Open mike 12/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 12th, 2012 - 92 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

92 comments on “Open mike 12/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Te Reo Putake 1
    12 April 2012 at 6:41 am

    I see POAL has finally admitted leaking Cecil Walkers’s private details to Whaleoil. Still trying to weasel out of responsibility though, blaming Walker for being uppity. I’m looking forward to the Privacy Commissioner putting them right about that.

  2. Pete George 2
    12 April 2012 at 6:47 am

    Have pro PPL people helped condemn it?

    The instant answer MS and social medias made Paid Parental Leave a big issue in a slow news week. They even explored and publicised the options that might stop it.

    Did this hand National the NO option on a plate?

    By the third reading, probably next year, the economic outlook may be looking much better. Starting to nervously eye the 2014 election and with less justification to be miserly National may have found it very difficult to stand in the way of the PPL.

    But it’s been easy for Bill English to commit to a NO now.

    http://yournz.org/2012/04/12/have-pro-ppl-people-helped-condemn-it/

  3. james 111 3
    12 April 2012 at 7:06 am

    Interesting when Labour was in and brought in parental leave for 3 months.The mother and leader of the party at that time Helen Clark was asked why they didn’t do 6 months like other countries? She replied we looked at it but it was unaffordable.
    So it was unaffordable then in better economic times than now . Why would it be affordable now?

    Very hypocritical for the Labour party to even be supporting the bill.This is the issue I have with the Labour party there is no pragmatism,and realism.

    • Pete George 3.1
      12 April 2012 at 7:18 am

      It’s not affordable now. But with an improving economy and re-prioritising spending it could be affordable in the future?

      Why not proceed with the bill and time the phasing in for when it can be afforded? Even if that means delaying it by a year or two, that doesn’t waste the time and effort of the bill going through the parliamentary process.

      But making it a political football like this…

      Sponsor Sue Moroney says the Government is being arrogant by making this premature announcement as the bill has not even had its first reading in the House.

      The Family First lobby group says the Government is running scared of robust debate on the issue.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/103120/govt-accused-of-being-arrogant

      …makes it easy for National to just keep saying no.

      The bill’s best chance of success is to look for ways of making it possible, and minimising National’s chances of saying no.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 7:49 am

        It’s affordable – if we stop giving too much to those who don’t deserve it. What we can’t afford is the rich.

      • Fortran 3.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 1:41 pm

        Why can’t Sue Moroney give some figures to her bill – she baulked and baulked on radio this morning.
        Surely if you put a bill up you have costed it ????

        • Te Reo Putake 3.1.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 1:51 pm

          Glad you asked, if only because it confirms your ignorance, Fortran.
           
          Full costings are done during the process, not at the start. Usually, a bill gets amended, commented on in the house, submitted on in the committee, amended again, polished and finalised and the finished product is fully costed before it goes back for its final reading.
           
          But, of course, that’s the process used in a democracy, not in Dipton’s dictartorship.

    • prism 3.2
      12 April 2012 at 8:57 am

      Probably what Labour meant was it unaffordable for them to go for more than 3 months at first on the basis of getting re-elected when it would be sure to strike hostility from the business sector and many of those who have no children, no desire to have children personally or have delayed having them.

      Attitudes can of course change individually when a baby comes along and a woman with good earning rate and education wants to ensure that she can decide to follow her natural course in life but not drop out of her level in the modern employment market in its present construction.

      • Bored 3.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 9:36 am

        This whole debate amazes me at the lack of fundamental questions being asked. The obvious one is can we afford it? That is fraught with political edges so I am not even going to go there.

        Some questions I think relevant:
        * why cant a family live on one income?
        * why are careers considered more important than childrens upbringing?
        * why are there not more men at home doing the child raising?

        • prism 3.2.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 11:59 am

          Looking at history and the low respect for wives who were just dependents of their husbands and even in the 1960s not able to open a shop account in their own name without a guarantee from a man, it is important that women can stay in the workforce, and be seen to be people to be reckoned with not despised or patronised.

          What womens lib wasn’t able to achieve was an acceptance that everybody owes their being to the action of their mother carrying and giving birth and watching over them till self-reliance was learned. A decent intelligent society would make allowance for that. Parenthood is still just an annoying hobby to many employers, some of them women who have adopted the dominant male attitudes.

          • Bored 3.2.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

            Good valid points. I think the bit I find worst about dependence is the need for two incomes to pay for the necessities. No easy answers there either, just a trend for wages to diminish relative to costs, and for a household to have to work longer to survive.

            • prism 3.2.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 7:21 pm

              Bored I agree. Two wages were the key to advancing quickly and so getting a house and some things of one’s own. You both got down to work and got established and felt there was a point to the sacrifices required of time and tight schedules.

              Then it all went to custard and now two wages are needed for the basics as you say. Nobody really felt the sharp end of the oncome of this though, as there was so much credit available and the economy seemed to be swinging nicely so it was all right to borrow future wages for things for now. Sorry Joe public this was an illusion but it wasn’t one of the well-known ones so passed unnoticed (no rabbits, no lady sawed in half.)

        • Vicky32 3.2.1.2
          12 April 2012 at 6:27 pm

          Some questions I think relevant:
          * why can’t a family live on one income?
          * why are careers considered more important than childrens’ upbringing?
          * why are there not more men at home doing the child raising?

          Agreed! 
          I stayed home with my sons, as my mother did with us. (She would have anyway, I chose to, and needed to.)
          I feel very sorry for women who have to rush from the delivery suite home, and then back to work, dumping the child in a childcare warehouse on the way. (Or – who feel they have to!)

    • millsy 3.3
      12 April 2012 at 10:43 pm

      Extending PPL is affordable — if the tax cuts for the rich were reversed by lunchtime.

      You would be able to afford heaps of other things as well. Things that shouldnt be expected to make a ‘profit’.

  4. james 111 4
    12 April 2012 at 7:21 am

    Sorry posted this in the wrong area interesting story developing here bigger than Nick Smith and a letter will it get the same coverage.

    Can anyone tell me what the Meatworkers union has been doing with all the funds it has been receiving as it certainly hasnt been fully declaring them. Surely they havent been ripping off the workers ?

    CEO Hamish Simson says the union has not declared its total income, and has failed to disclose what it does with its members’ contributions.

    “It appears from the union’s published financial statements that only a fraction of its total income has been declared,” says Mr Simson.

    “Affco workers contribute over $500,000 to the union each year, paying $5.95 each per week. Affco workers represent less than 10 percent of the 23,000 members the Union says it has and yet it only declares revenue of just over $700,000 per annum”.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1
      12 April 2012 at 7:30 am

      Do try and keep up, Jim Jim. The funds aren’t missing and the Affco boss has made a total tit of himself.

  5. Rosie 5
    12 April 2012 at 7:22 am

    More support from overseas Union affiliations for our workers facing incredibly hostile employers
    http://cms.iuf.org/?q=node/1586
    It’s been interesting as well as welcoming to see how supportive overseas Union allies have been towards the viscious assualts from both POAL and Talleys/AFFCO towards their workforce.

    • james 111 5.1
      12 April 2012 at 7:25 am

      why havent the Meat workers union declared all of the funds they receive Rosie where is it going?

      • Rosie 5.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 7:50 am

        James,
        Yesterday I posted this link
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6723730/SFO-complaint-over-union-accounts
        on open mike. Is this what you are referring to?
        If so, you’ll see there are two sides to that story. I would be more concerned about the hostile actions of Talleys referring the MWU to the SFO. I think you’ll find that that their reasons for doing so are baseless. Given that Unions often struggle financially I would assume and that the MWU isn’t likely to be smuggling gazillions away and that this is simply a desparate bid from a bad employer to destroy their enemy, which is how they seem to view their Union partner

        • mickysavage 5.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 8:02 am

          Aye Rosie.

          Doing this the day before the commencement of mediation is particularly aggressive and stupid.  It is as if Talley’s don’t want to sort things out peacefully with the Union … 

          • Rosie 5.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 8:23 am

            I agree with with you Mickey. It does seem that Talleys have no commitment to or or intention to peacefully settle withe their Unionised employees.
            We can’t forget that this is a business who made large donations to the National Party election campaign in 2005 – to the “Bosses Party”. Perhaps they now find themselves in a climate where they won’t be held to account for their oppressive actions. So now is their time to really rachet up the anti Union campaign

  6. mickysavage 6
    12 April 2012 at 7:22 am

    The Tallys blunder by believing something Cameron Slater said was credible.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10798107

  7. Jim Nald 7
    12 April 2012 at 7:26 am

    Listening to RadioNZ now and Double Dipton is essentially saying fuck Parliament.

    • james 111 7.1
      12 April 2012 at 7:28 am

      Quite rightly so to Jim Helen Clark said it was unaffordable to give six months at the time Labour brought in 3 months. I have to agree with her ,and economic conditions have only got worse.

      • framu 7.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 7:44 am

        thats got zero to do with it james.

        Its parliament who pass the laws in this country, not the government of the day – if a majority of parliament vote in favour of something then by rights it shouldnt be shut down ahead of time by a veto from government.

        heres a tiny experiment for you – what would be your reaction if it was labour in government doing this to a bill put forward by national that.. hmm… sought to cut business taxes?

        • mikesh 7.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 8:56 am

          I’m inclined to think any bill ought to be vetoable if it necessitates expenditure that hasn’t been budgeted for.

      • rosy 7.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 8:13 am

        You forgot the rest of the story Jimmy111 – PPL was gradually extended, from 12 weeks in 2002 for parents who had worked for the same employer for a year to 14 weeks in 2005 and including parents with 6 months service and self-employed mothers. It was expected to increase again if Labour won the 2008 election. The issue was not whether 6 months was unaffordable, but whether it was affordable all at once.

        The bill was sponsored by Laila Harre – an Alliance Party minister and picked up as Labour Party core policy.

  8. logie97 8
    12 April 2012 at 8:58 am

    Charter Schools

    We can be assured that this government will make them work (but at what cost?)

    Will the management of a school be able to turn “potential undesirable” children/families away? Will they be able to manipulate their rolls? What will happen to “stood down” pupils?

    When the PM said he wanted all children to be above average, did he mean just the children of charter schools measured against the rest of the education system?

  9. prism 9
    12 April 2012 at 9:02 am

    Gossiping yesterday I was told that Shonkey’s bach in Hawaii cost $40 million (NZ I would think). Should I ask Whaleoil – he would know all about it?

  10. aerobubble 10
    12 April 2012 at 9:23 am

    so you’ve had a bad day, you need to unwind, so you do what you love, you go cycling over the ranges. You do that a lot, you’re quite good at it. Its rare for anyone to turn up behind you, or you’ve never been on that track, or that track is unfamiliar since most times anyone has passed you there has been room. Anyway, this guy comes up behind you, wants to get past, and its one of those days you just need to be left alone. But they are not going to. Why not? Why can’t he just stop on a rise, take a breath for a few minutes and you will be far off someplace. Its the generous thing to do since you’ve never encountered this problem before, someone wanting to get past you on a tight track, maybe after a coffee, a shower, a good nights sleep you’d realise (or more likely rsubconcious would), how to move over and be generous to the nuisence behind you wanting to get past. And what’s his problem anyway, cars in back lanes sometimes have to slow down until there is a passing zone, you don’t actually see cars come to a halt to let cars pass them. Any experience rider would ‘get’ that their egos might get the better of them and actively find weakness in other riders a way to boast their egos even more. And then there’s the personal mp3 player, this get out of the way isn’t going to happen card, how would anyone behind even get noticed by someone wanting to get past. So I ask what mistakes did he make when he got up that day? was it going out cycling? no, was it giving any conscious thought to the guy behind him? Hell yes. If he’d just ignored the guy behind he’d never have gotten into the altercation and so never have the police looking for him. So why did he stop and start having a conversation? Why when he had ???been forced to stop??? did he not then let the guy pass silent, smirkin and a figure in the air, was he having a mental fart, a moment of insanity trying to argue with a moron on adrendlin. Was it the insanity every middle aged guy hits, with the notion that there were now young fitter cyclists who wanted to pass him and could easily beat them in a race, faced with his own aging and weakness. You can quite understand why a younger adrenalin junky, who premedatatively took a camera with him, to allegedly haze some older rider for the laugh, and make the effort of carrying it on his head worthwhile would be so pleased with the exposer but its not a good outcome for cycling since it teaches only that sometimes you will meet up with an old fart on the track and how easy it is to start a altecation with them, a handbook in how to make cycling fun in all the wrong ways. So the lesson is when you next meet up with the old fart slowing you down, just hope they arent wearing any mp3 player, and tell them that you will stop for a few minutes to let them get ahead so you dont bump into them quite as much. They might just feel twisted inside, see themselves as a bully hogging the track and let you pass, but what you don’t do is haze the guy for he might be carrying a knife and have just been let out of the psychoward.

    In other mean spiritedness, the V8 Hamilton races have stopped a car driver accessing their own private driveway one too many times and now look set to suffer either a court action that will stop the race, or worse, the racing industry will look like an petrol head excuse who tramps all over the average car owners (who don’t worship cars). Go figure. But hey, adrendlin motor heads and cyclists are drug uses too. The responsible reasonable approach is to back off and let them pass, or stop putting yourself in their face without any concern for later consequences. i.e both parties have an obligation to back off, but the druggies have to be aware that its can be an offense to disturb the peace – being high on adrendlin is no excuse. They don’t have a right to impose themselves on others and expect the outcome they want. So don’t give it to them.

    • Bored 10.1
      12 April 2012 at 9:41 am

      Its obvious to me that the offending mountain of a biker votes ACT. No other bugger would demand everything their way at the expense of everybody else.

    • Vicky32 10.2
      12 April 2012 at 6:33 pm

      In other mean spiritedness, the V8 Hamilton races have stopped a car driver accessing their own private driveway one too many times and now look set to suffer either a court action that will stop the race, or worse,

      Let’s hope so! My sympathies are with the driver and his family…

  11. Morrissey 11
    12 April 2012 at 9:47 am

    “Faceless people” attacking Pat Lam? YEAH RIGHT.

    The Auckland Blues have lost five out of their first six games, so of course there’s only one possible reason: too many darkies, both playing and coaching.

    Well, that’s what “they” have been saying on the internet and on Radio Sport and NewstalkZB. And some of the people who ring in are almost as racist as the hosts.

    Yet, in spite of the recent denunciations of the “gutless cowardly boofheads who hide behind the anonymity of the internet” there is little evidence that anyone, even the victims, are prepared or willing to confront the main culprits. Instead, the victims themselves have chosen to pretend that the racism infesting the airwaves is due to some vague ethereal “anonymous” presence…

    Yesterday an emotionally distraught Pat Lam publicly fingered what he said was the source of these comments: “It’s the faceless people,” he blubbed. On radio this morning, Blues CEO Andy Dalton repeated that message: we don’t know who they are, these “faceless people”.

    Yesterday on NewstalkZB, Larry Williams, without missing a beat, told Mark Watson that that “we get this garbage too”, and that it “goes straight into the rubbish bin.”

    Listen to Susan Wood this morning on NewstalkZB: “The cowardly boofheads …anonymity of the internet….gutless…”

    ENOUGH ALREADY! What Wood and Williams and (most of all) Pat Lam know perfectly well is that the source of the most vitriolic anti-Polynesian, anti-Maori comments is right under their noses. NewstalkZB/Radio Sport hosts Murray Deaker, Paul Holmes, Tony Veitch, Leighton
    Smith are notorious for their racially charged comments, and their demeaning of Maori and Polynesians.

    The people responsible for these ugly racist comments are not “faceless”, they are the colleagues of Wood and Williams. It’s an indictment of Lam and Dalton that they lack the courage to state this plainly.

    • Uturn 11.1
      12 April 2012 at 10:25 am

      Re: Paul Holme’s racist outbursts.

      Did The Jackal ever get a reply to his complaint to the HRC about Holmes article on Watangi Day?

      • Jackal 11.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 10:45 am

        Unfortunately not. The HRC, Privacy Commissioner and BSA have decided to not even acknowledge complaints from me anymore, which is unbelievably undemocratic! The Ombudsman is also delaying indefinitely many of my complaints well past the allowable timeframe, which is all designed to dissuade me from making them.

    • bad12 11.2
      12 April 2012 at 10:53 am

      Our Forensic Psychologist viewed that Pat Lam interview and laughingly pointed out the way Pat managed to stop being emotional at least twice in the news footage to look up straight faced at the interviewer in what our Psychologist called a look of ”am I believable”,

      Pat using ”emotion” to head those calling for His head off at the pass so to speak…

    • Bored 11.3
      12 April 2012 at 11:31 am

      Its bloody ugly, you note there are never complaints when the team is going well, they could not have enough darkies then!

      Couple of things to note:
      * In my experience I have never heard Deaker making “racist” noises, I have heard him being brave enough to address the real problems of age size differences in school rugby that touch upon ethnicity that can bring charges of racism. He may be many things but he is definitely not a racist.

      * Auckland rugby is suffering badly and the Blues are symptomatic of this. A few years back the Auckland provincial and Super teams had token Palangis and Maoris, the team was very Samoan. The fear was that “smaller” players (read pakeha) were being forced out of the game and that the top level would suffer from a reduced player base. I was involved with kids rugby on the North Shore when the local unions went to great lengths to ensure that the player drain of non Polynesians was staunched, and that weight / age grades etc were promoted. When you look at the Blues and Auckland now you can see the results, the team naturally has a large Polynesian content, Auckland after all is the largest Polynesian city.The teams ethnicity is now far more mixed. It looks a bit like the local population you would see walking down the road.

      Time for all Aucklanders to get behind their team, cut the crap and support Lam.

      • Morrissey 11.3.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:38 am

        In my experience I have never heard Deaker making “racist” noises… He may be many things but he is definitely not a racist.

        You obviously have not listened to Murray Deaker for very long.

        Your defence of him is based on fantasy.

        • Bored 11.3.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 12:07 pm

          Ah come on Morrissey, I did not call you out on Paul Holmes, Tony Veitch, Leighton
          Smith because I never listen to them ( and maybe because its on the record that they are as you describe)!

          Deaks…now that’s different, listen all the time as he is prepared to ask the hard questions and listen for the answers. Have I missed an episode? Can I get it on replay? He is very much like the Mad Butcher, a real enthusiast, I doubt he would treat you differently if you were a Martian.

          • Jackal 11.3.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 1:02 pm

            I presume you’re accepting of Deaker using the N word then Bored?

            • Bored 11.3.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 1:37 pm

              I stand corrected…Deaks has used the term “nigger” it appears from your article and I don’t see it as acceptable in any context. I will however go by Willie Loses interpretation that the term is wrong but the man is not a racist.

              • Morrissey …
                12 April 2012 at 1:53 pm

                Some confusion by our good friend Bored, when he writes: “I will however go by Willie Loses interpretation that the term is wrong but the man is not a racist.”

                So… he uses a racist word, repeatedly and calculatedly, but he is not a racist.

                Willy Lose’s bizarre and illogical claim can partly be explained by the fact he was speaking as a colleague and was afraid of provoking the notoriously belligerent Deaker. What is your motivation for writing such nonsense?

                • Bored …
                  12 April 2012 at 5:17 pm

                  Motivation? I happen to like the work he does on rugby and I happen to believe he is not a racist. That’s my opinion, on that we obviously differ. I tend to give people a chance before I condemn, your evidence does rather lead me to reconsider. Whats is your motivation?

          • Morrissey 11.3.1.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 2:05 pm

            Deaks…now that’s different, listen all the time as he is prepared to ask the hard questions and listen for the answers.

            “Prepared to ask the hard questions?” Deaker? You’re dreaming, my friend. Obviously you were asleep when he was toadying after John O’Neill and Vernon Pugh in 2002. Deaker accepted every single word they said as they hijacked New Zealand’s games for the 2003 World Cup. What hard questions are you talking about? His advocacy of the Blackheart campaign in 2003? What “hard questions” did he ask then? When he is not acting as a sycophant and asking patsy questions, bellowing his disdain for Maori and Polynesian footballers, he’s opining for hour after hour about how “dark skinned people lack the necessary concentration to play cricket”.

            Have I missed an episode? Can I get it on replay?

            Are you serious? Are you trying to suggest that Deaker’s racist ranting has been confined to just a few episodes that you happen to have missed?

            He is very much like the Mad Butcher, a real enthusiast,

            That’s a very charitable assessment of the talent-free zone known as the Mad Butcher.

            I doubt he would treat you differently if you were a Martian.

            Lucky for the Martians then. Just a pity he’s such a crude bigot towards Maori and Polynesian people.

            • Bored 11.3.1.1.2.1
              12 April 2012 at 5:07 pm

              Jeez Morrissey, just read your deconstruct and fell about laughing (genuinely, it is amusing), especially about the Mad Butcher. Just to put you straight here the Butcher may be talent free as far as you are concerned BUT he has an immense and demonstrable talent for charity and kindness. Now that’s talent.

              Deaks also amused me with his constant questioning of Henry over his “judge me by the results” (hard questions perhaps).

              All up I have admitted I got it wrong, you wont however get me regarding Deaks as a racist.

              PS Nice to get off the “political” for a change.

              • Morrissey …
                12 April 2012 at 7:44 pm

                I can see you are a very kind and decent person, Bored. But there are a couple of points I still disagree with…

                1.) “[The Mad Butcher] has an immense and demonstrable talent for charity and kindness.”

                He certainly has a talent for publicising how much money he gives away.

                2.) Deaks also amused me with his constant questioning of Henry over his “judge me by the results”

                He’s had to shut up about that now, although you have to wonder how obnoxious he would be towards Henry and the All Blacks if there had been an unbiased referee in the World Cup final last year.

                3.) you wont however get me regarding Deaks as a racist

                Unfortunately, no matter how indulgently or charitably one wants to look on Deaker, his own record acts as a prosecutor against him….
                http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21032012/#comment-449711

                • Bored …
                  13 April 2012 at 6:18 am

                  I will keep being kind and decent, but I promise you if I hear him being deliberately racist I will telephone in with the wrath of Bored.

  12. Morrissey 12
    12 April 2012 at 10:19 am

    National Radio, 9:50 a.m., Thursday 12 April 2012
    Foreign Correspondent slot is increasingly a forum for lunatics

    Who chooses the guests for this 9:50 slot? Many of them (Jack Hitt and Ray Moynihan, for instance) are excellent, but listeners have also had to suffer through such substandard and toxically biased commentators as Irris Makler, Jason Morrison, and Kate Adie.

    Kathryn Ryan’s guest this morning is…uh, oh…. the notoriously unbalanced (in every sense) Dame Ann Leslie.

    Dame Ann rants dyspeptically about the five Islamic men about to be sent to the United States on terrorism charges—she calls one of them, Abu Hamza, “Captain Hook”. Ryan giggles at that, and giggles continuously throughout Dame Ann’s unhinged ranting against the International Criminal Court, but never challenges her or asks her to explain herself. Then she moves it onto another topic…

    RYAN: The teachers’ unions have been in the news, Dame Ann–

    DAME ANN LESLIE: Arrrrgggh.

    RYAN: He he he he!

    DAME ANN: Every year we have to listen to the militant rabble rousingof the teacher unions!

    RYAN: What are their concerns?

    DAME ANN LESLIE: They never agree to any method of reforming our LOUSY education system. They need a full SIX WEEKS in the summer,… The unions have opposed EVERY EFFORT to improve the education system. All attempts to improve these schools are stifled. We are absolutely FED UP with them.

    The spluttering and snarling continues for several more minutes, punctuated occasionally by Kathryn Ryan’s giggles.

  13. Jackal 13
    12 April 2012 at 10:29 am

    Blowing the budget

    National are ideologically blinded by neoliberalism. Under a John Key government, New Zealand has had to borrow billions to cover tax cuts for the wealthy. Additional consultancy fees directly attributed to cuts in public sector employment will also ensure our indebtedness for the foreseeable future…

  14. Bunji 14
    12 April 2012 at 10:31 am

    Bill lists the targets for his scythe: public servants in Health, Social Development, Education.

    Be afraid, be very afraid…

  15. mister m 15
    12 April 2012 at 10:48 am

    The benefits of being a scab contractor:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10798223

    How many unionists are on $2300/day????

    I’m a contractor and wouldn’t even get out of bed for $2300/day, but I have to pay insane amounts of tax to fund all the dpb bludgers and dole payments of unionists who refuse to work, so can’t afford to get out of bed for such a pittance.

    But I guess that is why you all pay >$2 litre for petrol – to keep me in the lifestyle that I’m accustomed to.

    Fuck, I love being a capitalist!

    • prism 15.1
      12 April 2012 at 11:50 am

      What a stirrer you want to be mister m. Stick to stirring the brown stuff that’s tea and leave the smelly stuff alone, it rubs off, smells foul and then your fine self will find high pay is no compensation.

    • Bored 15.2
      12 April 2012 at 12:18 pm

      M my man, just keep paying the ridiculous amounts of tax, enjoy the lifestyle and reflect upon your higher status as a generous person (even if you don’t want to be). And should you feel you pay too much tax, just pay it. Fear the IRD above all others.

    • Uturn 15.3
      12 April 2012 at 12:19 pm

      It will disappoint you soon enough, being a proud capitalist, and a somewhat ignorant capitalist. That you think this is a world where opposites do not exist, that there is no opposing force to your pride, is a sad gap in your education. It’s even more depressing than your grasp of English. You see, no capitalist who understands capitalism, past its immediate appeal to self-interest and avarice, would say they love being a capitalist. It is like a tragic character, unaware he is a player, announcing to the audience he loves the idea he is about to never be the same, eager to leave behind his hubris and egotistical utterances in exchange for, usually, death, but in our context, risking something much worse – a living death.

      It would be equally disappointing to find a communist – the modern capitalist’s arch rival – who is proud to be a communist. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own demise with its demand for increased production of things it cannot sell and in meeting the opposing force of communism, both perspectives are irrevocably changed. Once the two forces face off and struggle to the point of exhaustion, society is either reduced to the instinctual barbarism of human necessity as a result or we all move forward together in a new way; without our present isms and divisions. There is little to be proud of, once you realise the risks, unless you are mentally deranged – whichever side you stand on.

      • Bored 15.3.1
        12 April 2012 at 1:46 pm

        In the words of the Bard “M” sounds like ” a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”…..

    • Colonial Viper 15.4
      12 April 2012 at 2:42 pm

      How many unionists are on $2300/day????

      Apparently all of them, according to the POAL and the right wing media.

    • Reagan Cline 15.5
      12 April 2012 at 7:25 pm

      Forget the money – you can’t take it with you. Get out of bed at dawn, don’t turn the light on, eat fruit and grains, drink a cup,of tea (without milk), walk somewhere and smile and say hello to the other walkers. Leave your cell phone at home.

  16. Johnm 16
    12 April 2012 at 10:53 am

    Canadian workers are struggling against NeoLiberalism :

    “THE STRUGGLE AGAINST NEOLIBERALISM: Canadian Workers’ Rights in the Wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis
    The Electro-Motive Lockout and Non-Occupation”

    Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30234

    “Along with everything else, the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath created new openings and potentials for working people in the struggle against neoliberalism. A number of struggles initially opened up, including factory occupations, efforts to defend pensions and the rights of younger workers. There were important political struggles, as well, as in Wisconsin, along with newer projects to link labour and communities, in the Occupy movement.”

    • aerobubble 16.1
      12 April 2012 at 3:44 pm

      All neo-liberalism means is there way, you have no say. But the fact is you have a lot of say, your consent is required for a civil society to provide the efficiencies to carry all those ‘extra’ rich (and they know it and will do everything to distort, distract and misdirect).

  17. prism 17
    12 April 2012 at 11:30 am

    Just heard about the death of Jack Tramiel another great computer innovator like Steve Jobs. He introduced the Commodore Pet the first accessable home computer. I knew of the computer but not the innovator – this guy was a great clever doer and survivor.
    Jack Tramiel has died aged 84 years in the Usa Obit from the Washington Post.

    • prism 17.1
      12 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

      For those who have nostalgic memories of Commodore computers and Amigas and want to read more about this Jack Tramiel.
      http://awesome.commodore.me/

      • Descendant Of Smith 17.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 7:13 pm

        Ahh sad.

        Started with a Vic 20 then went C64, C128 and Amiga. Picked up a Plus/4 along the way.

        Dabbled in machine code and learned to program in basic – which still comes in handy with Excel in particular.

        It was those retired people in the C64 clubs who were impressive. They could do things with machine code on their 64’s I could only dream about.

        I remember one group in Wanganui had worked out how to get their names to appear on the screen instead of Commodore when you turned it on.

        I think they used a modded chip and machine code combination.

        Boulderdash, Impossible Mission, Bubble Bobble, Armalyte, Pool Of Radiance, Wizball, IK+, Buggy Boy, Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, all the Magnetic Scrolls games, Zamzara, BC’s Quest for Tires, speech synthesis, GEOS – ahh the list is endless.

        Can’t forget of course those tape loading screens:

  18. Campbell Larsen 18
    12 April 2012 at 11:44 am

    I/S on No Right Turn in “If all you have is a hammer…” makes a couple of noteworthy observations.

    The first is the fact that Nationals policy announcements consists of just a load of waffle with no actual detail whatsoever – It is quite an effective strategy, albeit a darkly cynical one given the importance of the issues paid only lip service to. For those wanting to critique the ‘plans’ or even to understand them there is nothing to grasp onto. An educated or informed response is impossible when slogans are all that we have been given.
    But where is the critique in the media of the lack of detail? Nationals policy announcements are about as convincing as a new years resolution and their Ministers should be laughed out of their press conferences for daring to turn up and make proclamations that are a deliberate study in vagueness.

    Secondly I/S highlights the growing use of ‘the children’ as an excuse for implementing unpopular policies or reform. Once again it is only the most darkly cynical who would deliberately use peoples concern for their children to promote a course of action – when a hostage taker holds a gun to the head of someone’s child and demands obedience the violence of the act is rightly condemned by law and society – yet the governments modus operandi is now little different.
    It is time that the government stopped implying that children will suffer if we don’t accept their austerity and their radical hard right agenda or that children will benefit if we do.
    Austerity harms economies and harms society. The Nats don’t care about kids any more than the hostage taker does.

  19. Dave Kennedy 19
    12 April 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Southland dairy farmers attempt to bully Environment Southland into changing new rules with the support of Bill English. http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/dairy-farmers-and-bullying-tactics.html

  20. Morrissey 20
    12 April 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Great Minds Thinking Hard about the Big Questions
    NewstalkZB, Thursday 12 April 2012, 1:28 p.m.

    As always at NewstalkZB, it’s an atmosphere of moral panic and befuddlement as confused callers try to come to grips with the question of the day. Today’s big topic is “teenagers committing burglaries—who’s to blame?”. As usual, there’s an easy answer for it—it’s all because parents are no longer allowed to punch, kick and whip their children. A caller called Shannon rings up host Danny Watson to share her wisdom….

    SHANNON: The government took away our rights as parents when they brought in the anti-smacking law. And, yes, I KNOW there’s abuse and there’s children that get killed rah rah rah but seriously Danny—

    DANNY WATSON: It’s still going on by the way. The killing.

    SHANNON: Oh I knowwwwww…

  21. Draco T Bastard 21
    12 April 2012 at 1:53 pm

    What a surprise, farmers whinging about being held accountable for their destructive actions.

    The interim dairy rule is a council initiative to improve water quality in Southland based on recommendations from the Office of the Auditor-general’s report on water policy and the council’s own State of the Environment report.

    “Council can make the rules, you can police the rules, but without the people in the back of this room there will be no effect on the environment,” he said.

    They’re basically complaining that they won’t be able to pollute unhindered.

    I also find it amusing that they’re calling it an attack on democracy when it was the actions of farmers that resulted in the sacking of ECan and the implementation of a dictatorship in its place because they didn’t like the democratic result – rules that enforced environmental protection.

    • Dave Kennedy 21.1
      12 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Southland Farmers are also complaining about an increase in rates that attempts to recoup the costs incurred by the industry. Dairy farmers claim they don’t want subsidies and yet that is what is occurring when the external costs of the industry continue to be covered by general ratepayers and taxpayers.

  22. Te Reo Putake 22
    12 April 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Quote of the day:
     
    “Once an offender  has been conclusively identified as a person who will never be safe around the vulnerable – particularly children –  their “rights” very much take second place to the rights of children to play,  or even  to sleep,  without a Lloyd McIntosh waiting for his chance to grab them and  commit unspeakable crimes.”


    David Garratt, a criminal convicted of an unspeakable crime against a child, in a guest post on Kiwiblog.

    • Morrissey 22.1
      12 April 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Yesterday I heard National Radio quoting Garrett’s most shameless defender, Garth McVicar, about a law and order question.

      Following the brutal 2008 knife-killing of a boy in South Auckland, McVicar loudly defended the killer, and for day after day expressed scorn and contempt for the victim and his family. Yet he is still referred to by National Radio and other media outlets as a “victims’ advocate”.

      Garrett and McVicar must be two of the most loathsome and hypocritical creatures in the country, yet they are still accorded respect.

      Why?

      • Jackal 22.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Because they’re part of the old (white) boys club. The only respect such reprobates really get is from people who are racist themselves.

        • Morrissey 22.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 10:38 pm

          Or possibly it is because the National Radio producers are indolent, and go to McVicar because he always has something incendiary to say, even if it makes little sense.

  23. captain hook 23
    12 April 2012 at 2:46 pm

    pssssssst….
    any of the petty petit-bourgeois around today.
    they wanna ugh umm moderate me?
    me.
    hook!

  24. Pascal's bookie 24
    12 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

    Anyone who has bothered to register to comment over at DPF’s place, and wants a free hit on one of the resident birthers;

    This thread:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/04/general_debate_12_april_2012.html#comment-954789

    ‘Bereal’ talking about how Obama is going to get all busted about his birth certificate because “Sheriff Joe is on the case…..”.

    In a later comment he talks about his respect for the rule of law.

    point him here:

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/04/10/a-little-justice-served/

    … and let the poor guy know that the SSTs favorite sheriff’s legal team have been stripped of their law licenses. It looks like Joe has more to worried about that Obama. TBH.

  25. james 111 25
    12 April 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Great to see the pressure coming on Gillard in Aussie now in Australia she is admitting that Australia must focus on productivity thats enough to have the Union leaders over there having seizures they arent use to improving productivity.

    Just as we need to improve productivty here at POAL, and the Affco plants

    • Morrissey 25.1
      12 April 2012 at 4:30 pm

      You’re a liar and an idiot.

      • james 111 25.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

        No Morrisey its all true you can watch it on sky channel 90. The other interesting thing is now that Labour has virtually been thrown out of Queensland and can only form a party because the liberals are being nice to them ie they dont have enough seats.

        The Liberals have just announced they are taking $7000 stamp duty of buying a home. Halfing the Labour premieres fare increases on public transport. I bet the people of queensland are so happy to have pragmatism rather ideology rulingthem again.

    • muzza 25.2
      12 April 2012 at 4:48 pm

      But you don’t really understand anything about it Jimbo, as has been proven so many times before.

      Get your little digs in, that you think are fun, and maybe you even think you are cool, or that you are winning.

      I assure you that you are not, and you can not!

    • Reagan Cline 25.3
      12 April 2012 at 9:06 pm

      What is “productivity” to you James ?
      I suspect it is a measure of how much product comes out of the works and how much cargo unloaded and despatched per worker.
      So you have more workers producing the same amount for a lesser wage per worker or fewer workers producing the same amount for a higher wage per worker, or you have some workers producing more than others but the average produced is the same and you pay the more productive workers more to allow for the “loafers”, or you only employ higher producing workers and contract them to maintain their higher production or lose the contract.
      How do you decide which is best ?

    • millsy 25.4
      12 April 2012 at 10:33 pm

      James, I think you really need to come clean and admit you want to:

      1) Ban unions
      2) Ban collective bargaining
      3) Bring back slavery

      Cheers
      Millsy.

      • Colonial Viper 25.4.1
        12 April 2012 at 10:44 pm

        4) And to bring back the right for the lord of the land to deflower any virgin serf of his choosing on her 16th birthday. Well any of the ones who are left by then.

  26. Pete George 26
    12 April 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Something I agree with Winston Peters on:

    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said his party had not discussed the bill, which was drawn out of the private members ballot last week, and neither National nor the bill’s sponsor had discussed it with him.

    “What is happening is government through media columns. It actually does not work in practice.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10798356

    There seems to be an expectation by some to deal with everything by media instead of using parliamentary process.

    (This is related but different to Bill English ignoring parliamentary process to decide the outcome of bills before they have even been in the house.)

  27. bad12 27
    12 April 2012 at 7:39 pm

    For God sake why do We do it, watch that bloke Campbell make a mockery of journalism on our TV that is,

    To-nights revelation that earnings of 80 grand a year are somehow putting people in the line of poverty makes us lot wonder if wee John doesn’t fall about the studio in mad fits of laughter once the lights have gone down on the nights offerings,

    If 80 grand a year is sliding dangerously close to the poverty line,(according to John and the family featured),then what the fuck do these people make of the pittance those forced to survive on the minimum wage and benefits get every week…

    • just saying 27.1
      12 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

      The irony is that the people writing in saying “yeah were pulling $120,000 and we’re only just keeping our heads above water” are, I reckon, the same kinds of people that complain that solo parents with kids surviving on a fraction of that are living a luxurious lifestyle at their personal expense.

      I did have some sympathy for the family featured though (interestingly viewers weren’t invited to go through their accounts with a fine toothed comb to criticise their expenditure as happens in stories about beneficiaries). I’m sure they do work very hard. The cost of living is ridiculously high, and ordinary people who expect a middle-class lifestyle are working longer and longer hours to stay still, a far cry from what that aspirational bullshit tells them is their due. Most of the middle-class is moving down economically. Unfortunately the anger is generally directed at those who have it much harder and not those with the power to make a difference. And it’s a pity the cost of living isn’t something that can be acknowledged when those who are really hard-up speak out.

  28. Sookie 28
    12 April 2012 at 8:29 pm

    I had UMR ring me up tonight and survey on a bunch of political questions relating to Sky City pokies and the Paid Parental Leave veto and that bootfaced cow Judith Collins as well as the usual. I can’t remember whether UMR has a publically released poll like Roy Morgan, does anyone know? Or was I just being surveyed by the Nats? I’m curious, as they’ve rung me before.