Open Mike 12/09/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 12th, 2018 - 234 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

234 comments on “Open Mike 12/09/2018”

  1. Ed 1

    New Zealand is a country destroyed by neoliberal economics. The experiment launched on the country 34 years ago by Lange, Douglas and their motley crew has had profound negative effect for most New Zealand citizens.
    The working class felt the impacts immediately as unions were crushed, jobs lost, benefits destroyed, state housing undermined and the cost of basic requirements such as power soared.
    But the middle class are also now affected as the New Zealand economy, hollowed out by globalisation and now at the whim of its foreign owners and ‘investors’, sheds jobs in all areas.
    We don’t hear more of this because one of the intended consequences of this counter revolution in favour of the rich and powerful was the takoever of the media by those believers in neoliberal ideology.

    But 2 stories today paint a picture of the wretched life that is Douglas’s legacy.

    Power poverty: ‘We don’t even have a heater’

    Pensioners sit in cold houses wrapped in sleeping bags for fear of a big power bill, a budgeting services trust says, as a new report reveals energy hardship in New Zealand.
    Nearly a third of all households struggle to pay their electricity bills with many incurring fines or having their power cut entirely.

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/366229/power-poverty-we-don-t-even-have-a-heater

    ‘Swamp house’ family evicted after landlord ‘rips up house’
    The tenants of an Auckland ‘swamp house’, which the Housing Minister labelled “third world”, are being evicted after forcing their landlord to fix their home’s issues.

    After seeing the property on Checkpoint, Auckland Council deemed it insanitary and therefore unliveable on August 31, meaning the landlord, Aven Raj, had 10 days to resolve the property’s issues or face a $200,000 fine and an extra $20,000 every day the issues continued.
    Those included uncompliant stormwater pipes, poor drainage, and mould.
    Two business days later, on 4 September, the tenants were issued with a 90 day eviction notice. They weren’t given a reason for the eviction.

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018662078/swamp-house-family-evicted-after-landlord-rips-up-house

    But much of the media never tells this story or fails to put in into any context or (as in the case of Jim Mora) pretends to look at the issue, while never looking at the big picture.

    There is a solution.
    We need to abandon neoliberal capitalism.
    Better socialism than barbarism.

    • tc 1.1

      Power has been sneaking up since National flogged off the generators giving minority shareholders a say which equates to ‘screw the consumer, where’s my dividend’.

      If you generate a KWH and export it you get about 20% of the import price so all those exported KWH’s are pure profit for the industry. How sweet a deal is that when they can profit from power they didn’t even generate.

      • Ngungukai 1.1.1

        Max Bradford told us prices would be more competitive once the electricity market was deregulated – conned again and again and again ????

        • greywarshark 1.1.1.1

          Well in the Electricity Olympics when we compete we seem to be big losers. When do the citizens get to stand on the top step of the podium as winnerws in this country? Don’t bother to answer, don’t use your precious energy –
          perhaps once in the next year (record soon broken by further ‘competition’), or the year after or sometime one day!

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.2

          You simply cannot get competition in a natural monopoly. All networks are natural monopolies hence TradeMe and Facebook being pretty much ubiquitous while their competition barely even feature.

          All natural monopolies should be owned by government.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2

        Power has been sneaking up since National flogged off the generators giving minority shareholders a say which equates to ‘screw the consumer, where’s my dividend’.

        Shareholders are the biggest bludgers in the world and shareholding/ownership encourages monopoly.

        How sweet a deal is that when they can profit from power they didn’t even generate.

        That’s capitalism – legalised theft.

    • Adrian Thornton 1.2

      +1 Ed, well said…class war pure and simple.

    • The next step in the enquiry into power companies is looking at solutions.

      There is one obvious solution – but I doubt the government will accept it:

      Take all the power generators, line companies and retailers back into public ownership, abandon the SOE model of dividends and give a new authority a social conscience!

      Living in a warm dry house should be a basic right and should not be inhibited by an inability to pay for electric power!

      • Dukeofurl 1.3.1

        Solutions?

        We have one looking us in the face- A single national Cooperative who just does generation.
        Its how Fonterra works – doent listen to doomsayers- as for the Farmers its the best deal , could you imagine how they would be screwed if they were just milk suppliers and forced to ( mostly ) take the price on offer while huge profits went to those who were investors in the stock.

        Like Fonterra a Power coop would be able to make the investment for new generation but wouldnt play. games on the half hourly price the generators play games with.

      • Siobhan 1.3.2

        This is along the same line as Corbyns plans for the re Nationalisation of Power companies in the UK, with nationalisation being used as a tool to help fight Climate Change..given our current Government’s priority of dealing with Climate Change and inequality I would like to see their argument for basically retaining the status quo in how Energy (and housing) are delivered.

        “Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to make averting “climate catastrophe” a central aim if he wins power, arguing it can only be achieved with public ownership of Britain’s energy system.

        In his most pro-environment speech, the Labour leader said his government would be “at least as radical” as the post-war Clement Attlee administration which built the NHS and the welfare state.

        Labour would sweep away the “centralised system” of energy delivery, dominated by the much-criticised Big Six private firms, in favour of one with “new sources of energy large and small”, Mr Corbyn said.”

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-big-six-energy-companies-nationalisation-public-ownership-fracking-ban-climate-change-a8204031.html

    • Chuck 1.4

      Well, Ed, you have a major problem then…this current Government is not going to go anywhere near what you crave to happen.

      The only party that may give you hope are the Greens. And as the Greens will struggle to have any ability to influence now or in the future, your dream of a socialist paradise is dead and buried.

      • greywarshark 1.4.1

        Chuck you sound happy that good ideas for citizens wellbeing will always be dead and buried as long as you haven’t gone that way yourself.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1

          That’s true of all those that accept and promote capitalism. They really don’t care about the damage that they do to society or the environment as long as they’re richer than others.

          As I say, capitalism itself is an extremist ideology.

          • Dennis Frank 1.4.1.1.1

            I’d give that one to a university debate: “capitalism is an extremist ideology”. Those who agree on one team, those who don’t on the other, making sure that the latter are actual capitalists.

            I see merit on both sides & it would be fascinating to see the exploration of how ideology can be identified and proven by both sides. Most users of the system are pragmatists, then there are the players, who game it. Even amongst intelligent folk, those with a propensity toward ideology are real hard to find, I’ve noticed.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1.1.1

              Most users of the system are pragmatists

              That’s what they like to think of themselves but would pragmatists really support an unsustainable system?

              Pragmatist:

              1.
              a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.
              “hardheaded pragmatists firmly rooted in the real world”
              2.
              Philosophy
              an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

              • Dennis Frank

                Definitely not this bit: “firmly rooted in the real world”. Just firmly rooted in part of our world that still seems real to them. Those that are sufficiently pragmatic to be shifting their ground towards sustainability are now a larger minority each year that passes…

        • Chuck 1.4.1.2

          “Chuck you sound happy that good ideas for citizens wellbeing will always be dead and buried as long as you haven’t gone that way yourself.”

          Socialism is not the answer to citizens wellbeing. Everywhere it has been tried its failed.

          The Nordic model comes the closest to being a pinup poster for socialism. But as its a mix of both socialism and capitalism, it deflates the argument that capitalism is bad and socialism is good.

          Maybe that’s a clue? take the best bits of both and that may well be a good idea for everyone’s well being…

          • chris73 1.4.1.2.1

            “Maybe that’s a clue? take the best bits of both and that may well be a good idea for everyone’s well being…”

            Thats just crazy talk!

          • Stuart Munro 1.4.1.2.2

            “The Nordic model comes the closest to being a pinup poster for socialism.”

            The Nordic model comes the closest to being a pinup poster for capitalism – it’s the only one where societies aren’t comprehensively oppressed by out of control financial elites preying on the poor.

            Corruption’s a big deal too – the UK’s right wing made off with the wealth from North Sea oil, pissed it all away – the Scandinavian countries invested it prudently to fund better societies. NZ has followed the UK model – the Gnats were too thick to think of their own and too corrupt not to steal any loose public wealth.

    • Nah we are not a country destroyed at all. Look around ed – you enjoy so much from your position of priviledge – go and help someone in real life instead of moaning about everything online, while you sit in your lazyboy in your warm 3 bedroom house – metaphorically speaking 🙂

  2. Morrissey 2

    Remember Sept. 11, 1973: the likes of CNN’s Miguel Marquez certainly won’t.

    On RNZ National this morning, there was a typically maudlin propaganda piece from one Miguel Marquez, an alleged “reporter” for CNN, who took some time off chasing Russian ghost meddlers to make his voice croak with “emotion” as he described the solemn reading out of names of those killed in the terror attack on New York on Sept. 11, 2001.

    Marquez and his colleagues are probably only dimly aware of another Sept. 11 anniversary, to the south of New York….

    http://www.itv.com/news/2018-09-11/the-other-september-11th-families-looking-for-answers-about-disappeared-relatives-45-years-after-chile-military-coup/

  3. corodale 3

    CNN climate porn, fake news – business as usual.

    Report of “bunkering down with pet parrots” as Hurricane Florence aims for the Carolinas. They claim it is a category 4 storm. https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/hurricane-florence-dle/index.html

    Now check for yourself on this funky global wind speed map. And see that it is only a category 1 storm.

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-70.44,22.09,2354/loc=-66.879,27.370

    Perhaps there is some wind speed at altitude of +200km/h?
    But the ones to measure for category rating are ground speeds, and these aren’t much more than 100km/h, as you can see for yourself on this funky link above.

    This is the altitude wind speed map, perhaps the source of their fake reporting as category 4, https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-68.15,%2030.17,%203000/loc=-66.024,%2027.462

  4. Dennis Frank 4

    A touching moment in UK politics as Labourites advise Conservatives how to deal with alt-rightists: “Conservative moderates are meeting ex-Labour advisers from the Blair-Brown era to learn lessons on how to avoid a “Momentum-style” takeover of the party by radical activists. Tories in the political centre-ground believe intelligence they gather from the ex-senior figures will help their party sidestep any plot to infiltrate the Conservatives. They are seeking the advice amid claims of an entryism strategy from former Ukip members and activists affiliated to the hard-Brexit backing Leave.EU group.”
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-brexit-new-labour-moemntum-corbyn-member-takeover-right-wing-ukip-a8532431.html

    Such solidarity in the political center is new for the Brits, eh? “It comes after two key figures from Leave.EU, including founder Arron Banks, failed in their latest attempt to join the Tories.” “Conservative officials have repeatedly moved to block the membership applications of multimillionaire Ukip funder Mr Banks and his associate Andy Wigmore from joining the party.”

    “It is not clear that the entryism claims being made by some people really amount to much, maybe they do, maybe they don’t.” Google: “entryism: the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives.”

    “The latest published figures showed Tory membership at 124,000, making it less than a quarter of the size of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party and raising the risk that a relatively small number of activists could influence the outcome of a poll.” Woohoo! Will the barbarian entryists storm the gates? Watch next week’s exciting episode!

  5. Sanctuary 5

    A stonking piece by Gary Younge in the Guardian the other day – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/07/trump-brexit-referendum-us-election-results which basically sums up why anyone with hopes of major – or even just some – reforms of the neoliberal consensus are destined to be utterly betrayed by the current Labour government.

    Recently I pointed out that the definition of “conservative” is now best worn by the neoliberal left as represented by the old, establishment “left wing” political vehicles, and the “new Labour” politicians of these conservative parties.

    Younge notes that the desire of neolib loving “lefties” in the US Democrats and the UK to impeach Trump, fanatically oppose Corbyn and keep voting on Brexit until they get the “right” result is primarily driven by an utter failure to grasp the changed realities of the modern world, and desperate desire to return to the politics of an earlier time –

    “… In isolation, both actions seek to press pause on the post-crash period, and the stagnant wages, class calcification, escalating inequality and growing uncertainty that came with it, rather than pressing stop and changing the tune… …Apparently unable to grasp that the financial crash and the austerity that followed unleashed a fundamental realignment of our politics, his (Corbyns) opponents sought not engagement with the present but comfort from the past…”

    It needs reminding that many of the UK (and NZ) Labour sister parties in Europe that have remained broadly wedded to Blairite orthodoxy – for example in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands – are all facing political oblivion. By contrast, the UK Labour party has under Corbyn thrown off neoliberalism, rediscovered it’s social democratic roots and is thriving with half a million members and a four point lead in the polls – all the while facing a viciously hostile MSM media united in its strident desire to get rid of the enemies of establishment privilege from any position where they may challenge the power of the neoliberal order.

    It is also worth remembering that prior to the shooting star of Jacindamania Labour was languishing at 23% in the polls, and was on the verge of total electoral collapse – a collapse (given how we were relatively untouched by the GFC) mainly driven by the ideological exhaustion, political poverty and policy timidity of the post-Roger Douglas NZ Labour party.

    But Jacinda, and the lack of anything like a Momentum movement here or a viable alternative left wing leader, has given the the NZ neolib new conservatives in Labour one last run at power. Don’t expect anything left wing from that comfortable, machine politician weasel Grant Robertson. Michael Cullen II is an archtypical new conservative “left” politician, living fat on the public purse in an insulated job for life whilst hob nobbing with the boss class.

    This is a government of do-nothing new conservatives who are mainly pleased with themselves for being in power. This is Labour’s last gasp, propelled to power on the back of the star power of our Trudeau, a party utterly bereft of any courage or mission beyond it’s own survival of the fittest as it’s vote shrinks.

    Once Jacinda is gone Labour will make Roberston leader. I expect the party then to rapidly disappear as a political force in NZ, because the politics Robertson represents has no major constituency anymore. Without getting rid of neoliberalism, Labour will die with it. I can’t see the party lasting the 2020s.

    • Dennis Frank 5.1

      Remains to be seen how staunch Corbyn intends to be in his return to socialism. Inasmuch as to be successful requires compromise with the establishment, his sidekick is already signalling: “McDonnell, who held talks at Goldman Sachs on Monday, said he hoped the party had turned a corner on antisemitism”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/11/john-mcdonnell-labour-mps-should-not-fear-party-activists

      Doesn’t say he held talks with Goldman Sachs. That would create the wrong impression, right? “I prefer the existing system, the trigger ballot system,” McDonnell said. “Some MPs are saying that needs to be slightly reformed, and I can see there’s a need for reform, but I prefer the existing system.”

      This guy will go far. Having 50 cents each way on reform shows he’s an archetypal politician. Always say you agree with both sides. They’ll then each think you’re on their side. “The shadow chancellor’s speech on Tuesday at the TUC will focus on Labour plans to give gig economy workers the same employment rights as staff workers. “We’ve got to take a clear view now that if we want people treated fairly at work, they should have equal rights,” he said.”

      Hmm. Not sure that punters will be able to grasp such a radical notion. His political advisers may well have to rein him in. “Mate, you’re not being tentative enough”.

      • Professor Longhair 5.1.1

        “….said he hoped the party had turned a corner on antisemitism”.

        ????

        There is not a problem of antisemitism in the Labour Party. Corbyn is not anti-semitic.

        Or do you buy the propaganda lie that criticizing Israel’s crimes is “anti-semitic”?

        • Dennis Frank 5.1.1.1

          Of course not. You did notice that it was a quote from UK Labour’s shadow chancellor?? If not, try again…

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1

            Get your formatting right and then you won’t have these issues.

            • Dennis Frank 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Can’t see anything wrong with those quotations, so it was probably a case of insufficient attention..

              • Draco T Bastard

                They’re unclear. Many people completely miss them the way you put them. And, yes, I know that they’re technically correct. Compare this with your original though:

                Remains to be seen how staunch Corbyn intends to be in his return to socialism. Inasmuch as to be successful requires compromise with the establishment, his sidekick is already signalling:

                McDonnell, who held talks at Goldman Sachs on Monday, said he hoped the party had turned a corner on antisemitism

                • Dennis Frank

                  Thanks, looks like there’s a physical difference between people like me who have spent their life reading books, and those who just read online text. The space around it, I mean. Books are condensed text. Also, I’ve spent years writing documents on paper, where wasting space is a no-no.

    • Ad 5.2

      Sanctuary the fight in this government isn’t going to be within the Labour Party.
      A welcome change after a decade don’t you think?

      The scrap is between the Labour Party and New Zealand First.

      As well as on the immigration front, it is really coming to a head w ith the new employment act measures.

      We should expect to see New Zealand First vote with the Naitonal Party on some fo the amendments and SOP’s that National put up. That will be a useful test of the maturity of out media to “get” MMP.

      As for expecting the Labour Party to disappear, well, best of luck with that. But all signs point to three terms this time … after which they will likely fuck up the replacement.

      • Dukeofurl 5.2.1

        NZ First vote with National ?
        Wont happen as NZF is part of Coalition government. They arent like Greens just support partners.
        If there is something in the legislation NZF doesnt like it will be changed before being voted on in parliament.
        NZF policy isnt too far from labours on labour law reform anyway, they certainly arent national-lite

        If you see NZF voting with National, that would only be because they would be the government partners.

        Heres a Summary of NZF policies on employment law/industrial relations

        Review and amend employment laws to ensure that casualisation employment practices are fair and just with a review of short term employment contracts.
        Train New Zealanders in areas of skill shortages, instead of actively recruiting offshore; and put New Zealanders first for jobs by sensible immigration policies.
        Introduce literacy and numeracy skills package for workers.

        https://www.interest.co.nz/news/87525/election-2017-party-policies-labour-and-employment-industrial-relations

        • Ad 5.2.1.1

          Sure there’s support for the main bill. Watch the SOPs.

          Happy to be proven wrong at the third reading.

          NZF are playing like they run the joint.

          • Dukeofurl 5.2.1.1.1

            Run the joint

            Just as Key and English had to get approval for each and every piece of legislation during their 9 years.

            RMA changes – openly said they had to water down their own proposals

            Kermadec Sanctuary- Key went on the stage at UN to announce, but back home the Maori party threatened to walk away from National if they pushed it through with Greens support, so the legislation was shelved after 2016

      • veutoviper 5.2.2

        I am with the Dukeofurl on this one, Ad.

        You are dreaming if you think that Peters and NZF will vote with National on employment law amendments and threaten the continuation of the coalition government. Both Ardern and Peters do ‘get’ MMP and know that compromise etc is essential to the continuation of this government.

        In addition, here is a link to NZF’s archived 2017 campaign policies on Labour and Employment (and to all their archived 2017 policies which are no longer on their website):

        https://web.archive.org/web/20171010161609/http://www.nzfirst.org.nz:80/labour_and_employment

        [h/t mickysavage who provided a link to these archives in a post about a week ago.]

        Do you see anything there that is similar to anything Nats are likely to put up? I don’t, but I do see quite a few things that align much more closely to Labour’s employment policies.

        You really are very good at provocative creative writing, Ad – eg some of your recent posts such as the Parliament and Bullying one, LOL – but not so good at writing based on fact and perspective.

        How are your poetry writing skills? I seem to recall you mentioned something about taking some courses at Vic.

        • Ad 5.2.2.1

          I remember manifestos.

          Labour got a whole bunch cut out of theirs during the negotiations, whereas NZF got everything they wanted.

          You need to listen more carefully to the Prime Minister: she never references manifestos; she references the coalition agreement and the Cabinet decision-making process.

          That’s it.

          The manifestos are ash.

          Here’s the coalition agreement.

          http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1710/362429780LabourandNewZealandFirstCoalitionAgreement.pdf

          The only two points of relevance to workers in it are:

          • Review the official measures for unemployment to ensure they accurately reflect the workforce of the 21st Century.
          • Progressively increase the Minimum Wage to $20 per hour by 2020, with the final increase to take effect in April 2021.

          Notice the references to pro-worker legislation?

          Me neither.

          this set up NZF to trade its chips like it’s at the races.

          There you go for poetry – a simile.

          • Dukeofurl 5.2.2.1.1

            NZF got every thing they wanted ?

            You havent seen the things Peters went around the country before the election ‘enthusing over’ – hes a canny politician so will often avoid outright promises

          • McFlock 5.2.2.1.2

            It looks to me like you said the manifestos are ash and then said NZ1 got everything they wanted.

            Wouldn’t what they wanted be in their manifesto?
            In which case, NZ1’s labour policies are relevant to whether they will side with national regarding labour laws.

          • veutoviper 5.2.2.1.3

            1. Do you really think in the pressurized time and environment that the negotiations were carried out between NZF and Labour (AND between NZF and National separately) that they would have been able to agree, not agree, or decide on compromises on every aspect of each of the party’s manifestos and covered everything in the public coalition agreement?

            Of course not. There would have always been areas requiring further discussion and agreement, non-agreement or compromise. Hence the limited coverage of worker issues in the coalition agreement – and in the Speech from the Throne – as referred to in the coalition agreement.

            2. Lets look at the actual Employment Relations Amendment Bill that you are obviously referring to in relation to workers rights etc.in these statements in your 5.2 above – ”As well as on the immigration front, it is really coming to a head with the new employment act measures. We should expect to see New Zealand First vote with the Naitonal Party on some fo the amendments and SOP’s that National put up. That will be a useful test of the maturity of out media to “get” MMP.”

            This Bill was introduced on 29 Jan 2018 immediately after the summer recess and had its First Reading on 1 February 2018 – and passed that First Reading vote and its referral to the Education and Workforce Select Committee by 63 Ayes (Labour, NZG and Greens) to 56 Noes (National).

            Here is the Hansard for the First Reading.
            https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20180201_20180201_20

            Read in particular Clayton Mitchell’s contribution on behalf of NZF. While seeking some ability to retain 90 day trials in certain circumstance, his speech also focuses on their support for other aspects of the Coalition Agreement and the direct and indirect results sought through the Bill such as:
            – raising wages and working towards a living wage economy,
            – adequate recording and reporting on employment and not deeming one hour a week to be deemed to be employed
            – a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work,
            – right balance between employer and employee (including employee’s needs of having job stability, safe working conditions, and good remuneration packages are part of that balance)
            – the return of adequate meal and other breaks as part of health and safety plans.

            With regard to the coalition process etc, Mitchell also commended the work that had been done behind the scenes to get the bill into the House in 100 days. And he stated that New Zealand First was proud to be supporting the Bill and “That fair pay for fair work is the balance that we are going to strike and that we have got with this bill, so we commend the bill to the House.”

            So apart from some semi-conciliatory remarks re National speakers from Clayton Mitchell, not much dissention with Labour there apart from seeking some retention of 90 day trials for smaller SMEs.

            3. So what happened at Select Committee?

            A total of 453 submissions were received, and oral evidence from 86 submitters was heard at hearings in Auckland and Wellington.

            Last Friday on 7 September 2018, as required, the Education and Workforce Committee filed its report to the House recommending – by majority – that it be passed with the recommendations contained in the report.

            By majority, this means that agreement was reached between the six Government members (4 Labour, 1 Green and 1 NZF member), although the Green Party as is its right, registered its view in the section on trial periods that the 90 day trial period should be removed in its entirety.

            The remaining five National members of the Committee registered a minority report at page 6 of the main report.

            Here is the report. https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/SCR_80236/fd7aeda44a556aa5ec79ce2bc1f4cef561b15379

            The report was presented to the House yesterday and will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper for Second Reading in accordance with Standing Orders. Its positioning on the OP is strictly up to the Government, and it is up against a whole range of other Bills currently in progress through the House so I would not hold your breath as to where it is placed.

            Now I find it really ‘coincidental’ that your remarks about Labour and NZF and this Bill came just hours before today’s Question Time.

            While I was typing the above, at Q2, Simon Bridges asked the PM the usual “Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?”.

            Now you yourself told me that I should listen closely to what Jacinda Ardern says. I do actually but perhaps you should, Ad.

            So here is Ardern this very afternoon telling Bridges – not once, not twice but many times – that all policies of this Government go through a policy process and are contained in the Confidence and Supply Agreement, the Coalition Agreement or the Speech from the Throne; OR go through a Cabinet process. This included questions he raised about this very Bill!!!!
            And Winston is killing himself laughing the whole way through – not at Ardern but at Bridges.

            https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=202590

            There you go – a few facts.

            Are you sure you are not Simon Bridges?

      • bwaghorn 5.2.3

        Maturity of our media to get mmp!!! Not likely from most of them ,they want to set mmp on fire just for the pleasure of watching it burn .
        I love mmp and voted for it but it’s doomed in this country of morons .

        The only hope is Ardern tells Winston to get in line or fuck off .nzf will be slaughtered if they force an early election

          • Dennis Frank 5.2.3.1.1

            Yes, feasible but depends on the sticking point & we ain’t there yet. I suspect this coalition will only succeed on the basis of mutual respect and goodwill. Any attempt by Labour to operate from a position of supremacy will be fatal.

            Jacinda almost certainly knows this, so will be firm in forcing any compromise that is possible. Perception of NZF getting stroppy is probably over-stated, or reflects Labour weakness as exemplified by Mahuta being allowed to announce a govt policy that NZF opposes (so ain’t actually a govt policy at all, just her pretence). Whoever has been delegated the task of political management of the coalition’s process is obviously out of their depth and ought to be replaced by someone competent.

        • Antoine 5.2.3.2

          I doubt Ardern is in any hurry for an early election

          It would look bad (failure to hold a coalition together) and the Left might actually lose

          And it would be a pain in the ass and it would derail everything else she’s trying to do, for some time

          She would rather swallow a few dead rats

          A.

      • Sanctuary 5.2.4

        Hi Ad,

        I note I am not the only one coming to the conclusion that this government has learnt nothing from the GFC and the collapse of establishment Labour parties across the west…

        http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2018/09/labour-isnt-delivering.html

        • Ad 5.2.4.1

          Reminds me of that Sarah Palin line about Obama:

          “How’s all that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya?”

          • Dennis Frank 5.2.4.1.1

            I was disappointed he didn’t respond: “Still good. Waiting for the other side to do as they’re told.” The leftist teacher stance.

  6. Andre 6

    Climate change and malnourishment: there has been a decades-long global trend of decreasing hunger and malnourishment, that has tragically reversed in the past few years. This is happening in the parts of the world that are going to get hit hardest by climate change, and also strongly overlap with the parts of the world with highest population growth.

    Is this the first sign of mass human die-offs and huge increases in migration pressures due to climate change?

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/11/health/un-hunger-report-2018-intl/index.html

  7. corodale 7

    If Andre’s luck warm CNN fake news (see comment 3 above) isn’t doing it for ya, then check this, should really get ya depressed. Some detail on the Synagogue of Satan and Luciferian Creeds which work toward One World Government. The good news is, if you can identify the target, then action can be taken.

    William Guy Carr: Globalists, Satanists & Perverts
    https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/09/Guy-Carr-Globalists-are-Satanists%20.html

    • james 7.1

      The only thing fake is your comment.

      You are totally wrong. See reply above.

    • RedLogix 7.2

      I’m fascinated by how fearful many people are by the notion of global governance; given that the entire political history of the human race can be summarised simply as a sequence of progressive expansions to encompass wider groups and populations.

      Why the paranoia ?

        • Andre 7.2.1.1

          A while ago the letter below turned up in my inbox. Secretly ruling the world by pulling strings from the shadows isn’t really my thing, so I passed. If I ever get a hankering for global domination I’ll want to be in-your-face about it like Gates or Musk or Bezos or Zuckerberg. But someone here may want to take up the offer or become a mole in the organisation.

          “Greetings, from The illuminati world elite empire. Bringing the poor, the needy and the talented to limelight of fame, riches, powers and security, get recognized in your business, political race, rise to the top in whatever you do, be protected spiritually and physically! All these you will achieve in a twinkle of an eye when you get initiated to the great Illuminati empire. Once you are initiated to the illuminati empire you will get numerous benefits and reward.
          Note: that this message was created solely for the purpose of our recruitment scheme which will end next month and this offer is for unique ones only, if you are not serious on joining the illuminati empire, then you are advise not to contact us at all. This is because disloyalty is highly not tolerated here in our organization.
          Do you agree to be a member of the illuminati new world order? If YES! then kindly reply us back on our direct recruitment email only at: infoilluminati@qq.com
          Please note, Kindly make sure all your respond/reply are send directly to the email stated above only at:> infoilluminati@qq.com
          For more instructions on our membership process.
          The Illuminati. “

          • Dennis Frank 7.2.1.1.1

            No copyright would apply to the brand; too old. Available for all copycats. You seem to have been selected by one with marginal literacy who seems intent on recruiting gullible teenage conspiracy theorists. Darwin Award contenders.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.2.2

        IMO, it’s

        Global governance = all nations the same

        • Dennis Frank 7.2.2.1

          You mean a monoculture? If so, I agree nobody would want that except those in control. Actually, they may not either: diversity of tastes means more products to sell, more marketing, more capitalism…

        • McFlock 7.2.2.2

          I’d say much less than “one nation = all people the same”.

          Personally I think we’ll get there gradually, as our tendency to fuck up ourselves and the planet requires more and more international coordination to treat or cure.

        • Andre 7.2.2.3

          Anyone that thinks that clearly hasn’t spent much time around the different parts of the US. Or even the UK or South Africa for that matter.

        • Chuck 7.2.2.4

          DTB you will need to outlaw all religion for starters.

          How will the global governance elites be voted in? Each “former country” have 1 vote or will it be based on 1 vote per person?

          Which culture will be the “one” that dominates? To have global governance true and full diversity cannot be allowed.

          • McFlock 7.2.2.4.1

            Oh bullshit.

            The culture that “dominates” will be a global culture, not a national culture that overpowers all others. And it doesn’t preclude aspects of local culture being preserved. Sure, murder for blood debts would be out, but the concept of world government doesn’t require people to be forbidden from retaining their own cultural identity.

            I don’t know what type of government it will be, or when it will happen. But it will be an inevitability, especially if we spread beyond this rock we’re turning into a cess pit. And I suspect it will mostly be incremental.

            • Chuck 7.2.2.4.1.1

              How do you see religion handled then McFlock?

              The global culture will need to come from somewhere. Sure some local culture could be preserved (music, food etc). But the biggie is law and order. And looking at the world today, the differences between cultures is vast. For example, Islamic law verse Western culture…which one will it be?

              I agree though, in a couple hundred years time, we could just be a member of the Federation of Planets.

              • McFlock

                I reckon as the world progresses, creationism won’t be taught in science classes either.

                Fundies of all types will be restricted when they start doing shit to other people without consent. But given that not every majority muslim country in the world is like Saudi Arabia (ISTR reading that an Egyptian man got arrested there for eating with a woman, so it’s not just Westerners caught out), I don’t think it’s a case of which religion will will be ruled out, but more that the extremists in all religions will be overruled.

                Interesting developments in the Catholic church, for example, wanting to be covered in the NZ child abuse review. Fifty years ago the separation of the Church from that process would have been intractable, now they’re asking to be included.

  8. T.rump and 9/11 – he is a vermilion vermin

    “Trump bragged that the destruction of the twin towers made his building the tallest in lower manhattan.”

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/107009026/trumps-long-history-of-lying-about-911-and-exploiting-it-for-personal-gain

    • One Two 9.1

      What now..

      A shoulder shrug, if that…

      It has been known for some time that LED lighting is unhealthy for humans and animals…

      In time such reports will include the impact that high frequency microwave radio waves (mobile wireless networks) are having on biologicals…

      But what will be done about what is already known to be a problem…albeit one which has been kept out of the mainstream for the most part…

      Solution – Roll out higher frequency wireless networks…

    • Andre 9.2

      Yes, the colour from leds is a problem for night creatures, and even for people that use devices late into the night. But there’s a lot of incremental improvements available.

      There are those already alluded to in the article – less lighting, better control of the light distribution.

      But the big one I see coming down the development pipeline is a big overall improvement in LEDs. At the moment, white leds are fundamentally blue leds covered by a yellow phosphor that converts some of the blue light to yellow. The warmer whites have more of the yellow phosphor, the harsher ‘alien autopsy” bluer lights use less phosphor. Because the phosphor conversion is inefficient, there’s an incentive to go for the harshest bluest white that’s just barely acceptable to users. It also means current generation white leds produce very little red and green light.

      However, the most efficient white leds are somewhat different – they use a blue led covered with a green phosphor* in combination with a red led. The blue-to-green phosphor conversion is a bit more efficient than blue-to-yellow, and the separate red led allows better tuning of the colour without the inefficiency of phosphor conversion. The light spectrum produced is also a better match to the human eye sensitivity to red, green, and blue.

      They’re being sold for domestic use as Philips Hue already, at enormous prices, but once the production process ramps up to get efficiencies of scale they will take over from the current style. Then they will allow general lighting to be colour-tuned for a better balance for late-night humans and wildlife.

      *this suggests an even better option would be to do away with the phosphor completely and use a combo of red, green, and blue leds. But at the moment, all the different types of green led made are very inefficient, so it’s still better to use a phosphor.

      • veutoviper 9.2.1

        Thanks for that information, Andre. Really informative and interesting because I have been wondering about the move to LED street lighting here in Wellington, etc. My experience is that the LED replacements are brighter/whiter in the immediate vicinity of the street light, but do not have the same area coverage of the previous yellow/orange lights we had. There is now an area of street outside my place that is now very dark and I was considering getting a light put on the lamppost there, but have now decided against it as it gives some dark spaces for birds etc.

        • McFlock 9.2.1.1

          Yeah, the “throw” of LED lights can be an issue, but they’re improving every year.

          Done wonders for the power bills of smaller theatres 🙂

    • Gabby 9.3

      Streets are harmful for urban wildlife.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4

      We certainly know their activity changes … certainly, in Europe, we’re looking at birds are starting to sing earlier in the day

      I’ve been noticing that where I live. The birds are up and about at 03:00

  9. adam 10

    So the question is who is the USA going to invade this year or early next?

    Syria

    or

    Venezuela

    or

    Ukraine

    or

    Just bomb the hell out of North Korea

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      All of the above?

    • Exkiwiforces 10.2

      What about Iran or the sea in and around Taiwan? I would rule out the Ukraine unless Putin makes a move on the Baltic States, but that would draw in NATO as well IRT to supporting the Baltic States.

      In a nutshell it’s either Asia (the North Asia Box or the South China Sea Region) or the Sandpit.

      Syria is too far gone for the Yanks to get involved with now and if they wanted to it had too happened under Obama’s watch in which had to pull the trigger, but the Russians got there first before he could.

      • adam 10.2.1

        I’m hearing from people in the US I know, that the US is keep getting pulled more and more into Syria. In that there are more troops on the ground, not just material support.

        I think Syria will be where a proxy war against Iran will take place. I feel sorry for the US troops, as it seems booth Saudi Arabia and Israel want a war with Iran, and neither don’t care how many US soldiers die to have it.

        Edit: Do you think the US would really push it with China around Taiwan? I didn’t think they had enough naval forces in the region – not with the expanded Chinessess silk missile programme on the coast around there.

        • Exkiwiforces 10.2.1.1

          I can’t believe that are stupid enough to still pouring men and material into Syria when they can no longer achieve their intended end state, but in saying that these clowns from US really do need a bloody good kick up their jacksy as Iran can now establish a land bridge to Syria (Israel) via Iraq instead of relying on the sea as it getting interdicted by the IDF and the Air Bridge couldn’t keep up with demand. All because the yanks removed old mate Saddam along his Sunni minority Government and replace it a dominate Shiite Government which happens to be the main Islamic religion in Iran and Syria. Sooner or late the Neo Cons and their Israeli supporters will get their war within the MER and it’s not going to be a pretty sight as an awful lot of countries are going to be suck into to it, just like China and the US with hers Allies in the Asia Pacific region. Paul Kelly’s song “Small things big thing grow” comes to mind for all the wrong reasons.

          China won’t make a move against Taiwan by itself as its lacking overmatch to take on the US (PACCOM) and possibly some of her allies as well, I believe China will only move on Taiwan if can match Taiwan, Japan and the US which would be in the next 15- 20yrs -/+ 5yrs or in a loose/ very loose coalition with Russia, Iran with Nth Korea (being China’s ally). This coalition will allow them to archived parity or local superiority over the US and its allies by splitting its forces IOT stop the US and her allies from concentration all its forces at one specific decisive point or event.
          For China to invade Taiwan it needs to cut or degrade Taiwan’s Sea lanes of Communications (SLOC) IOT be within a bull’s roar of success, hence China’s doctrine of A2AD (Anti Access/ Area Denial).
          If China can close the South China Sea (SCS) it would deprive Taiwan of access for its POL requirements also this would a effect Sth Korea and Japan and prevent any reinforcement from her allies from the south also. At the same providing flank protection (from the it man made islands, DE powered Sub’s IOT support the Main Effort (ME), also allowing China the freedom of movement to give her Nuclear Attack Subs launching from the big Chinese Sub on Hainan Is a chance to interdict Taiwan’s SLOC’s to prevent resupply and reinforcement from Guam, the Okinawa Islands, With China’s Northern Fleet providing flank protection and Interdicting resupply/ reinforcement from Japan and Sth Korea. This will allow China to have complete freedom of Manoeuvre IOT shape the Battlespace for a successful invasion of Taiwan which will be a short sharp bombardment with the landing force right behind the last shell hitting the beach, deprive the ability US and its Allies to concentrate it forces at the DE or at a DP. If this Coordinated with Russia, Iran and Nth Korea, With Russia making a move on the Baltic States and Finland (was once a part of Russia), Iran on Israel with the closing of the Straits of Hormuz and Nth Korea moving against Sth Korea. This will stretched the US Forces to almost breaking point and thereby denying the US to concentrate it forces at one DP or DE IOT to destroy the opposing force. Now the tick is for the China and its allies is to avoid a 1st strike attack and a 2nd strike response (which will be the hardest bit to do) and let the US pull the trigger on the instant cans of sunshine.

          Unfortunately NZ won’t be able to avoid a war in the Asia/ Pacific Region no thanks to the Neo Con/ Lib economic theory/ Trade Globalization which has seen NZ’s Heavy and Medium Manufacturing go the way of the dodo, the Public Sector, Private Sector now work on the Neo Con/ Lib economic theory/ Trade Globalization of “Just in time Logistics” which means bugger all spare parts/ holdings are kept in stock or POL products are held overseas such as the NZ’s 90 day fuel reserve of all products of which 60days is kept overseas from memory . NZ major export countries are the Asian region including the smaller ones around the Singapore Hub are going to be affected because of the our SLOC’s will be degraded to point that we could see a possible halt of trade to certain countries and this will be the same for imports as well.

          Since the 90’s and to the present we’ve seen the hollowing out of the NZDF in both manpower and capabilities to a point we well lucky just maintain our SLOC to Oz and South Pacific let alone to anywhere else in the Asian Pacific such as the Singapore Hub, North Asia, Indian or the Western US/ Canadian Seaboard if war did break out suddenly.

          I can go on talking about NZ’s COG, CC, CR, CV’s plus NZ’s own CV’s and Weather Base effects/ CC with its head in the sand approach from the Public which led by the Muppets in the Beehive.

    • Bill 10.3

      Given that the US administration spoke with generals within the Venezuelan army before that assassination attempt …not saying they’re connected, because, you know, the US is also saying it didn’t follow up on discussions it had 🙂

      And Bernie Sanders was saying before Congress that the US has some form of operation going on in a total of 76 countries at the moment. Plenty of opportunities for a wee bit of escalation…

    • marty mars 10.4

      The moon – be good to sort the Nazis and aliens out – they are causing too much trouble imo. And they’re doing fuck all to help us with climate change – useless and the aliens are even worse.

      • Bill 10.5.1

        Found the source for my comment above. Sander’s exact words – (from about 5min 45sec)

        We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. We are occupying a portion of Syria, and this administration has indicated it may broaden that mission even more. We are aging a secretive drone war in at least five countries. Our forces, right now, as we speak, are supporting a Saudi led war in Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians, and has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet today.

        Clearly, these outdated and expansive AUMFs have been used by three different administrations, Republican and Democrat, as a blank cheque for the President to wage war without Congressional consent or oversight. Meanwhile we are currently, quote, unquote, “fighting terrorism” in some 76 countries, with an estimated cost of 5.6 Trillion dollars, and untold lives lost since 2001.

        https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4734415/sanders-congressional-war-powers

        By the way – (From Time.com)

        When Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war on Japan after the 1941 Pearl Harbor attacks, it signified the last time the U.S. officially declared war.

        • mac1 10.5.1.1

          Bill, your two points must conflict some Catholics and others who justify going to war based on Augustine just war theory.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

          • McFlock 10.5.1.1.1

            Not really.

            WW2 was as close to a Just War as history gets. Afghanistan might have met some aspects, which is why almost everyone supported it in the UN (although the final JW is highly debatable and unlikely to come through).

            But merely because a war might be just when it starts, that doesn’t make everything that happens in it justifiable from the Augustine perspective. Area bombing of cities and a 17 year conflict come to mind.

            I read an article recently that argued that the US military is essentially now in the situation where it can maintain the respect of the US population simply by not losing the war, rather than actually winning it. I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that the US military is now made up by something like 1% of US families, and essentially siloed from the rest of the population. And drones don’t have pilots to be killed or captured.

            Unlike Vietnam, where almost every (not rich) family was at risk of having someone go there.

            • Bill 10.5.1.1.1.1

              Pretty sure the invasion of Afghanistan wasn’t okayed by the UN.

              The US (and Australia?) and the UK went in all guns ablazin’, (some bullshit about “self defense” ) then handed shit off to the UN, who then passed it over to NATO – or something like that (from fuzzy memory).

              Don’t know how much “respect” the military gets to maintain over the course of things by entering into never ending shit that blows the poorest (and most numerous) cohort of society to shit – it’s certainly isn’t working out too well for the establishment that’s behind sending the military in.

              • McFlock

                I didn’t say they okay’d it. The UN doesn’t work that fast. There sure wasn’t much opposition whenever any nation was asked, though.
                The list of nations contributing to ISAF isn’t restricted to NATO by any means.

                Don’t know how much “respect” the military gets […]

                Ah, found it:

                Expressed differently, the United States has not won a major conflict since 1945, has a trillion-dollar national security budget, has had 17 military commanders in the last 17 years in Afghanistan, a country plagued by 23,744 “security incidents” — the most ever recorded — in 2017 alone, has spent around $3 trillion primarily on that war and the rest of the war on terror including the ongoing conflict in Iraq and yet 74 percent of the American people still express high confidence in the U.S. military.

                The “high confidence” link goes to Gallup polls that stretch back to 1975. Aside from a short spike in 1991, the duration of the 911 wars has seen the highest approval ratings within the US for the US military.

                That’s the problem.

                “The establishment” is happy because it’s collecting tax dollars through arms sales. The people still have faith in an organisation that’s spent four trillion dollars and thousands of US lives on a war that they have no plan for winning. And with all the voter disenfranchisement tricks used in the US, poor people don’t vote as much as the middle classes and wealthy.

                There’s no internal incentive for the US to stop its wars.

  10. bwaghorn 11

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12123580

    The swamp house tenants are being evicted now the house has been fixed .
    A pox on the landlord and all his kin

  11. bwaghorn 12

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/105947470/precious-rock-new-zealand-is-accused-of-stealing-from-the-sahara

    What’s the right thing to do . Stop imports and kill agriculture in nz .
    Carry on importing .
    Or revisit the chatem rise phosphate mine that was stopped.??

    • Chuck 12.1

      The Greenies stopped Chatham rise phosphate so I don’t see any potential for the current Government to revisit this…unless Winston First sees an opportunity then it will be reaccessed and approved.

      So, for now, NZ will continue to import phosphate from the other side of the world, with all the additional emissions and local issues.

      • Stuart Munro 12.1.1

        Right – should’ve killed all our fisheries with sediment to subsidize the cockies should we?

        • bwaghorn 12.1.1.1

          Yip far better we do what all wealthy greens do and shift our polutting to a poor country out of sight.

    • Ed 12.2

      Capitalism is killing the planet.
      And destroying societies around the world.
      And so many people do not care.

  12. Chuck 13

    Stardust and substance – The Jacinda Ardern book.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12123655

    “And of course they repeatedly referenced a non-existent $11.7 billion fiscal hole in our budget. Did it work?”

    I guess the book was printed before this…

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12104158

    That Joyce was correct about the fiscal hole.

    • Dukeofurl 13.1

      Joyce hasnt been shown correct – in his particular claim.
      Thats because at election time ALL the other economic analysts said Joyce was wrong, and the number who agreed with him was zero.
      9 months later a person no one has heard of, Cameron Bagrie says different

      But this was significant
      “Before the election there was broad agreement from economists, myself included, that there was no fiscal hole in the Labour’s fiscal plan.”

      • McFlock 13.1.1

        Basically, by Joyce’s math there’d be a 22Billion fiscal hole, lol

        • shadrach 13.1.1.1

          I think that is Bagrie’s point!

          “There is a fiscal hole and a softening economy is making it wider.”
          https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12103577

          • McFlock 13.1.1.1.1

            Thing is, Joyce was wrong.

            It’s essentially a Gettier-style problem:
            Joyce claimed on the basis of X (he believed Labour’s costings were wrong) that Y (budget shortfall) would happen.
            Some fraction of Y is happening, but because of W (softening economy).
            X was incorrect (Labour’s costings were, in fact, correct).

            Therefore to claim that Joyce got it right is farcical.

            I see a sheep in a field. (X)
            I say there is a sheep in that field. (Y)
            The white thing I saw was actually an angora goat from a funny angle. (X is wrong)
            But there happens to be a sheep behind the shed in that field. (W)
            So Y is true, but my basis for saying it is wrong.

            • shadrach 13.1.1.1.1.1

              Hi McFlock

              “Some fraction of Y is happening, but because of W (softening economy).”

              1. As Cameron Bagrie said, the softening economy has not caused the hole, it is making it wider. Therefore the hole existed before the economy softened.
              2. The economy was ‘softening’ before Labour took office. Joyce knew this. Robertson knew this. We all knew this. Therefore it is reasonable to assume Robertson’s calculations took that into account?

              Joyce was right. Bagrie is (belatedly) also right.

              • McFlock

                1: presupposes that the hole would exist in the first place. Joyce believed that, but with no basis to do so.

                Remember, the hole Joyce predicted predicted was not due to “softening economies”, but because he had difficulty reading accounts. He said that the Labour books did not add up, not that things will get worse. He was wrong.

                2: The degree of “softening” is not fixed, and economics is not a science. But this is a distraction from the fact that the hole Joyce predicted did not exist. If Bagrie says that Joyce predicted that hole, his memory is flawed.

                To put it another way, Grant Robertson was walking in a field. Joyce said that Robertson had dug a hole in that field, when Robertson had not. The fact that a sinkhole appeared in that spot of the field does not mean that Joyce was doing anything other than making shit up.

                • shadrach

                  “presupposes that the hole would exist in the first place. Joyce believed that, but with no basis to do so.”
                  The hole clearly did exist. Labour’s spending, it’s failure to allow sufficient contingency, and the slowing economy, were the basis. For all his faults, Joyce was correct, and the economists are catching up.

                  • shadrach

                    Just to add to those comments, more from Bagrie:

                    “Growth is weaker, the Government is already borrowing creatively to the tune of $6.4 billion via Crown entities (keeping it out of core government net debt metrics) and spending demands are headed one way.”

                    “It wasn’t going to be easy, but it was possible, so the Government was given the benefit of the doubt. But the picture is changing and the Government’s ambitions are looking more and more like pipe dreams.”

                    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12103577

                    • McFlock

                      Firstly, fair call on the “policy” word issue. My mistake, but it seems you knew I meant the issue at hand rather than any national party policy.

                      So even an unconventional use of completely the wrong word can still get the message across if someone is prepared to look at the word in context. And yet Joyce refused to do that.

                      “So in order for Joyce to actually be right, Labour have to have used a specific term in the way Joyce pretended to understand it, not the way it was actually displayed in the accounts. “
                      No. But it does demonstrate a certain level of either a> incompetence or b> deception, by Robertson. And that was Hamish Rutherfords view.

                      In fear of starting another semantic debate, “a very odd choice of words” does not mean “incompetence” or even “deception.

                      “…though it’s a pity for you that it demonstrated Joyce was full of shit.”
                      But it doesn’t. There is a hole, so Joyce was correct. Did you read the Rutherford article?

                      I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.

                      There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, so Joyce cannot have been correct. And I don’t believe you are genuinely so stupid as to believe your own comments.

                    • shadrach

                      “In fear of starting another semantic debate, “a very odd choice of words” does not mean “incompetence” or even “deception.”
                      Fair enough, but we are talking about politicians here.

                      “I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.”
                      Which reflects rather badly on Robertson, wouldn’t you say?

                      “There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, ”
                      Yes, there was. Joyce may (and it’s a ‘may’ based on the commentators) not have got everything correct in his explanation, but the hole was and is there. To achieve Labour’s numbers requires “heroic” economic growth, and close to zero spending growth in some areas of government activities. Joyce knew across Labour’s plan there was a hole. History has proven him correct.

                    • McFlock

                      Fair enough, but we are talking about politicians here.

                      But that doesn’t excuse you throwing words around like “deception” and “incompetence” instead of merely “unorthodox”.

                      “I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.”
                      Which reflects rather badly on Robertson, wouldn’t you say?

                      I was being sarcastic. I’ve been on a variety of for-profit and non-profit organisations, and not one set of accounts has added everything up and had a “leftover cash” line item. “Operating surplus”, yes. “Cash reserves”, yes (although that was a mandated liquidity requirement rather than just “leftover cash”). Never “leftover cash”. Not even on a bloody bake sale.

                      “There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, ”
                      Yes, there was. Joyce may (and it’s a ‘may’ based on the commentators) not have got everything correct in his explanation, but the hole was and is there.

                      All joyce got “correct” was the 3 month delay in one policy. And that was a saving rather than a “hole”. Not only was there no hole, his combined “hole” is actually a small hillock about 2.5% higher than the depth of the hole he claimed to see.

                      To achieve Labour’s numbers requires “heroic” economic growth, and close to zero spending growth in some areas of government activities. Joyce knew across Labour’s plan there was a hole. History has proven him correct.

                      Yawn. If Labour’s growth assumptions were wrong, Joyce didn’t mention it when he announced his hole. No, he didn’t know there was a hole he was just making shit up. No, history has not proven him correct because there was no hole where he said there was a hole.

                      I think that covers the upteenth iteration. Keep parrotting the lie, one day someone will believe Joyce was right when he couldn’t read accounts.

                    • shadrach

                      “He got a $300mil error almost correct out of his $11.7B total.”

                      But that’s not what you said. You said 97.5% of his reasons were wrong.

                  • McFlock

                    Labour’s spending, it’s failure to allow sufficient contingency, and the slowing economy, were the basis.

                    No, Joyce’s basis for claiming the existence of a hole was his belief that the Labour Party costings didn’t add up.

                    Even if all the factors you list were predicted at the time by anyone, Joyce didn’t claim any of that when he came out with his $11B hole idea. His only claim was that the Labour plan did not internally add up. He was wrong.

                    • shadrach

                      “Joyce didn’t claim any of that when he came out with his $11B hole idea. His only claim was that the Labour plan did not internally add up.”

                      You are wrong.

                      “Joyce says Labour either made an error, or it was assuming it would have no new money to allocate to departments over the rest of its first term in government. “Either they don’t have any capacity beyond the announcements they’ve already made for any spending beyond the current fiscal year, or they’ve made a significant error for rolling out these allowances.” He said it was “completely untenable” for a government to assume it wouldn’t need any new operating allowance.”

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96485283/politically-correct-wheres-the-fiscal-hole

                      And it’s interesting you quote Keith Ng.

                      “Analysis by NZ Herald data journalist Keith Ng shows total Crown spending is forecast to be almost $12.5 billion higher over the five years to 2021/22 than Labour forecast in the “fiscal plan” it campaigned on in the last election.”
                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12064350

                      Sure that reflects the wider coalition economic plan, but Labour is the lead party in the coalition. It’s numbers didn’t add up.

                    • McFlock

                      Let’s look at Joyce’s initial press release:

                      The five errors are as follows, over four years:

                      Failing to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent years ($9.4 billion).
                      Failing to allow for any increase in paid parental leave in their Family Incomes package despite saying they have included it ($567 million).
                      Counting additional BEPs multinational tax revenue when Treasury has already counted it in the PREFU update ($902 million).
                      Only including costs of their Family Package from 1 July 2018 when they said it would begin on 1 April 2018 ($289 million).
                      Further finance costs associated with extra borrowing ($580 million).

                      So the bulk of Joyce’s hole was “Failing to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent years ($9.4 billion).”. Exactly what the link I posted above said (and the TS post I linked to also dealth with the lesser “holes” Joyce thought he saw).

                      As for your post ton Ng’s June 2018 comment, where in it does he say that Labour failed “to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent years ($9.4 billion).”? He doesn’t, does he. You and Joyce are wrong – only you have the benefit of hindsight, whereas Joyce was merely making shit up and hoping the contradictions would come out only after his debate that night.

                    • shadrach

                      “So the bulk of Joyce’s hole was…”
                      From one press release. One.
                      And I note your position is changing. Your original statement was “His only claim was …”. You have now modified that to “the bulk of Joyce’s hole was.”

                      “As for your post ton Ng’s June 2018 comment, where in it does he say that Labour failed “to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent years ($9.4 billion).”? He doesn’t, does he.”
                      No, and I didn’t claim he did. What he did say was that Labour is spending 12.5bn more than it campaigned on. Sound familiar?

                    • shadrach

                      …and here’s another opinion to add to the mix. From 5 September 2017:

                      “In other words, Joyce has claimed a worst case scenario. Robertson is claiming best case. On that basis, it’s entirely reasonable to split the difference in the interests of trying to explain what’s at stake here, and to conclude that Labour’s forecasts will turn out to be anything between $4b and $6b short of its published fiscal plan, should it form a government after September 23. If Labour turns out to be a spendthrift government, then Joyce’s alleged $11.7b miscalculation could prove to be too little.”

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96510158/pattrick-smellie-politicking-politicians-arent-doing-themselves-any-favours

                      The last sentence is telling.

                    • McFlock

                      From one press release.

                      So the press release in which he actually announced the “fiscal hole” and went into what he thinks caused it is irrelevant to whether what might be happening now bears any relationship to what he originally predicted. Lolz nice try.

                      And you missed the bit where I said “and the TS post I linked to also dealth[sic] with the lesser “holes” Joyce thought he saw).”. Those misunderstandings by Joyce were so trivial that Robertson dealt with them out of hand – including the reorganisation of current government spending, andthe fact that some of Joyce’s alledged “hole” was actually included under other line items like the families package. If you read links rather than NatHQ talking points, you’d look smarter not as stupid.

                      “As for your post ton Ng’s June 2018 comment, where in it does he say that Labour failed “to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent years ($9.4 billion).”? He doesn’t, does he.”
                      No, and I didn’t claim he did.

                      But that’s what Joyce said. If they agree, wouldn’t Ng be saying what Joyce said?

                      What he did say was that Labour is spending 12.5bn more than it campaigned on. Sound familiar?

                      Not compared to what Joyce came out with.

                      He said the plan numbers didn’t add up. They did. The fact that a coalition government budget in a changing global economy might or might not substantially differ from the plan of a single party is neither here nor there in relation to the internal consistency of the party’s plan.

                      I’m just glad our minister of finance can actually read financial accounts and budgets.

                    • McFlock

                      “The last sentence is telling.”

                      Not really.
                      Smellie, was ignoring what Joyce literally wrote the day before: that the labour plan didn’t add up.

                      The fact that he changed his story to claim other causes for the magic number he invented just makes Joyce even more incompetent , because an honest and competent person would change his conclusion to fit a robust methodology. So overnight, during the debate, he came up with a suddenly robust argument that happened to match the conclusion that resulted from his account-reading error.

                    • shadrach

                      “So the press release in which he actually announced the “fiscal hole” and went into what he thinks caused it is irrelevant…”
                      No.

                      “And you missed the bit where I said…”
                      No, I read that. But again, you first stated “His only claim was …” and then changed that to “the bulk of Joyce’s hole was.”

                      “But that’s what Joyce said. ”
                      But not ALL he said.

                      “Smellie, was ignoring what Joyce literally wrote the day before: that the labour plan didn’t add up.”
                      Well you stated that was Joyce’s only claim, and you were wrong. But more’s the point, the plan didn’t ‘add up’. It was clearly light on spending estimates and too bullish on growth. History is showing Joyce to be correct. Smellie was on to it. Bagrie is a late follower. There will be more. I just hope our finance minister isn’t too far behind.

                    • shadrach

                      This too from Smellie in September 2017

                      “Labour’s numbers are nothing like as compromised or wrong as Joyce claimed, but it requires some heroic assumptions about Labour’s ability to control all spending outside health and education to believe the numbers it’s published. ”
                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96510158/pattrick-smellie-politicking-politicians-arent-doing-themselves-any-favours

                      Seems Smellie wasn’t drinking either parties Koolaid!

                    • McFlock

                      But more’s the point, the plan didn’t ‘add up’. It was clearly light on spending estimates and too bullish on growth

                      But that’s not what Joyce said. He said that ongoing costs hadn’t been factored in (they had), and that some spending hadn’t been included at all (it had). Because he couldn’t read accounts.

                      The plan literally added up correctly when Joyce said it didn’t. Subsequent sluggishness affecting a coalition budget has nothing to do with Joyce’s incompetence at math.

                    • shadrach

                      “He said that ongoing costs hadn’t been factored in (they had), and that some spending hadn’t been included at all (it had). ”
                      Well he has been proven correct.
                      “Analysis by NZ Herald data journalist Keith Ng shows total Crown spending is forecast to be almost $12.5 billion higher over the five years to 2021/22 than Labour forecast in the “fiscal plan” it campaigned on in the last election.”
                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12064350

                      “The plan literally added up correctly when Joyce said it didn’t. ”
                      In Joyce’s original press release you quoted, does he use the expression ‘add up’? Your use of the word ‘literally’ rather betrays your lack of understanding of the point Joyce was making. Mathematically Labour’s ‘spreadsheet’ (remember Goff cringingly using that term in the ‘show me the money debate’) may have ‘literally’ added up mathematically (that only takes a modest level of competence), but the assumptions made were either ‘heroic’ or ‘pipe dreams’, depending on the commentator. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps its both.

                    • McFlock

                      So now you’re reduced to parsing the word “literally” (incorrectly, as it happens, because of its position in my sentence) and throwing back to the 2011 election. You must be so proud.

                      Meanwhile, Joyce’s $11.7B hole was not a prediction. He said that the figures did not add up, when the figures did indeed add up. You lot can try to pretend he predicted a softening economy or the vagaries of coalition budget negotiations, but he didn’t say that when he announced the hole. He went on about ongoing expenditure not being included in the plan, when he just didn’t understand the books.

                    • shadrach

                      “He said that the figures did not add up, when the figures did indeed add up. ”
                      As I have previously asked, when did he say that? Is it in his press release you quoted?

                      “So now you’re reduced to parsing the word “literally” …”
                      No. The expression ‘doesn’t add up’ is frequently used for something not having a reasonable explanation. I have no doubt Labour’s spreadsheet ‘added up’ mathematically. It just didn’t ‘add up’ in the sense of it being based on reasonable assumptions. The distinction is important.

                      I’ll leave the final word to one of the increasing number of voices coming to the realisation Joyce was broadly right, someone who I’m sure is a favourite of yours:

                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12124540

                    • McFlock

                      When he said “there are five errors as follows”, and proceeded to list mathematical processes.

                      It just didn’t ‘add up’ in the sense of it being based on reasonable assumptions. The distinction is important.

                      And yet you still fail to understand the distinction. When someone plans for ongoing expenditure and fails “to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent year”, that is a mathematical error because the operating allowances should be included for the sums in each subsequent year. It is not an assumption that ongoing costs suddenly disappear.

                    • shadrach

                      “When he said “there are five errors as follows”, and proceeded to list mathematical processes.”
                      When did he use the words ‘add up’? After all you’ve tried to argue, are you now saying he didn’t even use that expression? And close on the heels of you shifting from saying “His only claim was …” to “the bulk of Joyce’s hole was.”

                      “When someone plans for ongoing expenditure and fails “to roll out their operating allowances for each year into subsequent year”, that is a mathematical error because the operating allowances should be included for the sums in each subsequent year.”
                      No, that is an allocation error. A mathematical error is when the numbers don’t add up. Labour’s numbers were not mathematically incorrect, but they were based on ‘heroic’ growth assumptions, and inadequate future sending allowances. That’s why Joyce is right. There is a hole. It is large, and getting larger.

                    • McFlock

                      OK, let’s try it your way.

                      Where, in his press release announcing his imaginary “hole”, did Joyce refer to “growth assumptions, and inadequate future sending allowances”?

                      He’s got five “errors” list there – which revolve around growth assumptions?

                      The closes you’ve got is an accusation around double counting some tax revenue (which was flat out wrong) and claims that some spending wasn’t allowed for when it was actually included in the plan. Because. Joyce. Couldn’t. Read. The. Accounts.

                    • Shadrach

                      Where in the press release did Joyce say the numbers didn’t add up? That’s been at the core of your claims. Let’s see the context.

                    • McFlock

                      The core of my claim, eh?
                      OK, Joyce didn’t use the specific words “add up”. That was the prevalent and accurate description of what he literally wrote the day before the Smellie link you provided.

                      Will you concede that none of the five “errors” Joyce initially identified involved “growth assumptions, and inadequate future sending allowances”? If not, which ones involved growth assumptions and/or inadequate spending allowances – and how?

                    • shadrach

                      “The core of my claim, eh?”

                      Yes. Let’s look at what you’ve said.

                      “He said that the Labour books did not add up, not that things will get worse. ”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524031
                      “His only claim was that the Labour plan did not internally add up.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524235
                      “He said the plan numbers didn’t add up.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524318
                      “Smellie, was ignoring what Joyce literally wrote the day before: that the labour plan didn’t add up.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524329
                      “The plan literally added up correctly when Joyce said it didn’t.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524344
                      “He said that the figures did not add up, when the figures did indeed add up.”
                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-2018/#comment-1524407

                      Six times you falsely claimed Joyce used that remark.

                      “That was the prevalent and accurate description of what he literally wrote the day before the Smellie link you provided.”
                      No. Joyce’s critique was not mathematical. It was far more nuanced.

                      There were multiple holes in Labour’s plans, including ‘heroic’ growth assumptions, and the failure to account for additional spending. Bagrie, Ng and Hooten are just a few of the voices expressing now what Joyce predicted prior to the election.

                    • McFlock

                      And yet you still haven’t said which of the five “errors” Joyce initially listed involved growth or spending allowances, or how.

                    • shadrach

                      “And yet you still haven’t said which of the five “errors” Joyce initially listed involved growth or spending allowances, or how.”
                      I’m not the one limiting Joyce’s comments to one press release. I’m also not the one ignoring the same economists now reconsidering their views on Joyce’s claims.

                    • McFlock

                      I’m not the one limiting Joyce’s comments to one press release. I’m also not the one ignoring the same economists now reconsidering their views on Joyce’s claims.

                      I’m limiting Joyce’s comments to his initial claims, not his revisions after his initial claims were shown to be based on his own incompetence at reading accounts.

                      Just because some economists have been sucked into his “economic growth” revisionism doesn’t mean that Joyce’s claims were correct. He started by saying that the plan included spending in some areas that wasn’t contained within the totalled accounts. He was wrong. So he did a pivot about “growth” and other bullshit. Fire enough shots, sooner or later even an incompetent shooter will hit the broad side of a barn – and then you will call him a sniper.

                    • shadrach

                      “I’m limiting Joyce’s comments to his initial claims, not his revisions after his initial claims were shown to be based on his own incompetence at reading accounts.”
                      His initial claim was that there was a fiscal hole in Labour’s numbers. There was.

                      “Just because some economists have been sucked into his “economic growth” revisionism doesn’t mean that Joyce’s claims were correct.”
                      So economists that originally argued he was wrong, which you agree with, but now realise he was right, which you don’t agree with, are ‘sucked in’?

                      Joyce knew there was a hole, he just so happened to be ahead of those commentators now catching up.

                    • McFlock

                      His initial claim was that there was a fiscal hole in Labour’s numbers.

                      His initial claim was that there were “five errors” in Labour’s plan that together amounted to a $11.7B accounting error.

                      He was wrong.

                      Because his initial reasoning was wrong, any relationship between Joyce’s comments and reality is purely coincidental. He didn’t know shit, his prediction was a coin toss that he didn’t even care how it turned out. He just wanted to divert a TV debate.

                      If Joyce’s prediction when he first made it had anything to do with growth, you’d have mentioned it by now. He’s a bullshitter, and so are you.

                    • shadrach

                      “His initial claim was that there were “five errors” in Labour’s plan that together amounted to a $11.7B accounting error. He was wrong.”

                      Says who? An article on the The Standard? Or the economists and commentators who are now backing Joyce’s claims? My view is Joyce may well have over-reached in his press release, but he smelled the hole, and his instincts were on the money. More and more commentators acknowledge that now.

                    • McFlock

                      Says math. And the fact you and he have diverted into a discussion about growth predictions. Otherwise, all you would need for him to be right is for the internal accounting errors to have existed.

                      Even your equivocation about “overreach” is wrong – he said clearly that there were five accounting errors. He later changed that to some fluffery about growth, because his accounting error claim was wrong. That’s not overreach, that’s making shit up because what he made up initially was easily demonstrated to be bullshit.

                      If he was correct in his initial claim and the current speculation about growth-related budget shortfalls was also correct, then the “hole” people would be talking about would be $23b, not $11b.

                    • shadrach

                      “And the fact you and he have diverted into a discussion about growth predictions.”
                      Not at all. Labour’s numbers not only assumed ‘heroic’ levels of growth, I have also pointed out they had spending assumption errors. Joyce is way smarter than either you or Robertson.

                      “If he was correct in his initial claim and the current speculation about growth-related budget shortfalls was also correct, then the “hole” people would be talking about would be $23b, not $11b.”
                      Well…maybe not that large, but Bagrie article speaks of softening growth widening the hole, so maybe you’ve shifted from being 12 months behind to be a ‘fast follower’..

                    • McFlock

                      “And the fact you and he have diverted into a discussion about growth predictions.”
                      Not at all. Labour’s numbers not only assumed ‘heroic’ levels of growth,

                      Which Joyce never mentioned when he first claimed a hole existed

                      I have also pointed out they had spending assumption errors.

                      That’s what Joyce led with, and he was wrong to the tune of roughly $11b.

                      Bagrie is also wrong, because you can’t “widen” a hole that doesn’t exist. You can only claim a new hole exists.

                    • McFlock

                      By the way, it’s been a week now and you still haven’t said which of the five “errors” Joyce initially used (to justify his claim of an $11b hole) actually involved “‘heroic’ growth assumptions”.

                    • shadrach

                      “That’s what Joyce led with, and he was wrong to the tune of roughly $11b.”
                      No. Joyce picked there was no enough allowance made for additional spending, and he picked correctly.

                      “Bagrie is also wrong, because you can’t “widen” a hole that doesn’t exist. You can only claim a new hole exists.”
                      Which is why Bagrie is correct. And for your benefit I’ll quote Bagrie:

                      “I don’t like the term fiscal hole. Good policy should dominate over strict debt targets and economic cycles come and go which are often beyond government control. But the Labour-led Government’s fiscal hole is looking deeper by the day – and bigger than the $11.7 billion of additional borrowing that Joyce identified,” he said.
                      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12104158

                      “By the way, it’s been a week now and you still haven’t said which of the five “errors” Joyce initially used (to justify his claim of an $11b hole) actually involved “‘heroic’ growth assumptions”.”
                      Where did I claim they did?

                      You, on the hand, claimed six times that Joyce said Labours numbers didn’t ‘add up’, something you have not been able to support.

                    • McFlock

                      Joyce picked there was no enough allowance made for additional spending, and he picked correctly.

                      No, not “additional” spending. He clearly said there was a massive shortfall because Labour hadn’t included in the sums of its plan the ongoing spending within the plan itself. He was blatantly wrong, and you are still blatantly making shit up, and Bagrie swallowed it.

                      “By the way, it’s been a week now and you still haven’t said which of the five “errors” Joyce initially used (to justify his claim of an $11b hole) actually involved “‘heroic’ growth assumptions”.”
                      Where did I claim they did?

                      Here.

                      Labour’s numbers were not mathematically incorrect, but they were based on ‘heroic’ growth assumptions, and inadequate future sending allowances. That’s why Joyce is right.

                      If Joyce’s “five errors” of his initial claim did not include the “growth assumptions”, then he’s not smart, or even correct. He might as well have predicted the “hole” on the basis of reading entrails or the horoscope of the day.

                      Joyce was making shit up, and so are you.

                    • shadrach

                      “No, not “additional” spending. He clearly said there was a massive shortfall because Labour hadn’t included in the sums of its plan the ongoing spending within the plan itself. ”
                      Here’s what Joyce said:
                      “Either they don’t have any capacity beyond the announcements they’ve already made for any spending beyond the current fiscal year, or they’ve made a significant error for rolling out these allowances.” https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96485283/politically-correct-wheres-the-fiscal-hole
                      Jo Moir couldn’t separate the claims. ( “Who is right? There’s no clear answer on that one.”). Bagrie and other commentators are now saying Joyce was right. But keep denying it if you want.

                      “Here.”
                      Fail. No-where in the post did I claim that Joyce’s press release mentioned growth assumptions. Here’s what I posted:
                      “Labour’s numbers were not mathematically incorrect, but they were based on ‘heroic’ growth assumptions, and inadequate future sending allowances. That’s why Joyce is right. There is a hole. It is large, and getting larger.”
                      Nothing about what Joyce said about growth.

                      (I’m going to need to watch you…you’re a dishonest wee mite.)

                      “If Joyce’s “five errors” of his initial claim did not include the “growth assumptions”, then he’s not smart, or even correct. He might as well have predicted the “hole” on the basis of reading entrails or the horoscope of the day.”
                      Joyce was the Minister of Finance. He knew there was a hole based on Labour trying to suggest it could achieve a zero budget for two years.

                      “Joyce was making shit up, and so are you.”
                      Mmm…you made up the ‘add up’ didn’t you?

                    • shadrach

                      As to the press release, I’ll leave you with this article written at the time by Hamish Rutherford. It sets out the pro’s and cons of Joyce’s claims far better than the sources you have relied on.

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96486359/does-labour-have-an-117-billion-hole-or-a-poor-choice-of-words

                      Rutherford is perhaps too kind to Robertson, but he covers it reasonably fairly. I will quote from the section on the Operating Allowances:

                      “If nothing else, Labour is guilty of a very odd choice of words. Where Labour uses the term “operating allowance” it means something quite different to what Treasury, or anyone else, would assume it would mean.”

                      “But its choice of words is one which created the confusion. As well as using a term which usually means something different, it leaves open the suggestion that Labour’s fiscal plan is presented in a way which is designed to make it seem much more generous than it actually is.”

                      I wonder if this is a case of Robertson simply not understanding the basic economic terminology. Like the difference between GDP and the crown accounts?

                      Meanwhile…the hole gets bigger.

                    • McFlock

                      So in order for Joyce to actually be right, Labour have to have used a specific term in the way Joyce pretended to understand it, not the way it was actually displayed in the accounts.

                      Congratualtions on finally showing something from the time, though it’s a pity for you that it demonstrated Joyce was full of shit. “Labour appears to be right” and “unclear” do not mean “Joyce was right”. And the three month policy delay was $289mil by Joyce’s math – a little bit shy of $11.7B. But then that’s money they would save, so more a small mound than a “hole”.

                      When he announced the policy, Joyce said nothing about growth. If he said nothing about growth, then even if growth causes a hole, he did not predict it. He predicted some bullshit that never happened. If the growth-related hole becomes the same size as Joyce’s predicted hole, Joyce still didn’t predict shit because if he did, the hole would have to be larger than the basis upon which Joyce predicted a hole in the first place. It would have to be the size of Joyce’s hole, plus the size of the growth-related hole.

                      If I predicted Robertson would shoot a rabit on one specific day, and I shot a rabbit on that day, then only one dead rabbit means I was wrong. Even if I shot two rabbits, I would be wrong to say that because two rabbits were shot on that day my prediction about Robertson shooting a rabbit would be correct.

                      But congratulations: your stupidity has managed to bore the fuck out of me. I guess that’s your plan.

                    • shadrach

                      “So in order for Joyce to actually be right, Labour have to have used a specific term in the way Joyce pretended to understand it, not the way it was actually displayed in the accounts. “
                      No. But it does demonstrate a certain level of either a> incompetence or b> deception, by Robertson. And that was Hamish Rutherfords view.

                      “…though it’s a pity for you that it demonstrated Joyce was full of shit.”
                      But it doesn’t. There is a hole, so Joyce was correct. Did you read the Rutherford article?

                      “When he announced the policy, Joyce said nothing about growth.”
                      Joyce didn’t announce any ‘policy’. He issued a press release.
                      Congratulations, you’ve continued to get more and more wrong as this discussion has ensued.

                    • McFlock

                      whoops – missed the correct comment to reply to. That’s what happens when circular arguments exceed the nesting comment limit.

                      anyhoo, as above:
                      Firstly, fair call on the “policy” word issue. My mistake, but it seems you knew I meant the issue at hand rather than any national party policy.

                      So even an unconventional use of completely the wrong word can still get the message across if someone is prepared to look at the word in context. And yet Joyce refused to do that.

                      “So in order for Joyce to actually be right, Labour have to have used a specific term in the way Joyce pretended to understand it, not the way it was actually displayed in the accounts. “
                      No. But it does demonstrate a certain level of either a> incompetence or b> deception, by Robertson. And that was Hamish Rutherfords view.

                      In fear of starting another semantic debate, “a very odd choice of words” does not mean “incompetence” or even “deception.

                      “…though it’s a pity for you that it demonstrated Joyce was full of shit.”
                      But it doesn’t. There is a hole, so Joyce was correct. Did you read the Rutherford article?

                      I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.

                      There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, so Joyce cannot have been correct. And I don’t believe you are genuinely so stupid as to believe your own comments.

                    • shadrach

                      Again to get the thread in order…

                      “In fear of starting another semantic debate, “a very odd choice of words” does not mean “incompetence” or even “deception.”
                      Fair enough, but we are talking about politicians here.

                      “I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.”
                      Which reflects rather badly on Robertson, wouldn’t you say?

                      “There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, ”
                      Yes, there was. Joyce may (and it’s a ‘may’ based on the commentators) not have got everything correct in his explanation, but the hole was and is there. To achieve Labour’s numbers requires “heroic” economic growth, and close to zero spending growth in some areas of government activities. Joyce knew across Labour’s plan there was a hole. History has proven him correct.

                    • McFlock

                      Fair enough, but we are talking about politicians here.

                      But that doesn’t excuse you throwing words around like “deception” and “incompetence” instead of merely “unorthodox”.

                      “I did read the article. I liked the bit where “operating allowance” was incorrect, because “Robertson actually admitted the term meant “leftover cash”. “. Yep. Every set of accounts I’ve ever read, every business plan, every organisational budget, they all had “leftover cash” as a line item, lolsarc.”
                      Which reflects rather badly on Robertson, wouldn’t you say?

                      I was being sarcastic. I’ve been on a variety of for-profit and non-profit organisations, and not one set of accounts has added everything up and had a “leftover cash” line item. “Operating surplus”, yes. “Cash reserves”, yes (although that was a mandated liquidity requirement rather than just “leftover cash”). Never “leftover cash”. Not even on a bloody bake sale.

                      “There was no hole where Joyce said there was a hole, ”
                      Yes, there was. Joyce may (and it’s a ‘may’ based on the commentators) not have got everything correct in his explanation, but the hole was and is there.

                      All joyce got “correct” was the 3 month delay in one policy. And that was a saving rather than a “hole”. Not only was there no hole, his combined “hole” is actually a small hillock about 2.5% higher than the depth of the hole he claimed to see.

                      To achieve Labour’s numbers requires “heroic” economic growth, and close to zero spending growth in some areas of government activities. Joyce knew across Labour’s plan there was a hole. History has proven him correct.

                      Yawn. If Labour’s growth assumptions were wrong, Joyce didn’t mention it when he announced his hole. No, he didn’t know there was a hole he was just making shit up. No, history has not proven him correct because there was no hole where he said there was a hole.

                      I think that covers the upteenth iteration. Keep parrotting the lie, one day someone will believe Joyce was right when he couldn’t read accounts.

                    • shadrach

                      “But that doesn’t excuse you throwing words around like “deception” and “incompetence” instead of merely “unorthodox”.”
                      The words ‘deception’ and ‘incompetence’ are quite appropriate.

                      “I was being sarcastic.”
                      So was I.

                      “All joyce got “correct” was…”
                      …that there was an enormous hole. Maybe not all the reasons, but he sniffed out what other commentators didn’t. Labour’s numbers were faulty.

                      “If Labour’s growth assumptions were wrong, Joyce didn’t mention it when he announced his hole. No, he didn’t know there was a hole he was just making shit up.”
                      Funny then that he was dead right.

                      “one day someone will believe Joyce was right…”
                      That day has already arrived.

                    • McFlock

                      So he didn’t get the size of the hole anywhere close, and 97.5% of his reasons were wrong, but you still reckon he’s right.

                      It reminds me of those movie cliches where someone’s travelling far away and their spouse or parent (or random acquaintance in The Shining) psychically senses that they are in danger.

                      Only instead of “my child is in great danger” just when the child is in great danger, Joyce went “my child is in great danger” and, eerily, at almost that exact point in time, his second cousin stubbed their toe on a kitchen cabinet, and you and some of the more gullible economic commentators are saying “oooo, spooky smart”.

                      How do you feel about those tv programmes where pretty average mediums investigate murders by pretending to talk to ghosts? Reckon there must be something in it, eh?

                    • shadrach

                      “So he didn’t get the size of the hole anywhere close”
                      At the time of his calculations, the number was not far off. Bagrie explains the difference.

                      “and 97.5% of his reasons were wrong, but you still reckon he’s right.”
                      Interesting calculation. 97.5% of 5 = ????

                      So Joyce underestimated the hole – a hole that not only exists but is getting bigger.

                    • McFlock

                      He got a $300mil error almost correct out of his $11.7B total.

                      True, it was a plus not a minus, but when you score that low it’s cruel to take it into the negatives.

                    • McFlock

                      by the way, even if he was 20% right, that’s still an E-grade fail.

                    • shadrach

                      “He got a $300mil error almost correct out of his $11.7B total.”

                      But that’s not what you said. You said 97.5% of his reasons were wrong.

                    • McFlock

                      Fuck you’re as stupid as Joyce.

                      What’s 2.5% of $11.7B?
                      What amount of cash was saved by delaying that program a few months?

                      Take your time.

          • Ankerrawshark 13.1.1.1.2

            Shadarach…..= a party political broadcast from national

            • shadrach 13.1.1.1.2.1

              Not at all. I have little time for Joyce, in fact seeing something of his bombast emanating from the previously amiable Robertson is deeply concerning.

      • shadrach 13.1.2

        “Thats because at election time ALL the other economic analysts said Joyce was wrong, and the number who agreed with him was zero.”
        Yes, they got it wrong. That is Bagries point.

        “But this was significant…”
        This is more significant:
        “Steven Joyce is going to be proved right. There is a fiscal hole and a softening economy is making it wider.” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12103577

        • greywarshark 13.1.2.1

          Cameron Bagrie is a bank economist, and will have a point of view that is suitable for his bank. What other economists who aren’t employed by banks do you listen to shadrach?

          • shadrach 13.1.2.1.1

            What does ‘suitable for his bank’ even mean?

            • greywarshark 13.1.2.1.1.1

              I should not need to explain such things to someone who tries to enter a political blog thread. So I won’t try. It is a pity that National cut down on night school funding which enabled people with narrow views based on misunderstandings and misapprehensions to gain extra skills and knowledge. I think they are frightened of a canny population who still see the truth behind the verbiage.

              • shadrach

                Actually you should be able to explain terminology you choose to deploy. I could have just assumed you meant ‘Suitable for his bank’ implied an audience based bias, which would cast doubt on Bagrie’s professional integrity, but I gave you the chance to expand.

    • greywarshark 13.2

      Chuck
      Good name. Are you going to be a bag the PM and government moaner? What is positive that could be worked on going forward, at the end of the day that’s what all here are interested in.

      • Chuck 13.2.1

        “Chuck
        Good name.”

        Not as good as yours greywarshark, that is a mighty name.

        Yeh sorry to disappoint I will bag the PM and government as and when they deserve it.

        I agree though we need to look forward and have a positive focus. Glass half full type of thing.

  13. ankerawshark 14

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/barbara-dreaver-pacific-islands-forum-da-plane-if-jacinda-ardern-hadnt-shown-up-we-would-have-been-penalised-

    This from Barbara Dreaver. Someone who really knows their stuff and is well informed about her area of expertise to comment. Unlike all the ridiculous ill-informed male broadcasters who went on about “da plane” and said Ms Ardern shouldn’t go……….

    Note Ms Dreaver also says Ms Ardern really holds her own in these bi laterals. I would trust her view any day over the spin of partisan opinion writers.

  14. joe90 15

    Rob a country, buy yourself free movement in the Schengen zone.

    While Viktor Orbán’s government has closed down borders for refugees and migrants, the country’s controversial residency bond program offered a backdoor for wealthy investors to Hungary and the EU. The government refused to disclose the names of these investors but a joint investigation by Direkt36, 444 and Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta has revealed that a number of influential Russian individuals, including politicians and executives of state companies, received Hungarian residence permits. In several cases, we could confirm that they did it through investment in Hungary’s bond program. The family members of the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service (SVR) and a Russian businessman reported to be connected to an organised crime group were also clients of the Hungarian Immigration Office, though the Office declined to share more details about their exact involvement.

    https://444.hu/2018/09/10/members-of-russias-elite-got-hungarian-residence-permitsthrough-controversial-golden-visa-program

  15. joe90 16

    Had another read of Jim Wright’s 2016 post about 9/11.

    I made a Facebook post about 9-11.

    It went viral.

    It wasn’t even the first viral post I wrote this week, or the first to offend a certain segment of America.

    And many people were offended.

    Oh, yes, they were offended.

    […]

    By getting my post pulled down they confirm everything I said.

    They always do, these patriots, predictable as the next row of goose-stepping Nazis.

    And what was it I said that was so terrible?

    What was it I said that was deserving of censorship and death threats?

    This:

    You’re expecting some kind of obligatory 9-11 post, aren’t you?

    Here it is, but you’re not gonna like it.

    15 years ago today 19 shitheads attacked America.

    They killed 3000 of us.

    And then … America got its revenge for 9-11.

    Yes we did. Many times over. We killed them. We killed them all. We killed their families. We killed their wives and their kids and all their neighbors. We killed whole nations that weren’t even involved just to make goddamned sure. We bombed their cities into rubble. We burned down their countries.

    They killed 3000 of us, we killed 300,000 of them or more.

    8000 of us came home in body bags, but we got our revenge. Yes we did.

    We’re still here. They aren’t.

    We win. USA! USA! USA!

    Right?

    You goddamned right. We. Win.

    Except…

    http://www.stonekettle.com/2016/09/renegade-911.html

    • RedLogix 16.1

      Long admired Jim Wright. He’s got a depth of life experience, a thoughtful mind, and a balanced maturity that seems rare these days. And like JMG he can write.

      PS. His latest post looks good too.

    • greywarshark 16.2

      Is that safe for us to read? It might cause distress to many. Children and parents of children might have their illusions curdled. Can we complain to Netsafe about this? /sarc

  16. pete 17

    I like watching Parliament. I see Simon Bridges, so pathetic that his trite questioning leads to the big question: How could someone like that get to be the leader of a so-called major political party in NZ? Paula Bennett then comes on and asks the PM if “she believes” Meka Whaitiri in an attempt to distract from the pathetic display of her leader. I was disappointed that none on the Government side got up to ask the PM if she believed what she had heard when told the Opposition were simpletons.

    And the Speaker not telling Bennettt that asking people what they believed was silly.

    But good old Mark Mitchell, a real trooper, saved the day for his leader and deputy.
    He came on and made them look like geniuses.

  17. Ed 18

    Shock Doctrine written by Naomi Klein explores the story in depth.
    Recommended reading.

    Michael Winterbottom made a great film as well.
    There is a clear 12 minute section on Chile.
    Recommended viewing.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • Bill 18.1

      ffs Ed!

      What do the first two sentences of the post tell you?

      I’ll help you. The post is not about the overthrow of Allende (first two sentences), and if you read the fucking speech I transcribed (or watch the video I linked to) you might understand the post to be about Sanders highlighting successive US Presidents going to war without Congressional approval.

      edit. Actually, fuck it. Open mike.

  18. corodale 19

    Was his main point: “…demand that it is the Congress of the United States – not a President – who determines… “?

    Well I’m sure Burnie knows very well that war is determined by General Dunford and the Nato Zionists of the Pentagon. Dunford was UN approved for the top position. Good folk in the military too, active power struggles and all that, but the White House and Congress is more or less a stage show on these issues of war and banking. Even the most noble of Senators such as Paul know there are lines ya just don’t cross.
    I’ll trust in the word of the reporter Chris Hedges, when he says “Bernie is just another wind-up doll for the Zionist regime.”

    On the positive side, there is good stuff happening in the US to decentralise and stabilise at the County level.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • Bill 19.1

      Good god. There really are some right septic pricks latching themselves to the left, aren’t there? What a load of conspiratorial fucking tosh.

      Okay. I’m going to take an hour away.

      And when I come back, there will be link to that supposed quote from Hedges, or a comment that reads as an unequivocal retraction.

      Meanwhile. Say hello to Ed.

      • corodale 19.1.1

        Fair enough, Bill.
        There are different levels of truth for each media. I thought that might have been pushing the boundary for TS. Don’t want you guys getting in trouble with the Censor boys n all that either.

        A quick search gives this link for Hedge’s perspective on Sanders. Hedges is a solid middle-eastern journalist with principle.
        https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

        “He (Bernie) was one of 100 Senators who stood up like AIPAC wind up dolls and approved Israel’s 51-day slaughter last summer of Palestinians in Gaza”

        Regarding Dunford and the Pentagon by-pass, that source is mostly from Karen Hudes a World Bank whistle blower. Since 2001, since the failure to investigate or act on NY attack, there has been a semi-official by-pass of the White House on security issues. The Bush Admin where certainly non-responsive to patriotic folk in the CIA and military, and if you want to believe Obama Admin (or a Bernie) was or would be any better, that is up to you.

        • Bill 19.1.1.1

          That quote is qualitatively different to the nonsense you originally posted and attributed to Hedges.

          • corodale 19.1.1.1.1

            Yeah, I was a bit casual quoting from memory. Chris does say more on the issue somewhere, I wasn’t tooooo far off.

            Oh and seems Hudes was debunked by an Anna Von Reitz. Anna seems to be personal friends with both the Black Pope and extraterrestrials from the Arcturian and Pleiadian star systems… Hmmmm, the Hudes source is getting a bit too hot, even for me. Though she did link in with some good stuff, as they do, to build up credibility. Lots of truth hidden amongst the disinformation.

            Here is a link to “perspective on the new reality” if anyone is getting bored of the politics.

            http://sananda.website/perspective-on-the-new-reality/

            Some positive thinking, that we are entering a Golden Age and the Aliens will save us with the spirit of Christ and all that. I’m a bit skeptical. Though must say it was amazingly easy to meet intelligent folk with alien encounter stories while backpacking in Ireland a few years ago.

  19. eco moari 20

    Good evening Newshub Has the research on 1080 being pair reviewed by a un-bias third party I think not .
    We have to start working with Papatuanuku not pouring poison into her once again
    tell the pro 1080 camp to publish 2 reports on this subject . I can see all the protester work hunt and play in our forest they see the negative effects of 1080.
    With Fonterra they went into China and did not understand Chinese culture one must learn how the people think to be able to work with them I say I know more about there culture than Fonterra management .
    That’s cool Sir Brian Williams getting inducted into Rugby Hall of Fame I can remember when he was cutting through over rugby teams.
    Come on the government is not going to push wages up %27 more scare mongering by greedy business.
    A subsidy for people who install solar power for house holds better still the power company’s should be legislated to buy power from solar power grid tied household’s at or near the cost they charge 0.30 cents a unit this minor move will make it easier to get finance and it will make changing to solar power a lot more cost effective to install .
    I suppose a hybrid system would be the best of both worlds I.E Grid tied with battery back up if theres a power cut you will be the only one with power in your neighbourhood Ka kite ano

  20. eco moari 21

    Many thanks to Stuff website for keeping up the education of Aotearoa people about our history. I believe that it will be good for all Kiwis when the NZWARS are taught to all OUR mokopuna Ka pai ka kite ano link is below.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/106976446/one-schools-battle-to-remember-the-wars-that-shaped-nz

  21. eco moari 22

    This 9 year old Australian hine mokopuna has a higher IQ than most Australian pollies as the say politicians Ka pai ka kite ano. link is below.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45495675

  22. eco moari 23

    To the sandflys thanks for the therapy a whare a few people whom all have new partners she loved it and what did you learn that your contracted liers are full of SHIT At least you are leaving other innocent tangata alone. You have your hands clasped together praying /inventing/ spinning / intimidating trying to put Eco Maori back in a box but know (I will win this} ana to kai ka kite ano P.S I seen the person who first alerted me to you contracted lairs on TV last week

  23. eco moari 24

    Some people don’t have the means to evacuate the common poor people have no choice but try and survive the storm these are the people that need state help. That is why I say that global warming is going to affect the poor people the most.
    Link below Ka kite ano .

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-45502104/why-do-people-ignore-hurricane-warnings

  24. eco moari 25

    Good evening Newshub some people actions are over the top on the 1080 protest putting dead birds on the steps of Parliament is out right stupid.
    I think Pay source is a good idea for people who need money in urgency ka pai.
    Mike people will already know that I tau toko the 9 year old caring humane girl for making a stand on the Australian anthem did you know they had a whites only imagination policy back in the day and the Australian tangata whenua are not in a good situation at all and nether are the wahine Equality is what needs to be championed in Australia.
    Apple is copying there opposition 2 grand is a lot all my offspring have a expensive Phone
    Its good that the forestry workers are using tikanga to help keep them safe at work on the East Coast Ka pai.
    Fager looks like some one with a sir in his name now.
    Space champagne in space sorry I’m not into champagne on Papatuanuku
    Ka kite ano

  25. eco moari 26

    The Crowd Goes Wild James & Storm All the best to the Silver Ferns on there new journey that’s a good tip Josh.
    Go the wahine Warriors. Gary Freeman is my old school League playing pick and Stacy Jones.
    James that’s a cool story from Brian Willliam’s he was a league player till he turned 20.
    Eco gives the Warriors the most improved team of the year they will still be building up there depth of talented stars . Ka kite ano P.S my niece has the same name as the new host
    Mean pass from the Harbour hooker

  26. eco moari 27

    Good morning The Am Show Pest eradication is a joke the Toyota AD I say trapping a bounty on pest why not experiment in one region pay bounty and test the trapping option. These pro 1080 people still can not look outside the square they should be doing thing’s in a way that benefits the community they are not looking at thing through tangata whenua eyes.
    Yes Its really cool that our sheep and beef farmer are getting good money for there product its about time.
    Ka Pai People that treat wahine like dirt need to be shown the DOOR Les Moonves of CBS.
    Sugar drinks levies are needed the Dentist see all the mokopunas with stuffed teeth that’s alarming . One just has to compare photos taken today and look at 20 year ojd photos and you will see how the people have gained a massive amout of weight .
    Diabetes is at epidermic levels in maori and our Pacific Island community simple levies will save lives save money and make these community’s much more harmonizes happy and healthy Its a no brainier.
    We have been lead up the creek without a paddle for the last decade with our environment its good to see that nearly %80 of your pollsters can see this .
    False carbon credits cutting down heaps of trees no serious moves to change & slow and lower our carbon use till now rivers being poisoned with nitrates from farming and you show two people who love money over the environment and one person on your show well you looked like 2 peas in a pod ??????????????. did you here her she thinks maori should be on a reservation her Winston comments do you agree with that ideal.
    Mean while Britain has just finished building the largest deep sea wind farm in the world they banned single use plastic bags and have a levies on sugary drinks .The poll gives Eco hope I say a big levie on all sugars not just drinks there is to much sugar in most process foods Ka kite ano

  27. eco moari 28

    The World need to ban trawling and purse seines fishing on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean in International waters they have no regulation so other countrys can just fish the stocks till they crash that will have major repercussions for the whole world .
    Is it just a coincident that Eco Maori can not find story on The United nations considering a ban on fishing on the high Pacific seas out of the EEZ of Pacific country’s
    One can not even find the words Purse seines fishing the big money men useing there money to block the Worlds Reality they will strip Tangaroa of all her beautiful creatures .
    laughing all the way to the bank and who cares about te mokopunas future .
    link’s below ka kite ano .

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/106449685/taiwanese-fishing-boat-investigated-after-being-caught-in-nz-waters

    https://fishbio.com/news/banning-high-seas-fishing-key-ensure-global-food-security.

    We killed the local Orange Ruffy fisheries off in ten years and will kill the fish stocks on the high seas of the Pacific just as quickly .The money men like Peter Tally’s need to be called out on this subject.

  28. eco maori 30

    You all know who this song is dedicated to

  29. eco maori 31

    This is a good story on why Te Aotearoa / New Zealand Wars should be taught to all our Mokopunas read the link and Tangata whenua enjoy most Kiwis will be fine with this reality but some will be rubbing there heads having a tangi.
    link below ka kite ano

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/107015675/the-new-zealand-wars-two-competing-visions

  30. eco maori 32

    This is a good way to build houses fast and efficient I read the comments some people have no clue . With all the leaky homes drama we have had over the last 20 years this way of building minimizes down time having to wrap houses in plastic to keep moister out of the house walls and roof up in one day .
    Ka kite ano link is below.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/107083089/fletcher-living-house-built-in-a-day-at-hobsonville-point

  31. eco maori 33

    Good evening Newshub I read a story that the north Carolina state Gop made a law denying climate change.
    Scientology is what not getting publicity out of that Auckland event YEA RIGHT .
    When one of there most famous members has a interview process to find his date this shows know respect for te wahine I can not watch his movies for more than one minute and I turn it off he is in love with himself .
    I wonder if the Australian can help with Eco Maori pain O no that pain is te whero lol.
    Big know to that Wahi gold mine under people houses who pays to clean up the mess when they leave the problem could start once they have striped the gold and have run with there loot te tangata will have to clean up the mess.
    Throw out all plastic I say Its good to no that there are bad chemicals leaching out of some plastic grades we use for food containers . Ka kite ano

    .

  32. eco maori 34

    Good evening The Crowd Goes Wild Rick & Wairangi don’t worry Rick my reo is not the best madeira but no sugar for Eco now .
    Yes the Springboks always lift it up a couple of notches eveytime they play the Allblacks.
    James celebrating the Mooloo win he will have a sore face now and mabe a sore head.
    MAA Mixed Martial Arts Josh that was a quick tap out.
    All the best to the man you would not like to upset guys Ka kite ano P.S Rick you mite be a bit like Eco in denial about the need for mohiti’s

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Significant step in Pike River drift re-entry
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has received the report on re-entering the Pike River drift following nine months of intensive work by Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau Mā Iwa Pike River Recovery Agency. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ngāpuhi mandate proposal to vote
    Ngāpuhi rangatira and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little have unanimously agreed to move towards negotiations by taking the vote to the people after meeting at Parliament tonight ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Criminal Case Review Commission Bill passes first reading
    Justice Minister Andrew Little’s Bill establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) passed its First Reading in Parliament today.  ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement signed
    Today in Canberra Small Business Minister Hon Stuart Nash signed the formal trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement with Australian Assistant Treasurer, Hon Stuart Robert. As well as signing the Arrangement they also discussed the longer term advantages for businesses using the Australian ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister visiting Australian counterparts
    This week Minister for Small Business, Hon Stuart Nash, is travelling to Canberra for a range of meetings with his Australian counterparts across three of his portfolios. The first visit is with the Australian Assistant Treasurer, the Honourable Stuart Robert ...
    3 weeks ago