Open mike 10/05/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:55 am, May 10th, 2014 - 380 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 …

380 comments on “Open mike 10/05/2014”

  1. mickysavage 1

    After seeing the mess he made of Karol’s excellent post yesterday on the politics of private dinners I am pledging today not to respond to any comments made by Pete George.

    🙄

    • I’ve learnt from experience that openly pledging to not comment for a specific length of time or on a particular thread or topic is risky. I hope that’s not just a way of avoiding the questions I asked you before you posted this comment:

      Do you know what the two (Mills and Liu) actually want?

      Do you know how Mills wants to save the world from climate change. If so do think that is a sensible and feasible approach to the climate problem?

      Do you know how Liu wants to change immigration policy? If so do you think it would be a good or a bad change?

      I don’t know the answers. I suspect some people are jumping to conclusions based on prejudiced assumptions.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1

        headdesk

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1

          You have to be strong. Like Judith 😉

        • phillip ure 1.1.1.2

          he’s like rust…

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.1

            “..free from all meaning – whether good or bad..

            ..and in one word – heroically-mad..”

            (or..)

            “..a man so various..he seemed to be –

            ..not one..but all mankinds’ epitome..

            ..stiff in opinions..always in the wrong..

            ..was everything by starts..and nothing long..

            ..but in the course of one revolving moon..

            ..was chemist – fiddler – statesman – and buffooon..”

            ..(john dryden..1631 – 1700..)

            ..he is nothing new under the sun..that petty george..

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2

      +1.

      I read Fed Up’s comment this morning.

    • karol 1.3

      Thanks, micky. Generally I don’t respond that much any more to PG’s comments. His arguments tend to be shallow, slippery and diversionary. Often I don’t read his comments – prefer not to waste my time. Unfortunately, when he comments under my posts I need to read them.

      Yesterday I thought it necessary to point out when he seemed to have not read my post at all and/or was just ignoring the content of my post – eg asking if 3 news had shown a photo of Cabinet Clubs in a private home. My post had a link to that 3 News report, followed by a screenshot from the report, of one of the photos of a cabinet club in a private home.

      This was the most glaring example of PG not reading or attending to substantive content of my post. No wonder people get frustrated. And on he goes, slipping and sliding around the points raised. When the side-stepping, and weak logic gets pointed out to him, he claims he has been misunderstood…. then asks more questions, once again shifting the focus of the discussion without addressing the substantive points.

      I can’t work out if he’s just not capable of sound reasoning, or if he’s deliberately tr0lling.

      • phillip ure 1.3.1

        @ karol..

        “..I can’t work out if he’s just not capable of sound reasoning, or if he’s deliberately tr0lling..”

        ..see 1.1.1.2.1…(above..)

        ..and then watch that ‘do you have a photocopier in yr office?’ vid..

        ..and all yr questions/uncertainties will be answered..

      • Pete George 1.3.2

        My post had a link to that 3 News report, followed by a screenshot from the report, of one of the photos of a cabinet club in a private home.

        karol, the photo you posted didn’t look like a private home setting to me. You described immediately below the photo:

        Here mainstream politics meet private activities, within someone’s home. Woodhouse is set up to speak, with the cosy little dinner table seen in the background; the after-glow of a friendly bit of exclusive networking on a very personal scale.

        I’ve just viewed the news item you linked to again:
        http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-Nothing-wrong-with-Cabinet-Club-donations/tabid/1607/articleID/343192/Default.aspx

        This looks nothing like your description. 3 News makes no mention of a home.

        So my question stands – can you show any 3 News photo of a ‘cabinet club’ meeting in a private home? That would support your claim…

        a) the Nats secretive practices that support the profit-making, self -serving power of corporate elites, by exploiting their networks with backroom deals in private place (for the ultimate benefit of the few),

        …but I don’t think the coverage you posted and linked to does.

        • bad12 1.3.2.1

          🙄 i suspect Petty gets out of bed doing this 🙄 🙄 every day of the week…

        • Pete George 1.3.2.2

          As karol has raised her criticism here too it’s reasonable to repeat her comment on the ‘Cabinet Club’ thread,.

          Fair enough. It wasn’t stated as a private home in the vid. But to me the photo looks like it is in a private home.

          http://thestandard.org.nz/the-politics-of-private-dinners/#comment-811909

          It looks like a very accessible place, walk in of the street, photos taken. Far from secretive and it looks nothing like a private home to me.

          This was the most glaring example of PG not reading or attending to substantive content of my post.

          I believe I paid better attention to karol’s link than she did. I suspect she had already decided on her ‘secretive’ and ‘private’ meme and saw things with that bias.

          • karol 1.3.2.2.1

            Whether or not you see that photo as being in a private home or…. where else? It certainly looks like a private space and the whole of my post was focused on the blurring of politics (firmy in the public sphere) and private spaces and networks of influence linking the wealthy and the powerful.

            eg The headline image was of 3 PMs in a restaurant – kind of a private/public meal. The whole issue of Collins and Oaravida focused on an (allegedly) private meal in a restaurant.

            And the image of the Cabinet Club meeting remains a stark contrast to the stalls at the Labour Party conference.

            • Pete George 1.3.2.2.1.1

              “The headline image was of 3 PMs in a restaurant”, a photo of which was published around the world. Not very private.

              There doesn’t appear to be any stark contrast between the Chinese meeting as shown on TV3 and this:

              Red, white and you – a special fundraiser for the 2014 election campaign

              Join us for a night of fine southern hospitality and cheer.
              Special guest – David Cunliffe, Leader of the Labour Party
              Entree and mains provided by Lauren Matilda Matthews from the Kitchen Collective.
              Dessert by the award winning Kohu Road.
              Friday May 30th 7pm at the historic Tannery at 44b Portage Road, New Lynn.

              The price included dinner and wine/beer/non-alcoholic beverages.

              Contributions from this night will go to directly supporting Labours’ 2014 Election Campaign

              Authorised by Tim Barnett, 160 Willis Street, Wellington

              http://www.eventbrite.com/e/red-white-and-you-a-special-fundraiser-for-the-2014-election-campaign-tickets-11264611757?aff=es2&rank=1

              I don’t see anything wrong with this either.

              • karol

                Let’s see – publicly advertised – therefore open to anyone, unlike the Cabinet Club (who knows how the invites are circulated – but certainly not open to the public). Labour fundraiser Cost $65 per head. Would cut out the very low paid, but nothing like the thousands of dollars paid to go to cabinet club and some of the other Nat Party fundraisers.

                At the old Astley Tanneries, eh? Would be worth going to just to see inside the old tannery – major part of New Lynn’s history – especially its industrial and labour history.

                It’s not about being generally “wrong”. It’s about values and what it says about who each party represents and engages with

                • David H

                  It’s just not worth it. You just get so frustrated at his banality and like any narcissist it’s all about the me, so obfuscation, blame, and bullshit are the order of the day . Just put it down to the price of you having an excellent column. And give him the usual T 🙄

                  • Once was Tim

                    “You just get so frustrated at his banality and like any narcissist it’s all about the me”
                    Which kind of explains PG’s love of much of the right – and most of that faction (Jamie-Lee, Soimun Brudgizz, Crushed Collins, Pulla Bent et al, and one or two in Labour). The malignant narcissists flock together to prop each other up like some circular fuck (Pardon the mental umij).
                    Someone on this site yesterday wondered what James Bolger thought of the Natzi team these days …. you could place Don McKinnon alongside as well. Hideous specimens the lot of them! Crass; Holier-than-thou; entitled; gauche; nouveu-riche; slobby – all with the nerve and thich skin of hypocracy that enables them to pass judgment on everyone else (Which is why I have no hesitation in passing judgement on them).
                    Harder they rise …. the harder they fall – the only problem is that they all squeal like pigs on the way down.
                    The best that can be said of PG is that although he (and Slator the Slug for that matter) aspires to the ‘new chosen’ – he’ll never quite make it. Given that he’s a fossil, I’m not sure why he even bothers.
                    A lot of it about these days (I’d put ’em in the army and show ’em some discipline)

                • blue leopard

                  Hi Karol,

                  I think that you and others made very good points in your thread and the thing is to realise that and realise that Pete will continue to ask questions after a good point has been made – this is where he diverts – because answering such questions will distract from the good point that has just been made.

                  I don’t know why he would want to distract from good points – perhaps it is all about point scoring with him and not about gaining a deeper understanding of things by ‘debating’ (as he has said is the case)?

                  With regard to Pete’s request to you: So my question stands – can you show any 3 News photo of a ‘cabinet club’ meeting in a private home? That would support your claim…

                  If Pete really wanted a photo of a dinner in private surroundings he should be asking Wayne the ex National MP if he has any snaps of any such events that he took part in. Wayne has commented on your post today (and yesterday).

                  I find it hard to imagine that TV3 would have any such footage – considering they are secretive/exclusive affairs – however perhaps they will do an undercover item at some stage in the next few months and gather some footage – oh, wait…perhaps to do this would break broadcasting rules to film in a private house without the owners consent?

                  So, yeah Pete’s conditional ‘any TV3 News photo’ pretty much makes his query impossible to meet.

      • bad12 1.3.3

        Wing-nuts 101 Karol, keep diverting with ‘concern’ questions, slowly lead the conversation, specially in Petty’s case, round to one of ”me me me me”,

        Best treated with all due contempt, to offer up logical, polite replies to Petty Wing-nut is simply an invitation to be lead around by the nose by it…

        • andy (the other one) 1.3.3.1

          PG is an avid reader of Derailing for Dummies

          His personal favourites are:

          Well I Know a person from your group who disagrees
          Your arguing with opinion not fact

          and his most special derail

          A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation

          • rhinocrates 1.3.3.1.1

            You forgot “I am the real victim here,” which reached its nadir in the Maurice Williamson thread where he compared himself to rape victims.

            • Once was Tim 1.3.3.1.1.1

              See above …. but that’s the nature of these cnuts and why I have no hesitation on calling their BS.
              Emperor’s with no clothes and all that.
              Fucked units the lot of them

          • marty mars 1.3.3.1.2

            This reminds me of pete

            “You Are Damaging Your Cause By Being Angry

            By now their feelings are probably deeply hurt and they’re very angry. Don’t forget they encounter this kind of discrimination in subtle ways every single day of their life, so they’re bound to be emotional about it, even resentful.

            You can take advantage of this weakness to emerge the victor! After all, everyone knows the Marginalised™ have an obligation to conduct themselves with quiet dignity in the face of infuriating tribulation and if your quarry begins to get angry and “aggressive” then you have won! Why? Well, it’s very simple – just hold them as representative of their entire group! You could try saying something like “you realise you’re making all X look bad?”, or “well, congratulations for backing up the stereotype of X as being angry, irrational and oversensitive!” Maybe you can even say “well, I was about to say I was willing to listen to you, but then you got insulting so now I don’t have to!”

            Don’t worry about silly things like their feelings – c’mon, they’re grownups, aren’t they! The only thing that matters is defending your discrimination as completely fair and to avoid examining your prejudiced arguments in ways that may challenge them. You could even drop this little bomb: “You are damaging your cause by being angry, real understanding can only happen if all sides are respectful and patient”.

            Not only do you come across as a smug, self-righteous asshat (though you may prefer the term “bigger person”) you can also manage to subtly make them feel guilty about their anger, as though it’s undeserved! Everybody wins! Well, except them of course.”

            http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-google-cache-reconstruction/#surprise

            It becomes sobering when you read through all of the derails and realise how often, and often by the same people, these techniques get used.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.3.1.3

            Great link. Thanks.

        • karol 1.3.3.2

          Yes. I get sucked in and time taken from other projects I’m trying to work on. PG does little of his own research, then keeps asking (often side-stepping) questions requiring some of us to do even further research than the stuff behind the TS posts. I have noted others have used the term “bad faith”.

          How to treat a virus?

          • Pete George 1.3.3.2.1

            ” PG does little of his own research”

            An odd claim. I do all of my own research.

            I questioned your research and asked you to back up claims that you had appeared to contradict with your post. You have now conceded your research was flawed.

            And now you just jump on the bashwagon while talking about “bad faith”.

            • karol 1.3.3.2.1.1

              I do all of my own research.

              hahahha…, how to take a skewed meaning from it.

              I meant you do little actual research. Of course I’m not claiming other people do your research for you.

              Yes. You do research – pretty superficial stuff and very little of it. And spend more time asking others for links etc, while providing the minimum yourself to substantiate your comments.

              You nitpick at details while ignoring the main thrust my argument. There are times you have a point, and I will admit it…. but you never admit fault or flaws, just slide off in a different direction.

              Actuially, “bad faith” was how I’ve long thought of your approach – others named it here before I did – not a bandwagon, just people sharing the same criticism independently arrived at.

              Throughout the discussion followed by my post, you have been running the Nats’ ”
              Labour do it too” line. You do not accept any evidence on the difference. While claiming neutrality, you have been doing exactly what Nat supporter Tracy Watkins spells out here as Key/National’s strategy:

              Given its casualty count – one minister forced to fall on his sword and a second badly wounded – National has clearly suffered the deepest cuts. But Prime Minister John Key is hell-bent on nuking the moral high ground and leaving it an empty and windswept place.
              […]
              But Key’s attacks are only partially driven by visceral dislike. He needs to spread the muck as far and as widely as possible to avoid the perception of National Party cronyism and corruption taking root.

              Just what you have been doing, with your slippery arguments, side-stepping and diversions.

              You will not accept any evidence of the diffferences in values, and who the Nats are neworking with and how they do it – basically that they lean way more towards representing and working with big money. You only want to focus on the similarities, to do Key’s work in muddying the waters.

              And, doing that while using slippery reasoning, to claim lack of bias or or supporting one side or the other, is bad faith.

              • You will not accept any evidence of the diffferences in values, and who the Nats are neworking with and how they do it – basically that they lean way more towards representing and working with big money.

                Where’s the evidence that National leans “way more towards representing and working with big money”? I don’t dispute that they work with big money, and party in Government has to do that. But I question your “way more towards representing” claim.

                And it’s not for me to research your claims. If you are a superior researcher you should have evidence on hand of this.

                • karol

                  QED.

                • HI Pete George,

                  This comment undermines, as much as anything you have said, the notion that you are not partisan and are only seeking reasoned debate of the important issues:

                  Where’s the evidence that National leans “way more towards representing and working with big money”? I don’t dispute that they work with big money, and [sic]party in Government has to do that. But I question your “way more towards representing” claim.

                  First, look at voting patterns. Which electorates vote disproportionately for National? The wealthier ones. Why? Because National represent their interests.

                  Second, when faced with supporting ordinary people or corporations in cases like Sky City deals involving convention centres for pokies, Warners’ corporation against labour laws, Rio Tinto versus power consumers, Christchurch residents versus insurance companies and EQC, etc. which side has the government chosen to support? Any objective assessment would conclude that it is the side of “big money“. Ordinary people just have to suck it up or believe that it will all work out in their interests in the long-run (despite evidence to the contrary).

                  If you can’t see that this National-led government “lean way more towards representing and working with big money” then I’m unsure just what evidence you have in support of the contrary claim. You assert that they are no more ‘leaning toward big money’ than any other government but provide no comparative evidence.

                  Since leaving United Future you have obviously completely abandoned any notion of ‘common sense’ and have put yourself entirely in the service of whatever rhetorical devices make Labour and the left look bad while wielding and defending whatever rhetorical devices make National look innocuous.

                  Badly done Pete George; badly done.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Since leaving United Future you have obviously completely abandoned any notion of ‘common sense’

                    Oh, come on, he didn’t show any common sense before he joined UF nor while he was joined to it.

                    and have put yourself entirely in the service of whatever rhetorical devices make Labour and the left look bad while wielding and defending whatever rhetorical devices make National look innocuous.

                    Which is why he so welcome on the RWNJ blogs and thinks that they’re bastions of rationality.

                    • Hi DTB,

                      I have to admit that the reference to United Future and ‘common sense’ (in scare quotes) was a bit tongue in cheek 🙂

                    • “Which is why he so welcome on the RWNJ blogs and thinks that they’re bastions of rationality.”

                      You’re making things up. I have a lot of disagreements and debates on right wing blogs. They’re far from “bastions of rationality”. At the moment Kiwiblog is mostly crap, dominated by a few obsessed with religion and a few other endlessly repeating futile arguments. There’s some useful comments but amongst a lot of noise.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Not making anything up:

                      But despite many criticisms of the major blogs Whale Oil now has probably the best debating forum. They have made a real effort to clean up the abusiveness and it has worked.

                      Or perhaps you were just upset that I hadn’t specifically said Whaleoil.

                      And having disagreements isn’t the same as not being welcome.

                  • Thanks for taking the time to discuss this Puddlegum. I disagree with a number of your points.

                    First, look at voting patterns in 2011. National got 1,058.636 votes, 47.31% of those who voted. That’s a lot more than people with “big money” who wanted National to represent them. There’s evidence that a significant number of people who may have voted but didn’t also tended towards wanting to be represented by National.

                    Second, you’re confusing the intent of dealing with “big money” corporations – it’s to generate business activity and provide jobs. For example if National hadn’t handed out a carrot to Rio Tinto there would have been far more people in Southland than those “big money” who could have been adversely affected, and many with “modest money” would have suddenly got far less money.

                    You can argue whether National’s deals with “big money” are wise or not but the intent is to benefit ordinary people by using “big money”.

                    Third, National doesn’t “lean way more towards representing and working with big money” than Labour. They have left policies put in place by Labour that benefit “modest money”. They haven’t done a lot different to what a Labour Government would do. Labour’s David Parker does not look like he would lean much differently to Bill English economically. I don’t think TweedleNational leans “way more” than TweedleLabour.

                    If we had less “big money” in New Zealand we would have less “little money”. If “big money” was not given internationally competitive business conditions in New Zealand we would have less “little money”. I’m fairly sure David Cunliffe and David Parker understand this, and I’m certain Shane Jones understands it.

                    I see no evidence that a Labour led government would lean way less towards working with “big money” than a National led government.

                    You assert that they are no more ‘leaning toward big money’ than any other government but provide no comparative evidence.

                    No I don’t believe I have asserted that. You provide no evidence of that. It was karol that asserted things for which she failed to provide comparative or supporting evidence.

                    Badly done Puddlegum, badly done.

                    • mickysavage

                      Where to start?

                      1. Puddlegum said that wealthier electorates voted National which is true. Your straw man argument ignores what he said. Sure 47% of the population supported National but this is not the same thing as National supports big money.

                      2. Stop being a cheerleader for National. The Rio Tinto payment was frankly weird. Paying it millions of dollars to keep a smelter open that it was going to keep open anyway is not saving jobs. The same with the payment to Warner Brothers. The country was well and truly sucked in by that one.

                      3. Open your eyes. From a position of either wilful blindness or bling ignorance you have asserted that National does not lean towards big money any more than Labour. As a basic example when National gets into power it skewers the tax system for the benefit of the wealthy. When Labour gets into power it skewers the tax system in favour of ordinary people.

                      4. Stop saying that people like Puddlegum and Karol have provided no evidence on matters when it is clear they have in good faith tried to answer your questions. Your comments are now being examined critically and if evidence of trolling continues then no doubt there will be a response. You will then claim that the lefties are being mean to you no doubt, in fact a number think that this is what you want to achieve.

                    • karol

                      Voting patterns is an indication. The voters judge that the party they vote for will represent their interests more than other parties. Doesn’t mean that in practice the party they voted for actually do provide policies with all their voters equally in mind.

                      If we had less “big money” in New Zealand we would have less “little money”. If “big money” was not given internationally competitive business conditions in New Zealand we would have less “little money”. I’m fairly sure David Cunliffe and David Parker understand this, and I’m certain Shane Jones understands it.

                      Citations needed. You being “fairly sure” and “certain” doesn’t cut it.

                      Labour leans more towards representing the interests of middle income people, with some appeasement of big money – a made a comment about the appeasement in a discussion yesterday. Labour’s representation of the interests of middle income people and upper working class people is seen in their housing polciy so far, and their failure (so far) to address the need for more state housing, and their failure to represent the interests and needs of beneficiaries.

                      Second, you’re confusing the intent of dealing with “big money” corporations – it’s to generate business activity and provide jobs. For example if National hadn’t handed out a carrot to Rio Tinto there would have been far more people in Southland than those “big money” who could have been adversely affected, and many with “modest money” would have suddenly got far less money.

                      Citations needed to show that the intent is actually to provide jobs as much as to generate businesses activity. Rather, the first consideration of any business is to generate business. Saying they provide jobs is always a good thing to say to the electorate.

                      You need to look at more than one successful business supported by the government, and the provision of a few jobs. I’ve said in discussions before on TS, it’s necessary to look as much at the quality of jobs, the patterns of underemployment, and how much they pay.

                      for instance, this is seen in this article about the situation of the increase of in-work poverty in the UK.

                      Puddleglum outlined a wider pattern – which has been referred to time and time again on TS. Why do we need to keep repeating it over and over again because you ahve a short term memory, PeteG? You didn’t even take any notice when Puddleglum went to the trouble of pointing it out this wider pattern: ie:

                      Second, when faced with supporting ordinary people or corporations in cases like Sky City deals involving convention centres for pokies, Warners’ corporation against labour laws, Rio Tinto versus power consumers, Christchurch residents versus insurance companies and EQC, etc. which side has the government chosen to support? Any objective assessment would conclude that it is the side of “big money“. Ordinary people just have to suck it up or believe that it will all work out in their interests in the long-run (despite evidence to the contrary).

                      This has been discussed in great detail in the past on TS, from various angles. I’ve done posts on aspects of it.

                      PeteG, you have failed to provide any evidence of a consistent pattern to assert your claims about National not leaning more towards representing big money than other parties.

                      PS: thanks, Puddlelum, and micky. And PeteG, while you continue to ask me for evidence, while producing none yourself other than what comes off the top of your head, and you suppositions, I will not be continuing to run around looking for further evidence, merely at your bidding.

                    • “you have asserted that National does not lean towards big money any more than Labour”

                      No I haven’t.

                      [You said “National doesn’t “lean way more towards representing and working with big money” than Labour”. Your subsequent sentences suggest there would be little if any difference and I have provided you with a concrete example of what the differences are. You have also ignored the balance of my comment and picked on one sentence where you think there is some wriggle room – MS]

                      “Your comments are now being examined critically and if evidence of trolling continues then no doubt there will be a response.”

                      You can obviously do what you like but I think I’m owed a definition of what evidence is being looked for so I know what to avoid. [No you are not – MS] You’ve used a term that is used to mean many things. If you genuinely want me to comply then I need to know what I need to comply with.

                      “You will then claim that the lefties are being mean to you no doubt, in fact a number think that this is what you want to achieve.”

                      You’re wrong on that and they’re wrong. It seems obvious others are trying to achieve that, I thought you might recognise the same old tactics.

                      [The really sad thing Pete is that your contributions overwhelmingly attract adverse comment and soak up admin time and add nothing whatsoever to debating the merits of the posts – MS]

                    • One of the really sad things is I can’t say what the really sad thing is.

                      Are you not going to specify what you don’t want me to do? Otherwise I’m in auto-moderation with no idea what you will allow me to say. This is effectively banning me, but I guess you know that.

                    • felix

                      Jesus Pete, being made to think about what you post isn’t being banned ffs.

                      Something some may have missed: Pete thinks “evidence” is synonymous with “proof”.

                      That’s why he thinks no-one provides him with any, and why when they do, he thinks his thought-bubbles are equivalent in value.

                      It’s also why he thinks there’s no “evidence” of his tr0lling when in fact the pile is growing with every comment.

                      ps It has been pointed out to him several times so it’s no excuse.

                      pps not that it matters anyway as when proof is presented he immediately disappears from the conversation at hand.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      You can argue whether National’s deals with “big money” are wise or not but the intent is to benefit ordinary people by using “big money”.

                      No, National’s intent is to benefit big money. If National were interested in benefiting ordinary people then our new trains would have been made in NZ and not China.

                      If we had less “big money” in New Zealand we would have less “little money”.

                      Money is nothing. If we want more of it all we have to do is print more.

                      If “big money” was not given internationally competitive business conditions in New Zealand we would have less “little money”.

                      Actually, we’d have more money as Treasury has shown.

                      I’m fairly sure David Cunliffe and David Parker understand this, and I’m certain Shane Jones understands it.

                      Yep, they’re still wedded to neo-liberalism which is making this country poorer.

                    • Hi Pete George,

                      Thanks for responding.

                      First, it was voting patterns rather than absolute votes that I was highlighting in my first comment. The discussion, as I understand it, concerns the relative ‘lean’ of National-led governments and Labour-led governments towards what can be termed ‘big money’.

                      ‘Big money’ is of course a loose term. I took it to comprise both wealthy people with large amounts of money that they can employ, if they wish, in politics AND ‘big corporations’ who also have considerable cash and other resources (e.g., directorships, high salaried positions) to feed into the political system.

                      The evidence that most non-voters were National-leaning amounts to some selective correlations between the 2008 and 2011 elections. This is odd since National’s total vote in each of those elections was almost exactly the same. If I have time I will carry out my own analysis of the data.

                      Second, you claim that I’m confusing the ‘intent’ of dealing with ‘big corporations’ by the National-led government. In response i’d first ask why you seem to think you understand the ‘intent’? I hope you are not simply going on stated intent? I think one should judge the intent of someone’s actions primarily by determining the pattern of outcomes that habitually follows their actions.

                      For example, the intent of bailing out Rio Tinto, you claim, was to continue to provide jobs and economic activity in Southland. Yet, in many other small communities around the country that have experienced waves of mass lay-offs and loss of economic activity the government has been remarkably ‘hands-off’. Why the difference?

                      Third, just in case you have forgotten, when Don Brash became National Party leader a report in the Independent noted that ‘big money’ had made it very plain that it was a case of ‘No Brash, no cash’. That same ‘big money’ adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude to the Key/English team, as this No Right Turn post made clear in 2006.

                      I don’t think it took ‘big money’ long to shift in behind the new kid on the National block and National Party funding has returned to its historically high amount (funding under English as leader was the only recent period when there was a semi-desertion of ‘big money’ from National).

                      That is, National’s campaign funding has always been bankrolled by ‘big money’, hence the Waitemata Trust, the exorbitant prices on dinners with the PM, etc..

                      Finally, if any more proof were needed, there’s also National’s policy agenda – undermining the rights of workers on ‘modest’ incomes in favour of those on not so modest incomes; trying to ‘fast-track’ development by revising the RMA (which itself was a piece of neo-liberal legislation but, apparently, not neo-liberal enough), further opening up New Zealand for mining and oil exploration, etc..

                      Even if you want to argue – as you seem to want to do – that all of this ‘business-friendly’ policy is merely intended to ensure a better economy and therefore a better standard of living for all surely you have to agree that their chosen path to the promised land is one that involves ‘leaning’ far more strongly than Labour or the Greens would ever do towards the short-term interests of ‘big money’.

                      Their policies prioritise those interests and, as I said in my original comment, the ordinary New Zealander simply has to ‘suck the immediate hardship, injustice and exploitation up’ while they wait for the promised gain beyond the pain.

                      I would have thought that all of this was so obvious to a remotely objective observer that it would be uncontroversial. Apparently not.

                      Oh, and my phrasing ‘Badly done Pete George, badly done‘ was an attempt at a light-hearted allusion to a line by Mr Knightley to Emma in Jane Austen’s book ‘Emma‘.

                      Mr Knightley was roused into voicing that moral rebuke because Emma’s game-playing word-play had done some real-world harm (to Mrs Bennett IIRC).

                      I guess I feel that the kind of argument you are running – and that many others run – continues the very real harm that has been and is inflicted by right-wing economic policies that always prioritise business, economic activity and the reproduction of capital over and above the manifest and objective harm such prioritisation inflicts on ordinary people.

                      People’s lives become less stable, they have less power, less ability to control their own destiny and, at the sharp end, they and their families and communities spin chaotically out into a void.

                      In short, I think that, yes, Labour has been too often guilty of attempting to appease ‘big money’ – but that is many shades away from National’s clear identification with ‘big money’.

                      Bluntly, National does both represent and ‘deal’ with ‘big money’ to a significantly greater extent than either Labour or the Greens.

              • Tracey

                he has an expectation that others will address his queries and clariy things for him. he feels no such obligation in return.

                the only person i have seen seeking to discuss the demand on ministers to maintain the highest ethical standards is me. pg chooses to ignore this requirement in his supposed search for a difference between national cc fundraising and anyone outside of govt.

                that many chooe to regard it as an illusory, irrelevat and non enforceable standard does not make it so.

                why did bennett liecabout cc? she knew about it. that is hardly highest ethical standards, same with tolley.

                pg’s obsfication yesterday masquerading as sensible discourse was eventually highlighted by not petey’ vacuuous support. the later not only posts without facts he refuses to read documents containing facts.

                • mickysavage

                  Agreed Tracey and your point is compelling. All the discussions about wine auctions and trade unions ignore the fact that Ministers have very special obligations.

            • Once was Tim 1.3.3.2.1.2

              “An odd claim. I do all of my own research.”
              Fark me! PG – that’s probably a very dangerous admission – especially for a fossil. (But then I don;t know you very well do I)

          • weka 1.3.3.2.2

            Karol – “How to treat a virus?”

            Open mike 10/05/2014

            😉

            • karol 1.3.3.2.2.1

              I generally don’t take responsibility for that sort of action. I’ve never done it here. Leave it to those who have more responsibility for it. I have been giving serious consideration to banning PG from participating in discussions under my posts.

              Reasons being in my comments above re-bad faith and running Nat lines while claiming neutrality – failure to seriously engage with the main focus of the post, while sliding off in different directions, which actually is most often diversionary; wasting my time, added to by trying to send me, or others, off doing more research when he actually does very little, and what he does is pretty superficial.

              I actually don’t know how to technically implement such banning, which is why I’m still pondering it.

              • ” re-bad faith and running Nat lines ”

                There you go again karol. Mentioning ‘bad faith” at the same time as making a false claim. I don’t run ‘Nat lines’, I speak for myself.

                I actually don’t know how to technically implement such banning, which is why I’m still pondering it.

                If I was doing that somewhere else (necessary pussyfooting) I would state that anyone who disagreed with or wanted to question my main focus was banned from the thread.

                To be fair that would require a clear definition of what the main focus was and what was debatable, if anything.

                [karol: keep on with the false claims, you keep adding to the case for banning. This is not why I want you banned from my posts. More rope….? Plenty of people disagree with me without me considering banning them. Part of the probelm with you, is not what you say, but you keep up with the low quality comments and diversions, until you dominate the discussion – a major derail.]

                [RL: You have been banned from this site before for exactly this same low value behaviour detracting from the debate, and sucking the soul out this space. There is one thing I am sure of, if you have managed to piss me off, you have gotten pretty much to the ragged end of our very long collective rope here. My preference is to put you into moderation.]

                • felix

                  “If I was doing that somewhere else (necessary pussyfooting) I would state that anyone who disagreed with or wanted to question my main focus was banned from the thread.”

                  But that wouldn’t affect you at all Pete.

                • RL – I would appreciate you explaining what “low value behaviour” you think is “detracting from the debate” specifically. I usually try and add to debates but I sometimes react to comments directed at me (far from all of them, that could really swamp threads).

                  If you let me know what behaviour is not acceptable then I will endeavour to comply.

                  [karol: I have explained quite a bit today in various places. You just come back with more slippery arguments and accept no criticism.
                  eg: You do research – pretty superficial stuff and very little of it. And spend more time asking others for links etc, while providing the minimum yourself to substantiate your comments.

                  In the past I have fallen into the trap of going looking for the info I know is there – it’s time consuming. You ignore it then just move on to asking me or others to find other information. You are just giving people the run-around, while hi-jacking various discussions.

                  It wouldn’t matter so much if you commented less. But the cumulative impact is you dominate and derail the discussion.

                  You did that again here, even after I pointed out that’s what you do. You ask me to support a claim that I (and others on TS have made time and again, with citations. You don’t bother to look for very much related evidence yourself. You ask me to spend time finding all the links again, while you provided no evidence today, to support your implied claim that the Nats primarily represent people other than the well off.

                  And I’m pretty pissed off because you’ve ended up taking a lot of my time today that I was planning to spend on doing other stuff. Does it ever occur to you to stop commenting so much and pay more attention to what others say? To do more research yourself?

                  You are like the student/s in seminars I’ve conducted, who keep dominating the discussion, pissing off other students, and won’t take any hints of suggestions about how to step back a bit and listen carefully to others, and stop making it all about them, and them getting all the attention.]

                  • ” while you provided no evidence today, to support your implied claim that the Nats primarily represent people other than the well off.”

                    I didn’t imply that, I simply questioned your claim “basically that they lean way more towards representing and working with big money.”

                    There is a big gap between your claim and what you say I implied by questioning it. I think the reality is likely to be somewhere in between. It’s entirely up to you whether you back up your claim or just leave it as an opinion.

                    • felix

                      And he’s doing it again, even in response to that.

                      How many more demonstrations do we need to see that he has no intention of ever changing his behaviour?

                      Just ban the prick I reckon.

                    • You mean your agenda hasn’t changed, the blatancy just varies a bit.

                    • Clean_power

                      Pete, Pete, Pete, you are driving us all mad. Stop, please. Go away!

                    • felix

                      Was that to me, Pete?

                      It’s funny because pretty much everyone seems to be saying you’re the one with the obvious agenda.

                      And they’re not thrilled with it.

                    • framu

                      “Just ban the prick I reckon.”

                      well i stop smoking pete george – shit even that synthetic pete george – some weeks back, and ive never been happier or healthier – no withdrawls either

                • McFlock

                  To be fair that would require a clear definition of what the main focus was and what was debatable, if anything.

                  Just pointing out that PGtips has just claimed that he routinely reads a 500-1000 word post (plus headlines and assorted comments) and at the end of it still has no idea what the subject was.

                  We’re not talking about phil ure here – all the authors use mainstream spelling and grammar conventions.

              • Karen

                It would be a relief to the readers of your excellent posts if he was banned as he is deliberately (it seems to be) wasting your time and energy. It doesn’t seem to matter how well you answer the points he raises he comes back with another set of diversionary statements. He is a right wing troll and should be ignored.
                I generally scroll down comments picking out the ones who have something to add to an argument, and you are one of my essential reads. Yesterday it was incredibly irritating to find you spending so much time on responding to the inane posts by Pete George. In the end I gave up as I am sure is his intention.

                • Paul

                  Please ban him.
                  Your intelligence and energy Karol does not need to be frittered away dealing with his trivial and banal diversions.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  I’d put his comments in permanent moderation, especially his responses to others. Let through any that meet minimum standards.

                  • If those standards are fair and balanced I’d be happy to consider accepting something like that – but only if you would too. And anyone else who’s suggesting filtering and redirecting selected comments. Who’s up for it?

                    There would be a practical issue of who would have the time and impartiality to be the gatekeeper (if that was how it was decided it could be done).

                    But this is all hypothetical, I’m not going to suggest how The Standard should be run. That’s supposed to be a serious breach of blogs rules – isn’t it?

                    [RL: Over the years the mods here have approved many, many comments they disagreed with – and I have a lot of confidence in our ability to be fair handed. Since 2008 I’ve probably skim read around 80% of the comments here and I’ve only found the need to take any form of action on a tiny fraction. Probably less than 0.003%. That’s a pretty light-handed moderation regime really.

                    Our time and energy – that’s entirely our business. Commenters take pot-luck with our mental bandwidth and mood. And since Lynn mass rescinded all the old bans a year or so back we have generally found most people had a learning moment and the experiment has worked – except for you. Don’t flatter yourself.

                    As for telling us how to run the TS – you know perfectly well that it’s not so much a ‘breach of rules’ as just plain Darwinian.]

                    • RL – you can obviously call it what you like. But for those who aren’t aware, this is the official word:

                      Banning

                      There are a number of topics and actions that are viewed as being self-evident attempts at martyrdom. They typically result in immediate and sometimes a permanent ban.

                      A partial list of these self-martyrdom offenses include:-

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

                      Policy

                      I’m aware that it’s entirely up to the moderators, as it should be.

                      [lprent: Sounds exactly like what RL said in his final section, right down to the Darwinian reference. However you appear to have realised that we really really mean what we say in that section these days.

                      The bit(s) that RL was probably thinking about in the substantive part of his note probably relate to…

                      We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate. This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) or even argue when requested to do so. Such comments may be deleted without warning or one of the alternatives below may be employed. The action taken is completely up to the moderator who takes it.

                      The reason we will ban people around those relates to having endless discussions about sweet fuck all and thereby making the comments boring to read for everyone apart from the participants. Usual practice is to pick one or two of the more active participants, ban them, and see if that solves the issue. If it doesn’t, then carry on repeating the process until it does get the desired effect. The desired effect is that moderators stop getting bored reading the comments. The people that get banned are those who we think will that there removal will have the greatest probability of achieving the desired effect.

                      Despite the irritation displayed over recent weeks, it hasn’t gotten enough for me to get completely bored. Of course that could be because I’ve been busy elsewhere. ]

                    • You’re incredibly presumptuous, Pete.

                      You have no right to a platform here or anywhere (except obviously your own blog). Nor does anyone else. This isn’t persecution, it’s a reality of the internet, and those who put effort into creating and maintaining sites do have the right to determine how those sites are used.

                      You get to comment here by the good graces of the moderators, just as you get to have dinner in other people’s houses at their invitation and in accordance with their rules. Or do you just barge in, refuse to take your shoes off, scoff the pudding out of the fridge and then complain, wide-eyed with innocence, when the cops get called to turf you out?

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      IMO, PG is just trying to get banned so he can go back to his site and whinge about how nasty ‘The Standard’ was to him. As he did last time. Probably already got the post written.

                    • We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.

                      Flamewars don’t happen because I don’t rise to considerable amounts of provocation.

                      The reason we will ban people around those relates to having endless discussions about sweet fuck all and thereby making the comments boring to read for everyone apart from the participants.

                      So ‘they’ switch to plan B which was in evidence yesterday, swamping threads with “endless discussions about sweet fuck all and thereby making the comments boring to read for everyone”.

                      I genuinely try to contribute to discussions. That is frequently deliberately diverted and yes, I respond to some, especially blatant lies and misrepresentations (which are common). I have no intention of disrupting threads – but seems clearly to be the intent of others, which has a stench [deleted. Likely to start flame war – MS]

                  • felix

                    “If those standards are fair and balanced I’d be happy to consider accepting something like that “

                    What makes you think anything that happens here has to be accepted by you?

                    Sheesh.

    • weka 1.4

      Micky – “After seeing the mess he made of Karol’s excellent post yesterday on the politics of private dinners I am pledging today not to respond to any comments made by Pete George.”

      You could just ban him 🙂

    • Mary 1.5

      Maybe you could set up an automatic redirection of all Pete George’s posts to a thread dedicated exclusively to his comments so that he can argue and agree with himself at the same time in a much more direct way and nobody would have to see it if they didn’t want to?

  2. Saarbo 2

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/10029909/Farmers-lead-72b-exports-charge

    I don’t know where to start on this but if we move farm exports from $36b to $72b without seriously dealing with dairy effluent issues then our waterways will turn into effluent drains into the sea.

    Also Key fails to point out to the Southland cockies that the reason that NZ has grown exports to China from $500m to $5b is because of Labour’s FTA with China…so…

    What have National actually done…sweet f.a.

    • Tracey 2.1

      is farmer debt going to decrease? it hasnt during thse current good times. those farms still in family ownership seem to be earning money for the banks, whose profits go offshore.

      there is an element of illusion to this.

  3. Steve 3

    WOBH

    • sweetd 3.1

      High-profile blogger Cameron Slater took best blog for his Whaleoil site, following a year of exposes and strong opinion pieces.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10030007/Andrea-Vance-wins-Reporter-of-the-Year

      • bad12 3.1.1

        🙄 Blubber-boy world famous in His own little echo-chamber…

        • Not Petey 3.1.1.1

          I s’pose the irony of posting that comment on this site is lost on you.

        • David H 3.1.1.2

          Now you would almost want to be a fly on the wall of Canon, when the ‘You have to be joking’ Emails start to flood in.

      • karol 3.1.2

        Bwwhhahahahh “exposes and strong opinion pieces”. Clever.

        • Once was Tim 3.1.2.1

          My Canon printer is about to be ceremonially trashed – cheap piece of shit that it is

          • karol 3.1.2.1.1

            Further reason for LMAO – sole judge of best blog award: Deborah Hill Cone.

            • phillip ure 3.1.2.1.1.1

              seriously..!

              ..heh…!

              ..that’s funny..!

              ..good spotting..!

              • karol

                Someone pointed it out on twitter. I checked it on the Canon Media Awards site – a bugger of a site to view – flashy and irritating to navigate.

            • Chooky 3.1.2.1.1.2

              i think she won the BNZ award for creative fiction

              • Draco T Bastard

                😈 😆

              • karol

                She did:

                Deborah Hill Cone has a background as a financial journalist with the National Business Review where her work on complex investigations was recognised with a string of awards including a David Low scholarship to the Reuter Foundation Programme at Green College, Oxford, and the Citigroup Australasian Excellence in Financial Journalism scholarship to the Columbia Post-Graduate School of Journalism. After having children Deborah became a newspaper and magazine columnist tackling broader social issues. She writes a weekly column for the New Zealand Herald and in 2013 she was a finalist for columnist of the year in the Magazine Publishers Association awards for her Next magazine column. Deborah is studying for a Masters of Creative Writing degree at the University of Auckland. Her short story Utterly Depressing but Incredibly Beautiful won the novice section of the BNZ Literary Awards in 2013.

                And she has an extensive blooging background, entered as a blogger on more than one blog site:

                Pundit.

                blogspot

                which redirects to wordpress.

                All in all, a prolific blogging output.

                • Chooky

                  it is all very sus to me….smells of rat political oligarchy in creative and intellectual prize giving

                  …makes me very suspicious both of the recipient and the jurisdiction overseeing the prizes….who is trying to fool who?

            • Tracey 3.1.2.1.1.3

              you jest, surely?

      • Tigger 3.1.3

        Slater is the biggest loser this year. His independence was compromised by being outed as Key’s delivery boy. Farrar was always a National lapdog. Slater at least had a whiff of independence. That lie has been outed. He’s irrelevant. And now embraced by those who hand out mainstream awards? Time someone took him out back and put him out of his misery.

      • Murray Olsen 3.1.4

        The only thing Blubber Boy has exposed is his contempt for decency and the standards of civilised behaviour. Now he’s going full out against Dot Com, having found some old nude and semi-nude photos of his wife to publish. His bog is nothing but a circle jerk of hatred and bigotry.

    • I don’t like some of Slater’s extremes have confronted him on some but there’s little doubt he has established the most influential blog in New Zealand.

      But despite many criticisms of the major blogs Whale Oil now has probably the best debating forum. They have made a real effort to clean up the abusiveness and it has worked.

      It’s possible to have decent debates at WO without the diversion or disruption of petty and personal and abusive attacks, and without ‘moderation’ hovering over one side of the argument. It’s become a much more fair and effective forum than here, Kiwiblog or The Daily Blog.

      That’s quite ironic.

      • phillip ure 3.2.1

        incoming passive-aggression alert…!

      • bad12 3.2.2

        🙄 still telling others how they should publish/police their blogs Petty 🙄 feel free to sod off to the sewer where you obviously belong 🙄 …

      • Ian 3.2.3

        There’s little debating at WO. You have a different opinion to the hardcore there, you aren;t welcome.

        • Weepu's beard 3.2.3.1

          This.

          Absolutely no dissent is tolerated. And at the same time posters there shout loudly about free speech and their right to venomous voice through Slater’s own.

          Irony much?

      • felix 3.2.4

        “without the diversion or disruption of petty and personal and abusive attacks”

        🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

        • Kiwiri 3.2.4.1

          🙄

        • RedBaronCV 3.2.4.2

          Pete is banned ??? so no attacks???
          🙄 🙄

        • Tracey 3.2.4.3

          i havent visited wo in over a year. if that comment is true his commenters have made miraculous changes to their posting behaviour.

          to the right wingers who post here dotcom is a criminal to be spurned but slater is a criminal to be heralded. forgetting that nme suppression in sexual cases is for the benefit of victims not abusers, and breaching that hurts the victims further.

          • freedom 3.2.4.3.1

            Was in there just last week Tracey (decked out in a SCBA Hazard Suit). I thought the environment would be an interesting place to observe whatever operations are being implemented to stall the imminent implosion of Planet Key.

            At first it was ok, a bit tough to see real details through the putrid fog of bigotry, and naturally the prism of clarity that my visor offered did amplify the distasteful apparitions that occupied the landscape. One of my primary observations was how hypocrisy toxins were reaching critical levels at a disturbing rate. I discretely observed much of the environment for a while, was careful not to interact with the local wildlife, but had to leave after an hour or so as the suit began to dissolve. Unfortunately this was before I saw a balanced rational thought make it to the surface. When I returned to The Standard, alarms went off signifying trace elements were still registering on the Ignorometer. This was odd, as I couldn’t see a srylands smear showing on the readout, there was no activity in the gosman decay field and thankfully no intrinsic value infiltration to be seen.

            Needless to say I was perplexed as to where the hazard alert came from. When I applied the reasoning filter, I soon discovered it was the Pettygorgicon meter pinging away in its echo chamber.

            • Tracey 3.2.4.3.1.1

              but deborah says its the bestest, and pete says theres no smearing or abuse…

              • “pete says theres no smearing or abuse…”

                I didn’t say that.

                • You_Fool

                  Ever heard of hyperbole?

                  Also:

                  “But despite many criticisms of the major blogs Whale Oil now has probably the best debating forum. They have made a real effort to clean up the abusiveness and it has worked.

                  It’s possible to have decent debates at WO without the diversion or disruption of petty and personal and abusive attacks, and without ‘moderation’ hovering over one side of the argument. It’s become a much more fair and effective forum than here, Kiwiblog or The Daily Blog.”

                  Seems to me, and I would think any rational thinking human who sin’t out for political point scoring, that you are saying that the abuse level is now very low to zero at Wail Oil.

                  Now I know John Key likes to pretend that he can say things and not really mean them by hiding behind technicalities of the English language, but when normal people talk the implied word is normally taken as true as well, and normally people will continue with such an assumption in all normal day to day interactions.

            • greywarbler 3.2.4.3.1.2

              freedom
              LOL

      • blue leopard 3.2.5

        @ Pete,

        If WO is such an excellent site for debating, how come you post comments and attempt to debate here then?

        That is quite ironic, yet a serious question.

      • A sample of the “cleaned-up” comments at WO today:

        Travis Poulson: “Hatred and misery takes its toll on the exterior.”
        caochladh: “Helen Kelly should take note……”
        Travis Poulson: “A bit late I think.”
        John: “Like about 10 years”
        Honcho: “Too late for Darien Fenton”

        http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/05/clare-curran-tweetgate-update/

        Gosh, thank god for the lack of petty and personal abusive attacks. 🙄

        • You_Fool 3.2.6.1

          That’s clean and non-abusive compared to the past. It is easy to be goods at debating when you have low standards to begin with….

      • Mary 3.2.7

        “I don’t like some of Slater’s extremes”

        Which of Slater’s extremes do you like?

  4. Awww 4

    Labour’s campaign to collect evidence of mistreatment from Work and Income (for the keyword search but technically no longer their name…WINZ)

    http://www.writehanded.org/blog/2014/05/05/fair-treatment-in-hard-times/

    It’s gonna be problematic regardless of who is in power, but lets hope things improve.

    • karol 4.1

      Excellent response.

      • weka 4.1.1

        Here’s the Labour link

        http://action.labour.org.nz/fair-treatment-hard-times#top

        Good to see Labour doing something to support beneficiaries at last. However Sue Moroney’s attempts looks a bit dodgy to me. They’re asking for first name/last name and no other identifying information. So either the person’s RL ID is irrelevant (how many John Smiths in the system?), or they haven’t thought this through.

        They’re saying that no-one’s information will be publicly shared without permission, but that means that information can be shared amongst agencies, and with the Minister and her staff. Beneficiaries aren’t safe in that situation. The questions look odd to me too.

        They ask for an email address – “If you choose to share your email address then we’ll add you to our mailing list.” What email list? The general Labour Party email list? Or an email list about the campaign? Sorry, but this just isnt’ good enough, esp from a party that is already known to play fast and loose with ITC information.

        The whole thing looks like it’s been designed by someone who really doesn’t understand the power issues involved, the extent to which beneficiaries are vulnerable, and how to make that process safe for them. Not terribly suprised, given that some of the shit they are investigating happenes under Labour’s watch too.

        • karol 4.1.1.1

          groan *

          Thanks, weka.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.2

          i dont trust labour one jot on this. as recently as 2007 they were doing their own bene crushing, and shearers mythical roofer very recently.

          i still get a sense of national lite amongst their number and strategy.

          • karol 4.1.1.2.1

            It seems to me that Labour is treading carefully around neoliberal sensitivities – at times this looks like appeasement.

            They have some pretty good focus on workers’ rights and make some very good general noises about decreasing the (way too wide) income inequality gap). They have aimed to appease the wealthy business classes first, then signal they will focus on benefits and state housing etc later.

            Such timidity just looks like appeasement, and ultimately failure to stand strongly for traditional labour movement/left values and principles.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.2.1.1

              appeasement is the word. i just have a niggling feeling if labour gets some permanent traction from the beginning of the revelation that john key has no clothes, will they letpolicies aimed at correcting life for the vulnerable slip through, or do a national, ride the swing of the soft middle, maybe win, and then be scared to do stuff for fear of not getting a second ter,

              the fly in the ointment is the green party. if they can poll 10%+ on election day and labour is around 35% labour will be hard pressed to make no concessions.

              • karol

                Yep. My party vote is with the Greens. (Probably Carmel for electorate).

                • Tracey

                  its the speed to distance themselves, these mps. john banks gone from being an electorate mp, but taking full salary and perks. bennett holding community meetings outside her current electorate. self interest rules.

                  as much as i dislike his poltics my vote goes to goldsmith and i urge all labour and green voters in epsom to do the same..david parker standing will scupper this imo… they need a nobody. or stand no one like national does a maori seat.

                  if you are ever interested in meeting up, i can stand you a coffee and am in henderson every tuesday and friday. just email if you are interested. if not, no offence taken on my part.

            • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2.1.2

              +111

            • Populuxe1 4.1.1.2.1.3

              ” treading carefully around neoliberal sensitivities”
              Hardly – all evidence is that they have embraced neoliberalism fully to the point where thy have become a kindler, gentler National. Every time David Parker opens his mouth I am reminded why I will have nothing to do with Labour anymore. Even if you cast a blind eye at their dogged avoicance of any discussion of renationalisation (and indeed Parker already tacitly outlined Labour’s own privatisation goals in 2012), that they will arrogantly support off-shore drilling despite all environmental wisdom and public rejection is unconscionable.

          • weka 4.1.1.2.2

            “bene crushing”

            Astute re-phrasing, Tracey.

        • Mary 4.1.1.3

          How can we trust Labour since they supported the Nact amendment that allows for the conviction of beneficiaries for a dishonesty offence in circumstances where the person has no knowledge of what it is they’re convicted for? How can we trust Labour when they agreed with Nact to pass a law that allows the government to take money from the poorest people in our community even when it is unfair to do so? When will people stop thinking that Labour is our friend?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.3.1

            Reality check. Violent bully forces “partner” into fraudulent situation then faces zero penalty when she gets caught.

            • Mary 4.1.1.3.1.1

              With respect, your analogy is a false one and highlights the myth that government and Labour have embraced without question. Two things arise that show how the situation you use as an example is unrelated to what the latest amendment does. Firstly, a woman forced by or through violence to apply for a sole parent benefit suggests there’s no relationship in the nature of marriage in the first place so no unlawful receipt of a benefit has occurred. Secondly, if there is such a relationship, the violent partner is a party to the offending therefore knows about the offending. This latest amendment, however, says that a partner can still be criminalised for a dishonesty offence even if they don’t know about the offending. The intention is to ensure partners are held liable for their share of the debt. If this is the case then the amendment should have just said this. It didn’t, and dumbarse Labour bought that crap argument.

            • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.3.1.2

              OAB, the situation where a violent person forces another to commit a crime is already covered in legislation. This really has nothing to do with that, but plays up to the lie of the undeserving, rorting beneficiary. Beneficiaries get the short end of the stick from both Labour and National, with any differences being largely cosmetic. Labour is likely to introduce something useless like cultural awareness programs, where the case officer cutting someone’s benefit begins the bad news letter with a “culturally appropriate” greeting.
              Sadly, this would probably be Kia Orana for Samoans, Fakalofa Lahi Atu for Fijians, and Konichi Wa for Chinese clients.

              Any decent changes will come from Green and Mana influence on the next government. Labour still hold to the contradictory viewpoints of a necessary reserve army of labour and personal failure when someone doesn’t have a job.

            • Ergo Robertina 4.1.1.3.1.3

              Reality check OAB: Mythical hard cases make bad law.
              This is labour’s intellectual cowardice, not daring to be seen as ‘soft’ on beneficiaries.
              And then on the very same day as the vote in the House, David Cunliffe’s interview with Scoop’s Gordon Campbell is published in which he says he’ll scrap it. So why vote for it?

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.4

          What they’re really after is numbers to show that this unfair treatment isn’t just a once off human error thing that the government is saying it is.

          • Mary 4.1.1.4.1

            And then it would go back to being a one-off human error thing depending on the election result.

    • karol 4.2

      Meanwhile, the wealthy party, network, and “asks the PM questions”, while supping the wine with the PM himself and his chief of staff…. and donate, donate, donate. All legal of course. So time to take the money out of policking.

  5. bad12 5

    All 3 of the Herald’s political Jonolists this morning singing a song of doom for National should the Collins/Oravida scandal continue,

    Armstrong, O’Sullivan, Trevett, the discordant whine of 3 badly played violin screeching a death-knell for National in September,

    Is Collin’s quietly pleased amidst what many commentators view the wreckage of Her career???, She could well be, Collins has one chance and one chance only of reaching Her ambition to be leader of the National Party and such a chance does not include a National win in September with Slippery the current Prime Minister assuming the role for another 3 years,

    The only slim hope for Judith Collins to ever lead the National Party is for National to lose in September followed by the mounting of a quick palace coup whilst the Party still reels from having lost what six months ago they all saw as a cruise to victory…

    • Ad 5.1

      No leader would propose such things, but:

      If it looks like National really will lose and have no coalition options, Key will prepare for a banking appointment and go and do what he does best. National caucus will be completely renewed from the ground up. Bennett or Collins will be leader with Bridges deputy.

      Couple with National’s calculation that a Labour-Green alliance would be as stable as a Labour-Alliance version and explode mid term in fireworks, either collapsing as a government or dragging a mortally wounded carcass to the finish like like Bolger had to.

      That makes this election a good one to lose for National.

      The counterfactual is National win somehow, and they melt down hard for three years in public. This in turn sets up Labour and Greens for a 9 year stretch from 2010. Again, just like Clark after Bolger/Shipley.

      Heat’s all on Cunliffe’s fresh leadership but old team to convince themselves, the media and the public that the people standing now will be the nationbuilders for 9 years.

      • David H 5.1.1

        @AD “Bennett or Collins will be leader with Bridges deputy.”

        Now that’s about as appealing as having all your teeth pulled without painkillers.

        • Tracey 5.1.1.1

          bennett looks like joyces deputy, and then leader, imo.

          • karol 5.1.1.1.1

            I was interested that Bennett and Tolley backed up Collins in the recent press stand up. Bennett was always very pro-Key previously. Not sure what that means. Stalking horse?

      • I don’t think Bennett can do it. An electorate MP who only won by 9 votes has far more important things to focus on that leading the party. (And for some reason, it’s still important for party leaders/potential Prime Ministers to have electorate seats.)

    • yeshe 5.2

      While any archive footage remains of her crazy faces and out-of-control viciousness during the TV3 Sabin interview, I suspect she has a zero chance of ever leading the National party.

      I did ponder what someone wrote yesterday though .. about Mike Sabin wanting her job of MoJ. Curious at least.

      • Anne 5.2.1

        My prediction: in the event of a National loss or win, Steven Joyce will be leader well before the 2017 election. Assuming Collins is now out of the race, I think even the most gullible among us would not accept a Bennett/ Bridges duo. Their stewardship would rapidly bring the country into such disrepute that I doubt the more shadowy of our ‘powers that be’ would allow it to happen.

    • freedom 5.3

      and there is a hoo-ra from John Roughan calling for Cabinet Rules to be rewritten…
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11252504

      • Sacha 5.3.1

        Roughan is typically ignorant about what conflicts of interest mean and why they are specifically addressed in governance rules. It’s like nobody in human history has experienced the problems or figured out how to avoid them. What a blissful bubble the fool inhabits.

      • karol 5.3.2

        Oh. I cringe every time rugby or sports analogies are applied to politics. It’s generally male sports that are invoked, and it reinforces a masculine focus on politics as a game. This is what alienates many voters. Politics in an (alleged) democracy, is not about winners and losers, but about ensuring society works for the benefit of all residents.

        • freedom 5.3.2.1

          “Politics in an (alleged) democracy, is not about winners and losers, but about ensuring society works for the benefit of all residents.”

          The Standard, 🙂
          a place where this view is not seen as naive

        • Sacha 5.3.2.2

          “Politics in an (alleged) democracy, is not about winners and losers, but about ensuring society works for the benefit of all residents.”

          You’ve articulated a major difference between right and left worldviews in that statement. Democracy unfortunately encompasses both, which guarantees tension.

          • Pete George 5.3.2.2.1

            Yes. A great example is how everyone on leftish blogs rejects any notion of “winners and losers” and welcomes different opinions in discussions without any partisan prejudice.

            This results on no tension on those blogs.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 5.3.2.2.1.1

              As your continued presence shows, Pete, no left blog can be entirely free of conservative/rightwing/derailing-for-their-own-ego’s-sake t:roll:s.

            • You_Fool 5.3.2.2.1.2

              This comment by Pete George should probably be put beside the definition of “Trolling”

              It is very good trolling, he hasn’t used any profanities or really insulted anyone, though has managed to post a comment that will almost certainly invoke a flame war.

              It is a gold standard for trolls everywhere, well done Pete George, you have reached the pinnacle of troll kind

          • Draco T Bastard 5.3.2.2.2

            Only in its present form.

          • karol 5.3.2.2.3

            Good point Sacha. At least, it encompasses both in western representative democracies. I think participatory or direct democracies are more about it working for the benefit of all residents, rather than it being a competition.

    • Tracey 5.4

      her life after politics has long been assured.

    • Mary 5.5

      I predict Collins will resign because of “all the unfair and nasty treatment” she’s been subjected to and that “nobody should have to put up with that.”

  6. Bearded Git 6

    This from Geoff Cumming in Herald today.

    “No one wants another Kaipara where a poorly governed council embarked on a PPP to fund a new sewerage system for fast-growing Mangawhai. Council debt blew out to $80m and (partly because PPPs keep the debt off the council’s books) the first ratepayers knew about it was when a 31 per cent rates demand landed.”

    Many PPP’s have been a disaster in the UK, yet Len Brown and the Nats still appear to entertain them as a solution to fund future development because they offer excellent and usually risk free profits to their business mates.

    See: http://www.nzsif.co.nz/Social-Infrastructure/Market-Potential-for-PPPs-in-New-Zealand/

    ” In October 2009, Transport Minister Steven Joyce requested a review of the Land Transport Management Act. As part of the review, measures for reducing the barriers to PPPs to fund transport projects are to be examined28.

    In December 2009, Education Minister Anne Tolley announced that the Ministry of Education and Treasury are assessing the suitability of PPP models for building and maintaining school properties29.”

    In March 2010, the NIU released the National Infrastructure Plan, which confirms that the Government intends to use PPPs where they represent value for money for tax-payers30.”

    Another good reason to get this government out.

    • Disraeli Gladstone 6.1

      The Internet Party are also now campaigning on use of PPPs, I believe.

      • bad12 6.1.1

        Proof please…

        • Penny Bright 6.1.1.1

          FYI – The link that shows the Internet Party supports Public Private Partnerships (PPPs)

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11252377

          “Inspired by the success of Dublin”, Mr Kumar said the party would develop a “futuristic, global-scale, green data centre” using a public-private partnership model.”

          ” …..Launching the party’s draft environment policy, chief executive Vikram Kumar said New Zealand was already well placed to become “a world-leading clean energy economy” because it already generated almost three-quarters of its electricity from renewable sources such as hydro.

          “But we can and must go further for current and future generations, so we will ensure all of New Zealand’s electricity needs are met by 100 per cent renewable sources such as hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar by 2025. As well as being good for the environment, this will boost the economy, create jobs, strengthen our green reputation worldwide, and promote investment in green technologies.”
          ………………………..

          Mr Kumar went on to say the party would “encourage the development of smart cities, modelled on what we want to see done in the Christchurch rebuild, where we will direct a part of the already committed central government funding of re-creating Christchurch to make it a world-leading smart city that can serve as a blueprint for other cities here and overseas”.

          The third area of the party’s draft environment policy was a plan to set up “green data centres”.

          “Inspired by the success of Dublin”, Mr Kumar said the party would develop a “futuristic, global-scale, green data centre” using a public-private partnership model.

          Other strands to the policy included supporting and promoting the accelerated roll out of smart electricity meters and “greater home automation and connectedness”.
          ……………………… ”

          Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) = PRIVATISATION.

          Are the Mana Party now going to support PPPs, if they join forces with the Internet Party?

          All this talk of ‘smart’ cities – sounds like the Internet Party supports UN Agenda 21?

          BEWARE!

          Here are reasons why I DON’T support UN Agenda 21:

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/8084651/Sustaining-belief

          Sustaining belief
          ALISTAIR BONE
          15/12/2012

          ” ……….
          Agenda 21 critics in Hamilton refused to speak to the Waikato Times, citing fears mainstream media would distort their arguments. But environmentalists and more mainstream protesters have their own set of reservations about Agenda 21, believing it is a watered down response to a planetary emergency that is largely ignored anyway. Long-time community activist and Auckland mayoral candidate Penny Bright points out that it didn’t stop GE, or, on a larger scale, any of the major wars that have blighted the environment since 1992.

          “It comes across as trying to be well-intentioned,” she says, “but I think the focus is misdirected.
          If you are trying to help build a better planet, then you have got to focus on the real problems.
          And when Agenda 21 was set up, they weren’t allowed to address the role of corporations and multinationals.”

          The UN’s review calls for more public-private partnerships (PPPs), with business getting more involved. Fleming says the council won’t be able to do everything itself. “There are opportunities [for PPPs], absolutely,” he says. Bright raises a red flag at this. “There’re huge stacks of evidence internationally that PPPs are marvellous for the private sector because they smooth out the bumps in terms of the boom and bust cycle. You get a guaranteed income for however long the contract is. But the question is, who is benefiting and where is the money going?”

          Bright says a European Union-sponsored review of the scheme found the same problems Hamilton City and the UN discovered. Agenda 21 didn’t initially recognise the interconnectedness of its goals.

          “You can’t look at the environment without looking at the economic system that has such a huge impact on the environment. It is the herd of elephants in the room,” she says. That’s crucial to making it work, she thinks, and the reason why it’s not. “If you are talking about the Rio principles and Agenda 21, in terms of their stated aim, well, what a load of bollocks.”

          PS: There is some real concern about ‘smart meters’:

          http://stopsmartmeters.org/how-you-can-stop-smart-meters/

          ” How YOU Can Stop ‘Smart’ Meters

          SmartMeters are really StupidMeters. Why? Because they overcharge you, broadcast your personal info and detailed energy use habits, emit electromagnetic radiation that can cause cancer, damage your DNA, and harm wildlife, catch fire, and disable your shock prevention devices.

          Need any more reasons? Go to our Why Stop Smart Meters page. New to this issue and have questions? Check our FAQ page.”

          Penny Bright

        • Disraeli Gladstone 6.1.1.2

          I’m sorry I didn’t provide proof before Penny was an essay about it…

          But as you see from the top of her long-winded post with the quote from Mr Kumar, the Internet Party are at least campaigning on some use of PPPs.

          • Penny Bright 6.1.1.2.1

            Do you support UN Agenda 21 Disraeli Gladstone?

            A lot of people appear to know very little about UN Agenda 21 ……………..

            I personally am totally opposed to Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs) – PRIVATISATION.

            How about you?

            • Disraeli Gladstone 6.1.1.2.1.1

              I think PPPs are useful in certain circumstances. I mostly share Draco’s opinion that PPPs are often more expensive than what the government could have done in-house (or business could do without the government), but I imagine there’s several industries that PPPs are useful for.

              As for Agenda 21, I have little concern over a voluntary UN plan on sustainability. There’s some good and there’s some bad, but overall it’s about promoting certain issues that we see as being good and is voluntary. I have far more pressing concerns.

              And the only people concerned over it are right-wing world order conspiracist and their left-wing counterparts.

              Glenn Beck and Penny Bright.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2

      PPPs never represent value for money for taxpayers. All they are is legitimised theft of taxpayers money. The government can always do it better and cheaper in-house.

  7. bad12 7

    Nice one Helen Kelly, the CTU has been granted leave by the Courts to take a private prosecution against a forestry company over the death of a Tokoroa forestry worker,

    3 other prosecutions are also being pursued by the CTU,

    Source: RadioNZ National news…

  8. Bearded Git 8

    Why ARE people responding to Pete George? He is sucking the life out of this blog.

    • felix 8.1

      People are responding to him because he is sucking the life out of this blog.

      • Kiwiri 8.1.1

        Yup. A lot of noise generated by him and that is very off putting. His rubbish drowns out good comments by others on The Standard and blunts the focus they put on the issues.

      • freedom 8.1.2

        PG’s efforts yesterday, and already today, tempted me to post one of the less family friendly Billy Connolly sketches. The ones I am thinking of centre on two heavily emphatic syllables that when used in conjunction are not only highly emotive and assiduously representative of the majority view, but which also create clear suggestions for travel plans. But he would still miss the point.

        (yes, this is massively passive-aggressive 🙂 )

        • Tracey 8.1.2.1

          i decided to disengage with him, the day i wrpte those two very words in a reply, and then did not hit post. slylands is the only other who has tempted me thus.

        • weka 8.1.2.2

          “But he would still miss the point.”

          We wouldn’t though 😉 Please post the sketch 🙂

    • Tracey 8.2

      with more and more people choosing to disengage from him, have you not noticed he just repeats himself in one form or another throughout a thread and across a couple of threads or days.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1

        Yeah, I actually have noticed that and I usually scroll straight past his meaningless screeds.

    • TheContrarian 8.3

      I scroll right past Pete, and all that respond. It’s pretty easy – everyone should try it out.

  9. Hami Shearlie 9

    When I try to read Pete George’s posts I know just how Victor Meldrew felt!

  10. tricledrown 10

    Policaly Gelded
    Atempts to make himself relavent have been a complete failure after 4 years his profile shows he is a National supporter who has got the balls to come out and just admit it.
    pgs ego tells himself his opinions are more relevent than anyone elses.
    When he is proven wrong he can’t accept that.So his narcisitic side comes out.
    Pete get over yourself less is more
    Fact check.

  11. john minto is kicking arse on the nation..

    ..calling out dunne/dung for his serial-bullshit..

    • and peters called out whyte from act:..

      for the fact of him being a ‘philosopher’..talking ‘rubbish’..

      ..heh..!

      ..(it’s only halfway thru..but it’s a recommended-watch..

      ..the right are getting monstered..)

      • Chooky 11.1.1

        lol…good on Peters….he has certainly got his feet on the ground….that Whyte is one strange Cambridge man ( do you think they are inbred?)

        • phillip ure 11.1.1.1

          whyte is seriously weird…

          ..epsom voters would vote for a fucken frog..

          ..if act had no other candidate..(and yes..i know that other clown is the actual candidate..what’s his name again..?..it isn’t ‘frog’..?..is it..?)

          ..and i think that there are two takeaways from this debate..

          ..that is that minto shone..

          (and the compere blew it by freezing him out in the second half..he wasn’t even given a chance to speak..

          ..the other takeaway is that the odds of peters supporting the progressives post-election..

          ..going on this appearance..

          ..must have hardened…

          ..norman started weak..but finished stronger..

          ..but the star of the show..is definitely minto..

          ..and peters also did well..

          • phillip ure 11.1.1.1.1

            then gower as commenter talks absolute shite..

            ..he praises fucken whyte as ‘having the vision’..(!)

            ..w.t.f..!

            ..and then praises dunnes’ super policy of tiered-pensions..(!)

            ..and not one of them has mentioned minto..

            ..and they all line up to slag the greens..

            ..fucken rightwing-whores..!

            • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.1.1.1.1

              I actually think Dunne’s policy on pensions has merit. It’s just a shame that it’s coming from United Future and won’t really be looked at.

          • marty mars 11.1.1.1.2

            haven’t watched it but Minto always nails it – he is real, honest and articulate and those qualities are poison to the msm hacks and opponents of equality and fairness.

          • Tracey 11.1.1.1.3

            in “thegardens” the act candidate for the next election has a q and a. its slightly bizarre, to my reading anyway. interestingly the currents act mp has no article, and hasnt for a while. are we still paying himto not really be our mp anymore?

            this is as good an example of acts version of personal responsibility and accountability and use of tax payer money as we will see.

          • Maureen 11.1.1.1.4

            I agree that Minto was the best until he got ignored in the second half. Then he was ignored by the analysts. Very disappointing.
            Norman seems to give a background statement before answering the question. I’d like him to get to the point more incisively. I do think that Whyte showed a tad more conviction than he has on the media up till now (from what I’ve seen) but what he says is ghastly. When Norman said that Act is not about the law of the jungle because they’ll bulldoze the jungle away, he was warming up!

        • Disraeli Gladstone 11.1.1.2

          Whyte isn’t from Cambridge. He was born in Auckland. Maybe they are inbred?

          • Chooky 11.1.1.2.1

            no i am talking of Cambridge intellectual inbreeding….however given Whytes views there could be some of the other sort as well

  12. rhinocrates 12

    Roll, roll, roll your eyes
    Pete’s sorry for himself again
    Drearily, drearily drearily
    Here we go again.

    • Funny. That’s right, apart from one small thing – if you look through the comments on this thread you’d see that it’s not me who’s gnashing and wailing and feeling sorry, drearily, drearily drearily.

      Here we go again.

      • bad12 12.1.1

        Gnash, Wail, jesus Petty does the dance of the absurd, 🙄 🙄 🙄 …

      • phillip ure 12.1.2

        you are being laughed at..

        ..for the fool you are..

        ..call it gnashing/wailing..

        ..if you so desire..

        ..that matters little..

        ..and as one who professes to desire ‘influence’..

        ..that’s not working out that well for you is it..?

        ..you are more an anti-influence force..

        ..you are more the shit that sticks to the blanket…

    • Tracey 12.2

      lolololol

  13. Jrobin 13

    Jamie Whyte! He’s a nihilist and lazy to boot with a weird pseudo religious faith in THE MARKET. Where was this guy during the GFC. He should be chained in a cellar and forced to watch Max Keiser on loop for a week.

  14. aerobubble 14

    The panel on The Nation this morning was confused. You’d think the people they ask would have some political analysis of the debate that had just transpired.

    Anyway a recap. Whyte lost big. As expected Peter kept to the script. Dunne lost his nerve and tried to assist whyte by switching out choosing industries of Whyte, and into choosing groups. Now Norman had a much better time, knocking off neo-liberalism aided by Pinto who ruthlessly took the National falag and started waving it. Maori were stable and correct, as if they came to the debate to talk about the economy, fools, we’re too far out from the election to get too detailed.

    Now the only way I can read it, is the panel could not actual say Whyte failed, but did manage to get it and call him nuts. I mean we have been choosing the financial industry to win for far too long, and Whtye’s idea that only the wealth matter is deeply offense to all those who have died protecting the nation (or will). Whtye’s ideology is a ground zero ideology, everything starts and ends at his rights and ignoring everyone elses, his community is what he regards as the best for him. So Normans attack was so cutting, what would happen Norman said if we all stop having children, where was Whtye’s personal responsibility there, that if there were no taxpayers in the future how could Whtye protect his wealth, who would wipe his bum when he was frail in an old peoples home?

    Dunne naivety was astonishing, since the political debate was about minor parties, and minor parties are geared to their activist bases far more than the major parties who soak up the bored and go along to get along. Of all he was the most disconnected from his voters (all 100 of them).
    Whyte pretty much helped Norman tell ACT voters why a vote for ACT is a wasted vote.

    • karol 14.1

      Thank you. I’ve been wary of watching The Nation after earlier versions of it. This newer version, with Lisa Owen etc, does seem to be an improvement, though still flawed.

      • aerobubble 14.1.1

        I think the flaw was the editor or whoever filtered, but the choice of panel, a bunch of hacks whose day job is about talking nonsense that doesnt offend big business…

        …I mean Whyte’s whole deal is about those with money having all the say, and them doing in behind close doors because he doesn’t do government, though in the next sentence declares policy that effects how government works and all the people without much money who have to cop it, and when called on it, stammers like a fool.

        Anyway, its the holism that’s missed, how taking the Green policy one policy at a time will of course make them sound unworkable, but taken together with the full platform the pieces fit.
        I mean seriously Pinto says return to a inheritance tax, and really all the left are saying is we need
        to return to the taxing of the wealthiest to stop them taking over the economy. That’s not new,
        its has economic history, its the ACT platform that is extremist, untried except in Haiti and Somali, yet still the pundits still pick up hacks who fail to laugh Act out of the studio. So yeah, good that
        atleast one of the panel called Whyte nuts.

        Our economy is less efficient, less productive when we get lazy and stop making it hard for the top end to make money, its their job to sweat and bleed blood. But by making too damn easy for the top end we’ve breed a generation of lazy businesses, lazy thinkers, and lazy politicians. It was no surprise, I mean thirty years of lowering energy prices, lowering price of cheap high density nonrenewable fuels, was it any wonder that the financial industry would use their first profits to buy politicians so they could seize even more of the wealth creation.

        A balance of tradet is directly related to the balance of finance that exposes us more and more to the world speculator economy, its ridiculous that we’d want to enslave ourselves to debt. And worse still that we have Dunne, Whtye and the National party essential dictating we must indebt ourselves even more, that we can’t even consider assisting kiwis to own the means of production, but must continue opening up the nation to the wealth global few.

    • “The panel on The Nation this morning was confused. ”

      They saw some things different and some things similar to me. That’s just seeing things different, not confused.

      They rated Winston Peters, I don’t think he did well.

      They were critical of Russel Norman’s performance, I think that’s a fair call, he was disappointing.

      I agree it was good exposure for the Maori Party.

      Regardless of the policies he was promoting Jamie Whyte had a clear message and he mixed it well in the debate.

      ACT and the Maori Party should be happy with that. Peters, Dunne and Minto are unlikely to have changed many minds. Greens do better than any other party in organised media but have to be able to compete in debates.

      • aerobubble 14.2.1

        The panel made reference to the jungle comment of Norman. You could have some intellectual intgrity and explain what you thought he meant. I mean, rule of the jungle sums up the final resting point for ACT, that no government has ever produced wealth. Even the averagely intelligent look around and see how more efficient the roads are that we don’t have to pay legal levies to landowners to get to town to sell our goods. I mean Whyte has nightmares about government seizing assets for the greater good of the community, his whole platform is about fear and being compelled, yet how else does a community work without the social threat if compliance is not available. His dogma hurts the econony, and by Monday we will all have forgotton the debate, but the undermining of neo-liberalism will continue as the basis for its rise in popularity has disappeared. Cheap high density fuels are now getting more expensive not less. Energy into the economy costs more, not less. Energy fuels growth, a growing economy gets lazy, scarcity is manufactured by the financial industry. Energy decline harms growth, economy get leans, parasites like Whyte who don’t believe in give and take, will never give the other side of the debate a say on the economy, on its effects, that democracy can never choose social goals as its unfair to Whyte; its parasites that either are ejected. Or they blow up into a plague that destroys the whole. We can’t afford ACT any more, the money’s not there.

        • Sacha 14.2.1.1

          Actoid nutjobs who hate government are keen to become it only so they can destroy it. They deserve our contempt.

      • phillip ure 14.2.2

        i was scrolling back up thru this thread..and i stopped at pgs’ comment above..

        ..but i stopped before his name became visible..

        ..i read it..

        ..and thought:..’fuck..!..this idiot has got the wrong end of every stick..

        ..who the fuck was that..?’

        ..and a further flick on the scroll…and up pops guess who..?

    • Enough is Enough 14.3

      The debate was terrible. You cant seriously debate any matter with 6 different view points in an hour.

      What we got was 6 grumpy old men (none of whom looked very interested) essentially giving sound bites.

      It was terrible and not a great way to select a government.

      • aerobubble 14.3.1

        You are forgetting, that these are minor parties who are talking to their base on a Tv program that is for political junkies.

        Sure I think Norman may have been a bit too zealous, but someone has to laugh ACT out of the shop by emphasizing that ACT’s policies harm ACT voters in the medium to long term. That ACTs bible of dogma would make a fifth century Pope blush.

    • Tracey 14.4

      ” sir roger douglas was a courageous reformerwho made difficult changes. they have allowed this country r to be open, diverse and tolerant society. ”

      david seymour, next act mp for epsom.

      • Lanthanide 14.4.1

        Next ACT candidate* for Epsom.

        Let’s not go counting his chickens, shall we?

        • Tracey 14.4.1.1

          unclecousin, three legged pig with lipstick…. either way act wins epsom. just cant see it going any other way lanth.

      • ianmac 15.1.1

        Well influence pays big time.
        “Maurice Williamson ‏@williamson_nz
        Congratulations to Cameron Slater for winning best Blog. He delivers outstanding content on a shoestring budget. An awesome achievement.”

        • chris73 15.1.1.1

          Don’t worry I’m sure someone in the Greens will put up a proposal to ban all private blogging and only allowing blogging paid for by the public because the right wing blogs are too successful 🙂

        • Tracey 15.1.1.2

          shoestring budget, maurice just cant help telling porkies.

          how does he know what slaters budget is?

    • felix 15.2

      Lame speech chris. Did you write it?

    • Murray Olsen 15.3

      What did you think of him publishing the photos of Dotcom’s wife?

  15. captain hook 16

    hey chris 74.
    I can see the brown stuff all round your chin.
    take a bath dood.
    you stink!

    • chris73 16.1

      Its about time the blogger with the most popular, most influential and most visited site won don’t you think

      • Sacha 16.1.1

        None of those words mean ‘best’ in a media/journalism setting.

      • vto 16.1.2

        Yes of course, the Toyota is vastly superior to the Porsche …….

        • karol 16.1.2.1

          Nothing wrong with a Toyota. I’m all for small, efficient, low cost, unostentatious cars. But the contrast is more accessible, cheap and sustainable transport and

          something like this.

          • vto 16.1.2.1.1

            ha ha, sheesh check the spread of those horns…

            but yep, I been rattling around town this morning in the most inglorious toyota imagineable. But the point of course to Chris73 was that popularity and frequency are no measure of quality re blogs, or most anything else too usually.

            And Deborah Hill Cone as the sole judge? Really? Kind of explains the entire sham. Most every industry has sham “awards” set up. The wine industry being the classic for sham “awards” and little stickers to help the product sell.

            The award means shit.

            Cameron Slater is a piece of bile who should stay entrenched in Auckland and well away from places south and west.

            • chris73 16.1.2.1.1.1

              For what its worth my (realistic) dream car is a Land Cruiser 😉

  16. captain hook 17

    like you smell of rancid blubber.

  17. Clean_power 18

    I am utterly dismayed to see Peter George has invaded, taken over, and now almost “owns” this bastion of the Left. How sad!

    • karol 18.1

      It’s just that he seems to have plenty of time and motivation to keep on responding no matter what the evidence presented to show the low quality of his contributions.

      • Sacha 18.1.1

        and people keep reacting to him.
        just stop it.

        • karol 18.1.1.1

          I try not to. When he comments under and about my posts, I have little choice – especially when he derails and diverts so that attention is then focused a lot on him.

          • Zorr 18.1.1.1.1

            I’m surprised he hasn’t tripped the moderating policy yet considering the amount of pointless derails in comments he commits. Even if it was just placing his comments in to auto-moderation so he couldn’t Gish Gallop like this? It’s painful when I’m seeing wonderful points being made getting ruined by the fact that every 2nd comment is one of PGs.

            • Sacha 18.1.1.1.1.1

              Yes, if he’s disrupting conversations then please act to moderate that.

          • Populuxe1 18.1.1.1.2

            Karol – this is the internet, and on this blog it’s hardly as though people don’t have attention to spare. It’s patronising to assume people can’t follow more than one thread at a time, the site is designed to allow people to see where individual threads begin and end, and no one person has the right to dictate who and what individuals choose to engage with or ignore. And if PG comments under your post with something not worth responding to, don’t respond or you just legitimise it. He serves a purpose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode

            [lprent: On this site, authors have a complete right to ban anyone from commenting on their posts.

            The reason is that we need to keep authors writing far more than we need keep commenters writing. One of this things that tends to piss off authors is people derailing the comments in their posts.

            Karol tends to be somewhat more tolerant than most as an author. But I’ll start keeping more of an eye on authors posts now that she has mentioned that kind of divergence as concerning her (and Helen Kelly having a similar issue) and reducing the tolerance level to divergence from the post topic.

            We have OpenMike for a reason. People should use it. ]

            • karol 18.1.1.1.2.1

              Pop, I do take some responsibility for what happens in discussions under my posts.

              Yesterday I was responding to several complaints about PG derailing the discussions under my post of the previous day. Consequently, I was looking at that, and engaging with PG to explain something of the problems people (including me) have with his comments. That turned out to be a pretty frustrating and time consuming experience. Getting sucked into PGs’ run-a-rounds can be a bit of a wind up.

              I do try to respond to some comments under my posts, but, of course, I cannot respond to everything, especially when the number of comments gets pretty large.

    • Tiger Mountain 18.2

      As a regular commenter at the The Standard my view on Pete George is that he is in the most charitable view a tory time waster lacking even one original thought. He seems to visit here mainly seeking attention, that his public self pleasuring likely has trouble getting elsewhere.

      His pathetic circular logic hair splits over virtually any post or comment test many peoples patience. His demonstrated comprehension skills are year 3-4, unless he is actually just having us on… and of course he is.

      Roll on election time when this dodgy behaviour will hopefully see The Standard a Pete free place again. In the meantime please–just ignore; his lugubrious photo is a visual clue to scroll on by.

    • Populuxe1 18.3

      He hasn’t taken over anything. I assume most people have the intellectual wherewithall to engage or ignore as they see fit.

      • felix 18.3.1

        Engaging just gives him the opportunity to wallpaper thread after thread with his irrelevant bullshit.

        Ignoring just gives him the opportunity to wallpaper thread after thread with his irrelevant bullshit.

  18. aerobubble 19

    Nationalism and Socialism. Pinto’s attack on ACT by waving the National flag. Really have to worry about the right side of politics that their policy platform is make Mana popular.

    Seems the right of politics only hope is Peters.

  19. aerobubble 20

    Whtye, ACT’s leader calls for all council planning to end.

  20. Morrissey 21

    Jamie Whyte’s disastrously inept performance on The Nation
    Is he the worst ever political leader in our history?

    The Nation, TV3, Saturday 10 May 2014

    “There is no community, there is communalism. Umm, ahhh, err….” Believe it or not, that wasn’t the hapless NewstalkZB host Larry “Lackwit” Williams struggling to express himself, but the leader of a political party and—even more incredible—a former Oxford philosophy don. ACT leader Jamie Whyte was speaking on The Nation this morning, trying to explain himself to a highly skeptical, utterly unimpressed panel of politicians. I think he was trying to channel his heroes Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher, but he just wasn’t up to the task.

    Unfortunately for Jamie Whyte, politicians are a lot less indulgent than the trusting souls who turn up to ACT party soirées. Usually political party leaders have a modicum of common sense, and don’t leave themselves open to verbal reprisal like this. They chase women, and take bribes, and behave in all sorts of stupid ways, but for all that, most of them retain at least the appearance of being a normal human being. Hell, even Rodney “Perk-Taker” Hide and John “Banksy” Banks manage to seem rational most of the time.

    However, as his public utterances in favor of incest showed recently, Jamie Whyte lacks even a modicum of common sense. After Whyte’s spluttering attempt to explain why there is no such thing as community, John Minto (Mana) and Greens leader Russel Norman sneered that Whyte was trying to return to the law of the jungle—“except that with ACT’s policies,” laughed Norman, “the jungle would be demolished.”. This display of wit completely flummoxed Jamie Whyte; he just stood there, resentful and silent as Peters, Norman and John Minto continued to rubbish him for a sustained period. Linda Clark, perhaps taking pity on the philosopher, Clark said, “Are you going to respond to that?”

    In fact, far from being an act of kindness, Linda Clark’s offering Whyte a chance to respond was the cruelest thing she could have done. That’s because Whyte had no answer to offer. He had no comeback, and lacked the wit or presence of mind to even respond with a quip. Instead of being allowed the temporary respite of lapsing into anguished silence, Whyte was suddenly required to formulate a response, even though he had no response to offer. “See, this is what they don’t underSTAND!” he whined. This display of pique elicited contemptuous laughter.

    A little later, Patrick Gower and Linda Clark, commenting on the performance of the participants, professed to be impressed with the performance of ….(wait for it)…. Jamie Whyte. Clark did acknowledge that what Jamie Whyte said was “nuts”, but she asserted that ACT supporters “would have been impressed”. That was a stunning mis-assessment; contrary to her assertions, even the most optimistic ACT supporter would have been curled up in a corner, weeping with mortification every time Whyte opened his mouth this morning.

    Linda Clark’s comments this morning were so far removed from reality, so devoid of perceptiveness, in fact so downright dishonest, that one has to question her fitness to act as a commentator. Perhaps she was being charitable to someone who had (yet again) been humiliated in public. But heaping false and undeserved praise on such a dire performance does him no favors and, even more importantly, does immense harm to her own reputation. Praising Jamie Whyte’s ineptitude casts further doubt on Linda Clark’s seriousness and on her judgement.

    So we can no doubt expect, therefore, to see much more of her as the election draws near.

    • lisa owen actually ran the debate..clark commented at the end..

      ..and i agree..i haven’t seen a bigger commentator-fail..in a long time..

      ..how anyone could praise the outing from whyte today beggars belief..

    • Paul 21.2

      Clark works for big shot lawyers now.
      One had plenty of potential as an impartial commentator.
      Now another bought puppet and sadly compromised.

      • Morrissey 21.2.1

        Clark works for big shot lawyers now.
        One had plenty of potential as an impartial commentator.
        Now another bought puppet and sadly compromised.

        Her occasional appearances on Jim Mora’s soon to be defunct Panel have been marked by a determined focus on triviality and incessant giggling…..

        Open mike 16/07/2013

        Her performances as “moderator” of that horrendous TV3 show The Vote have been even worse….

        Open mike 26/04/2013

        Open mike 23/05/2013

        Open mike 18/07/2013

        • Paul 21.2.1.1

          Thought the Panel was continuing.
          Sadly…

          • aerobubble 21.2.1.1.1

            The panel fails for me because it leaves everything half baked, and sometimes even manufactured right wing talking points getting a nice soft shiny new gleam.

            Take the two old farts who couldn’t consider that change happens, that growing numbers of cyclists means they will have to change how they adapt to walking ona footpath. That’s not to say that the old with balance problems (like Moros panel) don’t need more space, but that cyclists, drivers and pedestrains are in a learning phase. So to end such a debate by decrying one group over another is just plain poor broadcasting.

            Sure its nice to have a bunch of idiots talk nonsense to while away the afternoon but when its causes too much frustration and discord, its gone too far.

    • felix 21.3

      ” even the most optimistic ACT supporter would have been curled up in a corner, weeping with mortification every time Whyte opened his mouth this morning.”

      Nah Moz, the actoids are true believers. They would’ve thought Whyte was the only sane man in a room full of idiots.

      Clark was spot on.

      Did you know she’s part owl?

      • Morrissey 21.3.1

        Nah Moz, the actoids are true believers. They would’ve thought Whyte was the only sane man in a room full of idiots. Clark was spot on.
        Yes, Felix, I fear you are correct. I was writing under the conceit that there actually is somebody who votes for ACT who is honest and at least partly rational.

        Did you know she’s part owl?
        Minus the wisdom factor, of course.

    • Paul 21.4

      You and I watched a different programme to Jane Luscombe, who writes for TV3.
      Apparently Whyte stole the thunder of the debate.
      How biased is the media!
      I know their owners would love to pay even less tax but the coverage really is so blatantly skewed.

      http://www.3news.co.nz/ACT-leader-steals-thunder-in-minor-party-debate/tabid/1607/articleID/343637/Default.aspx

      • karol 21.4.1

        It’s th logic of the infotainment dominated media – they want drama and conflict – something they can beat up in a headline and one liners as being dramatic or unexpected. In this case, the incusion of Whyte’s unexpected, bullet point policy seemed a bit dramatic to them, even though the substance is lacking.

        • Populuxe1 21.4.1.1

          They are inclined to follow form over substance, hence I prefer to get my policy information from the internet.

  21. Pascal's bookie 23

    That well known left wing economic illiterate Matt Nolan on ACT’s pretend budget:

    http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2014/05/10/acts-alternative-budget/

    Now let’s cut to the chase here. I would like to take all parties seriously, but this is a frankly ridiculous budget that makes claims that are totally unsubstantiated – anyone with any experience in looking at the data, and the impact of policy, may say that lower tax rates will increase the level of economic activity – but the magnitude implied here indicates that the ACT party has no idea about real economics and is leaning solely on ideology (hence why most of the document is arbitrary catch phrases).

    To be blunt, this document might use economics terms but parts of it are frankly economically illiterate.

    This is a frankly embarrassing budget, I’m sorry ACT but this sort of thing implies to me – as a complete independent voter with economic expertise – that you have no interest in the welfare of New Zealander’s or actual facts. This is a pity…

    he should tell us what he really thinks.

  22. Not a PS Staffer 24

    Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

    Karol, Micky: Just Leave it.

    My preference is to ban PG again. The Standard is getting boring with this fucking tedious shit.

  23. felix 25

    bahahaha! Jamie Unclefucker believes that “market forces” are “natural”.

    I know they all believe it but you hardly ever hear these actoids say it out loud.

    The little toad also said, several times, that NZ is not our country.

    • Tracey 25.1

      and that industrialisation has had no negative impact on the environment… alice through the looking glass unclecousin.

    • NickS 25.2

      cough Well, under a certain framework (extended phenotype etc) “market forces” is natural, but so is every other system etc that’s part of human culture.

      But anyhow, as he’s a fuckwit, the frame Unclefucker is using it makes it a classic naturalist fallacy, where in nature = good, to which my usual snarky response to is “so’s dying from various deadly pathogens…”

      And I wonder who he thinks own’s this country then?

    • Draco T Bastard 25.3

      The ‘market’ is a result of war and bloodshed instituted over thousands of years. Nothing has changed.

      • srylands 25.3.1

        No markets are awesome. I suggest you read this excellent text by a brilliant New Zealander.

        • Tracey 25.3.1.1

          oh look, judiths back on social media after her break. busted ” slylands”

        • vto 25.3.1.2

          No markets are not awesome, they are merely a useful tool that society can make use of when appropriate.

          For example, they are not awesome when used for health and safety as they lead to dead men, such as at Pike River.

          Nor are they awesome when they are left unfettered as they lead to the Great Depression and the GFC.

          Markets are useful for some things such as making plastic buckets and undies. But even that needs to be watched carefully as all it does is drive down wages to lowest possible level achievable across the globe.

          Stop being such an extremist srylands and you may start to be of some use.

    • vto 25.4

      I was gobsmacked at the ignorance shown by Jamie Whyte. Such ignorance becomes very dangerous. He sounded exactly like srylands.

  24. joe90 26

    But co2 is good for plants…
    /

    At the elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 anticipated by around 2050, crops that provide a large share of the global population with most of their dietary zinc and iron will have significantly reduced concentrations of those nutrients, according to a new study led by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). Given that an estimated 2 billion people suffer from zinc and iron deficiencies, resulting in a loss of 63 million life years annually from malnutrition, the reduction in these nutrients represents the most significant health threat ever shown to be associated with climate change.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/05/rising-co2-poses-significant-threat-to-human-nutrition/

    • weka 26.1

      Health threat or mitigation potential?

      • joe90 26.1.1

        Population pressure on resources losing their nutritional value in regions where changing conditions could make traditional agriculture marginal points to a gloomy future for hundreds of millions of the planet’s poorest people.
        I imagine mitigation attempts would involve engineering superior cultivars to perform in changing climates but to feed hundred of millions, perhaps not.

        • weka 26.1.1.1

          I think you might have missed my point joe. We can’t keep on with the population we have, plus the increase, and supporting it with industrial agriculture, because it is precisely those things make AGW keep happening exponentially. If we think that the problem is people dying from malnutrition, we are missing the point that it’s people that are causing AGW in the first place.

          Engineering plant cultivars will do diddly squat in the face of runaway CC. We have a window, here and now and for not very much longer, where we can change. Looking to science to keep the human population going is about the daftest thing we could consider.

        • joe90 26.1.1.2

          Oh I understood you weka and odds are it’s already too late.

          Between now and the calamity on the horizon there will be very little if any effort to change anything, the poorest people on the planet will do the suffering and despite any feeble attempts at mitigation the great dying will commence.

          edit:

          Don’t worry, Earth will survive climate change – we won’t.

          • Neil DeGrasse Tyson

          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/neil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-2014-4

    • Populuxe1 26.2

      Not so good for breathing or climate

  25. felix 27

    Been a lot of commenters complaining about you-know-who lately, and lots calling for him to be banned.

    Interestingly I haven’t noticed any commenters saying he should stay.

    • Anne 27.1

      Yes. And here’s another one.

      He hasn’t learned. Indeed he’s worse than ever. Why anyone bothers to argue with him beats me. He has no cognitive ability. He just thinks he has. I’d like to see him banned for inanity and stupidity. A point can be reached when it becomes a serious offence and PG is at that point.

    • TheContrarian 27.2

      It’s not his fucking fault all you fuckers keep talking him.

      Just ignore him – problem solved.

      That’s what I do and it works fine.

      • felix 27.2.1

        Yeah nah, doesn’t stop him posting.

        • TheContrarian 27.2.1.1

          I find him less irritating the Phil Ure. At least Pete understands basic grammar and punctuation while remaining quiet on the issue of meat addiction.

          Each to their own, horses for courses and all that jazz.

        • Populuxe1 27.2.1.2

          So what? Be a grown up and scroll past it rather than bleating for censorship. He’s not comitting a hate crime.

          • felix 27.2.1.2.1

            If what he’s doing to this site doesn’t concern you, then why don’t you just scroll past the discussions about what to do with him?

      • freedom 27.2.2

        easy to figure he wants to be banned so he can waah waah over at blubber’s sink hole.
        If he just stops posting because everyone ignored him . . .

  26. Draco T Bastard 28

    The dreaded lead

    In the US, he found lead exposure explains 90% of the change in the crime rate. The pattern holds for each individual type of crime he’s looked at, and perhaps most tellingly, it holds even as crime rates drop off a cliff – a couple of decades after leaded petrol began to be replaced by unleaded.
    Nevin has found similar patterns in all the places he’s looked at: Australia, Canada, the UK, France, West Germany and New Zealand. Using 33 years of crime data, he found that changes in blood lead levels in New Zealand preschoolers explain 93% of the variation in our overall crime rate.

    It’s only correlation but it’s a correlation that holds across different countries and times.

    • ianmac 28.1

      It will be hard to prove the correlation Draco. But how sad that so many off-the-rails-people languish in prison or performed anti-social acts or are dead because of lead poisoning. So much effort went into dealing to lead paints but decades went into not dealing to leaded petrol. I did watch a doco which traced the introduction of lead to petrol to deal with engine knocking, by an American who then made a fortune selling the lead into petrol. He falsified the testing for safety and no one followed up again till recent times.
      And now of course the National Government claims credit for improved crime rates.

      • phillip ure 28.1.1

        “..And now of course the National Government claims credit for improved crime rates…”

        aye..!

        ..and the corporate/access-media never ever call them on that..

        ..(that this drop is a global phenomenon..in countries both hard and liberal on crime..)

        ..tolley and co must pinch themselves in disbelief at times..

        ..as/that they get away with that bullshit time after time..

        ..the useless excuses for media just nod along..

        ..displaying all the depth of knowledge/awareness of fucken petrie-dishes…

        ..

      • TheContrarian 28.1.2

        “And now of course the National Government claims credit for improved crime rates.”

        Any other party would do the same. That’s dem politics for ya

        • mickysavage 28.1.2.1

          The crime stats are a big story waiting to be investigated. Out West Auckland the local CIB is down 15 detectives. Many files are just closed without any further action taken on them. Youth Aid has some budget so it is diverting way more cases than it used to. I am a trustee of a trust that suffers occasional employee fraud (it has a large number of employees) and it is very difficult to get any action out of the police. I have considerable reservations about the claimed reduction in crime. It seems to be happening as a general occurrence throughout the developed world but I can’t help but think that the drop is being manipulated.

          • Draco T Bastard 28.1.2.1.1

            How much crime isn’t being reported because people believe that the police won’t do anything?

            • karol 28.1.2.1.1.1

              There are some crimes people need to report – for insurance purposes, to get medical help, etc. But people who aren’t insured wouldn’t bother so much about reporting burglary or theft. Murders usually get reported, although some missing persons are not reported.

              Assault, sex crimes – people often choose whether to report or not.

              • TheContrarian

                ” But people who aren’t insured wouldn’t bother so much about reporting burglary or theft.”

                Wouldn’t be too sure about that one – I would say people would be just as inclined to report it as those with insurance. If you don’t have insurance you’d hope to at least get a crack at getting your gear back.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Hah, don’t kid yourself. Most people without insurance understand that when it’s gone it ain’t coming back and so won’t bother with reporting it to the police. Just too much hassle for no return.

                  • TheContrarian

                    Well as no-one (including myself) has presented any data to back up their points it is rather academic at this juncture.

                    (BTW I have reported items relieved of me to the police in the past and it ain’t much of a hassle. Report it, fill in a form of what you lost and when/where and it is done – and if you aren’t willing to take those steps then you’re probably kinda lazy and stupid)

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      The people without insurance don’t enter the same social circles as you. They understand that reporting something stolen to the police is just taking up their time, the polices time and that the police aren’t going to get it back. Never mind the fact that they probably don’t trust the police either.

                      So, why go to the effort for zero return?

                    • TheContrarian

                      “The people without insurance don’t enter the same social circles as you.”

                      What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea of my social circles.

                      “They understand that reporting something stolen to the police is just taking up their time, the polices time and that the police aren’t going to get it back.”

                      It doesn’t take up anytime. You fill in a form. It is about 5 minutes of actually effort. And yes it takes police’s time but you know, it is kind of their job. Like how seeing a doctor takes up their time. Or how calling a plumber takes up their time.

                      And Pop’s comment below is all the more reason to report a crime. Never mind insurance – reporting a burglary isn’t merely an effort ot get your stuff back. Aren’t you always going on about community over personal property? Reporting crime within your neighborhood is a duty to your community.

                      D for effort there Draco. And an F for consistency.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      What the hell are you talking about? You have no idea of my social circles.

                      Oh, I can guess. It’s not the circles that invariably don’t have insurance.

                      It doesn’t take up anytime. You fill in a form. It is about 5 minutes of actually effort.

                      /facepalm

                      Most people don’t live right next door to the police. In fact, you seem to have missed the bit about trusting the police as well.

                      Aren’t you always going on about community over personal property? Reporting crime within your neighborhood is a duty to your community.

                      Can you point to anywhere above where I said ‘I”?

                    • TheContrarian

                      “Oh, I can guess.”

                      Yeah you can guess but where “guess” means talking out your arse.

                      “Most people don’t live right next door to the police.”
                      I have this thing called a telephone. You can use it to report crime. You can also use to arrange convenient times in which to do other things.
                      I don’t live next door to a plumber but if my mains burst I’m not going to wring my hands about it and wonder what to do next.

                      Look trust or not, not reporting a crime like a burglary is a grave disservice to your own community.

                  • Populuxe1

                    Well aside from the fact that such is not always the case and quite often the stuff does turn up, it also so happens that reporting it may provide information leading to an arrest and if noting else if the police know of a lot of burglaries happening in a particular area they can plan their patrols more effectively. Policing does require a certain amount of public cooperation to be effective.

                    • Jackal

                      I’m in two minds about it. Having actually looked at some stats for burglary ie less than 20% are solved by Police, reporting such crime seems like a bit of a waste of time.

                      I think it would be just as effective to have a talk with whoever the head gang-member in your area is and/or attempt to solve the crime yourself.

                      Personally I don’t think removing the lead from petrol has anything to do with falling crime rates. Neither do I think any of National’s policy has helped reduce offending.

                      It could be that government’s worldwide are manipulating Police directives to ensure less charges are applied (there is some evidence of this happening in New Zealand)…or it could be something else entirely. I like to think that it’s simply the human race slowly growing up.

            • mickysavage 28.1.2.1.1.2

              I couldn’t say Draco but it is a subject that needs some research. Local police I have spoken to do not accept the claimed reduction in crime.

          • Paul 28.1.2.1.2

            ‘Juking the Stats’
            From the Wire

        • Draco T Bastard 28.1.2.2

          They wouldn’t be able to if the correct information was getting out to people.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1.3

        “Correlation”?

        You’re ignoring everything we know about lead poisoning. There’s plenty of causative evidence.

  27. Marius 29

    Sean Plunket took time out the other morning from slobbering on again for four hours about Nigella Lawson’s cream covered fingers. Instead he thought it might be worth a ring around to a few politicians for their views on the Westpac helicopter debate. If you ever needed confirmation of what a spineless, fence sitting, corporate controlled pack of jellyfish that lot is that was it. Not one of them would commit an opinion as to what they really thought. Every last one of them was hedging their bets until they were told what to do. Well done, Sean, now you can carry on trying to get one – just one of your female callers to acknowledge your creepy comments about car blowjobs. I never thought I’d miss Michael Laws on the occassions I do listen to that show but really. Blergh.

  28. Foreign Waka 30

    Saw the program The Nation today and it frightened me to the bone. Anybody who has some sort of aspirations of a just and socially balanced society must be greatly concerned after these performances. Act’s representative has no concept of a nation, imagine their foreign and defense policy. The highers bidder concept/ nothing to defend is there? Mr Peters with all his great skills still has not learned when to shut up and I don’t even want to mention Mr Dunne. What a turn coat he is, the colors (note plural) show. The ones that impressed were Chris McKennzie and John Minto, one was very focused the other very passionate with no fear (I greatly admire this trait). The disappointment of the day was Russel Norman as he did not express any idea of what kind of NZ in an inclusive way he can see and realize. I am a green voter but this performance would have put some doubt into the followers. An opportunity missed.

    • Wayne 30.1

      I also thought Chris McKenzie did very well, given that he is a novice. The others, well lets just say a lot of the time I just read the paper instead.

      I thought the commentators over-rated Winston, but he was on message. But Russell was not on form, especially for a leader of the third largest political party in NZ, and who could expect a very senior position in Cabinet in a Labour/Green govt. He is much better in one on one debates and interviews.

      Jamie Whyte does not look like or sound like a leader. John Minto would appeal to those Mana members who like communism, which won’t be all of them. But at least you are in no doubt where he stands.

      • phillip ure 30.1.1

        “..John Minto would appeal to those Mana members who like communism..”

        ..heh..!

        ..i think his messages from the poor/unemployed/squeezed middle-classes wd have appealed to a few more people than ‘communists’.eh..?

        ..(and surely worthy of endangered-species status these days..?..those ‘communists’..?..)

        ..big ups to ya..!..tho’..

        ..for that old-skool/retro/cold war shout-out..eh..?..

        ..we all needed the chuckle..

        ..it’s been a long/arduous/fraught p.g-drenched-thread..

        ..and tho’ norman improved before the end..and got some hits in..

        ..i thought minto showed/him the greens as being too ‘mild’ in voice on these burning issues of poverty etc..

        ..too close to the centre..

        • karol 30.1.1.1

          Norman came across as quite personable on the 3 News report on the debate. The clips shown of Minto and Peters highlighted everyone’s (pre)conceptions about them.

          • phillip ure 30.1.1.1.1

            they got minto reacting to being called ‘a racist’…(heh..!..)..by that clown whyte..

            ..i liked the demolishing of dunne by minto..also..

            ..and peters called norman ‘mr norman’..(was that the first time ever..?.)

            • felix 30.1.1.1.1.1

              And Peter Dunne accusing Minto of being a nazi.

              FFS you can see how he found common ground with our mate Pete, eh?

              • heh..!

                ..he’s a fucken idiot..that dung…

                ..and i’ll betcha that was the first time minto has been called ‘a racist’..and ‘a nazi’..in the one day…

              • You’re really trying hard aren’t you felix.That would surely be controversial, but it isn’t being reported.

                Yet United Future leader Peter Dunne told Mr Minto, “You’re describing a racist policy,” in reference to Mana’s proposal to ban foreign home buyers.

                http://www.3news.co.nz/ACT-leader-steals-thunder-in-minor-party-debate/tabid/1607/articleID/343637/Default.aspx

                You may be mistaken. Or a bit of a deliberate Godwin fib flame attempt perhaps. You wouldn’t make things up would you?

                • McFlock

                  bleating loudly, while saying nothing…

                • felix

                  Watch the fucking video Pete.

                  It was your old mate Peter doing the Godwinning.

                  • felix

                    A simple ‘Ok now that I’ve watched the video I see that I was wrong to accuse you of lying when I clearly had no fucking idea what I was talking about and I apologise for being a dick about it’ will suffice, Pete.

                    • Ok, now that I’ve watched it again I still haven’t heard any reference to ‘nazi’.

                      And Scoop has a transcript that doesn’t mention ‘nazi’.

                      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1405/S00162/on-the-nation-minor-parties-debate-the-economy.htm

                      If you can prove you are right, yes, I’ll apologise. If you can’t will you apologise?

                    • Dunne says quite clearly:

                      Because what it’s doing is saying that a ‘certain category of people’ are the cause of the problem. Now just think about the historical precedence for those sorts of claims.

                      Of course he doesn’t literally say Nazi, so obviously he can’t be referring to Nazism, and it’s totally unreasonable for anyone to make the obvious conclusion that he’s passive-aggressively calling Minto a Nazi in all but name. 🙄

                      Why don’t you fact-check what “historical precedent” Dunne was referring to, Pete?

                    • felix

                      Did I say he mentioned the word “nazi” you fucking worm?

                      Are you still pretending you haven’t watched the video?

                    • “And Peter Dunne accusing Minto of being a nazi.”

                      Now claiming…

                      Did I say he mentioned the word “nazi” you fucking worm?

                      …is as disingenuous as this whole attempted setup. When you get angry you become even more obvious.

                    • felix

                      Did you even bother to read Steph’s comment, worm?

                      Yes he accused Minto of being a nazi. No he didn’t use the word “nazi”. 🙄

                      To follow on from the bit that Steph quoted and Pete is pretending he doesn’t understand, the “certain category of people” Dunne mentions (and yes he did actually do air quotes) is people who don’t live in NZ.

                      That’s the marginalised group that Peter and Pete are comparing to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto; people who don’t live in NZ.

                      Mind you the other day Pete compared himself to a victim of family violence because people on the internet don’t like him much, so there you go.

                    • There you go making things up again. I have no responsibility for or connection with what Dunne says.

                      I don’t see any comparison to Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, to my relatives in Germany or anything to do with nazism in trying to limit Australians or Asians or ex-pat Kiwis from buying property in New Zealand.

                      You’re the only person (with Stephanie’s assistance) I’ve seen bring nazism into accusations on this.

                      What did Minto think?

                      John Minto: Are you saying I’m racist against the Australian women?

                      I don’t think many people would link Australian women with nazism.

                    • felix

                      Ok, you have no responsibility for Peter Dunne comparing Minto to the nazis.

                      Fine.

                      Now watch the fucking video, particularly the bit Steph quoted – in context – and then tell me what Dunne means.

                      Stay tuned for Pete’s next comment where he asks for evidence that Peter Dunne has ever even heard of WW2 and the nazis.

                      🙄

                    • felix

                      Pete, you’ve had all day to watch the video but you still haven’t answered the question.

                      Tick tock mate.

                    • felix, I didn’t see any need to rearrange my day for your wee game. I have no idea what Dunne meant and I have no intention of asking him.

                      I have watched the video several times. I think you’re drawing a very long bow, and you seem to be virtually alone doing so.

                      I got a German person I know very well to see what they thought, they are very sensitive to nazi implications and are not politically connected but tend left. Their initial response was in that section of the debate everyone failed to answer the question asked and the result was a fairly petty and inconsequential exchange. They didn’t mention anything about nazism.

                      When I asked them if there was any nazi connotations they had another look and said, yes, if you looked hard there was a vague possibility of seeing some nazi connection but thought the idea of linking it to nazism as “crap”.

                      My conclusion is that you were trying to make something out of very little or nothing to provoke a reaction. You’re getting a bit desperate.

                    • felix

                      You have no idea what Peter meant by referring to the “historical precedents” for blaming problems on “a certain category of people” in the context of a discussion about immigration and property ownership.

                      Just awesome, Pete. Better than I could have hoped for.

                    • felix

                      ps “virtually alone doing so”

                      a) Hardly surprising, I’m one of the few who can still be bothered talking to you.

                      b) I’m delighted to hear that being “virtually alone” in one’s opinion is an indication of wrongness, and as you are “virtually alone” in believing that you should continue commenting on this website I expect you’ll be fucking off forthwith and post-haste.

                      🙄

      • karol 30.1.2

        Interesting comments from people. I haven’t seen the debate, but just watched the TV3 News on it. They gave Whyte the top billing because he announced some policies. Although it sounds like bullet points rather than anything substantial and well thought through.

        But pretty out there bullet points.

        • Foreign Waka 30.1.2.1

          It was interesting that on the first question of a definite number of top tax rate only Mr Dunne (30%) and Mr Whyte (24%) gave such exact numbers. Lisa Owen is in my opinion not very likeable and almost hysterically shrill that one tends to like anyone sitting in her company just out of pity.

          • karol 30.1.2.1.1

            Peters and Norman weren’t going to be drawn on the details – said they would be announcing details of their tax policies at a later date.

            Lisa Owen doesn’t bother me. Never thought of her as shrill.

      • felix 30.1.3

        Communism? Geez Wayne.

        I guess they all look like commies to you apart from Jamie “The Man From Uncle” Whyte.

        The others, well lets just say a lot of the time I just read the paper instead.

        Must have been just like being back in Parliament.

        • karol 30.1.3.1

          heh. I just watched part one. Sounds like a lot of labels being thrown around to dismiss the left candidates.

          Communism seems like a way of dismissing Minto’s concern for the struggling low and middle income people. And, in Part One, Peters was saying something similar to Minto – we need to get back to a fairer tax system. Dunne said that would be unworkable – unworkable for whom? As though the present system is working for those struggling to live a half way reasonable life?

          Whyte did say “natural market forces”!

          • Draco T Bastard 30.1.3.1.1

            Dunne is well on the side of the wealthy as far as tax goes. He has absolutely no problem with taxing the poor more such as the rise in GST did but mention actually taxing the rich and it immediately becomes unworkable.

      • Foreign Waka 30.1.4

        John Minto seem to be a man with conviction and belief in a better way of assisting a community that is not build on the law of the jungle that Mr Whyte seem to prefer. If I would have to choose between those two, I would go with Mr Minto – hands down!

        • karol 30.1.4.1

          Yes. It amazes me that someone who cares about improving people’s lives, and making a more liveable community, get written off as “extremist”, or a danger to society.

          While some working for self enrichment, while treating others as numbers and expendable, can be presented as upstanding members of the community.

          • Ergo Robertina 30.1.4.1.1

            ‘It amazes me that someone who cares about improving people’s lives, and making a more liveable community, get written off as “extremist”, or a danger to society.’

            This is the essence of it.

            Minto always speaks the truth.
            Good to see him promulgating a financial transaction tax.

      • blue leopard 30.1.5

        +1 Phillip Ure 30.1.1 & felix 30.1.3

        re Waynes comment on Minto and communism.

        That communism comment would have to be the most dinosaur-style concept I ever hope to hear uttered anywhere.

        I shudder to think about the amount of people in well respected positions in this country who think like Wayne; still consider that speaking Americana-redneck-hawk comments will win them anything other than severe contempt.

        Perhaps those who are older and went through all that brainwashing of the 50s, 60s and 70s as an adult might at the very least not really notice or bat and eyelid at it – but those who are younger and while in their formative years lived in a fairly peaceful country and saw the nutty, paranoid, aggressive attitudes emanating from America, such as Wayne harks back to, with their nuts ideas about more and more nuclear weapons and Reagans completely nutty Star Wars program saw it for what it was – the very worst aspect that human nature could ever hope to sink to.

        Anyone speaking such hawk nonsense now, couldn’t tell me in a better way how completely moronic, pathetic, ignorant and disengaged they really are.

        No wonder younger people aren’t voting they probably think their elders are stark raving bonkers. I am inclined to agree.

        Power and wealth apparently simply breed arrogance, self-serving, aggressive and highly over-valued self esteem.

        At the very least Mr Minto tried – at the very least – and he will without doubt look far better in history than any smug, self satisfied types who sat back and mimicked the worst in human nature ‘because they could’ and in doing so trampled on and caused suffering to people that was avoidable ‘because they could’. I just can’t wait till we get over this pig ignorant way we have been doing things and people such as Wayne represents are consigned to the dustbin of history where they should have been put a very long time ago. It will happen and I just can’t wait.

      • newsense 30.1.6

        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/11/wow-fancy-that-a-cabinet-minister-who-does-house-calls-but-not-if-you-are-a-poor-pasifika-family/

        Ahh yes- confusing- is the system where privilege and connections matter is communism or plutocracy IE welfare donors getting access with National…? much more like it.

        and the system where the minister works for everyone is democracy, so that would make Minto…? Well a democrat

        A prig seems to be the word for Mr Whyte. But as they said in the other thread, it’s time to remind voters about the ‘forced concessions’ of the John Banks Act Party and both Craig and Whyte seem much more along the lines of- well countries don’t need people or at least not all of them kinds of fiscal conservatives…

    • Not Petey 30.2

      John Minto is a dim old marxist who hasn’t achieved anything useful in his years of divisive moaning.

      • Paul 30.2.1

        At least he cares about other people.
        ACT’s Randian cultish nightmare does not believe in society.
        And by your comments I guess you agree with this extreme ideology

    • Paul 30.3

      Corporate Fairfax media saw a totally different debate to me.
      Wonder who the owners of Fairfax want to win in the election?
      That’s right..the party looking out for foreign wealthy interests..like Gina Rinehart.

      http://www.3news.co.nz/ACT-leader-steals-thunder-in-minor-party-debate/tabid/1607/articleID/343637/Default.aspx

      • ianmac 30.3.1

        Not sure that the Fairfax helps ACT at all. It may just spare the hell out of many ordinary NZers.

    • Populuxe1 30.4

      I can’t imagine it would be any more absurd than Green defense policy, but ACT are ideologues, you can’t expect real world policy from right wing free market fan boys

  29. Philj 31

    xox
    Poor PG!
    Could he be allowed 1 post a day. So he might think before posting?

  30. Jenny 32

    After the final no there comes a yes…

    As the world prepares for another international climate summit starting on September 23* Pat Lerner of Greenpeace just back from Abu Dhabi gives his opinion:

    …..the inconsistencies in public policy which persist when it comes to understanding what the international commitment to “staying below 2 degrees Celsius” actually means. In plain English, it means it’s game over for fossil fuels.

    Just three weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) underscored the need for “a fundamental transformation” of our energy system to prevent catastrophic warming, including a “long-term phase-out of unabated fossil fuel conversion technologies”. Reducing emissions a bit here and there isn’t going to do the trick, as eventually global net CO2 emissions must simply “decline toward zero”. To get there in time, phasing out of fossil fuels must start today.

    Pat Lerner Greenpeace New Zealand May 10, 2014

    “Fossil fuel extraction and exports remain a major blind spot in the Obama administration’s climate action plan…..

    Just like here:

    The letter from the Labour Party stated from the 3rd of this month, it states; and I quote, ” I urge you take whatever action you can to support Bathurst proposed Denniston Mine and it is signed by Mr Damion O’Connor…..

    ….The letter I received on the third of May on Labour Party letterhead and signed by Mr O’Connor says this; “As Minister of Conservation your involvement is crucial to stop the continuous appeals by Forest and Bird against the mine development.” close quote.

    Nick Smith Questions for oral answer, May 27, 2013

    Mine/No Mine: The fight for Denniston

    September 21, 2011

    The appeals, still taking shape, will have two main parts. This could conceivably end up in the Supreme Court, considering how the Resource Management Act might be used to enforce a climate change response that is not happening voluntarily.

    Forest & Bird says the conservation values of this land are such that it should be protected from mining…..

    ….However, the second issue the appeal can be expected to consider is whether and how climate change and greenhouse gases can be taken into account under the RMA.

    Climate scientist Dr James Hansen, who was here recently, said that to stabilise climate and safeguard its life-supporting capacity, the world would need to phase out coal by 2030, starting now……
    The RMA was amended [by Labour] in 2004 by adding a couple of sections, to stop regional councils taking the effects on climate change of greenhouse gas discharge into account…

    Claire Browning at Pundit

    Imagine if Heads of States [including ours] actually took the warnings of scientists seriously.

    Imagine President Obama and Premier Li both announced a “war on coal”.

    Imagine if Chancellor Merkel announced the German development bank KfW was ending its financial support for coal.

    And imagine if Prime Minister Abe made a similar announcement about Japan.

    Those could be ambitious actions leaders could bring to the UNSG’s Climate Change Summit in September.

    And what if Prime Minister Cunliffe made a similar announcement.

    That the incoming New Zealand government have, in agreement with our Green Party junior coalition partner, banned all new coal mine expansion on climate change grounds, starting with the proposed Bathurst export open cut coal mine on the Denniston Plateau.

    Wouldn’t that be something for our new government to announce to this international summit in September?

    * The International Climate Summit starts three days after the New Zealand September 20, general election.

  31. Murray Olsen 33

    I think we’d all be better off without PG. I have taken a vow of silence as far as responding to him is concerned.

  32. xtasy 34

    So we have it then, that the ultimate controller of The Standard is blocking free opinion, from those that are actually supportive of the labour cause, but who dare to criticise a leading Labour member, like Helen Kelly, to block them from their website. Now I know what the Standard is all about, it being controlled by forces that are not about the truth, they are only interested in getting their mates back into power.

    Lprent, you are CORRUPT, and you know it, I will do ALL to expose your rotten deals!

    Best of LUCK, you do NOT deserve it!

    X

    [lprent: Huh? Searching. I suspect that you were the person whose comment that HK removed from her post.

    I always make sure that people know exactly why I am moderating things. They may not agree, but they are usually pretty damn clear about my thoughts on the matter.

    However getting that wound up about it really isn’t a good idea. I think that you should drop off the site for a while. You aren’t banned except for writing comments on Helen’s posts. ]

  33. Jenny 35

    Still going on about this?

    Maybe if PG were to insist that our political leaders to do something about climate change, it would move the authors at The Standard to give him a hefty ban…

    [lprent: You might like them to do those things. However you cannot insist that they do….

    …..Putting you into auto-spam until April 1 when your ban expires. ]

    Open mike 16/03/2014

    Maybe The Standard could lead up to such a ban with a smear campaign of character assassination and death threats and accusations of PG being a police spy.

    Why do the Centre Left to want to be seen as tolerant of the Right as possible, while acting hostile to those to their Left?

    So tolerant of the Right, in fact, that it becomes painful to everybody?

    Is their fear of the Right greater than their hatred of the Left?

    Or is it the other way round

    Is the Centre Left’s hatred of the Left greater than their fear of the Right?

    Why can’t we all just get along? After all, Left, Right, or Centre, we are all human beings, and we will all reap the bitter harvest of climate change if we don’t all get together to do something about it.

  34. burt 36

    I heard on the radio that Mike Williamson didn’t declare a gifted smartphone – he should now just apply the Cunliffe rules and give it back and claim it never happened.

    • felix 36.1

      Where did Cunliffe give something back and then “claim it never happened”?

    • burt 36.2

      Oops, my bad – Maurice Williamson.

      felix, perhaps he didn’t claim it never actually happened. I was sloppy phrasing that, granted.

      This declaration over his donations things felix, you know the deal. Anything over $500 needs to be declared and all that. The stuff Cunliffe himself voted to pass to stamp out corruption and enhance transparency.

      See Cunliffe used that money for the purpose it was intended in the period the rules for requiring declarations cover. He then seems to have decided himself it never happened during that period by claiming that giving it back (outside of the reporting period) means he has no need to declare it for the period.

      Why shouldn’t Maurice Williamson just do the same ?

      Personally I think the penalties as applicable under the rules should be applied to both of them.

      • felix 36.2.1

        “See Cunliffe used that money for the purpose it was intended in the period the rules for requiring declarations cover.”

        Did he? How do you know?

        “He then seems to have decided himself it never happened during that period by claiming that giving it back (outside of the reporting period) means he has no need to declare it for the period.”

        As I understand it – and I may be wrong – Cunliffe returned the money on the basis that the donors wished to remain anonymous.

        What alternative do you propose? That he go against their wishes and publicly name them?

        • burt 36.2.1.1

          Alternative…. Why is there an alternative to following the rules of parliament that he himself helped to pass ? What possible excuse has the complete muppet got for not knowing the rules he voted on?

          He fucked up and promised his donors something g he wasn’t entitled to promise them under the rules he voted in …. Alternative to abiding by the rules … Fuck you’re a disgraceful apologist felix.

          • felix 36.2.1.1.1

            “Why is there an alternative to following the rules of parliament that he himself helped to pass ?”

            Not sure why you think the rules of parliament come into it. I’m asking what your alternative is. As far as I can tell the options were:

            a) keep the money and keep his word.

            b) return the money and keep his word.

            c) keep the money, name the donors, and break his word.

            You seem to be keen on (c).

            • burt 36.2.1.1.1.1

              felix

              My opinion, like yours, is irrelevant to what should happen. The rules he helped pass should be followed. What do they require ? Oh… that’s right … that he name donors over $500 … Oh … hey look at that … my opinion matches what the rules say… You on the other hand want to wonder off about what can we do to help a muppet keep “his word” which … oh that’s right … his word is against the rules he helped pass.

              Tough titty for the people stupid enough to have trusted him, good lesson for them perhaps? Also tough titty for Cunliffe – he stuffed up!

              • felix

                I still don’t know why you think the rules of Parliament apply.

                • burt

                  Because the operators and auditors of the pecuniary interests register say they do. I know, radical concept… base my position on the ref’s call not what I want it to be.

            • burt 36.2.1.1.1.2

              felix

              So lets just check one key detail here.

              Do you support political party leaders being bankrolled by anonymous funding ?

              • felix

                That’s not my preference.

                ps I thought you said what you and I thought was irrelevant.

          • Psycho Milt 36.2.1.1.2

            “Why is there an alternative to following the rules of parliament that he himself helped to pass ?”

            To quote one of John Key’s favourite phrases, “it was within the rules.” It certainly was annoying to hear a Labour Party leader resorting to that, but at least he was capable of recognising that “It was within the rules” isn’t a satisfactory response and did something about it.

            • burt 36.2.1.1.2.1

              To accept the ‘it’s in the rules’ or the ‘others did it too’ chestnut is to accept an act directly against the spirit of the legislation Cunliffe helped to pass. He should resign over this, plain and simple. As for his donors who want to remain faceless, I get their position I don’t use my real name here either.

              If a rule of parliament said [bloggers making more than 5 comments in a thread (specifically on x,y,z blogs perhaps?) must identify themselves] I’d be naming myself by now. Or would I just get lprent to delete a few comments for me ?

              [lprent: I only delete comments for people who are banned or who have failed to get a first comment approval. I’m afraid that no act of parliament will change that.

              I have been known to remove material (ie redact) from comments leaving information about why it has been removed. As far as I am concerned, any gaps placed into a public record should be reasonably clear. That they have been redacted is an important part of the record. ]

              • felix

                That might be the most supremely weird comment you’ve ever left here burt, and that is no mean feat.

                But if your wish is to be bound by the rules of parliament, so be it. I shall raise points of order where appropriate.

        • burt 36.2.1.2

          In felix world news;

          A ‘politician’ was standing around in a popular appliance chain store today telling customers that they didn’t need to pay for their good today and they could just pick them up and walk out with them.

          Several were stupid enough to take the man on his word and walked out of the shop only to be detained by shop security and the police were called.

          felix was on the spot immediately defending the shoppers right to actually keep their goods and not be prosecuted while also defending the politicians right to make the claim that they could have their goods for free.

      • felix 36.2.2

        “Oops, my bad – Maurice Williamson”

        That’s ok. Apparently only some people call him Maurice…

  35. Jenny 37

    Meanwhile the world goes to hell in a handcart, and nobody notices.

    Effects of Climate Change

    Climate change has brought about severe and possibly permanent alterations to our planet’s geological, biological and ecological systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contended in 2003 that “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. These changes have led to the emergence of large-scale environmental hazards to human health, such asextreme weather, ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, stresses to food-producing systems and the global spread of infectious diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 160,000 deaths, since 1950, are directly attributable to climate change. Many believe this to be a conservative estimate

    Key vulnerabilities

    Most of the key vulnerabilities to climate change are related to climate phenomena that exceed thresholds for adaptation; such as extreme weather events or abrupt climate change, as well as limited access to resources (financial, technical, human, institutional) to cope.

    Health

    Climate change poses a wide range of risks to population health – risks that will increase in future decades, often to critical levels, if global climate change continues on its current trajectory. The three main categories of health risks include: (i) direct-acting effects (e.g. due toheat waves, amplified air pollution, and physical weather disasters), (ii) impacts mediated via climate-related changes in ecological systems and relationships (e.g. crop yields, mosquito ecology, marine productivity), and (iii) the more diffuse (indirect) consequences relating to impoverishment, displacement, resource conflicts (e.g. water), and post-disaster mental health problems.

    Climate change thus threatens to slow, halt or reverse international progress towards reducing child under-nutrition, deaths from diarrheal diseases and the spread of other infectious diseases. Climate change acts predominantly by exacerbating the existing, often enormous, health problems, especially in the poorer parts of the world.

    Psychological impacts

    A 2011 article in the American Psychologist identified three classes of psychological impacts from global climate change:

    Direct – “Acute or traumatic effects of extreme weather events and a changed environment”
    Indirect – “Threats to emotional well-being based on observation of impacts and concern or uncertainty about future risks”
    Psychosocial – “Chronic social and community effects of heat, drought, migrations, and climate-related conflicts, and postdisaster adjustment”

    Extreme weather events

    Infectious disease often accompanies extreme weather events, such as floods, earthquakes and drought. These local epidemics occur due to loss of infrastructure, such as hospitals and sanitation services, but also because of changes in local ecology and environment. For example, malaria outbreaks have been strongly associated with the El Nino cycles of a number of countries (India and Venezuela, for example). El Nino can lead to drastic, though temporary, changes in the environment such as temperature fluctuations and flash floods. In addition, with global warming, there has been a marked trend towards more variable and anomalous weather. This has led to an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events. This trend towards more variability and fluctuation is perhaps more important, in terms of its impact on human health, than that of a gradual and long-term trend towards higher average temperature.

    Disease

    Though many infectious diseases are affected by changes in climate, vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever and leishmaniasis, present the strongest causal relationship. Observation and research detect a shift of pests and pathogens in the distribution away from the equator and towards Earth’s poles. It is estimated that one-fourth of the world’s diseases are because of the environmentally based contamination of air, water, soil, and food, it increases in temperatures and the resulting consequences have led to loss of life and decreased well-being of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

    Non-climatic determinants

    Sociodemographic factors include, but are not limited to: patterns of human migration and travel, effectiveness of public health and medical infrastructure in controlling and treating disease, the extent of anti-malarial drug resistance and the underlying health status of the population at hand.

    Environment

    Climate change may dramatically impact habitat loss, for example, arid conditions may cause the collapse of rainforests, as has occurred in the past.

    Temperature

    A sustained wet-bulb temperature exceeding 35 °, is a threshold at which the resilience of human systems is no longer able to adequately cool the skin. A study by NOAA from 2013 concluded that heat stress will reduce labour capacity considerably under current emissions scenarios.
    Water

    As the climate warms, it changes the nature of global rainfall, evaporation, snow, stream flow and other factors that affect water supply and quality. Freshwater resources are highly sensitive to variations in weather and climate. Climate change is projected to affect water availability. In areas where the amount of water in rivers and streams depends on snow melting, warmer temperatures increase the fraction of precipitation falling as rain rather than as snow, causing the annual spring peak in water runoff to occur earlier in the year. This can lead to an increased likelihood of winter flooding and reduced late summer river flows. Rising sea levels cause saltwater to enter into fresh underground water and freshwater streams. This reduces the amount of freshwater available for drinking and farming. Warmer water temperatures also affect water quality and accelerate water pollution.

    Migration

    Climate change causes displacement of people in several ways, the most obvious—and dramatic—being through the increased number and severity of weather-related disasters which destroy homes and habitats causing people to seek shelter or livelihoods elsewhere.
    Extreme environmental events are increasingly recognized as a key driver of migration across the world. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 42 million people were displaced in Asia and the Pacific during 2010 and 2011, more than twice the population of Sri Lanka. This figure includes those displaced by storms, floods, and heat and cold waves. Still others were displaced through drought and sea-level rise.

    Asia and the Pacific is the global area most prone to natural disasters, both in terms of the absolute number of disasters and of populations affected. It is highly exposed to climate impacts, and is home to highly vulnerable population groups, who are disproportionately poor and marginalized. A recent Asian Development Bank report highlights “environmental hot spots” that are particular risk of flooding, cyclones,typhoons, and water stress.

    For low lying Islands and megadeltas, inundation as a result of sea level rise is expected to threaten vital infrastructure and human settlements. This could lead to issues of statelessness for populations in countries such as the Maldives and Tuvalu and homelessness in countries with low lying areas such as Bangladesh.

    Food production and agriculture

    Australia and New Zealand

    Hennessy et al.. (2007:509) assessed the literature for Australia and New Zealand. They concluded that without further adaptation to climate change, projected impacts would likely be substantial: By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry was projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand; In New Zealand, initial benefits were projected close to major rivers and in western and southern areas. Hennessy et al.. (2007:509)[] placed high confidence in these projections.

    Europe

    With high confidence, IPCC (2007:14) projected that in Southern Europe, climate change would reduce crop productivity. In Central and Eastern Europe, forest productivity was expected to decline. In Northern Europe, and higher latitudes the initial effect of climate change was projected to increase crop yields.

    Latin America

    The major agricultural products of Latin American regions include livestock and grains, such as maize, wheat, soybeans, and rice.[]Increased temperatures and altered hydrological cycles are predicted to translate to shorter growing seasons, overall reduced biomass production, and lower grain yields

    North America

    Major challenges were projected for crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or which depend on highly utilized water resources.

    Droughts are becoming more frequent and intense in arid and semiarid western North America as temperatures have been rising, advancing the timing and magnitude of spring snow melt floods and reducing river flow volume in summer. Direct effects of climate change include increased heat and water stress, altered crop phenology, and disrupted symbiotic interactions. These effects may be exacerbated by climate changes in river flow, and the combined effects are likely to reduce the abundance of native trees in favor of non-native herbaceous and drought-tolerant competitors, reduce the habitat quality for many native animals, and slow litter decomposition and nutrient cycling. Climate change effects on human water demand and irrigation may intensify these effects.

    United States

    The US Global Change Research Program (2009) assessed the literature on the impacts of climate change on agriculture in the United States

    Many crops will benefit from increased atmospheric CO2concentrations and low levels of warming, but higher levels of warming will negatively affect growth and yields. Extreme events will likely reduce crop yields.
    Weeds. diseases and insect pests benefit from warming, and will require more attention in regards to pest and weed control.
    Increasing CO2 concentrations will reduce the land’s ability to supply adequate livestock feed. Increased heat, disease, and weather extremes will likely reduce livestock productivity.

    Africa

    The impact of climate change on food production remains uncertain, particularly in the tropics. Research that exploits the results of historical crop trials indicates that Africa’s maize crop could be at risk of significant yield losses.

    Globally
    Global food markets have become increasingly volatile in recent years. Both supply and demand have contributed to this instability: rising incomes, growing populations and biofuel policies are upping the productivity required from a limited amount of agricultural land, and an almost incomprehensibly intricate set of agricultural support and trade policies within and across countries have historically made the economics of food supply extremely complicated.

    Extreme weather events also play a role. Wheat production in Russia decreased by almost a third in 2011, largely due to a summer heatwave. In the near term, the prospects for other major markets look equally pessimistic — the US Department of Agriculture and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization have both warned of a significant decrease in yields of Chinese winter wheat owing to drought; a change that could result in the emerging superpower becoming a buyer of wheat on world markets.

    Security

    Conflicts are typically extremely complex with multiple inter-dependent causalities, often referred to as ‘complex emergencies.’ Climate change has the potential to exacerbate existing tensions or create new ones — serving as a threat multiplier.

    The United Nations Security Council held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change in 2007. The links between climate change and security have been the subject of numerous high-profile reports since 2007 by leading security figures in the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union. The G77 group of developing nations also considers climate change to be a major security threat which is expected to hit developing nations particularly hard. The links between the human impact of climate change and the threat of violence and armed conflict are particularly important because multiple destabilizing conditions are affected simultaneously.

    Social impacts

    The consequences of climate change and poverty are not distributed uniformly within communities. Individual and social factors such as gender, age, education, ethnicity, geography and language lead to differential vulnerability and capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change. Climate change effects such as hunger, poverty and diseases like diarrhea and malaria, disproportionately impact children, i.e. about 90 percent of malaria and diarrhea deaths are among young children.

    Human settlement
    Further information: Current sea level rise

    A major challenge for human settlements is sea-level rise, indicated by ongoing observation and research of rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica. Estimates for 2100 are at least twice as large as previously estimated by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters. Depending on regional changes, increased precipitation patterns can cause more flooding or extended drought stresses water resources.

    Coasts and low-lying areas

    For historical reasons to do with trade, many of the world’s largest and most prosperous cities are on the coast. In developing countries, the poorest often live on floodplains, because it is the only available space, or fertile agricultural land.

    Coastal and low-lying areas would be exposed to increasing risks including coastal erosion due to climate change and sea level rise.
    By the 2080s, millions of people would experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The numbers affected were projected to be largest in the densely populated and low-lying mega-deltas of Asia and Africa; and smaller islands were judged to be especially vulnerable.

    A study in the April 2007 issue of Environment and Urbanization reports that 634 million people live in coastal areas within 30 feet (9.1 m) of sea level (McGranahan et al., 2007, p. 24).[46] The study also reported that about two thirds of the world’s cities with over five million people are located in these low-lying coastal areas.

    Energy sector

    All thermal power stations depend on water to cool them. This has to be fresh water as salt water can be corrosive. Not only is there increased demand for fresh water, but climate change can increase the likelihood of drought and fresh water shortages. Another impact for thermal power plants, is that increasing the temperatures in which they operate reduces their efficiency and hence their output.

    Oil and Gas

    The source of oil often comes from areas prone to high natural disaster risks; such as tropical storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and floods. An example is that of Hurricane Katrina’s impact on oil extraction in the Gulf of Mexico; as it destroyed 126 oil and gas platforms and damaged 183 more.

    However, previously pristine Arctic areas will now be available for resource extraction.

    Nuclear

    Climate change, along with extreme weather and natural disasters can affect nuclear power plants in a similar way to those using oil, coal, and natural gas.
    However, the impact of water shortages on nuclear power plants is perhaps more visible than on other thermal power plants. Seawater is corrosive and so nuclear energy supply is likely to be negatively affected by a fresh water shortage. This generic problem may become increasingly significant over time. This situation could subsequently force nuclear reactors to be shut down as happened in France during the 2003 and 2006 heat waves. Nuclear power supply was severely diminished by low river flow rates and droughts, which meant rivers had reached the maximum temperatures for cooling reactors. During the heat waves, 17 reactors had to limit output or shut down. 77% of French electricity is produced by nuclear power; and in 2009 a similar situation created a 8GW shortage, and forced the French government to import electricity. Other cases have been reported from Germany, where extreme temperatures have reduced nuclear power production 9 times due to high temperatures between 1979 and 2007. In particular:

    The Unterweser nuclear power plant reduced output by 90% between June and September 2003
    The Isar nuclear power plant cut production by 60% for 14 days due to excess river temperatures and low stream flow in the river Isar in 2006

    Similar events have happened elsewhere in Europe during those same hot summers. Many scientists agree that if global warming continues, this disruption is likely to increase.

    Hydroelectricity

    Changes in the amount of river flow will correlate with the amount of energy produced by a dam. Lower river flows because of drought, climate change, or upstream dams and diversions, will reduce the amount of live storage in a reservoir; therefore reducing the amount of water that can be used for hydroelectricity. The result of diminished river flow can be a power shortage in areas that depend heavily on hydroelectric power. The risk of flow shortage may increase as a result of climate change. Studies from the Colorado River in the United States suggests that modest climate changes (such as a 2 degree change in Celsius that could result in a 10% decline in precipitation), might reduce river run-off by up to 40%.

    Transport

    Roads, airport runways, railway lines, Power and pipelines, (including oil pipelines, sewers, water mains etc.) will require increased maintenance and/or continual reconstruction as they become damaged by extreme weather, or wear and tear subject to greater temperature variation and overloading and flood damage. Blocked roads and rail due to slips and washouts, downed power lines, damaged ports, and cracked and damaged and flooded airport runways, would disrupt transport and industry on an international scale. Scheduled transport services will become a thing of the past, with the consequent flow on effects for cross border trade and commerce resulting in a collapse of mass production and technological global society.

    To sum up:

    Past civilians have withstood one or two crisis and usually survived, but civilisations that have succumbed to collapse were usually the victim of multiple crisis all occurring at once.

    Medieval Europe survived the Black Plague with political systems and infrastructure more or less intact, though the death toll was somewhere between a third and half of the population. But Roman civilisation beset with invasion, plus internal turmoil, slave revolts, imperial over reach, and natural disaster. (Pompei) did not.

    So while we argue about whether some of our political leaders have gathered more deckchairs for themselves than they are entitled to even under their own rules, we are too distracted to notice that the ship of state has crashed into a large melting iceberg and is slowly going under the waves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture#Projections

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1061.html

Recent Comments

Recent Posts