Open mike 11/09/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:45 am, September 11th, 2014 - 415 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

415 comments on “Open mike 11/09/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    11 September 2014 at 6:59 am

    Another day and no MSM story about the Ede emails. I wonder what is happening?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:03 am

      Dirty politics is happening.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:06 am

        When you think what Key was prepared to do in 2011 to stop the tea pot tape from being released you can be sure he is not taking this lying down. This is potentially much more significant than him swearing or making derogatory comments about elderly people.

        • karol 1.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:16 am

          Who said the MSM people are sitting on Ede emails that have so far not been published?

          It just seems to be an assumption a lot of people keep repeating.

        • Bob 1.1.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 9:41 am

          But that’s the thing, he didn’t swear or say anything derogatory about elderly people in the tapes!

        • Enough is Enough 1.1.1.3
          11 September 2014 at 11:19 am

          Micky lets not go all silly over this. It makes us on the left look hysterical.

          How do you know there are unpublished Eade emails?

          What swear words did Key say?

          What derogatory things did Key say about old people?

          Shouldn’t we be concentrating on Key’s war on the poor and silly tax cut policy?

          • Inky 1.1.1.3.1
            11 September 2014 at 11:36 pm

            If he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to fear. But he must have feared something, otherwise why would he have fought so hard to hide from view the teacup tapes until after the last election?

      • Sans Cle 1.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 1:22 pm

        Could there be a “super-injunction” in place?
        Definitely alluding to it in this article! (or too conspiratorial?)
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11321483

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 1:31 pm

          If that is the inference we’re meant to take from the article, the writer is in contempt of court. It seems oddly out-of-place otherwise…

          You might very well think that; I couldn’t possible comment.

          • Sans Cle 1.1.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 2:50 pm

            I don’t get it…..really not sure what is being alluded to. I find it strange. He’s clearly not a fan of choice of ex-judge for inquiry, with his “just-saying” type approach. Then dropping mention of a “super-injunction” out of context. Bizarre? (or am I missing something glaringly obvious?)

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 3:22 pm

              I can think of lots of reasons why a judge might think a super-injunction appropriate in a case that might throw evidential light on the Justice Minister’s attempt to undermine the SFO, and the Prime Minister’s deliberate breach of classified information.

              Anderson cannot reasonably expect people to read the article and not draw the obvious conclusion: that super injunctions are relevant in this context. Further, unless he’s being unnecessarily coy , if none are currently in force he’d have said so.

              As I said though, if one’s been issued he’s sailing pretty close to contempt. Curiouser and curiouser, Alice.

              • Sans Cle …
                11 September 2014 at 3:59 pm

                Agreed….super-injunction warranted. Agreed…..sailing close to the wind.
                Stumped as to why he would publish this.
                Stumped as to whether there is or isn’t a super-injunction in place currently.

    • karol 1.2
      11 September 2014 at 7:07 am

      Is it certain there are some Ede emails to be published? Who said so?

      I heard a Checkpoint interview with the Mediaworks’ spokeswoman on Checkpoint.

      This one. She explains they won’t publish anything more til after the court hearings next week.

      http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20140910-1713-media_agree_not_to_publish_details_about_slaters_personal_life-048.mp3

      • Tracey 1.2.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:11 am

        Thanks Karol

        because they have reached a settlement, are all of the details of that settlement actually available or subject to some confidentiality? I ask because the NBR statement was a bit vague.

        for example, id Slater arguing that unless he gets the emails back from the hacker, there is no settlement. That is, settlement is subject to that condition. Is Slater doing this as a way to delay proceedings til after the election…

        “we have nearly settled your honour but just need one more week”, type thing?

        • karol 1.2.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:14 am

          I heard the Checkpoint interview last night. Can’t remember exactly. But she said this case has no precedent. And I think it does hinge on getting an answer to Slater’s request to get material back. Not clear if he just wants cooies, or the emails to be relinquished.

          Yes, it all looks like stalling tactics by Slater and …. who?

          • Tracey 1.2.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:28 am

            Yes, who?

            Hugh Rennie QC was charging as follows in 2010

            “1 November 2010, for matters dealt with on a time basis, the hourly rate applied
            (exclusive of GST) was normally in the range of $450 to $600 per hour, with the outer limits being $200 and $720 per hour… ”

            http://www.harbourchambers.co.nz/site/harbour/files/Terms%20of%20Engagement%20-%20Hugh%20Rennie%20QC%202011.pdf

            “A survey by Richard Burcher of legal services pricing consultancy Validatum Ltd in 2011 received responses from around two-thirds of New Zealand’s Queen’s Counsel. This found the most common hourly rate was $550 to $649 (for 23% of respondents). At the top end, 7% of respondents billed over $1,050/hour. Mr Burcher says the respondents were a good representation of all Queen’s Counsel, right across the charging range. By way of comparison, a survey of law firm partners at the same time found the most common hourly rate was $341 to $360 (for 16% of respondents) and only 5% of responding partners billed over $400/hour.”
            https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/issue-846/queens-counsel-rank-recognises-excellence

            Mickey may have a view ont his but in my experience, as a rule of thumb, trialpreparation is usually estimated at being twice as long as the hearing will be. trial preparation is literally the Barrister preparing their hearing and is not usually the research (done by others more junior), collation of documents for the court (done by juniors) and so on?

            I don’t go over to WhaleOil but assume Mr Slater has nothing to hide on that front, so he has probably said who is funding his case.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 7:37 am

            Whoever it is doesn’t know what Rawshark gave the media. They know it’s a snapshot, not a full picture.

            They however do have the full picture. No doubt it involves evidence of criminal behaviour that implicates all of them including the Prime Minister. They don’t know whether Rawshark’s picture illustrates that clearly.

            They’ll be delaying its release as long as they can, and doing their best to get advance notice of what evidence the media are holding. Intense pressure will be going on Nippert, Gower and Fisher. Someone will be looking to get them drunk.

            • yeshe 1.2.1.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 9:09 am

              OAB — Rawshark had a dump of ten years worth from Slater’s computers, according to what I have read. Nicky Hager had but 8 Gbs.

              How can we know it’s just a snapshot ? I thought I read Rawshark gave the whole lot over to media. Maybe given in separate parts, that was not explained.

              But yes, I agree with your analysis. It has to be self-immolating and the equivalence of what was found to be missing from the Nixon tapes.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                11 September 2014 at 9:44 am

                We know it’s just a snapshot because Rawshark didn’t have the Odgers email. The one that ended Judith Collins’ career.

                Let’s just take a moment to rejoice at the destruction of that evil trash 😀

              • karol …
                11 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

                yeshe, Hager, at Waikato Uni a couple of nights back and available on a video, said the following things:

                The hacker took only a fraction of the emails/messages on Slater’s system.

                Hager used the “best bits” in his book.

                There’s not a lot left to be revealed by the media – just some bits and pieces.

      • mickysavage 1.2.2
        11 September 2014 at 7:36 am

        Hmmm I don’t know why. There is no legal restriction on them doing so. Is Slater hoping to drag it out past the election?

        • Clemgeopin 1.2.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 10:21 am

          Why haven’t our hundreds of smart investigative ‘journalists’ interviewed Ede yet? By now there should be dozens of them shadowing the guy and surrounding his house to get his side of this important public interest story. Why have they not been doing that?

      • yeshe 1.2.3
        11 September 2014 at 9:04 am

        Karol … Dirty Politics has 100 references to Ede ( thank you, Kindle) with obvious ‘blank spaces’ yet to be filled. I am certain there are Ede emails yet to emerge for no reason other than it defies common sense to believe there are not.

        Haven’t listened yet to the interview link, but these delays in hearings etc by MSM are simply more Dirty Politics in play. Have to admit, they are very cunning. But they cannot fool all the people all the time!

        • Bill 1.2.3.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:39 am

          ‘Dirty Politics’ refers to a lot of phone calls between Ede and Slater; not emails.

          • veutoviper 1.2.3.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 11:04 am

            “Dirty Politics’ also refers to “the USB consisted of thousands of pages of conversations on Facebook and by email between Slater and his closest political associates: Jason Ede from the prime minister’s office; close friend and Cabinet Minister Judith Collins; …”. Page 12/13.

            There are many other references to email contacts between Slater and Ede – eg page 100, 125/6 are just two examples quoted of written communications between Slater and Ede.

            • veutoviper 1.2.3.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 11:42 am

              Further to the above, the index at the back of “Dirty Politics’
              covers multiple references to “Ede, Jason” including the following specific references to contacts with Slater: 20 – 22, 22n, 31 – 35, 41 – 43, 125.

    • Tracey 1.3
      11 September 2014 at 7:08 am

      No championing of their battle won for free speech either…

      Isn’t the Ede connection very clear in Dirty Politics anyway, and like previous dumps it is mainly about providing the evidence Hager bases his writings upon?

    • tc 1.4
      11 September 2014 at 7:25 am

      Has anyone in the MSM poodle pack put shonkey on the spot over ede and his actions as a public servant in the PM office ?

      If such emails exist doesn’t Bradbury have copies also, not like him to hold back.

      • Tracey 1.4.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:32 am

        I have a vague recollection in the early days when he told us ede no longer worked for him and hadn’t for years, was working for national Party.

      • Tracey 1.4.2
        11 September 2014 at 7:52 am

        12 December 2013

        ” “In terms of the function, a number of staff from the prime minister’s office attended and enjoyed themselves and we appreciate the media putting on such a good function.”

        When asked by Fairfax Media in October about Ede’s relationship with Whale Oil, the spokeswoman said Ede was a senior adviser in the National leader’s office. He provided communication advice and support to the prime minister and to National Party MPs, including in the area of social media and other media.

        “Jason works a lot in the area of social media and that includes getting out National’s message to a range of bloggers and other social media sites,” she said.

        Trevett said Ede was seen this morning by two witnesses. He had crouched among the butts taking photos with his phone.

        “I’m a bit baffled by it,” Trevett said.

        “I just don’t see what it shows, really … a party of 600 people leaves a bit of a mess.

        “And I do think it’s odd that someone who does work in the prime minister’s office would refer information on anonymously to a blogger, especially that kind of information.”
        Ad Feedback

        “It does make me wonder what other contributions Mr Ede might have made, as well as whether this is sanctioned by the prime minister in any way.” ” stuff.co.nz

        More recently Mr Double-Speak said of Ede

        ” Ede was spotted in the Parliamentary complex last week – with a security access swipe card – despite National saying he is employed by them at the party’s Wellington head office.

        “I don’t know, you’d have to ask whoever is responsible for that. But it’s not me,” Key said.

        “He works for the National party now, that’s all I know.”

        Key didn’t know why Ede was at Parliament and he wasn’t visiting his office.

        “You’d have to ask him. He hasn’t been in my [physical] office for years… He was originally a press secretary years and years ago. Again Hager’s got it wrong, he’s not two doors down from me. I hardly ever talk to him. Most of the work he did in research and communications was either with backbenchers or other people.”

        Key said he doesn’t know what Ede’s role with National was now. “

        • yeshe 1.4.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:16 am

          a classic for Blip’s list of lies !

        • mac1 1.4.2.2
          11 September 2014 at 9:33 am

          If Key is lying about his involvement with Ede and minimising it, that indicates there is something to be hidden. If there was nothing, and Ede has not yet been shown to be anything but an office work, then why get shifty about it?

          Of course, sociopaths lie as a matter of course, but our esteemed PM is not one of those, is he?

          • Tracey 1.4.2.2.1
            11 September 2014 at 9:40 am

            It appears that less than a year before his disappearance Mr Ede was advising the Prime Minister (not the PM’s office) but the Prime Minister said Ede hadnt been in his office for years… The PM must have been using his time with Ede to stretch his legs and went to Jason’s office?

            And who inserted (physical) in front of office, did the PM actually use that word?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.3
        11 September 2014 at 9:50 am

        I hope (and believe) Rawshark has more sense than to entrust them to Martyn Bradbury.

        • weka 1.4.3.1
          11 September 2014 at 11:05 am

          As opposed to Paddy Gower? Really?

          Tc: “If such emails exist doesn’t Bradbury have copies also, not like him to hold back.”

          Bradbury said to the MSM that if they didn’t release them, someone else would. That doesn’t mean Bradbury has copies.

          There is a hell of lot of speculation going on, and rumours building on that. Is this helpful?

          What’s the source of the idea that there are a bunch of emails from/to Ede?

          • Tracey 1.4.3.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 11:23 am

            There were a couple mentioned in Dirty Politics. To my knowledge that is the only proven reference to such emails there is, the rest to my knowledge is a mixture of hope/assumption.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.3.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 12:54 pm

            As opposed to Paddy Gower…

            Yes. If Gower says that Key told Ede to ratfuck New Zealand more people will believe him.

            Bomber has been saying that for the last six years.

            • weka 1.4.3.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 4:09 pm

              Interesting. See, I want the dump to be made public so that people can make up their own minds irrespective of whether it’s Gower or Bomber or the effing Dalai Lama doing the talking.

              I trust Bomber to make the dump visible way more than I trust Gower.

    • weka 1.5
      11 September 2014 at 8:58 am

      “Another day and no MSM story about the Ede emails. I wonder what is happening?”

      I think the fact that the media commentators who are members of the VRWC are still being used as media commentators by the media, tells us that (a) the MSM has no sense of propriety, ethics and boundaries, and (b) it’s BAU as much as they can achieve that.

      We’re getting screwed again.

      • Tracey 1.5.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:02 am

        Are the Ede emails so much more explosive than as revealed by Hager?

        • weka 1.5.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:13 am

          Rawshark said the point of the dumps was to take down the network. Has that happened?

          We can’t trust the 3 media outlets to do the right thing here. They’ll be doing the thing that’s right in the context of their own relationships with the VRWC.

          • Tracey 1.5.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 9:21 am

            I understand that, am just wondering IF there is anything in the dump about Ede that wasn’t given to Hager. hager was the first port of call.

            It IS possible, isn’t it, that Rawshark thought the Book would be bad enough and it wasn’t. So he dumped emails (initially I thought he was doing it to provide the proof of Hager’s claims which Key and Collins and Slater were saying were not true), but then it turned out there were ones Hager hadn’t seen?

            maybe, she says in vain hope, they are waiting to dove-tail the stuff they have with anything Dotcom has on Monday? To make the blow bigger?

            Maybe SST is waiting, well, til Sunday?

            I did see today that an inquiry into Katherine Rich is being called for.

            • yeshe 1.5.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 9:30 am

              I believe the MSM are supporting the delays to ensure there is no ‘big blow’ prior to the election, in vile abrogation of their public responsibilities.

              They are fully complicit in protecting Key and his bosses imho, but I, too, live in vain hope.

              • Tracey …
                11 September 2014 at 9:37 am

                here’s the bit about Rich

                “A group of 33 senior health researchers and scientists are calling for an investigation into whether former National MP Katherine Rich was associated with attacks on public health specialists while she was meant to be promoting the Government’s health messages.

                The group has signed and sent a letter to Prime Minister John Key, asking him to look into allegations contained in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics about Mrs Rich, who is a member of the Government’s Health Promotion Agency (HPA). Mrs Rich has denied any wrongdoing.

                The book raises questions about her association with Carrick Graham, a public relations specialist allegedly linked to posts on the Whale Oil blog that malign Doug Sellman, the director of the National Addictions Centre.

                “Despite many opportunities to refute the allegations, Mrs Rich has chosen neither to deny nor to disprove these,” the letter says.

                The group wants Mrs Rich to be sacked from the HPA if there is any truth to the allegations.

                The letter also asks Mr Key to look into any conflicts of interest. Mrs Rich is chief executive of the Food & Grocery Council, which represents the interests of food, beverage and grocery corporates. In a statement, Mrs Rich said she had no intention of resigning from the HPA.

                “I have not been involved in any campaign that has undermined the public health of Kiwis, and I find any such suggestion very offensive.”

                She did not specifically address the allegations in the book that she was associated with Carrick Graham.”

                ….

                from professor Doug Sellman a victim of smearing by Slater and others wrote

                “Nicky Hager’s latest book “Dirty Politics” reports the alcohol industry works behind the scenes to actively try and smear the professional reputation of people who promote effective alcohol reforms in New Zealand, as well as other public health campaigns.

                The book describes how Katherine Rich, CEO of the Food and Grocery Council, a lobby group working on behalf of various big business interests including the alcohol industry, facilitates and pays for derogatory attacks on public health advocates, including Prof Doug Sellman, medical spokesperson of Alcohol Action NZ.

                “Dirty Politics” alleges that Katherine Rich arranges for articles with pejorative titles such as “Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad” to appear on the Whale Oil blog, with her involvement in the smear hidden from public view. An intermediary person is paid to pass information onto Cameron Slater, who in turn, for a fee, posts the article on his blog under his own name.

                “Underhand alcohol industry tactics were outlined in the scientific literature in 1992 in an influential editorial titled “Warning: The alcohol industry is not your friend”, said Prof Jennie Connor, “but hard evidence of them being used here in New Zealand has been hard to identify, up until now”.

                “I’m not surprised about this new evidence because this is exactly the sort of secret industry tactics we were warned about from the outset of the Alcohol Action law reform campaign five years ago” said Prof Doug Sellman.”

                …

                “Carrick Graham’s new business partners say that “Dirty Politics” allegations about Graham have not hurt their new agency – Graham, Brewer, Simich and Associates.

                The company was formed in mid 2014, but has faced a baptism of fire with Graham taking a central role in a controversy which erupted late last month.

                Graham has been at the centre of a storm over allegations in the Nicky Hager book “Dirty Politics” based on emails hacked from the computer of Cameron Slater, a long time friend of Graham – and apparently a business associate in some public relations campaigns.

                Graham – who is the son of former Justice minister Sir Douglas Graham – launched a new PR company with his friends Ricardo Simich – the son of former Tamaki MP Clem Simich – and Cameron Brewer.”

                Note Cameron Brewer is an Auckland City Councillor and I have no proof but will bet he has received “advice” from Mr Lusk in his time…

              • weka …
                11 September 2014 at 9:41 am

                “I believe the MSM are supporting the delays to ensure there is no ‘big blow’ prior to the election, in vile abrogation of their public responsibilities.

                They are fully complicit in protecting Key and his bosses imho, but I, too, live in vain hope.”

                Best summation so far.

                Tracey, I have no idea what’s in the dumps that were given to the 3 media outlets. For me the paramount issue right now isn’t the content, it’s the behaviour of the MSM.

                • Tracey …
                  11 September 2014 at 9:50 am

                  I guess if they had published everything they wanted to, they wouldn’t have bothered defending the injunction? They havent championed their victory over oppression of free speech so can we assume their defence of it wasn’t for that reason alone?

                  • yeshe …
                    11 September 2014 at 10:05 am

                    Paradoxy — the defence of their right to publish was in fact to prevent them having to publish until after the election.

                    We all knew they had the material — Rawshark shouted it out on Twitter.

                    We wondered why Slater applied for an injunction three weeks late.

                    Was this a set up ??

                    Have they snookered Rawshark and us ?

                    Rawshark will not be happy and may be forced out of retirement as she/he threatened so to do.

    • BLiP 1.6
      11 September 2014 at 9:08 am

      ‘

      You have to bear in mind that as well as highlighting John Key and his National Ltd™ goons’ malfeasance, the emails also expose the MSM collusion in the usurping of democracy. The first thing we heard from the so-called journalists is that “everyone does it and everyone knows everyone does it, nothing to see here . . . oooh, look, touchy-feely cute animal story over there”. Trouble is, if everyone knew about it, why didn’t the MSM tell us, and then why did it seek to minimise the issue once it became known, and, now, why has it failed to follow through?

      The most likely answer, IMHO, is that the so-called journalists and political editors will be shown up for their, at best, incompetence and, at worst, corruption. While various personal reputations will be trashed, the other, and some might say more grievous consequence, is the putting at risk of the MSM’s sole moral imperative: maximising return to its foreign-owned multinational corporation owners. The New Zealand Fox News Herald is particularly compromised because it is in the process of flogging off shares to the public prior to putting a pay-wall in place. Any threat to the capital value, especially the good name of the brand, and future income projections, is nigh-on treason so far as the Boardroom Barons are concerned.

      Its such a shame that Radio New Zealand and TVNZ were not given the emails. I suspect that if our public broadcasters were in possession of them, the New Zealand public would be far better served than we are by Media Jerks, Failfax and the New Zealand Fox News Herald.

      • yeshe 1.6.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:19 am

        We have all agreed Rawshark is super smart. why then give the dumps to only those msm and take this risk ?

        • Tracey 1.6.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:25 am

          To make a point about their alleged collusion on behalf of their corporate owners? That works IF the emails suggesting this come out another way. Hager had a go, and Tim Murphy (he of the cant tell the difference between a statement and an affidavit fame) immediately defended Savage and O’Sullivan, but not with documentary proof, and none has been asked for (cf with Hager’s book and reaction). Savage and O’Sullivan could have sworn affidavits of their denials.

          • yeshe 1.6.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 9:42 am

            So Rawshark gives them the bomb they built themselves, but retains detonating rights just in case they don’t come clean with the truth ?

            Touche; very le Carre isn’t it — and still no claims against Nicky Hager. And no affidavits, as you mention.

            What can be next ?

            • Tracey 1.6.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 9:47 am

              I’m with karol, I am not sure there is much left now. Hager covered stuff off pretty well and the public have been told not to care and some of them dont. BUT not all of them dont care by any means.

              However if by network, rawshark was including complicit media, then maybe there is still something to come, and does it rely on a Fisher or someone similar being able tor resist any pressure that might be brought to bare to not publish?

              Maybe it is a Slater style set up… Give them the stuff, watch them not publish then use another method to show they sat on stuff cos it hurt them and they didnt want the good folks on NZ to know.

              • Weepus beard …
                11 September 2014 at 9:58 am

                Felix Marwick is still pursuing the SIS OIA release story, namely asking the Ombudsman to find out who exactly in Key’s office was involved.

                These threads, and others are the ones which will be picked up eventually but it is unlikely this info will be presented to the public before the election.

                • Tracey …
                  11 September 2014 at 11:46 am

                  ombudsmen will know it can be crucial pre election…

                  • Weepus beard …
                    11 September 2014 at 11:54 am

                    I’m not sure she will recognise the proximity of the election in her decision at all.

                    I also think that this whole event being unprecedented in New Zealand has independent public officials at sea and unsure what to do because the existing laws are not clear.

                    • Tracey …
                      11 September 2014 at 11:59 am

                      I got a speedy response from her when msd were stalling my request… they then looked at it and got an msd response inside 2 days. that is what I based my comment on.

                      every other such approach I have taken to ombudsmen has taken weeks and months and were outside campaign periods

      • Bill 1.6.2
        11 September 2014 at 9:48 am

        Nippert, Gower and Fisher got whaledump’s stuff. Nippert and Fisher have both written or spoken quite honestly, and with not a little humility, about how they were ‘used’ by the Dirty Network. I honestly don’t think they’re ‘in the game’ any longer and will write up anything worthwhile that they have. If their employers stall on publishing, that’s a different matter.

        • yeshe 1.6.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 10:14 am

          haven’t seen anything written and published by Nippert for a very long time now .. is he a silent casualty ? or working on the definitive Rawshark dump expose ??

    • adam 1.7
      11 September 2014 at 3:46 pm

      Killing Joke say what I’m thinking on this issue Micky.

  2. Sans Cle 2
    11 September 2014 at 7:06 am

    Who has the emails? Paddy Gower and who else?

    • phillip ure 2.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:46 am

      apn…fairfax..and tv3..have the emails..

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:19 am

        but we don’t yet know if they have duplicates..

        ..or if the stash was divided up between them…

        • phillip ure 2.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 5:03 pm

          and is it mutually assured destruction that will stop them publishing the dirt on each other..?

          ..if the stash was divvied..?

          ..if each was given the dirt on the other..?

      • brian 2.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 9:47 am

        Can you confirm that TV3 have the emails? I may be wrong, but I think I heard a spokesperson from TV3 saying they do not have the latest emails, earlier today on National Radio

        • yeshe 2.1.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 10:17 am

          TV3 were definitely joint party to fighting the injunction applic last Friday … fwiw

        • veutoviper 2.1.2.2
          11 September 2014 at 11:56 am

          Rawshark tweeted last week that a dump had gone to Patrick Gower.

          From memory it was one of the last tweets before the #whaledump Twitter account was suspended – so it would have been about last Thursday night. It is not on the replacement #whaledump2 account which is still up but with no action since last Friday.

          I am puzzled at who or rather the media outlets Rawshark sent the dumps to. A couple of days ago I speculated on TS that I wondered whether it was in fact a setup – as per Yeshe’s comments at 1.6.1 and 1.6.1.1 above. Time will tell.

          • yeshe 2.1.2.2.1
            11 September 2014 at 1:55 pm

            missed yr comments on that v v .. can you send me back there with a link pse ? would enjoy to see yr thoughts 🙂

    • Tracey 2.2
      11 September 2014 at 9:48 am

      We don’t know they all have the same emails. Rawshark may have split them up between them. Maybe to see if they would run stories that show the other “guys” and “gals” up?

  3. Grant 3
    11 September 2014 at 7:17 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11322051

    CEOs support National; I, for one, am shocked.

    They rate John Key 3.98/5 for integrity, and David Cunliffe 2.52. And that’s post-Dirty-Politics.

    • Paul 3.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:26 am

      Yes, but these are CEOs of large multinationals, I’m inferring.
      If you’re the CEO of a large Australian bank or a massive US Food and Beverage company, which party allows you to loot NZ more for your wealthy foreign shareholders?

    • LynWiper 3.2
      11 September 2014 at 7:32 am

      It demonstrates very clearly CEOs’ lack of ethics and morals. Win at any cost. NZ has been run by those same principles. It deeply disturbs me that ‘dirty politics’ has been so easily ignored by so many.

      • Tracey 3.2.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:38 am

        and there didnt seem to be a category or question relating to wages and conditions for employees…

    • Tracey 3.3
      11 September 2014 at 7:37 am

      yes those earning in the top 1% support Key. Colour me stunned.

      They are also trumpeting expectations of ” revenue growth and bottom line profit increases.” but not mentioning wage increases (well presumably other than their own which they consider a given0…

      • Paul 3.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:47 am

        Yes, people on salaries over $ 500 000 support National.
        It is surprising, isn’t it?
        The Herald assumes we all see these people as our leaders….

        • Tracey 3.3.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:56 am

          If you look at the table though… it says ladership… it’s not the “e” they left out but the second “d”.

          have a screenshot but dont know how to upload it

      • Granted 3.3.2
        11 September 2014 at 10:25 am

        Tracey, just out of interest, what level of income do I need to be on to be part of the 1%?

        • Tracey 3.3.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 10:45 am

          http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2013/taxpayers/02.htm

          63% of tax is paid by those earning 100k or less… If I have understood that table correctly… and maths isn’t my thing….

          I think the one percent is over $165k per annum

          • Granted 3.3.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 12:48 pm

            Thanks…..damn I miss out….never mind.

            Is it OK to aspirational to try and make that 1%?

            It seems like not a bad place to be.

            OK so that table is actually 2% over $150k so it will be a higher income level again to be 1%.

            Based on that table 2% of tax payers pay 21% of the tax.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.2.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 1:01 pm

            Over $165 pa only takes taxable income into account, and is based on IRD data from 2008.

    • Rich 3.4
      11 September 2014 at 8:09 am

      Deciding by rote. They have no ability to change on the basis of the evidence. Which is evidence enough that they are very poor decision makers.

      • Tigger 3.4.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:09 am

        CEOs are more likely than others to be sociopaths. Less empathy = vote right.

        • glen garforth 3.4.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 5:32 pm

          there is a good doco called the corporation.
          it describes how when the slaves in the states where given ‘human’ rights, a smart lawyer got these same rights for corporations.

          it then looked at behaviour of mentally healthy people vs the behaviour of a sociopath (pollute the environment, drive down wages and workers conditions all in the name of profit)
          there fore concluding that corporations are sociopaths.

    • infused 3.5
      11 September 2014 at 10:21 am

      because dc is s fake.

      • Weepus beard 3.5.1
        11 September 2014 at 10:35 am

        C’mon. This is the drunken line you energetically scribbled last night, repeatedly, and judging by the attention you have given to your first comment this morning it doesn’t look like you have sobered up!

        This comment by infused @ 3.5 is clearly a troll comment with no info to back it up and I hereby report it in the form of this here reply. One thing you cannot say about David Cunliffe is that he is insincere.

        Hell, infused has not even managed to construct a proper sentence! It must be the schooling.

        We don’t need this stuff here.

      • framu 3.5.2
        11 September 2014 at 12:56 pm

        as opposed to JK whos corrupt AND fake?

    • Draco T Bastard 3.6
      11 September 2014 at 3:21 pm

      That just proves that CEOs are either as corrupt as National/John Key or that they’re stupid. Can’t rule out the latter as NZ management is some of the worst in the world.

      • Clemgeopin 3.6.1
        11 September 2014 at 3:51 pm

        These bastards earn more money in a day than a poor worker earns in a month. Buggers are greedy, callous and thoughtless for the less well off and to what is good and fairer for the country. These louse work for the RW and their shareholders. Damn the rest. If I had the powers I would restrict their personal income to not more than ten times what the lowest worker gets in that organisation.

        1:10
        Low worker’s hourly rate=$15/hr, Max for CEO=$150/hr
        Low worker=$30,000 per year, Max for CEO=$300,000.

        Where is the justification for people to be struggling to provide minimum needs to their family, while these and other rich pricks wallow in millions and billions of dollars of wealth!
        If asked to pay back to society just a little more in tax, like a modest 36% on amounts OVER $150,000, to provide services and safety to the less well off as well as to them, these crooks complain that it is ‘their money’, forgetting that all their wealth came from other members of society and from the direct and indirect help they received from governments and workers in the first place.

        Bastards! Vote this stupid government out.

        • blue leopard 3.6.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 3:57 pm

          +1

        • Rich 3.6.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 7:29 pm

          Since when has the max for a CEO been 300k?

          More like 12 or 14 million.

        • Inky 3.6.1.3
          12 September 2014 at 12:19 am

          These people are the types who quickly leap into print with scaremonger quotes that businesses will go to the wall as soon as it’s suggested Labour will put up the minimum wage. They’re not truthful enough to say: “Actually, we just want to keep raking in top dollar while throwing the workers peanuts.” And budget-brand peanuts at that.

  4. Tracey 4
    11 September 2014 at 7:20 am

    Are we concerned about Russia’s expansionism, or not? Should we be?

    “Russian president told then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the West “did not appreciate how devastating and humiliating the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of the Russian Empire was to the Russian people.” Putin told Gates that his goal was to “restore Russian national pride.””
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/05/what-russias-invasion-of-georgia-means-for-crimea/

    Georgia in August 2008

    “as world leaders gathered in Beijing to watch the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, Russian tanks rolled across the border into Georgia.”

    “In 2008, the United States was concerned about potential Russian aggression in the Georgian region of South Ossetia, and was taken by surprise when the Russian military moved instead on Abkhazia. “We were caught off guard as we were looking at the wrong flashpoint.” ”

    Were told everything though. Were russians being “opporessed”, are they being oppressed in Ukraine? Who fired first?

    ” Some of Georgia’s assertions — especially the claim that the Russian attack had preceded Georgia’s shelling of civilians in South Ossetia — were shown to be highly questionable. ”

    Crimea in 2014

    North east Ukraine (Crimea and North east Ukraine have ports)

    I see the French will not deliver the latest warship to Russia (good for them).

    But isn’t this all a bit “annex the Sudentenland” ish?

    Interesting analysis of the Georgia invasion/visit here:

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64602/charles-king/the-five-day-war

    “The true significance of the latest crisis in the Caucasus is that Russia has embarked on a new era of muscular intervention, showing little faith in multilateral institutions, such as the UN Security Council or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in which it exerts considerable influence. This distrust reveals something important about Russian leaders’ view of global politics in general: Russian leaders believe that the existing multilateral institutions are unsubtle fronts for promoting the naked interests of the United States and its major European allies. An emboldened and mistrustful Russia has made the future of NATO uncertain and left the United States and its allies divided over Moscow’s role in the world. If anything, the August war laid bare the United States’ inability to deter friends from behaving like fools and revealed Russia’s proclivity to see hard power as the true currency of international relations.”

    • phillip ure 4.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:31 am

      nice summation of a/the simplistic/alarmist/black-propaganda cia-point-of-view..

      ..and as usual..a nuance/context-free zone..

      (‘look..!..i see a tree..!..see me see a tree..!’)

    • millsy 4.2
      11 September 2014 at 7:40 am

      Incidentally, since Georgia broke away from Russia’s influence in 2003, after Edard Sheverdnaze (sp?) was deposed in the Rose Revolution, Georgia’s health care system has been completely privatized, with “vouchers” for the poor and elderly the only government intervention.

    • Tracey 4.3
      11 September 2014 at 7:44 am

      “”“In pursuance of its ideals Foreign Affairs will not devote itself to the support of any one cause, however worthy. Like the Council on Foreign Relations from which it has sprung it will tolerate wide differences of opinion. Its articles will not represent any consensus of beliefs. What is demanded of them is that they shall be competent and well informed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed. We do not expect that readers of the review will sympathize with all the sentiments they find there, for some of our writers will flatly disagree with others; but we hold that while keeping clear of mere vagaries Foreign Affairs can do more to guide American public opinion by a broad hospitality to divergent ideas than it can by identifying itself with one school. It does not accept responsibility for the views expressed in any article, signed or unsigned, which appears in its pages. What it does accept is the responsibility for giving them a chance to appear there.” “”

      foreignaffairs.com

      http://d13.zedo.com/OzoDB/h/1/2038291/V1/SO14_GlobalCover.gif

      • phillip ure 4.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:52 am

        so why didn’t you link to this one..?

        “..Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault..

        The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin..”

        http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault

        (..y’know..!..’nuance’..context’..?..)

        • Tracey 4.3.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:59 am

          Go back and re-read my two opening sentence at 4.

          …k?

          Then maybe consider having another smoke and letting your preoccupation with me fade away

          …eh?…k?..y’know?

          …look i see tracey…I see tracey do something but I don’t read…I react… pow!…kazaam… phil I am… eh?

          • Rich 4.3.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 8:11 am

            His point still stands Tracey, Russia does seem to be a nuance free zone at the moment. I’m no fan of Putin and most Russians are not either, but the automatic anti-Russian stuff at the moment does no-one any favours.

            • Tracey 4.3.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 8:19 am

              Did you read the links?

              I was being deliberately provocative to try and learn more about it. hence my opening statement. trying to create a nuance zone.

              Did you not read this quote from the post

              “” Some of Georgia’s assertions — especially the claim that the Russian attack had preceded Georgia’s shelling of civilians in South Ossetia — were shown to be highly questionable. ””

              “Were told everything though. Were russians being “opporessed (sic)”, are they being oppressed in Ukraine? Who fired first?”

              In otherwords Russia was reacting to aggression by Georgia, not the other way round. Is that not a nuance?

              He posted his links, and the discussion is underway. Didn’t need the passive aggressive stuff though…

              and neither of you read the article I posted to because it has the nuances you both claim are lacking.

              • Rich …
                11 September 2014 at 8:33 am

                Well I have read your post again, and there doesnt’ seem to be much nuance there, sure there’s a few questions thrown out there ‘did Russia have some justification’ sort of ones, but the conclusion is the same, Russia is bad, America doing much worse is fine. Of those two, from a purely selfish point of view, i.e. myself as someone living in NZ (my status is a bit stronger than that, but I’m being inclusive) then it’s not Russia I’m going to give my attention to, because they’re not going to expand their backyard to NZ.

                • Tracey …
                  11 September 2014 at 8:37 am

                  now read the foreign affairs link.

                  I am aware that so far everything I have heard in our media suggests Russia is bad. That’s why I posted the comment with the opening questions…

                  That’s also why I took the time to tread that particular foreignaffairs.com link and why I am part way through Phil’s second link.

                  And when I have finished I may dare to post an observation on them.

                  What i have worked out so far is that it is not as simple as

                  Russia good
                  America bad

                  and vice versa

              • Rich …
                11 September 2014 at 8:33 am

                Well I have read your post again, and there doesnt’ seem to be much nuance there, sure there’s a few questions thrown out there ‘did Russia have some justification’ sort of ones, but the conclusion is the same, Russia is bad, America doing much worse is fine. Of those two, from a purely selfish point of view, i.e. myself as someone living in NZ (my status is a bit stronger than that, but I’m being inclusive) then it’s not Russia I’m going to give my attention to, because they’re not going to expand their backyard to NZ.

              • phillip ure …
                11 September 2014 at 4:47 pm

                @ tracey..

                “..I was being deliberately provocative to try and learn more about it…”

                here ya go..!..fill yer boots..!

                http://whoar.co.nz/?s=ukraine

                ..i’ve been paying reasonably close attention to this one..

          • Ennui 4.3.1.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 8:19 am

            Tracey, I dont know what planet you get your information from but I suggest you read more widely. You are sounding like a neo con imperialist from Washington, and if you are afraid of Russia an old cold warrior.

            Might also pay to have a little historic perspective: do you remember the USSR trying to park nukes on Cuba? Cant see a lot of difference between that and NATO / USA trying to bring Ukraine into their orb, pushing up “forward defenses”. if I were Russian I would be alarmed.

            • Tracey 4.3.1.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 8:29 am

              Read

              http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-11092014/#comment-884853

              I am trying to GET information. You know what planet I got it from, I posted the links.

              I am trying to find out about it, and I posted where I was at so far. I put forward the comment that Georgia was aggressive toward Russia first, not the other way round as it was claiming. I am asking IF Russians are in need of protection in Ukraine.

              So perhaps some of you need to steady your knees, re-read the post and the links (especially the foreignaffairs one) and then launch into me and post other articles. I welcome it.

              • miravox …
                11 September 2014 at 9:20 am

                Are Russians in need of protection in Ukraine?

                It’s complicated. Putin plays up the fear of neo-nasties… And he has a point

                http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo
                And nato has a lot to answer for

                http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/03/nato-peace-threat-ukraine-military-conflict

                There’s plenty of news around the protests last year on these two points.

                • Tracey …
                  11 September 2014 at 9:28 am

                  foreignaffairs.com has some good articles on many different aspects of this.

                  I guess I am trying to get beneath/behind the MSM coverage. Phil’s link helped in that regard to give an assessment I hadn’t heard/seen in the mainstream media..

                  • Ennui …
                    11 September 2014 at 10:49 am

                    Apologies Trace, I speed read…to help out I suggest that you read the Russian viewpoints from rt.com and cluborlov.com

                    There is good commentary on the issue as well from Theautomaticearth.com from Rauol Meijer whose daily columns provide some sanity.

                    From my viewpoint the Russians are no angels, but when a bunch of self serving US corporates turn up next door, dont get their way, so enlist the CIA, Brussels et al to get their way, voila a revolution, regime change, civil war…..I think Putin has been very mild in his response.

                    • Tracey …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:53 am

                      Thanks Ennui.

                      I will get on to those this arvo or tomorrow morning.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 September 2014 at 12:07 pm

                      …..I think Putin has been very mild in his response.

                      Deliberately mild…as he knows that the west’s strategy is to provoke Russia into giving NATO an excuse to intervene further. In some ways you can say that NATO has used the Ukraine conflict as a way to regain it’s diminishing relevance as a military alliance.

                  • Rich …
                    11 September 2014 at 5:29 pm

                    I was in a bit of a hurry this morning so possibly a little abrupt and meant that criticism for the media rather than your comment.

                    But it’s hard to get the correct story, even if you do find something else on it then that’s likely to be biased as well. With American press the liberal story is normally told by the Nation and Mother Jones but they can be quite slow getting to the news. Regarding MH17 there are at least two players who have an interest in blaming the other, and then of course you get the conspiracy theorists who are like bees to honey and pretty soon you can’t see the trees for the forest. I don’t know who took that plane down, but both the main players (and others) are capable.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 September 2014 at 10:47 am

                  Are Russians in need of protection in Ukraine?

                  Kiev forces have killed almost 3000 mostly civilians in East Ukraine via airstrikes and artillery bombardment.

                  I read in the last couple of days that Kiev forces have been pushed back though and that a ceasefire has been put in place. How long will it last…especially with NATO looking for an excuse to get more involved.

              • adam …
                11 September 2014 at 4:05 pm

                Tracy this is what has been called the third camp. Much like the old Trotsky term, third camp.

                Be careful though – because some third camp people put up videos which are very disturbing. ie: the murders from both sides, and the neo-nazi killing squads. They are worth a view, but only on an empty stomach.

                Also there is some else called the third option, mainly it is propaganda for neo-nazis – it’s complicated. Damn the whole thing is complicated.

                Here one alternative narrative.

                http://libcom.org/news/neither-ukrainian-nor-russian-16082014

                Also I think is mixed up with oppression inside of Russia. Crimean activist Alexander Kolchenko is still locked up in Russia. Other left Anarchists and community activists have been arrested and locked up as well.

                http://libcom.org/news/moscow-anarchist-black-cross-repressions-review-april-june-2014-12072014

                http://libcom.org/news/%E2%80%98if-way-freedom-runs-through-prison-we-are-ready-go%E2%80%99-06082014

        • Tracey 4.3.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 9:15 am

          From your link

          “Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

          Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia — a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.”

          The expansion of NATO toward Russia is discussed at length as is the toppling of the Ukranian president after the Ukraine turned down a funding offer from the West and took $5bn from Russia instead.

          “The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer.”

          IF world leaders had to engaged in military action, as was the case when countries went to war into the 1800’s if diplomacy would actually work?

    • vto 4.4
      11 September 2014 at 9:19 am

      So let me get this straight ….. the USA has crossed the Atlantic and most of Europe to park a chunk of its military in those eastern countries, right up against the Russian border, far far away from home….

      … and Russia has done some tiny, in comparison, moves just a few kilometres over its border, and not crossed oceans or continents ….

      … yet it is Russia that is aggressive and imperialistic?

      …… rriiiiiigght ………

      an objective view from out of space would have to conclude that the west, and in particular, the USA, is itching for s scrap, a big one …. with all its invasions and incursions and drone strikes in countless countries and bolshy bully boy behaviour ..

      • Tracey 4.4.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:28 am

        “is itching for s scrap, a big one ”

        can you expand on what you mean by a “big one”, what does it look like?

        • vto 4.4.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:39 am

          A scrap that pulls in a large number of countries and is undertaken in a large number of countries

          is anyone able to count the number of countries that the USA has its war machine in?

          make sure you don’t have children that will be within the age of conscription within the next decade

  5. dv 5
    11 September 2014 at 7:20 am

    Nats Tax cuts in 2017 2.25 billion

    Current debt now
    87,040,586,256

    • Nic the NZer 5.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:28 am

      I posted a real world example yesterday showing this will never be a problem for NZ and yet today you have posted pretty much the same comment here on open mike. Why is that?

      • dv 5.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:37 am

        Because here is my reply to you nic yesterday

        ‘tThanks for the link.
        One point NZ is a very small economy cf to Japan.
        The economy in Japan is much more diverse.
        The interest rates in Japan are very small – deposits 0% and mortgage under 1%

        Who owns our debt?
        It seems to me that he who owns the debt controls.

        I guess I just don’t feel comfortable paying in the order of 3b a year (currently) in interest

        And ignoring the debt doesnt make it go away!!!

        • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:54 am

          I already answered this comment, yesterday. It is already addressed by the link I posted (which you clearly have not engaged with sufficiently).

          • dv 5.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 8:07 am

            Sorry didn’t see that reply.

            ‘Well since apparently you don’t know, interest rates are effectively set by the central bank. If the RBNZ wants interest rates at or near those levels it can achieve them.

            Yes of course they are set by the central bank.

            ‘he central bank of Japan is currently reducing the govts debt levels by buying up govt debt while setting the interest rate it wants.

            Seems that this is just a money round.

            ‘Potential debt buyers have a simple choice, lend to the govt at the interest rate controlled by the central bank or sit on their cash and receive no interest. Clearly they control diddly squat.

            They also put money into NZ at higher interest rates.
            Who has the the 80 odd billion debt that NZ has?

            ‘non issue??
            Are you arguing for printing as much money as we like at 0%?

            AND
            Much of the debt is because of the tax cuts

            • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 9:22 am

              “Yes of course they are set by the central bank.”
              So why raise the mortgage rates in Japan in the first place?

              “Seems that this is just a money round.”
              The govt debt market is a bit of a money go round. In the case of the central bank buying up govt debt, its just the government choosing to directly fund itself however. That’s a good thing because it means that financial markets don’t get to dictate government spending decisions which can then happen democratically.

              “They also put money into NZ at higher interest rates.”
              Yes, Japanese have high levels of savings, partly as a result of this policy. That seems like a good consequence to me (that the citizens have lots of savings) govt debt is non-govt sector savings.

              “Who has the the 80 odd billion debt that NZ has?”
              Who cares. This gives them no influence so its not important who has it. Its probably largely NZ insurance companies and banks which use govt debt as a safe savings vehicle paying little interest. In fact BOJ is trying to wean these same groups off of this and into more risky assets it seems.

              “Are you arguing for printing as much money as we like at 0%?”
              Yes, the government should be able to spend any budget it votes through. The RBNZ can have a higher OCR than that if it thinks that’s the right course.

              “Much of the debt is because of the tax cuts”
              That’s what the govt budget was at the time.

              • dv …
                11 September 2014 at 9:50 am

                Thank you for the reply

                ‘That’s a good thing because it means that financial markets don’t get to dictate government spending decisions which can then happen democratically.

                seems to contradict this

                ‘Who cares. This gives them no influence so its not important who has it. Its probably largely NZ insurance companies and banks which use govt debt as a safe savings vehicle paying little interest. In fact BOJ is trying to wean these same groups off of this and into more risky assets it seems.

                “Are you arguing for printing as much money as we like at 0%?”
                Yes, the government should be able to spend any budget it votes through. The RBNZ can have a higher OCR than that if it thinks that’s the right course.

                Sounds like social credit and the greens.

                What about inflation with all the ‘extra’ cash?
                How is that controlled?

                I do think that issuing money at 0% for new infrastuctue, and then removing that money from circulation from the income generated has merit.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  11 September 2014 at 11:51 am

                  The first two statements are consistent, the financial markets don’t get to influence or veto government budget decisions. If they are lucky they get a small interest payment on their savings with a safe investment vehicle.

                  “Sounds like social credit and the greens.
                  What about inflation with all the ‘extra’ cash?
                  How is that controlled?”

                  You will notice there is no significant inflation in Japan (in fact its still close to deflation). That’s because the amount of government spending is only tenuously linked with inflation anyway. In the main stream of economics there is sometimes supposed to be a link between government spending and based on the quantity theory of money. This has never made much logical sense however, and there is no correlation showing it works. If the quantity theory of money made sense then when the US doubled its monetary base inflation should have taken off (it didn’t). If the quantity theory of money made sense Japan should not be able to do what its doing without significant inflation (but it can).

                  The Bank of England recently released a paper explaining that the money multiplier model of banking (which is an important part of the quantity theory argument) is actually bunk. This fact has actually been established for quite a long time, but the main stream of economics has failed to incorporate it into their methods. This is the reason they think things like borrowing the deficit to control inflation are necessary, when they are typically not.

                  The actual basis for inflation is cases where the government is competing with the private sector for resources the private sector needs. So once full employment is reached the government should probably consider its spending a bit more closely and might need to raise taxes or cut back spending at those levels. On the other hand employing people which the private sector doesn’t want (the unemployed) does not compete with the private sector at all. I don’t consider this a full explanation but wanted to give you an idea where I am heading along these lines.

                  “I do think that issuing money at 0% for new infrastuctue, and then removing that money from circulation from the income generated has merit.”

                  This could be one description of how govt deficit spending works at present. The governments spending is borrowed out of the inter-bank market, because if its left there then the 90-day bank rate is likely to fall (as banks lend the excess reserves which they have no use for to each other) causing mortgage rates to fall lower than the RBNZ wants in NZ. Its usually couched as borrowing first spending second, but the order of these two steps is clearly not important (meaning money printing and deficit spending are exactly the same thing as long as the RBNZ doesn’t let the OCR fall).

                  Yes, I am aware that Bill English has stated multiple times that the government is keeping back from spending too much so as not to put upward pressure on mortgage rates and make it easier for the RBNZ to do its job. This obviously makes the finance minister look like a bit of a twit every time he repeats this.

      • Tracey 5.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 7:41 am

        Do you accept that by paying it down (which Key and Cunliffe say they will do) that is money that could be spent elsewhere if not for the debt.

        • Nic the NZer 5.1.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:09 am

          Clearly they will face a choice, either pay down debt (and hope the economy copes with the lack of government spending resulting and doesnt tank completely) or ignore it safe in the knowledge that the country operates a central bank and so this presents no problems what so ever (as NZ issues its own currency). The link I posted to open mike yesterday shows the bank of Japan buying up its govt debt (meaning the govt owes itself the debt now) and they could even write that off if they wanted to but the key point is that the govt faces no problems with its spending capacity due to this debt what so ever.

          • Tracey 5.1.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 8:16 am

            Cool but here’s the thing both Cunliffe and Key/English say pay down the debt, cos it’s important.

            SO, they are going to commit resources to doing that, which would otherwise go elsewhere.

            That makes the debt a problem, something to be rid of, hence they want to pay it down instead of doing something else.

            IF they w ere saying what you are saying, it wouldn’t be a problem (provided your information is correct when applied here). But they are not, so it is.

            • Nic the NZer 5.1.2.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 9:09 am

              Paying down the debt (by running a surplus) is the problem. If the government commits to this its quite likely to throw the economy into recession again, or we will get the gradual slow grinding process of raising unemployment. Option B is happening to Australia at present, they went through the GFC with no real rise in unemployment and now have higher unemployment than NZ due to government trying to reach surplus.

              Its highly unlikely to work out both ways, Cunliffe is going to have to decide between his 4% unemployment or lower within the first term, and his surplus policy. The reason Dr Cullen was able to do both is because of the stonking great housing bubble going on at the time (a source of income for the economy), but the stimulus of the housing bubble is much much less than was happening then. Certainly you won’t see the same long term trend with the housing market again because the house price / average wage ratio already makes it extremely expensive to buy. That’s clearly not going to be able to double again over the next decade. Yes, the National govt surplus is only consistent with further growth in the housing bubble. Cunliffe will not be able to balance resolving the housing bubble with a govt surplus either.

              It is important that the government eventually comes to the party on this, but don’t for a minute think that they are telling us what the priorities are. If they are telling us whats important then we need new representatives who represent us.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 September 2014 at 9:23 am

                Paying down the debt (by running a surplus) is the problem. If the government commits to this its quite likely to throw the economy into recession again, or we will get the gradual slow grinding process of raising unemployment

                Yes. And very well described.

                The reason Dr Cullen was able to do both is because of the stonking great housing bubble going on at the time (a source of income for the economy), but the stimulus of the housing bubble is much much less than was happening then.

                To be slightly more explicit – it wasn’t so much the great property bubble which supplied huge amounts of money into the economy (I refrain from calling it “income”) it was the massive debt incurred which fuelled that property bubble.

                That vast money supply entering the economy lowered unemployment and supplied Cullen with the tax take he needed to pay down public debt.

                In essence, Cullen swapped his public sector debt for increased private sector debt.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  11 September 2014 at 9:47 am

                  Thanks CV. Your comments help to get some points across concisely.

                • Herodotus …
                  11 September 2014 at 7:38 pm

                  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand#/image/File:New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg
                  Great to see that someone here has noticed that cv. Many blindly comment regarding how well a particular govt has been by the level of govt debt.
                  We feel wealthier if our family home increases in value, the result for nz as property increases in value; the debt we incur increases at an even faster rate, and we own less and the banks own more !!! Unless you are able to take advantage of our tax system by owning multi properties.
                  Don’t forget the $20-$40b of remedial costs in respect to leaky homes & schools , but at least that helps any govt as it increases our GDP and makes the govt at the time look better than they should.

              • Tracey …
                11 September 2014 at 9:30 am

                Thanks Nic.

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.2
              11 September 2014 at 9:29 am

              IF they w ere saying what you are saying, it wouldn’t be a problem (provided your information is correct when applied here). But they are not, so it is.

              To be clear, they’ve made it a problem by treating it as a problem, and they are treating it as a problem because the economic orthodoxy (and all the journalists and bank economists who endlessly parrot it), says it is a problem.

              If you borrow $100,000 and put it into the economy, one month later you owe $101,000 thanks to interest and fees. If you were to repay that loan in full, you’d have to pull out of the economy an extra $1,000 than you put into it. Do that enough times at scale and it’s no surprise the whole economy starts to slow then tank. Essentially, taking on new debt creates money which is available for use in the economy. While paying off debt destroys the money available to the economy.

              • Tracey …
                11 September 2014 at 9:31 am

                “To be clear, they’ve made it a problem by treating it as a problem, and they are treating it as a problem because the economic orthodoxy (and all the journalists and bank economists who endlessly parrot it), says it is a problem.”

                exactly. Which makes it our problem and not, as it turns out, for the reasons dv and I thought.

                • dv …
                  11 September 2014 at 12:20 pm

                  ‘for the reasons dv and I thought.

                  Tracey, Nic has made a good argument and there are some aspects I agree with.
                  BUT
                  I don’t feel comfortable with the debt levels. Partly because of the drain the interest cost cause to the economy.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    11 September 2014 at 2:12 pm

                    What drain the interest cost cause the economy?

                    If anything the government debt acts like a savings account, as in institutions which settle in NZ$ reserves can either have the reserves (which pay no interest) or transfer reserves to govt debt (which pays some interest). Is the interest on your savings account a drain on your financial resources? If anything its boosting your income in fact.

                    It would be a drain on the governments spending if the government didn’t have the ability to spend as much as it budgets, but for NZ its not. Its more of a concern for Eurozone countries which need to run 3% of GDP deficits or smaller (according to Maastrict treaty rules).

          • Lanthanide 5.1.2.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 12:55 pm

            “or ignore it safe in the knowledge that the country operates a central bank and so this presents no problems what so ever (as NZ issues its own currency).”

            Except it’s not that simple.

            Yes, we ultimately control the supply of $NZ and the debt is denominated in $NZ so we can simply create more and pay it back.

            But, the point of the debt, is that we exchange NZ in exchange for foreign currency (say $US), and then use that $US to buy goods (say, oil). We then consume those goods as part of our lifestyle and economy. Other goods we might buy from offshore include cars, computers, industrial machines and equipment etc.

            The reason we are able to trade $NZ for $US is that people who have $US want to buy stuff from us, like unprocessed logs, low-grade coal, de-hydrated milk and productive farm land. So the foreigner who has $NZ gives it to an NZ farmer in exchange for his farm.

            Everyone wins. International trade, innit?

            Now, if we started printing $NZ, so we just printed $1,000,000,000 extra tomorrow, then because the supply of goods in the market has not actually increased, we simply have more dollars for the same economic output, prices rise. So a widget that cost $1 yesterday might cost $1,000 today. All of those foreigners who, last month, bought $NZ-50M were expecting to buy 50M widgets, can now only afford to buy 50,000 widgets with their money. This makes them feel upset, like they were ripped off, because they exchanged good $US for our now ‘worth-less’ $NZ.

            These foreigners vow never to trade with NZ again because we can’t be trusted. This means we can no longer get $US, and can no longer by items such as oil, cars, computers, industrial machines and equipment etc from foreigners, because we don’t have any $US to give them in exchange for their goods.

            So, printing money very definitely is a problem for NZ, and consequently high public debt is a problem because the choices are print money (bad, as we’ve established) or raise taxes from the public to pay it back (bad).

            Large countries can get away with a low level of money printing, because everyone else in the world has no choice but to trade with them. Unfortunately NZ is not part of this club.

            • Nic the NZer 5.1.2.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 1:46 pm

              I have a comment above (11 September 2014 at 11:51 am) which addresses the inflation issues. Frankly the above comment is not cohesive enough to make any sense of, but please do come back with one when you can pear it down to something which makes sense.

              DV recons about 3 billion a year in interest payments so by your argument widgets should have gone from $1 to $1,000 over the past 4 months (roughly)? Sorry, I don’t see that having happened over the last 4 months (or the last couple of decades). Please try again when you have an actual example to talk about.

              • Lanthanide …
                11 September 2014 at 2:45 pm

                Sorry you couldn’t understand my illustration of the impact of printing money to pay off National’s debt, which is effectively what you’re advocating. I tried to dumb it down so it was clear to anyone, but evidently it’s not dumb enough.

                Here’s the even shorter version:
                1. We trade $NZ for $US to buy things from America that we can’t make ourselves
                2. If we print $NZ, then the US won’t want trade their money for ours any more
                3. That means we won’t be able to buy things from America any more

                DV recons about 3 billion a year in interest payments so by your argument widgets should have gone from $1 to $1,000 over the past 4 months (roughly)?

                No, that was an *illustration* of what would happen if our government printed 1 trillion dollars over night. It has nothing to do with 3 billion a year in interest payments, nor is it an ‘argument’ or an ‘example’. I’m curious as to what you even thought widgets were, anyway?

                Edit: I see I actually missed three zeroes off, so actually it says 1 billion when I meant 1 trillion. My mistake.

                • Nic the NZer …
                  11 September 2014 at 3:06 pm

                  “I’m curious as to what you even thought widgets were, anyway?”
                  Widgets are stuff produced, but we could be talking about services as well of course.

                  1) What you are arguing depends on inflation working in a particular way, and it patently doesn’t work that way (see discussion above). If NZ prints some amount of money (which is the equivalent of deficit spending, which the govt does most days) then this does not have to have any inflationary effects (it might cause some if NZ was running at full economic capacity). The quantity theory of money is completely bunk, and you are even miss-applying it by ignoring that govt spends on additional goods and services.

                  2) Nobody is actually advocating printing money *without* producing more goods and services by spending it on them.

                  3) The RBNZ ‘prints’ money every day to lend to banks when they need additional reserves to settle. If this was threatening US – NZ trading relations it would be today (and its clearly not).

                  4) The reason I pointed out the interest payments and the lack of inflation is that this kind of stuff (issuing interest and giving it away) happens every day, and it clearly doesn’t produce inflation. What you are claiming *will* happen is not happening.

                  Since you are asserting things *will* happen why don’t you come up with an example where they *did* happen. The only cases I can think of when countries ended up closed to trade were things like trade sanctions or soviet era closed borders which clearly have nothing to do with what you are discussing here.

                  • Tracey …
                    11 September 2014 at 5:18 pm

                    does printing money as a method to deal with monetary crisis create some of the problems Lanth is alluding to ( please jump in too Lanth),

                    Nic why wouldnt we have printed money instead of borrowing if tge impact is as you describe?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 September 2014 at 5:46 pm

                      As a technical point, most of the money we are talking about is not “printed” – it is created by entering keystrokes into the equivalent of a spreadsheet.

                      To address your question on Lanth’s points:

                      2. If we print $NZ, then the US won’t want trade their money for ours any more
                      3. That means we won’t be able to buy things from America any more

                      Looking at the above, Lanth carries a couple of minor misconceptions around the use of the USD. For starters, the US govt doesn’t make any decisions around trading USD for NZD. The USD remains the global reserve currency and the NZD is a free floating highly convertible currency. We can trade NZD for USD any time we want to, and vice versa.

                      Secondly…even if “buying things from America” was such a big deal (given that most things are made in China nowadays) why wouldn’t American companies or their overseas subsidiaries simply settle in another currency? Happens all the time and is happening more and more.

                      Nic why wouldnt we have printed money instead of borrowing if tge impact is as you describe?

                      I believe Nic is saying that what is happening now is not all that far removed from ‘printing’ money. Our economists and our politicians don’t understand that, but I’m pretty sure a few of the guys who manage market operations for the Reserve Bank do.

                      It has been a long standing convention not to make ‘money printing’ processes too obvious and simple, lest the wider public lose confidence in the currency. (Or cotton on to which parts of society benefit most from the current debt based creation of new money).

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      12 September 2014 at 12:23 am

                      DV is pretty much onto it here already.

                      “does printing money as a method to deal with monetary crisis create some of the problems Lanth is alluding to”

                      It depends what kind of monetary crisis. If its like the various financial crisis then no, and many countries have bailed out their financial system by creating some form of additional financial assets. This happened in the US, the UK around the Eurozone and even in NZ (bailing out finance companies). None of these cases have created significant inflation.

                      On the other hand there are cases when additional spending may not work so well. If a country is running a fixed exchange rate then additional deficit spending (or printing) can put pressure on the exchange rate. These issues are usually solved by devaluing the exchange rate but of course NZ does not have a fixed exchange rate anyway. Unless we are trying to maintain a fixed exchange rate foreign exchange issues tend to be self correcting as lowering the NZ$ exchange rate tends to make our exports cheaper. The RNBZ has also been able to keep the exchange rate quite high by keeping the OCR up and can influence things this way too.

                      “Nic why wouldnt we have printed money instead of borrowing if the impact is as you describe?”

                      I think that the perception of how things work is a bit of an issue here. I believe this has been allowed to develop because it discourages too much scrutiny of various parts of the bourgeoisie.

                      As CV said there is no substantial difference between borrowing the deficit and then re-spending it, and ‘money printing’ by spending first and then doing the borrowing. The borrowing is necessary if the RBNZ wishes to maintain the OCR above zero, due to the fact that if excess reserves are left in the interbank market then they will be loaned between banks, reducing the 90-day rate and moving it away from the OCR. The RBNZ could also consider allowing the OCR to fall to zero (which would be quite entertaining to watch many people get into a panic over nothing much) but I don’t see this happening. The RBNZ can also just lend to the government directly anyway even if there were no lenders.

                      The key take away from this however is not to do with how the RBNZ behaves, its that the government has no limit on its spending capacity. The reason for this is that the government spends what it determines to be money and then requires that taxes be paid to it in that. This is the real reason that it can spend without concern over the level of debt. The fact that citizens of NZ must pay taxes creates demand for NZ$ and as long as the government can enforce tax laws on most people there will always be at least some demand for NZ$ and they will have some value. This makes lending to the govt a very safe bet and so its likely that the government will always be able to borrow its spending requirements while carrying any level of debt anyway, so the discussion of money printing is kind of beside the point here.

                      I also think some people benefit if there is a pool of unemployed around to keep downward pressure on wages. I am afraid economists have not been good at challenging the special interests who benefit from this, and have been content to have people believe that it was all necessary, and nothing could be done. Most of the consequences are directly the result of changes in the employment market and regulations, and these could of course be different if that is a policy the government chooses to pursue.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 September 2014 at 1:41 am

                      The key take away from this however is not to do with how the RBNZ behaves, its that the government has no limit on its spending capacity.

                      Bingo. And all this time the government, Reserve Bank, Treasury, bank economists, media etc have been acting like the major limitation on government initiatives is a lack of affordability and a lack of money.

                      But how can you lack that something which you can create at will, in any quantity that you desire?

                      In fact it is real physical economic and human constraints which are the important ones to account for and manage.

                      This comes into sharp contrast when considering concrete issues like the Christchurch rebuild, lowering the super age, or IMP’s jobs guarantee policy.

                      The primary question then becomes – not what we can afford; but what would work best operationally to build the kind of society we want.

  6. phillip ure 6
    11 September 2014 at 7:27 am

    (some may be interested in this..)

    “..What is art for? – Alain de Botton’s animated guide – video..

    ..philosopher Alain de Botton gives his top five reasons why art is such a vital force for humanity..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2014/sep/10/what-is-art-for-alain-de-botton-guide-video

    • crocodill 6.1
      11 September 2014 at 1:10 pm

      “…by its very nature, life inflicts on us universal pains based on timeless psychological and social realities; we all wrestle with the dilemmas of childhood, education, family, work, love, aging and death – many of which now bear semi official labels (‘adolescent angst’, ‘post-partum depression’, ‘midlife crisis’)… The most dramatic scenes , painted without talent or imagination, generate only indifference and boredom. The task for the artist is therefore to find new ways of prising open our eyes to tiresomely familiar yet critical ideas.”

      Taken from Alain De Botton’s, “Religion for Atheists – a non-believers guide to the uses of religion”.

  7. Jenk 7
    11 September 2014 at 7:37 am

    Here’s a link to a Herald poll re Cunliffe/Key debate – who do you think impressed the most ? Worth doing straightaway.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11322168

  8. Rich 8
    11 September 2014 at 8:19 am

    “We’re on the cusp of something special”.

    Key has repeated this ad nauseam for several weeks.

    Anyone any idea on what nastiness he has in store for the vast majority* of us?

    * for any National Party voters lurking I’m talking about 98.9% of us, not 50%

    • Tracey 8.1
      11 September 2014 at 8:33 am

      he meant his office and the CEO’s

    • Olwyn 8.2
      11 September 2014 at 8:36 am

      “Special” seems to be replacing “aspirational” which has gotten a bit shop-soiled by now. Some C &T type has probably determined that people respond positively to “sh” sounds. Did anyone else notice Key making a small Freudian slip toward the end – where in talking about his aspirations for NZ he began to say “multi-national” but quickly corrected it to “multi-cultural”?

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:32 am

        haha some people I was with picked it up straight away; I thought I had misheard.

      • crocodill 8.2.2
        11 September 2014 at 9:33 am

        “respond positively to “sh” sounds…”

        That’ll explain why they keep voting for sh’bags and put up with so much sh…

    • Rosie 8.3
      11 September 2014 at 12:25 pm

      That “We’re on the cusp of something special” quote elicits a real “WTF are you on about Key?” response.

      I would also like the answer to that most curious statement. Does he want us to feel like children at Christmas, eagerly awaiting our “special” presents? Are we to feel excited about what magic Santa Key might bring into our lives?

      Or does he mean we will officially become another State of the USA? Does he have a eugenics plan so only the 10% can breed and populate Planet Key? Does it mean the evil Nact plan to enslave us all is almost fulfilled? I can’t begin to imagine what horrors are on the agenda should the unthinkable happen and Natz get back for a third term.

      • Clemgeopin 8.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 1:28 pm

        “We’re on the cusp of something special” quote elicits a real “WTF are you on about Key?” response”

        I think what he really means but is simply unable to say it aloud in public is that Cunliffe will win this election in a pleasantly surprising landslide ushering in a great Labour led coalition government for the long term good of the people and the country and that he himself will quickly run away to his beloved US of A asap to once again become a foreign currency e4xchange gambler somewhere. Grab the cusp. Oh, what joy!

  9. ScottGN 9
    11 September 2014 at 8:21 am

    Golly did I just hear grudging praise for DC from Claire Robinson on Morning Report? Has the earth just tilted off its axis?

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      11 September 2014 at 9:32 am

      Normal transmission will resume shortly

      • Poission 9.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 12:31 pm

        not for long.

        FAST WARNING ‘PRESTO’ MESSAGE from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) 2014 Sep 10
        18:56:58

        An X1.6 flare took place in NOAA 2158. The flare peaked at 17:45UT. Proton
        flux levels currently (18:55UT) do not show any response yet to this flare.
        Coronal dimming and post-flare coronal loops have been observed.
        STEREO/WAVES show a type II burst. So, though there are currently no
        coronagraphic images available yet, it is very likely that a CME was
        associated to this event. There is also a good chance it has an Earth
        directed component,

    • McFlock 9.2
      11 September 2014 at 12:48 pm

      feint left, then do the right cross 🙂

  10. North 10
    11 September 2014 at 8:29 am

    BREAKING NEWS !

    The People of New Zealand *** (population 4.4 million) have spoken decisively and returned two-term prime minister John Key and his National Party to a third term in government.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11322051

    (*** wherein “‘The People of New Zealand” = the front page of the NZ Herald, 97% of 112 CEOs consulted by the NZ Herald, and a handful of political journalists and commentators whose reflexive commitment to elite interests is exceeded only by their preening vanities.)

    “Democracy Under Attack” – from an unabashedly brazen propaganda model fourth estate !

    • weka 10.1
      11 September 2014 at 8:40 am

      Same shit as last time, telling everyone that it’s a done deal (inference, why bother voting). Bugger the CEOs, keep calm and get out the vote.

    • crocodill 10.2
      11 September 2014 at 9:35 am

      oh great news! That means no one but supporters of the other parties need to vote on election day. yippee!

    • Ennui 10.3
      11 September 2014 at 11:08 am

      CEOs overwhelmingly back John Key….now theres a surprise…these are the same masters of the universe who earn 25 times the national average wage. The crap head journalists might have asked these privileged tosspots “How many school lunches could be paid for by one Armani suit?”

  11. Ennui 11
    11 September 2014 at 8:39 am

    What NZ under Key is on the cusp of is being a really special place that apes ad nauseum failed neo lib ideologies and experiments from elsewhere. Heres one Paula the Unoriginal is bound to mimic….

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11078359/Welfare-claimants-to-get-attitude-tests-employment-minister-reveals.html

    In short a priveleged little TV talking head pretty girl turned welfare minister in a Tory Cabinet has decided that the unemployed don’t want to work….because she reckons that their attitude sucks, and she is going to fix it. Nice concept, but hello! She has not stopped in her brain fade dementia to consider that her boss PM Cameron and crew have wrecked the British economy in favour of financiers and graduates can only get work as hamburger flippers.

    Watch what Paula does next….get out and vote and make her unemployed.

    • crocodill 11.1
      11 September 2014 at 10:01 am

      “Unemployed people will be subject to attitude profiling to judge whether they are “determined”, “bewildered” or “despondent” about taking a job, under plans prepared by Esther McVey. Those that are less mentally prepared for life at work will be subject to more intensive coaching at the job centre, while those who are optimistic – such as graduates or those who have recently been made redundant – while be placed on less rigorous regimes.”

      “Intensive coaching” LOlllolollol

      In my more evil moments, I do not regret the times I purposely damaged people who gleefully abused their power over the defenceless. Intensive coaching… only a “life coach” could lower themselves to such depths. I could show them some bewilderment, some despondency, I could pull it out of them like a trail of intestines from their behinds, tie it to a stick, then chase them round the office.

      It’s not empathy they lack, it’s total and complete disdain for the natural variation in life and they see it as their mission to destroy everything within themselves and others that doesn’t match the whims of their psychopathic masters.

      They have never been unemployed long enough to know what happens to the human mind under that kind of stress. They think it’s one long holiday. LOL They have never experienced what it’s like to have to try to forget (overnight) everything you know about the destructive nature of society, a society that wants you dead, while trying to re-entering it, while also trying to bridge the gap in changes between the time you left and the time you return, to jump the impossible distance of social prejudice, and to sometimes literally learn how to “work again” – all this simultaneously – and while this happens, it feels like the volume of the combined stupid futile hate of everything around you has been turned up to level 11.

      Bewildered or despondent? No, keep those words for something they match.

      But what does it matter. Should it turn up here, and the attitudes are already here, it makes no difference to tell anyone, to tell the abuser about their lack of understanding. Deaf ears and increase of abuse are all you’ll get. But I would question the logic of the abusers: Would it be wise to force scared “dangerous” “bewildered” “despondent” individuals into a nice small comfy WINZ office and expect them not to act like threatened animals? You don’t need a shotgun to sort out people who enjoy abusing others. They are so dumb they invite their own end.

      • Ennui 11.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 11:03 am

        I worry more about the societal attitudes that this loathsome lady (Esther McVey) and her policy engender. Its amazing the capacity of people to kick those who are down. It is at the heart of the Darwinian approach to life fostered by the “Right”.

        This scenario is typically “have” and “have not” territory. Those who “have” always fear having to justify why they have more, because at heart they know that privilege, luck etc have far more to do with things than the usually spouted “hard work”. And they also fear becoming one of the “unworthy”. Its a disgusting pose,”I am an island and better than you”. That is the real message at the heart of “aspirational” politics.

        Ergo, kill the poor, because what “you” give them is paid by “me”.

  12. Peter 12
    11 September 2014 at 8:45 am

    We know who is orchestrating the right wing MSM & Blog conspiracy, but who is orchestrating the extreme left conspiracy?

    Can Mr Key please let us know!

  13. phillip ure 13
    11 September 2014 at 8:52 am

    i have written an open letter to the aotearoa legalise cannabis party..

    ..urging them to vote tactically this election..

    ..it starts thus:..

    “..ok..let’s get one thing clear to start off with..

    ..i share your frustration..anger even..at how the green party..have so ignored that constituency that first helped get them over the line..and into parliament..

    ..it has been slow-motion betrayal of the most grievous order..’

    (cont..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/comment-whoar-an-open-letter-to-the-aotearoa-legalise-cannabis-party/

  14. Tracey 14
    11 September 2014 at 9:58 am

    Found this from NZIER on tv3 website…

    “Economist Shamubeel Yakub – who’s getting pretty tired of the rock star metaphor – says the economy is doing “okay” but nowhere near as strong as some of those kinds of headlines would suggest.

    He says it’s been fuelled by one-offs, such as Auckland’s runaway house prices, soaring dairy prices – which have now fallen sharply – and the Christchurch rebuild.

    “About a third of the growth at the moment is coming from Canterbury – if you take that out our growth doesn’t look that great,” says Mr Yakub. “For me the rebuild in Canterbury is not something you can count as a normal part of the economy – we’re replacing something that was lost”.”

    perhaps Cunliffe could stop congratulating national and start telling people that these are one-offs and that English saying he will do more of the same is just not possible…

    • Chooky 14.1
      11 September 2014 at 11:10 am

      Tracey +100 agreed!…and good points!…yes i do think Cunliffe should be more ATTACK on John Key and the Nactional run economy…it is a false economy , a shakey economy and a failing , falling economy

      … John Key’s supposed success is based on:

      1.) Christchurch disaster
      2.) Auckland housing disaster with speculators from overseas inflating and creating scarcity
      3. sole reliance on export of dairying…in turn reliant on single market China ( prices which are now falling sharply)
      4.) selling off NZ assets…both State Owned and private eg, New Zealand housing stocks

      …. And now ACT and KEY are proposing to sell off New Zealand land and everything else….really this is treacherous ….a fire sale…. not good economics …or a stable economy…it spells disaster for young New Zealanders and New Zealand’s future

      …Time that David Cunliffe and Labour tell it the way it is!

    • Lanthanide 14.2
      11 September 2014 at 1:02 pm

      Cunliffe has to congratulate the government on that because otherwise Labour just appears as a group of nay-sayers who are always “against everything” even if the things they’re against “aren’t that bad”.

      Politics, the art of the possible.

  15. Sable 15
    11 September 2014 at 10:00 am

    Why National and Labour pose a threat to us all should they succeed this election:

    http://rt.com/uk/186772-ttip-nhs-privitization-irreversible/

  16. ianmac 16
    11 September 2014 at 10:16 am

    Anyone contributing to Action Station? It gives us something to act on re Dirty Politics:
    “Taking back our democracy
    $3,772.65 raised
    GOAL: $8,000.00

    For much of the past month, media coverage of our upcoming election has centred on the revelations in Nicky Hager’s book ‘Dirty Politics’. It reveals how some of our elected representatives used attack politics to undermine senior civil servants, opposition MPs and academics who disagreed with Government policy.

    Dirty Politics is a stark reminder of the extent to which democratic checks and balances have been eroded in our country. That’s where we step in. It’s time to call our political leaders to account on how they will fix this.

    Next week – with your help – we want to run a print ad in the NZ Herald. ……”
    https://actionstation.nationbuilder.com/democracy?tta

  17. Weepus beard 17
    11 September 2014 at 11:04 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10485730/Gun-scare-near-Tauranga-Work-and-Income-office

    All voters should be aware that threats made and desperation shown by marginalised individuals in the wake of the Ashburton shooting will increase if a National government is re-elected.

    This is an example of the perils of slashing and merging public service departments. There are many others: Novopay, MFAT screw ups, the weakness of Collins’ office, the Malaysian attempted sex assailant being allowed to walk free, police not being sworn in properly, etc.

    John Key says it will take 12 years to “school” New Zealand but he appears to have recognised he doesn’t have that long, so he is trying to speed the process up.

    • BM 17.1
      11 September 2014 at 11:18 am

      From the article

      Brill said the incident was not connected to Work and Income.

      Less bull shit and hyper bole next time.

      • Weepus beard 17.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 11:22 am

        From the article

        Work and Income offices have faced a series of threats since a man shot and killed two women in Ashburton last week.

        Less bullshit and hyperbole next time.

        *Better spelling too, while you are at it. If you can, that is.

      • Tracey 17.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 11:52 am

        maybe apply your new wisdom to the PM

  18. JanMeyer 18
    11 September 2014 at 11:22 am

    Pleasing to see some common ground last night in terms of tax cuts; Cunliffe wants them, just in his “second term”. The neo liberal consensus continues

  19. Tracey 19
    11 September 2014 at 11:49 am

    first simon power… then labour… now simpson… supporting a review of adversarial approach to sexual abuse victims…

    collins objected and withdrew it…

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322657

    • ianmac 19.1
      11 September 2014 at 12:00 pm

      Tracey. Will be weird if the dropping of that Minister of Justice would cause a review of the adversarial system. About time though. Wonder if the dropping of this PM will also lead to better more humane systems all round.

      • Tracey 19.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 12:03 pm

        hope so.
        SST are big on victims so this may be noise for craigs benefit

        I can see why power left given what we now know about collins.

      • Tracey 19.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 5:24 pm

        Well collins was probably the minister for privatising prisons rather than corrections per se.

  21. BLiP 21
    11 September 2014 at 12:08 pm

    ‘

    Some excellent sleuthing by Frank Macskasy and Hercules . . .

    Was the Donghua Liu Affair another example of Dirty Politics?

    . . . What is certain is that the real reason for the urgent 48-hour response to the OIA requests was to ensure that the Cunliffe letter was in the public domain by midday on Wednesday 18 June.

    The same day that the government was facing a torrid questioning by the Opposition after the conviction and resignation of ACT MP, John Banks. A government that desperately needed a credible diversion. Relying on another beneficiary-bashing story from Paula Bennett was simply not tenable.

    This was the a Dirty Trick of the highest order, involving an eleven year old letter; complicit media looking for another easy sensational news story; Ministers with connections to right wing bloggers; and journalists who run with the pack instead of asking questions that might yield real answers.

    As they say in law enforcement circles; Motive. Means. Opportunity.

    The government had all three.

    This was the real story behind the Donghua Liu Affair.

    • yeshe 21.1
      11 September 2014 at 12:18 pm

      Great investigative work! And we can but imagine what is festering away in the background now .. these are filthy greedy people who seemingly will stoop as low as is required of them.

      • Chooky 21.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 12:29 pm

        +100

        • emergency mike 21.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 1:05 pm

          I was just watching Brook Sabin’s analysis of the debate on TV3. The anti-Cunliffe bias was so overwhelming that I only got halfway through it due to rising nausea. Pretending that his BS poll is what will happen on the 20th and focusing on Cunliffe’s $3.4b instead of $2.4b slip rather than the even larger gap to Key’s $1b which would seem to be somewhat more important. He was about to show me a bit which he reckoned sounded ‘scripted’, (so what? does he think Key doesn’t practice his lines for these debates?), when I realized I couldn’t watch this puffed up little shit any more.

          Then I take a look at this article where Sabin is implicated in this Slater hitjob on Cunliffe.

          The #teamslater coverage is ramping up because they know it’s close. And they know there could be direct consequences for them if this election goes to the ‘wrong’ people.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 1:38 pm

            They will not go down without a fight; if we let them get up again afterwards, they will go right on ratfucking.

          • bad politics 21.1.1.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 2:11 pm

            Woodhouse! He should be questioned on this, when you see him hes looking very worried.

          • Paul 21.1.1.1.3
            11 September 2014 at 5:12 pm

            Brooke Sabin, what are your connections to Cameron Slater and Dirty Politics?
            As the son of a National MP, do you have connections with another son of a National MP Carrick Graham?

    • ianmac 21.2
      11 September 2014 at 3:44 pm

      Great but frightening work by Frank and Hercules. When the Ministers found the Cunliffe letter they sat on it until it was their right time to use it in a dirty trick.

      The only good thing about it is that they must have regarded Cunliffe as someone to fear. They were right about that! David has risen in spite of the numerous dirty tricks aided by some dishonest journalists and he will be in a position to explore records when he is PM later this month.

    • Tracey 21.3
      11 September 2014 at 5:28 pm

      John key and nats recently suggesting that something that happened in 2011 was a long time ago, funny how fixated they were on something that was a decade ago.

  22. fambo 22
    11 September 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Can anyone help me with this query:

    I was told the other day that it is the party vote that determines how many seats a party has in Parliament. Someone winning an electoral seat only means that person gets into Parliament ahead of someone else on the party list of their party. Not withstanding finer details like “overhung” seats etc – is this essentially true?

    If this is true then it makes the party vote the only truly important vote of the two with huge implications when the electorate in general finally realises this. If I was ignorant of this fact for 20 odd years, then I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of others who don’t know yet.

    • weka 22.1
      11 September 2014 at 12:35 pm

      It’s true for the parties that get a higher percentage of MPs from the list than the seats (Labour, National, GP, NZF). It’s not true for parties that get more MPs from the seats than from the list (Mana, ACT, Mp. UF). So the list vote is generally the most important, unless you live in an electorate where one of the smaller parties is vying for a seat. Those seats can determine the outcome of the election (think Epsom, Ohariu, some of the Maori seats).

      There are a few seat voting articles around showing which are the crucial seats in this election. I’ll dig some up later when I have more time. Do you want to say what electorate you are in?

      And yes, I agree, there are still far too many people who don’t understand how MMP works.

      • fambo 22.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 1:31 pm

        Thanks Weka

        I’m in the Wairarapa electorate and shall be voting for the Labour candidate and Greens for the party vote. I was just discussing things with a friend who supports the Greens but says she is considering giving her party vote to IMP. I like IMP but told her that given Labour has said it will not form a government with IMP, then it is crucial to vote Green to get a Labour/Green government as every party vote for Labour and the Greens is crucial.

        The Greens have always pushed the party vote harder than any other party but I think the competition for the party vote is going to increase once everyone cottons on as to how important this vote is.

        • Clemgeopin 22.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 2:32 pm

          You should have advised her to give her party vote to Labour because it is more crucial to have a very strong Labour presence in a Labour led coalition for the long term stability and strength of the government. Otherwise we run the risk of being kicked out in three years by the jittery, frustrated or unhappy voting public subjected to too many minor party dictated economic and social policy demands due to their stronger presence. Labour has to be much stronger than their present 26%. I have no doubt about it. Like to see them at about 35%. That can only happen if Labour gets more of the party votes because obviously Labour will lose a lot of electoral seats due to the stronger National as well as due to the scattering of electoral votes among dozen of candidates of various parties. Labour does have excellent social, economic and environmental policies and need every possible party vote at this time.

          I will be happy to briefly list some of Labour’s great and fair policies for you if you wish. Just let me know.

          • Lanthanide 22.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 2:55 pm

            I agree with you that a strong Labour vote is important.

            However, I’m voting Greens, because I like their policies on Christchurch and their top tax rate more than Labour’s.

        • weka 22.1.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 4:16 pm

          “I like IMP but told her that given Labour has said it will not form a government with IMP, then it is crucial to vote Green to get a Labour/Green government as every party vote for Labour and the Greens is crucial.”

          I tend to agree with this, which is a real shame because a significant IMP presence in parliament would be awesome.

          There is no reason that a L/Gp govt can’t have C and S from IMP. The main problem is that if Winson Peters is kingmakter he may choose National over Labour if the IMP is involved on the left. If Peters truly believed his rhetoric about letting the voters decide, he would work with whatever left wing coalition was possible after everyone voted. But really what he believes is that middle NZ should control NZ. Not sure why that is really.

        • Tracey 22.1.1.3
          11 September 2014 at 5:30 pm

          Interestingly in nanaia mahutas electorate a poll shows mana sitting fourth, national in third for party vote…

          Isnt that a worry for IMP, or not really?

    • Lanthanide 22.2
      11 September 2014 at 1:05 pm

      “then I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of others who don’t know yet.”

      Yes, it’s a shame that everyone gets to vote, even if they clearly don’t understand anything about the system they’re actually voting in.

  23. ianmac 23
    11 September 2014 at 12:33 pm

    Josie Pagani goes for broke. This time she strikes a great angle for Labour. Surprised? (Actually she did a pretty good job against 3 X Right Wingers on last nights awful Henry show.)
    “The left has already won this election.

    John Key’s National Party is still high in the polls, not because the values of the right are popular, but because National’s pitch is essentially, “Trust us to implement Labour policy. We’ll spend a bit less than them doing it, and if you’re lucky we’ll give you a tax cut from the savings — maybe.”……

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11322591

    • Ant 23.1
      11 September 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Holy crap, that pretty much explains why Pagani is the way she is… She actually thinks the left won.

      My god what a fool.

      Third-way politics was an admission of the left’s defeat.

    • phillip ure 23.2
      11 September 2014 at 2:12 pm

      pagani just wants labour to be more like national..

      .to re-embrace the neo-lib ‘norms’ of the past three decades..

      ..and pagani is claiming something is ‘new’..when it has always been this way..

      ..the progressives reform..

      ..and national..in the main..does not reverse those reforms..

      ..it has always been thus..

      ..you can chalk that one up with paganis’ claim labour lost on 2011 ‘cos of their ‘over-genorous’ policy..to include benificiary-families in the wff tax-credit..

      ..by 2018..(!)

      ..which..tho’ three years ago..is/was an election-promise still further away than the tax-cut chimera currently being peddled by key…

      ..a whopping eight years away..(which has to be a record of sorts..?..surely..?..)

      ..(mind you..i have heard parker peddle that same bull-turd as pagani tried on..in his case claiming the defeat in 2011 was down to the electorate ‘rejecting’ that policy..(!)

      ..i mean..!..seriously..?..he consoles/reassures himself/justifies inaction on benificiary-rates with this/on these grounds..?..)

    • Paul 23.3
      11 September 2014 at 5:10 pm

      Pagani is a Blairite clone.
      She does not represent the working class.

      • Rich 23.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 5:43 pm

        I think we should take all the allies that we can get at the moment.

        If you’re in a war and someone offers you a few ships and aircraft, do you say bugger off I still remember that underarm?

        • Ant 23.3.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 6:38 pm

          Don’t worry National and Labour are pretty much the same, but vote National and you get JOHN KEY and all the things you like from Labour!

          Those aren’t the words of an ally. Those are the lines the National use to swing undecided voters to their cause repeated by someone who purports to represent the left and the labour movement.

          • Herodotus 23.3.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:54 pm

            If, as is a strong possibility they will be both post 20th chasing nz1 , potentially more to the right than national to form a govt. IMO that tells where both leaders stand in a political spectrum. In satisfying their hunger for the pm position, and I am sure nz1 will go with what’s best for nz, unless a Dutch auction occurs with the 1st party to offer the deputy pm position to whinny. Then what’s best for Winston could override what’s best for nz.

  24. the voter 24
    11 September 2014 at 2:01 pm

    Greenspan to Key :”We got u your 50mill now go to NZ AND FUCKN GET RID OF THOSE LEFTY BASTARDS OR YOUR ARSE IS GRASS

    Thats the truth about Key

    We can still fire him though

  25. yeshe 25
    11 September 2014 at 2:05 pm

    Felix Marwick’s Twitter today .. (and so the dark arts continue …)

    Felix Marwick @felixmarwick · 14h
    PM won’t say which staff in his office will give evidennce to the IGIS Inquiry. Citing security and says it’s not in the public interest

    Felix Marwick @felixmarwick · 2h
    IGIS declining to identify people called to give evidence to the SIS/Slater inquiry. Agency not subject to the OIA

    Felix Marwick @felixmarwick · 20m
    PM – “I’d be amazed if the IGIS would want to speak to me” . Will give evidence if asked.

    (I wonder what Winston might have to say about this ?)

    • karol 25.1
      11 September 2014 at 5:34 pm

      The full conversation:

      Felix Marwick:
      IGIS declining to identify people called to give evidence to the SIS/Slater inquiry. Agency not subject to the OIA

      Idiot/Savant ‏@norightturnnz 5h
      @felixmarwick But PMs office is, so his staff can be identified that way.

      Mrs Miggins ‏@wharepaia 5h
      @felixmarwick Try PMO staff list Jul 2011…an absence of official information leads to informed speculation @MatthewHootonNZ

      Felix Marwick ‏@felixmarwick 5h
      @norightturnnz tried that. PM’s office now being investigated by the Chief Ombudsman as a result

      Graeme Edgeler ‏@GraemeEdgeler 4h
      @norightturnnz @felixmarwick is it held in their official capacity? Could be summoned as individuals.

  26. outofbed 26
    11 September 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Just got 4 overseas voters enrolled and voting Green
    Heh

  27. halfcrown 27
    11 September 2014 at 3:39 pm

    Just seen the BIGGEST bit of bullshit going.

    Yahoo claiming by their on line vote Key won last night
    Key 56%
    Cunliffe 26%

  29. Clemgeopin 29
    11 September 2014 at 5:34 pm

    KEY’S SUPPORT SLUMPS, CUNLIFFE’S RISES in LATERST Herald Digi poll just out:

    Prime Minister John Key has plunged in personal popularity dropping by 7.3 points and Labour leader David Cunliffe has jumped by 3.9 points, in the latest Herald DigiPoll survey.

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has also risen.

    Mr Key is still well above either of them as preferred Prime Minister on 61.6 per cent.

    But it is his lowest rating in a Herald DigiPoll survey since becoming Prime Minister in November 2008.

    Mr Cunliffe has risen from, 14 per cent to 17.9 per cent, the best personal rating he has had in DigiPoll since taking over the Labour leadership in September last year.

    It is just 0.6 points away from the best DigiPoll rating of his predecessor, David Shearer, who was 18.5 per cent in March last year.

    Polling began on Thursday last week in relatively clean air – six days after Judith Collins resigned from the cabinet.

    A gender breakdown in support suggests that Mr Key has lost a lot of support from men. In last week’s campaign poll, 74.8 per cent of men supported him. This week 65.4 per cent of men support him.
    Video

    Last week 11.9 per cent of men support Mr Cunliffe. This week 17.1 per cent support him.

    Mr Peters last week had the support of 5 per cent of men. This week he has the support of 8.5 per cent of men.

    Major events during the polling period include two televised small leaders debates, The Press debate between Mr Cunliffe and Mr Key, Mr Cunliffe’s visit to the West Coast and National saying it will introduce modest tax cuts in April 2017 if conditions allow.

    PREFERRED PRIME MINISTER

    John Key 61.6 (down 7.3)
    David Cunliffe 17.9 (up 3.9)
    Winston Peters 7.8 (up 1.4)
    Russel Norman 3.3 (up 1)
    Metiria Turei 2.4 (up 1.5)
    Helen Clark 1.3 (down 0.5)
    Jacinda Ardern 1.1 (up 0.4)
    David Shearer 0.7 (down 0.5)
    Colin Craig 0.6 (up 0.2)

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322849

    Key is the ONLY leader that has gone down in popularity (along with Helen Clark and Shearer. Only NZH know why they stupidly included these two too, and not Muldoon, English, Bennett or Collins for example?)

  30. ianmac 30
    11 September 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “Prime Minister John Key has plunged in personal popularity dropping by 7.3 points and Labour leader David Cunliffe has jumped by 3.9 points, in the latest Herald DigiPoll survey.

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has also risen.

    Mr Key is still well above either of them as preferred Prime Minister on 61.6 per cent.”
    But it is his lowest rating in a Herald DigiPoll survey since becoming Prime Minister in November 2008.

    Mr Cunliffe has risen from, 14 per cent to 17.9 per cent, the best personal rating he has had in DigiPoll since taking over the Labour leadership in September last year.”

    How Audrey must be upset!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322849

  31. glen garforth 31
    11 September 2014 at 5:49 pm

    so 14 years since the 3 sky scrapers were downed in new york city.
    14 years!
    and uncle sam is gearing up to sort out the middle east.

    my how much things change.

  32. yeshe 32
    11 September 2014 at 6:10 pm

    OMG. TvOne News saying Greens are changing tactics; Russel Norman on screen saying he can work with National. A major Green meeting taking place now, apparently.

    Well, you will be doing without my vote. What the hell are you doing ? Making National’s play for them.

    What a fuxxing disaster.

    • karol 32.1
      11 September 2014 at 6:53 pm

      Don’t get sucked in by TV One’s misinformation.

      Here’s what Russell Brown tweeted in response:

      So the claim by TVNZ’s political editor that the Greens were considering a change of strategy to support National was sheer nonsense. 1/2

      Second tweet – part two

      Seeking to achieve some policy goals via an MOU — like they’ve done before — is *not* a radical change of strategy. Honestly, what arse. 2/2

      • Clemgeopin 32.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:06 pm

        So, why do that (MOU stuff) now ten days before the election has even been completed and hundreds of thousands of people have already voted? I don’t swallow this BS spin, especially after Norman has said that Bill English is the guy he most admires. This stinks. If it looks like a rotten fish, feels like a rotten fish and smells like a rotten fish, it is most likely to be a vomit-inducing stinky rotten fish.

        Here is the news video:
        http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014-news/greens-eye-radical-change-days-before-election-6078465

        • karol 32.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:13 pm

          🙄

          • Clemgeopin 32.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:34 pm

            I doubt Corin Dann would reveal this information as headline news, if some one from the Greens had not informed him or if there wasn’t an internal leak to him.

            Here are the relevant bits from the news item:

            * A radical change could be on the cards for the Green Party just days before the election.

            *The change could see the Greens position themselves as the stronger of the two opposition parties.

            * The Greens are capable of working with, if not supporting, of National.

            * “We’ve done that with National in the past with the insulation scheme and the national cycle trail, and if there was an opportunity to do that again, and if they were the government, then we’d consider that,” says Greens co-leader Russell Norman.

            * Mr Key says he could work with the Greens.
            “In the end this is MMP we will go and have a look but realistically we’ve worked with the Greens in the past and on a case by case basis, we may well do in the future,” says Mr Key.

            I am waiting to hear from the Green leaders their denials that Corin’s report is completely wrong, no such internal party meeting discussing cooperation/MOU with Key and National took place today and it is all just ‘dirty politics’ from Dann.

            • karol 32.1.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 7:40 pm

              Clem, what part of bullshit don’t you understand? Your hatred of The Greens seems to prevent you from understanding it was all Dann’s spin. Read what everybody has said here about the way the Greens operate.

              It’s here for you to read. I don’t need to say anything more – read. understand.

              • Clemgeopin …
                11 September 2014 at 8:21 pm

                “Clem, what part of bullshit don’t you understand?’

                Not sure who is bullshitting and whose bullshit is true, the Greens’ or Dann’s. Both can not be bullshits. I think the Greens are trying to cover up here. You obviously don’t believe that, I know.
                Only very clear unequivocal statements from the Greens and Dann will clarify matters. Greens should completely deny all this and say that Dann has lied.

                • karol …
                  11 September 2014 at 8:25 pm

                  The Greens & Turei have made clear unequivocal statements. Tueri has tweeted such a statement to One News.

                  Saying journos lied is too much like picking a fight with the MSM this close to the election.

                  You are still spreading misinformation.

                  The Greens could not decide to go with the Nats without consulting with their members. the members, as others have said here, will never go with the Nats.

                  It’s perfectly clear.

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    11 September 2014 at 9:24 pm

                    “The Greens could not decide to go with the Nats without consulting with their members. the members, as others have said here, will never go with the Nats”

                    In that case how come Norman made this statement TODAY?

                    “We’ve done that with National in the past with the insulation scheme and the national cycle trail, and if there was an opportunity to do that again, and if they were the government, then we’d consider that,” says Greens co-leader Russell Norman.

                    [Mr Key said TODAY he could work with the Greens.
                    In the end this is MMP we will go and have a look but realistically we’ve worked with the Greens in the past and on a case by case basis, we may well do in the future,” says Mr Key.]

                    Why should Norman cause confusion by saying that, and by not saying ‘no, we will not work with National, but only Labour’ as Turie has now tweeted?
                    Was all this just smoke without fire and completely Dann’s lies? Hard to believe.

                    • BM …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:29 pm

                      Yep, it’s fairly obvious that the greens are keeping all options open.

                      Could also be a cunning ruse to get more concessions from Labour ,if they do decide to go into government with Labour.

                      Because lets face it, the Greens have absolutely no clout or leverage if they’re only willing to work with Labour, they just have to take whatever Labour offers.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:30 pm

                      1. part of a coalition govt with National? No.

                      2. support a National led govt by giving them confidence and supply votes? No.

                      3. have a Memorandum of Understanding with a National govt that doesn’t include supporting them to be in govt? Yes (they did this in 2008, but not in 2011 because there wasn’t enough common ground).

                      4. work with National (or any party for that matter) on policy that they share on a case by case basis? Yes.

                      It’s actually not that difficult to understand.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:32 pm

                      “Why should Norman cause confusion by saying that”

                      It was a badly edited soundbite. Even you can’t be that naive.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:35 pm

                      “Yep, it’s fairly obvious that the greens are keeping all options open.”

                      Only the ones thatt work for them. That doesn’t include supporting National to form govt.

                      “Could also be a cunning ruse to get more concessions from Labour ,if they do decide to go into government with Labour.”

                      Doubt it. The GP don’t play those bullshit games, not least because they piss off the voters.

                      “Because lets face it, the Greens have absolutely no clout or leverage if they’re only willing to work with Labour, they just have to take whatever Labour offers.”

                      Lies. The GP will have the most leverage this election of any. The monkey wrench will probably be Peters.

                    • mickysavage []
                      11 September 2014 at 9:59 pm

                      I just watched the TVOne clip. I am embarrassed at their attempt to spin things. When the headline should have been that National was on the decline they tried to spin it that the opposition to National was fracturing …

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:02 pm

                      @BM;
                      “Could also be a cunning ruse to get more concessions from Labour ,if they do decide to go into government with Labour.”

                      I doubt it, because if that is their Clint inspired stupid dirty strategy and if I was a labour leader, I would tell them to f off to National and I would stay in opposition biding my time three years hence, than be hamstrung and blackmailed by a vote eating parasite.

                      [lprent: Are you really that ignorant? Please keep up. “Clint”on Smith has been working for Labour for quite some time now. If you have no damn idea about what you are talking about, then I’d suggest putting a cork in it rather than making a complete dick of yourself.

                      BTW: “Clint” is one of The Standard’s inactive authors. He is currently precluded from writing here because he is a political staffer. But I still notice when mindless fools do personal attacks on people because they just happen to know a name. It is something that I associate with the jerkoffs from Whaleoil. Are you sure that you aren’t just a troll? ]

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:07 pm

                      @Weka:
                      “3. have a Memorandum of Understanding with a National govt that doesn’t include supporting them to be in govt? Yes’

                      How the hell does that work without C and S? Why should and why would National want such a Clayton’s support if they are able to form a government anyway?

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:15 pm

                      From the 2008 one,

                      Purpose

                      Memorandum of Understanding Between The New Zealand National Party and The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
                      The National Party and the Green Party wish to work together to develop policy and legislation in areas of common interest. The purpose of this MoU is to establish a framework within which the Parties can engage in such areas as are identified from time to time.

                      Principles

                      The following principles underpin this working relationship:
                      • Both Parties are fully independent and retain their rights to vote and speak on all issues as they see fit
                      • The intent of both Parties is to establish a good faith working relationship • This agreement is not based on any prerequisite policy commitments

                      Framework

                      To facilitate a working relationship in identified policy areas, the National Party agrees to provide the Green Party:
                      • Access to Ministers and appropriate departmental officials for briefings and advice • Input into the Ministerial decision making process, including Cabinet papers

                      The Green Party agrees:
                      • To consider facilitating government legislation via procedural support on a case by case basis

                      Both Parties agree:
                      • To keep the details of working discussions confidential until negotiations are concluded, whether the result ends in agreement or not
                      • To facilitate this joint working relationship, the leadership of both Parties will meet at least quarterly to monitor progress, assess the overall relationship and to agree areas where joint work will occur
                      • To review this MoU yearly to assess its effectiveness and determine whether it should continue

                      https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/green-national-parties-announce-shared-policy-initiatives

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:21 pm

                      @weka:
                      It says there ” the National Party agrees to provide the Green Party etc”

                      There isn’t anything that says, ‘the Green party agrees to provide National etc’!

                      That is daft. Simply BS. why should the Nats agree without anything in return either in writing or by mutual oral understanding! Who are they kidding! Not me.

                      Can you clarify the real ‘understanding’?

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 10:24 pm

                      reread it. It’s all there.

                • KJT …
                  12 September 2014 at 10:15 am

                  It is patently obvious Clemgeopin, despite Dann’s and your attempts to spin it.

                  As Russell has said, Greens will work with any party, including National, to progress good Green policy, as we did with the insulation scheme.

                  Entirely consistent with a party that is in to get green social and environmental sustainability at the top of the policy list, not power for powers sake or to line their own pockets.

                  There is no way Greens can support National in with confidence and supply or coalition. The members have already decided that.

                  And, What Karol and Weka are saying.

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    12 September 2014 at 12:05 pm

                    “As Russell has said, Greens will work with any party, including National, to progress good Green policy, as we did with the insulation scheme. There is no way Greens can support National in with confidence and supply or coalition”

                    Why did Norman have to inflame this divisive issue at this crucial time just before the election day when a lot of people have already voted? I listened to his interview on RNZ where Norman was still evasive and was still sympathetic to National when he said that ‘they are perfectly fine people, I am sure’. He has actually given some legitimacy and respect to this National party here in spite of all the nastiness and dirty politics they have done.

                    Listen to his interview here yourself and see how he dodges some of the crucial questions. Even the title of the audio is
                    ‘Norman cagey on poll implications for relationship with Labour’ :

                    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20149341

        • karol 32.1.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 7:23 pm

          Highly edited clip. Norman was clearly asked some question, but we weren’t shown that question. He was just repeating what they’d done before with MOU. So, no change there.

          So it’s just Dann beating it up in order to say something about his poll.

          But, you are never going to say anything good about the Greens, and will be happy to repeat TV One’s spin and misinformation.

          So, why should I bother replying.

          Turei stated clearly – No Green Party supporting Nats to government.

          End of.

          • Clemgeopin 32.1.1.2.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:38 pm

            [“But, you are never going to say anything good about the Greens, and will be happy to repeat TV One’s spin and misinformation”

            That is not true at all. I do like some of their policies and I do want the Greens in government with Labour, but don’t like to see too many of their list members, as it will be counter productive for the survival of a stable long term Labour led a left wing coalition government in my opinion]

            So, why would Dann say a meeting about this issue was taking place right at that very time? Strange! Was he blatantly lying? I doubt that.

            • karol 32.1.1.2.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 7:44 pm

              Who knows. It could be a meeting about anything related to their election strategy. But it isn’t about supporting the Nats to govern.

              Turei said on Twitter Greens are very happy with their showing on the poll.

              • Clemgeopin …
                11 September 2014 at 8:14 pm

                “Turei said on Twitter Greens are very happy with their showing on the poll.”

                They may be very happy with their polling, but may be worried about Labour’s low polling and are maneuvering to support National instead somehow as per the news report.

    • karol 32.2
      11 September 2014 at 7:00 pm

      And Metiria just tweeted:

      @felicitypaige24 @annetterongotai @publicaddress @ONENewsNZ They say what they like and they do. We say No to supporting Nats to govern.

  33. Anne 33
    11 September 2014 at 6:27 pm

    TV One News consists of unadulterated Tory crap yeshe. I suspect there is a scheduled strategy meeting taking place and the Key-loving acolytes at TV1 are playing dirty politics.

    I suggest we wait for Norman or Turei to either confirm or deny…

    • ScottGN 33.1
      11 September 2014 at 6:33 pm

      I agree Anne. The whole spin on that TVNZ piece from Corin Dann was designed to obscure the fact that National is sliding in their polling.

      • yeshe 33.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:04 pm

        Thank you all — so is this just more dirty politics ? Greens are going to have to come out very cleanly and clearly .. repeating what Metiria has tweeted.

        What was Corin Dann thinking and doing ? Who fooled him ?

        • yeshe 33.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:17 pm

          This is overt corruption, out in the open ! How on earth could he frame his story
          that way? Am deeply shocked, and I didn’t think I could be anymore !

        • Weepus beard 33.1.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 7:18 pm

          A lot of damage could be done with this ambush.

        • outofbed 33.1.1.3
          11 September 2014 at 7:18 pm

          Listen folks
          The Greens can’t hold a meeting and change strategy in a major way
          The Greens are the sum of all their members
          The Greens are very very democratic and have processes
          Just TV1 shit stirring

        • Anne 33.1.1.4
          11 September 2014 at 7:23 pm

          What was Corin Dann thinking and doing ? Who fooled him ?

          He wasn’t fooled. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew it was a lie.

          • Weepus beard 33.1.1.4.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:30 pm

            They are determined to splinter and confuse the left vote aren’t they?

            It’s also been happening in South Auckland churches. National activists have infiltrated them and are signing vulnerable Pacific people up and pressuring them to vote National.

            It is disgraceful.

  34. Anne 34
    11 September 2014 at 6:54 pm

    Hi ScottGN,

    Back in the days when TV1 was called AKTV2, I worked as an audio operator doing both continuity (news and programmes) and recording shows of every type. All of the celebrities – news and otherwise – were so up themselves they could hardly bring themselves to speak to us technical operators despite the fact they would never have been able to do our jobs if they tried. There was an air of entitlement throughout the establishment which left me, as a very young woman, feeling uncomfortable. I didn’t stay there very long. The general public were always referred to as the peasants and while that term may not be in common usage now, I am in no doubt that the snobby, self-adulating TV celebs of today are even worse than they were 40 years ago.

  35. Weepus beard 35
    11 September 2014 at 7:09 pm

    So, is a vote for Green a vote for National?

    Could someone update me?

    • outofbed 35.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:22 pm

      Look as a long time Green activist and very very involved member
      I can assure you 100% that a vote for Green is not a vote for National
      Not in any way shape or form.. it is laughable

      • Weepus beard 35.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 7:26 pm

        Thank you for the reassurance but do you have any idea how this distraction piece came into being?

        I’ve not seen TV1 news but the fact that both Green leaders have had to take to Twitter to explain what has happened is scary.

        • yeshe 35.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 7:29 pm

          Here you are Weepu … it is lead item on their online page and their political page …

          http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014-news/greens-eye-radical-change-days-before-election-6078465

        • karol 35.1.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 7:37 pm

          Dann had 2 clips from Norman talking about MOUs like the ones they’ve done before with the Nats – insulating houses, etc. Dann told the country that he understood Greens were meeting tonight to discuss a change of strategy because it looked likely Labour couldn’t form a government. He understood Greens were looking to support a Nat government.

          It was all Dann making shit up.

          • yeshe 35.1.1.2.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:41 pm

            He should be fired, tonight. He is TVNZ political editor — who set him up I
            wonder ? He’s not allowed to make shit up; usually he is better than that at least, altho he does lean right.

            Can this be taken to Broadcasting Standards Authority — is it the body to use ? Thx for any answer.,

          • ScottGN 35.1.1.2.2
            11 September 2014 at 8:06 pm

            Exactly karol. And this is the shit that’s coming our way in the next week. We just need to keep on trucking our way toward Election Day.

        • outofbed 35.1.1.3
          11 September 2014 at 7:39 pm

          Look The GP is the most democratic party in NZ
          If you had been at the conference in June when we debated political positioning ,you would know how ill informed or malicious TV1 is being
          The GP can not hold a meeting a week before the election and change direction
          There would have to be a special general meeting with 140 delegates and consensus would have to be reached.
          Not going to happen

        • weka 35.1.1.4
          11 September 2014 at 8:13 pm

          Thank you for the reassurance but do you have any idea how this distraction piece came into being?

          I’ve not seen TV1 news but the fact that both Green leaders have had to take to Twitter to explain what has happened is scary.

          I just watched it. The headline is that the GP are poised to make a radical chance in strategy. The piece then looks at the GP working with National historically, but Dann says later in the piece that the GP meeting tonight is to look at distancing itself from Labour as a way of increasing its party vote. Nothing to do with National at all. Like karol says below, they’re making shit up.

          Either the height of disingenuousness by Dann, or outright incompetence.

    • bearded git 35.2
      11 September 2014 at 7:55 pm

      Look at metiria’s tweet above. The story is tv1 bollocks

    • Bill 36.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:44 pm

      So Corin Dann deliberately and mischievously misleads…how many thousands of TVNZ viewers? The tweets plus comments like this and any follow up posts on whatever blogs will reach…how many people?

      Short of tomorrow night’s TVNZ news leading with a 3 minute apology and correction, I think it’s safe to say that ‘Dirty Politics’, rather than abating, is going into fcking overdrive.

      I’m at a loss. Every mainstream outlet in NZ is doing this shit. I feel I’m subject to a hydra intent on ceaselessly spewing, singular, focused and particular propaganda.

      Goebbels would be most impressed.

      • outofbed 36.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:01 pm

        Well for every misinformed leftie who now won’t vote for the Greens will now be replace by misinformed righties who want a National Gov but want to vote clean and so vote Green

        • Bill 36.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:04 pm

          Yeah, it did cross my mind that it cuts both ways. But it cuts a hell of a lot further one way than it does the other.

      • weka 36.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 8:09 pm

        Looks like out and out Dirty Politics to me too. Either that, or Dann and TVNZ are incompetent and can’t see how bad this would look.

        The upside is that the GP are experts in dealing with this shit, they’ve had it done to them so many times for so many years now. Let’s see what happens in the next few days media wise.

        • KJT 36.1.2.1
          12 September 2014 at 10:24 am

          Inaccurate reporting, to be kind, about the Greens and Green policy as well as any other parties on the left has been common for years. The outright lies from the media during Clark’s Government, and the unthinking support of Muldoon, for example.

          • weka 36.1.2.1.1
            12 September 2014 at 10:33 am

            That is kind of you KJT 🙂 I don’t know enough about Corin Dann to know his involvement with Slatergate, but it’s interesting that the right started running the ‘the GP could work National’ line earlier in the week. It popped up in a number of places.

            It’s a new field. So irrespective of whether Dann was fed the story from the VRWC, he (and TVNZ) need to be aware of how it will look from now on everytime they do this shit. Been talking to Slater, Corin?

  37. kenny 37
    11 September 2014 at 7:42 pm

    The biggest surprise for me from last nights debate was the result of the viewer poll asking if you had decided which party you were going to vote for and 28% said they are not yet decided.

    28% undecided! This from a total vote of, what was it – 42,000 or 47,000? I can’t remember. Compare this to the other so-called reliable polls which all the media swears by when it suits them and the undecided’s barely get a mention.

    The other thing that gives me heart somewhat, is that the story on Stuff about the debate was quickly buried deep within the heart of that rag – they must be really scared.

    Of course all the media can talk about now is the latest poll.

    We are really up against it I’m afraid. Let’s hope Kim Dotcom has something up his sleeve for Monday.

  38. Herodotus 38
    11 September 2014 at 7:44 pm

    Who to vote for ?
    When jk made comments regarding tax cuts I thought that this was a last gasp into retaining position as pm, and any inclination to vote blue was gone ……. But then dc entered into the tax cut promise, why ??? Now I am in the same dilemma with both labour and national mimicking act philosophy.

    • Anne 38.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:53 pm

      Herodotus: Cunliffe talked about the possibility of a small tax cut in Labour’s “second term of office”. That is, should they win this election any tax cut would not be before election 2017 and could be as late as 2020.

      • Herodotus 38.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:06 pm

        Yes but he brought the topic up, and in some small way legitimised nationals tax cut temptation . IMO he lost some integrity in being able to attack keys future economic vision, as he has entered into this tax cut debate.
        Nz has some extremely large contingent liabilities that tax cuts should not be considered. Our health care with obesity, the ageing pop., govt debt, ageing infrastructure, Chch etc . a tax switch or rebalance, say like labour touted in 2011 with a CGT covering towards the $5 k tax free threshold is IMO acceptable. But a tax cut…..

        • Colonial Viper 38.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:41 pm

          Agree with you – Labour does nothing for its own position if it participates in the tax cuts ‘sometime in the future’ nonsense.

        • greywarbler 38.1.1.2
          12 September 2014 at 9:44 am

          @ Herodotus 8.06
          Agree. Cunliffe should be taking the straightforward stand that services are being lost, the country is being wound down – to an inefficient level also – through not receiving enough tax to keep it running in the way that a developed, modern country should. What is wrong with Labour? Shuffling up to the fight, unsure of their moves. Here is a boxing ring, get in some last minute training in the gym, and get advice on how to make the knockout hit.

          Either we aren’t a d.m.c and have to scale everything back, or we are one that needs the funds from those whose salaries and investment income has not been sacrificed as workers income have been, to help business who say they are struggling. Many people have suffered drops in income, significant numbers though have received large increases. Those who have the means obviously should pay more which would come from their excess, discretionary incomes, in tax.

          Cunliffe should spell out this reality, which any thinking, intelligent person would understand, but which many intelligent people do not want to think about.

  39. Harry Holland 39
    11 September 2014 at 7:48 pm

    The latest Colmar Brunton poll suggests to me that (once you factor in the undecideds) Winston will be the king maker. My reading is that he wants to go with Labour.
    He will want to be deputy P.M. of course (assuming he can’t be PM). What else will he want? He’s been Treasurer (power) and he’s done Foreign Affairs (glamour).
    Bolger’s advice was not to give him a big ministry or he will go overboard with spending, but that Winston enjoyed being miserly with other ministers when he was treasurer.
    What will he want this time (and I don’t mean policies, although pet policy might be a strong clue to ministry). http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/images/140911_ONE_News_Colmar_Brunton_Poll_report_6-10_Sep_2014_prelim.pdf

  40. rich the other 40
    11 September 2014 at 7:56 pm

    Labour was warned ,
    The stupidity of the current labour administration is breath taking .
    Tonight the greens are meeting with National . Long ago on this site I warned Labour who their real enemy is , the greens , they have grown in strength at labours cost , Labour is doomed until they stand alone , their strategy of openly endorsing the greens has been their undoing .
    Forget this election , it’s lost and start restructuring tomorrow .

    • karol 40.1
      11 September 2014 at 7:58 pm

      Citation needed for Greens meeting with National tonight? Turei has tweeted in the last hour that Greens will not support Nats to govern.

      • yeshe 40.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:04 pm

        and it seems from his Twitter feed that Russel Norman is at candidates meeting in Miramar right now .. maybe oblivious to all this, as there is no tweet-of-reply to Dann on his pages …

    • BM 40.2
      11 September 2014 at 8:04 pm

      Go the greens, finally some common sense.

    • outofbed 40.3
      11 September 2014 at 8:08 pm

      ‘Tonight the greens are meeting with National ‘
      bollocks

      • BM 40.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:11 pm

        Norman must have had a light bulb and seen the stupidity of the greens labour only strategy.

        Expect the gnome with the taste for expensive jackets to be given the boot.

        • yeshe 40.3.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:18 pm

          BM — you are a misogynist and nasty piece of work. Sod off back to your dark masters’ dungeons.

      • yeshe 40.3.2
        11 September 2014 at 8:16 pm

        outofbed — yes, but how are we going to tell the TVNZ news viewers, especially if it runs as promoted on late news as well ?

        Is this a matter for the Electoral Commission do you think ?

        • outofbed 40.3.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:25 pm

          Doesn’t really matter the trend is National down
          It all comes down to Winston in the end

          • rich the other 40.3.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 8:55 pm

            This reported move by the greens strengthens National , it under mines anyone else who would be king maker and must be recognised as an admission by the greens that labours position is hopeless .
            The salaries for the opposition are far less than what government mp’s earn , clearly norman and turei are looking for a more affluent lifestyle .

    • Rich 40.4
      11 September 2014 at 8:15 pm

      “Labour was warned”

      That does not sound this side of the 99% divide.

    • greywarbler 40.5
      12 September 2014 at 10:53 am

      rich the other (as in alien from another planet?) 7.56
      Spoiler. Cassandra – woe is me. The little bird cries the sky is falling.

      (Useful reading for you. Henny Penny – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny
      The phrase “The sky is falling!” features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or …)

      Try and stay with the moment and don’t start trembling and shaking before the judgment day.

  41. Chooky 41
    11 September 2014 at 8:00 pm

    re Corin Dann….surely this amounts to disinformation?…. and a deliberate attempt to subvert a fair Election process? …apart from anything else it will turn Green voters and New Zealanders off voting for the Green Party!

    The Greens have an impeccable brand and reputation ….and it will be sullied by any television journalist assertion of a Green coalition with such a dirty brand as John key and NActional

    ….and conversely the perception of John Key and Nactional will be cleansed of dirty corruption by the statement that the Greens are considering going with them in coalition

    …what remedies are there?…apart from a complaint?

    …this journalist should be sacked imo

    …there should be an apology to the Greens and to all New Zealanders for corruption of the media and truth …and dirty politics yet again…and coming from television New Zealand !

    It is disgraceful…after the Election there must be a shakeup of TVNZ!

    • outofbed 41.1
      11 September 2014 at 8:06 pm

      Let’s be clear: A vote for the Greens is a vote to change the Government. Our intention is to work with Labour to form a new government.
      https://twitter.com/NZGreens/status/509961826126159873

      • Rich 41.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:10 pm

        So more dirty politics all designed to keep those wavering voters from the left heading to the ballot box.

        “you can’t win!!!!!!”

      • weka 41.1.2
        11 September 2014 at 8:16 pm

        Metiria Turei ‏@metiria 59 mins

        We are poised to change our country, to reverse 30 yrs of harm.We need a new government and a new direction. Party vote Green to do BOTH. Mx

        Go Metiria!

        • Rich 41.1.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 8:20 pm

          Yes well that 30 years includes two Labour Governments.

          So not ruled out then.

          • outofbed 41.1.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

            Let’s be clear: A vote for the Greens is a vote to change the Government. Our intention is to work with Labour to form a new government.
            https://twitter.com/NZGreens/status/509961826126159873
            so yes ruled out

            • weka 41.1.2.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 8:31 pm

              +1

              Watch NZ struggle with the concept of cooperative politics from a party that is clear in its kaupapa.

            • Rich 41.1.2.1.1.2
              11 September 2014 at 8:33 pm

              It’s in the words, outofobed, change of government can mean the current party with a green side.

              The words are meant to placate one side while not ruling out the other.

              There is no “we will never work with the National Party” or “we will never work with John Key’. The second may be the condition though.

              • BM …
                11 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

                This.

                Greens are going blue.

                • weka …
                  11 September 2014 at 8:37 pm

                  Stop telling lies BM and then fuck off with the troling.

                • Rich …
                  11 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

                  I don’t think they’re going blue, maybe they’re just trying to claw that 2% away….

                  • weka …
                    11 September 2014 at 8:42 pm

                    Rich, BM is well aware of that. He’s troling.

                    • BM …
                      11 September 2014 at 8:48 pm

                      No I’m not.

                      I’ve said it before the Greens should be able to go into coalition with either National or Labour, it shouldn’t matter.

                      It’s taken a while and the penny has finally dropped, watch the Greens ditch the poverty/social justice bollocks and go main stream.

                    • mickysavage …
                      11 September 2014 at 8:52 pm

                      BM it would be the death of the Greens if they went into Government with National. Especially now. It is not going to happen.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 8:53 pm

                      You have absolutely no evidence for that BM. So out of the choice that you are deluded or being a trole, I’ll go with being a trole. I know you want it to be true that the GP are going blue, but that’s not the same as them actually doing it, is it? Really you are just making shit up. And you know it.

                    • BM …
                      11 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

                      Why not, if the Greens stuck to their core business of being an environmental party they would be able to work with anyone.

                      It’s this social justice nonsense that’s holding them back, they need to pass that baton back to Labour or hand it on to Mana.

                      Honestly the greens should be gagging at the opportunity to go into government with National, think of all the environmental good they can do working directly with big business and the rural sector.

                      An opportunity going begging.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:04 pm

                      lolz, ok so you admit it’s not what the GP is doing, but what you want them to do.

                      If they did as you suggest, their membership would leave en masse. I doubt they would survive as a party.

                      Plus, the increase in their party vote has coincided with their increased focus on social justice issues.

                      Honestly the greens should be gagging at the opportunity to go into government with National, think of all the environmental good they can do working directly with big business and the rural sector.

                      You haven’t actually read much GP policy, have you. The policies aren’t stand alone, they interconnect and are dependent on each other. Working with National would hobble them. They do much better at achieving their aims in opposition.

                      Get this, (from NRT) – the GP don’t want power, they want change. Once you understand that, their actions start to make way more sense.

                    • BM …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:10 pm

                      You haven’t actually read much GP policy, have you. The policies aren’t stand alone, they interconnect and are dependent on each other.

                      So the greens need to become the largest party so they have the power to implement all their policies at once because none of their policies and ideas will work in isolation.

                      Bit of a flaw in the planning don’t you think.

                    • weka …
                      11 September 2014 at 9:14 pm

                      comprehension fail. They want change not power. Have you not seen what’s happened to the mainstream understanding of the environment in the past 20 years? The GP has had a major role in that. Including things like Labour adopting more green and social policies. And as the general population changes the other parties do too. The GP has been at the forefront of shifting culture in this country around the environment. I hope they are going to be as successful with social policy.

                • greywarbler …
                  12 September 2014 at 10:56 am

                  BM 8.35
                  Why don’t you hold your breath until you turn blue. You’re a waste of space.

              • weka …
                11 September 2014 at 8:36 pm

                “It’s in the words, outofobed, change of government can mean the current party with a green side.”

                oh ffs.

                These words?

                Let’s be clear: A vote for the Greens is a vote to change the Government. Our intention is to work with Labour to form a new government.

                That’s from the GP twitter account.

                What Dann actually said in the TV1 piece was that the GP was looking at distancing themselves form Labour as a strategy for increasing its vote. Nothing to do with National. I have no idea whether its true (will wait to hear/see what the GP do), but it makes sense, if their polling is showing their vote increasing by moving away from Labour. That doesn’t mean they won’t form govt with them, it means that they want 15% of the vote at Labour’s expense.

                Or Dann could just be making it all up.

              • karol …
                11 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

                Metiria tweeted that they would not support a Nat government.

                @felicitypaige24 @annetterongotai @publicaddress @ONENewsNZ They say what they like and they do. We say No to supporting Nats to govern.

          • weka 41.1.2.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 8:28 pm

            What’s not ruled out?

            • Rich 41.1.2.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 8:30 pm

              I put it down to dirty politics initially but after reading that twit I can see that the bet is being hedged.

    • Paul 41.2
      11 September 2014 at 8:11 pm

      More corrupt media spreading dirty filthy politics.
      A long list now…
      Sabin
      O’Sullivan
      Savage
      Murphy
      Roughan
      Henry
      Dann
      Christie
      Hosking
      Garner
      Williams
      Smith
      Plunket

      The enablers of Dirty Politics.

      • Colonial Viper 41.2.1
        11 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

        GOWER

      • Puddleglum 41.2.2
        11 September 2014 at 10:01 pm

        Watkins
        Young
        Vance
        Armstrong
        Trevett
        …??

        • Anne 41.2.2.1
          11 September 2014 at 10:14 pm

          Ralston
          Wilson (wife of above)
          McIvor nee Woodham
          Wishart
          Espinor

          • Puddleglum 41.2.2.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 10:25 pm

            I think the list goes on and on.

            Journalists, perhaps pressed for time for actually thinking clearly, simply align with the dominant narrative – or, as someone else said, ‘repeaters and churnalists’.

            It’s no accident that real journalists who read and report beyond the narrative (e.g., Gordon Campbell, Jon Stephenson) do so from the margins and beyond. There’s no place for them in the shallow, unreflective fantasy world of mainstream ‘journalism’ and ‘analysis’.

          • North 41.2.2.1.2
            12 September 2014 at 7:09 am

            Janet Wilson (wife of Ralston) is/was Key’s media trainer either employed by or contracted to Key/National. The voice of the unseen ‘interviewer’ in one of Key’s mock-up interviews screened as part of National’s current election campaign advertising is that of Janet Wilson I believe.

            All fine, their right and all that, but never a declaration of interest on the many occasions when Ralston particularly but also Wilson have given media ‘commentary’.

            The fence of their home in Central Auckland is/was decorated with Key/Nikki Kaye/National billboards. Again, all fine etc etc, but…..

  42. Harry Holland 42
    11 September 2014 at 8:13 pm

    If some on the right foolishly think it’s now safe for them to vote Green then that’s all good : )
    If a few on the left run to Labour or IMP in reaction then their votes still help to change the govt so that’s all good as well : )
    So my advice is…
    Relax.
    All is well.

    • outofbed 42.1
      11 September 2014 at 8:26 pm

      That is how i see it

    • miravox 42.2
      11 September 2014 at 8:29 pm

      “If some on the right foolishly think it’s now safe for them to vote Green then that’s all good”

      I agree Harry. Most Nats I know who are thinking of change are concerned about the natural environment, have talked about voting Green and will never vote Labour. This rumour has made it safer for them to vote Green.

      If however, there is any truth to the rumour that’s the end of the Greens because the Nats who change are doing so as a protest vote. The Greens core support is on the left.

    • Te Reo Putake 42.3
      11 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

      Spot on, HH. Two polls out today, neither of them comfortable reading for Key and chums.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11322849

      http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/index.php/polls-and-surveys/political-polls/one-news-colmar-brunton-poll

      The Nats are way down on where they were this time last election. The TVNZ poll is particularly bad; ten days out from the last election Colmar Brunton had it National 51, Labour 26, gifting 4% to the Tories and lopping a point or two off Labour. Actual result: N47%, L27%. The gap was 5% closer than predicted.

      Today’s poll has National 46, Labour 25. Greens 14, NZF 7. That’s a tie, minors excluded. Anything less, and it’s curtains for Dunnokeyo. So given TVNZ Colmar Brunton regularly over-estimate Tory support, I’m saying it’s looking odds on that a change is a comin’.

      • McFlock 42.3.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:08 pm

        I think it looks promising, but the nats lost a shitload in a week last time.
        If it’s just because people start thinking about their response rather than just say nat to finish the interview, cool.

        But if it was just the cup of tea recording scandal, and kdc’s thing fizzes on monday, what we see now might be close to what we get.

        Down to the wire – every vote counts.

    • Puddleglum 42.4
      11 September 2014 at 8:59 pm

      Or some Labour voters decide to stay home because Labour can’t form a government without the Greens and so there’s no point voting – that could be the message they get from TVNZ’s reporting.

      • Olwyn 42.4.1
        11 September 2014 at 10:50 pm

        I don’t think that this strategy will succeed, if it is their strategy. The people on the receiving end are not as passive as they were last election. What is disappointing is that these people are still trying to undermine our democracy. The fact that we know but can do nothing about it appears to inspire them to even greater licence.

        One thing the Greens will need to guard against in the future, with their democratic structure, is getting flooded with fake Greens with the intention of undermining their commitment to social justice, as happened to Labour in the 80’s. But right now it is just ridiculous to claim that the Greens might give C & S to National – their social policy, on the whole, is well to the left of Labour’s and a far cry from National’s.

        • Puddleglum 42.4.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 11:04 pm

          I actually don’t think it would succeed either. Those currently sticking with Labour are unlikely to ‘desert’ over this story.

          But, like you say, it’s clearly an attempt to destabilise opposition parties (assuming the story is fundamentally incorrect).

          • Clemgeopin 42.4.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 11:19 pm

            The point is that hundreds of thousands have already voted. Had they known this shenanigan was going on, some of them would have voted differently.

            I am not assuming that this story is incorrect. There HAS to have been something going on quietly and got leaked. Call me a skeptic in such matters. Dann would not risk his standing and reputation on completely fabricated lies. Unlikely.

            • McFlock 42.4.1.1.1.1
              11 September 2014 at 11:32 pm

              Well, what’s more likely:
              the greens shafting any future prospect of electoral significance by following in the Maori Party’s footsteps, or a political reporter spinning an occasional story to make sure he’s still in with a chance of being press secretary or corporate spin doctor after the tv gig dries up?

          • Olwyn 42.4.1.1.2
            11 September 2014 at 11:19 pm

            Well the Greens themselves to not agree, and as I read it, Dann derived his story from the Green’s past openness to MOU’s with National and the fact that they were having a strategy meeting tonight.

            • Puddleglum 42.4.1.1.2.1
              11 September 2014 at 11:26 pm

              I agree.

              Given the Greens past MOU it’s an easy ‘story’ to generate by asking if they would do so again and then cut and paste the interview with comment about a ‘strategy meeting’ and, hey presto, ‘radical change’ one week out from an election becomes news.

              ‘Fomenting happy mischief …’

              Cheap, easy, irresistible.

              What do they teach them in journalism school? (allusion to well known quote from Narnia Chronicles for those who mistake it for a serious question).

        • Chooky 42.4.1.2
          11 September 2014 at 11:07 pm

          +100…the Greens policy is about as far away from Nactional as you could get…barring Internet MANA

  44. Molly 44
    11 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

    Vimeo has a documentary about Scottish Independence. Scotland Yet

    Have only skimmed through, but some really interesting pieces about the growth of grassroots activism, and the emergence of a voracious appetite for politics by the general populace.

  45. outofbed 45
    11 September 2014 at 8:43 pm

    #DirtyPolitics now has chapters available free online! To read about Simon Lusk & Jason Ede, head to http://dirtypoliticsnz.com for the flipbook

  46. weka 46
    11 September 2014 at 8:51 pm

    So, now that that’s out of the way, what about the fact that Corin Dann can ‘report’ something with absolutely no information about where the thing being reported came from. Why should we trust the MSM anymore, especially given that only a few of them have shown any remorse for their involvement in Slatergate or any willingness to change?

    Maybe the question to Dann isn’t “is that true?”, but “what makes you think that is true?”. They don’t have to give up sources, but they do now have to earn the trust of the public again by being more open and transparent about how they build their stories.

    • Paul 46.1
      11 September 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Maybe an allied and unified approach by Internet Mana, Labour and the Greens to confront and challenge the news narrative being generated by the corporate media.
      Some one liners on Live TV.
      “Who was your source for that smear? Cameron Slater?”

      • weka 46.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:17 pm

        I’ve been watching the developments on twitter. Because the MSM use twitter quite a bit to release news and promo broadcast/publication, they’re exposed to what others think. And people are stepping up and asking the hard questions in the last week. Looks like there is potential there (but then I am new to twitter)

        • Paul 46.1.1.1
          11 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

          How can pressure be applied to these rogue organisations?

          • weka 46.1.1.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 9:26 pm

            Re twitter, what it looks like to me is that the journos aren’t used to being questioned like this, in this context (Slatergate). The more this happens in public the more they will have to think about what they are doing.

            Beyond twitter, making complaints to the BSA and the Press Council would be good imo, esp if it was done in a sustained manner.

            Talk to people about what the issues are, get people used to the idea the MSM has inherent bias and the bias needs to be made visible.

            A left wing govt would help enormously (esp if it acts on public broadcasting), but I don’t think we can just leave it up to them.

            • Colonial Viper 46.1.1.1.1.1
              12 September 2014 at 12:56 am

              When the corporate media can exert more pressure on a Left Government than the people can, the results will predictably be shite.

  47. Molly 47
    11 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

    No longer surprised, but dismayed at the rise in even dodgy polls for the Conservatives – and their commitment to citizens referendums – regardless of directive wording.

    And given that children are intrinsically more vulnerable in our society, I played around with the particular referendum wording that Colin Craig loves so much, to see if the confusion translates to other members of our society.

    Original: Children
    “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    Alternate: Spouses
    Should a smack as part of good marital relations be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    Alternate: Businessmen
    Should a smack as part of good business negotiations be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    Alternate: Television Guests
    Should a smack as part of good television interviewing technique be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    Alternate: Politicians
    Should a smack as part of good parliamentary debate be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    Alternate: Every slap-happy NZer
    Should a smack as part of good overall goodness be a criminal offence in New Zealand?

    A bit pointless I know… but it is late in the evening, the thought of Christine Rankin in parliament will give me nightmares, and it’s personal therapy to put it in writing.

  48. logie97 48
    11 September 2014 at 9:01 pm

    Can someone clarify please?

    Why is John Key stating the nation’s new stance on aspects of foreign policy, (supporting Obama’s latest initiative).
    Hasn’t the governor general dissolved parliament awaiting the outcome of the General Election. Haven’t most of John Key’s roles been somewhat changed.

    • mickysavage 48.1
      11 September 2014 at 9:21 pm

      Good point logie97. You are absolutely right. It appears that Key does not have time for these details …

      • greywarbler 48.1.1
        11 September 2014 at 9:54 pm

        I notice that the Queen is following protocol in not making public statements about Scotland’s situation as it goes towards the polls for independence. Yet we with our democracy and elected leader supposed to be accountable to us…hahahaha…
        is happily making his decisions and committing us to his preferences as if he was a sovereign or dictator.

        Just a concerned, anxious comment. If I am right, not good situation for us, if I am wrong, well what a silly I am to worry.

  49. Halcyon 49
    11 September 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Is there any truth in the news item that the Green Party is positioning itself so if a Labour /Green coalition does not get enough votes they can go with National. Is it because they no longer have confidence in Labour gaining enough votes to form a government. They have talked about a Labour /Green government long before the elections were called. So why the change of direction now?

    • weka 49.1
      11 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

      There is no truth to that. It’s shit that TVNZ made up. Big conversation about it upthread, including direct statements from the Greens.

    • Chooky 49.2
      12 September 2014 at 12:00 am

      @ Halcyon …the television journalists were being naughty again and spinning untruths …(when will they ever learn?)

      The real truth is that the more ethical Nats are now seeing how corrupt John Key’s Nactional really is with its “dirty politics”…and they cant bring themselves to vote for it anymore …it makes them feel dirty…so they are jumping ship

      ….and they are casting around for an alternative
      …which is clean, Green and fresh and sweet smelling (like Ferdinand did just sitting and sniffing the flowers…)
      ….and doesnt tell lies like politicians and television journalists with brown noses and fake smiles and forked tongues
      …and doesnt stench like rotten Blubber Whale Oil PR

      ….These new voters want to be cleansed of their past sins ….and voting GREEN makes them feel baptised in the HOLY WATERS of GAIA ( Papatuanuku)….and cleansed of Nactional sins and pollution…so they are deserting Nactional in droves and voting GREEN

      ….by VOTING GREEN you too can feel like a new GREENIE person …with a real future WITHOUT Nactional…this IS the TRUTH!…

      (but guess who are panicking and telling cunning porkies? …and where is Jason?)

    • KJT 49.3
      12 September 2014 at 10:48 am

      It won’t happen, The party as a whole has already decided there is no way Greens can go into confidence and supply or coalition with National. Unlike Labour and National, green MP’s cannot make that sort of decision against the democratic wishes of the members.