Open mike 11/04/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 11th, 2011 - 222 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…

222 comments on “Open mike 11/04/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. chris73 1
    11 April 2011 at 6:48 am

    Its funny but I’ve been banging on for a while now about Labours problems (and of course being told how wrong I am) about how the direction of Labour is wrong, getting away from their background etc etc
    So its quite nice to see a Labour MP shares similar views:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4870142/Labour-MP-leaves-list-to-gaggle-of-gays
    I wouldn’t put it quite like this but you get the point
     

    • The Voice of Reason 1.1
      11 April 2011 at 6:57 am

      The point being that you are homophobic, chris? Nice one.
      O’Connor has managed to burn off most of his support within caucus and the wider party. It’d be great if he wins the West Coast seat back, but if he has to attack the rainbow section of the party to do it, it’s probably better he doesn’t. Actually, attacking the miner’s union will probably make sure he doesn’t get back in, so fail all round, I would have thought.

      • sean 1.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 9:30 am

        Resorting to name calling because you don’t want to discuss his comment?  Exactly the same to people being called racist when they disagree with the Maori party.
         
        Given the screaming heap that Darren Hughes and Chris Carter went down in, many people would agree with Damien O’Connor.  And alternatively, if Labour becomes overridden with Unionists the same effect is going to happen.
         
        Given that National is at 54% in the latest CB poll, I would tend to say O’Connor has a lot of merit in what he is saying.  It can’t be all because of Phil Goff/Annette King’s incompetence.

        • Daveo 1.1.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 10:11 am

          I think it’s a bit rich for a man who lost the most working class seat in NZ to a guy who closely resembles toad of toad hall to be bleating on about how he represents real New Zealanders.

        • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.2
          11 April 2011 at 10:17 am

          O’Connor’s remark was homophobic, Sean, and Chris agreed with it, so it’s not name calling to point that out. And I did discuss his comment, ya dickhead.

          Who gets called racist for disagreeing with the MP? Citation, please. There are plenty of unionists in the Labour caucus already, including a few who have never been full time union officials, just members. So what’s your point?

          • sean 1.1.1.2.1
            11 April 2011 at 11:01 am

            The point being, you laid into Chris calling him homophobic, when he wasn’t being.  Hate the game not the player…….
             
            O’Connor could have been more diplomatic in what he said (which is what Chris actually did), but the reality is its what a lot of people are thinking, but are too scared to say out loud because of the overbearing PC-ness that we have to put up with these days.
             
             

            • Mac1 1.1.1.2.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 11:08 am

              sean, if being PC means being inclusive and tolerant, then I’m PC.

              If being ‘non-PC’ is a cover for homophobia, bigotry in all its forms, prejudice, intolerance and hatred- then I’m glad I’m not in that number. Sorry for the tautology but I thought you might recognise at least one word here.

              sean, ‘non-PC’ is a code-word for these anti-social, un-Christian, values which good parents, teachers and ministers all teach against.

              Just though you should know which team you are supporting here.

              • millsy …
                11 April 2011 at 11:34 am

                I bet you that those shoving Jews and Gypsies into the ovens at Dachau would have identified themselves as ‘non-PC’.

                • Mac1 …
                  11 April 2011 at 4:11 pm

                  The horrific thing was, millsy, that the shovers became the shovees, having bought themselves (at what cost?) three to six months reprieve.

                  I certainly can’t judge them, nor do I want to be in the situation where I could know enough.

                  Though it is said, as I muse on, that the people with the best chance of surviving the death camps were those who acted to help others survive.

                  • millsy …
                    11 April 2011 at 6:06 pm

                    <p>Mac, I am talking about those who devised the \’Final Solution\’, not the poor people who \’co-operated\’.
                    I should have made myself more clearer. I have issues with that…</p>

                    • Mac1 …
                      11 April 2011 at 7:16 pm

                      millsy, I gathered you meant the devisers, so you were clear enough. I chose to read the meaning I gave it, having just seen a programme on Sky recently. Those planners were psychopathic and would not have cared about labels, except they were careful about putting things on paper, since some Germans objected to the slaughter of their own mentally ill, hence the use of code words such as ‘final solution’ and ‘firewood.’

                      There are only degrees of difference between ‘non-PC’ and ‘final solution’ as a linguistic cop-out.

                      anti-spam ‘misunderstanding’ !

                • sean …
                  11 April 2011 at 11:53 pm

                  Godwins law already…..thanks, I won :-p

                  [lprent: pwned arguments or any variant on those sorry arsed flamewar starters are a very fast way to attract my moderating attention. This is strictly an agree to disagree forum. In my opinion having to resort to such hackneyed troll tactics indicates a inability to debate, so I reward repeating offenders with time to review their lack of skills.

                  You’ve been around for long enough to know that. But you have generally behaved this time around. Have a weeks rest. ]

            • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.2.1.2
              11 April 2011 at 11:29 am

              Ah, diddums. O’Connor was homophobic, Chris73 was as well by agreeing with the comment and now you reckon people are too scared to come out and be openly homophobic because it’s all so PC these days. C’mon!

              Don’t know what planet you’re on. sean, but here on earth, people have been openly homophobic about Labour since at least the point at which Helen Clark became leader. If chris wanted to be diplomatic he could have done so, but he didn’t. As usual, he came up with a few concern troll lines and an endorsement of O’Connor’s stupid remarks. If he wants to weasel out of his own words, let him. But you are wasting your time trying to do it for him.

              • Vicky32 …
                11 April 2011 at 6:56 pm

                and be openly homophobic because it’s all so PC these days. C’mon!

                Okay, I am coming out and saying, by your standards, I am ‘homophobic’. (Homophobia by the way, isn’t even a thing.) I hate that men who hate women (and no matter how they pretend for a while, gay men do, as gay men I know have freely told me) have power over others by threatening them with being thought bigots and the kind of people who set up Hitler’s death machinery.
                For goodness’ sake, grow up! What a disgusting comparison.

                • millsy …
                  11 April 2011 at 8:39 pm

                  <p>Deb, here is DOC\’s words that are slightly edited, seeing as you have concerns about my allusions to the Holocaust:
                   
                  </p>
                  <p>
                  </p>
                  <blockquote>Labour leader Phil Goff says list MP Damien O\’Connor will be told to apologise to caucus for saying the party\’s list selection is run by \”self-serving Jews and a gaggle of gypsies\”.</blockquote>

                  • Vicky32 …
                    12 April 2011 at 3:08 pm

                    Sorry, Millsy, that’s even more childish! Although it’s conveniently forgotten now, Hitler’s concentration camps contained not only Jews, but gypsies, Slavs, gays, pacifists, Christians and people with intellectual and physical disabilities.
                    But that fact does not mean that you can claim that O’Connor was saying he’d like to throw gay men into concentration camps! It’s the same morally bankrupt argument I have seen equating ‘homophobia’ (which as I’ve said isn’t even a real thing!) with racism.
                    I’ma stick my neck out here and say that ‘gay is a choice’. Black isn’t. ‘Nuff said.

                    • Carol …
                      12 April 2011 at 3:15 pm

                      ‘homophobia’ (which as I’ve said isn’t even a real thing!)
                      I’ma stick my neck out here and say that ‘gay is a choice’.

                       
                      Well if it was a choice, life would have been so much easier growing up back in the days when homophobia was an extremely oppressive force. I would have chosen to be heterosexual… I tried very hard to be that. I’ve seen many incidents of homophobia ever since then, and know people who’ve been bashed as a result of it and ones who’ve committed suicide.  It certainly does exist.
                       
                      And isn’t it a little contradictory to say that homophobia doesn’t exist, that gays were put in concetration camps during the 3rd Reich, and to say it’s a “choice”?
                       

          • Vicky32 1.1.1.2.2
            11 April 2011 at 6:48 pm

            Who gets called racist for disagreeing with the MP?

            I have been called racist for saying that Louisa Wall is a Maori! To which I could only say wtf?
            I also, horrifyingly, agree with sean, that O’Connor has a point regarding the ‘rainbow’ people. I heard one of them on Nat Rad this morning, throwing such a tanty and screaming “homophobia!!!!” at the top of his lungs. Does Labour not get that bumping people up the party list because they’re gay or because they’re Maori actually is a very bad look. They may actually turn out to be very good MPs. But those of us who don’t belong to protected groups might well  think “Oh she’s there because she’s Maori, or he’s there because he’s gay. I think I’ll go with the Greens or Alliance, their candidate might also be gay, but they are not claiming credit solely for that!

            • Carol 1.1.1.2.2.1
              11 April 2011 at 7:01 pm

              What evidence is there that the 3 gay MPs on the Labour list got bumped up because they are gay?  On the gaynz forum someone said that Louisa Wall and Lliane Dalzielle chose not to be on the list because they want to focus on the electorate campaign.

            • Jum 1.1.1.2.2.2
              11 April 2011 at 7:31 pm

              Vicky32,
              I was listening to Radio New Zealand this morning and the person did not scream.  So don’t be so silly.

            • Anne 1.1.1.2.2.3
              11 April 2011 at 9:02 pm

              Does Labour not get that bumping people up the party list because they’re gay or because they’re Maori actually is a very bad look.

              That’s bollocks!  Labour does nothing of the sort. What they try to do however is make sure the list is representative of all members of the Labour Party, regardless of race, creed or sexuality, and that it covers as wide a geographical spread as is possible.

              I think you are following the spin line that suits your personal prejudice Vicky 32.

            • lprent 1.1.1.2.2.4
              11 April 2011 at 10:41 pm

              They don’t. The only person I can see trying to claim special privilege here is O’Conner.

              I haven’t seen anything to impress me with Damien O’Connor. That is almost certainly why he was so far down the list.

              Pass me the constitution. I am tired of idiots inside of the party using news media to play internal politics. I think it is time for the party members to start to ban them for their behavior. I am sure there will be a procedure to do exactly that.

              Let’s start a wee movement. Foulup as a MP in a way that uses tge media to relitigte a argument you lost by going to the media

              • Mac1 …
                11 April 2011 at 10:57 pm

                These words come to mind from an older hand. Loyalty and discipline. Party before self. Cause before ambition. Thinking before reacting. Consulting. Process.

                I agree that some disciplinary measure should be invoked. 

                Wouldn’t mind giving the lecture that goes with it. 

              • PeteG …
                12 April 2011 at 6:44 am

                Mustn’t show any sign of different thoughts or ideas outside the party. Toe the line, everyone must hum the same monotonous slogans. Of course within the party a little bit of robust debate is ok as long as it doesn’t stray too far from the ideologies, but the public shouldn’t see through the blandness.
                 
                If they try to clamp down on freedom of speech too much they risk becoming labeled
                a piddling of parlies.
                 
                 

                • lprent …
                  12 April 2011 at 7:00 am

                  The whole point about a party is that it is a forum to argue within. I support anyone dissenting inside the party. There are forums like this to engage in outside in the ongoing arguments across the Left.

                  But pulling a straight party matter outside in a manner designed to cause damage for political advantage against colleagues is just stupidity as far as I am concerned. Read my post on Chris Carter to find out exactly how much I dislike and despise it.

                  I am tired of tolerating Labour MP’s doing it. It is distracting, not particularly useful, and tends to waste a lot of my efforts in trying to get the party back on the treasury benches.

                  I want to take one of these arseholes abusing my trust and crucify them. Moreover, I would prefer if it is done by the membership. It is time to find out how to achieve that aim.

                  • PeteG …
                    12 April 2011 at 7:11 am

                    The risk you run is that, while going to great lengths to have a diverse (possibly too diverse) party list, you then want to suppress any outward sign of diversity.
                    Surely there should be a balance of freedom of open expression and party responsibility.
                     
                    I’d much rather hear and know what individual MPs think rather than getting fed
                    a groan of groupspeak, carefully controlled by a paranoia of power seekers.

                    • lprent …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:23 am

                      Inside the party. That is the whole point of joining and working for one. Cooperating brings greater benefits in terms of results to all than would be achievable with a group of individuals working against each other. That was the formation basis of the labour movement. For that matter it is the forming principle of companies and this site as well.

                      If people don’t want to adhere to that basic coop principle of arguing within the joint rules that they agreed to on joining or made later, then I can’t see why I need to exert effort for their benefit – however indirectly. I will use those rules to remove them from the cooperative – that expresses my opinion of their behavior quite succinctly.

                      I realize that you still cleave to that 18th century ideal of independent gentlemen all working independently for the great good. But political parties coalesced because it simply didn’t work for anything important.

                    • RedLogix …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:25 am

                      Lynn explained it to you very carefully. Try reading what he said again.
                       
                      Political parties are full of internal dissent and discussion, it is eternal and essential. But political parties are also required to show unity of purpose in action.
                       
                      O’Connor by giving into an emotional impulse to lash out and damage that unity has proven that he is unfit for public office.

                    • felix …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:26 am

                      a diverse (possibly too diverse) party list

                      Meaning what exactly? How, with representation as the aim, can a list be “too diverse”?

                    • PeteG …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:31 am

                      Too much emphasis on diversity, not enough emphasis on electability and ability to run a government.

                      Using a sports analogy, the All Black selectors don’t make sure their team represents every union and ethnic group in the country, they have a team strategy and select people with the ability and team skills to win. Ultimately with test rugby, and politics, winning is what is most important.

                      I guess it depends on whether people prefer a potpourri party or a great government.

                    • lprent []
                      12 April 2011 at 7:46 am

                      If we were only interested in electability then we’d have a party of ineffective lightweights like National does.

                      The slate isn’t drawn up solely on electability reasons. It is drawn up to retain parliamentary skills, bring new blood in to gain those skills, to draw in representation for areas that would otherwise get overlooked (ie why Dunedin is over represented), and to ensure that when elected Labour is able to govern.

                      You can see the effect of your view in National’s current performance. They are clearly not able to govern effectively. probably the clearest symptom after the economy is how often they have used urgency in the house. Speaks of their lack of organizational skills.

                    • felix …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:34 am

                      Note my words “with representation as the aim”.

                      Your answer suggests otherwise.

                  • Carol …
                    12 April 2011 at 7:21 am

                    To me it’s not a matter of a person never criticising their party publicly – but then I’m not a member of any party.  However, these words by Mac1 strike a chord for me:

                    Cause before ambition.

                    At a time when we need MPs standing up for the people and public services struggling financially, and against NActMU policies that make it harder for working people, O’Connor’s criticisms of Labour seem to be all about his own status.  What’s he doing for Kiwi battlers?

                    • PeteG …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:26 am

                      What about these words that I just though of

                      Pointing out the obvious.

                       
                      I realise it’s not what a party will want to hear having just worked hard on and committing to a new party list, but O’Connor feels that the provinces are neglected, I’ve suggested provincial neglect, the location of Labour seats suggests a lack of appeal problem outside the main urban areas, and Labour are stuck with it for another election.

                      O’Connor may not have helped the cause for this year, but the medium term Labour cause should take heed.

                    • lprent …
                      12 April 2011 at 7:56 am

                      Yep, and there is that as well. With the exception of this I haven’t seen his head over the parapet in the last couple of years in public on anything else. That doesn’t mean much.

                      He could have been advocating on the behalf of his electorate, because he is probably an effective electorate MP (even they lose elections some time – ask Phil Goff).

                      But since the order of the list for the sitting MP’s is largely set up by the MP’s (but with a couple of exceptions not the final list position), he obviously doesn’t impress his colleagues with his skills.

            • felix 1.1.1.2.2.5
              12 April 2011 at 6:54 am

              I have been called racist for saying that Louisa Wall is a Maori!
               

              That’s not true Vicky32. You were called racist for saying that Louisa Wall was getting the nod of approval ahead of some other candidates because she is maori.

              • Vicky32 …
                12 April 2011 at 3:18 pm

                No, someone actually attacked me in so many words for saying she’s a Maori… which made me wonder at the time if I had heard right, and she’s actually PI or something?
                And yes, according to what I had heard on the radio (Nat Rad), she was in fact getting the nod of approval ahead of say, Judith Tizard foe that reason. I’d even read here, someone applauding that fact.
                I used to vote Labour (I live in what was Helen Clark’s electorate.) But this year I’ll be voting Green. There’s much less chance of being labelled as a racist, for querying – er, racism? Or do you believe that only whites are and can be racist? If so, that shows appalling ignorance.

                  • Jum …
                    12 April 2011 at 4:47 pm

                    I had to laugh watching Parliamentary questions today when the Speaker told a Labour questioner that if he expected a straight answer from John Key… which implies that the prime minister of this government does not tell the truth if he can get away with it.  Aint that the truth.

                • felix …
                  12 April 2011 at 6:44 pm

                  I think you’re wrong about why you were called a racist, but I’m not going looking for the thread so I won’t go on about it. You could always find it and make me apologise of course, but whatever.
                   
                  Reading your reply to Carol’s comment below leaves me in no doubt as to your homophobic attitudes however.
                   
                  It also leaves me with the distinct impression that you’re quite mental.

            • Vicky32 1.1.1.2.2.6
              12 April 2011 at 3:29 pm

              There’s no reply button under your sneer, Carol, and I take that as an omen.
              So, I am out of here. My advice, google ‘gay by choice’ and read the site.
              I didn’t say homophobia wasn’t a word, I said it isn’t a ‘thing’. It’s a word with no referent. I could invent a mental illness the main symptom of which is fear of women who’ve had three children. I could give it a scientific sounding name, get a friendly shrink to lobby to put it in the DSM, and Bob’s my aunty’s live-in lover!
              Doesn’t make it a real thing. The only fear I have of gays, is of their disproportionate career-ending social power.
              If you had your way, O’Connor would be ceremonially expelled from the Labour party, and maybe from the country. Shame on you!

      • William Joyce 1.1.2
        11 April 2011 at 8:11 pm

        OMG – There you go again VOR. The last time you used this flawed accusation was over racism. You seem to enjoy leaping into the abyss of irrationality just so you can fire some unwarranted shots at someone.
        Nothing in the statement attributed to DO’C is insulting to gays – unless they find it offensive to be linked with unions and collectively called a gaggle.
        Some minority groups seem to be expecting “protected species” rights and cry foul when someone finds fault with one of them and hope that their issues will be advanced by playing on liberal guilty/empathy.
        VOR – stop being quick to take offence where there is none! And stop throwing around pejorative labels before you have analysed if it’s warranted.
        There is nothing offensive in what Chris73 said above.
         

        • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2.1
          11 April 2011 at 8:26 pm

          So what is this fault that DO’C has found with whom? All this waltzing around the subject isn’t very straight shootery.

          I wish one of y’all would come out and say what’s on your mind.

          If someone said that straight white male christians were forming a posse to keep minorities off the list, would that be seen as insulting?

          What evidence does DO’C have that sexual orientation was a major consideration? Seeing he saw fit to bring it up, one should think he should make his case a bit more forthrightly rather than just relying on stereotypes to do the work.

          And shock horror, there are unionists in the Labour Party. Damien has been in parliament for nigh on 20 years. There may well be people voting in this election who weren’t born when he entered parliament. Has he only just discovered that he is in a Labour party?

          • William Joyce 1.1.2.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 8:39 pm

            Groups or power blocks form because of shared interests and other affinities.
            DO’C merely used distinctives to identify two groups that he wanted to blame. “Them over there, they did it” – instead of “them” he identified the two groups but some common identifying characterists.
            DO’C did not say that because they were gay they ruined his selection.
            If he had said that by nature gays are nasty, secretive, bullies who take great joy victimising people – then that would be homophobic.

            • Pascal's bookie 1.1.2.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 8:51 pm

              So why didn’t he say, ‘party insiders’, or ‘townies’, or ‘people who didn’t lose the west coast’.

              Because he chose to scapegoat gays that’s why. You seem to think that it is somehow wrong to question why he did that. He doesn’t seem to have presented much of a defence.

              • William Joyce …
                11 April 2011 at 9:16 pm

                Because in his twisted view of the situation there wasn’t any reason to identify “‘party insiders’, or ‘townies’, or ‘people who didn’t lose the west coast’.”
                He saw two groups and each group had an identifying characteristic that set them out from all the other people.
                If he said “party insiders” then people would say “which party insiders”, if he said “townies” then people would have asked “which townies?”
                Identifying gays and unionists was pretty specific. Even the MSM proved being specific could lead to identifying who he was taking about. The tv news flashed up the faces of the gays and unionists he was probably taking about.
                How would they have been able to do that if he said townies?

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  11 April 2011 at 9:32 pm

                  You think they wouldn’t be able to find big city mps in the labour party?

                  His whole point was that provincial mps are left out. This point would have been stronger by saying townies. But he didn’t. He chose to scapegoat gays; for some reason, which remains unexplained.

                • Carol …
                  11 April 2011 at 9:48 pm

                  That really doesn’t wash as an explanation as to why O’Connor, a sexual conservative it seems, chose to identfy some list MPs by sexuality & union affiliation.

                  • higherstandard …
                    11 April 2011 at 9:50 pm

                    So would he have been better to say the Rainbow and union wings ?

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      11 April 2011 at 9:55 pm

                      He’d have been better to say nothing, HS.

                    • higherstandard …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:02 pm

                      From a party perspective I think you’re quite right that politically it’s best if these arguments are not undertaken in public- but I doubt it’ll do him any harm as an electorate MP.

                      Labour has partitioned itself into particular silos over last couple of decades this is just O’Connor opening his mouth to suggest in his opinion two of those silos aren’t likely to be supportive of him.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    12 April 2011 at 2:57 pm

                    Please define ‘sexual conservative’. You make it sound like some kind of loathsome disease.
                    In other words, you are displaying prejudice.

                    • Carol …
                      12 April 2011 at 3:03 pm

                      I mean by sexual conservative that O’Connor has voted to maintain the status quo with respect to Bills that aim to liberalise laws related to sexuality: ie The Civil Union Bill & the Prostitution Bill.  It seems to me a descriptive term identifying a conservative position on policy.

    • millsy 1.2
      11 April 2011 at 9:49 am

      Poor old Damien O’Connor has a problem with the nasty unionists in the Labour list…

      There is a solution for that.

      Piss off and join the National Party. Why does he think the Labour Party is called the ‘Labour Party”.

      It is supposedly the workers party and thats why there are trade union representatives in the Labour Party list it may not be PC but the voice of unions are as legitamite as the voice of any other group. They, are the ones who do the hard yards to keep the economy going. If he wants farmers and businesspeople on the list then he needs to join National, with his mate George Hawkins.

      Simple as that.

      • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 10:12 am

        Spot on, Millsy. And you can bet O’Connor will singing a different tune when he needs unionists to canvass for him come election time. I really think his hissy fit shows exactly why he was going to be ranked so low.

      • Sam 1.2.2
        11 April 2011 at 10:52 pm

        Labour ceased to be the “workers” party when failed university lecturers, third rate lawyers and teachers and homosexuals became its  MPs.   End of story.

    • vto 1.3
      11 April 2011 at 11:12 am

      Ha ha I see O’Connor has been labelled a “redneck” by a gay business leader, some Mr Martin. Proof certain that the mindless prejudice in fact sits on the other side of the pc fence.

      Proof again that unless you are gay or female you are not entitled to have an opinion on matters gay, unless in support. Otherwise you are a homophobe.

      Just like unless you are maori or female you are not entitled to have an opinion on matters maori, unless in support. Otherwise you are racist.

      Proof again that the value of opinions in NZ stem from race, gender and sexual orientation and not the subject matter. The oppressed have once again become the oppressors. Such a common failing…

      • millsy 1.3.1
        11 April 2011 at 11:32 am

        I would think that if you do not support the right of new zealander have sleep with whomever they wish, provided they are over 16 and the act is consensual, then that is, for all intents and purposes, homophobic.

      • Jum 1.3.2
        11 April 2011 at 7:37 pm

        Vto,
        Golly, you seem to be yet another silly person who thinks it quite okay for a sitting parliamentary member to badmouth your own party in public when the sensible thing to do is approach the leadership, complain and sort out something.  Doesn’t the left get it; the only news that gets in the newspapers is talking up the rightwing and talking down the left – if they get ammunition to do so.  Or if they’re Key or Joyce, Brownlee or Parata, Worth or Lee, etc. who just lie or mislead.
         

  2. mickysavage 2
    11 April 2011 at 6:58 am

    Last night’s Colmar Brunton poll result was interesting.  Those of the right have continuously run the line that Goff’s handling of Darren Hughes’ problems was the beginning of the end, there was an imminent leadership coup and Labour was dog tucker.

    I admit myself thinking that the matter should have been handled differently although I was certain that there would not be a coup.

    And now this latest poll shows a modest rise in support for Labour and a considerable increase in support for Goff as leader.

    What happened?  Could it be, as some commentators have said, that outside of the beltway ordinary kiwis actually liked seeing a leader with compassion who while twisting on the horns of a dilemma made a decision that was not “technically” perfect but was human?  Could Goff’s very candid interview where he admitted making mistakes have actually improved his standing?  Can his support for a mate whatever the consequences have caused his standing to rise?

    Having seen a lot of him over the years and recently I know that he relates to people very well.  If you get him out on the hustings he is extraordinarily good at engaging with people.  He is a very decent person.

    The Goffice needs to simplify the message however.  No asset sales is a good starter.  Keep the message simple and outline what a disaster current National policies will be for ordinary Kiwis.

    If they can achieve this then anything can happen at this year’s election.

    And one final point, we should view with suspicion the shrill rantings of the right. In fact it seems the shriller the ranting the less it is reality based.

    • PeteG 2.1
      11 April 2011 at 7:20 am

      The leadership hoo-ha emphasised that no one else wants to step up so it shouldn’t be surprising no alternative to Goff is recognised. He is still only 11%, that’s very mediocre and only a third compared to Labour’s 34%.

      • The Voice of Reason 2.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 7:42 am

        Here’s some more numbers for you, Pete:
        Goff’s personal support rises by 40%.
        And, that at a time when he, the party and Darren Hughes were under severe attack from spinners, lickspittles and, um, you.
         
         

    • Bored 2.2
      11 April 2011 at 7:24 am

      Mickey, you know my position on Goff, and by dint the Labour Party so I will not comment further on the leadership. What does bear some comment though is the fact that the left cant break the Nats hold on 50%. As the major centre left party what has Labour so signally failed to communicate to the general public. These are dire times, and it wont get better with Nact, what message are Labour missing?

      • Carol 2.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 7:32 am

        In the Stuff article on Damien O’Connor, Goff said he reckons Labour would get 40% in the election.  So, it seems to me that Goff is aiming for a Labour-Green coalition.

        • lprent 2.2.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 8:02 am

          That would be nice. But the Greens have a habit of getting fewer MP’s than their polling suggests largely because the youth demographics that they appeal to often doesn’t vote. It makes coalition building with them difficult when you have to get support from right of Labour.

          There may be stuff lurking below the surface, but so far I haven’t seen the greens doing a lot at the gettng the votes level this term. I am currently expecting that they will get about 6-7%, which would leave Labour with their traditional Labour-Green coalition problem.

          • Lanthanide 2.2.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 9:49 am

            Yeah, I don’t see Greens as getting any higher than 8% at the outset, not on their current polling.

    • sean 2.3
      11 April 2011 at 9:32 am

      Yeah but the problem is they are just rearranging the deck chairs – when they start eating into Nationals % points it will actually mean something.

  3. PeteG 3
    11 April 2011 at 7:12 am

    Dunedin is regarded as Labour territory with an easy stroll expected in the electorates. But it doesn’t seem to be an area Labour puts much importance on, or attracts top candidates.

    4. David Parker – Otago seat MP 2002-2005, list since
    29. Clare Curran, sitting MP, Dunedin South (not a great endorsement for her first term efforts)
    43. Glenda Alexander – remarkably missed Dunedin North candidacy but ranks higher than Clark
    45. Rino Tirikatene, candidate and rated a chance for Te Tai Tonga
    49. David Clark, candidate and almost assured of replacing Hodgson in Dunedin North
    54. Tat Loo, candidate for Clutha-Southland

    • mickysavage 3.1
      11 April 2011 at 7:16 am

      What a silly thing to say.  PeteG you do not understand the function of lists obviously.

      Clare and David Clark will win their electorate seats easily, David Parker will be there, Rino has an outstanding chance in Te Tai Tonga and Glenda has a very good chance on the list.

      It is customary for candidates with strong electorates who are not on the front bench to be ranked lower.

      So support for a region has nothing to do with  list rankings.

      Good attempted spin though.

      • PeteG 3.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 7:29 am

        It’s ok for you to diss us here as just a convenience of list politics – where do you live? It’s not attempted spin – I’m noticing how much importance Labour put on Dunedin candidates. Which seems to be bugger all.
         
        It says to me that either Dunedin is taken for granted as easy seats, and/or that Dunedin attracts very mediocre candidates. It doesn’t give a lot of confidence that the area will be well represented.

        • lprent 3.1.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 7:38 am

          If he hadn’t said it then I would have. You are being an idiot. The list isn’t meant as a security blanket for MP’s in winnable seats. As far as I am concerned it is there to get fresh meat for the parliamentary grinder and to provide parliamentary continuity for skills.

          It isn’t there for providing comfort to spinners.

          • PeteG 3.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 7:43 am

            You’re being an idiot if you think that some voters at least won’t look at the list differently to how Labour insiders think it should be used.
             
            Front page ODT Dunedin North Candidate low on list.
            But who cares about party votes in the provinces.

            • lprent 3.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 7:55 am

              So? You could find exactly the same headline in every population centre, some quite a lot larger than my alta mater. including Manakau, Hamilton, Palmerston North, etc etc. Not to mention occupational groups, ethnicities, etc.

              It is a list with a limited number of slots. Every area thinks that they are under represented.

              You’d have to be an idiot not to realize that.

              as an aside: The Claire Traviette at the granny is arguing that incorrectly unionists are over represented, but their definition of a unionist is pretty damn loose. Quite how she put Kate Sutton as one is beyond me – perhaps she is counting union members? but it is no different to your spinning up what you wantto see.

            • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.1.2
              11 April 2011 at 8:23 am

              PeteG I was trying to be polite and Lprent has expressed my thoughts about you very clearly.  

              Rather than just harping on with your latest CT spin line how about arguing this:

              1.  List rankings do not always equate with importance to the party.
              2.  Electorate seats are way more important to gain and hold.

              Care to address these points?

              • PeteG …
                11 April 2011 at 8:46 am

                1. People on the outside don’t give a toss how Labour like to use their list rankings, they see them with their own interests foremost. My main interest with this LAbour list is how it looks for Dunedin/Otago.
                 
                2. Under MMP party vote is way most important. Unless you put more priority on keeping people within the party happy and aren’t so worried about votes.

                I think Chris Trotter may have been right on NatRAd this morning when he said Labour are far too inward looking. Ignore how it may look from the outside if you like.

                Things don’t look shit hot for Labour right now against a mediocre government in very difficult economic times. Hello, anyone in there care to wonder how it might look from the outside?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  11 April 2011 at 10:38 am

                  1.) Looks good to me – good strong candidates for good, strong Labour electorates.
                  2.) Party vote is important at the national level. Local level it’s the electorate vote that’s important.

                   

                • McFlock …
                  11 April 2011 at 11:59 am

                  Dunedin resident, non-Labour voter (they’re a bunch of fecking tories).

                  Stirring shite, peteG? Of course the ODT is spinning against the labs – you know when a labour government is turning blue? When the oddity editorials start praising its policies. While there’s even a hint that Labour will return to its socialist roots (even just dipping the big toe in) the odt will try to crap on it.

                  Frankly, not many people give a damn about the list, as far as I can see.

    • RobC 3.2
      11 April 2011 at 7:24 am

      What’s wrong? 5 in the top 50. Does Dunedin have more than 10% of NZ’s population?

      Or perhaps the absence at the top is more a reflection on Dunedin than Labour.

      Look forward to the same analysis when Nat’s list comes out.

      • PeteG 3.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 7:34 am

        How many MPs do you think Labour can get? Even if they manage to climb back up to 40% Tirikatene would just make it on the list at 45 and Clark would miss the cut.

        Dunedin North has co-leader of Greens, number one on the list.
        And number 5 (promoted to) for the current term for Act.

        I will be interested to see where the Nats puts Michael Woodhouse and Jacqui Dean. I don’t know who they will put up in Dunedin South.

        • felix 3.2.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 7:46 am

          What does number 5 on ACT’s list equate to in a real party? 30? 40?

          • The Voice of Reason 3.2.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 7:57 am

            It equates to unemployed, felix! As do Act list spots 3 and 4. There’s a small chance No2 will scrape in on the back of Hide, if National voters in Epsom can hold a pen at the same time as their noses.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 8:06 am

              But not if Epsom Green and Labour voters can also hold their noses.

              • felix …
                11 April 2011 at 8:17 am

                Yep a coordinated effort needed here between Labour & Greens, and also within the Greens to make sure Dr Norman doesn’t do anything stupid. Like stand.

              • mickysavage …
                11 April 2011 at 8:26 am

                But not if Epsom Green and Labour voters can also hold their noses.

                And do a sign of the cross and ask for forgiveness at the same time!

        • RobC 3.2.1.2
          11 April 2011 at 7:50 am

          Fuck me. You’re really having problems today aren’t you?

          Parker, Curran and Clark are shoo-ins for Parliament. Rino maybe, Alexander prob not.

          So 3 or 4 Dunedin MPs out of say around 45. What is the fucking problem?

          • PeteG 3.2.1.2.1
            11 April 2011 at 7:57 am

            Labour aren’t exactly a shoo-in for Government. Doesn’t David Parker live in Oamaru?
             
            I’m interested in representation for Dunedin and Otago in parliament, that looks quite low on Labour’s priority list – if it’s considered at all. It’s likely my electorate MP will be close to or at the bottom of Labour’s rankings, below someone who lost to him in a bid to stand for Labour. Not a good look from down here.

            • The Voice of Reason 3.2.1.2.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 8:02 am

              So what? You’re not voting Labour anyway and the list ranking won’t make an iota of difference to the electorate result because nobody but you cares. And you’ll have forgotten all about it by tomorrow when you’ve got a fresh line to push.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.2.1.2
              11 April 2011 at 8:05 am

              Is the Labour candidate expected to win the seat Pete?

            • RobC 3.2.1.2.1.3
              11 April 2011 at 8:11 am

              Get a coffee you are being particularly dense this morning

              Hey, if Parker doesn’t count why put him in your list in your opening post?

              Lab isn’t a shoo-in … FFS … I’m talking (and so were you) about individuals getting into parliament.

              If Clark can’t win Dun Nth perhaps he doesn’t deserve to get into parliament.

              But anyway … Dun pop 125k, Otago pop 210k, NZ pop 4 million.

              If Labour have 3 possibly 4 MPs out of say 45 then the region is over-represented by Labour MPs. So again, what is your fucking problem?

              • PeteG …
                11 April 2011 at 9:01 am

                I don’t have problem. Labour has a fucking problem does if it seriously wants to become government again. Doesn’t it?
                 
                At the moment it seems to have it’s head firmly entrenched somewhere looking only at it’s own internals. The response here to my admittedly parochial opinion supports that view.

                • felix …
                  11 April 2011 at 9:14 am

                  Labour has a problem because you don’t like the list for a party you won’t vote for anyway?
                   
                  In that case ACT is fucked because I think they’re a bunch of twats.
                   
                  Seriously, get that coffee. You’re typing gibberrish and getting angry in the morning.

                  • PeteG …
                    11 April 2011 at 9:22 am

                    You’re the one that sounds a bit tetchy. I don’t need drugs. Sounds like the troops are feeling a bit defensive this morning.

                    I think Act will struggle to survive this year too.

                    It is likely I’ll vote for Labour again, but looking less likely it will be this year.

                    • felix …
                      11 April 2011 at 9:33 am

                      Pete, I’ve warned you before that blindly repeating back what someone else has just said about you in lieu of a relevant response just makes you look weak.
                       
                      Tell me, what is this “fucking problem” Labour have with their list selections for Dunedin? Several people are asking you to clarify the issue.

                      You don’t like Labour. You aren’t going to vote for them. Why should anyone care what you think of the list? (Note: I’m addressing your work persona here. Who you vote for in your private life is not my concern)

                      And why are you refusing to explain your position?

                    • PeteG …
                      11 April 2011 at 9:55 am

                      1. One of my main areas of interest is representation of Dunedin/Otago, and the Labour list suggests to me that this area is low on their priorities. I’d like more for my own electorate than bottom of the list.
                       
                      2. The ODT felt the local list positions worthy of a front page story so I’m not the only person who noticed.
                       
                      Labour don’t have to care about what anyone thinks of what they do with their list. But there seems to be a bit of a raw nerve here. I’ve just expressed my parochial opinion. You don’t need to overreact.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:07 am

                      Is the Labour candidate expected to win the seat, Pete?

                    • felix …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:22 am

                      You guys were pumping David Parker as a potential leader last week. Now he’s suddenly not worthy of representing your region?
                       
                      And neither is Clare Curran? Or David Clark?
                       
                      What exactly is the point you are skirting around, Pete?

                    • felix …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:46 am

                      “overreact”

                      “seems to be a bit of a raw nerve here”

                      No Pete, people are just asking you to back up your vague statements with reasoning or factual basis. As usual.

                      “I’d like more for my own electorate than bottom of the list.”

                      Soooo…. should Green supporters in Dunedin be pissed off about Hilary Culvert’s low ranking on the ACT list?

                      If not, why not? Don’t they deserve better representation for their region?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:51 am

                      I’d like more for my own electorate than bottom of the list.

                      Not every politician running for an electorate can be at the top of the list so according to you every electorate ( 95% of them) that’s not at the top of the list has been insulted.
                      Fuck, you’re an idiot.

                    • PeteG …
                      11 April 2011 at 11:26 am

                      Neither the Greens nor Act are likely to win the electorate – although Labour shouldn’t be too complacent about that, Turei has a far bigger profile now and Clark has none. Woodhouse also could stand a chance, but that is in Clark’s favour, two potentially strong opponents splitting the vote against him.

                      In 2005 the Labour vote was slightly higher than Hodgson’s, 17915 to 17769.
                      In 2008 the party vote dropped to 14608, Hodgson’s to 17127.

                      Hodgson has generally been regarded as a very good MP for the electorate (I’ve voted for him in the past). An unknown replacement candidate ranked around the bottom of those likely to make it into parliament is not a good way of trying to keep Hodgson’s numbers up.

                      I don’t expect the local candidate to be top of the list, that’s ridiculous. But I expected they would at least rank above the union person not considered good enough to stand for the seat.

                    • RobC …
                      11 April 2011 at 11:56 am

                      “I don’t expect the local candidate to be top of the list, that’s ridiculous. But I expected they would at least rank above the union person not considered good enough to stand for the seat.”

                      Why??????

                      It could be both candidates are MP material – by ranking the one not contesting your electorate above the one that is might give them both a chance of entering parliament.

                      For someone bitching about regional representation, I’d expect you to think that might be a good thing.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 April 2011 at 12:34 pm

                      1. One of my main areas of interest is representation of Dunedin/Otago, and the Labour list suggests to me that this area is low on their priorities.
                       

                      PeteG you must have been ecstatic with ACT then when Hilary ‘Crazy Eyes’ Calvert entered Parliament. Another fine MP to represent Dunedin lolz

                    • PeteG …
                      11 April 2011 at 12:56 pm

                      I’m more optimistic for how we’ll be represented by 49 on the Labour list than I am for the short term 5 on the Act list.

                • RobC …
                  11 April 2011 at 9:48 am

                  Pete, once again you start a thread and then shift the boundaries into irrelevancy as a discussion moves on.

                  Of course Labour has a fucking problem if it wants to become Govt. But that’s not why you started this thread.

                  Original post: “But it (Dunedin) doesn’t seem to be an area Labour puts much importance on, or attracts top candidates.”

                  2nd post: “I’m noticing how much importance Labour put on Dunedin candidates. Which seems to be bugger all.”

                  Further comment: “I’m interested in representation for Dunedin and Otago in parliament, that looks quite low on Labour’s priority list – if it’s considered at all.”

                  You have criticised Labour of regional neglect. A simple analysis shows IMO that criticism is misplaced. Either refute that analysis on some factual basis or admit you were wrong and move on.

                  PS Declaration of non-interest: I am not a member of the Labour Party and I don’t give a fuck what their internals look like.

                  • PeteG …
                    11 April 2011 at 10:04 am

                    A simple analysis shows IMO that criticism is misplaced.

                    What analysis? Why don’t you share it?
                     
                    The nature of blog discussions means it’s not uncommon for them to move away from the original points, especially when several opposing views divert from it.
                     

                    • RobC …
                      11 April 2011 at 10:15 am

                      Fuck me you are being particularly dumb today.

                      Go and read my 8.11 am post, towards the bottom, ref no 3.2.1.2.1.3  Or do you need it in braille?

            • felix 3.2.1.2.1.4
              11 April 2011 at 8:11 am

              Labour aren’t exactly a shoo-in for Government.
               

              How is this relevant to the ahem “point” you’re trying to make?

  4. Bored 4
    11 April 2011 at 7:43 am

    For those who did not notice it there has been a disgusting spectacle unfold in Washington during the last week. A bit of history, Obama brought in the concept of healthcare for all Americans with his election…fast forward and here we have the Republican side of the House holding Obama to ransom on the budget. Paraphrasing, the RWNJs are killing off the social budgets, and the right led by finance on Wall St are forcing the people of America to pay back “debt” created by Wall St by cutting government etc. Its the biggest rip off ever.

    • millsy 4.1
      11 April 2011 at 10:47 am

      Obama = Waste of space.

      His Nobel Prize should have been for allowing the opposition to set the agenda.

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    11 April 2011 at 7:54 am

    I/S doing journalism, again.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/04/crony-capitalism-iii.html

    Fuck he’s awesome.

    • mickysavage 5.1
      11 April 2011 at 9:08 am

      Yep good post.
       
      The strange thing is the feeling of deja vu that I had reading I/S’s post.  Warner Bros engaged in the same sort of brinkmanship and persuaded our government to succumb meekly.
       
      Now it seems all the other corporates are lining up to do the same because they know the Government is a soft touch.
       
      Meanwhile in Provincial New Zealand protests are starting against poverty and the appearance of third world diseases …
       
      This Government should hang its head in shame.
       

    • Roger 5.2
      11 April 2011 at 10:32 am

      Isn’t he just.
       
      Its good to see that someone is willing to dig a bit deeper than the surface considering this government seems to be spraying money at wealthy crybabies at every opportunity. I was wondering why nobody at the msm was investigating why Steven Joyce’s old company was hitting him up for a rule change considering the Warner Brothers shakedown which turned out to be a lie. These people holding the cabinet seats are a bunch of thieves and parasites that need to be removed before they hand over the country to their thieving mates.
      I love the way he sums it up also, much more eloquently than I could say it.

      • Idiot/Savant 5.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 10:46 am

        Its good to see that someone is willing to dig a bit deeper than the surface considering this government seems to be spraying money at wealthy crybabies at every opportunity. I was wondering why nobody at the msm was investigating why Steven Joyce’s old company was hitting him up for a rule change considering the Warner Brothers shakedown which turned out to be a lie.
        But they are – TVNZ has these same papers (I assume they lodged the same sort of OIA as I did), and published a story on them on Thursday night.  Other media has followed it up, and dug into some inconsistencies in the government’s story (though got it wrong over Key; he lied, but he didn’t make the decision). The difference is that I’m publishing the primary sources so people can read them.

  6. Carol 6
    11 April 2011 at 7:58 am

    Last week on The Standard, in a discussion on thre demise of public service TV and/or the government loan to MediaWorks, I praised the TV3 show The Good Wife (one of the best, quality US dramas that’s been on FTA TV in NZ recently. It was scheduled to show last night on TV3.  Without any advanced notice, TV3 pulled both House & The Good Wife and showed some old, oft repeated Adam Sandler movie instead.
     
    There’s been a large number of outraged protests on the TV3 forum for The Good Wife, a couple of them saying things like , “no wonder you needed a government bail-out”, if TV3 isn’t capable of keeping a really good show running.

  7. Bored 7
    11 April 2011 at 8:09 am

    From the Dom this morning Damian OConnor says the party’s new list is dominated by “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.
     
    Some fertile ground when considering that electorates like the West Coast tend to be conservative as sin, and working class to the core. They dont do the liberal Labour sectoral interest group thing. Then Labour wonders why they dont vote for them. Strange that.
     
    Labour have this problem because they have (quite rightly in my opinion) created a broad ranging church for all sorts BUT at the same time have allowed themselves to be seen as championing “favoured” groups at the expense of the rest of their flock. The perception out there is that if you criticise this you have broken the “PC” rules. Time to take OConnor seriously.
     
    PS PeteG, keep the fekk out of this one, its for lefties only.
     

    • Pascal's bookie 7.1
      11 April 2011 at 8:17 am

      But the problem surely lies in the party not sticking up for those voters as well.

      If Labour can only win the votes of working class ‘conservative’ battlers by kicking other marginalised groups in the teeth, then the problem isn’t that Labour is sticking up for those other groups, it’s that the conservatives don’t see how voting for Labour is also in their own interest.

      • Bored 7.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 8:31 am

        PB, here what you say. Its not a simple us or them, kick one side at the others expense. That is to miss OConnors point entirely. It is more about how Labour portrays a picture of caring for all equally, and how it absorbs the interests of sectoral groups  into the broader interest. Currently (even if it is not true) it is too easy for NACT to portray Labour as being about gay MPs and feminists which enables them to dodge the real issues entirely. Its a problem Labour have to resolve because it is costing them votes.

        • MrSmith 7.1.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 9:27 am

          Another good move by Labour, create a party scuffle, thrown in a bit of dog whistling, it get the medias attention plus lots of exposure for Damian, Goff and all the list MP’s. Keep this going for another two weeks the public will lap this up.
           
          I’m really starting to think they are getting there show together and lets face it folks this is politics.
           

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 12:46 pm

            Perhaps Labour has figured out that people are dead frakkin bored of standard vanilla politics and they would like to see some real life and personality in how this country is led.
             
            Ahhh. Well that explains Winston’s solid ratings doesn’t it.

            • MrSmith 7.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 1:59 pm

              Wonkey&Nact will run the election on personality politics, and apart from Wonkey (who has the personality of a dead fish) there are no other real personalities that I have seen in the national cabinet, anyway we couldn’t have someone else stealing his show.
               
              I hope Labour play him at his own game, endless dribble, distractions and sound bites that’s all he has, even Goff can do better than that and lets have a little humor please, christ we could use some.

      • Vicky32 7.1.2
        11 April 2011 at 7:45 pm

        by kicking other marginalised groups in the teeth,

        WTF????????????????????? Please explain..

        • Carol 7.1.2.1
          11 April 2011 at 7:54 pm

          Calling union leaders (who have a good record in working for their members) as “self-serving”, and MPs with a really good track record “a gaggle of gays” is hardly being complimentary.  And it’s also playing to prejudices against these  groups.

        • Pascal's bookie 7.1.2.2
          11 April 2011 at 8:12 pm

          What I’m saying Vicky, is that left wing parties worthy of the name shouldn’t have to win the votes of ‘conservative’ right wingers by pandering to their bigotries.

          If a homophobe wants to vote for the left, they should be welcome to of course. But that vote should be earned in spite of their bigotry rather than because of it. 

          The same impulse that drives the left to stand up for the poor who are marginalised in society, must have them stand up for other marginalised groups.

          The right will try and pick various groups off by playing one against the other. That’s what we see in the claims that “the left has been taken over by a gay agenda’ or ‘iwi/kiwi’ or any of a number of other examples. It’s a pretty obvious divide and conquer maneuver.

          The way I think the left should beat it is to make the case that we are all in this together. Just as the left should be sticking up for all marginalised groups for the same reason; the right, at heart, attacks those groups for the same reason.

          They like to keep them marginalised to protect their own privilege, be that economic, social, cultural or whatever.  

          • PeteG 7.1.2.2.1
            11 April 2011 at 8:29 pm

            The “left” are not in anything together, they factionalise and fight as much as the right, they are as quick as the right to try and jump on anyone who doesn’t toe their line. They stick up for marginalised groups that suit their purposes and gospel, and try to shout down anyone who points out their hypocrisy.

  8. vto 8
    11 April 2011 at 9:06 am

    Sheesh it is difficult to get demerits on Farrar’s website. But finally managed it when I suggested he is the Larry Flint of NZ, following a couple of recent postings. The site is, as many here describe, a sewer.

    • r0b 8.1
      11 April 2011 at 9:15 am

      It’s quite sad really, because DPF is a Nat insider and capable of very interesting posts, but he lets the value get lost and overwhelmed by the garbage, lies, and assorted loonies that make up the majority of Kiwiblog.

      Bravo to you anyway for trying to rattle the cage over there, and congratulations on your “demerits”. But I’d hate to feel you were missing out here at The Standard, so I can give you some “demerits” here too if you like. How many would you like? A Bazillion?

      • lprent 8.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 9:27 am

        I prefer to give a more personal bollocking ‘service’ than demerits. But we’re noted for our sysop customer focus.

        I find that it tends to help our lusers commentators to self-moderate themselves more effectively.

        😈 BOFH redux

      • vto 8.1.2
        11 April 2011 at 9:29 am

        Ha ha, dunno what I would do with a bazillion demerits.

        Anyways, this nat lot just seriously piss me off with their lies and conflicted positions and Farrar just regurgitates the crap. Deserves no cred or respect imo.

        Flames reignited again this morning when Minister Nick Smith suggests that getting decent controls on stopping farmers dumping their rubbish in the public estate (waterways) is “realistically some years away”.

        Well Nick Smith is a blatant liar. Treat the public like that and expect it straight back. Bullshitters.

        • RobC 8.1.2.1
          11 April 2011 at 10:07 am

          Heh. “Bullshitters” when you’re talking about the effluent off dairy farms. Witty.

        • Mac1 8.1.2.2
          11 April 2011 at 10:19 am

          Didn’t the Nats dump Ecan because they were too slow at getting things done, and now we have Dr Smith admitting that the Nats are too slow at getting decent controls?

          Why? They certainly know how to bulldoze, use Parliamentary procedures to shorten time frames. They know how to make up policy on the wing. What’s the delay?

          I wonder if the answer is that they don’t want to have decent controls- too many rich mates creaming it? (pun absolutely intended)

          • vto 8.1.2.2.1
            11 April 2011 at 10:34 am

            Exactly Mac1.

            The nats have given us the two state state. One for them and one for those of us not “in the loop”.

          • Bored 8.1.2.2.2
            11 April 2011 at 11:30 am

            For Nact when they say something is not efficient they really mean that it is slowing the flow of cash (to their pockets).
             
            That is a problem for democracy: speed and efficiency in a functioning democracy stand very low in the order of proceedings.

        • William Joyce 8.1.2.3
          11 April 2011 at 3:32 pm

          Ha ha, dunno what I would do with a bazillion demerits.
          Create demerit derivatives, start trading in them, and when it all goes belly up  – get the government to bail you out, they have more than enough to go around.

  9. the sprout 9
    11 April 2011 at 10:28 am

    Dimpost pretty well sums up my feelings on the NZLP list, O’Connor’s comments and Goff’s handling of it all

    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/that-took-a-lotta-class-2/

  10. tsmithfield 10
    11 April 2011 at 10:29 am

    After all the criticism Key got on this site for his estimate of 10000 homes that need replacing, after the quick assessment of Christchurch homes by EQC, it looks like Key’s numbers were pretty much on the money Admittedly, not all 12000 homes with over $100,000 in damage will need to be completely rebuilt. But I think its reasonable to assume a fairly high proportion of them probably will.

  11. Anne 11
    11 April 2011 at 11:36 am

    Matthew Hooten has just done an assassination job on Labour courtesy of Damian O’Conner –  political slot on Radio NZ. Should be online soon.

    Have to agree with Sue Bradford. Labour’s list process is cumbersome and badly in need of reform. 36 members of the moderation committee? That’s asking for trouble. Won’t comment on individual listings, except to say there are one or two top-drawer MPs who should be feeling justifiably annoyed.

    • millsy 11.1
      11 April 2011 at 11:44 am

      A possible solution to this would be open primaries to rank list candidates, which would allow voters to first choose who they want to see on the list, and to have candidates choose whether they want to be a list candidate or an electorate candidate, ie Andrew Little will have to decide whether he wants to go on the list, or contest NP.

      • Tigger 11.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 12:18 pm

        Funny how no one ever gets headlines by saying National’s list is too full of straight, white men…

        • PeteG 11.1.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 12:22 pm

          Wouldn’t it be better concentrating on being represented by people who are caopable of running a country rather than worrying about whether they represent enough minorities?
           
          Reasonable representation is important, competent government is more important.

          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 12:36 pm

            Gawd you are a larff and a harff
             
            You just wrote how it is better to be represented by people who do not represent the people (but who can competently run the country as their own little corporate interest).
             
            Get lost.

            (Hey Tigger…the NATs are not full of straight white men, that’s the amusing part)

            • Carol 11.1.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 6:56 pm

              And is the Labour Party really THAT full of (out) gays?  3  on the Labour list is what TV3 quoted tonight.  Gower was talking about these power blocks on the list: 3 union leaders as one power block & 3 gays as another power block.  I didn’t realise I only had to find 2 other people who agreed with me to become a power block!
               
              And over at the gaynz forum, someone checked up how many geese in a gaggle – the answers differ from 5 to 7+ apparently, and when they’re flying they are called a “skein”.

            • Sam 11.1.1.1.1.2
              11 April 2011 at 11:02 pm

              Better than a bunch of p******s!

          • RobC 11.1.1.1.2
            11 April 2011 at 12:38 pm

            Dunedin-ites are a minority. You seem more than worried about that.

    • prism 11.2
      11 April 2011 at 1:56 pm

      On a course I took there was a part involved with decision making.  There was a suggestion that having more than 16 was not useful.  Too many people and points from each couldn’t be talked through properly.  Labour’s panel sounds massive.  And the supporters of each faction would be likely to  think in a silo fashion.
       

  12. todd 12
    11 April 2011 at 11:58 am

    Contradictions and Lies

    http://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2011/04/contradictions-and-lies.html

    John Key says that we need to risk our environment to create jobs on deep sea oil rigs while National have sacked 3000 public servants and cut funding to TVNZ7, presumably because the Natz don’t agree with its content.

  13. prism 13
    11 April 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Listening to rural news.  Another incursion from foreign weeds to worry about and cost us money fighting and trying to eradicate.  It’s called alligator weed, can have roots a metre deep, grows fast into a tangle of stems, can grow on land or in water ways.  So far seems in the north of the North Island but sounds like an incipient threat to the whole country.  We’d better watch out for it – question our local councils whether they have recognition literature, and alert experienced watchers.

  14. joe90 14
    11 April 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Icelanders have voted against compensating investors for their losses in the failed Icesave.

    Final results showed the “no” side had just under 60 percent of the votes and the “yes” side about 40 percent.

    The result reflects Icelanders’ anger at having to pay for the excesses of their bankers, and complicates the country’s recovery from economic collapse.

    Now if only we could have a referendum on the SCF and AMI handouts.

  15. randal 15
    11 April 2011 at 1:31 pm

    who heard finbar edwards on afternoons on friday. he virtually asked michelle boag for a job grooming john key and then he said that Phil Goff would nnot win this election.
    I never trusted him anyway and neither did the electorate when he tried to stand for parliament. they know a sooner when they see one.

    • Mac1 15.1
      11 April 2011 at 3:33 pm

      I heard the bit you talk of, randal, but didn’t get that impression at all about seeking a job. What I heard was banter, all said with a smile. What you heard I suspect may have been filtered by your previous distrust.

      Edwards was linking his coaching skills to Boag’s PR skills as if to make the point that these skills are both needed in modern politics. At least, that’s how it came across to me. I’ve not read a transcript, which would have missed the smile in Edward’s voice anyway.

      I didn’t hear the Goff prediction which I would have remembered. I was driving at the time. You’re going back a long time to remember Edward’s political ambitions. So he lost. Most candidates do. I have, twice. Personal mistrust? Nah. The old FPP wisdom used to be that a candidate’s personal following was worth well less than a thousand votes. The rest of the voters went for the party.

  16. Draco T Bastard 16
    11 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

    TELCON11: Crown Fibre fight turns to ‘national operating organisation’

    National organisation
    But the minister was already looking ahead, telling the audience that a “national operating arrangement” will be needed to link regional companies set up under the UFB.
    Mr Joyce said Telecom could be involved in such a national operating arrangement.
    Telecom has long pushed its Chorus division (which would be spun off if the company wins UFB contracts) as the obvious choice to manage a national fibre network, due to its manpower, expertise, and advantage in existing infrastructure.

    So, there we have it – Nationals UFB policy is just a means to restore Telecoms monopoly.

  17. Missy Poo 17
    11 April 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Recently, I hosted my BFF from school days for a few days. She is a known activist / protester from the 80’s and now is a known union activist/organiser in the UK. A few days before she, and her lovely family, graced our shores my phone line went weird. Has the SIS once again (they did this in the 80’s, as well as search my flat) invaded my privacy by tapping my phone line?
    LOL – I would not be surprised. What fun. They still think I may be a threat to the security of our lovely land! ooo I would love to see the file they have on me.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      11 April 2011 at 2:29 pm

      Apparently, if they’re not presently investigating you, they’ll hand over your file – all you need do is ask.

    • William Joyce 17.2
      11 April 2011 at 3:40 pm

      The file will come with a complementary pie of your choice and a men’s magazine – you can read it for the articles.

  18. Draco T Bastard 18
    11 April 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Nuclear Power Subsidies: The Gift that Keeps on Taking

    Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.

    Nuclear Power – still more expensive than any other power generating technique.

  19. Penny Bright 19
    11 April 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Damien O’Connor’s ‘blurt’?
    Don’t forget folks – that a week IS a long time in politics, and the only poll that really counts is an election result.
    In my considered opinion,  as a former Botany by-election candidate – opposition to State asset sales  in particular,  is a WINNER.
    So – don’t get side-tracked by those who are arguably and unhelpfully ‘speaking out of turn’ – just continue to focus and campaign on the issues…
    Who was arguably the most effective ‘Leader’ in the Botany by-election?
    National Party Prime Minister – John Key – or Labour Party Leader – Phil Goff?
    Look at the FACTS – and YOU be the Judge?
    (If you haven’t seen this analysis of the Botany by-election by the NZ Herald’s CHIEF political reporter John Armstrong, or have forgotten it (as John Armstrong appeared to have done himself, some three weeks later), have another squiz at this: )
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710626

    Botany byelection loss holds silver lining for Labour Party
    By John Armstrong
    5:30 AM Monday Mar 7, 2011

    At last, Phil Goff has something to smile about.

    Exactly why the Labour leader is smiling might not seem immediately obvious given that National’s Jami-Lee Ross won Saturday’s Botany byelection in a canter, securing almost double the number of votes of his Labour counterpart.

    The answer is that everything is relative in politics. Labour did better than it hoped. National did not fare as well as it would have expected.
    ……………………..

    The complicating factor is Saturday’s abysmally low turnout. However, the non-vote would more likely be weighted in Labour’s favour.

    The 36.6 per cent turnout – half that of a general election – meant both major parties got fewer votes than at the 2008 election. Labour’s vote proved more robust. National’s vote halved from more than 17,000 to just over 8000. In comparison, Labour’s vote fell, but far less dramatically – from around 6500 to just over 4000.

    The net result is: Labour increased its share of the candidate vote in the seat from 21 per cent in 2008 to 28 per cent on Saturday.

    Moreover, it did so in the face of a number of handicaps – notably the party’s candidate, Michael Wood, committing one of politics’ great sins early on by saying he would not win the seat.  ………”

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

  20. Penny Bright 20
    11 April 2011 at 3:37 pm

    “Draco T Bastard 17.1

    11 April 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Apparently, if they’re not presently investigating you, they’ll hand over your file – all you need do is ask.”
    I asked – and they wouldn’t give me mine.
    Guess I must be doing something right!
    🙂
    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    • grumpy 20.1
      11 April 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Surely then, that means (as Draco says above) that they are still investigating you.

      Been near the Ureweras lately?

      • Jum 20.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 5:17 pm

        grumpy – keep taking the soma.  Key’ll lie to you as usual, but you’ll love it.  Could be because your rse is too close to the ground…

    • todd 20.2
      11 April 2011 at 11:22 pm

      Yeah! They wouldn’t give me mine either. I think it is a scam, people (activists) who think they might have something on their file write in to get a copy and then automatically get placed on a investigate list. Cheeky sods!

  21. Jum 21
    11 April 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Foreign Investment Decision [08/04/2011]
    PORTFOLIO: Treasury
    URL: http://www.treasurer.gov.au/displaydocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2011/030.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0

    SNIPPET: After long and careful deliberations, I have today made an order under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (the Act) prohibiting the acquisition of ASX Limited (ASX) by Singapore Exchange Limited (SGX). The proposed acquisition has been subject to an ongoing examination by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), the Government’s independent advisory body, since it was announced on 25October 2010 and has been under formal consideration since the application was lodged on 11March 2011. However on this occasion I have decided that the proposal would not be in the national interest.

    Anything being planned by JKeyll and Joyce?  We know how much Key loves Singapore.

  23. Draco T Bastard 23
    11 April 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Naomi Klein: Addicted to risk (TEDTalk, video)

  24. Draco T Bastard 24
    11 April 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Mediaworks didn’t need our money

    This advice was ignored. Two weeks after the briefing was given, Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee wrote to John Key seeking permission to bring an urgent paper to Cabinet on the issue. The letter made no mention of the modelling at all, and accepted at face value the RBA’s claims that its members were too poor to pay, despite their books showing that the opposite was the case.

    I/S doing more uncovering of facts regarding the government loaning our money at preferential rates to big business.

    • Idiot/Savant 24.1
      11 April 2011 at 11:27 pm

      Note that I’ve since amended that; advisers argued over who would lead on the issue, and while a letter for Brownlee was drafted (hence my mistake), it was Joyce who eventually fronted it to Cabinet.

  25. chris73 25
    11 April 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Sorry was at work so couldn’t reply
    Yes I agreed with the spirit of his comment but as I said its not quite how I’d put it (I’m sure my comments in this area can be bought up) because being over-represented by the Rainbow wing and the unions is not representative of NZ today
    As I’ve said before it seems as if Labour has moved away from its roots and now it sounds like one of its own MPs is echoing the same sentiments
    But what I’d like you to do Voice of Reason is explain to me exactly how I’m being homophobic (just in case my gay sister-in-law and her partner are reading this, they might not invite me over to dinner)
    Oh and Millys, not cool bringing up the holocaust

    • Mac1 25.1
      11 April 2011 at 7:26 pm

      chris73
      easy answer. Take all the relevant comments to your sister-in-law and her partner, and ask them whether you are homophobic.

      I carried on the discussion of the Holocaust. Very apposite. Very germane. Very respectful. See my comment following 1.1.1.2.1.1 and ff.

    • The Voice of Reason 25.2
      11 April 2011 at 7:46 pm

      At work? Crikey, I’ll never lump you in with Tim and peteG again if you’ve got an actual job.
       
      The way I see it this; you agree with the sentiment, not the words. But the problem actually is the sentiment. The reason O’Connor is in the shit is because he expressed a homophobic sentiment, via a memorable phrase. You might choose to use different words, but if you genuinely think that teh gays are a problem, as O’Connor seems to, then you too have a wee problem.
       
       

      • William Joyce 25.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 8:28 pm

        Except it was only homophobic to those unable to read, unable to understand the context, have no understanding of English and the meaning of words and  as are as irredeemably learning impaired as you seem to be VOR.
        It may be that he misunderstood what the politics were in the list selection process and lashed out at the wrong people but you cannot justifiably call it homophobic.
        In the same way that you can’t call someone racist or anti-Christian if they identify a power block in Rodney as being composed of mainly South African fundamentalist Christians. You could even call them a gaggle of SA fundies if you like.
        I know it’s a subtle point and goes beyond your ability to make the distinction (as you have now with homophobia and racism) but one would hope that you would take some instruction from your betters and not parrot the same sensationalist stance you see in the msm.

        • Carol 25.2.1.1
          11 April 2011 at 8:33 pm

          Except O’Connor didn’t just identify a power block (of 3 people in each case?). The language O’Connor used was derogatory about gays & union leaders.  Seemed to be playing to homophobia to me.

          • William Joyce 25.2.1.1.1
            11 April 2011 at 8:53 pm

            Except there is a distinction. He did not say anything derogatory about unions or gays. He did not attribute to them as a people group any unsavoury qualities. He just said – “them over there, they did it to me”
            He just used two characteristics so they could be identified – gay or union instead of “them”.
            “of 3 people in each case?” – I didn’t address the issue of whether he was right (I possibly think he was wrong) but he didn’t commit the “crime” of homophobia.
            “was derogatory about gays & union leaders” – how so? Gays don’t like being lumped in with unionists? They don’t like being called a gaggle?

            • Carol 25.2.1.1.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 9:10 pm

              O’Connor used derogatory language about both union leaders and gays.  Lumping them together?  That’s a diversion.
               
              You seem to have a limited understanding of homophobia. It covers many kinds of behaviour, not just out and out nastiness.  More often than not it’s expressed through innuendo and smears of one kind or another, and they can be damaging:
               

              What is homophobia?
              There is no single definition for the term ‘homophobia’, as it covers a wide range of different viewpoints and attitudes. Homophobia is generally defined as hostility towards or fear of gay people, but can also refer to social ideologies which stigmatise homosexuality.1 2 Negative feelings or attitudes towards non-heterosexual behaviour, identity, relationships and community, can lead to homophobic behaviour and is the root of the discrimination experienced by many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Homophobia manifests itself in different forms, for example homophobic jokes, physical attacks, discrimination in the workplace and media representation.

               
              Yes, the use of the word “gaggle” was derogatory. It implies gays are a mindless bunch of chattering animals.  And it was based on no evidence.  Homophobic smears were used against the Clark government consistently: a long line of innuendos about lesbians & gays, who, it seems according to these smears, just are out to hi-jack government for their own selfish reasons.   And for some with a prejudiced leaning it’s enough to turn them against some politicians, with absolutely no evidence – just the derogatory language.

               
               

              • William Joyce …
                11 April 2011 at 9:43 pm

                1.Look at the construction of the comment – it does not single out gays as being the sole components of the gaggle – it also included unionists.
                2.Being labelled a gaggle is at the lesser end of offending and I would have thought gays or others should be able to not get so offended and move on.
                You lost your argument when you resorted to a dictionary…
                Negative feelings or attitudes towards non-heterosexual behaviour, identity, relationships and community,
                – Nobody has proved that he has these attitudes – they have just looked at his comments, not read them properly assumed they are homophobic and inferred attitudes. Go back to your dictionary and look up Eisegesis (the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one’s own ideas, reading into the text)
                Homophobia manifests itself in different forms, for example homophobic jokes, physical attacks, discrimination in the workplace and media representation.
                – He didn’t attack them because they were gay. He attacked them because he saw them, rightly or wrongly, as a group that he blamed and could be distinguished by a common characteristic – they were all gay. Just as the unionist groups were all unionists

                Homophobia is generally defined as hostility towards or fear of gay people
                – He did not exhibit hostility towards gay people per se but a group of people who were gay. There is a difference and the failure to grasp this is the foundation of a sort of PC Group-think.


                “Homophobic smears were used against the Clark government consistently: a long line of innuendos about lesbians & gays, who, it seems according to these smears, just are out to hi-jack government for their own selfish reasons.   And for some with a prejudiced leaning it’s enough to turn them against some politicians, with absolutely no evidence – just the derogatory language.”
                – Just because this happened does not make what he said homophobic. That’s like saying There are people doing evil in the world so my mother is also doing evil.

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  11 April 2011 at 10:04 pm

                  “1.Look at the construction of the comment – it does not single out gays as being the sole components of the gaggle – it also included unionists.”

                  Ok, then, lets look, shall we?

                  What he said was “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”. So you’d be wrong, William. But you’re used to that, eh.

                  • William Joyce …
                    11 April 2011 at 11:02 pm

                    Thank you VOR to this correction – the gaggle was specific to the gays
                    “self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays”.
                    So I stand corrected on the point I erroneously said that the gaggle was specific to the gays.
                     
                    “So you’d be wrong, William. But you’re used to that, eh.”
                     
                    Nice little Monday night wet dream for you but how does that add to or detract from the debate?
                     
                    Are you telling me, that there is such a long history of gays being called a gaggle that it has become such a loaded term. You know VOR – I have my own dream tonight. It’s a glorious dream. It’s a dream when white man and the black man will hold hands together; when the straight man and the gay man will hold hands.
                    And they will join me on that mountain top – for I have been to the mountain top. And I have looked out over the suburban houses of Auckland and I have looked into the promised land and I have seen the lion lay down with the lamb, I have seen white man call the the black man a nigger no more and the straight man call the gay man a gaggle no more.
                    anti-spam : past (past my bedtime)

              • higherstandard …
                11 April 2011 at 9:45 pm

                “Yes, the use of the word “gaggle” was derogatory. It implies gays are a mindless bunch of chattering animals. ”

                But isn’t the word gaggle commonly used within the gay community ?

        • Pascal's bookie 25.2.1.2
          11 April 2011 at 8:42 pm

          But there actually is evidence of shenanigans in Rodney.

          If there wasn’t any evidence, and someone said shit about south african immigrants and what have you, then yeah, they could find themselves accused of bigotry.

          DO’C’s evidence seem to be, there are gay mps that got a better list spot than him, therefore they are all in cahoots together to keep poor Damien down.

          Maybe losing the west coast has something to do with his list spot? If he can’t win it back, then why should he get a cushy list spot?

          • William Joyce 25.2.1.2.1
            11 April 2011 at 9:06 pm

            The charge of homophobia is about attributing to gay people, as a people group, attributes or reason why they should be marginalised.
            NOT about whether what he said was true or not.
            “south african immigrants and what have you, then yeah, they could find themselves accused of bigotry.” – Well some could indeed be accused of being a bigot but it wouldn’t make them one.
            “DO’C’s evidence seem to be, there are gay mps that got a better list spot than him” – With respect, you seem to make the same error the msm etc are making.
            It is possible for a group of people, with similar interests and a distinguishing characteristic, to form a “cohort” to achieve a purpose in their interests. So it is just quite possible that a group of people (who just happen to be gay) lobby to achieve their aims. Gay people are no more above this than anybody else.
            The problem is that DO’C seems to have seen enemies where there weren’t any not that he said evil things about gay people.

            • Pascal's bookie 25.2.1.2.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 9:26 pm

              He chose to scapegoat gays. Not ‘townies’, or ‘Goff favourites’, or anything else. Except for ‘self serving unionists’ of course, he also blamed them. A phrase which you tell me isn’t derogatory.

              I’m thinking it’s not me that needs to read things a little closer.

              And if you think there isn’t also an implied call for gays to be marginalised within the Labour list when someone implies that their current presence there is due to some gaggling reflex, then you are not thinking as clearly as you claim to be able to do.

              It certainly seems to me that many of his defenders have been saying that Labour needs to get back to its roots and what not. They don’t explain, even though they are asked to, but it sure looks like they are saying, ‘less gays please’. Which would be marginalising, no?

              I’ve not looked at Kiwiblog. But I’ll go out on a limb and say that that dogs are barking there exactly as if they had heard a whistle.

              A whistle you claim wasn’t there.

              • William Joyce …
                11 April 2011 at 10:42 pm

                He chose to scapegoat gays.
                You’re right he was scapegoating in the sense he was looking for someone to blame for the failure to make it high on the list (then he spat the dummy).
                But there error you and the others are making is that he was not scapegoating gays as Hitler scapegoated Jews (as a people group, all of them, in their entirety because of an evil that arose from the nature of the jew).
                DO’C did nothing of the sort. He did not say that gay people were the cause of his downfall because of the evil that come out of their “gayness” – which would have been homphobic.
                DO’C did no say that these particular gay people were the cause of his downfall because of the evil that comes out of their “gayness” – which would have been homophobic.
                He said that a group of those people over there and the those people over there are to blame for his downfall.
                He just used a specific identifying so that everyone knew who he meant – the group that are gays and the group that are unionist.
                That is NOT homophobic.
                So that leaves the question – is he right?
                1.Are there these powers groups inside the selection process. Of course there are.
                The Gays, The unions, The Senior party wind people, the party backroom people, the pepperpot ladies from Mt Albert.
                2.Did one or more these groups edge him out? Does sound like it.
                 
                Not ‘townies’, or ‘Goff favourites’, or anything else. Except for ‘self serving unionists’ of course, he also blamed them. A phrase which you tell me isn’t derogatory.
                Sorry, I forgot the self-serving bit and didn’t mention it so I don’t think I was telling you it isn’t derogatory.
                 
                What has exercised me in this is that automatic PC_Group think that goes on, and the moral panic complete with pitch forks and torches any time somebody says something that could reflect badly on individual gay people, the gay community or their actions.
                 
                We hear something and it’s like we take off from and 0 to 100 in three seconds charging down the road in moral outrage while brains have been flung to the back of the car and play no part in the event.
                 
                I’m thinking it’s not me that needs to read things a little closer.
                And if you think there isn’t also an implied call for gays to be marginalised within the Labour list when someone implies that their current presence there is due to some gaggling reflex, then you are not thinking as clearly as you claim to be able to do.
                Again, the same mistake, he didn’t imply a “call for gays to be marginalised”
                – the accusation was that they prevented plum position on the list
                – the implication was NOT that gays should be marginalised but that these gays held disproportionate sway.
                They don’t explain, even though they are asked to, but it sure looks like they are saying, ‘less gays please’. Which would be marginalising, no?
                Yes, it would but I have no knowledge of that. I am only addressing a narrow and specific point regarding the misinterpretation of what DO’C and the limits to what you can with integrity infer from that statement – and leave the rest for another day.
                 

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  11 April 2011 at 11:00 pm

                  He did not say anything derogatory about unions or gays. He did not attribute to them as a people group any unsavoury qualities.

                  That’s what you said, it’s been your whole point. If you forgot what he said, then it doesn’t lend any credibility to the idea that you have any clue as to what you are talking about. You kind of missed the boat mate. 

                  All sorts of people have been inferring that he was implying that ‘Labour should get back to its roots, ergo, less gays’. 

                  Perhaps you have been out of the country for a time, or in a coma, or some other thing that has meant that you are so divorced from what the fuck his comments mean in context. I couldn’t know your circumstance. But as noted, D’OC has been in parliament for nigh on 20 years. He knows how his comments would fit into the political discourse; this is what politicians do. Knowing how their language will be interpreted is a primary skill. 

                  Here is another thing you said:

                  There is nothing offensive in what Chris73 said above. 

                  That was in reference to Chris saying that Labour should get back to its roots, a statement you now say would be marginalising of gays given this particular context. You also defined homophobia as attempts at marginalising gays. 

                  Nighty night, it’s been real.

          • Sam 25.2.1.2.2
            11 April 2011 at 10:47 pm

            Exactly, why should a failed electorate candidate “sneak” back into parliament as a”list” MP?  That is the major fault with MMP.
            Hooray for Lyn Dalziel, who also has backed herself in an electorate, not relying on being a “list” MP .  Having “six pence each way” is the coward’s way.
            Phil Goff and co should remove themselves from the list and demonstrate some backbone, somthing that is lacking in his caucus.

            • rosy 25.2.1.2.2.1
              11 April 2011 at 11:55 pm

              “Phil Goff and co should remove themselves from the list and demonstrate some backbone, somthing that is lacking in his caucus.”

              As Should National?

        • The Voice of Reason 25.2.1.3
          11 April 2011 at 9:39 pm

          William, it was really nothing. But thanks for the validation and do keep reading my stuff. I’m charmed that you keep tabs on my postings and I look forward to further critiques of my meagre efforts from one so learned as yourself.

          If you want to get really pompous, you’ll find some more learning impaired people here:
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/72639/gay-groups-demand-apology-over-mp%27s-comments
           
           

          • William Joyce 25.2.1.3.1
            11 April 2011 at 10:02 pm

            To be honest, when we had our little spat of MLaws being a racist I determined early on that you were incapable of getting this distinction and after that day decided it was pointless showing you the error of your ways.
            However, even with the noblest of reasons not to we all sometimes give in to our more base nature and charge the red flag.
            So, don’t flatter yourself, I don’t monitor your posts but just recognised that same flawed reasoning again and threw caution to the wind.
            The fact that you included that link shows you don’t understand the nature of the debate or the players. Of course a reporter will be able to search high and low to find some “offended” people to get a quote – that’s what they do. It does not mean the quote stands up to rational scrutiny – it only proves that there is someone out there who is making the same mistake you are.
            Your argument can be just as wrong even if you find a million quotes from people who agree with you.
            By that reasoning John Key should be our next Pm because everybody loves him!

            • The Voice of Reason 25.2.1.3.1.1
              11 April 2011 at 10:16 pm

              Christ, were you defending Lhaws? How sad. If that argument, which I don’t remember, upsets you, don’t under any circumstances google my exchange on racism with TravellerEv. That was epic. I just don’t like bigots, William. Can’t abide ’em.
               
              I linked to the news item, because I believe the wronged have the right to name the crime. ie. if the gay community define O’Connor’s statement as homophobic and call for an apology, then it’s probably homophobic and he should apologise. Which I note he has done and will do again tomorrow. Obviously, he doesn’t see it the way you do, now that he’s calmed down.
               

    • millsy 25.3
      11 April 2011 at 8:43 pm

      Chris,

      1) See my comment all the way above.

      2) If you have an issue with unionists in the National Party, then I take it you also have issue with iwi aristocrats in the Maori Party, businessmen and farmers in the National Party, BRT plutocrats in ACT, and stoned hippies in the green party

  26. Jenny 26
    11 April 2011 at 8:08 pm
    To my mind Darren O’Connor’s comments attacking the Labour Party as being run by “a gaggle of gays and self serving Trade unionists” were more in line with the sort of insults I would expect to come from Labour’s enemies in National and ACT.

    And as such, would seem on the surface of it, to be contrary to O’Connor’s continued position in parliament as a representative of the Labour Party, traditionally a party opposed to intolerance, and supportive of the aspirations of working people, and yes, their organisations the trade unions.

    I don’t expect to hear Labour MPs attacking both diversity and trade unions, in the same sentence, especially in election year.

    If this is truly what Darren O’Connors thinks, then he should gracefully step down as a Labour MP, and seek membership in an organisation in line with these views. The Labour Party is not it.
    (at least I hope it isn’t)

    • Sam 26.1
      11 April 2011 at 10:41 pm

      Is the slight rise in Goff’s popularity caused by him (finally) sacking (or at least withdrawing support) from another “gay” MP?
      How many here in “the Standard” are “metro” males, living in AKL or WGTN and who have no idea how the Labour party  is viewed in mainstream New Zealand outside of the main centres?

      Labourites, outside of AKL, WGTN, ChCh and Dndn you don’t have representation.
      Maybe mainstream NZ and Danian O’Connor are right and you are wrong?  Think about it!

      • The Voice of Reason 26.1.1
        11 April 2011 at 11:03 pm

        Sam, I think you will find that being urban heavy applies to all parties. Looking through the Labour list, I can find half a dozen rural or provincial candidates in the top 40 (ie. potentially electable) and that’s just the ones I know about. That doesn’t seem out of kilter at all.
         
        As for the Beckhamist tendencies of ‘the Standard’, again, I think you’ll find that contributors come from all sorts of circumstances and all sorts of places, such as the rural town I live in, and not everyone on the site supports Labour, anyway.

        • lprent 26.1.1.1
          12 April 2011 at 8:14 am

          I would hazard a guess that most of the commentators of the left do not. They might reluctantly force themselves to vote Labour if they have to. However there are a lot of lurkers who are Labour members. When I have time to write, that is who I try to write for.

          But I would agree about the higher proportion of people on the electable list outside the top five six urban centers compared to population. It is pretty deliberate – I know that we were considering it when we were voting on the Northland Auckland list.

          NZ is increasingly a urban culture and Labour finds organizing in the concentrated larger cities to be a lot easier than across a range of smaller towns. It used to be easier when the electorate sizes were somewhat smaller and towns actually fitted into an electorate. Amongst other uses the list allows to get representation from areas where it is hard to get electorate MP’s elected.

      • Carol 26.1.2
        12 April 2011 at 8:27 am

        Is the slight rise in Goff’s popularity caused by him (finally) sacking (or at least withdrawing support) from another “gay” MP?

        I find such anti-gay slurs & dog-whistles a disturbing part of the debate on this issue.  After decades of struggle against destructive homophobia, I think it’s good we finally get some out gay MPs (and hardly in a way that makes them dominant over heterosexual politicians). It’s disturbing that people think withdrawing support from them, merely because they are gay, is some kind of victory – looks like a regressive backlash to me – a desire to return to oppressive treatment of gays.

        And it’s just a destraction from the major economic and social issues we face. Gay Labour MPs are also part of that struggle for kiwi battlers. It doesn’t need to be either/or, but all of us together against the right wing destruction machine.

    • chris73 26.2
      11 April 2011 at 10:43 pm

      I personally think he was using alliteration
       
       

      • Mac1 26.2.1
        11 April 2011 at 11:00 pm

        Alliteration definitely was being used, to reinforce meaning, to catch attention and to be memorable. No excuse there, Chris73.

    • Colonial Viper 26.3
      11 April 2011 at 10:46 pm

      Yes, O’Connor’s personal attack on his own party and the people within it was blatant and unacceptable.
       
      But there was another message there in his frustration as well. Labour is not being heard by the ordinary working class. Labour is not being heard by struggling New Zealanders up and down the breadth of the country.
       
      National have led us into a devastating economic slump hurting Maori, PI’s, women, youth the worst. While gifting state money and assets to the already wealthy.
       
      And what traction does Labour have in the polls as all this is hitting home? 31%, 32%, 33%. Worse in fact than when times were good under Labour in 2008 and the working class were still doing OK. In this environment, National should be easily pounded into the dust.
       
      So something is wrong, and even though O’Connor is an ass for saying what he said he got something right.
       
      Labour is still failing to connect.

      • Armchair Critic 26.3.1
        11 April 2011 at 11:01 pm

        National have led us into a devastating economic slump hurting Maori, PI’s, women, youth the worst. While gifting state money and assets to the already wealthy.
        Fuckin’ aye.  Labour may well have bought a train set.  National have bought a bankrupt finance company, a bankrupt insurance company and the grass in an unusable stadium. I can see a use for the train set.  The other three?  Not so sure.

      • Salsy 26.3.2
        11 April 2011 at 11:01 pm

        Ive been watching the stuff poll over the past couple of days. Nat and Lab were neck and neck for some time, then there was a swing to the right this morning..
        ACT 167 votes, 6.5%
        Greens 345 votes, 13.4%
        A Hone Harawira-led party 87 votes, 3.4%
        Labour 619 votes, 24.1%
        Maori Party 33 votes, 1.3%
        National 1027 votes, 39.9%
        New Zealand First 261 votes, 10.1%
        Progressive 10 votes, 0.4%
        United Future 23 votes, 0.9%
        Total 2572 votes

        • lprent 26.3.2.1
          12 April 2011 at 8:19 am

          On line polling is pretty useless. It really just reflects what groups have time to waste and who has net access and who is interested in online politics. Look at the Act vote in that poll for instance compared to the Maori party vote.

          But in any case I can’t use it – lightbox is evidently one of the things that doesn’t work on my iPad.

          • Salsy 26.3.2.1.1
            12 April 2011 at 1:23 pm

            And flash which frustrates the crap out of us – though javascript should be all okay..

      • sean 26.3.3
        12 April 2011 at 12:07 am

        You forgot to mention that John Key caused both the Christchurch earthquakes and is responsible for the GFC due to his FX market manipulations last century.

        • Colonial Viper 26.3.3.1
          12 April 2011 at 7:57 am

          Sean apparently doesn’t understand that the financial instruments which caused the GFC included advanced derivatives whose development stem from the 1990’s.
           
          Did Key cause both Christchurch earthquakes? He merely used them for political gain and to hurt the city of Christchurch. But cause them? No, he is just a trader of other peoples’ fortunes.

      • Carol 26.3.4
        12 April 2011 at 7:24 am

        And what’s O’Connor doing for the working class? His criticisms of Labour seem to be all about his own status and a diversion from any attempts to address the crucial issues that will make things better for the working class.

  27. Jenny 27
    11 April 2011 at 10:39 pm

    ‘
    A risk taking granny?

    Herald Editorial: Drilling for oil a risk worth taking

    Granny sez:

    New Zealand needs a big oil discovery to show it has proven large reserves. That, combined with its attractive exploration regime, would entice other major explorers to come here. The potential benefit in tax and royalty income, jobs and regional development is enormous. If there is, as with virtually any activity, a risk, there is also the prospect of huge reward. It is not a possibility the country, including those protesting against Petrobras’ presence, can afford to pass up.

    Next week, I expect to read that the dare devils at the Herald, write that base jumping from inner city tower blocks is a common lunch time activity recommended by Herald editorial writers, again they might even admit that, ” as with virtually any activity, (there is) a risk”

  28. Drakula 28
    11 April 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Jenny: O’Connor’s true home is ACT but it is really sad the extent to which the right wing biggots are always trying to gatecrash the Labour party.

    • todd 28.1
      11 April 2011 at 11:31 pm

      I often wonder if the Labour party is failing on purpose because there is a certain amount of support for asset sales, oil exploration and beneficiary bashing etc amongst their ranks.

  29. sean 29
    12 April 2011 at 12:04 am

    At least having a gaggle of gay MPs is a step up from having MPs who book porn on their parliamentary credit cards.  Its a step in the right direction :p

  30. Colonial Viper 30
    12 April 2011 at 7:54 am

    PeteG represents the National Party panic that it’s closing on the last half of election year and Goff has now made double digit ratings.

  31. PeteG 31
    12 April 2011 at 8:05 am

    So you do have a sense of humour.
     
    The Nats have a lot more to worry about than Goff’s 11%.

    I don’t have anything to panic about, I’m not involved in a party stumbling from blunder to blunder. whose supporters are desperate to conjure up any smidgen of a sign that they stand a chance of regaining power.

    • Colonial Viper 31.1
      12 April 2011 at 8:08 am

      Yeah, thanks for that, I thought I smelt Right Wing fear and you confirmed it.