Open Mike 11/06/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 11th, 2017 - 115 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

115 comments on “Open Mike 11/06/2017”

  1. Good morning all. If you have burning questions about keeping your garden soil warm over winter, I’m talking about how that’s done with Tony Murrell on RadioLive at 7:20 am. Given that no one’s commented here at TS yet, I’m guessing most of you will sleep through our garden chat 🙂

  2. Ad 2

    OMG the Auditor General is going to investigate the whole of access to drinking water, how irrigators are regulated, drinking water access and climate change, and drinking water access and changing demographics.

    Doubt something this big will be reported to Parliament before the election.

    But the report i guarantee will lead to major regional council reform, including a pricing regime that’s consistent. It’ll go a long way to forcing central govt conversation about dams and resource rental as well I bet.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      Forecasting future demand for drinking water – or any resource – is a pretty fundamental part of the AG’s role.

      If they weren’t monitoring it (see their 2010 report for example) they wouldn’t be doing their job.

      Not sure it’s wise to make guarantees of future change, but 🙂

    • greywarshark 2.2

      Which Auditor General will that be? Has there been a break in the Musical Seats circling yet?

      • gsays 2.2.1

        I think it is the one who ignores staff who raise issues of serious fraud, then does nothing when said whistleblowers are made obsolete..
        that sort of auditor General.

        This man, Peter Newport, says it far better:
        https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/22-05-2017/is-fraudster-joanne-harrisons-old-boss-really-fit-to-lead-nzs-top-public-watchdog/

        • greywarshark 2.2.1.1

          Thanks gsays
          But WTF, how can the public have confidence in the government and the public service which is supposed to be stalwart NZs that help pollies keep honest? We need to look at this closely, as the article says, if it can happen with little shock and fanfare, should we be despairing of our wonderful honesty that the loose tongued have been raving on about to Transparency International!

          Harrison was a known fraudster whom the Australian police were actively talking to the NZ police about in 2011. She had multiple names. She paid herself over $700,000 on invoices that a trainee accountant would recognise as fraudulent, and which were not supported by either proper contracts or purchase orders. Multiple senior staff warned Matthews about the fraud from 2013 and he did nothing until 2016. Some of those senior staff then lost their jobs, within two months….

          Today two former ministry employees have told RNZ News of the “incredible day” their jobs were axed. The whistle-blowers say they alerted senior managers to the fake invoices and dubious travel Harrison was involved with but then were targeted in restructuring she helped lead. They had found, among other things, that Harrison travelled to London to a conference that was cancelled long before she left.

          Where was human resources? The Public Service Association? The police? The SFO? The auditor general? The chief executive?
          This all happened in a modern New Zealand government ministry. In the full light of day.

          Clearly, it’s not Harrison’s fault that the Ministry of Transport did not check her background. It’s not her fault that the NZ police somehow did not do anything effective after being contacted by the Australian police in 2011. It’s not Harrison’s fault that the Ministry pays invoices that are not supported by contracts or purchase orders, it’s not her fault that she can get rid of whistle-blowers by just having them moved or sacked. It’s not her fault she can just fix jobs for her family or fly around the world on a taxpayer ticket. It’s not her fault that the chief executive, and his successor, have consistently refused to properly investigate either what she got away with or the further systemic failings behind the scenes.

          In fact if you think about all the middle and senior managers in Wellington and beyond who somehow have the confidence of their chief executive and who might be bullying or conniving their way up the slippery pole – it gets a bit scary.

          It’s hard not to talk about workers’ rights without sounding like a socialist but just look at what Harrison did. It’s disgusting. Where does the buck stop and who gets the whistle-blowers their jobs back?

          Should Martin Matthews be our auditor general? His mission according to the government website is “Independent Reporting on how your taxes and rates are spent.”

          • gsays 2.2.1.1.1

            i know i shouldn’t but…
            this is in the same basket as mataparae being moved on quickly from head of gcsb to gg. making room for … a close friend of the prime minister.

  3. Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 3

    I have been working for the Labour Party here in ChCh – and will continue to do so – I want to underscore that: anything (well, mostly anything) will be better than this National government.

    But – and it’s a big but, the last pamphlet I put in letterboxes said something like:
    Fresh faces, Fresh ideas, Fresh policies – so memorable I can’t quite remember if that is exactly what it said, even though I delivered hundreds of them. Frankly, what the fuck does that mean?

    Contrast that with the UK Labour slogan – For the Many, Not the Few! It screams class division, it shouts a better deal for the underclass – it says something important and relevant!

    We’ve still got a ‘Blairite New Labour in this country – neoliberalism with a smiling face.

    The rich have nothing to fear from a NZ Labour government – and I want them to!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

      It’s a pretty slack leaflet, eh. Labour talking about themselves.

      Maybe they have a housing one planned: “New builders, new concepts, new architects”.

      Or a homelessness pamphlet saying. “New benches, new blankets, new sprinklers”.

      It’s important that they connect with the things that affect their constituents, after all 😈

      • Ad 3.1.1

        I thought it was “better housing, better health, better education”
        Or something.

        • Louis 3.1.1.1

          I have had 2 in my letterbox. That was one, the other one was Fresh team Fresh ideas Fresh approach. Both leaflets had the message strong plan for New Zealand’s future

      • “Labour talking about themselves.”

        Pithily summed-up, OAB and that’s the nub, “talking about themselves”.
        Once they start focusing on and talking about us, the voting public, things will change.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1

          Yeah, we already had one “New Labour” and look how that turned out.

    • saveNZ 3.2

      @Tony Veitch. If you understand Corbyn’s campaign it was not about class or division. In fact Labour got Kensington one of the richest electorates. It was about fairness and someone trying to make a difference against the odds.

      I agree Labour’s messaging could be a lot better and is currently fairly meaningless but their actions are very hopeful from co operation with Greens and getting rid of many Labour Neoliberal MP’s, to being against the TPPA. The fact Little is being sued to try to ruin him shows the lengths being gone too.

      People who think that divisive campaigning will work – rich against poor, young against boomers, working class against middle class or rich – it won’t. 65% ok Kiwis are home owners for a start and that put’s them into middle class or wealthy territory straight off.

      Labour and Greens need to get the middle class to vote for them as well as the working class and non working or they will not win the election. Since there are so many job losses for example the ‘working’ class are shrinking and shrinking each year.

      It does not help if those that benefit the most from a Labour/Green government are the ones denouncing them and telling people not to vote as there is nobody worth voting for. Those ‘lefties’ might as well be campaigning for the Natz – if that is their message – which of course gives them A LOT of MSM attention as it’s the leftie view reinforcing the right messaging to help get the Natz back in. I’m thinking of an interview with Sue Bradford where she said she did not bother voting last election. Yay, now we get the Natz in! Hope beneficiaries are happy with the last three years!

      While Labour has been disappointing in the past, the alternative is another 3 years of Natz privatisation, running down of services, basket case of social services, destruction of democracy, destruction of environment, 1% Tory Maori getting control to collaborate with the Natz sell offs, mass surveillance, corruption and sign up of very dubious ‘trade’ agreements that will destroy NZ sovereignty. My guess Natz will have Nukes here, if they get another term, that is, if they have not already, by lying about it to the public. They lie about everything else and get away with it, it’s not stopping, it’s increasing.

      Natz will be going for a Trump style anti regulation, removal of the welfare system. Unlike Trump who uses race and terrorism to get his shock through, our government just makes up stuff, changes statistics, gets rid of media that shows real news like Campbell Live, smears opponents and uses propaganda to keep Kiwis thinking all is well and you are alone if you think that something is not quite right.

      Here’s an interesting article. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/10/naomi-klein-now-fight-back-against-politics-fear-shock-doctrine-trump

      • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 3.2.1

        @SaveNZ – totally agree – and I made the point quite emphatically that I will continue to work to get rid of the bloody Nats!

        But I would like to see a genuine appeal by Labour to engage with the million who didn’t vote, by talking equality and fairness, by targeting the fat rich cats who have done so well out of neoliberalism – and I’m not talking about the paper millionaires who are sitting on rising house prices.

        A real appeal to socialist principles of a redistribution of the wealth of this country so that everyone gets a fair share!

      • Ad 3.2.2

        National will do nothing of the kind.

        National are going to propose to run an even more Labour government than they already are.
        They will pump-prime the economy with infrastructure spend.
        They will continue to shift the lower-end tax brackets.
        They will support all parts of NZSuper, Kiwisaver, ACC, EQC, etc.
        They will continue New Zealand’s long-settled and consistent direction.

        They will accuse the Opposition of division, and having no compelling reasons to change.

        • saveNZ 3.2.2.1

          @AD – hope that was sarcasm… Natz…
          They will pump-prime the economy with infrastructure spend using offshore labour and companies who plan to bring in low wage workers so the profits go offshore, the jobs are not for Kiwis and the imports take up housing, transport and so forth in the middle of major crisis.

          They will continue to shift the lower-end tax brackets – Yep beneficiaries got little, low paid workers $1 per week? Wow that will get them out of poverty!

          They will support all parts of NZSuper, Kiwisaver, ACC, EQC, – So ACC is more an investment company now, rather than paying out to injured people, EQC again not paying out insurance in a timely manner for many in CHCH, Kiwisaver worth less than before, Natz stopped the Cullen fund leaving super for many in jeopardy.

          They will continue New Zealand’s long-settled and consistent direction – yep rising pollution, inequality, climate change denial and low productivity, housing, transport, health and crime crisis…

    • Anne 3.3

      Hi Tony….
      The front cover message reads: Fresh team. Fresh ideas. Fresh approach. Compared to UK Labour nothing like as good. It has a negative… “oh yeah but what kind of fresh? What ideas? What approach? If I were Labour, I would steal UK Labour’s brilliant slogan.

      NOTE FOR LABOUR: YOU STAND FOR THE MANY AND NOT THE FEW.

      • weka 3.3.1

        true but that’s still a strong slogan indicating a break with Labour of the recent past and an intention to do things differently.

      • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster 3.3.2

        Thanks Anne – at least I got the ‘Fresh’ part right. But you are correct – Fresh – compared to what?

      • Karen 3.3.3

        You realise that slogan was used by Goff in the 2011 election? And before that by Tony Blair?

        • weka 3.3.3.1

          which slogan? (there’s two in Anne’s comment).

          • Karen 3.3.3.1.1

            “Standing for the many, not the few” was used by BLP when it was led by Tony Blair and by Phil Goff in the 2011 election.

            I don’t think it was the slogan that made people vote for Corbyn and Labour.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.4

      Labour – Just Better

      Would probably work far better than the overly complicated stuff that they seem to come out with.

      • Gabby 3.4.1

        Only Just Better.

        • greywarshark 3.4.1.1

          All improvements gratefully received.

          [Im not sure why but all your comments go into moderation GWS. We clear them as quickly as we can … MS]

      • Anne 3.4.2

        Agree with DTB.

        It took us years to cull Labour’s advertising material from four A4 size pages down to one A4 size page. Even that wasn’t good enough. If we can get their slogan down to three words we will have achieved a miracle. 😯

      • Louis 3.4.3

        Better housing better health better education is no good? But it targets what Labour is focusing on for this election.

    • Halfcrown 3.5

      Answer to Tony @ 7.42 am

      Once again got to agree with you. Apart from catchy slogans, I would like to see Labour address this issue. One of the things that really annoys me is the lack of balance on our media which is beyond their control. It is controlled by the likes of Hoskings Gower and now Garner giving their biased opinions and never do we have an opposing opinion, and the right to answer. The Labour party wants to study what happened in Britain as one of the things I think and I could be wrong that brought out the younger generation to vote was the use of social media like Twitter. Corbyn was not going to get a fair go in the media and the younger generation twittering got him that support. The NZ Labour party has to use this type of medium more and any time there is an adverse comment broadcasted they answer not through the media, but through the likes of Twitter because apart from not getting much chance to answer, when they do, it is twisted around to suit the right wing agenda. Recently on the morning programme Garner and that prat Gower together with that other odious prat Mark whatever giving his tuppence worth was making a lot out of Littles statement on housing, not once did they suggest asking the Double Dipping Dickhead from Dipton why after 8 years we were so short of houses it was all about negative spin against Little. In these such cases, the Labour party must have a large counter argument on the likes of Twitter to reach a wider audience.
      The media and their commentators after the UK election have lost all its credibility. And any opinions given should be ignored.

      There was a good example of this on Q&A this morning which I turned off. They had some female don’t know her name don’t want to know, another “political” commentator “ who was on Garner’s morning programme the other day waxing lyrically how May was going to win by a large majority, and Corbyn this, and Corbyn that. She was so fucking wrong it wasn’t funny, AND YET THIS MORNING THEY STILL HAD HER ON Q&A FOR ANOTHER OPINION. Do we really want to hear her opinions when they are not credible and politically biased? I don’t and of course, they wheeled out and dusted off our Q&A mascot Frankfurter O sullivan. Hence the turn-off.
      Labour to get your message out there and across to the younger generation and the not so young, you have got to use social media outlets more ignore the MSM AND the pollsters as they all have lost the little credibility they had after the UK election.

    • ianmac 4.1

      Presented in a rather negative way but pretty colourful just the same. Not everyone enjoys the bright lights. Some of us would be just as full after a packet of fish and chips as with an expensive 3 course dinner.

  4. Whispering Kate 5

    The MSM are sore losers. This morning on RNZ sports news there wasn’t one mention (in the sports news I heard) of the Lion’s win over the Crusaders. There was plenty on the Tennis Double’s win and the Team NZ win over Artemis but I waited in vain for the results of the Lions/Crusaders win – what a mean attitude to have – we do not have any maturity and mana when we are defeated in this country.

    We don’t have Sky and hadn’t heard the result last night so was looking forward to hearing it – hubby found it for us – shame on RNZ.

  5. I suspected the claims GM hadn’t increased crop yields were bullshit – turns out they were: 20-year GMO report card: Biotech shrinks ag’s ecological impact, increased farm income $167 billion.

    • One Two 6.1

      Confirmation bias!

      ‘Genetic Literacy Project: Science not ideology’

      Not that you can help the genes interhited..can you?

      The world is turning its back on ‘voodoo science’, and will continue to do so..

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2

      I read that and all I can think is that it’s possible to have done that with non-GMO crops.

      As an example:

      Crop biotechnology has reduced agriculture’s environmental impact
      • Crop biotechnology has significantly reduced agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions by helping farmers adopt more sustainable practices such as reduced tillage, which decreases the burning of fossil fuels and retains more carbon in the soil. Had biotech crops not been grown in 2015, for example, an additional 26.7 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide would have been emitted into the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of adding 11.9 million cars to the roads.

      • From 1996 to 2015, crop biotechnology reduced the spraying of crop protection products by 619 million kilograms, a global reduction of 8.1 per cent. This is equal to more than China’s total crop protection product use each year (3). As a result, farmers who grow biotech crops have reduced the environmental impact associated with their crop protection practices by 18.6 per cent (4).

      The first certainly seems like a stretch. Simply cropping and then leaving the fields fallow would achieve the same ends.

      The second needs to be compared with non-GMO crops that had no ‘crop protection products’ sprayed on them. The point is that farmers may be using these products because they believe that they need them rather than them actually needing them or simply using more than they have to because of a belief that they need to use more.

      The actual link to the study is here. And I’d love to know what “desk research and analysis” is.

      • Psycho Milt 6.2.1

        Sure, leaving fields fallow also reduces environmental impact. So, you could get the same environmental benefits from non-GMO crops simply by accepting much lower yields. Can you see how that approach might run into problems getting traction?

        As for comparing with crops that had no “crop protection products” used on them, what crops would those be? Organic farmers also use pesticides, just not the same ones as non-organic.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1

          So, you could get the same environmental benefits from non-GMO crops simply by accepting much lower yields.

          Do they though?

          An interesting point was made in an article I read a few years back (may even be linked on this site) that to get those higher yields that GMO producers say that they can get you needed far higher inputs. After all, higher level of growth doesn’t suddenly appear magically.

          Can you see how that approach might run into problems getting traction?

          Yes I can but considering the higher inputs needed and that those higher inputs are the result of fossil fuel use can you see that it may not be sustainable?

          As I say, we need to live in reality but a lot of what we do is delusional as they don’t take into account the entire process and the full physical inputs needed.

          As for comparing with crops that had no “crop protection products” used on them, what crops would those be?

          The same ones that had “crop protection products” to, you know, compare results.

          Organic farmers also use pesticides, just not the same ones as non-organic.

          And do they get the same results?
          Better results?
          What?

          We need an actual side by side comparison that takes into account the entire process including recycling.

          • Robert Guyton 6.2.1.1.1

            Squashing a caterpillar between your thumb and forefinger is “applying a pesticide”. The argument goes on and on (and on and on and on). There must be (as is) an approach a person can take to counter/by-pass the problem that Key perfectly described when he said, “I can find another scientist who will counter your scientist…”or whatever it was he slurred out. He was correct. There’s no end to the parsing and countering and often it’s genuinely meant. A person must apply a different measure to all of these issues (GMO, organics, industrial dairying) in order to pick a path they can be sure of. Batting claims back and forward will not do it, imo. Look deeper, listen to the plinking of the waters, feel the ebb and flow in your deepest chambers, the aquifers of your self, to know what it is you believe.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.1.1

              Squashing a caterpillar between your thumb and forefinger is “applying a pesticide”.

              And allowing the birds to munch to their hearts content is as well 😈

              A person must apply a different measure to all of these issues (GMO, organics, industrial dairying) in order to pick a path they can be sure of.

              I like the idea of being sustainable while providing what we need and allowing the environment to prosper evolve. If those were part of the study then we could at least have some confidence in it.

              Look deeper, listen to the plinking of the waters, feel the ebb and flow in your deepest chambers, the aquifers of your self, to know what it is you believe.

              Belief is what you have when don’t have the facts and we need the facts to make informed decisions.

              • Belief can be what you choose when you realise that collecting facts from all corners doesn’t answer your questions.

                • One Two

                  Aptly put, Robert

                  As an observation, the belief in ‘science’ or the ability to answer ‘questions’ using ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’, is taken too literally…

                  The irony is, in itself, that is an ideological belief system of its own…

                  I would go with ‘gut’ and the humanistic traits, 9/10…

                  • Thanks, One Two. I believe we can learn to make decisions well and I think there’s a need to mix un-sciency stuff in there in order to give ourselves the best chance of recognising a good path to take when we stumble upon one.

                    • greywarshark

                      Robert G
                      Gut instinct when it comes from the heart even – it isn’t enough to formulate a doable plan that is good for people and environment.
                      But leave heart feeling out, and we have a clear path to AI and the frozen heartland of laissez faire capitalism, which we have now creeping into our lives and numbing our feelings and brain.

                      But my suggestion is to adopt a style that can be labelled
                      pragmatic idealism. Each word modulates the other, but in unison they would take us into the future with hope for a decent society surviving. It has be worked at though, what I see is not encouraging and I appreciate much those still who work for practical good outcomes for people plus environment, those two entwined.

                    • Hey, Grey. Good comment. Hearts and minds, eh! Good combo, imo. Did you see the article today about the screeds of plastic flotsam washed up on the beaches of Pitcairn Island? The “ocean is a dumping ground” effect has become too obvious to ignore and while we should be appalled by what’s resulted, I noted a couple of positive aspects; it was reported on. Much of what is happening never sees the light of the media spotlight, or even makes it into our conversations, but this was right there in front of breakfasting New Zealanders. And the island woman in the photograph looked totally p*ssed off. Fishing communities have for a long time now, accepted flotsam and jetsam as a necessary evil, contributing a fair bit of it themselves, but not now. I think the ubiquitousness of the harm we do, the interconnectivity between here and there, us and them, is becoming apparent in a way that it wasn’t till now. In summing up, I’m encouraged, though my brain says, “what on earth have we done?” my heart sings a little song of hope and the cadence is swelling 🙂

                  • I would go with ‘gut’ and the humanistic traits, 9/10…

                    Gut instinct tells you that the world is flat, the sun moves across the sky and people who are different from you are not to be trusted. As a means of assessing reality, it’s shit. As for “humanistic traits,” a lot of them are definitely not pretty…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Yeah, but the gut has more nerve endings than the brain 😉

                    • Gut? There are more trustworthy sites in the human body than the gut; I’m voting heart. The brain’s a great option-finder, but the heart’s the decision-maker 🙂

                    • One Two []

                      Absolutely agree, Robert…

                      Heart is the purest form of directional information..

                      When it’s understood, and regularly exercised…

                      Most do not understand, because it’s been ‘schooled’ out of them…

                      Regular re-connection can soon re-tune the conductors…

                    • That, One Two, or ask your wife for advice 🙂

                    • One Two []

                      Indeed Robert, indeed!

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Common sense isn’t

                    Which you’ve just proved again.

                    9/10 going with ‘gut’ instinct is just wrong.

          • Psycho Milt 6.2.1.1.2

            Do they though?

            Well, yes. How could leaving your fields fallow not result in a lower yield than using crops that don’t require leaving your fields fallow? Not producing stuff tends to result in lower production than producing stuff does.

            We need an actual side by side comparison that takes into account the entire process including recycling.

            The question “what would be the least-unsustainable form of agriculture” is a bit broader than the scope of the post.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.2.1

              How could leaving your fields fallow not result in a lower yield than using crops that don’t require leaving your fields fallow?

              They still leave the fields fallow – they just do other stuff to them as well like burn them.

              The question “what would be the least-unsustainable form of agriculture” is a bit broader than the scope of the post.

              No it’s not. In fact, I’d say that it was most definitely within the scope of the post because an unsustainable yield, by definition, cannot be sustained and so making plans on it is an exercise in futility.

              • Sustainable agriculture is yet to be developed. All the current arguments relating to environmental impacts of different approaches are about more vs less unsustainable – which is a bummer but doesn’t make the arguments an exercise in futility.

  6. weka 7

    Another reason I feel uncomfortable with TOP, and Morgan as politician,

    Morgan tweets,

    “Gareth Morgan‏ @garethmorgannz 35m35 minutes ago

    Gareth Morgan donates $1 million to charity to protest political ad allowances | http://Stuff.co.nz

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/93506706/gareth-morgan-donates-1-million-to-charity-to-protest-political-ad-allowances

    Sounds great right?

    Here’s the link https://vote.top.org.nz/

    No explanation of who the four charities are. You have to choose one of the charities and then supply name, address, email address, and post code. Then you get sent a confirmation email. Once you confirm Morgan donates $3 to your charity of choice. You also get an email from TOP with TOP policy aimed at the charity you chose. No unsubscribe option in the email 😉

    You can only vote once per email address. Fair enough, but $1million divided by 3 is 333,333. Chances of that many NZers voting on a charity? Will he still donate the full $1million?

    Looks like a way to buy an email list. I will be interested to see how it goes and whether NZers will shy away from the whole buying support thing. The difference between political advertising and this is that political advertising at least has the potential to inform people of policies and positions.

    • RedLogix 7.1

      The four charities that have been selected are Women’s Refuge, Conservation Volunteers, KidsCan and Lifeline

      From your first link.

    • mauī 7.2

      I guess this way people get some bang for their taxpayer paid advertising buck. They get to donate to a good cause but have to view a video/email in return.

      Morgan has the advantage of being able to bank roll the donations though which isn’t fair. But neither is National getting over $1 million and the largest share from the taxpayer for advertising.

      • weka 7.2.1

        They don’t have to view a video or email in return (or at least I didn’t). They just have to sign up and hand over their email address and postcode. It looks like email harvesting to me and a way to get people through their website. And sure, Morgan has a conscience so he’s good with donating to charity too (although I will be interested to see if he donates the full million). It’s his money, he can spend it however. But I do think it’s another example of his approach. He’s saying on the one hand that the election rules are biased against small parties with no money, then he uses his fortune to garner support for TOP.

        • RedLogix 7.2.1.1

          So what. Does any political party turn down a donation because it comes from a high net worth individual? Morgan has made no secret of how he is spending his money right from the outset. It’s how our political system works.

          Morgan’s strategy has been slammed by Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei as a “gratuitous and cynical way to buy votes”

          Donating to well known charities is scarcely cynical or gratuitous. Besides it’s your email address TOP is obtaining … not your vote. Turei should be an experienced enough politician to tell the difference.

          • weka 7.2.1.1.1

            1. will the full million be donated? Because that’s the way it’s being promoted.

            2. yes, they’re buying emails for $3 a pop. Sure, there is no problem with that, but it’s also up for criticism. That’s how our political system works.

            • RedLogix 7.2.1.1.1.1

              Morgan’s done this sort of thing before. My first encounter with him was well over a decade ago when the Morgan Foundation teamed up with UNICEF to fund village water supply projects in various countries. Essentially he matched dollar for dollar contributions to UNICEF up to a cap of some millions. It worked really well and to this day my automatic payment to UNICEF continues to trickle away, long after Morgan’s cap was exceeded.

              Obviously this arrangement is different, but donating to important charities is something Morgan really likes to do with his money. Based on his track record I would argue for his good faith motives in this respect. Whether the $1m cap is reached is entirely up to how many people respond.

              Equally he’s pointing out that between them National/Labour/Greens are receiving something in the order of $7m of public funding to have their voices heard in this election. TOP as a newcomer was allocated just 0.5% of this, which is a risible fraction. So he’s come up with this innovative win-win solution that counters this massive imbalance to some degree.

              Besides if you really don’t like it, don’t click. That’s how the internet works.

  7. adam 8

    Wow, so the time is coming when you can’t even talk to Yanks now.

    • greywarshark 8.1

      How do you defend yourself against Big Brother saying he’s defending somebody, he doesn’t know who or against what but will think of something, and he wants to know that you aren’t proposing something that will break a law that hasn’t yet been defined, or some protocol that guards against something yet to be decided,
      and he/she wants to know what you are saying and, through scrambled, unhealthy synapses in Big Brothers brain, chooses to consider your thoughts to be against security or a law emerging out of Big Brother’s head like an Alien baby?

      • adam 8.1.1

        Simple, they were watching before 911 and it still happened. They were watching in Britain, and it still happened. It does not work, terrorism only ends when you address why it happens, not trying to watch and stop it from happening.

        Military intelligence is just that – a military event, virtually useless when put into the civilian sphere.

  8. Bill 9

    Was reading a pretty poor analysis on the UK election and this just jumped out like the proverbial dog’s bollocks.

    This is Kezia Dugdale (Scottish Labour) on Ruth Davidson (Tory)

    “I’m sure she’ll be slightly concerned this Tory resurgence in Scotland is partly down to the borrowed vote from the pro-unionists.”

    You getting that? The leader of the Scottish Labour Party is reiterating that Scottish Labour punted for the Tories.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon-snp-conservatives-scottish-independence

    • adam 9.1

      You sound surprised Bill.

      It was the last Blairight strong hold left in the UK, it is no surprise they did this. None at all, I’d have been more shocked if these wolf had changed to sheep clothing.

      • Bill 9.1.1

        Don’t know if you’ve caught any of the links I’ve put up over the past couple of days Adam, but yes, surprised at the sheer brass neck of running an anti-Scottish Government election campaign instead of a Westminster one.

        Here’s the witless wonder laying out who she and her party are campaigning against 3 weeks out from election day.

        • Union City Reds 9.1.1.1

          Cool story, bro, but a bit of a shame, for you anyway, to find out the biggest leeching of votes to the conservatives in Scotland came from the SNP itself and not from Scottish Labour.
          In fact, out of the seats the conservatives gained from the nationalists, only in three did Labour not increase it’s share of the vote, and even then, their negative percentage was lower than that lost from the SNP itself.
          I guess a sound bite makes easier listening than the cold wind of change. Heh.

          Gordon
          C +29%
          SNP -11.8
          L +5.9
          LD -21.1

          Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine
          C +19%
          SNP -9.1
          L +6.5
          LD -12.8

          Angus
          C +16.2%
          SNP -15.7
          L +4.2
          LD +0.5

          Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk
          C +17.9%
          SNP -3.8
          L +3.7
          LD -14

          Dumfries & Galloway
          C +13.4%
          SNP -9
          L -3.8
          LD +0.7

          Ochil & South Perthshire *
          C +20.8%
          SNP -10.7
          L -8.4
          LD +0.7

          Stirling *
          C +13.9%
          SNP -8.9
          L -3.4
          LD +0.7

          Renfrewshire East *
          C +18%
          SNP -9.3
          L -7.3
          LD +0.2

          Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock *
          C +20.3%
          SNP -14.7
          L -3.4
          LD +0.2

          • Union City Reds 9.1.1.1.1

            No edit, but it’s five seats, though the point is still made.

            Moray
            C +16%
            SNP -10.7
            L +1
            LD -0.6

            Banff & Buchan
            C +19.2%
            SNP -21.1
            L +3.7
            LD -1.7

            • swordfish 9.1.1.1.1.1

              These are simply net percentage point changes – they tell us little about the actual swings happening beneath the surface

              The final Scots Polling I’ve seen (YouGov, Survation) as well as the Election day Lord Ashcroft polling of the UK as a whole – all suggest the Tories benefited most from Labour defections, followed by swings from the SNP, with Lib Dem-to-Tory swings close behind

              A far greater chunk of 2015 Lib Dems swung Tory in Scotland (41% LDs –
              compared to 21% of 2015 Labour voters and just 7% of the 2015 SNP constituency – (YouGov) / 29%, 16%, 6% respectively (Survation)) but, of course, Lib Dems made up a much smaller % of the Scots electorate, so their contribution to the Tory surge wasn’t quite as decisive as first appears

              Labour’s own surge came courtesy, first and foremost, of SNP defections (SNP voters were almost twice as likely to swing Labour than they were to swing Tory)

              Which isn’t necessarily to deny the possibility that SNP-to-Tory swings were the key feature in some individual seats – but that appears not to have been the case across Scotland as a whole

          • Ad 9.1.1.1.2

            Great to see a Scottish specialist thank you.

            • Union City Reds 9.1.1.1.2.1

              Scottish, Labour and a Unionist. Can’t be all bad then.

            • Bill 9.1.1.1.2.2

              Scottish he says? Using the term ‘bro’?! Uh-huh.

              Ad. If you want to read some half decent commentary and analysis, as opposed to just dropping asinine comments into a thread, then try this. (Plenty of links to back up arguments/observations).

              Otherwise, carry on.

              • Union City Reds

                Don’t disrespect my heritage because I’ve used the vernacular of the street, so to speak. When in Rome, etc. Bro. 😉

                As for the numbers, you can deny them if you want, if that’s what you’re doing, but they’re real and not going to go away.
                No talking head can trump cold hard numbers. just look at Banf. That’s cold.

                • Bill

                  Nobody’s denying the numbers.

                  Nobody’s denying that Kezia Dugdale ran against the Scottish Government and not the Westminster one.

                  Nobody’s denying that suited Ruth Davidson down to the ground (wedge politics).

                  Nobody’s denying the turnout was down all across Scotland.

                  Nobody’s denying that Scotland was the only place the Tories made over-all gains.

                  Nobody’s denying the SNP were going to lose seats no matter what.

                  Nobody’s denying Kezia Dugdale effectively handed the keys of number 10 to May with her witless bullshit. (Some besides yourself may be)

                  Some do deny it’s something in the water at SLab HQ that’s produced both “glue head” Kelly as a leader and and now *this* equally weird and hopeless case (both Blairites).

  9. adam 10

    Russian, Israel, Arab hip-hop. It just works…

  10. Poission 11

    In other election news,the French get to decide if Macron is a Macron or a Micron.

    8,000 candidates for 577 jobs.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20170609/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-french-parliamentary-elections

  11. joe90 12

    heh

    This clip by @BBCNewsnight is an absolutely brutal look back at how the election worked out. pic.twitter.com/O73YcVzT4g— Jim Waterson (@jimwaterson) June 9, 2017

  12. joe90 13

    France is offering grants of up to 1.5 million Euro for climate scientists to move there.

    To all responsible citizens:

    On the 1st of June, President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, which gathered more than 190 countries united against climate change.
    This decision is unfortunate but it only reinforced our determination. Don’t let it weaken yours.
    We are ONE planet and Together, we can make a difference.
    France has always led fights for human rights. Today, more than ever, we are determined to lead (and win!) this battle on climate change.
    Emmanuel Macron, President of France.

    https://www.makeourplanetgreatagain.fr/home

    https://www.makeourplanetgreatagain.fr/

    • RedLogix 13.1

      That is so damned cool. The 1.5m Euro is smart thinking, but the “Make our planet great again” meme is absolutely the perfect comeback … and more.

      It goes right to the sense of global citizenship I’ve always argued for … and way more importantly … resonates very strongly with so many younger people.

  13. Ethica 14

    Only a month ago UK Labour did badly in the local elections. The turn around started with the leaking of the manifesto. It had bold and old left policies that were very popular and showed neo liberalism was dead. We are not at that point in our election campaign yet. Let’s hope there is a courageous NZ LP manifesto in production.

    • Red 14.1

      While most of this site is having a global wet dream on labours loss in the Uk, labour gains where more about how bad may was not how good labour was. U.K. Electoral boundaries are about to be changed removing 30 labour electorates that no longer have population to support as electorates , Torys Learn fast, the next tory pm won’t be may nor will next Tory campaign beamateur hour, so enjoy your loss my lefty pumpkins while you can, yes you still loss to the most incompetent election campaign ever

      [lprent: Since we are talking about incompetents, then please look at yourself in a mirror. You are currently the second biggest timewaster around for moderators.

      Select ONE handle and ’email’ address and stick to it. Normally I tend to view people maintaining multiple commenting logins are probably trying to spoof the system here. Which I don’t like. In your case I suspect simple incompetence – which annoys me.

      While moderators don’t mind occasionally fixing or releasing typos, you appear to do it every few messages. So to save moderator effort, I’ll give you a day or so to select a combination between handle and email. Then I will select that one as being your only combination. I will change the existing comments to that combo, and consign all emails to autospam.

      If I see new ones coming through, then I will just permanently ban you for wasting moderator time. This is your warning and chance to show that as a tory – you can learn very fast. ]

    • Andre 15.1

      For anyone ignorant of the history of climate science, it had already been understood since 1824 that something in the atmosphere was trapping heat making Earth warmer than it “should be”. It’s been understood since 1861 that CO2 is a big part of that something.

      https://skepticalscience.com/cshistory.php

  14. Ad 17

    Watch this debate hit our shores very fast.
    For all of you activist types with dodgy opinions, and have Facebook or Gmail or Apple accounts:

    “Australia will seek cooperation from social media companies such as Apple Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. to decrypt communication between terrorist groups.

    Attorney General George Brandis told Sky News on Sunday the government would consider changes to Australia’s laws to ensure telecommunications and technology firms help authorities decipher suspect messages.

    “My concern is the existing laws don’t go far enough in imposing obligations of cooperation upon the corporates,” Brandis said.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-09/trump-can-accept-payments-from-foreign-governments-u-s-argues

    I’m just slightly betting that the definition of terrorism gets to expand a wee bit.
    Why employ the best fishermen with the best and biggest nets if you’re not going to fish, after all?

    • greywarshark 17.1

      If you have good equipment and are paid to do something and find something well sooner rather than later someone will ask if you have been successful. If you haven’t then you’ll hear that you haven’t been trying hard enough, the equipment can’t be up to scratch etc.

      There might be a career in inventing things for them to find.
      (It should be known that I am a junior in the computing world, but I have learned how people think who sit tapping rather than get outside with those of humanity who do actual physical work. Sorry to lprent and others, but I think we will live to regret the lovely machines that 0 and 1 developed.)

  15. RedLogix 18

    Get right to the end … a powerful message.

    • Bill 18.1

      Time for non-parliamentary politics – ie, socialism. Personally, I’ll take social democracy, but only by way of a very short term stepping stone.

      Seriously (and I don’t care if a person calls themselves a Marxist or an anarchist, autonomous communist or whatever), it’s time to look through the arguments and thoughts of radicals/progressives/socialists from the late 19th and early 20th century, pick up the wheels they already invented, put a 21st Century body on the chassis, and get a move on.

      • RedLogix 18.1.1

        It’s Sanders last few para’s that put socialism into a global context which truly inspire me. That’s where the wheels will get the 21st century traction you’re looking for.

        • Bill 18.1.1.1

          Well, yeah. He essentially expressed the moral and intellectual core or imperatives of socialism without the using the word socialism 🙂

          My sticking point with Sanders (and this applies to Corbyn too), is that he seems to view some some overhauled configuration of current nation state institutions as the way to achieve socialism. And it’s not the way – can’t be the way.

          It’s an old argument I know, but early socialists split on that same notion of whether a parliament could deliver socialism. Well, the history is there to look at now.

          Besides. Socialism is, and always was, about process not outcomes. So, y’know, my eyes roll when I hear people suggest that some government policy or other is “socialist”. That’s simply not possible.

          People getting all enthusiastic about the supposed socialist underpinnings of (say) some government’s housing policy is ardent nonsense that merely indicates they’re willing to throw the terms “socialism” or “socialist” about, without having the faintest idea about what those things are.

  16. Ed 19

    ‘Labour AHEAD of Tories by six points in stunning new poll as public say Theresa May should resign.

    Jeremy Corbyn would be Prime Minister if an election was held tomorrow, according to the pollster which most accurately predicted Thursday’s election result.

    A new poll by Survation puts Labour six points ahead of the Tories on 45% of the vote.
    The Tories, meanwhile, polled 39% – almost four points below their result in the general election.
    It is the first time since Theresa May took power that any poll has put Labour ahead of the Conservatives.’

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/most-accurate-pollster-suggests-labour-10602762

Recent Comments

Recent Posts