Open mike 11/07/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 11th, 2024 - 30 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 Policy).

Step up to the mike …

30 comments on “Open mike 11/07/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gsays 1
    11 July 2024 at 6:38 am

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350338427/cops-called-angry-clash-between-migrant-worker-and-former-green-mp-report

    Mama-bear over what?

    Business interests?

    Political career?

    As a SPM, I constantly have 'read a room '.

    Others not so.

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    11 July 2024 at 6:46 am

    Clooney finally did it:

    “We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate,” Clooney said. “This isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and congress member and governor that I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-clooney-biden-drop-out_n_668ea511e4b0fabe6c568cee

    Took him long enough. Weird how no explanation has ever come from Biden for those senior moments he produced to entertain Trump & media. You'd expect a Dem frontperson to have spat the dummy long ago: "Look, his minder was supposed to insert the new battery before the speech, okay? He forgot. Shit happens, y'know?"

    Instead, total pretence that those moments that got multiple replays on headline news weren't reality. Yeah, I know, classic leftism. Any resemblance to Tana is just a coincidence, the deniers will claim! Delusional evasion of reality occurs on the right just as often – Trump, for instance – so it's a symptom of democracy. Get real is the best stance. Clooney implies it but ought to have said so.

    the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe ‘big F-ing deal’ Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate,” Clooney wrote.

    When Biden exhibits signs of mental illness in public, as he did, the thing to do is face that fact. The media failed that reality test. So it's useless. Clooney seems too scared to tell the truth but I suspect the truth will out. It usually does eventually…

    • Mike the Lefty 2.1
      11 July 2024 at 10:50 am

      If mental fitness is an issue, how come Americans never question the fitness of Trump – a man who lies, cheats, perjures and conducts extramarital affairs?

      I wish comedian George Carlin was still alive, he would call them out on their hypocritical absurdities.

      • Dennis Frank 2.1.1
        11 July 2024 at 11:08 am

        Because he's so typical? The ponderous judicial process may eventually file him into the baddie category, but he could win re-election before that happens.

        Reagan took years to declare his mental illness: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/reagans-letter-announcing-his-alzheimers-diagnosis

        His testimony reveals the effect of memory loss 4 years earlier:

        The words “I don’t remember,” or their equivalents, occurred at least 124 times in his eight hours of testimony. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-02-23-mn-1156-story.html

        So it seems feasible that the effect had already begun during his second term as president. Applying the same logic to Biden, it would explain the bizarre miscommunications. Mind you, Bush Jr became famous for those and he didn't have the geriatric excuse at the time!

        Trump exemplifies political players who use posturing quite well to game the system of democracy. Starmer got in with a fifth of electorate voting Labour so Trump's advisors know he only needs to present as more on the ball than Biden. True, narcissism at his extreme does seem pathological but one can't get a diagnosis to leverage his pathology…

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    11 July 2024 at 7:06 am

    Andrew Geddis has a useful analysis of the waka-jumping law here: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/09-07-2024/so-whats-the-point-of-the-party-hopping-law-again

    continues a pattern where the law on the books simply is not applied in practice… Since being reintroduced in 2018, the party-axing option also appears to be a paper tiger that barely even raises a rustle.

    National chose not to use it after expelling Jami-Lee Ross from caucus because they had strenuously opposed its enactment and so didn’t want to appear to be hypocrites

    Labour didn’t use the legislation against Gaurav Sharma because they still had plenty of other MPs and didn’t fancy a byelection

    The Greens didn't use it on Kerekere and seem to be standing with the Nats re hypocrisy and Tana as well. So we have a hefty political consensus that not enforcing moral standards on delinquent MPs is best. Democracy is inverse to morality.

    • tWig 3.1
      11 July 2024 at 7:49 am

      How is it hypocricy? Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean the Greens need to use it. You point out yourself good political reasons why the Nats and Labour decided not to use it. The Greens are just as entitled to weigh up the pros and cons of using it.

      • Dennis Frank 3.1.1
        11 July 2024 at 8:10 am

        Yeah, the Greens & Nats both seem to avoid using the law so as to not seem hypocritical in the public mind, having both opposed it in principle.

        My view is that democracy ought to be more principled than that, but I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that most players in the game don't take that attitude. So pragmatism rules political party decisions, not principle. Expediency, some call it.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1
          11 July 2024 at 8:37 am

          Having it on the books is useful for its own sake as a choice for both party and parliament.

          Imagine a case where a MP had directly done something totally egregious. Corruption, paedophilia, rapist, whatever.

          A criminal case might come to trial eventually. But in the meantime we'd have a complete stench in parliament. This law provides a process for expulsion of a politician from parliament after being expelled from or resigning from a party. Thereby limiting the damage.

          But it is a choice for a party and for the speaker. It should never be a requirement. Under the right circumstances I'm pretty sure that both National and the Greens would make a decision to use it.

          Without it, there is really no way for Parliament to act on a list MP upsetting the party balance that is the basis of proportional representation.

          Personally I'd get more worried about the lack of ways to unset an electorate MP without a conviction. Since the current backlog for criminal convictions in the district or high court can be measured in years.

          • Dennis Frank 3.1.1.1.1
            11 July 2024 at 9:07 am

            Yeah, utility reasoning often provides a valid rationale – if a tool works, we use it. There's a sound intellectual tradition (usually applied to prop up neolib ideology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

            Usage gives political leaders an opportunity to provide moral guidance to the public, which they usually see as a bullet to be dodged. Chloe, the other day, didn't explain why the Greens weren't considering using the law to solve the problem. She just tried to apply the public shaming strategy. A bluff that Tana can easily call and already seems to be doing so.

        • weka 3.1.1.2
          11 July 2024 at 9:10 am

          Yeah, the Greens & Nats both seem to avoid using the law so as to not seem hypocritical in the public mind, having both opposed it in principle.

          where did you get that from re the Greens? Have you been listening to what they've actually been saying? They want Tana gone, because they think she's fallen well below what is ok for any MP. They are going to discuss using the legislation to remove her (and as you well know, the co-leaders can't just do that off their own bat)

          I think there are real politik issues here in terms of perceptions of hypocrisy but they rather pale alongside the other considerations for the Greens: internal party process in changing position on policy, and the need to develop new policy given the complexities of the issues around list MPs leaving parties.

          Besides, Tana may well end up resigning anyway.

          • Dennis Frank 3.1.1.2.1
            11 July 2024 at 9:35 am

            Just the impression I get from media reports. If they do discuss using the law, it would be good for them – the mental discipline one gets from weighing the pros & cons of serious decisions builds resilience – regardless what they decide.

            If she's a strong woman, Tana may decide that she can inform the public of her view of the natural justice dimension. She is likely to await the release of the lawyer's findings, in that scenario, and use them as the basis. Definitely a consciousness-raising experience for her. Apparent complicity in apparent wrong-doing, with employment law the hinge between what's real and what all the various competing interpretations are offering. Law often seems to have an ephemeral relation to natural justice.

            • lprent 3.1.1.2.1.1
              11 July 2024 at 3:39 pm

              Law often seems to have an ephemeral relation to natural justice.

              Especially when it is in a case of significiant potential conflict. Judge, corporate head, elected politician, banker, etc etc are always at a lower bar for PR disasters for their respective institutions.

              Which in itself is also "natural justice". The potential for damage is also significantly higher for their institution or profession as well. Most of those rely on trust levels that are abnormally high if only because the working are often too arcane to know well, and the potential effects on 'innocents' from poor judgement in decision making tends to be so high.

  4. tWig 4
    11 July 2024 at 7:56 am

    For those who complain about Hipkins soft approach to the government, he sure rips into the flimsy government three-page 'climate strategy'.

  5. joe90 5
    11 July 2024 at 10:49 am

    If you don't measure it, it ain't happening.

    /

    A sustainability expert fears reduced investment in coastal mapping will slash information deemed critical to responding to severe weather and understanding of the impact communities will face as New Zealand is forced to cope with climate change.

    The 3D coastal mapping initiative is being scaled down, creating $3 million of cost savings a year for the next three financial years for the Government.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/govt-department-scales-back-coastal-mapping-project-fears-climate-planning-and-adaptation-measures-at-risk/FTAKIUNKURDDTHMNAIQCGR4QDU/

    https://archive.li/Rr3wM

    • Obtrectator 5.1
      11 July 2024 at 1:44 pm

      Well, can't have potential buyers of CC-vulnerable coastal properties knowing too much about the risks, eh? Not till you-know-who-and-their-mates have had time to flog all theirs off at "decent" prices, anyway.

  6. Mike the Lefty 6
    11 July 2024 at 10:58 am

    The Greens are probably in a no-win situation here.

    Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    But at least if they do (invoke the legislation) they won't have to put up with Tana sitting in the house gloating at them and they get a new face in the team.

    So as I see it the advantages if doing it outweigh the disadvantages, at least a bit.

    Meanwhile the CoC welcomes the media distraction.

    • bwaghorn 6.1
      11 July 2024 at 11:49 am

      The only people that will make hay out the greens using the waka jumping law will be political opponents. Kiwi voters will say good riddance

      • James Simpson 6.1.1
        11 July 2024 at 12:07 pm

        And many of the Green members who have opposed Waka jumping on principle since forever.

        I have no problem with it myself, but Weka articulated many members concerns with it yesterday. Have a look at the Open Mike thread on Tuesday.

  7. Hunter Thompson II 7
    11 July 2024 at 11:40 am

    As anyone who has phoned an 0800 helpline about a product knows, you will wait forever while the company you have called tests your patience (even though it assures you it values your custom).

    Why don't these outfits give consumers the option of booking a time to call so that little time will be wasted? Is that too simple?

    • David 7.1
      11 July 2024 at 4:47 pm

      Booking call backs is lot less efficient in the time taken to handle the call and to resolve the customer’s issue. The no answer rate is about 50% on call backs.

      The next issue is security.

      Customers would not know the if the call was from their bank, or a scammer. This is why we ask customers to contact us on our public listed phone number.

      If you want your call to be answered quickly, don’t complain about the time taken to answer your call, that’s several wasted minutes and have all of your information ready. Please don’t be rude. Health and safety rules now require a report to management, mandatory time away from call handling for the employee, and a black mark against your name.

  8. James Simpson 8
    11 July 2024 at 12:05 pm

    It's coming home….

  9. Mac1 9
    11 July 2024 at 2:31 pm

    Regarding parties' responsibilities to elect worthwhile people as candidates, I have been banging on about this for nearly fourteen years on TS.

    Below is what I wrote on 24 September 2010. I'm not claiming any special knowledge or wisdom, it's just a particular concern of mine, yet we still have selection problems in the US, here in NZ with National and the Greens in recent times, and most parties at some time or another.

    We continue to select unworthy candidates. All parties need to address this, for all our benefit, for we will be governed by those we allow through our selection processes, or we will have oppositions incapable of sufficient scrutiny of governments.

    One part of the solution is for enough people of good will and sense to join political parties to help provide good policy and parliamentarians.

    This is from a post discussing National's agreements in 2010 and about the people we had then who made party decisions and who showed sociopathic, elitist and criminal tendencies.

    "……..Members of all parties who are well-motivated need to be able to spot these types before they get to be MPs or in positions of power and have processes which can weed them out.

    From my observations over forty years of interest in politics and membership within one party, the people to watch for are often new-comers who are usually single issue focussed and who get ‘spotted’ by others of influence as filling a niche or ticking the boxes for a particular targeted social grouping. They get selected without proper observation and targeted scrutiny.

    Minor parties who don’t have the time in years to do the observation/weeding or a broad enough membership base are particularly vulnerable to poor candidate selection."

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

  10. Sanctuary 10
    11 July 2024 at 4:39 pm

    The Greens used to select candidates with a record of community service and civic activism around environmental and social issues. Nowadays they look to tick boxes and you can see the attraction of Tana. Maori woman with a Moko! Tick! Runs a e-bike business – yay, an actual business owner and a green business as well! Double tick! A prickly dreadful bore who wears her culture like a stigmata! Triple tick!

    Except it turns out picking people with no verifiable extensive record of community service is a risky business, because they might turn out to be angry and entitled exploiters of migrant labour because they think settler rules don't apply to them and having to explain themselves is rationalised as a form of colonial oppression.

    • weka 10.1
      11 July 2024 at 5:00 pm

      I'm sure her degree and work in environmental science, and her international business experience had nothing to do with her selection.

      The Greens fucked up on this, they should and are reviewing their selection process, but lazy green antipathy tropes don't help. Afaik all parties have had bad candidates and in this case it looks like a combination of selection process and the candidate withholding and lying.

      I would love to know how she was selected though, and why no-one appears to have known what was happening with her husband's business. Not hard to think good background checks were lacking.

      • Visubversa 10.1.1
        11 July 2024 at 9:51 pm

        Apart from sticking a name in Google – there may be a limit to the sort of "background checks" that can lawfully be done on a candidate. One is very reliant on personal contact. If there is not a well established local Party Branch to consult – or if that Branch has not had much interaction with the prospective candidate, it is difficult to excavate a well hidden personality flaw, or unacceptable behaviour.

        I have been involved in a few selection Panels, and an early Moderating Committee for the Labour Party and we were always very reliant on local knowledge.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          11 July 2024 at 10:09 pm

          Yes, personal contacts were what I was meaning. I wasn't thinking about character flaws so much as dodgy business and hiring practices and those being investigated. Waiheke is a bloody small place and I assume has a fair amount of networking with GP people. My guess is that the Greens were using a trust model and finally got bitten.