water and from the overall benefits it brings to all aspects of the surrounding environment,” his submission says.

    But who is this masked man, this caped crusader, this defender of the environment?

    Billionaire mining magnate Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has lost a fight to prevent mining on his cattle station in the Pilbara.

    Oh, right, a billionaire mining magnate, you know, someone who gets their money from destroying the environment.

  30. Jenny 30
    10 February 2014 at 11:12 pm

    David Cunliffe’s support for Deep Sea Oil looks sicker every day.

    Labour is looking at the Norwegian model for regulating the oil and gas industry, including stronger environmental safeguards and steeper taxes.

    Leader David Cunliffe yesterday said Labour supported deep sea oil and gas exploration “in principle” but would pass laws to toughen environmental protection.
    Adam Bennett New Zealand Herald Thursday, Jan 23, 2014

    After 8,400 Gallon Oil Spill, Safety Standards On Norwegian Offshore Rigs Questioned

    Approximately 32 cubic meters, or 8,400 gallons, of oil spilled into the sea early Sunday morning following a leak at a Statoil-owned rig off the coast of Norway, according to media reports and a company statement….

    Though weather was not indicated as the cause, Statoil confirmed that harsh conditions and high waves were preventing emergency response teams from adequately observing the area immediately following the spill, and that it would inspect the area from the air.

    Emily Atkin Climate Progress January 27, 2014

    Would these be the same sort of harsh conditions (or worse) that are experienced in the Southern Ocean, that would also prevent any “emergency response”?

    Safety on Norway’s offshore rigs, however, has been an issue for some in the country. Just one day after Sunday’s spill, four unions that represented Norwegian offshore oil rig workers decided to withdraw from an industry-sponsored safety group, saying the offshore rig industry was ignoring critical safety standards.

    The group, called the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association’s Network for Safety and Emergency Response Training (NSOB), was originally established in the wake of a 1980 platform disaster that killed 123 people. But now, the four unions — Fellesforbundet, Industri Energi, Lederne and SAFE — said NSOB had recently made “a number of changes that impair safety and emergency training on the Norwegian continental shelf.”

    “For us, it appears that cost savings and superficiality have taken precedence at the expense of safety and emergency response,” Fellesforbundet Secretary Mohammed Afzal said in a statement to UPI news.
    Emily Atkin Climate Progress January 27, 2014

    Maybe David was thinking of another Norway

  31. tricledrown 31
    11 February 2014 at 12:10 am

    Power price gouging being defended by dodgy business NZ investigation.
    Waikato University professor said electricity companies ate using false asset valuations to put up electricity prices.