Open mike 10/08/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, August 10th, 2012 - 266 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

266 comments on “Open mike 10/08/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AmaKiwi 1
    10 August 2012 at 7:20 am

    7 Cover-up Accomplices

    65 hours have passed since two anonymous high ranking Labour MP’s accused David Cunliffe of being “sneaky.” (Do you see the irony?)

    They lied about the relationship between Shearer and Cunliffe. Shearer definitely DEMOTED Cunliffe from Finance Spokesperson (3 years with Goff) to Economic Development.

    They accused this former Minister of Health (an exhausting portfolio job) of being “lazy.” In four months prior to his overseas trip he delivered three major speeches, each of which was well-covered in the press. (Note that only 2 of the 7 have ever been in cabinet. Parker had to resign as Attorney General. Jones had to resign as Minister for Immigration. 4 of the 7 failed to win electorate seats.)

    Based on names discussed in the Standard, my list of suspects for this cowardly, dishonest attack is (in alphabetical order): Jacinda Arden (List MP), Andrew Little (List MP), Trevor Mallard, Shane Jones (List MP), David Parker (List MP), Grant Robertson, and David Shearer.

    Each can clear their name by declaring they did NOT speak to Duncan Garner about David Cunliffe.

    If you know about a crime and do not speak up, you are an accomplice. By their silence these seven are accomplices in a despicable act of treachery.

    Whomever of these seven does not come clean is unfit to be in Parliament. What message does Labour send to the public?

    “We are marginally less corrupt than National . . . . . maybe.”

    • Pete George 1.1
      10 August 2012 at 7:53 am

      Labour look like they are hoping with Green help to lose less than National in 2014. Ambition and leadership don’t seem to figure in their strategy.

      The spotlight is on Shearer regarding the Cunliffe clobbering, but removing him would fix little if anything of Labour’s core problems.

    • Jackal 1.2
      10 August 2012 at 8:15 am

      Let me get this right… Duncan Garner claims that all the Labour politicians said that if Shearer was to be replaced, it would be by David Cunliffe over all their dead bodies? What a whopper!

      Garner also writes:

      Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible. How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

      But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.

      […]

      According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.

      So two senior MPs told Garner exactly the same thing? Really! And then apparently a bunch of Labour politicians have all backstabbed Cunliffe… All saying the same thing as well?

      If we’re to take the allegations seriously, although I’m at a loss as to why we should, you’re not trying to just pinpoint the source on one person… You’re saying that the entire Labour party is nasty, which just sounds like more bullshit from Nat spin-doctors.

      • Pete George 1.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 8:43 am

        “You’re saying that the entire Labour party is nasty,”

        I didn’t say anything like that.

        “Let me get this right… ”

        Well, try again, you got it all wrong.

      • McFlock 1.2.2
        10 August 2012 at 1:33 pm

        that one in particular strikes me as ‘2 mps and garner out on the piss’. At the very least, it’s chummy informal banter mps are having with a media commentator.
           
        A bit like 2 sheep having a joke with a wolf – all very amiable, but sooner or later mr wolfy wants bar snacks.

    • bad12 1.3
      10 August 2012 at 11:27 am

      Oh i see the irony alright, the Standard and us that comment in here regularly diss the mainstream media as being biased against the left in New Zealand politics and society, many of us here agree that a lot of what the mainstream publishes is utter bovine excrement,

      In New Zealand we have as the core of our system of Justice the premise of innocence until guilt is proven, for you at least such a provision is meaningless,

      Duncan Garner decides to please His masters to curry favor, dog whistles you all long and loud with a load of rubbish that if you tear away the blinkers is provably a load of s**t, and what do you all do,

      Woof Woof, yap yap yap, hello Duncan Garner has quite a collection of poodles, and worse, Duncan Garner knows it, so anytime He feels like stirring up a political s**t-storm all’s He has to do is get out the dog whistle,

      If you want rid of Shearer as the opposition Leader, and who could blame you, smearing half the Labour Caucus with Duncan Garners bulls**t allegations that havn’t a scrap of evidence attached to them is in my opinion not the way to accomplish this,

      Emailing your wish for Him to be gone as leader to your nearest Labour Party electoral office might be more of a help…

  2. muzza 2
    10 August 2012 at 7:32 am

    People who refuse to comply with Auckland’s recycling and anti-litter code will risk being denied a civic kerbside collection or being fined under changes to waste management bylaws.

    “Mr Jaine said the council had a range of ways to identify sources of contamination.

    They included having people walk ahead of collection trucks, opening up lids and leaving stickers to educate householders about what they should do”

    –The words obey and comply followed by an article using various threats, should be motivational, encouraging, endear fear in those who are running this city???

  3. oscar 3
    10 August 2012 at 7:53 am

    Shearers right wing speech to grey power attacking the sickness beneficiary not pulling their weight as they were painting the roof of their house is good old fashioned bene bashing.
    How can shearer cast aspersions on the beneficiary without knowing why that person is on a SB? There are a myriad of reasons why someone would be on that and not many would stop someone painting the roof of their house.

    But like all stories its probably made up. A made up beneficiary to bash.

    How far labour have fallen.

    • Augustus 3.1
      10 August 2012 at 10:31 am

      That speech annoyed me, too, no end. I agree, the beneficiary he was talking about probably came straight out of Shearer’s a*se.
      If he was real, the man could have hired someone else to paint his roof and then added the cost to his next application for the Landlord’s benefit (aka Accommodation supplement), but he didn’t and saved the taxpayer money by doing it himself.
      Also, I heard that the man who told Shearer about the beneficiary, owns a rental property. In fact, he has owned 3 of them over the last 10 years, never lived in any of them, but was able to charge high-end rent because his tenants were able to get the Accommodation Supplement anyway for whatever he asked. Then he sold each of the properties on for a profit after 2-3 years. Naturally, he failed to declare any of this on his tax return.
      So if we want to talk about fairness in society, which rip-off do you think is more common? Which one should a Labour leader point out?

      • Vicky32 3.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 11:30 pm

        That speech annoyed me, too, no end. I agree, the beneficiary he was talking about probably came straight out of Shearer’s a*se.

        Where can I find a report, or better still, a transcript of this speech? From what I know of Shearer, it’s just not the kind of thing he’d say! Standardistas seem (with two exceptions, one of whom is me) to hate Shearer worse than  they hate Key! That makes me sceptical about this story.

          • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 12:29 am

            Thanks CV! Reading now…

            • Vicky32 3.1.1.1.1.1
              11 August 2012 at 12:40 am

              Having just read it, I don’t think it’s as horrifying as it’s being portrayed.  Shearer’s fault lies in not clarifying why it is he took the word of the guy about his neighbour’s situation… but ACT candidate in the making – give me a break!
              I’ve never understood the widespread hatred for Shearer here.
              I have previously got into trouble for expressing my loathing of Russel Norman and the middle class kiddies that make up the BLUE-green party.. but it’s okay, it seems to slander Shearer up and down and all around. I have not got over the sinking feeling I had, hearing Norman and Turei say on the TV news right after the election last year, that they were sure they could work happily with NACT in their ‘memorandum of understanding’ or whatever they call it.

    • Plastic Tolstoy 3.2
      10 August 2012 at 11:19 am

      The problem is that it has become acceptable to bash beneficiaries, and many people voted for National because of the perception that Labour gave too many hand-outs to the ‘undeserving’. Now that that attitude is firmly entrenched in our culture anyone trying to do right by everyone rather than giving more to the wealthiest few is seen as soft, bleeding-heart, gullible or, my personal favourite, jealous. Shearer is probably just saying what he thinks people want to hear. The thing that always amuses me (not a funny subject but let’s face it, if you don’t laugh you’ll cry) is how quick people are to criticize those on welfare while being ignorant to the fact that corporate welfare is a much bigger problem.

    • bad12 3.3
      10 August 2012 at 11:40 am

      You have that right, i have been holding off on criticism of Shearer’s performance as Labour Party Leader until such time as He actually gave us (the electorate) some clues as to what we could expect from Him as Prime Minister,

      The day a Labour Party Leader begins to speak the truth about those reliant on benefits will be the day that Labour again will have my vote which for Labour has been missing from their ballot count since Sir(spit)Roger Douglas,

      My view on Shearer(spit) as Leader of the Labour Party is simply BYE BYE, perhaps He would be better stomping the hustings on behalf of ACT…

    • OneTrack 3.4
      10 August 2012 at 8:11 pm

      Off course it was made up. Nobody in the history of the world has ever tried to rip off the people of New Zealand by claiming a sickness benefit when they weren’t sick. No, never happens.

      That lying “worker” who talked to Shearer should be forced to go and help his neighbour paint his roof. And they should put up his tax rate to the same as a rich prick and the extra given to his neighbour.. He should be happy to go to work to pay the tax that supports his neighbour. What a bastard.

  4. Bored 4
    10 August 2012 at 7:58 am

    Yesterday I posted an “employers” viewpoint, but stayed off the “unemployment” debate. One theme coming out of things was the impact of “corporate” NZ on the rest of the economy, especially the offshoring of profit.

    A minor thought. Multinationals we are told provide the capital and IP we “so desparately need”. In return the profits flow out back to such places as the IBM Cayman Islands account. Quite obviously nobody invests without a profit motive, so ultimately more flows out than ever comes in. This is the wealth pump of the imperial system. Under this system we cannot help but lose more than we gain and gains are only relative. We are “colonized”.

    The end result contributes significantly to the unemployment we face: if we had developed the businesses ourselves we would have kept the cash here in NZ and had a choice about how to use it, such as shorter working weeks thus employing more people. Instead we work those with jobs harder for less and less.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      10 August 2012 at 11:05 am

      +1

      A minor thought. Multinationals we are told provide the capital and IP we “so desparately need”.

      And we don’t need it because, more often than not, the FDI we’re getting is just buying up NZ developed businesses any way. In fact, I don’t know of any Blue Sky start ups from FDI that used foreign knowledge or resources to get going. There may be some that used foreign money but money is nothing. We could, quite simply, have used our own by the simple expedient of printing it.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 3:00 pm

        And various neolib governments over the years have been destroying NZ IP and institutional knowledge, to make us more dependent on foreign and private sector expertise.

        It really really sucks a big one.

      • John 4.1.2
        11 August 2012 at 2:28 pm

        Just print our own money…?! Clearly you have a masters in economics then. Get me some while you’re at it.

  5. Carol 5
    10 August 2012 at 8:32 am

    What is this? A secret NZ intelligence group that is not SIS?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10825903

    The involvement of a secret Government organisation before the raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion emerged during cross-examination of a police witness in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

    The witness, Detective Inspector Grant Wormald, refused to name the organisation when questioned about a meeting police attended before the raid.

    Dotcom’s lawyer, Paul Davison, QC, asked him if an unidentified group of people at the meeting were from the Security Intelligence Service.

    Mr Wormald replied that they were not. But asked where they were from, he declined to say, “because of the nature of the organisation”.

    “They work for the Government.”

    • Tiger Mountain 5.1
      10 August 2012 at 8:47 am

      There are a couple of other NZ choices apart from the SIS. Apart from the obvious concerns about what ‘our’ spooks get up to, this is important because the trail has to lead to the Prime Minister at some point given the committees he is on and the briefings he receives.

      The Prime Minister on TV3 denied personal knowledge of Kim Dotcom’s existence prior to the raid during the Banksie election donation affair. Yet Key’s teapot chum certainly knew the eccentric
      Dotcom well enough to visit him in ShonKey’s very own electorate.

    • RJL 5.2
      10 August 2012 at 8:47 am

      Could be GCSB? If there were questions about the interwebs and the technological capability of the equipment Dotcom had, then they might be a logical group to ask.

      Although it does seem a bit of a wander from their normal remit.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 11:07 am

        That’s what I/S thinks.

        • RJL 5.2.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 2:27 pm

          Their website does, of course, claim that they have a “Mastery of Cyberspace” (see http://www.gcsb.govt.nz/ ) so I guess that could well make them PC Plod’s source of advice when dealing with Nefarious International Criminals of the Interwebs.

          As an aside, I would have thought that proclaiming yourself “Masters of Cyberspace” was just asking for trouble. They may as well claim to be “Invulnerable to Hackers”…

    • bad12 5.3
      10 August 2012 at 11:51 am

      Isn’t the plod in question under oath to the court, since when can a witness befor the High Court select what questions they will or will not answer,

      If the ‘secret organization’ is neither of the known organs of espionage then what the f**k is going on here, secret Government organizations simply lead to the ‘disappearance’ of citizens,

      Country’s such as Chile had ‘secret’ Government organizations back in the 70’s and 1000’s disappeared…

    • David H 5.4
      10 August 2012 at 12:56 pm

      John Keys personal dirty tricks squad. Ready to be loaned out to foreign companies. IE RIAA and Hollywood against his own people. Oh and for when he does not want to get his hands dirty he lends them to the FBI.

    • Colonial Viper 5.5
      10 August 2012 at 3:07 pm

      This is really shite. Why are secret intelligence services helping American media corporates intimidate in NZ?

      Also, it seems they are really shite at their job.

      “works for the Govt”…works for the National Govt? Reminds me of the separate intelligence directorate that Rumsfeld and Cheney set up to bypass the traditional CIA and Army Intelligence, in order to run their own games.

      • RJL 5.5.1
        10 August 2012 at 3:48 pm

        The problem is that we don’t really know in what capacity the GCSB (or whomever it was) participated.

        I suspect it was probably something very limited, effectively providing PC Plod with the answers to 20 dumb questions about how the physical hardware at Dotcom’s residence related to the “evidence” they were meant to be gathering, how long it would take Dotcom to wipe something incriminating, and whether a 1337 hacker / James Bond villain would have any capability to interfere in a police arrest operation.

        Which on the one hand seems idiotic, but would hardly be a big drama — it would basically just involve some GCSB agents(?) going to a meeting. It is of perhaps equal idiocy to anticipating that Dotcom might flee in a fast car (to where? his secret volcano lair?).

  6. AmaKiwi 6
    10 August 2012 at 8:34 am

    We do develop successful businesses, but we allow them to be bought by overseas interests.

    There are alternatives. The Swiss keep control of their successful businesses (Nestle, for example) by issuing two classes of shares, one for locals only and one for overseas buyers. The “locals only” shares carry greater voting power so the company remains under the control of the Swiss.

    Another strategy is to declare classes of industries “strategic assets” which cannot be controlled by foreigners. We should never have let our news media fall into foreign hands. “Rupert Murdoch stay away from our editorial desks.”

  7. BillORees 7
    10 August 2012 at 8:38 am

    I feel sad and embarrassed for the staff in the Labour offices in Parliament. They  have seen the shenanigans going on that lead to this stupid self inflicted wound. They, more often than not, know who has done what. They have heard Shearer being advised to ignore the crowd in The Standard and elsewhere. “It will all blow over, stick to the plan”.  

    Have a good weekend away from the crap.  

    • AnnaLiviaPlurabella 7.1
      10 August 2012 at 10:14 am

      They must cringe when they see some of their bosses pushing the 67% rule to entrench their power.

  8. AmaKiwi 8
    10 August 2012 at 9:04 am

    During the Cunliffe/Shearer road show I suggested to both men that whomever won the leadership should make the other deputy leader. Shearer didn’t do it.

    If we are going to heal this party, Shearer needs to step down ASAP and recommend the caucus elect Cunliffe the new leader. Then Cunliffe should give Shearer a significant position on the front bench. Anything less will exacerbate the blood feud.

    • Pete George 8.1
      10 August 2012 at 9:27 am

      There would be less disruption and lost face (party-wise) if, for the good of the party, Grant Robertson stepped back and allowed Cunliffe to be deputy.

    • ak 8.2
      10 August 2012 at 9:55 am

      Onnit Ama. The Parker pro-business toadying was one thing, but benny-bashing from a Labour leader (invented and repeated – see Gordon Campbell) is a viscious, inexcusable step far, far too far that will never be forgotten by his own progressive supporters and tory strategists alike.

      And inexcusably politically dumb: revealing zero understanding of Sickness Benefit qualification, the effect of benny-bashing on the innocent, and even the make-up of his immediate audience – many of whom are “roof painters” themselves.

      The current cancer could have been avoided by a co-leadership year; i.e. a de facto contest conducted openly that the media could not have ignored. Would have relished, in fact, and thus stymied the current white-anting metastasis, which as you note can now only be treated by amputation. But that depended on the courage and motivation to put principle ahead of the personal, and weakness prevailed.

      The party will survive. It rests on the strong shoulders of millions who have gone before: strength that will always prevail over the spineless and dissipated. As the traitorous ACT cabal slowly seeps into the gutter of history, so too its current dregs.

      • King Kong 8.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 10:41 am

        Whats to know about the sickness benefit.
        You are either physically stuffed – Not the case as this dude obviously could work as a roof painter.
        Or you are mental – Probably shouldn’t be on the roof if that is the case.

        Good on Shearer. Always championing the bludger over the guy slogging his guts out to do right by his family is a guaranteed losing strategy.

        • felix 8.2.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 11:51 am

          Being able to paint a roof is not the same thing as being able to work as a roof painter.

          But your third sentence pretty well demonstrates that you won’t understand what that means.

          • weka 8.2.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 12:18 pm

            I thought the whole comment pretty well demonstrated that KK is a hairy T. All blathering ignorant and prejudicial hot air, no substance :yawn:

          • King Kong 8.2.1.1.2
            10 August 2012 at 1:08 pm

            “Being able to paint a roof is not the same thing as being able to work as a roof painter.”

            Fucking numbnuts.

            Unless you are describing some sort of Schrodingers paradox type thing.

            • bad12 8.2.1.1.2.1
              10 August 2012 at 1:14 pm

              KK obviously belongs to the knuckle-scraping neanderthalic Tory turd race unwilling to admit that those reliant upon benefits are simply there to allow for the enrichment of the 40% who make up the Tory turds core vote…

            • felix 8.2.1.1.2.2
              10 August 2012 at 1:15 pm

              No, it means exactly what it says. It all comes down to the idiocy in your third sentence, KK.

              But did you see where I said I didn’t think you were going to understand any of this? Do you know how I knew that?

              • King Kong …
                10 August 2012 at 1:32 pm

                “Hello I’m here about the job you have advertised for a roof painter”

                “Can you paint roofs?”

                “Yes in fact I was painting one the the other day untill some prick called David Shearer dobbed me into winz”

                “Thats great however being able to paint a roof is not the same thing as being able to work as a roof painter. Have you read Houllebecqs latest book”

                “Yes and I really noticed the continuation of the nihilistic subtext that weaves through all his work. Its a style that I believe really resembles Albert Camus”

                “Your knowledge of modern French literature seems to be ok…you’ve got the job.

                • felix …
                  10 August 2012 at 1:41 pm

                  Just say you don’t understand and I’ll explain it to you. Simple as that.

                  • King Kong …
                    10 August 2012 at 1:51 pm

                    Are you running to one of your ridiculous semantics arguments again Felix?

                    “Ah, but you didn’t say being able to paint a roof continuosly for an 8 hour period for 5 days in a row over a prolonged period of time”

                    “Another falls at the feet of the brilliant Felix.”

                    • felix …
                      10 August 2012 at 2:07 pm

                      No, I’m simply and plainly asking you if you’d like me to explain what I meant in my first comment.

                      Let me know when you get bored with what you’re up to there and I’ll explain it for you.

                      You’re getting close though, what you described above isn’t a “ridiculous semantic argument”, it’s more or less the definition of a job painting roofs.

                • McFlock …
                  10 August 2012 at 1:56 pm

                  “Hello I’m here about the job you have advertised for a porn star”
                      
                  “Can you have sex?”
                      
                  “Yes, once every 10 years provided I’m careful not to do too much work at once, don’t move my back too much and stop immediately if I have a dizzy spell”
                      
                  “That’s great, however ‘being able to have sex’ is not the same thing as ‘being able to work as a porn star, maintaining an erection and reasonably strenuous physical activity for 6 hours a day and several days a week, depending on the amount of work we’ve been offered’. Good bye.”

              • weka …
                10 August 2012 at 1:49 pm

                Don’t bother felix. If you look at KK’s comments on TS they are completely devoid of any meaningful content. KK is a tr*ll.

      • bad12 8.2.2
        10 August 2012 at 11:59 am

        Shearer, Labour is best rid of him, ACT is a party He would fit right at home in,

        My view, David Cunliffe as Leader and future Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson as His deputy, both are telegenic and compared to Shearer who comes across like some hayseed 1950’s back-country farmer both can articulate the message not only in it’s long form but also have the gift of the 5 second soundbite…

        • Vicky32 8.2.2.1
          10 August 2012 at 11:50 pm

          My view, David Cunliffe as Leader and future Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson as His deputy, both are telegenic and compared to Shearer who comes across like some hayseed 1950′s back-country farmer both can articulate the message not only in it’s long form but also have the gift of the 5 second soundbite…

          So, are you actually a Labour supporter?
          Cause is telegenic all we want? I don’t think so. Bill Rowling was less telegenic even that than the egregiously awful Jason Gunn, but was also a decent PM.
          Helen Clark always came across on TV as if she had better things to do, but she was an awesome PM!

          • bad12 8.2.2.1.1
            11 August 2012 at 12:34 am

            Nope i am a Green party supporter, Labour lost me at the point of Sir(spit)Roger Douglas who i incidently might have helped get elected by stuffing the letter-boxes of my home-town with Labour election material,

            I wont use the word ‘stupid’ in a descriptive of your appraisal of my previous comment only because i think you have the intelligence to perceive more from that comment that such support for a Cunliffe/Robertson leadership of the Labour is based upon more than the telegenic nature of both of them,

            Cunliffe at least seems to have some ‘vision’ for a New Zealand future that can unpick the threads sewing us into the present paradigm of global stupidity and in my view would need someone as His deputy to manage the politics of moving labour from Right to Left,

            We obviously have differing views on Helen Clark,(and yes i do know Her personally),awesome is not what i would describe Her tenure as Prime Minister as,astute political management was what i would describe as Her forte,

            However, Hers was the Social Democracy of,for, and,by the middle class and she was quite happy to give the bene’s a kicking and did so by not including the children dependent upon benefits in the working for families scheme,

            Therein lies the difference, She being a Social Democrat the socialism of selling out to neo-liberal economics, Me being a Socialist,

            hope that enlightens you…

            • Vicky32 8.2.2.1.1.1
              11 August 2012 at 12:45 am

              We obviously have differing views on Helen Clark,(and yes i do know Her personally),awesome is not what i would describe Her tenure as Prime Minister as,astute political management was what i would describe as Her forte,

              Actually, I have to agree with you about Helen Clark.. (my late brother worked on her campaign one year, so I knew her by extension, so to speak) and you are right…
              But I absolutely can’t bring myself to trust the greens. Winnie Peters’ phrase about ‘baubles of power’ springs to mind.
              It doesn’t help that I met so many pretty vacant middle class women last year who oozed that they’d voted for those lovely greens, because they trusted the greens to stick to conservation and not do anything radical on behalf of all those lazy bennys!

              • Draco T Bastard …
                11 August 2012 at 1:00 am

                It doesn’t help that I met so many pretty vacant middle class women last year who oozed that they’d voted for those lovely greens, because they trusted the greens to stick to conservation and not do anything radical on behalf of all those lazy bennys!

                That would just indicate that you were speaking to someone who didn’t know WTF they were talking about and took that ignorance as being symptomatic of the Greens in general.

                • Vicky32 …
                  11 August 2012 at 1:17 am

                  That would just indicate that you were speaking to someone who didn’t know WTF they were talking about and took that ignorance as being symptomatic of the Greens in general.

                  I think it’s pretty indicative of the reason for the green’s landslide last year… I spoke to not just someone, but many someones, all nice kiddies from Remmers and Freemans Bay, all the kind of girls/women/boys who don’t even realise that they’re born privileged. Shades of the Lady/Lord Bountiful about them, they shed crocodile tears about poor brown kids in South Auckland and maybe even give $5.00 to Canteen, but show them a threatened native bird or some conservation Dept land, and they quickly forget about the people…
                  Ah, people in need – they prefer the pretty photogenic brown kids with the cute 5 year old gap-toothed smiles, but when faced with a dirty smelly alkie on the streets, or a shabby 65 year old woman begging for change in K Road, they draw back their figurative skirts and mutter that ‘people like that’ need to be kept out of sight and preferably in secure care where they can’t bother nice inoffensive 20 somethings!

                  • bad12 …
                    11 August 2012 at 2:18 am

                    Its actually pretty hard to be a homeless person on the streets of any of our major cities,

                    There is even an ongoing attempt to set up a ‘wet’ house for the homeless alkies in Wellington only foiled by the ‘NIMBY’ attitude of neighbors wherever the attempt has been made,

                    In that i cannot really point a finger of blame at these neighborhoods that have and do object to having such a ‘wet’ house in their street as by definition homeless drunks are broken people from broken personal lives who just cannot abide by the mores of suburban life,

                    That is not to point the finger of blame at the alkies either despite being broken they are still human beings,

                    Most homeless people have other problems besides drug/alcohol/substance abuse usually being psychologically damaged and criminal recidivists,as well as on regular occasions being the victims of crime,

                    I know many of those who live on Wellington’s streets,and the only 65 year old i have recently seem begging there was doing so simply to gain the money necessary for His partner to stuff into a pokie machine at the local strip club,

                    Such people are extremely hard to ‘help’ even the night shelter is too confining for them and of course to confine them together anywhere without adequate security simply means that they have a propensity to damage each other,

                    Being wary of such people on the street is probably conducive to good personal safety and i would hardly denigrate the bright young things from Remmers for having done so,

                    Although in saying that, our slightly famous and recently deceased ‘blanket man’ received from such bright young things here in Wellington such a steady supply of burgers and stuff,(this on top of meals from the soupy’s), that i was occasioned more than once to muse upon such an agreeable lifestlye…

                    • Vicky32 …
                      11 August 2012 at 2:40 am

                      Being wary of such people on the street is probably conducive to good personal safety and i would hardly denigrate the bright young things from Remmers for having done so,

                      I was thinking specifically of Margaret Hoffman, the woman who used to sit in K Road, and beg cigarettes and change from passers-by.
                      The worst she ever did to anyone, was swear at them, and yet the ‘bright young tnings’ derided her, ridiculed her and sneered at her, as they trotted past to their clubs, bars and pizzerias.
                      She died in early 2011, and the people of inner city Auckland came over all Scots-Kiwi, and ‘don’t speak ill of the dead’, and all claimed she was a great ‘icon’ and they’d loved her. Such hypocrisy made me spit. (I’d seen them in action, as I gave her cigarettes and change, and got sneered at myself – as a scruffy old beneficiary with bad teeth, cos that’s how I look).
                      That idiot Cameron Brewer spoke of erecting a bronze statue of her to sit on the bench she always occupied – as the bronze woman would attract the shopper the real woman had repelled.
                      The masturbatory love-in the Herald gave for her after she died was sickening. The “old harridan, ugly old beneficiary, get a job, you loser old bag” was transformed into ‘beloved local identity’. Only people who’d actually known her as a person, such as the woman from the Baptist Tabernacle who performed her funeral, were realistic about her, and mofre importantly, had cared about her when she was alive! Even I tried to avoid her, although I thought ‘hell, that could be me in 10 years!’… (She was actually much younger than she looked I discovered, and more like me in 4 years!)
                      These people who said in the comments in the Herald that she was a beloved piece of local colour, were the same  nice school, good university business course, professional parents people who I spoke to, and who voted greens to keep the scruffs and wasters in line! After all, Labour or Mana might let people like Margaret Hoffman spoil their view or get the help they needed!
                      (Margaret Hoffman turned out not to be homeless, just terribly lonely – so lonely she would rather be sneered at than ignored)

                    • bad12 …
                      11 August 2012 at 10:31 am

                      Indeed, besides thoughts of the idyll of life in a blanket, there is always that other little nag felt when with a need to go and fit to bust one finds to ones physical horror a recent migrant to the City from Christchurch, an incorrigible Alkie sent fleeing North by the closure of that CBD, has taken up residence in the only available toilet cubicle,

                      There but for the grace of God go i is the thought as a furtive pee is taken against the pigeon Park pohutukawa with one eye on the look out for roving plods lest ones ablutions land one in the wagon on the way to the cells,

                      Indeed again as Wellington’s ‘blanket man’ had a family in Tokoroa who really wanted him to go home as well as many attempts by those who work in the trenches with such people to house Him in Council flats and HousingNZ homes as well,

                      It’s hard to be homeless in Wellington, but those that are ground down by whatever to the level of our own ‘blanket man’ do have some modicum of support and some would say such support is in fact far greater than that which is gained by the hidden homeless, where whole families live in garages,sheds,vans, and, cars,not to mention the growing population housed but paying 50, 60, 70% of their total income just to meet rents,

                      Therein lies our country’s real problem of homelessness…

                  • KJT …
                    11 August 2012 at 11:33 am

                    What a load of nonsense, Vicky.
                    Try reading Green party policy instead of random neighbours.
                    Attending a few meetings would help to.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      12 August 2012 at 4:39 pm

                      Try reading Green party policy instead of random neighbours.

                      Not neighbours, colleagues, and what they do, matters much more than what they say they’ll do…

                    • fatty …
                      12 August 2012 at 4:59 pm

                      Yeah, read the policies of the Green Party.

                      “It doesn’t help that I met so many pretty vacant middle class women last year who oozed that they’d voted for those lovely greens, because they trusted the greens to stick to conservation and not do anything radical on behalf of all those lazy bennys!”

                      Braindead urban hippies have bolstered the Greens popularity, this is true to an extent, but you are wrong to assume that it reflects Green’s policy, instead it reflects the normalisation of the green movement. It is cool to be green now. Look at the hollywood stars and they are all on some green/3rd world poverty crusade but never raise awareness regarding USA poverty, structural issues, or the way capitalism drives environmental degradation. I’d say that many Labour voters are idiots because they have always voted Labour and believe they can sort out our mess.
                      The Greens also take a more logical view of our problems. The unsustainable road that Labour and National have taken us down ruin our environment and it is poor people that bear the brunt of this disaster. The environment is tied in with unemployment, economy, well-being, inequality etc.

                  • Olwyn …
                    11 August 2012 at 11:50 am

                    You are not being entirely fair about Margaret. She was on the street every day and had friends among those who are there on a regular basis. It’s true that she fell out with some people, but then she was often up for a fight herself. On the day she died, a young woman I know had booked both herself and Margaret in for a manicure at Posh Nails. Yes, there were scoffers, but locals often sided with Margaret against them. People did not treat her sentimentally, but many did treat her as a friend or a friendly presence, and did her shopping for her when she had her broken arm, etc. And a lot of people knew when her birthday was and some gave her presents.

                    • Olwyn …
                      11 August 2012 at 11:51 am

                      That was meant as a reply to Vicky

                    • Vicky32 …
                      12 August 2012 at 5:00 pm

                      People did not treat her sentimentally, but many did treat her as a friend or a friendly presence, and did her shopping for her when she had her broken arm, etc.

                      The sentiment I was referring to, was the gooey schmaltz in the media after she died.
                      I never actually knew her when she was alive, I met her occasionally on my way to work at a couple of language schools at the top of Queen Street.
                       

              • bad12 …
                11 August 2012 at 1:15 am

                Really, the baubles of power, the Greens sat outside of the previous Labour Government for 9 years enabling it for all that 9 years,

                If you know the pleasant smiling Meteria Turei at all you will see in Her someone uninterested in the price of Her principles, under the smile the woman is made of the same steel as Helen Clark but the principles are not about to be traded for a ride in a Beamer,

                Hopefully after His little bout of Me Too in echoing Shearers ‘we are not buying back the assets’ comment, Co-leader Russel Norman has been given the polite message sent which read something like, ”us lot out here don’t do political activism on behalf of anyone to have them then turn around and spit in our f**king faces”,

                Sure the Greens appear to have gone straight, but, their socialism is all over their web-site so if anyone after an election wakes up to suddenly find the Greens have forcefully negotiated the Labour/Green Government into a march by the left, i can only say don’t be suprised and get an education,

                It’s a valid point tho, distrust of politicians to hold to the core of their values seems to have become a modern disease…

                • KJT …
                  11 August 2012 at 11:38 am

                  Unlike Labour, Green party members control the parliamentary wing. The party members who made the policies.

                  The ones Vicky should read.

  9. Jackal 9
    10 August 2012 at 9:30 am

    Another Key PR disaster

    Without his scriptwriters giving him the right things to say, Key is an ill-informed and therefore somewhat dangerous leader…

  10. tracey 10
    10 August 2012 at 10:42 am

    Will the pm personally pay for his protection to travel maine with him to the baseball? Can he “show me the money” for this?

  11. just saying 11
    10 August 2012 at 11:41 am

    An excellent blog from Steve Cowan at ‘Against the Current’ who likes to pretend he only has three readers.
    On class hatred:
    http://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/class-hate.html

    …..

    In New Zealand chavs would be defined as ‘the underclass’.These are the people that right wing talkback host Michael Laws says shouldn’t have children – the women, he says, who should be sterilised. He has discussed this abominable idea on air with the Minister for ‘Social Development’ Paula Bennett – who did not immediately reject it. Bennett herself has opined about young women having to take the pill while on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. We can’t have ‘the mongrels’ breeding, can we? Look what they get up to on Outrageous Fortune, for god’s sake!

    When did it become the norm to simply dismiss the working class as lazy, criminally inclined, sexually promiscuous, drug addled, drunk? When did it become acceptable to turn the working class into caricatured objects for entertainment in such shows as Shameless and Outrageous Fortune? When did the working class suddenly become ‘STUPID’? When did the British working class suddenly into Vicki from Little Britain? When did the issues of poverty, and unemployment become not an economic question but a moral issue about how poor people should be treated? When did it become the poor’s own fault for being poor?

    ….

    • weka 11.1
      10 August 2012 at 12:12 pm

      When I left school in the early 80s, there was little stigma about going on the dole. Being unemployed was seen as a consequence of the high unemployment rate not an individual failing. In the middle class circles I moved in there was some shame attached to not having a job (every conversation with a new person started with ‘what do you do?’ and then faltered if you said “I’m unemployed”), but there was not yet the outright condemnation of being a beneficiary. The Dept of Labour were operating with carrots not sticks.
       
      It changed shortly after that. Suddenly being unemployed was something to be derided, the term dole bludger became normal usage for a class of people who were denied work but trying to find work ie the term was used irrespective of individual circumstances. The DoL introduced increasingly draconian policies eg having one’s benefit cut if you refused a job.
       
      I wasn’t paying much attention to national party politics then, but in hindsight I have to wonder if that change in attitude wasn’t intentionally driven by either ACT/Labour or the Nats, rather than being a shift in the social norm over time. For me that is where the nasty streak gained ascendancy in NZ.

      • muzza 11.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 1:27 pm

        Yeah thats the result of turning humans against other humans with dirty tactics, to ensure that people are not looking at the govt asking questions like..

        “why are all the jobs being shipped offshore”?

        • weka 11.1.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 1:52 pm

          Does anyone know if there was a deliberate hate the dole bludger campaign in the mid 80s? Obviously Social Welfare policy changed, but I’m thinking more about things like how the media was used.

          • Augustus 11.1.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 4:41 pm

            Not sure about the mid 80s, but there was an 0800 line in the early 90s, where you could dob in a dole bludger. Anonymous, no proof required, just pass on the goss and we’ll have a look, type thing. They had ads on TV with it for many months, if I remember rightly. Can’t find a link, sorry. I’m sure it was just after Ruth Richardson first budget. the mother of half the problems we have today.

          • just saying 11.1.1.1.2
            10 August 2012 at 5:02 pm

            In the eighties it was not at all uncommon for middle-class young adults to go on a dole-holiday, often while travelling around the countryside or living an alternative lifestyle for a while*. Often also, a passionate romance allowed no time for wage slavery for a period.

            I have the teeshirt for this, however I got bored with unemployment after just a few months, and I think this was par for the course because unemployment even in ideal circumstances can be depressing for those not born to idle upperclass indolence.

            Even these temporary unemployment breaks, which were effectively taxpayer-funded holidays attracted little disapproval in those days. Genuine unemployment didn’t seem to either, despite the fact ( ironically) that jobs were so much easier to come by, and the dole was extremely generous compared with the rates paid today.

            The only recent comparable institution has been tertiary students going on the dole for the summer, something which was still prevalent in the late nineties and early this century, again amongst middle-class students.

            *I often think that memories of these halcyon summer vacations affect middle-aged middle-class perceptions of unemployment today. Terms like “living the dream” and “lifestyle” could be further from the grim reality of being on a benefit today, and yet these illusions continue to prevail.

            • fatty 11.1.1.1.2.1
              11 August 2012 at 12:56 am

              “The only recent comparable institution has been tertiary students going on the dole for the summer, something which was still prevalent in the late nineties and early this century, again amongst middle-class students.”

              This still happens now, but it is really the result of neoliberalism, instead of students wanting to bum around in the summer. Much of the summer holiday work for students is within the service industry and focuses on xmas shopping. The students can get work till xmas, but rarely into Jan/Feb. Also the stand-down period after ending work is longer than the stand-down period if a student takes the summer dole straight away, therefore if a student chooses to work they will have a longer stand-down. Also, the shitty wages that are paid to temp workers and the ‘flexibility’ (hours get cut at short notice, etc) of holiday work means its not worth the effort for most students. Better to take the dole straight away and hit the beach…its a shame cause most students want to earn a stable income during their time off, but its not worth it.

      • Vicky32 11.1.2
        10 August 2012 at 11:56 pm

        When I left school in the early 80s, there was little stigma about going on the dole. Being unemployed was seen as a consequence of the high unemployment rate not an individual failing

        When my sister   and I left school in 1970 and 1972, my father took us straight down to ‘sign on’, just in case (he’d grown up in the 1930s) As it happened, we both got jobs immediately, and never actually collected benefits – signing on was precautionary, and considered quite reasonable! Of course we were very lucky to have left school when we did – 10 or 15 years later, things might have been different, and definitely would have been in the 1990s, when my older son finished school…

  12. felix 12
    10 August 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Bad form, Johnny. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7450343/Key-defends-hard-call-to-miss-service

    It’s understandable that you wouldn’t want to turn up to a funeral with blood on your hands, but it is your fucking job you lazy self-obsessed cowardly piece of shit.

    Oh and what a dick move hiding in shame behind your child, who is now part of the story. Real leader this guy.

    • Pete George 12.1
      10 August 2012 at 12:12 pm

      That’s about as low as it gets from you felix. Your comments are despicable, even by your standards.

      Labour leader David Shearer said he would attend, but declined to comment on Mr Key’s choice. “It’s a decision for the prime minister.”

      Thats the right call from Shearer on this.

    • Markm 12.2
      10 August 2012 at 12:21 pm

      You are what’s bad about this country Felix
      Go and crawl back under your rock

      • felix 12.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 12:24 pm

        Typical two-bit tory, can’t differentiate between something awful and someone talking about something awful.

      • prism 12.2.2
        10 August 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Markm 12.2
        Trouble is your lot have taken all the rocks. It upsets people and leaves them nothing to shelter under or to throw, whichever is the most appropriate.

      • bad12 12.2.3
        10 August 2012 at 12:32 pm

        ( 🙄 ) Slither on back to your PG blogspot wont you, all 3 of you can then discuss how great you aint…

    • weka 12.3
      10 August 2012 at 12:22 pm

      I don’t know felix, are we in any position to judge the relative values?

      • felix 12.3.1
        10 August 2012 at 12:25 pm

        Of what? Work vs holidays?

        • weka 12.3.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 1:50 pm

          No, work vs family.

          • felix 12.3.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 2:02 pm

            I don’t think I have to judge the value John Key places on his family, and I don’t think I’ve done that. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s brought his child into this arena as a smokescreen for his own actions but beyond that I haven’t commented on it because it’s none of my business.

            What is my business as a citizen of this country is whether he’s turning up to do his job or not.

            ps come on weka, flying to the other side of the world to watch your kid play sport instead of going to work is by definition a holiday.

            • weka 12.3.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 2:12 pm

              So do you think that the PM is never allowed to prioritise their family? That they should always cancel family things when the job requires it? Wouldn’t that mean they never get to spend time with their family?
               
              I’m not arguing the case for Key here (who doesn’t deserve and consideration), just the principle.

              • felix …
                10 August 2012 at 2:26 pm

                Like I said, it’s none of my business what he does with his family.

                But let’s not pretend this is about time constraints. They guy can find time for all sorts of shenanigans when it suits him. Just so happens that this one don’t suit him so good.

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 August 2012 at 3:15 pm

                weka – of course a PM is allowed to prioritise their family.

                AFTER THEY HAVE LEFT THE FRAKING OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

                That’s the way it is. There are no days off even when you are on holiday. You do not get to turn your cell phone off or to ignore emails.

                If you can’t do the job get out.

                And when the people you sent to serve get KIA’d you better step up in a big way.

                btw The main reason Key is going to the US is to meet hedge funds and major banks re Asset Sales.

                • SHG …
                  10 August 2012 at 6:01 pm

                  So Key met with the families of the dead soldiers personally, but you’re not happy because you’d rather he did a public event in front of the cameras and news media?

                  Wow.

            • Jackal 12.3.1.1.1.2
              10 August 2012 at 5:32 pm

              felix

              I think it’s a disgrace that he’s brought his child into this arena as a smokescreen.

              What’s the bet he isn’t even travelling to the US for is sons baseball game anyway… There are lots of things to discuss with the yanks at the mo. Despite what some think, a Prime Minister has an obligation to the country… Especially when it’s his decision to continue to deploy troops in an unjust war that leads to New Zealanders dying.

              • OneTrack …
                10 August 2012 at 8:20 pm

                I bet he is going for a secret meeting with John Banks.

                • felix …
                  11 August 2012 at 2:47 am

                  Probably shoulda picked someone who isn’t best known for having secret meetings and lying about them really.

                  Just, you know, to make your point.

      • Pete George 12.3.2
        10 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

        I don’t think felix is one to judge values, even if he was capable.

        Mr Key visited the families of Lance Corporals Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone, who were killed in a clash with insurgents in Bamiyan province on Saturday, to explain why he would not be at the service.

        The families can make their own judgements, as can Key.

        felix is just using it as an excuse to run a cowardly piece of shite. Which is a very shitty thing to do in the circumstance, extremely disrespectful of the soldiers and families.

        • felix 12.3.2.1
          10 August 2012 at 12:47 pm

          Funny, I think the shitty thing to do is play General and talk tough about the SAS and get photos taken with Apiata and take ‘hard calls’ to send troops into war and then disappear when the inevitable result of your actions and decisions comes home to roost.

          And to use your kid as an exit strategy? That’s what you do when you want to leave a boring party, not when you want to avoid getting in the paper with dead bodies.

          But of course according to tory t 🙄 logic none of that is disrespectful of the dead people and their families. What’s disrespectful is mentioning it. Although I expect that doesn’t apply to you mentioning my mentioning for some twisted tory t 🙄 reason which will never be explained or expanded on.

          Now quickly Pete, fuck off to Kiwiblog and tell everyone what horrible things I’ve talked about and how horrible it all is and then write a big blog post full of quotes that no-one will ever read.

    • Bill 12.4
      10 August 2012 at 12:30 pm

      I’ve never been comfortable with politicians turning up to funerals and memorial services etc. seems deeply hypocritical to me. BUT, it is the accepted and expected norm.

      If JK could abandon trade talks or whatever it was he jettisoned to return for the funerals of two helicopter pilots last year (or whenever it was – somebody attempted to link to it yesterday), then it just doesn’t quite gell that he’s putting his sons baseball game ahead of a funeral attendance.

      I’ve no dooubt he will attend the baseball game. But I can’t get away from the thought that he’s been summoned by the whitehouse. But for what? Whatever it might be it’s obviously of such a nature that the public ought not to know of it. (So it ain’t trade related) And so my punt is that JK has had no option but take a hit on the whole thing.

      Or then again, maybe he really is as disgusting and pathetically void as his ‘hard decision’ would have us believe.

      • Pete George 12.4.1
        10 August 2012 at 12:33 pm

        That’s a long bow from you Bill, and a pretty crooked one.

      • Kotahi Tāne Huna 12.4.2
        10 August 2012 at 12:47 pm

        I wonder if it relates at all to the rumour that Key wants out. One way to abandon the job is to simply not show up.

        Perhaps he has a job interview.

        As an aside, solidarity is good. Even among maggots.

        • Pete George 12.4.2.1
          10 August 2012 at 12:56 pm

          It was probably all planned at the same time as the Mars landing. Obama himself may have organised the baseball tournament to divert attention from his birth certificate. A CIA plant would have orchestrated the team selection here in NZ.

          This would all have had to have been started months ago, so I’m not sure who they got the dates to line up with what happened in Afghanistan, but I’m sure you’ll come up with a credible explanation for that too.

        • OneTrack 12.4.2.2
          10 August 2012 at 8:23 pm

          Keep hoping KTH – If you believe in it hard enough it will happen.

      • bad12 12.4.3
        10 August 2012 at 12:50 pm

        i was thinking aloud about the same thing down the bottom of yesterdays ‘Open Mike’,

        * Event 1, the tragic death of 2 and wounding of 5 more Kiwi soldiers in Afghanistan, ( the 2 were flown back home this morning),

        *Event 2, Slippery the New Zealand Prime Minister all but accuses Hungarian troops serving next to the Kiwi’s in Afghanistan of being cowards with what was in reality a sick joke worthy of a psychopath,

        *Event 3, After having cancelled the upgrade to the National War Memorial in 2009, the Prime Minister is now falling all over Himself to have the expansion go ahead with what will be special empowering Legislation,

        One thing about Slippery the Prime Minister that is a given, the urge to compulsively lie to the population of New Zealand is strong and ongoing,

        i am left wondering if the Slippery one ‘sees’ a need for a National War Memorial that has very little use except for the yearly commemoration of world wars 1 and 2 to be expanded for future higher use,

        The baseball trip to the US may just be to brief the Prime Minister about the expected future ‘sacrifices’ that ‘they’ expect from New Zealand…

        • Bill 12.4.3.1
          10 August 2012 at 12:58 pm

          The baseball trip to the US may just be to brief the Prime Minister about the expected future ‘sacrifices’ that ‘they’ expect from New Zealand…

          Sort of what I’ve been quietly thinking. The US Pacific build-up…it’s Chinese ‘concerns’. What role would NZ be expected to play?

          • bad12 12.4.3.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 1:40 pm

            The usual mindless sacrifice, a 10% mortality rate and a 45% injury rate for our troops in someone else’s conflict is what i would ‘guess’ as being a sufficient ‘sacrifice’

            I can’t see a future conflagration as being Pacific based and believe the next ‘big’ war will be as usual centered on the European Continent,

            Throughout history when Kings,Queens,Generals, and, latterly Politicians have destroyed their particular isms through financial mis-management War has been the final tool used to keep control and power over their citizens,

            The debt bonds effectively turned into debt bombs will in my opinion again see the soils of Europe run red with the blood of a generation probably within the next 10-15 years…

      • prism 12.4.4
        10 August 2012 at 1:07 pm

        Bill 12.4
        The USA is going to ask for an extension of our troops time in Afghanistan until the US manages to introduce the high standards of US democracy there. Their men need relief as they are are going out of their minds being rotated continually to act in the never-ending stooooory.

      • rosy 12.4.5
        10 August 2012 at 6:22 pm

        +1 Bill. And how long is he away for? What else can he fit in in that time frame?

        As for family, the son is 17, not 7 surely he’s old enough for an adult discussion about this sort of thing?

        Also, how many doctors, nurses, police etc have leave cancelled in emergency situations that mean they have to give up family events. That’s what come with the job. The PM’s job is (should be) the same.

    • DJ 12.5
      10 August 2012 at 3:58 pm

      You are obviously what results when cousins fuck cousins Felix.

  13. uke 13
    10 August 2012 at 12:06 pm

    It has become common to criticise the use of Nazi analogies in political debate as examples of Godwin’s Law. Such analogies, commentators imply, are stale, call into question the validity of the underlying argument and the judgement of those making the comparison. Recently, there was widespread criticism/ridicule in the media of Nazi analogies made during NZ parlimentary debates over state asset sales.
     
    But where is the equivalent rhetoric condemning the use of Communist/Stalinist analogies in political debate?
     
    I wonder why media commentators see these as more acceptable? (e.g., “Helengrad”)

    • felix 13.1
      10 August 2012 at 12:27 pm

      I think it’s because they don’t like people saying mean things about the N@zis actually.

      • Bored 13.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 12:49 pm

        The Bard summed up Nact nicely…”Lawless are they that make their wills their law”.

    • Bill 13.2
      10 August 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Because if you set a ridiculously high bar for what might be allowed to pass as fascism in ‘polite’ conversation – by equating it to it’s most extreme expression – of nazism, then it makes calling a spade a spade impossible in certain given situations.

      There is no possible fascist dynamic in todays societies. Any such charge would require the trappings of nazism to be evident to have any merit. So fascist undercurrents become ‘invisible’ in any acceptable debate or analysis.

      Communism, or communist dynamics on the other hand, really are absent from todays societies. So you’re permitted to draw communist comparisons whenever you like because, lets face it, if there was any communist undercurrent it would be flowing counter to any current the corporate world desired.

      So set the bar very low for what might be allowed to pass for communism in any ‘polite’ conversation.

      Both communism and fascism are heinous. But only one, if pursued, would undermine the power of current global elites.

      • uke 13.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 1:10 pm

        Right, so let me get this straight:
         
        1) The outer trappings of fascism have to be present for the Nazi analogy to stick. And this is unlikely to occur in contemporary NZ politics (although that “blackshirt” Destiny Church march was probably getting close).
        2) “Communism” is so absent from contemporary NZ politics, that it has no real meaning and therefore can be used to stand for anything you don’t agree with.

        • Bill 13.2.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 2:13 pm

          Erm, nah. What I was saying that in the interests of stifling criticism that would draw parallels with fascism, the trick is to banish talk of fascism altogether by setting a benchmark for fascism that equates with nazism…or nazism as popularily envisaged. So if no-one is piling minorities into concentration camps, invading neighbouring countries and exhibiting all those more extreme traits associated with nazism, then charges of fascism can’t hold…will be dismissed as ludicrous.

          This allows for much in way of fascist doctrine to be developed and deployed (ie, corporatism) free from pesky historical comparisons. (It ain’t fascism if it ain’t nazism)

          On the other hand, communism was never the doctrine of the current masters and sits in direct contradiction to their basis of power. And so ‘anything’ can be labelled communist because the knee jerk reaction that follows suits the interests of incumbent powers just fine.

    • Bored 13.3
      10 August 2012 at 12:48 pm

      It is because the manstream has a tendency to slide toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum in a well oiled but invisible manner. “Nice” National or Labour types like to give the illusion that their drift toward corporatism is “nothing” like drifting toward f@scism. To point it out using the correct terminology results in calls of Godwin….which is a crap bollocked brained thing. Lets call a spade a spade.

      • uke 13.3.1
        10 August 2012 at 1:21 pm

        Yeah, this mass media invoking of Godwin’s Law seems like a classic anxiety formation. Deriding others becomes a way of reassuring oneself, of quelling the anxiety produced by such an analogy.
         
        It’s a pity NZers don’t know their history better, in particular about the cryto-f@scist New Zealand Legion that had some popularity in the 1930s. Sid Holland was a member, so was Keith Holyoake.

  14. ultra-left 14
    10 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Is the failure of the NZ mission in Afghanistan a one off, or part of a pattern?
    http://www.readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/the-real-reasons-for-mission-failure-in.html

  15. Dave Kennedy 15
    10 August 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Teachers are being accused of petulance and having political agendas and yet the Government’s push for National Standards, league tables and charter schools are not considered ideological or political? Good grief!

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/teachers-petulance-and-political-agendas.html

  16. Pete George 16
    10 August 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Metiria Turei ‏@metiria

    @LewStoddart He is right to put his son first. Key said some dumb things and should apologies. But he is still right to support his boy.

    • fatty 16.1
      10 August 2012 at 1:50 pm

      “But he is still right to support his boy.”

      More blind stupidity from Meat George…Key is wrong to go to see his boy and his framing of this as a ‘family choice’ is only acceptable to simpletons. Key’s economic and social policies have forced thousands of our children into poverty and stunted their opportunity of a bright future, Key is not family focused, Key is selfish and greedy…his actions could only be considered legitimate if he focused that kind of care and attention to all kiwi children. He abuses kiwi children.

      • felix 16.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 1:54 pm

        +1

      • weka 16.1.2
        10 August 2012 at 2:36 pm

        Right, so if we had a PM who was doing good things about addressing poverty etc in NZ it would be acceptable for them to sometimes choose family over work?

        • felix 16.1.2.1
          10 August 2012 at 2:48 pm

          Why are you making out that the pm is in a special category with regard to his work/family balance?

          Everyone with a job and a family is under exactly the same constraint.

          • weka 16.1.2.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 2:52 pm

            Maybe, but most people make their own choices about attending funerals or spending time with their family.

            I’m not making the PM a special case, you and others are. Apparently the PM has to be on call all the time. Maybe that’s fair, I’d just like to know if that’s applied to all PM’s or just Key.

            • felix 16.1.2.1.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 3:06 pm

              As I pointed out below, he appears at such funerals as our representative. It’s nothing to do with him as a person.

              That’s why it’s a falsehood to pretend that he was making a choice between two personal events.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 August 2012 at 11:33 am

                As I pointed out below, he appears at such funerals as our representative.

                There is the small matter that Key doesn’t actually see himself as our representative, just his own and that of an elite 5%.

        • fatty 16.1.2.2
          10 August 2012 at 3:02 pm

          “Right, so if we had a PM who was doing good things about addressing poverty etc in NZ it would be acceptable for them to sometimes choose family over work?”

          I said…”his actions could only be considered legitimate if he focused that kind of care and attention to all kiwi children.”

          I didn’t say it would be acceptable, I said it could only be considered legitimate if…
          The legitimacy of his choice will always come down to personal ideals, but Key has proven time and again that he does not care about kiwi children, so his choice is not legitimate.
          Personally, I would not consider Key’s choice as legitimate even if his concern over the welfare of children matched Mother Teresa’s. He can miss a game of whatever his son is playing.
          My point is that this idea of Key being a family man does not correlate with his actions as PM…its bollocks. Key has once again framed his despicable actions in a positive light, he’s been doing it for years.

          • weka 16.1.2.2.1
            10 August 2012 at 3:37 pm

            Fair enough.
             
            Personally, I think it’s acceptable in principle for any politician to have family time. Except Key of course 😉

      • higherstandard 16.1.3
        10 August 2012 at 2:56 pm

        What bombastic piffle.

        Have a cup of tea and grow some perspective.

        • fatty 16.1.3.1
          10 August 2012 at 3:15 pm

          Sorry HS…I shouldn’t compare the way Key treats his own children, with the way he treats other people’s children.
          You’ve really changed my thinking with your well reasoned argument.
          …I am now in favour of Key imposing charter schools on those stupid poor children, while Key’s kids get private schooling. What was I thinking!

          • higherstandard 16.1.3.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 3:32 pm

            Who is being forced to attend a charter school ?

            Have you got information to suggest the proposed charter school is going to be detrimental to children ?

            “What was I thinking ”

            In response to your question I’m uncertain what you were thinking, looks like a Friday afternoon bleat.

    • Tim G 16.2
      11 August 2012 at 1:25 am

      🙄

      You quoted a twitter post from Turei. Guess you must be “fair and balanced” after all!

      🙄

  17. William Joyce 17
    10 August 2012 at 1:27 pm

    US Justice Dept announced today….

    “Neither Goldman Sachs Group Inc nor its employees will face U.S. criminal charges related to trades they made during the financial crisis that were highlighted in a 2011 U.S. Senate report, the Justice Department said on Thursday.” – LINK

    Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck!

    • bad12 17.1
      10 August 2012 at 1:55 pm

      All good, if the political process is too weak at the knees to seize what are in effect the proceeds of criminal enterprise by organized criminal gangs in the form of major banking orgaizations they will simply be left to concoct even bigger scams which will in turn lead to even bigger world-wide financial,economic, and, social disasters,

      Welcome to the slow motion train-wreck of the death of capitalism where the Beast in effect eats itself…

      • Bored 17.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 3:00 pm

        Welcome to the slow motion train-wreck of the death of FINANCIAL capitalism where the Beast in effect eats itself……minor correction, capitalism does just fine without financial capitalism, which is NOT to say that is a desirable scenario.

        More importantly the above link shows that the rule of law in the financial capitals of the world is now a two tier system: absolute repression for scum like you and me, complete do as you will for the financial elite. Legal apartheid! We the 99% are black.

        • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 3:07 pm

          Financial capitalism seems to come about due to the collapse of physical capitalism which collapses due to over production and the declining rate of profit.

        • bad12 17.1.1.2
          11 August 2012 at 12:47 am

          Minor correction if i may be so excused, TRADE can do just fine without either capitalism or its vicious half brother( the mongoloid), financial capitalism,

          As butter can and was swapped for Lada’s presto the coin stays in each country that is trading therefor there is no real need for International Banking…

    • Draco T Bastard 17.2
      10 August 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Not really surprised. The US is the biggest Rogue State and it seems you only get that way by having corrupt leaders.

  18. felix 18
    10 August 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Something else for Pete to pretend to be horrified about:

    When John Key attends a soldier’s funeral as PM it’s not because they were mates and he misses them. He’s there as our representative. Not the govt’s rep. Not the National party’s rep. Ours.

    Now observe the way he framed this situation as a personal decision, as if the decision on whether to attend a funeral or a baseball game all came down to how it would affect him and his family.

    It’s not about him. It’s his fucking job and he’s missing again.

    • Pete George 18.1
      10 August 2012 at 1:42 pm

      Explaining is losing. This doesn’t change the fact you chose to be an arsehole. It’s still there for everyone to see.

      And I’d put a bit more credibility on Shearer’s and Turei’s opinions on this than on your’s.

      • felix 18.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 1:53 pm

        I wasn’t explaining anything to you Pete, you’ve already shown you’re incapable of understanding much beyond your own nose.

        And I’ve already told you I couldn’t care less what Shearer thinks. Why would I give a fuck what Turei, or you, or any other politician has to say about this?

        But thanks for the mock-horror, I knew you wouldn’t disappoint. Will you be posting this to Kiwiblog as well?

      • Tim G 18.1.2
        11 August 2012 at 1:33 am

        *yours
        🙄

    • insider 18.2
      10 August 2012 at 2:16 pm

      Is it his job to go to every funeral of every serviceman killed on duty? No-one complained when he didn’t go to Kirifi Mila’s or Douglas Hughes’.

      • felix 18.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 2:32 pm

        Yep. We, as citizens of a democratic society, sent soldiers to their death. We did it through representatives but we ultimately hold the responsibility for that.

        And similarly, as our representative, the PM should be attending such funerals on our behalf.

        • higherstandard 18.2.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 2:57 pm

          If you feel so strongly why don’t you attend ?

          • felix 18.2.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 3:09 pm

            Oh brilliant, maybe we should all go.

            Or, and this is just an idea, we could elect someone to represent us as a collective to do things in our name that it would be obviously absurd for us all to do as individuals.

        • insider 18.2.1.2
          10 August 2012 at 2:58 pm

          Delegation of govt duties happen all the time. The govt as a whole represent us not just the PM. The GG is going representing the head of state. This appears nothing special as he’s not attended servicemen’s funerals before. What’s different apart from Key publicly saying he is doing something else?

          • felix 18.2.1.2.1
            10 August 2012 at 3:11 pm

            Correct, he can fuck off to the U.S. for baseball anytime he likes, and I can criticise that decision for a number of reasons, which I have.

            Problem?

            Also note that one of my criticisms specifically addresses him publicly saying he’s doing something else, what I believe to be his motivation, and why I think he’s wrong to do so.

            • insider 18.2.1.2.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 3:47 pm

              I think your criticism is reasonable but selective.

              • felix …
                10 August 2012 at 3:53 pm

                Selective in that you think think I’m only discussing things that are happening right now?

                • insider …
                  10 August 2012 at 4:19 pm

                  Selective in that the PMs absence from the two most recent Afghanistan death related funerals was never commented on, yet you apprantly strongly believe the PM should go to them all. If Key hadn’t said anything, would you really have cared?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 August 2012 at 4:58 pm

                    Yeah we should have slammed him down for that too mate, thanks for correcting us and showing us that this is not John Key in a one time event, the many actually is repeatedly callous.

                    • insider …
                      10 August 2012 at 10:11 pm

                      He was probably just following Helen clark’s example. She thought it more important to open a rugby ball in paris than go to the funeral of the sailor solomon killed on active duty due to the negligence of the navy and minstry of defence, or to sgt billy white’s funeral.

                  • felix …
                    10 August 2012 at 5:10 pm

                    Good call insider, please feel free to apply the sentiments of my comments on this situation to all directly comparable situations.

                    As for “would I have cared”, a good deal of the problem I have with this is specifically due to what he said and how.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 August 2012 at 5:16 pm

                      🙂

                    • insider …
                      10 August 2012 at 10:15 pm

                      Up till now you’ve been saying it was all about the principle that PMs should be there, now it’s all about the optics as pascal nicely describes it. Like I said, you’re just being selective, much like Key.

                    • felix …
                      11 August 2012 at 2:52 am

                      Nah, nothing to do with “optics”. Not sure where you got that from.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 August 2012 at 1:04 pm

                      Not sure why you think optics and principle are exculsive things. optics are important in and of themselves. As a matter of principle there are optics that a PM needs to get right. Things need to be both done, and seen to be done.

          • Pascal's bookie 18.2.1.2.2
            10 August 2012 at 4:22 pm

            “What’s different apart from Key publicly saying he is doing something else?”

            I can only tell what has rubbed me the wrong way about how he has done this.

            He has framed it as a comparison of sacrifice. He used that word.

            Now I fully acknowledge that being in a politicians family is a tough ask, even more tough for the PMs family. No argument. But that toughness does come with the territory, and Key asked for the job, just like soldiers sign up.

            I’m not saying that his family must always come second. But I do think it has to be considered on a case by case basis.

            This game will obviously be very important for his son. No argument. And no argument that being there would be important for Key, as it would for any loving parent.

            But he drew the specific ballancing act here, one that says being at this game is more important than being at the funerals for those other sons. He explicitly drew that comparison, saying he had a tough decision and “had to disappoint someone” but he thinks he made the right choice (about who to disappoint). That ground my gears.

            The thing is, and it comes back to the PMship being atough job, his son will play other games. there will be other big events in his life, many parents cannot make it to big events in their children’s lives due to other duties.

            If his son was having surgery, or in an accident, or something else happened where it might reasonably said that he needs his family there, then I would be saying that his family should certainly, and obviously be there.

            That’s how I feel anyway, and it’s a feeling that has come from the way the PM has expressed himself about this. the comparisons that he has made. He didn’t say he took advice, and said he fronted to tell the family why he wasn’t going to be there. I’d feel a lot different if I had the impression he had asked the family.

            That’s my 2c about what’s different. optics.

            • weka 18.2.1.2.2.1
              10 August 2012 at 5:08 pm

              That’s how I feel anyway, and it’s a feeling that has come from the way the PM has expressed himself about this. the comparisons that he has made. He didn’t say he took advice, and said he fronted to tell the family why he wasn’t going to be there. I’d feel a lot different if I had the impression he had asked the family.
               

              That I can agree with. Key is obviously a dick who doesn’t really give a shit and at the moment he often doesn’t even try and hide the fact. His comments about the soldiers not having much in the way of family are unbelievable.
               
              Asked the family… maybe they told him to fuck off. I know I would have in that situation.

    • David H 18.3
      10 August 2012 at 8:23 pm

      It almost makes you want to open up his skull to see if there is a little alien running the controls inside.. He has’nt got a clue.

  19. captain hook 19
    10 August 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Explaining might be losing if you are a pinhead but when you are a self proclaimed intellectual or have an iota of intelligence and can actually read the printed word then explanations are necessary.
    If you want to swim in a soup of sound bites and haircuts then good for you but I prefer Felix’s explanations to your puerile exclamations anyday.

  20. Socialist Paddy 20
    10 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

    The latest Roy Morgan is out. The nats are down 3.5% to 44%. Labour is up 2 to 32% but the greens are up 3 to 14%.
     
    A green surge is the last thing that Shearer needs.  This is good for the opposition’s chances of forming the next Governnment but not so good for Shearer’s chances of survival.

    • Pete George 20.1
      10 August 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Of minor interest – Conservative support halved from 3 to 1.5 which could be related to Craig’s anti marriage equality campaign.

      Up to 5 August (Sunday) which excludes this week of course.

      • felix 20.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Nothing under the margin of error means anything.

        • McFlock 20.1.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 2:41 pm

          although technically when you’re talking about small percentages, the margin for error also reduces.
                 
          The big issue though is that small percentages mean less people need to change their mind to swing the vote, so they bounce about quite a lot. 
                 
          You really only get consistency from which you can hypothesise fluctuation causes either with large proportions (e.g. 40 or 50%), or with flatlined parties like United Future or ACT. 

    • McFlock 20.2
      10 August 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Labour and Greens are usually complimentary – they share nat drops and DNR changes. 
           
      I’m just worried that the short term trend (i.e a few months) might be indicating a plateau in Labour’s growth from the election. We’ll see – polls go up, polls go down… 
           
       

    • bad12 20.3
      10 August 2012 at 2:54 pm

      My opinion, the sooner the Beneficiary Bashing Shearer is given the Boot and replaced by Cunliffe as both Party Leader and next Minister of Finance the better,

      Beneficiaries, all of them, with their low incomes and expectations are what keeps the interest rates of the comfortable middle class at levels which ensure their continued comfort,

      That middle class and the politicians put in place on the behalf of that middle class should be thanking beneficiaries on a weekly basis for being willing to except a lowered standard of living so as to ensure that middle classes continuing comfort…

      • weka 20.3.1
        10 August 2012 at 5:11 pm

        yes yes, but you can’t just have any class of bene. You have to have the ones that know their place, and daring to have a life while being on SB just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. You’re supposed to not do anything while on SB, and then suck it up when people criticise you for being a malingerer. And be grateful.

  21. CnrJoe 21
    10 August 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Key and Hungary.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10825896

    These mutts are trashing our good name.

  22. AmaKiwi 22
    10 August 2012 at 4:58 pm

    News Flash!

    New Political Party forming as Labour Splinters!

    The Beehive is buzzing with rumors that the two anonymous Cunliffe character assassins are joining John Banks to form a new party based on Machiavellian principles.

  23. Morrissey 23
    10 August 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Wimp Walloping
    The Wimp: DUNCAN WEBB; The Walloper: NEIL MILLER
    “The Panel”, National Radio, Friday 10 August 2012

    I’m listening to another horror show unfold. Once again, the ostensible “liberal” (Webb) is bending over backwards to find common ground with, and to please, a right winger (Miller). So whatever Miller says, no matter how bizarre and doctrinaire, Webb has obviously decided to agree with it.

    Today, Miller announced that the New Zealand security services are “open” and that he feels “relaxed” about their conduct, or misconduct. Duncan Webb did not even so much as demur at this nonsense. And neither did the stand-in host Finlay McDonald. Instead, both of these “liberals” laughed insipidly at Miller’s wry and cynical comments.

    Question: Why is Gordon Campbell never on this programme any more? He had the courage to confront Graham Bell, getting the tough old copper to admit he knew nothing about climate science, and on another occasion got Richard Griffin to backtrack and apologize for making some ignorant comments about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. On another occasion, Bomber Bradbury angered Michelle Boag, when he demanded that she back up one of her wild statements with at least one piece of evidence. I would not be surprised if she had something to do with the eventual banning of Bradbury from the programme.

    But Campbell and Bradbury are not on the programme any more. Instead, we get the likes of Duncan Webb playing the patsy. Neil Miller is a shallow and complacent commentator, but he gets an easy ride on this programme. As do other right wingers like Michael Bassett, Karl Du Fresne, Barry Corbett, Stephen Franks, John Bishop, and Deborah Hill Cone.

    The pity of it is that “The Panel” is so much less interesting and stimulating than it could be. Is it too much to hope that Jim Mora gets a thoughtful and serious producer one day?

    • weka 23.1
      10 August 2012 at 5:22 pm

      Probably. As it is, it’s a cringefest most of the time. Maybe someone should ask RNZ how they pick the panelists.
       

      • Morrissey 23.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 7:03 pm

        Maybe someone should ask RNZ how they pick the panelists.
        It’s quite clear how they pick them: anyone who has anything interesting to say will probably not be asked on, and neither will anyone who “rocks the boat”, i.e., stands up to the likes of Boag, Bassett and Griffin.

        I suggested it was simply an inadequate producer, but I think the real reason is the management at RNZ, headed by one, errrrr, Richard Griffin.

        • prism 23.1.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 9:58 pm

          Morrissey 23 1 1
          I think that it is Jim Mora’s preference, that he and his producer perhaps have approached the people who have the Right sort of opinions and can express them fluently. So I think that Stephen Franks et al get on, and Joanne Black who is now Press Secretary for some rightie, which is no surprise, and so on.

          • Morrissey 23.1.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 10:11 pm

            I think that it is Jim Mora’s preference, that he and his producer perhaps have approached the people…

            I am pretty certain that it is the producers/managers, rather than Jim Mora himself, who make the decisions. Surely no decent person, and Jim does seem to be a nice guy, would actually choose to spend an hour in the company of people as overbearingly pompous and unpleasant as Messrs Franks, Bassett and Bishop.

            Joanne Black who is now Press Secretary for some rightie

            It’s Bill English, actually.

            • prism 23.1.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 10:35 pm

              Morrissey
              I know nuthing… but I have a feeling when I listen to Jim Mora that there is something false there and that puts me off, as well as the circumlocutions you refer to.

              • Morrissey …
                10 August 2012 at 10:47 pm

                I have a feeling when I listen to Jim Mora that there is something false there and that puts me off, as well as the circumlocutions…

                I know exactly what you mean. You’ve caught the essence of the problem very well. I’ve been analysing his style and modus operandi for a long time now, and I might soon post up some of the things that bother me, and obviously other people too.

    • Anne 23.2
      10 August 2012 at 8:03 pm

      Question: Why is Gordon Campbell never on this programme any more?

      Jeepers Morrissey who is the clairvoyant? You or me? I was wondering exactly the same thing earlier today. I think you’re right. Campbell showed the rest of them up for the toadies they really are. That’s embarrassing all round. I’ve pretty much stopped listening to The Panel. It’s not worth it. I bet there listener numbers are falling…

      There’s always the possibility Gordon Campbell chose not to go on the programme again. And if that is the case it’s easy to understand why!

      • Morrissey 23.2.1
        10 August 2012 at 10:27 pm

        Jeepers Morrissey who is the clairvoyant? You or me?

        You and me both, I think.

        I bet their listener numbers are falling…

        I would not be surprised. It’s getting to be arch and self-referential, as well as vacuous. This dreadful “Complaints Choir” is almost always terrible, and about as amusing as toothache.

        There’s always the possibility Gordon Campbell chose not to go on the programme again.

        Yes, he seemed to be impatient with the inane chatter and the long, bloviating circumlocutions that Jim feels compelled to indulge in. He also declined to laugh dutifully at unfunny remarks by Jim or his fellow guests.

        Tame and anxious-to-please “liberals” like Peter Elliott or Tim Watkin or Chris Trotter are much more reliable, always willing to flatter the host with laughter.

        • Anne 23.2.1.1
          11 August 2012 at 3:40 pm

          You and me both, I think.

          You and me both total cynics too methinks, and not without reason. Don’t mention the Complaints Choir ever again please. Life’s hard enough without being reminded of that travesty of the soul.

  24. captain hook 24
    10 August 2012 at 5:59 pm

    finlay is a fweep.
    cross between a dweeb and a geek.
    wallop that wimp.

  25. Pascal's bookie 25
    10 August 2012 at 6:41 pm

    I don’t buy this theory that Key has got some other important business in the States. Don’t make no sense.

    The guy clearly loves his son, and he likes going to sports events. that’s enough to explain this. He took his son out of school to go to see the All Whites play at the world cup, remember that? He loves going into the changing rooms and hanging out with sporting heroes. 3 way handshake anyone?

    And going to discuss high faluttin secret policy with the masters of the universe? pfft.

    What’s he gonna do? Tell them his secret plan to save the whales? Promise to get them a fricken Panda of the chinese? Sort it all out with a job summit? Bike trails! A financial hubblet!

    Not.Buying.It.

    • Anne 25.1
      10 August 2012 at 6:57 pm

      Agree Pb.
      As if the masters of the universe are gonna discuss their high faluttin secret policies with him!

  26. rosy 26
    10 August 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Finally, the MSM asks question about what Stephen Joyce’s ‘intensification of agriculture’ means. I’m more worried about pressure on the environment from intensified dairying than I am about mining, and that’s saying something! Not to mention the animal rights aspects. Although I’m not a great animal lover, I do believe that if we’re going to use them we must at least treat them well.

    Was he signalling that we had all better get used to the fact that agriculture will become more and more intensive, and stop being squeamish about animal welfare?

    Was he suggesting that our reluctance to accept certain practices, such as locking up hens in cages, or fattening cows in cubicles or feedlots, is holding agricultural progress back, and will have to change?

    Perhaps he was signalling that it’s time we dropped our resistance to genetic engineering, and embraced it enthusiastically?

    Or was he simply signalling we need a huge boost in the number of dairy cows in New Zealand?

    Certainly there are signs of a renewed push for genetic engineering in New Zealand, and for more intensive, irrigation-based dairy farming, and innovations such as “cubicle farming” to fatten up dairy cows.

    But I believe Mr Joyce is dreaming if he thinks consumers will happily accept ever more intensive agriculture, as the price we must pay for more jobs.

    And then I checked the byline – it’s Sue Kedgley. Thank you Sue.

  27. Pascal's bookie 27
    10 August 2012 at 6:54 pm

    http://www.roymorgan.com/roymorgan/library/v13427_8.jpg

    last time the country was this unhappy they chucked the government out.

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      10 August 2012 at 7:44 pm

      Problem is, chucking a bad govt out is one thing, but who do you replace them with?

    • Draco T Bastard 27.2
      10 August 2012 at 9:54 pm

      A good read from the Archdruid:

      In Paris in 1789, in St. Petersburg in 1917, and in a great many other places and times, the people who thought that they held the levers of power and repression discovered to their shock that the only power they actually had was the power to issue orders, and those who were supposed to carry those orders out could, when matters came to a head, decide that their own interests lay elsewhere.

      So, just how much legitimacy does our government still have? It’;s still has it ATM but it’s obviously declining.

  28. Colonial Viper 28
    10 August 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Corporate lobbying – better ROI than adding real value to the economy

    Why create something of new economic worth when you can spend your time and money lobbying for tax breaks and favours garnering 22,000% ROI and more!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/08/Lobbying%20ROI.jpg

  29. Pete George 29
    10 August 2012 at 8:26 pm

    After the disgraceful abuse of the Prime Minister starting at http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10082012/comment-page-1/#comment-504964 – and the mugging mob abuse that followed is just par for the course here – it turns out that felix didn’t even have his facts right.

    While there will be government representation at a joint memorial service the soldier’s families are having private funerals.

    • felix 29.1
      11 August 2012 at 2:55 am

      Hi Pete.

      For every instance of “funeral” please read “joint memorial service”.

      I trust this satisfies your interest in the matter and that you’ll amend any posts on other blogs to reflect this new understanding.

  30. AmaKiwi 30
    10 August 2012 at 8:26 pm

    @Rosy

    “Intensified agriculture” means dairy cows take priority over households for water AND get used to cow manure run-off into streams and lakes because we’re not going to punish it.

    It can mean the same for pig farms and chicken factories.

    Water and animal sewage. Learn to love less of the first and more of the second.

  31. Colin16 31
    10 August 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Poor old sad12, Are you worried Shearer might want to take your benefit away?

  32. William Joyce 32
    10 August 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Another Friday night in blighted impoverished NZ.
    Currently I am seated in a deck chair, in front of a hot oven, bathed in the light from a sun lamp – sipping on Just Juice Pineapple juice made with 5% pineapple juice (& 95% apple concentrate imported from Germany).
    I’m listening to the sound of waves & ukulele’s playing on a CD player and I have just sprayed the room with Glade Hawaiian Breeze.
     
    I’m calling this my John Key “You to” Aspirational Hawaiian Experience.
     
    I have never had it so good.

  33. captain hook 33
    10 August 2012 at 9:21 pm

    he is probably in Las Vegas with a couple of hookers.
    Well he would be if he had any balls!

    • William Joyce 33.1
      10 August 2012 at 9:28 pm

      Yeah, I think Michelle Boag took them as part of the contract when they hired him. Supposedly they were served as finger food at a nat party conference. Rumour has it Gerry ate them (along with a pie, two sofa cushions and half of Christchurch).

      • prism 33.1.1
        10 August 2012 at 9:37 pm

        William Joyce
        You’re in such a good mood you should now read Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus – “Titus Andronicus is a play with “14 killings, 9 of them on stage, … He has captured Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and Aaron the Moor.” (thanks google). All I can say about this one is that they don’t write like this any more.

        • Jim Nald 33.1.1.1
          10 August 2012 at 9:55 pm

          “If one good deed in all his life he did,
          he doth repent it from his very soul.”

          (adapted) Act V, Scene iii

          Dedicated to john or gerry

          • prism 33.1.1.1.1
            10 August 2012 at 10:12 pm

            Jim N 33 1 1 1
            Trite I know but Shakespeare certainly has a way with words. And some of the well-known phrases just keep on. Maybe one day our own doughty leader will be wailing – ‘A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse’.

            Isn’t there a great scene in one of the king plays where a body of archers set themselves to send a rain of arrows high in the air to down the enemy? Makes sitting tapping complaints at the keyboard seem very tame in comparison. But then it is an attempt to think our way to a solution that doesn’t involve privation and bloodshed.

            • Jim Nald 33.1.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 10:33 pm

              “His conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
              And every tongue brings in a several tale,
              And every tale condemns him for a villain.”

              (adapted) Richard III, Act V, Scene iii

              dedicated to john key

              • prism …
                10 August 2012 at 11:03 pm

                Jim N
                Didn’t Shakespeare give Richard 3 a bad rap? Now Jokey Hen… Didn’t Richard 3 die on Bosworth field? Perhaps Key should go and fight along with certain USA pollies and generals, in Afghanistan.

                By the way USA is going to help Vietnam to counter the effects of Agent Orange at this late stage. What has happened about the Depleted Uranium in Iraq? Anyone been watching this?

        • William Joyce 33.1.1.2
          10 August 2012 at 10:03 pm

          That would ruin the buzz of pretending I am in Hawaii living off the profits from all the State Asset shares I purchased with my meagre discretionary dollars (plus the ones I get free, illegally paid for from all the other taxpayer saps).
          I’m trying a more Zen approach – my therapist said that spray painting a “hit list” on my bedroom wall wasn’t working for me – besides, it was getting too long. Apparently, the police will not be so happy next time if our beloved leader wakes up and finds me sitting at the end of his bed again.
          *sigh* As the song says, “….since I gave up hope I feel a lot better”.
           
          Just a minute, there’s a loud knock at the door………

          • prism 33.1.1.2.1
            10 August 2012 at 10:15 pm

            WJ
            Have they just found out that you have taken to painting your hit list on your roof you over-active decadent dissident?

            • William Joyce 33.1.1.2.1.1
              10 August 2012 at 10:25 pm

              Is it that obvious? Damn, Google Earth!
              The NZ Police, Thought Crime Division – Free Speech Suppression & Evidence Fabrication Team are onto me. Gotta run, heading off to Tuhoe country…………..opps

              • prism …
                10 August 2012 at 10:42 pm

                William Joyce
                That team has a mighty name – it should make a good acronym – something that would fit in with FESTER for instance?

          • mike e 33.1.1.2.2
            10 August 2012 at 10:16 pm

            he’s pobably going over their to checkon why his BofA ML shares are worth nothing now he going to ask Mitt the git Romney if he can pull the wool over the american publics eyes and bail out BofA a second time if he becomes president.

            • William Joyce 33.1.1.2.2.1
              10 August 2012 at 10:45 pm

              Romney is their John Key. A man from the financial industry that the people are told has the “economic skills” to fix the country, who smiles and waves, who has the “cred” of being wealthy i.e. successful (which people respect in our society of shallow values) but who has a murky past that they stonewall to protect from disclosure.
               
              Obama had to show his birth certificate – where the hell are Romney’s tax returns?
               
               

  34. prism 34
    10 August 2012 at 10:55 pm

    mike e Sounds like Key is a bit of a bofver boy. I see that some investors here got the right to get something back from their Blue Chip investments. Perhaps he will be able to swing something in the States to make up his losses.