Open mike 11/10/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:15 am, October 11th, 2014 - 243 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 …

243 comments on “Open mike 11/10/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    11 October 2014 at 7:23 am

    John Roughan, fan boy for John Key, tells the media they ” can be too precious about its rights.”

    Unbelievable. He is a total disgrace to the tradition of a free press.
    Just the corporate’s lackey.
    Sounds like he’s annoyed Hager spoke to the Guardian.

    “It worries me that Hager would write this stuff for an overseas audience, not on account of New Zealand’s reputation – that’s not a journalist’s concern – but from the effect on his readers, which is a journalist’s only concern.”
    You mean someone might spill the beans to the world that Planet Key isn’t perfect. Heaven forbid.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11340635
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped-john-key-win-another-term

    • greywarshark 1.1
      11 October 2014 at 10:05 am

      @ Paul
      John Rough-and? could be very wise Paul. When he says he is worried at “the effect on his readers, which is a journalist’s only concern.” he may be coming from a position supportive of Labour. How?

      Well he might know his readers tiny minds very well and have realised how scrambled their ideas would be by these revelations. And that they would stay glued limpet-like or rush back to the safety of National, avoiding Labour like a plague because it was causing them angst and stress. He knew they would never want to take in the whole mess and be forced to examine the very basis of their beliefs in society. They felt unsafe, National was saying it would keep them safe. QED they would vote for National and eschew Labour! And that worried him, how kind. This man is machiavellian.in his understandings.

      ‘You mean someone might spill the beans to the world that Planet Key isn’t perfect. Heaven forbid.’ It’s not the world that mightily concerned him, it was us voter-sheeple massed in a flock facing the all-seeing-eye dogs, all clustered on the pimple on the bottom of the world, that he was psychoanalysing.

      • Paul 1.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:07 am

        Don’t think Roughan is actually that clever.

        • ianmac 1.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 10:11 am

          I wrote a comment for John suggesting that his rant might have been lifted from the works of Frank of Fiji fame. Everything is good here. Nothing to worry your pretty little heads about.

          • Paul 1.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 10:13 am

            Whereas many of the Guardians readers will have heard of Greenwald and a few will be aware of Hager, I am sure none will have heard of that fearless journalist John Roughan!

  2. phillip ure 2
    11 October 2014 at 7:24 am

    green mayor of wellington (finally!) makes good on her first election campaign pledge to ‘help the homeless’ of wellington..

    ed:..wade-brown slept in a sleeping bag..in a cardboard box for the night..

    ..oh! the humanity..!

    ..she is such an inspiration..

    ..and we are told the homeless of wellington wept with gratitude when they heard of this sacrifice/effort made by their ‘caring’ mayor..their ‘leader’..

    ..cont..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/green-mayor-of-wellington-finally-makes-good-on-her-first-election-campaign-pledge-to-help-the-homeless-of-wellington/

    • The Al1en 2.1
      11 October 2014 at 8:48 am

      Aside from paying lip service to the homeless as a reason to bash the greens, again, tell me what do you do, specifically, to assist street sleepers and squash poverty?

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 9:04 am

        i’m not the fucken mayor..with the power to ‘do something’..

        (..and especially having promised to ‘do something’..)

        ..you mindless/simplistic fool…

        ..and the labour mayor of auckland..len brown..he also made those promises when first campaigning for the job..

        ..since then..?

        ..yeah..nah..eh..?

        ..and it’s a rare day i agree with tau henare about anything..

        ..but on the panel on nat-rad he let rip at the pile of stinking bullshit that it is when pollies/luvvies ‘sleep rough’ for a nite..

        ..and in the process pretend to themselves they are ‘doing something’ for the homeless…

        ..and in the case of people like wade-brown/brown..who actually have in their hands the power to ‘do something’..

        ..and this is all that they do..?

        ..that is pretty puke-inducing..

        ..and a benchmark in mealy-mouthed hypocrisy..

        ..(and no..i am not commencing a dialogue with you..)

        • The Al1en 2.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 9:20 am

          “i’m not the fucken mayor..with the power to ‘do something’..(..and especially having promised to ‘do something’..)”

          You could donate to charity, hand out food and warm drinks or give a blanket or clothing. There’s always something can be done by the people, but all you have is the usual puism. Id the issue, slag those in the firing line, yet do nothing to help those in need.

          “..you mindless/simplistic fool…”

          And yet I’ve shown three ways, in the absence of government will, that you didn’t think of to help the homeless, so simplistic maybe, but mindless is way off… Quelle surprise.

          “..(and no..i am not commencing a dialogue with you..)”

          You’re funny in a ha ha way sometimes. Not your jokes or caption contest entries, they’re as flat as roadkill, but gems like these crack me up.
          Of course you are. All I do is hit the nail on the head and you can’t help yourself.
          Chat later. lulz
          TA.

    • The Lone Haranguer 2.2
      11 October 2014 at 9:00 am

      Well put Phillip.

      One “cause celebre overnighter” with a top quality sleeping bag and a fresh clean cardbard box roughing it for one night is doing nothing for the homeless:

      – unless she invited a bunch of her new cardboard box friends to shift into the spare room at her place for a few months
      – unless she was being sponsored (ala World Vision 40 hour Famine) to get money to support a shelter
      – unless she was announcing more $$$ for the City Mission to help meet the needs of the homeless

      Its all about as dopey as Al Gore flying around the world in his private jet to tell folk bout the dangers of global warming

      • phillip ure 2.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 9:18 am

        and..”..Its all about as dopey as..’..self-referring ‘greens’ who eat animals..?

        ..i went to the green party campaign launch in ak..

        ..and there was one (for me) sobering-moment..

        ..i was looking down the line of green mp’s all sitting in a row…

        ..and they were all wearings the skins of dead animals…

        ..y’know..!…these are the ‘green’/aware members of the parliamentary circus…

        • Bill 2.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 9:27 am

          Would you rather they had been eaten alive?

        • The Al1en 2.2.1.2
          11 October 2014 at 9:29 am

          “and..”..Its all about as dopey as..’..self-referring ‘greens’ who eat animals..?”

          Why is green voters eating meat dopey?
          And self referring? What’s that all about?

          “..and they were all wearings the skins of dead animals…”
          “…these are the ‘green’/aware members of the parliamentary circus…”

          And why is it wrong for green mps to wear leather shoes and sheepskin coats?
          Having green values isn’t determined by what you eat or wear on your feet. It’s way more advanced than veganism.

          I’m picking your societal quirks determine your position and foster the obvious hatred for the greens.
          So settle petal, it’s your problem, not theirs.

        • The Lone Haranguer 2.2.1.3
          11 October 2014 at 9:31 am

          I dont think the Green manifesto is a vegan one Phillip.

          Heck if it was, then they would struggle to get to 5% of the vote. Theres many meat eating, milk drinking folk out there who support the Greens sustainability goals but dont plan to give up on their leather shoes anytime soon.

          But they might take the bus to the rugby if theres no easy car parking close to the stadium. 🙂

          I guess they are “Greens of Convenience”

          • phillip ure 2.2.1.3.1
            11 October 2014 at 9:50 am

            “..Theres many meat eating, milk drinking folk out there who support the Greens sustainability goals but dont plan to give up on their leather shoes anytime soon…”

            ..the wade-brown syndrome writ large..?

            ..a solar-panel and a prius ‘ll do ya..eh..?

            ..no need for anything else..

            ..the planet may be frying ‘cos of animal-farming..

            ..but fuck it..!

            ..let’s eat an animal now..!

            .and do you like my new boots/jacket..?

            and ‘greens of convenience’..?

            ..i think more careerist/opportunism..

            ..pretty base reasons to be there..really..

            • The Lone Haranguer 2.2.1.3.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 10:21 am

              Haha, good reply Phillip, but it wont win any debates.

              You should differentiate between the “ordinary folk” who recognise that being less wasteful than we were is a good thing (thats the vast majority of people) and those minority few who hold to a higher ideal so go vegan and I guess must wear hemp everythings. And moan about those who dont follow their philosophies

              Somewhere in the middle is the Green Party.

              Now the Vegans cant change society beyond one person at a time, but a green movement can change a country, altho in smaller steps than the vegans would like.

              For the record, we only have 4 V8 cars now (and a couple of 4 cylinder cars too) , but we did install a solar heater on the last home we owned.

              so its a big yes to solar power, and a big no to the Prius 🙂

        • The Lone Haranguer 2.2.1.4
          11 October 2014 at 10:01 am

          I think it was a good thing that they covered their bodies for the occasion Phillip. 🙂

    • Not so windy 2.3
      11 October 2014 at 9:08 am

      Thanks for calling out Wade-Brown on her shallow self-publicity gig. One fabulously calm Wellington night with a full belly, luxury sleeping bag and, no doubt, loads of security thrown in is nothing but a joke.

      As for ‘green Mayor’ label – the only thing that is green about Wade-Brown are the people who think she is. In reality, Wellington’s Mayor, like most of the Council, is bought and sold by the business chamber of commerce and a cartel of property developers.

    • greywarshark 2.4
      11 October 2014 at 10:13 am

      phillip ure
      Hey not so much of the sneer. It is a good and unusual example of dramatising by a leader of the too-often ignored problems out there. If you think she could have done better, could you demonstrate how to her, with your own public protest? Possibly you have a disablement. If you can’t act out, act in and write now to the paper, thank her, and then tell about the difficulties you or your group experience and include a tip how people can do to improve and help you.

      • phillip ure 2.4.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:50 am

        i ‘sneer’ at politicians who make promises to help the poorest..

        while campaigning..

        ..and then when elected..do nothing…

        ..in fact i’d do more than ‘sneer’..

        ..i’d curse the fuckers…

        • greywarshark 2.4.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 11:40 am

          But is she doing nothing if she is sleeping out?? She has to go up against a good number at Council and in the public who would like to sweep the homeless under a carpet, and then they wouldn’t even provide a carpet. It’s getting enough of backing. making a case that the public will back so you can put pressure on, it’s all ‘political’. Which is a word that key hates, which I think means something that isn’t directly beneficiial to people who are comfortable. Why should they be made even slightly uncomfortable for the benefit of people who they consider subordinate to ‘their’, entitled, life.

          This economist Amartya Sen is a Nobel Prize winner – special one for economists.
          http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/sound-and-vision/amartya-sen-poverty-and-the-tolerance-of-the-intolerable
          20/1/2014
          Sen took as his title “Poverty and the Tolerance of the Intolerable”. No country in the world, he declared, is “free from poverty”, though in India, the country of his birth, where there is a “massive disparity between the privileged and the rest”, extreme deprivation is particularly deeply entrenched. India, he said, is an example of a country with a large middle class which is able to tolerate, with something approaching equanimity, the serious poverty in its midst.

          (Although the situation in India is extreme—Sen referred to the “special nature of the neglect of its poor” —there is no reason for those of us elsewhere in the world, especially the developed world, to be complacent. “Blaming the victims” of poverty, he observed, is as common today as it was in the era of the Poor Law.)

  3. Paul 3
    11 October 2014 at 7:24 am

    How many times has the Herald told Cunliffe to resign?
    Add one more time.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11340638

  4. Richard RAWSHARK 4
    11 October 2014 at 7:32 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11340711

    Read that instead. It will counteract the feeling the DC resign article will give you.

    then actually read this.. from Armstrong ignore his usual starting gloats go lower the later half is an attack on National coming from him.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11340687

    • karol 4.1
      11 October 2014 at 8:48 am

      Interesting how focused some MSM journos become when they are negatively implicated.

      Also very good to see them following up on the Collins-related accusations.

      And Jason Ede, and John Key’s involvement in the Lusk-Slater smear machine?

    • Bill 4.2
      11 October 2014 at 9:44 am

      Something is starting to bug me about an aspect of this (and the last) election analysis.

      Hager (in the Guardian link from Roughams article) repeats the received truth that those who don’t vote tend to natural left voters and that leaves an accentuated vote for the right.

      Here’s my problem.

      In elections where turnout is as low as 50%, left parties are winning absolute majorities under a proportional representation system embedded within an overarching neo-classical/liberal environment. (Scotland)

      So, the problem cannot be as simple as stated. I’m not contesting that more people in working class areas (left voters) tend to stay at home. But the conclusion – that that necessarily (inevitably?) favours the right – simply isn’t true.

      • wekarawshark 4.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:07 am

        It might be true in NZ though. Because something happens in another country doesn’t mean it’s the equvialent here. There are things about the Scottish situation that have no parallel here (eg the Union and Scottish antipathy for the English). I’m assuming that during the neoliberal revolution in the UK, while Scotland was hit very hard, it didn’t have the same degree of culture shift that NZ had (Scotland had an obvious external enemy whereas NZ took a decade to realise that the enemy was within and then where could we go with that?).

        At a guess, have NZ political parties done analysis on polling booths and socio economic status and voting patterns? That would tell something. That National previously liked low voter turnout means something too (although I have a feeling that this election one of the reason for increased turnout was National getting right wingers out to vote, which is part of why this election has been confusing).

        • Bill 4.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 10:21 am

          Yeah, well, there is no hatred of ‘the English’. So let’s get that out of the way first.

          Then there is the fact that I drew attention to similarities, which is somewhat different to claiming things are identical.

          Also, I don’t quite buy your ‘external/internal’ enemy framing. Scotland voted for Tony Blair’s Labour Party in British elections.

          But in 2011(?) they gave the ‘lefter than Labour’ SNP a majority in the Hollyrood elections on a turnout of approx 50%. The unchallenged contention…it’s almost an article of faith… that the level of the non-vote leads to an increased proportion of votes falling to the right (in the US, in NZ and by logical extension ‘everywhere’if proponents of that view are to be believed) dictates that the Scottish Labour Party should have done well in that election. It didn’t.

          • Paul 4.2.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 10:24 am

            Yes and Blair’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 turned many Labour voters towards supporting the SNP and for independence.
            Thatcher broke the Tories vote in Scotland and Blair severely damaged Labour’s hold on working class Scots.

          • wekarawshark 4.2.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 10:33 am

            I didn’t use the word hatred, nor the word identical. Perhaps you could reread my comment with that in mind and look for the intent rather than focussing on semantics.

            edit: your original comment appeared to be saying that because these things are true in Scotland they might be true in NZ. I pointed out that that didn’t follow, and that some pretty significant differences might be the reason.

            • Bill 4.2.1.1.2.1
              11 October 2014 at 11:46 am

              Weka, all I did was point to a rather obvious counter example that evidently contradicts the current ‘received wisdom’ on the matter.

              Whether you prefer to defend current notions, and so accept the obvious flow on effect (ie, the nonsense that suggests either a party must win the center vote by tacking to the right [think: Shearer et al] or get the non-vote out by tacking to the left [think: many of the arguments posited on ‘ts’]) is entirely up to you.

              Meanwhile, the results of Scottish elections absolutely demonstrate that tacking left, even within a broader, right leaning, neo-liberal environment does not necessarily mean losing votes to the right from those who are already intending to vote.

              Further, it’s an illustrative example of a low voter turnout not having a deleterious effect on the left.

              • wekarawshark …
                11 October 2014 at 1:37 pm

                I’m not defending current notions (I have my own critiques of them), I’m challenging your basic premise that the situation in Scotland is pertinent to the situation in NZ. I get the case you are making, but unless you are willing to look at the substantive differences and how they might affect voter turnout and voter preference I can’t see where the discussion can go.

                Please stop misinterpreting my comments and ascribing flow on arguments to them that are of your own thinking not mine.

                • Bill …
                  11 October 2014 at 2:05 pm

                  If someone believes that low voter turnout favours the right, and if someone believes that to be true in any and all neo-liberal environments (and there are many people on the left currently ascribing to that view), then it follows that there will be competing views on the left as to whether the center or the non-voter should be chased, with the repercussions vis a vis policy that is inherent to both camps of thought.

                  On the other hand, if there is an example that could quite reasonably be held to contradict that either/or scenario… and oh fuck!…there is!

                  If it’s unreasonable to hold it up as an example, then those who think that are free to run through some convincing reasons as to why it should be seen as so unreasonable, by offering substantive examples of dynamics with effects that could be reasonably seen as greater than that of the prevailing ‘truth’ with regards voters/turnout and right wing advantage.

                  In the absence of any such convincing critique, the Shearers of the world – those who claim modern politics is necessarily all about contesting the center, and therefore about moderate ‘middle of the road’ policies – can be said to be havering on the basis that they’re ignoring really existing examples to the contrary.

          • Keir 4.2.1.1.3
            11 October 2014 at 11:38 am

            The assumption that the SNP is (a) lefter then Labour and (b) drawing it’s voting support from the left of Labour is not supported by the evidence.

            • Bill 4.2.1.1.3.1
              11 October 2014 at 11:54 am

              Show me the right wing social agenda of the SNP by way of a list of their social policies that demonstrate they are to the right of Labour. Then explain to me how their progressive tax on house sales is right wing; how their blocking of the bedroom tax is right wing; how their historical front footing over the poll tax is right wing; how their opposition to bombing isis is right wing…

              Finally, understand that they are not drawing support ‘from the left of’ Labour, but that they are cleaning up Labour’s hitherto solid voting base.

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                11 October 2014 at 3:15 pm

                One of the first thing Salmond wanted to do after independence was cut corporation tax.

                The fact of the matter is that the SNP, while considerably more left-wing than they used to be, still has a Tartan Tory element to the party. And, in many ways, Salmond was from that Tartan Tory faction. He buddy up with Rupert Murdoch (and apparently Putin did much to restore Russian pride and you’ve got to admire that). He remarked once that Thatcher’s economic policies were okay for Scotland. He considered a welfare benefit cap might be a good idea. Salmond is definitely of the right of the SNP, with a lingering remain of that Tartan Toryness.

                The SNP looks far more attractive as a left-wing party with Nicola in charge.

                So, I’d be careful with what analogies you draw from the SNP. Because they won their majority with the leadership in the hand of the more centrist faction (Salmond), which would seem to suggest you would advise Labour to go with Shearer or Parker?

                Which I don’t think is what you meant at all.

                • Bill …
                  11 October 2014 at 4:49 pm

                  Well, at least you know or suspect that your conclusion is wrong. So is your reasoning.

                  Yes, the SNP threatened to cut corporation tax post independence – seen as a right wing policy that encourages a race to the bottom as states get pitted against one another to attract business HQ etc.

                  I guess – and I’m only guessing – that the SNP reckoned they had that balanced with other monies, so that social services wouldn’t suffer, and that they were punting that the overall $ (sic) amount from having more corporate HQs paying less tax would leave the public coffers healthier than if they kept their tax rate on a par with, or above that of England and Wales….as well as leading to greater immigration and so, economic growth…that in itself delivers a higher $ (sic) tax take. Or maybe they should have left their tax rate above that of England and Wales where it’s slated to drop to 20% from 2015?

                  Anyway…they commit to keeping the NHS in Scotland fully public and free. They commit to retaining free tertiary education. They commit to the retention of state provided old age care. They introduce progressive house taxation. They wanted to introduce a future fund from oil revenue. They aim to cut carbon emissions by 42% by 2020. They want rid of nuclear power and nuclear weapons…and so on and so on.

                  And all that when the leader is, in your opinion, a Tartan Tory who may have made some lamentable comments and indulged in some dodgy dealings. You imagine, then, what’s in store with Nicola Sturgeon as leader if your interpretation is correct?

              • Keir …
                11 October 2014 at 4:42 pm

                They didn’t show up at Westminster for key votes on the bedroom tax! & their economic policy in the case of independence was basically a cross between Ireland’s low tax “Celtic Tiger” (before that went south) and the Nordic resource extraction economies – it wasn’t very “left wing”.

                I’m not arguing the SNP are right wing exactly, I’m saying that if you think they are the “left” in Scotland you are very much oversimplifying.

                And it’s not the case that the SNP is “cleaning up” Labour’s base. SNP does well for Holyrood, Labour for Westminister. Scottish voters are reasonably sophisticated and many seem to vote differently between Westminster & Holyrood.

                • Bill …
                  11 October 2014 at 5:02 pm

                  I think the SNP are a component of the left in Scotland. And evidence suggests they are to the left of the Scottish and British Labour Parties.

                  I dunno about turning up to vote on the bedroom tax, or even if there would have been a point. But there was a point in annulling its impact, which is what they did. Andrew George’s Affordable Homes Bill made it through a second reading vote by 306 to 231, a majority of 75. And 4 of the 6 SNP members did not turn up to vote.

                  And it’s perfectly understandable that the same person who votes Labour in Westminster elections, votes SNP in Hollyrood elections…Scotland exerts about a 1/10th of the raw voting impact of England and Wales in UK wide elections and there is no way the SNP are taking votes from Labour in England and Wales.

                  But the more left parties in Scotland (greens, scottish socialist party, snp) are experiencing skyrocketing membership numbers while Labour’s membership is (by Labour’s own admission) stagnant. To put into perspective, the SNP (from a population base of about 5 million) is now the third largest party in UK terms (population base of some 55 or 60 million).

    • ianmac 4.3
      11 October 2014 at 10:30 am

      Richard, Pretty Wow from Fran.“The issue is too big to be swept under the carpet by mere politics and a focus on chasing whistleblowers instead of the real issues.”
      And so say all of us!

      • ianmac 4.3.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:39 am

        And Richard, Mr Armstrong seems to have developed a post election dose of reality. Funny that?

    • Draco T Bastard 4.4
      11 October 2014 at 1:11 pm

      Wow, the first part of Armstrong’s article is nothing less than an outright ode to how great National and King Key are.

      Key’s prime ministership has been bedevilled by the ongoing embarrassment flowing from the GCSB.

      No, it has been embarrassed at getting caught lying to NZ about how far it’s going with it’s spying on NZers.

      By announcing the new structure now, Key may also have headed off any criticism or recommendations made by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, once she has completed the inquiry into whether information was released by the SIS for political purposes.

      So Armstrong is suggesting (hoping?) that Key will get away with being held accountable – again.

      If it really wants to be viewed as a broad-based party then it is going to have to take positions which are in line with National’s thinking.

      No they don’t. They really don’t have to be National Lite. In fact, I’d say that their being National Lite is what’s losing them the votes.

      Key may be making a personal commitment to tackling child poverty. But National is starting a long way from behind.

      A special ministerial committee on poverty toiled away to minimal effect during the last term.

      But then it was an initiative of the Maori Party. Its contribution to the debate on poverty was to commission reports and papers which largely went unread.

      Translation: Because it was an initiative of the Māori Party it could safely be ignored by National but Key’s now feeling the pressure to do something.

      That is roughly the same as the cost of National’s intended tax cut.

      And about how much National gave to the rich in their last round of tax cuts.

  5. b waghorn 5
    11 October 2014 at 7:55 am

    When is the government going to take the decline of small town and rural nz seriously. We don’t all want to live in a stinking traffic jam of a city. I’d like to know if centralization of population is the goal or if its willful blindness because there’s not many votes outside the cities.

    • Paul 5.1
      11 October 2014 at 7:59 am

      You assume they care.

      • b waghorn 5.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 8:16 am

        I certainly don’t I’m feely sure they don’t. Just pissed that I’ve worked hard gone with out got a free hold house buy 42 and just had 8% wiped off its value at the stroke of QV’s pen

    • BM 5.2
      11 October 2014 at 8:22 am

      What do you expect government to do?

        • BM 5.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:27 am

          Well, you’ve got to do your bit.

          Part of being involved in the international community, ISIS are scum and need to be exterminated,

          • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 8:43 am

            But the US armed and trained many of the people in ISIS.

            They and are probably still providing support to the parts of ISIS attacking and destabilising the Assad government. Further US actions and support for the Shia Baghdad Govt has given Sunni regions north of Baghdad political, social and tribal reasons to support ISIS.

          • minarch 5.2.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 10:51 am

            so we need to exterminate the “muslim scum”

            because they think we are “non muslim scum” that must be exterminated

            and you think thats going to work out well for anybody ?

      • b waghorn 5.2.2
        11 October 2014 at 8:34 am

        I know people who as they get older have moved because the hospital systems have been downgraded in rural towns. More work to encourge business to small town Nz.

        • BM 5.2.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:37 am

          Do people in small towns lack the ability to create work?

          This may come as a shock, but there’s no such thing as the Ministry for Jobs.

          Some public servant isn’t going to suddenly turn up and announce “Hey everybody, here’s a pile of jobs”.

          If people want work, they’re going to have to get off their chuff and find it themselves.

          • b waghorn 5.2.2.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 8:45 am

            Employment creates employment so when government pulls jobs out of a area the Ohura prison being a example and the slow death of rail being another it has a knock on effect in the community.

            • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.2.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 8:49 am

              Basically, but let’s put it more directly than this. Spending into a community creates jobs. The private sector won’t spend into communities. So if the government wants to sort out unemployment in provincial communities, it must spend into them.

              The corollary of this is that BM is lying through his teeth when he says Government cannot turn up and announce a pile of jobs. Government of course can, has and done so very effectively in NZ’s past.

              • BM …
                11 October 2014 at 9:05 am

                Why should government turn up and say here’s a pile of jobs.

                All that means is that the NZ taxpayer has to subsidize whatever small town which was lucky enough to hit the jobs jackpot.

                Facts are most of these small towns only exist because of industry that sprouted up within that area.

                Once the industry goes, the town dies, it’s a phenomenon which happens world wide.

                People have to except that.

                • b waghorn …
                  11 October 2014 at 9:08 am

                  Why do we have to except it pure capitalism do’s not appear to work if we carry on down this track there will be slums in this country in my life time

                  • BM …
                    11 October 2014 at 9:14 am

                    Then you need to get together with the rest of the folk in whatever small town you live in and get busy.
                    Only you and the other town folk can turn your small town around

                    The government will not be riding in on a white horse to save the day.

                    • b waghorn …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:20 am

                      So if government is not here to solve problems why have them.

                    • Paul …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:22 am

                      Not in neoliberal NZ.
                      But in countries that don’t follow the Randian cult religion …

                    • Paul …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:23 am

                      @waghorn
                      Neoliberals don’t believe in society or governments.
                      Their bible is Atlas Shrugged.
                      Their messiah John Galt.

                    • BM …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:28 am

                      The governments job is to keep the country as a whole running and to provide a safe a prosperous environment for the majority of it’s citizens without bankrupting the country.

                      Problem solving on a micro level is up to the individual/individuals, not the government.

                    • Paul …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:31 am

                      Assuming you are a true believer in the Randian cult an these are your mantras.

                      There is no alternative.
                      No is no such thing as society.

                      Do you watch Fox News?

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:31 am

                      “Getting busy and getting off your chuff” doesn’t create jobs, BM. Spending into communities creates job.

                      BM you are still avoiding the core issue – the private sector doesn’t care about declining provincial communities. So the government must. Or as b waghorn says – why have government at all.

                      Why don’t you believe in the role of government in creating sustainable employment BM? Many rural communities are under serviced with public services. There are jobs which can be created right there.

                      BM also continues to ignore facts – government has very successfully created industry and economic activity in rural NZ before.

                    • Paul …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:33 am

                      When you are a true believer like BM, no amount of evidence can be used.
                      His views are faith based.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      11 October 2014 at 9:34 am

                      Problem solving on a micro level is up to the individual/individuals, not the government.

                      This is utterly false, especially when thousands, tens of thousands of people are in the same societal circumstances.

                      It is up to government to identify the needs of its citizens and to provide services and support to each one.

                      Government has more than enough money to do so, and the country certainly has unused resources that it can employ to deliver this support and services.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      11 October 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      without bankrupting the country.

                      That’s easy – can foreign investment/ownership, can the private banks creating money and have the government create and spend money into the economy. Do that and it would be impossible for the country to go bankrupt.

                      Of course, the banksters won’t like that as it stops them from becoming the new aristocrats.

            • halfcrown 5.2.2.1.1.2
              11 October 2014 at 9:07 am

              Answer to b waghorn @8.45 am

              “Employment creates employment so when government pulls jobs out of a area the Ohura prison being a example and the slow death of rail being another it has a knock on effect in the community.”

              So true, Many years ago I use to call on a couple of clients in Ohura.
              Use to arrive about lunchtime. have lunch in the cafe next to the supermarket call on the garage and fill the car, have a short break walk up the road and have a look in the shops etc. before driving on to Stratford.

              Last Feb we had a photographic trip down that way, the first time for over 20 years. We saw one ghost town after another. Ohura there is nothing, no shops and the garage is now a second hand shop. All the little settlements have gone.
              Sad really as these were vibrant communities.

            • Murray Rawshark 5.2.2.1.1.3
              12 October 2014 at 2:54 am

              Don’t take any notice of BM. He’s one of Whalespew’s fanboys and his full name is Bloody Moron. All he can do is spout slogans,

            • Murray Rawshark 5.2.2.1.1.4
              12 October 2014 at 3:00 am

              I stayed in Ohura for four months. Most of it, apart from where I stayed, seemed to be quite nice. It’s a shame that it’s died.

    • greywarshark 5.3
      11 October 2014 at 1:29 pm

      @ b waghorn
      We are blindly following USA. I have forgotten how many large cities and ports have registered as bankrupt or similar there. It was unheard of once but no longer. It’s dismissed as just the business cycle moving on. Businesses become defunct new ones rise, it’s a cleansing, renewing process, sort of like a natural season, spring following winter. Remember Clint and Michael Moore’s film.

      Using intellect, running a whole-of-country economic plan, is anathema to NACTS. Douglas still is nostalgic about his great leap forward if only all his plan could be put in place. He is not satisfied with the harm he has already caused. There were some good things but they don’t happen to have been good for most people. This is a seagull economy. All the big birds are watching for the advantage, when there’s a crust they all swoop down but the most aggressive get there first. The aggressive losers stick out their bills, and run at the others to keep their distance. And the little birds clean up the crumbs in the few seconds the others are away fighting over the crust. And when the gulls have finished they fly over your head and poop on your shoulder.

      • b waghorn 5.3.1
        11 October 2014 at 3:24 pm

        Part of the problem for places like Taumarunui were I am is that we are in a large area dominated buy farmers who vote nats know matter what. So we can be taken for granted buy them and ignored buy the rest. Small town nz has no power.

        • greywarshark 5.3.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 11:09 pm

          Can a group of you get together to support getting someone on the local council or the community council. Between planning giant dams and planning coastal subdivisions and mining there might be a space to fit in something human sized and helpful to the general public. And you introduce the policy. It might take a few years to get through!

  6. karol 6
    11 October 2014 at 8:43 am

    Su Bradford tweeted she is on TV3’s The Nation’s panel this morning ” responding to Key, Labour i/views etc”

    Good to see The Nation is using one or two truly left wing commentators.

    • Skinny 6.1
      11 October 2014 at 9:09 am

      I hope she rubs sore loser Hone’s nose in it. Bradford was never taken seriously by Mana. Her stance against the Internet/Mana hook up should have been better listened too. Unfortunately Hone was too thick.

      • karol 6.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 9:22 am

        I agreed with Bradford when the IMP was initiated.

        One of her main arguments, as I recall, was that it takes time to build a party and a movement, and that IMP would interfere with the building and focus that had already gone on in/with Mana.

        I hope that Bradford is way more sensible and forward thinking than attempting to, as you put it, “rub sore losers Hone’s nose in it.” I don’t see that approach as being in any way helpful.

        Mana can still continue with the building and focus it has had over the last few years. NZ needs such a Mana Party.

        • Karen 6.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 10:16 am

          + 1 Karol
          I am sure that Sue still has a lot of respect for Hone, and she is not the type to gloat. Mana and Hone both have a future in NZ politics I hope.

          • greywarshark 6.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 11:12 pm

            I would have liked her to show political wisdom after her years at it, and shut her gob before not after the election. Then was the time to quietly slide out if she didn’t like it but with discretion, not mouth.

      • phillip ure 6.1.2
        11 October 2014 at 9:31 am

        maybe she will tell us why she was initially so opposed to the very idea..

        ..i never heard any actual reasons beyond objections to dotcom being rich..

        ..and having lived an extravagant lifestyle..

        ..and of course..her having pulled the/her crew of experienced activists from the ensuing (amateur-clusterfuck) campaign..

        ..was not without its’ own negative effects/outcome..on that campaign..

        ..i wonder if she will accept her own soupcon of responsibility for the ensuing defeat..?

        ..but really.i wd like to hear what were those original virulent objections based on..?

      • phillip ure 6.1.3
        11 October 2014 at 10:33 am

        @ skinny..

        ..having seen bradfords’ interaction with the party..

        ..i can tell you that yr claim that she ‘was never taken seriously by Mana’..

        ..is a pile of fresh/steaming horse-shit…

      • Shrubbery 6.1.4
        11 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

        Except that Mana increased their party vote by 10,000 this election.

      • Murray Rawshark 6.1.5
        12 October 2014 at 3:06 am

        Sue making her stance so publicly didn’t help anyone. My impression of Hone is that he was one of the more intelligent MPs. You don’t have to be thick to make a mistake.

  7. Morrissey 7
    11 October 2014 at 9:01 am

    A moment of hypocrisy from Kim Hill mars an excellent interview
    Radio New Zealand National, Saturday 11 October 2014

    This morning, Kim Hill interviewed Karen Armstrong, an expert on world religion and author of Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence. She launched the Charter for Compassion as a global peace initiative in 2009.

    As usual with Kim Hill, this was a thoughtful and constructive half hour or so. There was only one jarring moment, which prompted this writer, i.e., moi, to send her the following email….

    Dear Kim,

    You asked Karen Armstrong whether she believed “Muslims should condemn more strongly ISIS and Al Qaeda.”

    Why did you not ask her whether Christians and Jews should condemn the marauding gangs of Uzi-toting illegal settlers in the Occupied West Bank?

    Yours sincerely,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point.

    Keep listening, fellas! She might just read it out on air.

    • Marksman33 7.1
      11 October 2014 at 9:47 am

      Yes, I heard that too, that is also a question that should have been asked. That question was a bit unusual for her, she doesn’t normally go with the knee-jerk journalism querys that afflict us on every level. Never mind I’m waiting for the Dave Dobbyn Don Mcglashin interview.

  8. minarch 8
    11 October 2014 at 9:59 am

    feel like some inspiration , or some assurance that not ALL politicians are hopeless ?

    watch a REAL leader in action !

    The poorest president in the world: Jose Mujica

    • phillip ure 8.1
      11 October 2014 at 10:13 am

      mujica has a clear/simple logic i love..

      ..re cannabis:..he wanted to take crime right out of the picture..

      ..so he sets up a state-grown/supplied system..(with all the ongoing job-creation that involves..yoo-hoo..!..provincial new zealand..!)

      ..and sets the retail price at no more than $2 per gram..

      ..what is not to love about this man..?

      ..i want him to be president of the world..

      • minarch 8.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:24 am

        Im in the middle of preparing to emigrate there

        I visited in my early 20,s fell in love with the place and have gone back regularly ever since

        I have bought some property , am studying Spanish with my family and am on the road to residency, Uruguay is quite open when it comes to immigration, you should look into it (especially if you are a single guy the Women are fun, friendly,open & Beautiful but VERY fiery in general !)

        although you probably wouldn’t appreciate the average Uruguayans dietary habits ?

        • Marksman33 8.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 10:48 am

          You Lucky Lucky Bastard.

          • minarch 8.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 11:37 am

            One down pointcan be the prevalence of “machismo”, It takes an assertive women to deal with it sometimes, particularly in the urban areas,rural men and gauchos are usually a little more conservative.

            My wife and daughters have slapped a lot men over the years, The flip side is the receivers of said slaps will almost always bow out gracefully at that point & usually with a vote of respect for the “dama de fuego” or “chica ardiente” in question !

            • Murray Rawshark 8.1.1.1.1.1
              12 October 2014 at 3:24 am

              Chica ardiente is better than chica caliente. 🙂
              Or maybe not, depending on the situation.

              If my health allowed, I’d retire to Brazil. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. I prefer their attitude to life to that of the NAct lovers who have ruined Aotearoa. Brazil still has a sense that it’s developing as a nation. Aotearoa seems to be undergoing a process of destruction. I imagine Uruguay would be a cross between the south of Brazil and Chile.

    • Paul 8.2
      11 October 2014 at 10:18 am

      What he says about being poor is amazing.
      “Poor are the ones who describe me so. My definition of poor is those who need to much. Because those who need too much are never satisfied.”
      Inspirational.

  9. Elizabeth Bouchier 9
    11 October 2014 at 10:11 am

    David Shearer on the Nation saying that he, Robertson, Parker &co should have a veto over the leadership prerefence of the membership.
    Shearer and his bitter buddies hate hate the membership having a say.
    Time for Shearer to get out of Labour.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      11 October 2014 at 3:40 pm

      +1

      And the rest of the MPs and members who think that the members shouldn’t have a say. They should wander off and join their natural home – National.

  10. Skinny 10
    11 October 2014 at 10:15 am

    Watching The Nation oh dear me David Shearer should take his family’s advice and not stand as leader. Listening to him brings back those painful memories when he was last leader, that frustrating feeling of willing an answer out of him.

    He couldn’t help but turn venomous against Cunliffe, however for DC losing the confidence of his deputy is quite a telling blow. I believe DC needs to call it quits and allow overwhelming support for Andrew Little.

    • Paul 10.1
      11 October 2014 at 10:21 am

      Shearer has some interesting views on outsourcing war.
      Views that Donald Rumsfeld and Bush’s neocons would admire.

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/1998/09/15/outsourcing_war

      • Skinny 10.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 10:52 am

        Contracting out allows more money to be made off the American taxpayer, all flowing into private hands. Clean and legal too.

        I have a friend who is ex NZ military working (4 years ago) a security adviser to some American outfit in Iraq. Big money, huge danger with bounty on his head. Wars are a licence to print money something the Yanks know all about.

    • phillip ure 10.2
      11 October 2014 at 10:41 am

      yes..you did say you wd be pimping for little from day one when he stood..

      ..so no surprises there..

      ..and still no answer to the question of what to do about both little and roberston being so hopeless/hapless in debate etc..?

      ..how key will wipe the floor with them..

      ..whereas key and his ministers fear cunliffe..

      ..they just laugh at little/robertson….

      ..how to factor in/explain away those facts.. into yr support for little..?

      • Skinny 10.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 11:29 am

        While we take notice of the goings on in the House, most kiwis don’t. It doesn’t really matter his preformance in the house, it’s the MSM who decide who governs. In saying that Little could do worst than screaming at and abusing Key during oral question time, and perhaps giving very few interviews. I believe too much footage for Gower and his bent cohorts just allows them to edit and run any bulshit angle they want.

        Bit old school, but what really needs to happen in the interest of politic’s being serious and not a bloody game, is that a anti media super hero comes forward and gives one of these smart asre journalists a serious roughening up, they’ll all get the message instantly to pull their fucking heads in.

        Plenty of Countries where the media wouldn’t be getting away with distorting political outcomes like this current batch of MSM are doing here.

        What’s the name of that movie Charles Bronson was the lead in?

        • Clemgeopin 10.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 3:50 pm

          What’s the name of that movie Charles Bronson was the lead in?

          Party Party?

        • phillip ure 10.2.1.2
          11 October 2014 at 4:40 pm

          “..While we take notice of the goings on in the House, most kiwis don’t…”

          but they do get to see the edited-clips on the six ‘o clock news..

          ..so it most certainly does matter…

          ..and then there are the televised debates..

          ..which in many ways help define an election..

          ..and can you just imagine how little wd go..?

          ..’urm..um..ah…ur…!’..

          ..it wd be embarrassing..

      • dave brown 10.2.2
        11 October 2014 at 11:32 am

        Quite right Phillip.
        Watching Shearer and Little on TV is like watching two bumbling bureaucrats searching for deckchairs.

        Backstories that involve cleaning up corpses after the mercenaries, and stiff arming workers into treacherous deals with bosses are appropriate skillsets for the Party of Capital not the Party of Labour.

        One can see the dirty politics machinations going on to manage the primary to reclaim total control of the Party for the Blairite Caucus Majority.

        They and the whole right wing so hate the ideas of party democracy when the bureaucracy knows perfectly well what workers need (to be more productive of profits).

        Workers don’t need the primary because that’s the only thing that can rescue the sinking ship and put those who actually do the Labour in charge of the Party.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      11 October 2014 at 1:49 pm

      however for DC losing the confidence of his deputy is quite a telling blow.

      Nope, that was Parker signing his political death certificate.

    • ankerawshark 10.4
      11 October 2014 at 3:11 pm

      I wish that they would stop commenting on each other.

      I have concerns about AL as we may be getting another Shearer……………..inexperienced, an unknown quantity.

      I think we should just stick with Cunliffe.

    • Treetop 10.5
      11 October 2014 at 5:08 pm

      Cunliffe as leader and Little as deputy. Little’s job needs to be uniting caucus, he has abilities in this area.

  11. Karen 11
    11 October 2014 at 10:29 am

    What really annoys me about the attacks on Cunliffe from caucus members is that they never say WHY they do not like him. Darien Fenton, who I do respect for her work with unions, has made it clear that she opposed Cunliffe becoming the leader and still does. Why, Darien?

    They blame Cunliffe for the the election result without saying what it was that he insisted on doing in the campaign that they did not agree with.

    The reason I have gone off Grant Robertson completely is that he was willing to use the “sorry for being a man” as a reason for Cunliffe not being popular, but didn’t say that the statement had been taken out of context and used by the MSM to attack Cunliffe relentlessly. To me, that was inexcusable.

    Parker has said he no longer has confidence in Cunliffe, but won’t say why. He has taken no responsibility for the unpopularity of some of the policy he promoted eg raising the age eg entitlement to superannuation.

    • wekarawshark 11.1
      11 October 2014 at 10:36 am

      Very good comment Karen.

    • Hami Shearlie 11.2
      11 October 2014 at 10:58 am

      Agree with all your sentiments, Karen – the question really is, why can the Caucus not act in a professional manner and do their jobs without playing stupid games. You would think that it was a contest for Class President, not for Leader of the Labour Party. These people are all on huge money courtesy of US, the taxpayers. Why can’t they knuckle down and concentrate on the work at hand instead of sniping about who they “like” and “don’t like” personally. Everyone in the outside business world manages that, why can’t they?? Who the HELL do they think they are? Get your snouts down to work, I say! Criticising David Cunliffe and saying if he is Leader it would be very divisive, David Shearer showed us all who he really is on “The Nation” today – an unprofessional, petty and small person who holds grudges. I have never heard David Cunliffe running down colleagues in this way. For that alone, Shearer is totally unsuitable to be Leader.

      • Clemgeopin 11.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 3:34 pm

        my thoughts exactly. I cringed when I heard the unprofessional simpleton.
        I had whole heartedly supported him when he took over from Goff. After hearing this morning’s interview, and his public statements, I am very glad he isn’t the leader of the Labour party! It is he and other anti Cunliffe caucus cabal that are dividing the Labour party and are damaging it.
        At least Little was a little more smarter and statesmanlike in his interview.

        • Clemgeopin 11.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 4:05 pm

          “At least Little was a little more smarter and statesmanlike in his interview’

          Not a lot smarter or statesmanlike, but just a little bit better than Shearer.
          I completely disagreed with Little’s put down of Kim Dot Com/IMP.
          Bet he would have had a different take if Hone had won in spite of all the parties that ganged up against him and had IMP won 3 or 4 MPs and were needed to prop up a Labour led coalition.

          • b waghorn 11.2.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

            I just read littles nation interview on nbr It lacked the waffle that usually stops me from getting to the end of it he made clear points and opinions I hope he stays that way.

            • Chooky Shark Smile 11.2.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 5:23 pm

              the fact that Little is purportedly supported by Michelle Boag should cause ALARM!

              ….the fact that Little has “put down … Kim Dot Com/IMP” ….puts him in the right wing camp of the Labour Party

              • boldsirbrian …
                11 October 2014 at 5:40 pm

                .
                @ Chooky Shark Smile (11.2.1.1.1.1)

                If Cunliffe wins, he should should show no mercy/hand of compromise to the RW disloyal, caucus cabal unlike the grace he showed the last time. Put them on the back bench for at least a few months

                What Boag does is up to her. She is a loyal National Supporter. Comments by people like her, may be genuine, but just as easily (as we have learnt from Dirty Politics) could be playing games. I’m quite capable of forming my own opinion, without any “help” from Ms Boag.

                ~~~~~~~

                ….the fact that Little has “put down … Kim Dot Com/IMP” ….puts him in the right wing camp of the Labour Party

                Whatever that means. Could you please be more specific about how that may be a good or bad thing with regard to his vision for Labour, and the policies that he will champion?

                Mr. Botany (B.)

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  11 October 2014 at 5:46 pm

                  If you don’t know what the right wing camp of Labour means, it means the side of the Labour Party which since the 1980s continues to advantage the position and interests of financial capital in the economy, the position of large transnational corporates in the economy, and the ongoing corporatisation of the state, vs that of the bottom 50% of workers and citizens.

                  • boldsirbrian …
                    11 October 2014 at 6:16 pm

                    .
                    @ Colonial Rawshark (11.2.1.1.1.1.1.1)

                    I’ve learnt in life that there are rarely people that I can not agree with on some policies, even if I disagree with them on many others. I could not stand Robert Muldoon. I thought he was obnoxious, bigoted and vile. He attacked sectional interest groups one at a time. He split the country over the Springbok tour. He was an economic nincompoop. And yet for his true interest in doing something personal about gangs, and for his decision to ignore official advice in the Arthur Thomas injustice, I admire his actions.

                    I’ve also learnt to distrust labels. Your basic argument against Little is
                    (1) Right wing Camp is bad
                    (2) Little is in Right Wing Camp
                    (3) Hey Presto. Little is bad
                    Your label is totally unhelpful.

                    So I will ask again. And emphasise the word ‘specific’ this time.

                    Could you please be more specific about how that may be a good or bad thing with regard to his vision for Labour, and the policies that he will champion?

                    Smearing Little by labelling him “right wing” is Whaleoil 101. I’m more interested in the specific policies that you disagree with, and evidence that Little supports those policies.

                    For f, sake, we cannot blame Little for supposed events over the last 35 years!

                    What the f. has Little said that will advantage the position and interests of financial capital in the economy?

                    What the f. has Little said that will advantage the position of large transnational corporates in the economy?

                    Cut the Whaleoil smears out. Put up a little evidence. With those specifics you may have a small hope of convincing somebody. There is a 50/50 chance that I may even agree with you on some or all of them.

                    But condescending smears that others may not know what the right wing camp of Labour means, followed by a ‘definition’ of what “right wing” is, that basically means nothing with regard to the views of Little, without evidence, deserves ridicule. Is this the sort of stuff that went on in Dunedin?

                    ALL of the candidates will have some very sound reasons why they would make a good leader. I’ll vote after I have heard them all. And whether they are a “North or South” candidate, I’ll be more interested in how the candidates can use internal differences of style, to the benefit of Labour, rather than see those differences as requiring amputation from an already weak body.

                    Mr. Botany (B.)

              • b waghorn …
                11 October 2014 at 6:23 pm

                I m a 43 year old white blue collar worker if labour can’t appeal to people like me they have no chance. As far as kdc goes he was a light weight in a heavy weight fight ie talked a big fight but had no knockout punch.

          • boldsirbrian 11.2.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 5:48 pm

            .
            @ Clemgeopin (11.2.1.1)

            I completely disagreed with Little’s put down of Kim Dot Com/IMP.

            Do you have a reference for that? I will probably agree with you.

            I have a warm spot for both the Mana and Internet Parties. I do wish that Dotcom was not on the bench at the “Moment of Truth”, with his distracting laughs, but otherwise it was not him that sabotaged the IMP vote …. that responsibility rests with both the National and Labour parties.

            That Dotcom supported the policies of Mana, should be sufficient for sufficient for all current Opposition Parties not to slag him off. He could have been a useful friend.

            Mr. Botany (B.)

      • Chooky Shark Smile 11.2.2
        11 October 2014 at 5:15 pm

        Shearer also got rid of Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel…both supporters of Cunliffe were relegated to the back benches and then left

        • Anne 11.2.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 6:30 pm

          And look where they both are now… holding down very important positions. Shearer also relegated all Cunliffe’s supporters to the back bench. I call that petty spite.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 11.3
      11 October 2014 at 11:10 am

      I agree with this too, Karen. I have the feeling that David Cunliffe hasn’t “joined the club” and has a wider perspective than those of the caucus who think that the membership are out of touch. Sure, we members are not totally conversant with all the nuts and bolts of Parliament but we sure as hell know what we stand for. We are not prepared to compromise on social justice just to make our party more attractive to a few fickle voters when we have thousands of non-voters who are disengaged because they don’t see a party that inspires them to vote.

    • Olwyn 11.4
      11 October 2014 at 1:09 pm

      Well said, Karen. All of this stuff fills me with mistrust. While these people allegedly “don’t like” or “don’t have confidence” in Cunliffe, I feel as if both policy and utterances are being pitched over our heads to ‘more important people,’ and that the task is to try and win us over to whatever the ‘more important people’ would like, which does not include Cunliffe, or anyone else that the ‘more important people’ feel the need to screw over. The general damning of the IMP has the same tone. “No, no, it’s OK More Important People, we’re definitely not going there.” I really don’t like it, and am getting close to the end of my tether with the Labour Party.

      • Draco T Bastard 11.4.1
        11 October 2014 at 1:42 pm

        +1

      • Anne 11.4.2
        11 October 2014 at 5:02 pm

        In future I think we should refer to them as MIPs. (More Important People). Or of you like… the spim.

        Who shall we include? Well, the MSM of course are more important than us – especially the Beltway boys and girls. Then there are the top civil servants – people like the States Services Commissioner (Rennie is it?) They’re so important. Throw in the big corporate types who ladle out the dosh – they’re very important. And special mention must go to the Police Commissioner (and understudies) and the Security heads – oh God, they’re so much more important than us. And that’s not even starting on the off-shore Dads and Mums…

        In fact when you think about it EVERYBODY is more important than us. (deep sarcasm)

        Edit: phew… nice to get that off my chest.

        • Olwyn 11.4.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 5:20 pm

          Thanks for listing them Anne – I am never sure who they are, I just notice MP’s responding to some ‘them’ or other more than to us – in the same way as you know that a guy running down the street with a scared look on his face is running away from some scary thing, even though you don’t know exactly what scary thing.

          • Anne 11.4.2.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 6:07 pm

            When fury rules the day as it has done for me since I read Dirty Politics then if you can dredge up a bit of humour… it always helps.

            I’m sure the above list are all Beltway Cocktail Circuit regulars (the BCCs) and when you throw in the senior diplomats from all over the place then you have a large room full of MIPs. The MPs – especially the old hands – love mixing with them. It makes them feel ever so important. 🙄

    • Draco T Bastard 11.5
      11 October 2014 at 1:32 pm

      The reason why is because Cunliffe is supported by the members which means that the Labour caucus may actually have to start listening to those members rather than their buddies in the corporate world.

    • Blue 11.6
      11 October 2014 at 1:50 pm

      +1

      I would love a proper explanation from the ABC MPs as to exactly what their problem with DC is. Why he is apparently so bad they have ripped the Labour Party apart and ground it into the dust just to pursue their vendetta against him.

      They’ve never had any issue with trashing him publicly before, so why not just come out and tell us?

      Open invitation here to Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff, Annette King, Clayton Cosgrove, Chris Hipkins, David Shearer, Jacinda Ardern and Kris Faafoi – get some balls, get out of the shadows and explain yourselves.

      • ankerawshark 11.6.1
        11 October 2014 at 3:17 pm

        1000+.

        I have heard whispers as to why they don’t like him (sorry guys, can’t be more specific) and frankly they seem petty to me.

        • boldsirbrian 11.6.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 5:28 pm

          .
          @ankerawshark (11.6.1)

          Often issues of Leadership are. Petty grievances should be the easiest a true leader could fix. If they are indeed petty, it is probably a larger black mark against Cunliffe ability to lead.

          Mr. Botany (B.)

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.6.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 6:01 pm

            Yes there are issues that Cunliffe needs to fix up in terms of the operation and leadership of both office and caucus. But these are all FIXABLE issues in terms of skills, behaviour, leadership paradigms and getting the right people in.

            This discussion thread has been excellent in terms of identifying that the Labour caucus’ beef with Cunliffe seems quite mysterious and deserves serious explanation.

            • boldsirbrian 11.6.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 6:22 pm

              .
              @ Colonial Rawshark (11.6.1.1.1)

              But these are all FIXABLE issues

              I agree. That is what I said. Then why didn’t he?

              Mr. Botany (B.)

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                12 October 2014 at 4:18 am

                Why didn’t he? Simple – because this was his first time at Leader and it was a bloody steep learning curve on the job. He spent months trying to sort out the Leaders Office and then he was straight into the campaign.

                Why is that difficult to understand. The main point is – Cunliffe is an outstanding leader for the party – as long as he recognises what needs to be done differently now, and what he needs to do differently.

          • ankerawshark 11.6.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 6:15 pm

            The petty things were the complaints against Cunliffe.

            • boldsirbrian 11.6.1.1.2.1
              11 October 2014 at 6:19 pm

              .
              @ ankerawshark (11.6.1.1.2)

              That is what I understood you to mean.

              Mr. Botany (B.)

          • Murray Rawshark 11.6.1.1.3
            12 October 2014 at 4:03 am

            If the caucus won’t tell the true leader what the petty problems are, but tell him everything is hunky dory, they are not easy to fix. I’d also make the point that it is very hard to satisfy petty egotists whatever you do, and there is no shortage of these in the Labour caucus.

      • Clemgeopin 11.6.2
        11 October 2014 at 4:23 pm

        Good call.

      • boldsirbrian 11.6.3
        11 October 2014 at 5:31 pm

        .
        @Blue (11.6)

        It’s an election process now. There is no responsibility for voters to provide any reason why they choose a particular candidate. It will be the responsibility of all four (5?) candidates to convince the voters to place their vote with them.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

    • bearded rawshark 11.7
      11 October 2014 at 2:06 pm

      +100 karen

      • Anne 11.7.1
        11 October 2014 at 3:27 pm

        I think it comes down to plain self-serving ambition and/or self preservation. As an enthusiastic supporter of Cunliffe from day one, I nevertheless am disappointed in his apparent inablility to stare them down like Helen Clark did in the 90s. I may be wrong but my impression is that Cunliffe gave in to them which is ironic given the policy planks which played a significant part in Labour’s defeat initially came from that section of caucus!

        They are in such strong denial, they can’t see the role they played in destabilising Labour and allowing ‘Dirty Politics’ to do the rest.

        • Clemgeopin 11.7.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 4:39 pm

          Well said. If Cunliffe wins, he should should show no mercy/hand of compromise to the RW disloyal, caucus cabal unlike the grace he showed the last time. Put them on the back bench for at least a few months.

          • boldsirbrian 11.7.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 5:24 pm

            @ Clemgeopin (11.7.1.1)

            If Cunliffe wins, he should should show no mercy/hand of compromise to the RW disloyal, caucus cabal unlike the grace he showed the last time. Put them on the back bench for at least a few months

            He might look lonely on the front bench by himself?

            Mr. Botany (B.)

            • Clemgeopin 11.7.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 7:15 pm

              At least a couple or three….Cosgrove and Shearer for sure.

            • ankerawshark 11.7.1.1.1.2
              11 October 2014 at 7:46 pm

              But he will have will have two of the South Auckland MPs and N Mahota 9excuse any spelling errors with him and probably more. Not too lonely.

          • Colonial Rawshark 11.7.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 6:06 pm

            Cunliffe showed is compromising accomodating side and the ABCs ran over it with a truck. Does Cunliffe have what it takes to show another leadership style as it is required? He needs to if he is going to do what it takes to be the right PM in very difficult times.

            • boldsirbrian 11.7.1.1.2.1
              11 October 2014 at 6:28 pm

              .
              @ Colonial Rawshark (11.7.1.1.2)

              Cunliffe has every chance of convincing the voters to re-elect him Leader. To do so, he will need to convince them that he has identified all the errors that we should have known in foresight, and all the errors we now know in hindsight. And how he is going to carry on doing all the good things he did, and not do those things that are now seen in error.

              Perhaps the last paragraph is too complicated. Instead of fixing it up, I’ll paraphrase. Cunliffe is redeemable. It’s up to him.

              Mr. Botany (B.)

    • ankerawshark 11.8
      11 October 2014 at 3:13 pm

      Parker should never have said that in public. Huge disloyalty.

      Shearer, should shut up too.

      The only one who has appeared dignified is Little.

      Cunliffe should stay though as he is the best performer.

      • boldsirbrian 11.8.1
        11 October 2014 at 5:22 pm

        .
        @ ankerawshark (11.8)

        The “disloyalty” is now answered. Parker will be a candidate.

        The ‘disloyal’ tag was always unfair. Any comment that could be construed as ‘disloyal’ was made after the election.

        Seems to me that silencing debate (“shut up”) is the wrong approach. If there is a TRUE desire to talk through ALL the issues. This is the one chance when a full and frank exchange of views can be understood to be more about getting the right candidate, than about expectations of ‘loyalty’. It’s quite impossible to be loyal to all four candidates, when there is only one vote to give.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • ankerawshark 11.8.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 6:22 pm

          Mr Botany B,

          I think the President of the Labour party has said no talking about the candidates during the campaign or addressing things through the media.

          I am going with that. It is never helpful when Labour is open about internal divisions in public. They open themselves up to being criticized for a lack of unity.

          Mr Parkers comments after the election, when he knew DC would be standing again for leader, were completely unhelpful and against what the party president requested we do. If Mr C is re-elected then Parker has ensured the Nats can be unrelenting in their cries of “Labour Caucus is divided”.

          Whatever caucuses opinion is of their leader carries very little weight with me. As a paid up member, I claim the right to come to my own decision.

          • boldsirbrian 11.8.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 6:38 pm

            .
            @ ankerawshark (11.8.1.1)

            David Parker’s comments preceded the President’s request.

            Regardless, an election by itself shows that there will be four (or 5?) possible “divisions”. The election is “unhelpful”?

            We can all pretend or we can be honest.

            I see all this not as major divisions, but about 4 or 5 extremely capable people all dedicated to a Party that they are willing to lead. Of course John Key will say that the “Labour Caucus is divided”, or “Labour is committing suicide, or whatever. That’s politics. What John Key says about Labour will only be just another sledge that he adds to every one of his sentences, that he is “quite relaxed about” at the end of the day.

            Mr. Botany (B.)

          • Clemgeopin 11.8.1.1.2
            11 October 2014 at 9:06 pm

            Well said. The stupid cocky caucus should realise that it is the members of the party that put them up as candidates and helped elect/select them in the first place!

      • Treetop 11.8.2
        11 October 2014 at 5:30 pm

        A strong front line keeps the attack at bay, (being undermined). I reckon that when Cunliffe has a loyal deputy he will GROW in confidence and he will perform to his potential.

        • Colonial Rawshark 11.8.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 6:07 pm

          Yep, and he needs the correct Chief of Staff. Is McCarten that guy. There are damn few signs of it.

          • Treetop 11.8.2.1.1
            12 October 2014 at 2:24 pm

            @10.5 I mentioned Cunliffe as leader and Little as deputy; little could unite caucus. Little as deputy and McCarten as chief of staff would work very well together. This duo would be loyal to Cunliffe as leader. A weekly chat with leader to sort out the disenchanted in caucus would not go amiss.

        • wekarawshark 11.8.2.2
          12 October 2014 at 2:26 pm

          “I reckon that when Cunliffe has a loyal deputy he will GROW in confidence and he will perform to his potential.”

          Who chose his current deputy?

    • ianmac 11.9
      11 October 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Agreed Karen. And further is the constant “attacks” from the ABCs yet to date I do not know any specifics which supports that. Everyone knows yet cannot point to what. I like Trevor and do not understand how or why he would be “underming” DC or anyone else.

    • boldsirbrian 11.10
      11 October 2014 at 4:55 pm

      .@ Karen (11)

      How was Cunliffe’s “Sorry for being a man” supposedly taken out of context, exactly?

      I think this statement was one of the most serious examples of Cunliffe assisting National in the election campaign. I’m sure he won many votes from the statement, especially the audience he was talking to. But for every vote he won, I expect he would have lost a dozen.

      I hope the Labour review of the election considers this issue seriously, to determine how much of a problem it actually was.

      From a conversation from a young female voter today, from a family with strong Labour voting history. “I had no idea why I would want to vote Labour. I didn’t know what they stood for. Cunliffe was a wet rag. He couldn’t get his message across in the debates with Key. How could he possibly run the country”

      What Labour needed at the time, was some serious attention being placed on promoting a vision for the Party, and providing voters with a reason why they would like to support the Party. That did not happen, which remains an indictment on both Cunliffe and his election advisors. There was more of an appearance of trawling for votes from sectional interest groups.

      I kind of agree with the assessment of the debates. While comments here were largely of the opinion that Cunliffe “won” the debates, the real conclusion is more complicated. If we are talking about a debate, then the comments that Cunliffe “won” may be correct. But ‘winning a debate’ and ‘providing a message for voters to choose Labour’ are two completely different beasts. It’s like winning the battle, at the expense of losing the war.

      Cunliffe was chosen, almost solely because he was seen to be the one person capable of winning the anticipated debates with the masterful John Key. Nobody else could do it. (I say almost, because there is no denying that Cunliffe is highly intelligent, and a charming person on a face to face level) But now (in hindsight) I have come to the conclusion that far too much was made of the need to ‘win’ the debates with Key. That is a media construction that does not have to be followed. I am coming around to the proposition that a Leader such as Little (and possibly Robertson) could ignore the media’s demand that the media treat the debates like a prize boxing match – and ignore the temptation to score “smart” points off John Key, and simply do what they can do best – return to the Labour vision again and again and again, – and show how key policies will meet that agenda.

      I think that Cunliffe won his ‘wet rag’ tag, with comments like his “sorry’ comment. There is probably only one way that he could regain my respect …. and that is by calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the injustice that has been done to Peter Ellis. Surely something can be done about this stain on our justice system while Peter Ellis is still alive?

      Mr. Botany (B.)

      • ankerawshark 11.10.1
        11 October 2014 at 5:14 pm

        Mr Botany B the main problem with Mr C’s sorry about being a man is how the msm spun it……………….. the main reason why Labour lost was the unrelenting campaign of negatively and spin agaisn’t DC.

        Just consider this if the media had of reverse the positive spin on Key and applied it to Cunliffe and vica a versa, who would have won the election. IMHO Cunliffe and Labour.

      • Karen 11.10.2
        11 October 2014 at 5:37 pm

        Boldsirbrian I agree with you so far as the debates being a media construct that do little to explain Labour’s vision. Unfortunately the media are not interested in Labour’s vision, so it is almost impossible to get MSM coverage for anything except a quick response when something controversial has happened.

        Labour did fall down in its advertising campaign, but I don’t know that Cunliffe was to blame for that, and I agree with Andrew Little that there was too much policy for voters to get their heads around.

        The “sorry for being a man” was taken out of context. I had a listen to the whole speech online at the time and it actually inspired me to volunteer for the Labour Party this election. At that same meeting Paula Bennet evidently played on her phone through all the speeches – why wasn’t that reported in the MSM?

        • Anne 11.10.2.1
          11 October 2014 at 6:26 pm

          At that same meeting Paula Bennet evidently played on her phone through all the speeches – why wasn’t that reported in the MSM?

          That’s interesting Karen. Remember in 2008 Helen Clark was seen checking her cell phone for messages (once) while seated in an audience at some function or another?
          The video was played over and over again and the meme was: she had committed a very serious offence. Dirty Politics started years ago…

        • boldsirbrian 11.10.2.2
          12 October 2014 at 12:31 am

          @ ankerawshark (11.10.1)
          @ Karen (11.10.2)

          I also listened to the speech.

          I am struggling to work out what context could ever justify such a ludicrous apology. No use blaming this one on the MSM

          Perhaps he will address the subject in his electioneering.

          I’ll repeat that it is really important that Labour get on top of this one in the Labour review. There are obviously people like you Karen, who were ‘inspired’ by an unnecessary put down of men. My anecdotal experience, found that the predominant response (from men especially) was the worst reaction that a politician could receive: being mocked.

          So we (You and I, Karen) are firmly in two camps. Was the comment helpful or not for Labour?. If it was unhelpful, can we blame the media as ankerawshark suggests; or would the right ‘context’ somehow make it ok? Perhaps the Labour Party have far too few women supporters, and are willing to sacrifice a proportion of an abundance of male members, for women who may be inspired?

          The answer is important. Perhaps Labour already know from their internal polling. And if I am wrong in thinking that the comment was overwhelmingly more detrimental than beneficial, I’ll eat humble pie, at the same time as I hand in my membership. A Party that supports such a comment, is not one that I personally wish to remain with.

          Mr. Botany (B.)

    • Murray Rawshark 11.11
      12 October 2014 at 3:45 am

      I can imagine that if gay bashing were still common, and Cunliffe said he was sorry for being hetero, Robertson would join the chorus against him. I thought the way Cunliffe said that was a bit silly, but once he had spoken, caucus should have stood behind him. All of them, even the women, repeating “I’m sorry for being a man too” and explaining what it meant would have been far better than what they did.

      As for Parker, he can fuck off to ACT.

  13. greywarshark 13
    11 October 2014 at 10:38 am

    Just a reminder – still time to plan to get there.

    The 2014 Bruce Jesson Lecture
    Mike Joy – Paradise Squandered; New Zealand’s Environmental Asset Stripping
    Wednesday 15 October, 6.30pm
    Maidment Theatre
    Alfred Street
    The University of Auckland
    The Maidment Bar will open from 5.30pm

    New Zealand’s lakes, rivers and most of our groundwater are in a critical state. Decades of misguided regulation and a free-for-all on diffuse pollution have encouraged agricultural intensification and driven our increasing reliance on imported feed and fertiliser.
    The inevitable consequences have been devastating environmental impacts as well as increasing economic and biosecurity risks.
    The solutions are many but require a paradigm shift; a move away from dependence on imported feed and fertiliser to keeping nutrients on farm and adding value to products, and strong leadership to move away from short-term thinking that accepts the massive ecological debt we are running up.
    Mike Joy MSc(Hons), PhD in Ecology is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Science at the Ecology Group-Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North. He has received a number of awards, including the Ecology in Action award from the New Zealand Ecological Society; an Old Blue award from the Royal Forest and Bird protection Society; Environmental New Zealander of the Year from North and South magazine and the Manawatu Evening Standard Person of the Year.
    Presented by Politics and International Relations and the Bruce Jesson Foundation

  14. Paul 14
    11 October 2014 at 11:13 am

    Key starts the drumbeat for war.
    I did not vote for this government.
    Hope the 47% are relaxed about this.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11340983

  15. greywarshark 15
    11 October 2014 at 11:24 am

    Euthanasia – the right to die with dignity. Will we people ever get these political nitwits who supposedly are the cream of the crop to represent our opinions and needs in parliament and have them facilitated? We need them there to actually listen and devise strategies so that we maintain the standards we aspire to for human beings, but have more control of our own lives. While we have a bunch of sharp dealers, money mad and aspirational for their own comfort, the chances are against thoughtful and well-planned policy being passed. But I could be wrong eh!

    http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/cancer-patient-chooses-death-on-own-terms-2014100920
    In the USA. Last night, a story from the United States captured the attention of millions last night on Facebook.
    The video of American woman Brittany Maynard has been watched by more than a million people – she has chosen the day she will die.
    Ms Maynard has a terminal illness, but rather than spend her last months suffering, she’s moved her family to Oregon, one of just five US states that allows terminal patients to choose euthanasia.
    She has chosen November 1 – two days after her husband’s birthday.

    In Australia one of the states had police raiding people’s houses looking for the good drug that people had obtained and put aside ready for when they decide to pass away after they have done everything, got organised and feel content to accept death. But no this personal moment must be degraded by venal politicians, interfering medicos, religious dictators, and acts of aggression by the state. Disappointing, disgraceful.

    • Skinny 15.1
      11 October 2014 at 11:41 am

      We put of pets down when we know they are in pain and it’s the right thing to do. But rather our loved one suffer in pain. I put it down to the high religious influence in NZ.

      • greywarshark 15.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 12:17 pm

        @ Skinny
        I think it’s a following of rote spiritual and ethical learning without much intellectual thought. And not wishing to face the reality of a situation, and being resigned about things. People say oh well, that’s how it is, at the end of the day we can’t help it happening, it’s nature isn’t it and other anodyne phrases.

        (And here are some synonyms that I think also apply to a large number of NZs. –
        bland, inoffensive, innocuous, neutral, unobjectionable, unexceptionable, unremarkable, commonplace, dull, tedious, run-of-the-mill.)

        They are good people for sure, but rarely spark enough to think and act to make changes, or get something radically different. Lack of that spark makes us easy to push around, and accepting of everything, and we sure don’t like any offering of criticism or advice.)

        • Once Was Tim 15.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 4:34 pm

          “They are good people for sure……..” (agreed) – good, lazy, laid back, complacent, anodyne (as you say – good word), disinterested, disengaged.
          A big societal change, which isn’t surprising after 30 years of neoliberalism.

          We like to think of ourselves as compassionate, caring, concerned, etc., however I’ve begun to question that. We are when it comes to all being in the same waka (such as at times of natural disasters), or when shit hitting a fan becomes widespread.
          Otherwise I’ve come to realise we’re actually no more compassionate or engaged, or concerned for the welfare of others, or community than many places elsewhere. (If we were, there’d have been a bigger turnout on election day).
          Can you imagine (for example), most of the population of a small/average town/village volunteering at polio clinics, taking in homeless, feeding the homeless here in NZ? I can’t! At one time I could have.

          It’s a self-congratulatory, but a completely fukd idea of the reality. It’s not surprising though when a good many of the aging boomers have reached their comfort zone and naturally want to preserve it, and when subsequent generations have grown up knowing, AND EXPERIENCING nothing other than the rise of individualism, greed is good, the commodification of all and everything.
          Given the Koiwoi laid beck ettitude, its the easy option – that is until it all turns to shit. (Fear not though – we have an oikon to lead us all thru’ it by the name of Yavridge Bloke Honist John).

          This is not the NZ I knew – and strangely enough its not even the NZ my 30ish yo kids knew – and its becoming a NZ I no longer want to know.
          That sounds a bit defeatist – it’s not. I just don’t particularly want to be around when that muddle class awaken (and as someone elsewhere in here noted re the Muldoon era where you couldn;t find anyone that admitted voting for the prick).
          The more this neo-liberal, selfish, greed-driven, no-such-thing-as-sussoighty, self perpetuating – but also – self-defeating nightmare goes on, the nastier the outcome is likely to be.
          And it’s not just sleepy fucking Hobbits that need to wake up, but the NZ Labour Party as well
          :h1
          /endrave
          :h2
          /back to planning escape
          :h3
          /reminder to send a sympathy card to NZ Labour when they don’t get their shit together

          • greywarshark 15.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 8:30 pm

            Still are Tim
            Good to hear you are still hanging on there. It’s amazing how 30 years can wipe out so much good principle and belief about what the spirit of our country was. And its hard to realise that though some of it was impatience with ferry workers and others going on too many strikes, and some ingrained efficiencies that needed checking, a lot of it was just snobbery as seen in the rude words about guys going to work in cardigans their wives had knitted etc. We were relatively self suffficient then and appreciated quality, and hand knitted wool. Now it is appearance imported polyester jackets. We like the look of the beautiful Easter egg, covered with foil but empty inside.

            And we still have Labour losing the election because they are too stolid to find their way round a corner. A boot in the bum is what they needed. Strategic standing using MMP tactics as National does. Not quite in the spirit but still not outlandish except from Labour’s imagination. Why not call in some Standardistas as a focus group? There is always pollitics stew simmering here. Something hot and tasty would have been served up for their consideration.

            And now David Parker is presenting the same stolid face that Michael Cullen presented. If Michael had worked out some fancy tax cuts that would have ended up increasing the velocity of money through the economy, and a few extra jobs, and a bit over for Christmas, probably Labour wouldn’t have lost but for his chewing gum called tax deduction. Labour haven’t come out of the last century. And we are already 14 years into the next. WTF.

            In a country where we are still riding on Ernest Rutherford’s doings, while cutting down science funding here in favour of giving money to rich people buying things overseas and houses here as the great leap forward, it makes me puke. Do I want to live in such a dumb place. That thinks it is business minded, but can only do a couple of things that were going when we first were colonised, the rest has gone out of our hands to be exploited by cleverer people than us in the main. And the country is losing its soul.

            • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2014 at 11:52 pm

              a lot of it was just snobbery as seen in the rude words about guys going to work in cardigans their wives had knitted etc. We were relatively self suffficient then and appreciated quality, and hand knitted wool.

              It’s one of the amusing aspects of reading some of the novels that I’ve read where the author goes on about how these fabulous wealthy people with great style all have hand crafted this and polished that. And I recall a few years ago when an upper market car firm had the technicians signing the hand crafted parts of the motors that they made. I kept thinking but the machine made stuff is actually better and then I realised that it was a statement that basically translates to: I’m so rich I can waste peoples time and effort without concern.

              • greywarshark …
                12 October 2014 at 11:48 am

                DTB
                Ever looked through Paul Fussells’s book on Class in the USA? Quite funny how the different classes regard anything from the culture of that income and asperashuns.

                Actually signing stuff you made would be good. I wear all this cheap clothing produced by hard working driven people, mostly women from overseas. And sometimes I think about them sitting in lines at their machines. And I think there were exposes one called China Blue? But they have great skills and I try to mentally appeciate those when I remember. Applies to a lot of the things we get these days, when all physical labour is passe’. Even managing money has been mechanised, with computers set to buy and sell when certain monetary points are reached.

                And something just recently has been produced that takes away jobs in favour of mechanisation. Those of us who still respect humanity and care about our society have to group together.
                WH Auden –
                We must love one another or die”
                and Benjamin Franklin
                “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

      • wekarawshark 15.1.2
        11 October 2014 at 2:35 pm

        “We put of pets down when we know they are in pain and it’s the right thing to do. But rather our loved one suffer in pain. I put it down to the high religious influence in NZ.”

        AFAIK most people support euthanasia in principle so I think the hold up in legislation is more likely to be that we haven’t yet solved the issues around coersion and the overlap with suicide. ie it’s ethics that are holding us up. Not insurmountable but not insignificant either.

        • greywarshark 15.1.2.1
          12 October 2014 at 11:54 am

          Do you think the ethics haven’t been talked about? The work is too hard that’s the trouble. It takes time away from giving largesse to the wealthy (friends) or dealing criminals who can’t be let off and have to be punished somehow (enemies) and the business of dealing with the broad mass of people is approached reluctantly.

          All the problems could be solved by going into select committee, asking for input from regions open to interested people, not just the ossified. Then listening to limited time submissions where they have to stick to facts, not gerrymander on their opinions and beliefs.

          • wekarawshark 15.1.2.1.1
            12 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

            Of course ethics have been talked about, but not across the population publicly. We probably need a dedicated period of time of taking the issue to the public, lots of media attention, time for an in depth look, talking to a range of people, medical, ethical, care givers, patients, families etc. By issue, I mean the legislation and the practicalities. That would need a political party to spearhead it – can’t see that being done at the moment, so that leaves lobbying until it gains momentum.

            Myself, I wouldn’t be comfortable with this being handed over to a select committee process without the above happening, esp with the current govt.

            If you want parties to support it, you have to get the population on board too. I think most people support euthanasia in principle, but haven’t yet been presented with the details of how it would work in practice.

            • greywarshark 15.1.2.1.1.1
              12 October 2014 at 12:53 pm

              True. The public never get a chance to get their teeth, so to speak, into the various concerns. When it is discussed there will be someone from the hospice service that rubbishes it, someone from religion who doesn’t countenance it, someone who has had an experience of need who supports it and the whole matter is left floating.

              In general the public need to have the chance to discuss legislation, a group in each town who sort of monitors what’s going on, is informed and thoughtful, necessarily of course. And particularly with important matters like this. Also with some of the practices being adopted for prisoners, that go against the better standards of human behaviour that we have espoused in modern times.

              • wekarawshark …
                12 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

                The last thing I listened to (a while ago) was a hospice nurse who basically said that everyone with a terminal illness can have a good death experience with the right support. Vested interests I guess (as in she believes in her profession, but I suspect there were religious believes too).

                I haven’t gone looking, but I’ve not seen good discussion about the practicalities of protecting vulnerable people. To my mind that’s going to be the stumbling block and is the thing that needs to get into the public for dicussion. Once that’s resolved many people’s hesitations will go away.

                Re religion, where the mainstream ones stand on this? I assume the Catholics are against it, what about the Anglicans and Presbyterians? The Buddhists would be great to have involved, all that preparing for how one dies.

    • andrew murray 15.2
      11 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

      Does no one else see this as an act of extreme betrayal to our individual sovereignty.
      Even in our last act we plead the permission of someone else.

      Euthanasia seems an entirely appropriate course of action but fuck asking for permission…

      • greywarshark 15.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 12:08 pm

        andrew murray 3.55 pm
        You are underestimating the human complexities involved in dying. If it was to be just as quick and straightforward as you think it ought to be, there would be a lot more suicide jumping off cliffs into the sea. But that creates problems, concerns, what if you don’t die straight away and endure agony for ages, not really the imagined end. And then people’s lives may be put at risk while they search for you, because it’s not tidy for a country to have people going off and dying in unknown places, even if they never cared two hoots about you while alive.

        Then there are the people around, in the area, very sad to have people committing suicide near your place. If you die on your own, who finds you, who buries you, who ties up the ends of your life? So there are the people who want to know where the body is, the people who actually grieve, the people who want to inherit but can’t until the body is found or seven years gone, or can’t claim a widow’s, single benefit etc. Your bones and bits will be gathered up and given a cremation probably, who pays for that – the people. And some sort of marker for your remains to give respect to your being. And an entry to be put in the records that you came, you saw, and you conked out!

        Suicide can be an incredibly selfish thoughtless thing to do. If children are left, what a burden to bear. Why, and do they blame the other parent and so on. If choosing euthanasia, there is often some plan, others would be involved. We aren’t islands, the last person in our world. There are things to be thought about, things that you should do before you leave the world that has nurtured you, even if to one’s mind not well. What is needed is a planned procedure, not an exhaustive one, but so the person can go with a clear path, satisfied to have finished and be done. And perhaps with a resigned and loving smile and kiss. Then it would be a good death to have.
        edited

  16. Clean_power 16
    11 October 2014 at 12:20 pm

    I believe Andrew Little’s candidacy will derail David Cunliffe’s attempt to stay as leader. Eventually, DC will have to withdraw, which will make easier for Grant Robertson to win.

    The next few weeks should be watched with interest by the membership.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.1
      11 October 2014 at 1:18 pm

      You don’t understand preferential voting do you?

      • bearded rawshark 16.1.1
        11 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

        +1 draco. cunliffe will not withdraw.

        • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 5:59 pm

          He could, if in doing so he can establish a better position for himself after the vote is all said and done.

          When it was DC vs GR, I was expecting a close race, and honestly had no idea who would win.

          But now the AL has entered, I think DC is going to come third and AL will ultimately win out.

          • Lanthanide 16.1.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 6:52 pm

            I had no idea DP had also entered the race; so have no idea who will win now. I’d be happy with anyone but GR.

    • Rodel 16.2
      11 October 2014 at 7:54 pm

      CP In your opening sentence did you mean to write “I hope” rather than “I believe” ? Nice try.(not)

  17. wekarawshark 17
    11 October 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Lamia retweeted
    Andy Milne ‏@AndyBMilne 14 mins14 minutes ago
    Depressing stat of the day: 43% of homes sold in Chch bought by investors. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/your-property/10604802/Investors-snatch-up-citys-homes

  19. The Al1en 19
    11 October 2014 at 2:23 pm

    “Labour’s David Shearer says being leader of the opposition may be the worst job he’s ever had,”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/david-shearer-considers-standing-for-labour-leadership-2014101111#ixzz3FnazmKX0

    Coincidence: He was the worst leader the labour party ever had.

    Next time at the supermarket, pick up a couple of kippers, cause snapper you aint.

    • Bill 19.1
      11 October 2014 at 3:10 pm

      Sounded to me like he just announced his resignation from caucus will probably be forthcoming post-leadership contest. (Unless he or Parker are leader that is)

    • just saying 19.2
      11 October 2014 at 3:23 pm

      Anyone around here still want to say that Shearer is an honest, compassionate, wise and intelligent man who went into politics in order to serve unselfishly for the benefit of others less fortunate than himself, after watching that?
      As opposed to…….

    • Clemgeopin 19.3
      11 October 2014 at 11:20 pm

      “Labour’s David Shearer says being leader of the opposition may be the worst job he’s ever had,”

      No, undermining DC in public on National TV is.
      Same goes to DP and Cosgrove.
      These idiot senior MPs should know better.

      • Colonial Rawshark 19.3.1
        12 October 2014 at 12:24 pm

        Labour is in the shape that it is precisely because Labour’s front bench doesn’t know better. Labour’s caucus has a shockingly dysfunctional and toxic organisational culture.

  20. joe90 20
    11 October 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Hmm…

    .

    Terrorism can never be defeated by military means alone. But how do you go about negotiating with people who have blood on their hands? Britain’s chief broker of the Northern Ireland peace deal explains how it can – and must – be done (for a start, always shake hands)

    […]

    Above all, what these experiences demonstrate is that there isn’t really an alternative to talking to the terrorists if you want the conflict to end. Hugh Orde, the former chief constable in Northern Ireland, rightly says, “There is no example that I know of, of terrorism being policed out” – or fully defeated by physical force – anywhere in the world. Petraeus said that it was clear in Iraq that “we would not be able to kill or capture our way out of the industrial-strength insurgency that was tearing apart the very fabric of Iraqi society”. If you can’t kill them all, then sooner or later you come back to the same point, and it is a question of when, not whether, you talk. If there is a political cause then there has to be a political solution.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-how-to-talk-to-terrorists-isis-al-qaida?

    ( The author is former diplomat and Blair adviser Jonathan Powell )

    • Colonial Rawshark 20.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:21 pm

      defeating terrorism and insurgencies is thousand year old knowledge. It starts with not screwing over the ordinary people who are their support base, and bringing that support base closer to you, to push for a more moderate approach.

      Unless it turns out that the terrorism and insurgency is politically useful to you for other reasons of course. In that case, you would just fuel it by killing tribal families and civilians on a daily basis to grow the hate of the ordinary people against your forces, and drive up recruitment and sympathy for terrorist/insurgency forces.

      What has the west been doing again?

    • Murray Rawshark 20.2
      12 October 2014 at 4:33 am

      One problem is that so many in the military believe that they can win. They just need to apply a little more force. Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and Gaza are all examples of this. They remind me of ACT idiots who blame the GCP on lack of doctrinal purity.

      • Colonial Rawshark 20.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 4:41 am

        the Pentagon Papers showed that the US military knew that it couldn’t win in Vietnam. Didn’t stop it pretending otherwise though.

  21. Tautoko Mangō Mata 21
    11 October 2014 at 4:21 pm

    I would like each of the candidates for the LP leadership to answer the following questions. Please feel free to improve the quality of the questions and add some more.
    1. What if anything, in your opinion, was wrong about the direction of Labour policies in the last election?
    2. What changes would you personally like to see in the general direction of Labour policy?
    3. If you are voted in as leader and the membership and the caucus insists the party should move in the opposite direction to that which you support, how will you cope with this?
    4. If you are not voted in as leader and the agreed party policy moves in the opposite direction to your wishes, then are you able to unreservedly support the party line and its leader?
    5. Who do you believe should determine the direction of the party- the leader (together with caucus) or the total membership?
    6. What are your views on the way in which the TPPA and the deep sea drilling issues should be handled?
    7. What are your views on the way controversial policies such as the increase in the age of eligibility of superannuation should be handled?
    8. It is obvious that Labour would need to form a coalition to be in Government. Using the hindsight of the recent election, how do you think the pre-election relationships between possible coalition partners be optimised to present a stable alternative to the voting public.

    • Colonial Rawshark 21.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:25 pm

      good questions, and they should certainly be asked, but overall, policy did not win or lose Labour the election. Being a poor cultural fit with Kiwis and being socially disconnected from the vast majority of Kiwi voters, is what nailed Labour.

      (having said that the BS retirement age policy and the badly executed CGT policy messaging were definitely hindrances).

  22. ankerawshark 22
    11 October 2014 at 4:37 pm

    Just since that Parker has thrown his hat in the ring…………..holy moly…………4 candidates.

    The vote will be heavily diluted.

    IMHO anyone who has criticised DC in public should be out. Not matter how “bad” he is, they should have stfu.

    I am thinking of emailing Moira Coastworth to ask what disciplinary action will be taken by the party after D S on the Nation this morning. We were told to shut up about the candidates.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 22.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:33 pm

      The vote will be heavily diluted.

      It’s. A. Preferential. Vote.

      For those playing at home: https://twitter.com/stephanierodgrs/status/518529618047795200

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 22.2
      11 October 2014 at 7:01 pm

      We were told to shut up about the candidates.

      Who are “We”?

      Told by who?

      Is there an email that I have overlooked in my mailbox? Or there is something on the internet – link?

      • ankerawshark 22.2.1
        11 October 2014 at 7:51 pm

        There was an email from Moira Coatsworth. I may have done her/it a dis-service by saying “shut up”.

        I can’t remember the exact words, but how I interpreted it was that we shouldn’t bag the candidates and that we are not to express negativity through the media about the candidates.

        Sorry if I have mis-lead.

        • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 22.2.1.1
          11 October 2014 at 8:06 pm

          Oh, that one. That email was even-handed and fine. I didn’t sense anything calling for people to shut-up. It was more of a ‘being mindful’ kind of tone.

          Having said that, it is quite interesting to think this through:

          (1) Did Parker read that email before or after Moira’s email?

          (2) In accordance with good sense and common decency, did Parker cross the line in terms of the letter or even spirit of that statesman(person)ship-like email from Moira?

          (3) With regard to the answer in response to (2), whether in the affirmative or negative, such an answer would set the precedence for other caucus or party members to be judged accordingly.

          (4) If the answer to (2) is no, then that means it would be quite ok for people to call out, as Parker did, as to who be regarded as “untenable” to be leader.

          (5) If the answer to (2) is yes, when will Parker be disciplined?

          (6) ……. any more to add … go ahead, readers ….

          • ankerawshark 22.2.1.1.1
            11 October 2014 at 9:14 pm

            I think the email from Moira was good. No problem with that.

            It said that the comments should not be denigrating or disrespectful…..

            So the question is, is saying you have “no confidence” in one of the candidates denigrating or disrespectful?

            It is pretty damming of DC.

            Does the interim leader set the precedence? Surely all the members, including caucus need to take responsibility for their own actions.

  23. Clean_power 23
    11 October 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Personally, I do hope that after a fair contest Grant Robertson wins.

  24. phillip ure 24
    11 October 2014 at 5:35 pm

    i wd like to formally announce my candidacy for the leadership of the labour party…

  25. ankerawshark 25
    11 October 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Didn’t know you were a member Phil! (can’t do the smiley face, but consider a smiley face done!)

    • phillip ure 25.1
      11 October 2014 at 6:47 pm

      i thought i’d join tomorrow..

      ..face it..i’m a better public speaker than at least three of them..

      ..i’m better looking than all of them..

      ..and i have a brace of progressive policy-ideas..

      ..that will have that missing million clamouring to get into the polling-booth..

      ..i’ll betcha the other candidates have none of that on offer..

  27. Clemgeopin 27
    11 October 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Stuff has a poll about who you would prefer as the next Labour leader. I think this poll is a bit stupid and the results are highly suspect as it is an open poll for everyone, including Labour’s and Cunliffe’s enemies!

    The actual Labour leadership contest that is rightfully open to the Labour members, not to the general public and Labour’s opponents.

    For instance, for National, I would ‘prefer’ Aaron Gilmore as their leader…(or may be Maurice W or Judith C or Bhakshi K or….)

    Here is the stuff poll:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/

  28. ankerawshark 28
    11 October 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Clem @ 27 the DB poll is likely more accurate. DC initially out ahead. Now AL slightly ahead with GR trailing a long way behind………….

  29. greywarshark 29
    11 October 2014 at 8:08 pm

    The money to help the stricken nations trying to deal with Ebola isn’t rolling in fast enough! And a warning is given that if the pandemic gets out of hand it will badly affect the world’s economy!!

  30. greywarshark 30
    11 October 2014 at 11:26 pm

    An item on a link – sounds a downer. Our gummint says we need more uni money going into science so we Can GetAhead as a country,.

    In USA they in one area have increased grad places from 30,000 to 56,000 but at the same time the projects funded have gone from 30% to 10% or something and a lot of scientists are having to do basic work that PhD should not be doing. They have the credentials, they have the ability but can’t get the work. Crazy old capitalism. Screws you every time. That’s very roughly the gist. Get the real facts from the link.
    http://io9.com/meet-the-new-underclass-people-with-ph-d-s-in-science-1644006710

    • Draco T Bastard 30.1
      11 October 2014 at 11:36 pm

      Crazy old capitalism. Screws you every time.

      It does. The people who produce stuff and actually keep society functioning get screwed over while the people who speculate with money or get interest and dividends from holding money/shares do ever better. The result will be the collapse of society and it appears that’s what most of us want as we vote for the political parties (National, Act, etc) that will bring about that collapse.

    • Murray Rawshark 30.2
      12 October 2014 at 4:50 am

      I am very lucky to have a permanent position. I wouldn’t advise anyone to aim for a career in science at the moment. You work your guts out to learn about things, gain unique abilities and then have to put up with disrespect from both smarmy gits like Key and conspiracy freaks who get their pseudoscience off youtube. You only get a permanent position if you’re very lucky, and you end up with a huge student loan to pay off.

      • greywarshark 30.2.1
        12 October 2014 at 11:18 am

        DTB and Murrayrawshark
        That’s how it is eh! So we can’t keep going hoping for better days. This is the end of the Rogernomics trial. And it’s been a failure. We have known for a while but have looked away quickly at NZ lying injured, and passed on our way. Now we have to turn into Good Samaritans and pick up the country, dress the wounds, get it some crutches, and help it move again.

        The bible has some good, relevant stories in it, apart from tribes warring and calvinist threats of doom, and skewed ideas retreating as far as you can go from Christianity.
        And I don’t go to church regularly now, but might go to Bahai or Quaker. Very sincere.
        I can’t stand being preached at now, knowing that the original message and thought has been written down, passed on by some other human, partly digested and brought forward again to the faithful, in altered form. Chinese whispers is like the stuff being preached, the further from the source, the more likely that some dictate or fillip has been added.

  31. dave brown 31
    12 October 2014 at 5:11 am

    The good thing about the underclass with PhDs is that they can do more than use their cell phones to crowd source the revolution.

  32. The Pink Postman 32
    12 October 2014 at 2:21 pm

    It is with heartfelt sadness that my family have heard of the death of Labour Party stalwart Paul Jellicich /Paul was famous for the Labour Picnics he organized and his Lamb spits were famous .
    Our thoughts are with his wife Dorothy ,My wife and I have fond memories of you both and are just glad that we enjoyed dinner together just a few weeks ago.
    Our love and thoughts are with you Dorothy .