Open mike 10/02/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 10th, 2016 - 154 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

154 comments on “Open mike 10/02/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    10 February 2016 at 6:09 am

    I wrote this post 2 weeks ago. ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’
    http://thestandard.org.nz/keep-calm-and-carry-on/

    Seems as if we are on the brink of a global recession.
    Market turmoil: Wall Street down after FTSE 100 hits three-year low – business live
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/feb/09/market-turmoil-nikkei-plunges-european-stocks-germany-ftse-live

    ‘Panic situation’: Asian stocks tumble amid fears of new global recession
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/09/panic-situation-as-asian-stocks-tumble-amid-fears-of-new-global-recession
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/feb/09/market-turmoil-nikkei-plunges-european-stocks-germany-ftse-live

    Deutsche Bank is shaking to its foundations – is a new banking crisis around the corner?
    http://secularinvestor.com/deutsche-bank-shaking-foundations-new-banking-crisis-around-corner/13242/

    Lending to emerging markets comes to a halt
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/07/lending-to-emerging-markets-comes-to-a-halt.html

    What the Heck is Going On in the Stock Market?
    http://wolfstreet.com/2016/02/07/what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-stocks/

    RNZ lead with the story at 6 a.m.
    ‘Panic hits world stock markets’
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201788626/panic-hits-world-stock-markets

    Even the Herald noticed….
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11586938

    Buckle up, people, it’s going to be a rough landing.

    • Chooky 1.1
      10 February 2016 at 8:55 am

      +100 …thanks for those links Paul…and here is another from ‘Boom Bust’

      https://www.rt.com/shows/boom-bust/331812-greek-markets-low-index/

      “Global markets took a tumble on Monday, with Greece’s main index hitting a shocking 25-year low. Ameera David has the details. Edward Harrison then joins the program from Berlin to offer more insight on the state of the European economy and the troubles it’s facing as the union of nations faces a multitude of challenges. Then Steve Keen, professor of history, economics, and politics at Kingston University, gives his thoughts on the damage he believes Brussels is inflicting on Europe.

      After the break, RT’s Anya Parampil sits down to discuss Wall Street’s growing worry over the possibility of a Sanders presidency. And finally, in The Big Deal, Manuel Rapalo discusses Washington DC’s proposed experiment to pay trouble makers thousands of dollars in an effort to keep them out of jail.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    10 February 2016 at 6:14 am

    Slavery. Coming to your house right now.

    Probably time to defund Baptist World Aid.

  3. Tautoko Mangō Mata 3
    10 February 2016 at 8:14 am

    In the High Court in Whangarei, the national farming lobby, Federated Farmers, is challenging an Environment Court ruling from May 2015 that regional councils do have such a right to have a say as to whether their region is GE free or not under the Resource Management Act (RMA) .The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – especially crops is a particular threat to organic crop growers.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296131/high-court-challenge-to-ge-ruling

    Meanwhile in India
    “Monsanto ‘faked’ data for approvals claims its ex-chief
    Tiruvadi Jagadisan says the company ‘used to fake scientific data’.”

    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Monsanto+'faked'+data+for+approvals+claims+its+ex-chief/1/83093.html
    Organic Agriculture, Capitalism And The Parallel Reality Of The Pro-GM Evangelist
    http://www.countercurrents.org/todhunter080216.htm

  4. AmaKiwi 4
    10 February 2016 at 8:44 am

    I am a Labour member looking for a more relevant party to support.

    I listened to the debate on the PM’s statement. The Green’s James Shaw talked about National’s destruction of the Cullen superannuation fund. It’s not a vital environmental issue, but it is important.

    Metiria Turei’s seven minute speech was entirely in Maori so 95% of us could not understand it.

    I just crossed The Greens off my list. They ain’t goin’ nowhere.

    IMO, NZ First’s Winston Peters and Ron Marks were the best speakers.

    Listen for yourself: http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/41352

    • Chooky 4.1
      10 February 2016 at 8:49 am

      +100 AmaKiwi

      • Cowboy 4.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 9:40 am

        I have recently become a NZ First member after having become disillusioned with National. My main reasons were around their championing of rural NZ which I have long felt was being taken for granted by the Nats and needed to flex its electoral muscle. The Northland by election has proved the value of that, do you think Joyce and Guy would be up there with a regional development strategy if it wasn’t for the bloody nose in the by election. I also think a term away from Parliament has done Winston some good. He seems to have mellowed and be more focused on pushing issues rather than fighting the media which used to infuriate me. He has also been the only leader to consistently take Key/Nats on with any effect. For those on this site looking for a sign of a possible coalition with Lab/green/NZ1 I thought that James Shaw referencing immigration in his address was significant as was Winstons acknowledgement. Coincidence…?

        • Chooky 4.1.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 10:09 am

          +100 about rural NZ…farm sale off to foreigners is a BIG worry…and it would be good if the Greens and NZF could patch up their differences and work cooperatively together for a Left coalition with Labour

        • AmaKiwi 4.1.1.2
          10 February 2016 at 10:22 am

          In the 1990’s, NZ First’s platform included binding citizen initiated referendums.

          (Sorry, I haven’t located a reference but I remember it well.)

        • Rosie 4.1.1.3
          10 February 2016 at 10:28 am

          Cowboy, it’s always interesting to hear from former National supporters about their changing allegiances and the reason for that change. I agree with you too about Winston’s time away and how this may have been beneficial – he really is buckling down at the same time as mellowing.

          I was previously uncomfortable with NZ First, mainly because of their social conservatism, and there was that appalling anti Muslim nut out by MP Richard Prosser awhile ago,

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10864924

          however, I am warming to the Party because of their intolerance for the status quo, their stance against the TPPA and their willingness to protect NZer’s from losing it’s sovereignty.

          I’m a Labour member and would be really happy to see a coalition between Labour Greens and NZ First, genuinely happy, not just because it’s the only option we have to change the government.

          • Molly 4.1.1.3.1
            10 February 2016 at 11:08 am

            Speaking to someone who works in Wellington for a government department, who ran across an old acquaintance last week – now working in a research unit for the PM.

            According to the researcher, the Nats are not worried about the next election because there is no cohesive opposition at present.

            In line with CV, I think Labour needs to wake up to the power of MMP instead of trying to coerce it into a pseudo, first past the post.

            There are policies across the left that align.

            All opposition parties need to start talking to other opposition parties now to form a stable opposition coalition platform. And use the next year or so to challenge the government with one coherent voice on these issues.

            Use media training to handle issues where they disagree to put the focus back on government ie: “We don’t currently have an agreed position on this with the …. party, BUT the issue is one that needs to be addressed because of the failure of this current government… etc”.

            To see how effective this is – look how the dismal party votes for United and ACT have allowed this government to leverage votes.

            (Labour also needs to clarify it’s messages, and deal more effectively with discipline within its caucus and MP’s before getting my vote – but that is another issue.

            I would much prefer a Labour led coalition than another three years of National and lackeys.)

            • Expat 4.1.1.3.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 11:47 am

              Hi Molly

              We need more people to reiterate the very good points you make, a united and disciplined presentation is a minimum requirement, having said that, the looming global financial crisis may just be the catalyst for change anyway and we then will need “smart” policies to meet the challenge, across the spectrum of parties you mention, their is a wealth of experience with the potential to deal with these problems, they just need the opportunity.

              • savenz …
                10 February 2016 at 2:24 pm

                @Expat – I think it is complacent for the opposition to think ‘eventually x will happen and they will vote for us”. Is not happening!!!

                Look at ChCh – should have vote for someone else but also when chips were down they wanted the perception of stability not a rabble who fought amongst themselves.

                In a crisis people want leadership and clarity and stability.

                Infighting, odd policy and confusion lost the election for the opposition.

                They need to unite, have clear policy that is consistent not punishing, and clarity for voters.

                It could be as simple as putting clear messages (in English not Natz speak) on their websites.

                • Expat …
                  10 February 2016 at 3:39 pm

                  savenz

                  Absolutely agree with you, the infighting, general lack of professionalism as an organisation, different members providing contrasting view points, discipline is required, as is consistency of the message from all members.
                  All the potential coalition partners need to form a consensus on all the policies they agree on so they can start spreading the same message, there should be no public attacks on policies they disagree with, rather, they need to negotiate their way through these disagreements successfully and amicably, in the public “eye”, then the public perception of a disorganized bunch will fade, they need to demonstrate to the public they can work “together” as a cohesive group.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 February 2016 at 11:29 pm

                    well I agree with all this analysis, Labour need to do this, they need to do that, they need to look at things this way not that way, etc.

                    Thing is, they won’t, and even if they wanted to, they do not have the resources, power or ability to change.

            • Magisterium 4.1.1.3.1.2
              10 February 2016 at 12:20 pm

              All opposition parties need to start talking to other opposition parties now to form a stable opposition coalition platform. And use the next year or so to challenge the government with one coherent voice on these issues.

              Translation: Greens need to do what Labour tells them, and nod obediently when Labour speaks on issues.

              • Molly …
                10 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

                “Translation: Greens need to do what Labour tells them, and nod obediently when Labour speaks on issues.”No. Emphatically No.

                As mentioned above:
                “Use media training to handle issues where they disagree to put the focus back on government ie: “We don’t currently have an agreed position on this with the …. party, BUT the issue is one that needs to be addressed because of the failure of this current government… etc”.”

                Only form a coherent voice on issues where they agree, and put the blame for other unresolved issues where it belongs with the current government.

                Like many others, I don’t appreciate the changing policies of parties in an effort to get into power.

                It makes me despairing of making a vote in line with my values if that is the overriding intention of policy makers.

                However, I also think a cooperative and inclusive approach which explores and works on contentious issues is a long-term better solution than the current bully and bluster government we have in place.

                The collective left have nothing to lose and everything to gain by changing the current approach to elections.

                • Expat …
                  10 February 2016 at 12:58 pm

                  Hi Molly

                  You can always trust the RWNJ’s to misinterpret your point, they call it translation, but of course it’s just their limited intelligence and understanding of reality at work again, typical disruptive Keyism.

                  • greywarshark …
                    11 February 2016 at 10:27 am

                    Molly +1

                    Expat
                    The term ‘Lost in Translation’ comes to mind. The government needs to learn other languages. Their frequent use of hand signals, one finger pointing upwards, is not a satisfactory substitute.

            • Rosie 4.1.1.3.1.3
              10 February 2016 at 1:19 pm

              +1 to that Molly. Collaboration is the only way to win in an MMP environment. I hope those less forthcoming about working with other parties maybe swallow a bit of pride and come to this conclusion, the sooner the better.

              Also, interesting about the comment from the staff member at the PM’s research unit but sadly not surprising.

            • savenz 4.1.1.3.1.4
              10 February 2016 at 2:18 pm

              @Molly – it is obvious Labour/Greens/NZ First need to collaborate and get together in private and work out all the things they agree on, and I also think Mana should not be forgotten. Last election, the opposition wasted more time on bagging InternetMana than the Natz. Just did not make sense.

              Just concentrate on Knocking the Natz out!!

          • Cowboy 4.1.1.3.2
            10 February 2016 at 11:19 am

            Hi Rosie, I have had similar concerns to yourself in the past that has seen me not consider NZ1. I also have come to the realisation that unfetted globalisation is extremely damaging at a number of levels and there is room for some economic nationalism and centralised NZ inc strategy to guide the ship without going all Muldoon. We have many collective advantages that we are not exploiting particularly around creating more value for our primary products, which also links nicely with the environmental sustainability issue.
            As an aside I thought James Shaw was excellent yesterday. Hit National hard at their perceived strength, the economy, took labours back re govt attacks that everything’s ‘Labours fault’, threw an immigration bone to Winston via Auckland housing demand and gave the base plenty of references to environmental issue. I see him as the key figure in portraying the centre left as a credible govt in waiting.

            • Rosie 4.1.1.3.2.1
              10 February 2016 at 1:58 pm

              I’ve been away from politics for 8 weeks and am just back today so missed James Shaw in the house yesterday. Will check out the links further below in the thread if I get time later. James Shaw has done well to get confidently into his stride as a new leader from outside the parliamentary world.

              PS: Was very impressed with Fletcher Tabuteau last year. He’s a brilliant speaker and has energy and intellect. Would like to see him replace Winston as leader when the day comes for him to step down – but thats in the future, in the meantime they need to keep up the pace and work with the other opposition parties so we can end these years of National misery in 2017.

    • framu 4.2
      10 February 2016 at 9:44 am

      “Metiria Turei’s seven minute speech was entirely in Maori so 95% of us could not understand it.

      I just crossed The Greens off my list. They ain’t goin’ nowhere.”

      because of the speech? – or other reasons?

      • AmaKiwi 4.2.1
        10 February 2016 at 10:13 am

        @ framu

        If you call yourself The Greens, you focus on environmental issues. It’s not as if there aren’t enough of them.

        If you want votes from the general population, you don’t deliver an important speech in a language 95% of the general population don’t understand.

        I’ve wasted a lot of my time and money on a Labour party whose caucus was the party’s worst enemy. Been there. Done that. Don’t want to do it anymore.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 10:40 am

          If you call yourself The Greens, you focus on environmental issues.

          Why just focus on one aspect of social policy when you can more effectively work on all of them?

          If you want votes from the general population, you don’t deliver an important speech in a language 95% of the general population don’t understand.

          Learn Māori. The best way to do that is to listen to it.

        • framu 4.2.1.2
          10 February 2016 at 11:01 am

          “If you call yourself The Greens, you focus on environmental issues.”

          maybe for you – but i see that as foolishly narrow in scope and limiting your longevity – one trick parties dont last

          “you don’t deliver an important speech in a language 95% of the general population don’t understand”

          well – never mind most NZers wont hear it anyway – so what if its in maori? – its an official language and turei was likely making a point by doing that

          also – the labour caucus and the greens caucus operate very differently

          your free to your choice of course and i wont criticise you for it – despite my disagreement with the why

          • weka 4.2.1.2.1
            10 February 2016 at 12:27 pm

            Yep, and back in the day people criticised the GP for only focussing on environmental issues (which was a false criticism because they’ve never done that).

            Saying that green politics are only about the environment misrepresents what green politics are. They are instrinsically entwined with both the environment and social justice movements. This is apparent in both the deeper philososphy (you can’t have social justice without a good environment and vice versa), and also in the pragmatics (if you want high calibre people like Turei and Davidson you need a kaupapa where the environment and the people are part of the same understanding).

          • AmaKiwi 4.2.1.2.2
            10 February 2016 at 2:31 pm

            NZ sign language is our third official language so why not sign a speech and skip having any simultaneous translation?

            It would be helpful to deaf people if everyone learned NZ sign language. Obviously it’s not going to happen.

        • weka 4.2.1.3
          10 February 2016 at 12:19 pm

          What speech of Turei’s are you referring to? Please link.

          • AmaKiwi 4.2.1.3.1
            10 February 2016 at 2:15 pm

            Turei’s speech in the house yesterday:

            http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/41352

            • weka 4.2.1.3.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 8:32 pm

              Ok, thanks. I wanted to see the context before I commented.

              Turei was interviewed by Campbell this evening. She recently took a month off work to learn te reo, and this speech in parliament was her first in the reo. She’s a child of the 70s and talked about how that meant she is of the generation that fell between the earlier Māori who learned more easily from within their whānau and culture and the later ones who are learning as part of the renaissance. She talked about how she wants to be able to meet the expectations of her as a Māori leader and as one of the senior Māori in parliament, to be able to respond to Māori in te reo. Getting up today and speaking was very brave. It’s also an important political act.

              Te reo is still an endangered language. As others have mentioned, it’s one of NZ’s official languages. If non-reo speakers can’t understand Turei today that is the fault of parlimentary services (who should be able to subtitle the video), not Turei. Māori have a legal right to speak their own language in this country.

              I think your criticism of her, and using that to distance yourself from the Greens or make out that they’re not worthy of political support is superficial and, to be honest, bogus. By all means choose the party you want to support, but at least have some good reasons for dissing the others.

        • Molly 4.2.1.4
          10 February 2016 at 12:53 pm

          If you call yourself The Greens, you focus on environmental issues.

          And nothing to say about???
          – The National Party,
          – ACT – a misnomer if every there was one, perhaps PROP, DOORMAT or FREERIDE would be more appropriate,
          – The Māori Party – Leader currently championing a bill to ease access to Māori land, using faux hui as consultation (So much for “Not one more acre”)
          – Let’s not forget United Future – whose definition of “united” means sitting on the fence and jumping from one side to the other when it suits,
          – And though it pains me to say so (even though I’m not a party member) The Labour Party, because the working class cannot rely on their support as a matter of course. (Unless of it refers to labour pains, which may mean we are on the threshold of the birth of a new left movement. Here’s hoping.)

          In this respect Greens, NZFirst and Mana come out looking fairly good.

    • pete 4.3
      10 February 2016 at 9:59 am

      Agree, both Winston Peters and Ron Mark are fantastic speakers, and extremely capable politicians. But NZ First has never really fired. They just seem to not attract very many good supporting players. Maybe good potential candidates are more attracted to standing for National or Labour?

      Also agree re your comment ‘more relevant party’. I used to support Labour, but it has increasingly lost its way. Just look at its current confused and hypocritical stance on TPPA. In fact, the left as a whole has lost its way. For example, Harre following the money to Dotcoms cause in last election. Increasingly difficult to trust or take many of the current crop of left leaning politicians seriously.

      • Colonial Viper 4.3.1
        10 February 2016 at 10:12 am

        But NZ First has never really fired. They just seem to not attract very many good supporting players.

        You’re talking about past performance, and even if your analysis was correct, I suggest that looking at future potential may be more important.

        By the way, John Key and National knifed Winston and NZ First in the back several times, and left their political bodies by the kerbside for dead.

        My analysis is that not only is NZ First back, but they are ‘firing up’ in a big way.

        Both Labour and National is going to lose more support to NZF come 2017.

        • pete 4.3.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 10:21 am

          Hi Cv. I hope you are right. Certainly I pay them a lot more attention these days than in the past. And despite how my comment may have sounded, I acknowledge that they have at times punched way above their weight. For example, the Gold Card and so on.

        • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.3.1.2
          10 February 2016 at 12:07 pm

          We need a peoples’ progressive movement to draw the left together similar to that being set up by Varoufakis in Europe: Democracy in Europe Movement 2025
          http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/09/varoufakis-leads-european-left-reclaim-democracy-authoritarian-technocrats

          An extracts from the manifesto:

          Our overarching aim to democratise the European Union is intertwined with an ambition to promote self-government (economic, political and social) at the local, municipal, regional and national levels; to throw open the corridors of power to the public; to embrace social and civic movements; and to emancipate all levels of government from bureaucratic and corporate power.

          http://diem25.org/

          Let’s start up a movement, state our goals and only endorse the political parties which meet OUR bottom lines.

          We need some sort of alliance and we need it NOW!

        • Skinny 4.3.1.3
          10 February 2016 at 12:32 pm

          +1 Peters is reading the mood well, I like the guy he is very approachable, never have any mayor issues getting him along to guest speak. Unlike the slow turning wheel of the Labour machine, where your made to jump through hoops to get one of the heavy hitters along.

          Take last Fridays Have A Say On The TPPA rally our group hosted, while the crowd wasn’t large (due to being an outdoors event and it was bucketing down) the media turned up as there was a hunger after the big rally the day before, which we knew would be the case. Anyway Peters got (an opening) it and prepared a speech that touched a cord with discontent National & Labour voters, who watched the speech on a NZH facebook feed and stated they were now in his camp. Last I looked he had 124,000+ views of his speech.

          Got to give it to the guy he is a master at self promotion.

      • Brigid 4.3.2
        10 February 2016 at 12:32 pm

        No, Laila Harre did not ‘follow the money to Dotcoms cause’. If anyone cares to actually do a little research they’d find The Mana/Internet Party had the best socialist policies of all the parties on the left. That it was supported financially by Dotcom simply shows he supported their policies. Just as the Gnat and Labour financial supporters did their chosen party.
        It would be good to not repeat the MSM lie that Mana/Internet Party was controlled by Dotcom. It wasn’t.

        • weka 4.3.2.1
          10 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

          +1.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.3.2.2
          10 February 2016 at 12:52 pm

          The Mana/Internet Party had the best socialist policies of all the parties on the left.

          That explains their electoral decimation.

        • Skinny 4.3.2.3
          10 February 2016 at 1:02 pm

          Umm I prefer to take my steer from Sue Bradford who quit Mana sighting it was a mismatch of a hook up, and how correct she was.

          • Chooky 4.3.2.3.1
            10 February 2016 at 1:15 pm

            Sue Bradford was also a Maoist in her youth…and look how Maoism turned out!….those who are too purist are often too purely wrong

            Kim Dotcom was a victim of Hollywood corporate and jonkey nact ( shades of what will happen to internet entrepreneurs under TPPA)

            imo Dotcom was a sincere supporter of Mana/Int

            ….and Mana/ Int was defeated by a concerted action against Hone Harawira to defeat him his Electorate of TTT …and that includes a shameful collusion of Labour and NZF…as well as jonkey nactional

        • Chooky 4.3.2.4
          10 February 2016 at 1:09 pm

          +100 Brigid

        • Molly 4.3.2.5
          10 February 2016 at 1:57 pm

          +100

        • pete 4.3.2.6
          10 February 2016 at 2:16 pm

          Well she has certainly gone very quiet now for someone who, according to you, was doing the job from personal commitment. Same goes for Mr Dotcom himself.

          Here are their policies:
          https://forum.internet.org.nz/?page_id=30

          A dolphin policy? And you think this is all a msm conspiracy? No. They were a cynical joke and attempt at manipulating the electorate.

          • Colonial Viper 4.3.2.6.1
            11 February 2016 at 6:09 pm

            Well she has certainly gone very quiet now for someone who, according to you, was doing the job from personal commitment. Same goes for Mr Dotcom himself.

            Hmmm, these people have personal and work lives to attend to, they aren’t on six figure tax payer sourced salaries and expense accounts like our professional Parliamentarians.

        • savenz 4.3.2.7
          10 February 2016 at 2:30 pm

          +1 Brigid and everyone else.

          I find it hilarious that the the right were so scared of Internet Mana because they actually had a wealthy backer. (Who they illegally tried to steal his wealth).

          • pete 4.3.2.7.1
            10 February 2016 at 2:53 pm

            I seriously doubt that the right gave them any more than a passing thought. Labour I am sure were very concerned, as Internet party almost certainly took many votes away from them.

            • savenz 4.3.2.7.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 3:12 pm

              @Pete – Internet Mana 2.5% party votes – yeah right!

              Lost Labour the election….

              …don’t think so

              Labours stupidity and infighting and inconsistent policy lost the election.

              Not standing behind their leader stopped labour winning the election. Why vote for a party when they all seem to disagree with each other? Not being able to get on with opposition lost labour the election.

              Has not changed yet. Yes Little is trying, but the TPPA is a good example showing Labour have not resolved it AND have failed to discipline those out of order.

              TPPA is going to be a defining issue next election. What is Labour going to have to say. Shearer their subcommittee guy supports TPPA too? But they are going to ignore it, will be an enraging position that the Natz are clearly facilitating and hoping for.

        • marty mars 4.3.2.8
          10 February 2016 at 5:14 pm

          very true Brigid – the bullshit lies they have made up and continue to promulgate to dirty good reputations is disgusting.

    • Colonial Viper 4.4
      10 February 2016 at 10:17 am

      I just crossed The Greens off my list. They ain’t goin’ nowhere.

      That’s my assessment as well. They are aiming for mainstream NZ yet are a poor cultural fit for those voters. They are less environmentally radical in their values than they were in the 70’s and 80’s, even though the environmental threat is clearly far greater and far more obvious now. The message that many will still maintain a comfortable middle class standard of living doesn’t jive with the likely reality of the next 20-30 years.

      • AmaKiwi 4.4.1
        10 February 2016 at 10:24 am

        Our waterways have become cesspools. A National disgrace.

        • weka 4.4.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 12:22 pm

          Yes, and the GP have been one of the main drivers of raising awareness and taking action on that. If you care about the waterways, support the GP, because they’re the only party in parliament doing anything serious about them.

          • BM 4.4.1.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 12:54 pm

            They could form an alliance with National and make that one of the bargaining chips.

            • weka 4.4.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 1:31 pm

              Troll comment. You know very well that the GP can’t form a government alliance with National.

              As for working with on policy, my understanding is that if National were willing to do anything half way decent on the environment then National and the GP would have an accord. But National aren’t interested and basically don’t give a shit about shit in the waterways if it makes their mates money. Just so it’s clear what kind of party you are voting for.

      • weka 4.4.2
        10 February 2016 at 12:21 pm

        Make up your mind CV. Either they should become a better cultural fit, or have radical environmental policies/tell the truth about teotwawki. They can’t do both.

    • The Chairman 4.5
      10 February 2016 at 10:55 am

      Shaw highlighted National’s poor economic performance but Peters was on a roll.

      https://youtu.be/DEUzmBfixdE

      https://youtu.be/J9sPsTdf1Y0

      • Rosemary McDonald 4.5.1
        10 February 2016 at 1:29 pm

        We just watched Shaw’s speech again…and if there were an election today…would vote GP if their policies were closely aligned with the content of his speech. Impressive…and rather witty.

        Little was good…ish. Less ranty, more content…needs more confidence.

        I felt Winston had a deal less fire…and kept looking to Marks as a foil. Maybe its time to hand more of the frontline stuff over to other NZ1 MPs?

        FWIW. Having been forced under threat of legal action to involve myself in the democratic process…I guess I’ll have to vote. But for whom?

        • The Chairman 4.5.1.1
          12 February 2016 at 7:41 am

          Little’s speech was disappointing, especially after Key rubbed his nose in his two position party (TPP). For which Little had no comeback for.

          Peters had them all running for cover. With his speech inspiring a number of associates (viewing it with me) to now vote for him.

          Peters use of Marks was merely preparation, building up his role for future leadership change.

      • Chooky 4.5.2
        10 February 2016 at 2:53 pm

        @ The Chairman…thanks for those links

        imo Shaw gave a good speech, particularly his deconstruction of Nactional’s economic performance (which is abysmal) and his reiteration of the Green focus on climate change ( not as confident or compelling as Russel Norman though)

        Winston was his brilliant impromptu self !…no surprises on where NZF stands ….and he has certainly not lost his fire or his entertainment value, which Marks was obviously enjoying. He also rubbed it in that other parties have now come to accept what NZF has said all along on foreign ownership and too much immigration.

        His critique of jonkey nact was trenchant….doubt very much Winston NZF will be joining the Nacts…fighting words for a change of government

    • weka 4.6
      10 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

      “I am a Labour member looking for a more relevant party to support.”

      Anyone who supports NZF runs the risk of ensuring us not getting a left wing govt. If you want to take that risk it’s up to you, but I don’t.

      NZF has a history of supporting right wing governments.

      Peters has a history of refusing to work with the GP, and IMO is capable of undermining a Labour/GP/NZF or L/GP coalition.

      • savenz 4.6.1
        10 February 2016 at 2:41 pm

        @Weka the problem is voting for Labour might not get us a left wing government but a neoliberal one. That is something Labour needs to fix fast.

        • weka 4.6.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 4:43 pm

          Of course, which is why I vote Green 😉 voting NZF will pull politics to the centre, voting Green will pull NZ left.

      • Red Blooded 4.6.2
        10 February 2016 at 4:25 pm

        That will be my dilemma, as a Northland voter, come next election. How can I vote for NZ First, not being 100% sure he won’t jump into bed with the Nacts? But if we don’t vote for him in the North are we handing the electorate back to the Nat Party and Mike Sabin’s supporter john Key anyway.

        • weka 4.6.2.1
          10 February 2016 at 4:47 pm

          Give your electorate vote to Peters and your list vote to Labour or the Greens. Peters retaining the seat won’t increase the NZF number of MPs and can be balanced out by the list vote increasing Labour and GP chance of getting to form govt.

          • McFlock 4.6.2.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 4:59 pm

            Yeah – voting for a lab or green candidate in northland will just give it back to the nats anyway. So worst case scenario you’d end up with a nat govt and a nat electorate mp.

            At least if you vote peters the worst you’ll get is a nat govt and an electorate mp who likes to put the wind up ’em occasionally.

          • Red Blooded 4.6.2.1.2
            10 February 2016 at 5:07 pm

            Thanks Weka & McFlock, sounds wise advice and what I’ll probably do, but if Winston does jump to the Nats I’ll still feel guilty and betrayed for having voted for him. Will drop him a line closer to the time telling him so.

            • weka 4.6.2.1.2.1
              10 February 2016 at 6:25 pm

              This is precisely why I tell lefties who vote NZF that they’re risking Peters blocking a left wing govt. Peters won’t say before the election who they will support in govt.

    • Naturesong 4.7
      10 February 2016 at 1:02 pm

      If you’re headed over to NZF can you ask Winston to get our forests back.

      Like he said he would, and then didn’t when he had the power to do so.

  5. Penny Bright 5
    10 February 2016 at 8:45 am

    Collection of signatures for the following petition was initiated at the Public Meeting on the Auckland Unitary Plan held at the ASB Stadium in Kohimarama, last night, (Tuesday 9 February 2016), which was attended by over 700 people:

    “That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the alleged failure of Auckland Council to comply with their statutory duties regarding spatial planning, particularly the requirement to involve and consult with the communities of Auckland, regarding amendments to the spatial plan, as outlined in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.”

    Where were other Auckland Mayoral candidates at this SIGNIFICANT, in my view, Public Meeting?

    The only Auckland Mayoral candidates who attended last night were myself and Mark Thomas.

    Penny Bright
    2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • Visubversa 5.1
      10 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

      You are in some nasty company there Penny Bright. I have not seen anything from that Auckland 2040 group that changes my view that they are mostly a bunch of old while conservatives who are terrified that different housing styles will bring different types of people to their neighbourhoods, and that these different people will be different colours to them, different races from them and different classes from them.

      • Molly 5.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 1:02 pm

        Yes, the diehards left at these consultation meetings are predominantly those of the demographic you describe.

        Interestingly, no one points out that the change in zoning just makes it easier to redevelop at a higher density at some point in the future. Property owners are not compelled to immediately demolish their single dwelling on site and build apartments.

        The issue in the inner suburbs is interesting, as many would support the meme that property owners should have the rights to do what they like. However, in this case they wish to stop their neighbourhoods being changed as a product of property owners selling to capitalise on increased value or developing. These are going to be personal decisions of property owners – not the requirement of council.

        Inner city suburbs have infrastructure in place, access to services and facilities and transport. Future-proofing requires these suburbs to be identified as the best bang-for-buck in terms of increased density.

      • Paul 5.1.2
        10 February 2016 at 5:42 pm

        EAstern suburbs nimbyism.

        • savenz 5.1.2.1
          11 February 2016 at 9:54 am

          It’s not just old whities worrying about the zoning. It is not the zoning as such it is the abuse of the district plan and a handful of planners and lawyers enriching themselves while forcing on a system for a community that is not empowered in that process, more a reluctant step to be ignored. If anything the RMA disempowers the community and is designed to do so.

          Other ethnic groups or younger people, don’t turn up to the meetings because they have families and people with multiple jobs and don’t have time to turn up to public meetings (use social media too to get the other groups involved).

          Often ‘left’ people are so keen on increasing density but don’t seem to understand that actually it is the rich developers benefiting from it. They are not building affordable apartments – they are building million dollar apartments that infringe on their neighbours height to boundary but you can get anything through Auckland council as long as you get the bovine planner onside. They then charge Body corp fees to keep the rout going.

          Issues like someone building a 4m high fence as a nuisance neighbour which deliberately blocks someones lovely view to spite them. Do we want that happening on mass? Should you have to ‘defend’ you own property because some council planner gave permission to have some idiotic structure like the 4m high fence and it costs you hundreds of thousands? There was also that multi million dollar beach house built for some Russian Investor that built up the ground along side the neighbours house so that they could look over into her house at all times taking away all her privacy , but increased their sea view. (Note privacy is NOT something in the RMA unlike in places like Britain which have much better heritage rules and keep their heritage and have massive density but still expect people to develop with their neighbours in mind!)

          Bad council decisions and the lobbyists on the district plans are knocking out the ‘family’ houses of old like the villas and bungalows which have gardens and contribute to a different feel in the streets.

          Density in the inner city fine – in the suburbs – no!

          Planning in NZ is like Neoliberal at it’s finest. You can do anything you want – be as selfish as possible. It is all allowable! Screw you neighbours, screw your community because short term profit for an individual is more important!

  6. Dialey 6
    10 February 2016 at 9:16 am

    I notice the Herald’s opinion pieces on the TPPA protest and Waitangi don’t have a comments section ( even dear Heather, who did have yesterday now doesn’t). I wonder why

    • Chooky 6.1
      10 February 2016 at 12:04 pm

      @ Dialey…what the Herald has no comments section on TPPA protests and Waitangi Day?!

      ….a case of “see no evil , hear no evil, speak no evil” = ignoring the readership = captive msm not there to serve the readership but to indoctrinate in the interests of its owners politics ( neoliberalism and jonkey nact)

      definition of indoctrinate

      1. to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

      2. to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

      Conclusion: cancel your subscription to the Herald and read the Standard

  7. Tautoko Mangō Mata 7
    10 February 2016 at 11:40 am

    Below is a list of members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee
    that will be “hearing” public submissions on the TPP.
    What a farce that will be!!

    Chairperson Mitchell, Mark National Party, Rodney
    Deputy-Chairperson Reti, Shane National Party, Whangarei
    Bennett, David National Party, Hamilton East
    Tisch, Lindsay National Party, Waikato
    Ross, Jami-Lee National Party, Botany
    Yang, Jian National Party, List

    Shearer, David Labour Party, Mt Albert
    Woods, Megan Labour Party, Wigram

    Tabuteau , Fletcher NZ First, List

    Graham, Kennedy Green Party, List

    I think that Labour should replace David Shearer from the subcommittee as his views on TPP are not consistent with those of the majority party view.

    • Chooky 7.1
      10 February 2016 at 11:54 am

      +100…”I think that Labour should replace David Shearer from the subcommittee as his views on TPP are not consistent with those of the majority party view.”

      What the hell is Little thinking of?

      • AmaKiwi 7.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 2:20 pm

        Shearer should have the integrity to withdraw because he knows he does not represent the caucus, to say nothing of the rank and file.

        Fat chance of that. It never bothered him before.

      • seeker 7.1.2
        10 February 2016 at 2:38 pm

        I believe from itsourfuture.org.nz that they are looking to replace david shearer. You could contact them for a possible update

      • savenz 7.1.3
        10 February 2016 at 2:39 pm

        +100 Chocky & TMM.

        It is crazy to have Shearer!!!! I don’t know who chooses the committee but if Labour can choose using Shearer is stupidity! If not Shearer should step down anyway.

    • Skinny 7.2
      10 February 2016 at 2:36 pm

      The only 3 any good is;

      Woods, Megan, Labour Party, Wigram
      Tabuteau , Fletcher, NZ First, List
      Graham, Kennedy, Green Party, List

      Bennett, Ross and Reti what a sick joke especially Reti who was caught out by appearing to tell porkies about the TPPA. Has anyone posted the very good and easy submission page of Action Station?

  8. Hami Shearlie 8
    10 February 2016 at 12:00 pm

    This is definitely worth a look – Glenda Jackson, in my opinion the greatest actress Britain ever produced, giving her account of the Margaret Thatcher experiment in the British parliament! The word “aspirational” was apparently used by Thatcher, so Key merely latched on to her coat tails over that one ! Bit like a leech really! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8

    • alwyn 8.1
      10 February 2016 at 12:20 pm

      “Glenda Jackson, in my opinion the greatest actress Britain ever produced”
      Is that really your opinion? You would put her ahead of Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Vivien Leigh, Vanessa Redgrave, etc, etc?
      No way.
      She made only two good films. This Sporting Life and Sunday, Bloody Sunday.

      • Molly 8.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 2:14 pm

        “Is that really your opinion?” I guess it is – because he said so.

        alwyn, you do realise that in this case people can have different opinions without having to “win an argument” or are you so contrarian that even in this instance you need to disagree?

        I’ll leave the racist origins behind of the original saying but the gist is: ” If everyone wanted the same virtues in a partner, everyone would want to be married to my wife/husband”.

        I wonder – can you articulate your preferences without having to tear down others?

        • alwyn 8.1.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 6:57 pm

          Of course I can. The bitchiness on this site makes it rather hard but I’ve never felt any need to knock the intelligent comments from Lanthanide, even if I might disagree with some of them.
          It is the concept that Glenda Jackson could be considered a better actor that the immortal Helen Mirren I find so hard to accept.
          It would be like saying that there was a better female Rock singer than Janis Joplin. Woe!

  9. Pasupial 9
    10 February 2016 at 12:38 pm

    The USA primary elections really are weird. I prefer Sander to Clinton myself, but this method of; not only having early morning voting in some districts, but also allowing it to be reported to influence those who vote later in the day, does seem flawed.

    60.7% Sanders
    32.1% Clinton

    24.3% for each of Trump, Cruz & Kasich

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/feb/09/new-hampshire-primary-results-polls-us-election-2016-live-coverage

    Which if that was all the info you had (say because you were in a rush), might influence your vote. Until you realised that this was only; 17 votes for Sanders and 9 for each of the other four candidates.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/feb/09/new-hampshire-primary-results-live-2016-presidential-election-county-by-county-map

    • weka 9.1
      10 February 2016 at 12:44 pm

      Is New Hampshire the one that gets taken as a signal of what will happen in the Presidential Election?

      • alwyn 9.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 1:10 pm

        The Guardian seems to think so.
        I’m not sure I trust their method though.
        http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/09/astrology-new-hampshire-primary-presidential-election

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 1:28 pm

          Ha ha. I was trying to remember West Wing lore.

          • alwyn 9.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 1:37 pm

            I thought it was funny. Actually there wouldn’t have been any debate about who won New Hampshire in the program. Jeb was supposed to have been Governor there and I can’t imagine they would ever have considered him losing his own state.

            Great program for the first four seasons. I thought they should have killed it after Sorkin left though. Wasn’t nearly as tightly written after that was it?

            Astrology was used by Nancy Reagan to determine what she proposed to Ronnie though.
            That was scary rather than funny though.

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              10 February 2016 at 9:19 pm

              I think The West Wing still talked about it though because of the dynamic. Or maybe it was The Good Wife.

              Turns out it’s an indicator of how the primary will go (not the presidential election),

              There is consensus among scholars and pundits that the New Hampshire primary, because of the timing and the vast media attention, can have a great impact and may even make or break or revive a candidate.[7] Controlling for other factors statistically, a win in New Hampshire increases a candidate’s share of the final primary count in all states by 27 percentage points.[8]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Significance

    • Bill 9.2
      10 February 2016 at 1:14 pm

      Well, it does say “1% reporting” in the first link.

      Anyway, I found this link off comments in an article from yesterday’s Guardian. It maps different polls and the bit i found interesting (okay – heartening 😉 ) is that Clinton would appear to be dipping in South Carolina. (Chart at bottom left hand side of page)

    • Ad 9.3
      10 February 2016 at 2:55 pm

      Save us if New Hampshire is a signal of where either party is going.

      • adam 9.3.1
        10 February 2016 at 4:27 pm

        You really are a Tory sometimes Ad.

        Sanders is hardly left of center, and you talk like he is an extremist.

        Why don’t you just go join the national party?

      • BM 9.3.2
        10 February 2016 at 4:37 pm

        I agree, nutbars to the left of me, nut bars to the right.

        Seriously, Sanders has this statement on his fucking website

        Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change.

        https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

        The man is a raving extremist who will plunge the USA into chaos if he gets elected.

        Hillary Clinton is the only sane option out there.

        • adam 9.3.2.1
          10 February 2016 at 4:40 pm

          Spoken like a true Tory.

          • Pasupial 9.3.2.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 6:15 pm

            Ad and BM may get their joint wish of another Clinton presidency. While trying to understand the candidate selection process (mainly how NH is called the first primary when it is preceded by the Iowa caucus), my surfing drifted into superdelegate territory. Wikipedia is a bit out of date with all 2008 details (because the 2012 was uncontested, and 2016 hasn’t happened yet):

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

            This 538 piece is good, but deals more with present endorsements than the role of these elected endorsers as superdelegates in the convention.

            http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

            The weighting system obscures things a bit for this purpose, but I make Clinton’s; 14 Governors plus 39 Senators plus 131 congress reps to be equal to 194 delegate votes to Sanders’ 2. If it is correct that; “Each of the superdelegates’ votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters [in 2008]”, this means that Sanders is about 192 000 votes behind Clinton. With Iowa effectively tied, Sanders “yuge” win in NH is likely to get him a margin of around 50 000 votes ahead. A quarter of what is needed to start on level footing with Clinton. And that’s before factoring in the half of superdelegates who are appointed by virtue of their DNC position, or those elected reps who haven’t declared yet.

            Once again; USA primary elections really are weird!

        • millsy 9.3.2.2
          11 February 2016 at 1:01 am

          “The man is a raving extremist who will plunge the USA into chaos if he gets elected.”

          You could describe that about each of the GOP contenders.

  10. John Shears 10
    10 February 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Waitangi Day Comment 1840

    Thought this was interesting in 2016 , particularly the final sentence.

    Extract from Fairburn a biography by Denys Trussell, Auckland University Press, 1984,
    928.21 FairTru Takapuna Library.

    William Thomas Fairburn b. Kent 1797 arr Korororeka (Russell) Bay of Islands in July1819, as a catechist or lay preacher for Samuel Marsden and the CMS (Church Missionary Society), he was the Great Great Grandfather of Rex Fairburn (A.R.D.) New Zealand writer and poet.

    Page 9 .
    In a letter he wrote to the Rev. William Jowett at the CMS on 15 July 1840 Fairburn stated the following.

    I do not think they (Maori) understand fully the cession of their rights and privileges, ‘he wrote five months after the meeting of Governor Hobson & the Chiefs. He knew the the Maoris could be shrewd hagglers in specific transactions over items of trade, but the abstraction of a treaty involving questions of sovereignty was foreign to them. ‘Parting with the sovereign rights of a country is quite another thing, it seems to many of them inexplicable, and how can it be otherwise?’

    Fairburn feared bitter contention over land after the proclamation of May 1840 that made New Zealand a British colony. Would the missionaries be able to prevent widespread exploitation of their temperamental flock?. William considered this was a duty: ‘I consider we are now called upon for a twofold watchfulness on behalf of the natives. European strangers will never agree with them , and they scruple not to say they wish this land was clear of natives as the are only a nuisance and in the way.

    • Chooky 10.1
      10 February 2016 at 4:29 pm

      thanx…interesting alright…this has been a bone of contention I believe

      …a bit like the TPPA today…and the corporates taking legal power over the country and its laws….again issue of sovereignty

  11. Manuka AOR 11
    10 February 2016 at 3:23 pm

    “Progressive Revolution Begins” !

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/09/progressive-revolution-begins-sanders-wins-new-hampshire

    “The future of the Democratic Party,” she said, “lies with the message of tackling inequality and pushing for bold systemic change.”

  12. adam 12
    10 February 2016 at 4:35 pm

    The war on drugs and our freedoms rolls on.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/296210/aviation-industry-to-face-drug-tests

    Maybe if we dealt with why people want to take drugs in the first place. Or took a responsible approach to drug taking.

    But no, lets give up some more freedoms to the state, so they can test you to see if you have drugs in your system.

    What happens when we give away all our hard won freedoms?

    • vto 12.1
      10 February 2016 at 9:31 pm

      Drug tests are a jip….

      They do not test whether the person is under the influence, they only test whether the person has taken drugs in the last few weeks.

      Alcohol tests should be instigated in exactly the same form – namely, if you have had alcohol in the last few weeks then you fail.

      Drug tests are a con and have absolutely no credibility. None.

  13. Tanz 13
    10 February 2016 at 5:22 pm

    But would you be so happy had it been a Labour politician? After all, Andrew Little has agreed to keep the TPPA if it is signed.

    [lprent: Completely off topic as the author obviously took care not to take a party political position. Moved to Open Mike. Banned two weeks for what looks to me to be a deliberate diversion comment, and because I had to expend time to reread the post to make sure that I was correct in my reaction. I don’t like wasting my time. ]

    • mickysavage 13.1
      10 February 2016 at 5:28 pm

      I would still oppose her losing her job.

    • Korero Pono 13.2
      10 February 2016 at 5:29 pm

      I don’t think it matters which politician was the recipient of the ‘fake dildo’, the message was clear and it is the message (regardless of political allegiances) that matters the most. New Zealand is not theirs to rape!

      Must admit when I saw that she was identified as a nurse, I did wonder if she would be reprimanded for bringing her profession/employer into disrepute (or whatever wanky condition is likely to be in her contract) – Perhaps Stuff are inadvertently making any move by the employer to discipline her impossible due to potential public scrutiny and support (she does have a lot of fans now)?

  14. Rosemary McDonald 14
    10 February 2016 at 7:26 pm

    IPCA….bouncing complaints back to the police because not enough funding to investigate.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/76745028/police-watchdog-ipca-skips-investigations-due-to-financial-pressures

    “”There have been occasionally matters that we’ve referred back to the police where if we’d had the resource, we might have investigated, including, for example, excessive force cases.””

    And with the cutbacks at the Human Rights Commission… Ombudsman overworked….

    • pat 14.1
      10 February 2016 at 10:38 pm

      “And with the cutbacks at the Human Rights Commission… Ombudsman overworked….”

      and judging by the results, massive under-funding of MFAT as well

  15. Nelson Muntz 15
    10 February 2016 at 8:11 pm

    Media tears rape apologist apart:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/79972/roosh-destroys-media-at-washington-dc-press-conference

    He reckons HE destroyed the media. Talk about out of touch with reality!!!

    • weka 15.1
      10 February 2016 at 9:24 pm

      Pretty interesting watching what’s been going on. In Canada the fight back saw him being filmed and then thrown out of a night club where he tried his rapey hitting on a woman. Some guys went undercover to one of the events last week and filmed the organisers and posted that online. Not just social media, the MSM coverage of how appalling he is has been pretty universal.

      btw Roosh isn’t just a rape apologist, he’s a rapist (or intends to be one) and an active rape supporter and promoter.

      • millsy 15.1.1
        11 February 2016 at 12:59 am

        Trouble is, there are a lot of guys out there that think like him, and a fair few of them are judges.

        That is one of the biggest fears of the next 50 years, that rape will be effectively decriminalised if the women is dressed remotely feminine, if not de jure, but de facto.

        Im not supporter of whacking children, but the mothers of these guys need to give them a good clip round the ears.