Open mike 12/06/2011

47 comments on “Open mike 12/06/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. PeteG 1

   12 June 2011 at 7:46 am

   In response to a Kiwiblogpost on the Turei interview on The Nation.

   I thought it was a good interview too. The Greens are looking like one of the most sensible (how they act, not necessarily policies), practical, positive alternatives to National – but the standard of others is not hard to beat.

   It’s interesting, I will standing against Turei in Dunedin North, and to an extent Your NZ is very similar albeit much newer than the Green Party.

   Turei is her party co-leader and number 1 on their party list. She is passionate about what she is doing, and seems to be doing a good job – at cabinet level or just below cabinet level. She will be busy as leader, even busier should she become achieve an ambition to become a minister.

   I don’t think Turei can give enough time and attention to an electorate, she’s working at a higher level. An appropriate list candidate.

   There are similarities between the Green Party and where Your NZ wants to position itself.

   Turei used a line, which I have advocated in the past they should use, that they can work constructively with both National and Labour and regardless of who forms the Government, they’ll aim to make it a greener Government.

   Same for Your NZ, except instead of a green voice Your NZ wants to be a people’s voice (or lobby), to influence the government on behalf of electorate wishes. Government can’t be run by referendum, but they should listen more and ordinary people should have more influence.

   Accurate determination of what people think and want = stronger democratic lobby to government.

   It’s a good message which could well appeal to some swinging voters who may be saying they want John Key as Prime Minister but would like the Government to do more on environmental issues.

   Also similar, except Your NZ is “the people’s” voice rather than the green voice.

   Again no one should think that if they have a choice, the Greens won’t install a Labour-led Government. They will, unless Labour totally alienate them.

   Here we are different – Your NZ will pledge to support for Government the party that wins the most seats, we’re not slanted ideologically and believe in democratic majority.

   But given the probability of at least a second term of a National-led Government, it is smart to portray yourselves as able to have influence, rather than just opposition.

   It will take time for a new party to be accepted – that will happen faster if they are a serious and positive contributor to the government of the day, and aren’t just another niggly “no” party.

   The Green Party has a specific, narrow green constituency.
   Your NZ represents a much wider “people’s voice”.
   • MrSmith 1.1

     12 June 2011 at 7:18 pm

     Christ what a load of crap PeteG , been busy pig hunting the last few weeks and come back to find you the sometimes Act voter have started your own What? party or something Ha!

     In the mean time you still keep trying to send the same old message Labour bad, Greens Bad, National will win the election. fat chance PeteG!
2. Descendant Of Smith 2

   12 June 2011 at 8:21 am

   I was going to comment on this the other day when I read your party rules. Two of those are in conflict – you can’t support the majority and support democracy at the same time.

   Majority rule is not democracy.

   Majority voting systems are a way of electing a government and of making decisions – and sometimes even a simple majority is insufficient hence often there is a 2/3 requirement.

   We shouldn’t confuse the voting system with the point of democracy which is to elect leaders to represent all their people – minorities and dissenting voices included.

   That’s what is so ugly about both the current governments use of urgency and their suggestion of a mandate to do whatever they like – their usurpation of democratic processes designed to have good laws passed that don’t disadvantage minority groups and take away our democratic rights.

   Since you are throwing your political hat in the ring what position are you taking on the use of urgency – when should this be and not be used?
3. PeteG 3

   12 June 2011 at 8:40 am

   I think Urgency should be used in exceptional circumstances only, it’s important that legislation is given proper examination and that people outside parliament can contribute to that.

   I think National have overused and abused Urgency.

   On another matter, just when things seemed to be looking up for Labour they are hit with another downer.

   Brash’s revenge?
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     12 June 2011 at 10:40 am

     Brash’s Revenge is indeed a real phenonomenon.

     It doesn’t just work in the direction that you suggest however 😀
4. Penguins Pal 4

   12 June 2011 at 9:11 am

   The ginger infringer maybe should of kept quiet.
   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5132373/Hughes-claims-unwise
5. Penguins Pal 5

   12 June 2011 at 9:23 am

   Does this surprise anyone, welcome to election year.
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731770
   • Deadly_NZ 5.1

     12 June 2011 at 7:41 pm

     but why oh why did they have to put the fizog of whaleshit at the top of the story??????
6. chris73 6

   12 June 2011 at 9:24 am

   Labours dirty secrets..? I wonder who leaked them

   http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/index.php/2011/06/labour-leaks-part-1/
   • ianmac 6.1

     12 June 2011 at 10:06 am

     Amazing that so much can be made from so little. And amazing how much spin you can create by twisting the words. Twisted? Yep.
     • chris73 6.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 10:26 am

       Nothing to see here? Just move along…

       So you’re thinking this is all he has?
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 10:33 am

         No, he was pointing out how Slater is twisting what he has to make it seem more than it is.
         • chris73 6.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 10:36 am

           I’m thinking that he may want to wait until Slater releases everything he has
           • ianmac 6.1.1.1.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 10:38 am

             Stop drooling Chris 🙂
             • chris73 …

               12 June 2011 at 10:50 am

               I admit its always enjoyable watching the misfortunes of others especially when it involves politicians
               • RedLogix …

                 12 June 2011 at 11:01 am

                 Oh well at least you have enough self-awareness to know you are a sociopath.

                 I’m not sure if that makes it better or worse.
                 • chris73 …

                   12 June 2011 at 11:09 am

                   Naah I’m not that interesting but it’ll be interesting to see how Labour handle it. I mean lets face it lefties are the biggest hypocrites out there

                   For lefties its very much the end justifies the means, so if you have to break a few laws, bend a few rules, tell a few porkies its ok because its all for the common good
                   • RedLogix …

                     12 June 2011 at 11:21 am

                     Yeah so I’m waiting for you to explain how Bill English in the Budget Speech (a major and formal Parliamentary event) made a great show of the $380m per week the govt HAD to borrow and this was the reason why he was slashing and burning govt expenditure, and forward booking the sale of State assets … all in order to reduce this desperately unsustainable level of borrowing.

                     Well fair enough said the nation, sounds like an awful lot.

                     Except that it was all smoke and mirrors. That level of borrowing only hit this peak for a short period while they forward borrowed an extra $5b. The real level of new borrowing averaged over four years is only $170m per week. But that’s not the figure English and the rest of the Nats have been trumpeting for months is it?

                     Now if you cannot tell the difference between that $210m per week porkie, and the one you are getting all hot about here… then yes you do need to think about your sense of proportion here. (Another sociopath trait, but then again you’ll know this already…)
   • The Voice of Reason 6.2

     12 June 2011 at 10:48 am

     One bad result in the Roy Morgan poll and out come the attack poodles. Nervous times in Team Clueless?
     • chris73 6.2.1

       12 June 2011 at 10:50 am

       Of course how silly of me, its all bound to be nothing eh
       • The Voice of Reason 6.2.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 10:52 am

         Don’t beat up on yourself, Chris. This kind of stuff is designed to appeal to the dimwitted.
         • chris73 6.2.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 11:10 am

           Sure you keep telling yourself that, you may even start to believe it
7. Jenny 7

   12 June 2011 at 9:55 am

   ‘
   The theories that underlie Don Brash and John Key’s thinking. They both use the same ideas as Rand, but put it in different language.

   Guru of the hard right – Ayn Rand exposed

   The comment thread itself is very interesting – join the discussion.
   • felix 7.1

     12 June 2011 at 10:30 am

     The latest Adam Curtis documentary series also has some interesting insights into Rand and her followers in the world of finance.

     Part 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc
8. PeteG 8

   12 June 2011 at 10:07 am

   Just watched Harawira v Davis on Q&A.

   Harawira had totally different manner and body language to when he was v Brash. He seemed defensive and waffly, resigned to having a strong opponent.

   And Davis didn’t disappoint. In my opinion he’s the man, for TTT, strong, committed and makes sense.

   It will be interesting to see what the electorate says.
   • ianmac 8.1

     12 June 2011 at 10:44 am

     At another level Hone was playing himself in a skit Friday night in “The Jono Project”. A young white male is brought home to meet Hone’s fictional daughter. But it was the aplomb with which Hone played his part which impressed. Compared with the “performances” of other MPs he was great!
     • PeteG 8.1.1

       12 June 2011 at 10:48 am

       Harawira is more of an actor than a doer.
       • Tiger Mountain 8.1.1.1

         12 June 2011 at 12:12 pm

         You’re so full of it PeteG, Hone Harawira has many real world community and political achievements, in Kuras and training in the North, 30 years hard graft in iwi and national maori politics.

         All politicians are actors, particularly on TV, and only a few do it well. Our culture is so dumbed down currently that going on ‘reality’ shows, comedy and sports shows is the only way for many to get any name recognition of a semi posititive kind.

         As Hone said in the closing credits of “Jono” on Friday nite–“taxpayers money is paying for this shit?”
         • PeteG 8.1.1.1.1

           12 June 2011 at 1:02 pm

           I’m not a fan of money spent on reality TV either.

           On Q&A Hone was suggesting that all the unemployed in his electorate be paid to community work. I guess that means taxpayers money would pay for that too. Even if it could be done with any degree of success it would only cover up the real problem of not enough productive jobs to go round. A quick expense short term “fix”.
           • Adele 8.1.1.1.1.1

             12 June 2011 at 3:41 pm

             Teenaa koe, PeterG

             Why is it wrong to suggest that the unemployed by paid to provide community work. As it is, the unemployed are currently paid to do nothing.
           • Jenny 8.1.1.1.1.2

             12 June 2011 at 4:16 pm

             On Q&A Hone was suggesting that all the unemployed in his electorate be paid to community work. I guess that means taxpayers money would pay for that too.

             PeteG

             The benefit Pete, is that the taxpayers get to keep and enjoy the wealth that those previously forced to be idle, get to create for the community. This represents a nett gain.

             What I would like to know, is what possible benefit the taxpayer got from the more than $1.7 billion dollars of taxpayers money given bail out the investors in South Canterbury Finance?

             Did it result in the creation of one tangible piece of ‘ANYTHING’ to the taxpayers benefit?

             Refresh my memory if you will, but wasn’t this at a nett loss to the taxpayer?

             Pete, do you ever moan about this extremely generous, (by anybody’s standards), type of welfarism?

             New Zealand’s biggest welfare beneficiary revealed in shock horror Herald exclusive expose’
9. logie97 9

   12 June 2011 at 10:54 am

   Online polls in the media.

   What is it with the creators of these polls?
   Is it laziness on the editor’s part or are they worded to give a predetermined outcome?

   It is quite often impossible to answer their questions,
   particularly when they are loaded with emotive language.

   To encourage reasonable discourse, surely they could include a spectrum (say four options) with the black and white “yes / no” at either end.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/headlines.cfm?c_id=1
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     12 June 2011 at 11:11 am

     Is it laziness on the editor’s part or are they worded to give a predetermined outcome?

     I’m pretty sure it’s done on purpose. That way the story will slant the way they want it to. If they made it honest they’d have to actually inform people.
10. ZeeBop 10

    12 June 2011 at 10:56 am

    Welfare is designed to help people in genuine need. Receiving support brings mutual obligations, and it’s important to know the implications of not meeting them.
    http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/about-work-and-income/news/future-focus-2010/sanctions.html

    Translation.
    We help you because you have ‘real need’, since NZ has international and government obligations to provide a social safety net for the good of all not just those ‘in need’. Citizens supported by the state have a mutual obligation to government to help themselves ‘be helped’ by consenting to accept hand outs and freely reject any process that removes their dignity and self-respect (so keeping government honest). Government is rewarded by reducing dysfunctional social outcomes, like disease, begging, crime, ghettos reduction, etc and those revenues rightly flow back to the poorest in society for accepting hand outs from government to placate governments obligations to society (- not as a dividend to the wealthy who avoid their taxes already).
    Government globally are the number one organisation structure that breaches human rights,
    given their massive size, and power. So the ministry of Social Development has a duty to protect those in genuine need, pretty much anyone who does not have sufficient income to live past their flaws.

    Alternative Translation
    ‘Genuine need’ will routinely be questioned, even at significant cost (and social risks) and result in being denied temporary access to the income support. To justify a culture of denigration, income support is framed as lifestyle choice not a ‘genuine need’. There will be no debate about this because it would obviously break Human Rights to the dignity of the person who has to explain to a panel at the UN how citizens how taking a pitiful amount of money from the government makes their citizens into non-persons without a right to lifestyle choices.
    And even how the poor significant lack of funds would provide them with much of a lifestyle.

    I have no confidence in the Social Development Minister and she must be brought to answer questions about denial of basic dignity to those who accept government assistance as their civic duty. It makes NZ look cheap, that the less money the poorest receive, the more poverty, the more ‘lifestyle choices’ they are seen to be making to survive, oh, the humanity that taxpayers have to fund. It cheapens the government to attack people in genuine need as ungrateful and having chosen their predicament, and bait the most marginalized about their choices as being fully consenting instead as they are, reactive to events.

    As a society we need citizens to accept help from their government, and just because they are at the poorer end and have real fears about being criminalized, misunderstood and slandered, forced to lose what they already have, even sanctioned if they self harm by not accepting government assistance, or are concerned that breeding, or using up precious petroleum in wasteful activities just so some financier can show a profit, or whatever dysfunctional government belief – like growth at any cost, or free markets are possible without sensible governance.

    Sure there will always be individuals who will double dip, whether MPs or those consenting to take social income support but this is not typically of the majority who would obviously fear that making mistakes would leave them to debt collectors and loan sharks. But obviously if errors have been made then processes within WINZ should be tightened, Doctors should get better advice, and rules changed. Because the poor had no part in inefficient choices of government and society, they did not benefit from mutual engaged decision making so have no obligation to the outcomes, they have an expectation that of governments mutual obligation to them, that their duty to accept help is reciprocated by real help.
11. jackal 11

    12 June 2011 at 10:59 am

    NASA research points to HAARP causing the Japanese Earthquake and tsunami.
    • thor42 11.1

      12 June 2011 at 9:57 pm

      My research points to single-digit IQs being the cause of Labour Party support.
12. Tiger Mountain 12

    12 June 2011 at 12:01 pm

    The “Kronic” synthetic dak business of Matthew Wielenga and Matt Bowden (Star Times) interestingly gives support to de-criminalisation and possibly legalisation of cannabis. On the basis that it may likely reduce the influence of gangs and criminal elements in what should be a personal choice.

    While the two gentlemen mentioned are hard to like on many levels and the pro/anti arguments torturous, that which reduces both criminal and state involvement in peoples recreational lives has gotta be worth looking at. I don’t smoke by the way.
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    12 June 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Wow, the replies in this thread are scary. Most are in denial about climate change. The article itself isn’t too bad, until it gets to this bit:

    Of course, it’s the science that right-wingers dismiss as “junk” that could help save us, not that they want to hear that. Researchers are developing strains of rice and wheat more resistant to heat, drought, flood and rising levels of carbon dioxide.

    That takes cash, another notion to which conservatives are especially adverse. Over the last five years, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent $1.7 billion to feed the world but private philanthropy isn’t enough.

    A year ago, the State Department and the US Agency for International Development began Feed the Future, a global hunger and food security initiative to boost agriculture in 20 desperately poor countries. President Obama has pledged $3.5 billion; so far, Congress has come up with a little more than half of it.

    Yep, apparently the solution to over-population is… more population.

    Cartoon.
    • Adele 13.1

      12 June 2011 at 4:00 pm

      Teenaa koe, Draco

      Are you suggesting that boosting agricultural production in desperately poor countries is not a good thing?
    • MrSmith 13.2

      12 June 2011 at 7:39 pm

      Yes and you have love the way the Right think, the plane is in a nose dive and they are all thinking there must be a dollar in this somewhere.
14. Jum 14

    12 June 2011 at 6:15 pm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1106/S00133/stephen-berry-applauds-ruling-on-banning-women.htm

    ‘Placing a ban on certain people entering that premises violates the rights of nobody.” ‘

    That is plainly not true as every businesswoman or female politician knows from way back that business or deals are done in places where women don’t or can’t go.

    Once again women are being attacked, this time by a men’s gay bar, the discrimination by a Victoria Court.

    I cannot believe that women will vote in John Key, the misogynist who told us that women on DPB were breeding for a career. Or maybe women don’t know what it’s like to be seen as second class citizens yet. They will.

    This year will be a pivotal one for women’s rights and all workers’ rights. If National remains in government after this 2011 election the only people with an influential voice will be in groups and no assets of value, with a reliable income stream, will belong to New Zealand society as a whole.

    Bring back Knights of Labour, but with a 21st Century philosophy because women are warriors too. Or at least they used to be.
    • MrSmith 14.1

      12 June 2011 at 7:47 pm

      I can’t believe any women vote for a male politician really, let alone Key the slime, I would always trust a woman before a man and I am a man.
15. Andrew K 15

    12 June 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Two documentaries online worth the time:

    All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace

    The first in a series of BBC documentaries by Adam Curtis, this one ruminates on events leading up to the global financial disasters of the late 1990s and 2008.

    Inside Job (2010)

    Information Clearing House blurb: “‘Inside Job’ provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. The film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.”
16. Draco T Bastard 16

    12 June 2011 at 8:13 pm

    Convention centre development moves ahead

    SkyCity has agreed to pay the full construction costs of the centre – estimated at $350 million. The company has asked the Government to consider some alterations to gambling regulations and legislation.

    Mr Key says the Government has ruled some areas out of discussion and will only proceed with a deal that is good for New Zealanders.

    “Any changes to gambling regulations will be subject to a full public submission process,” Mr Key says.

    Yep, Jonkey and NAct are thinking about changing the rules to benefit the casinos.
    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      12 June 2011 at 8:22 pm

      Hey are casinos allowed to donate to political parties?

      Just askin’
      • Brett Dale 16.1.1

        12 June 2011 at 10:42 pm

        Surly any one is allowed to?
    • Draco T Bastard 16.2

      12 June 2011 at 11:20 pm

      A related graphic from Imperator fish.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS