Open mike 12/09/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, September 12th, 2014 - 378 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

378 comments on “Open mike 12/09/2014”

  1. (apologies for the double-posting..but nearly 12,000 progressive-votes are in danger of being pissed up against the wall..)

    comment @ whoar:..an open letter to the aotearoa legalise cannabis party..

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

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

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

    ..and especially so how not a word was spoken in support of that medical-cannabis bill..

    ..and especially at a time when the facades of prohibition are crumbling worldwide..

    ..all of the above is just salt into an already open wound..

    ..i am totally with you on that..

    ..but this election is different..

    ..now we have a political party..the internet party..
    ..for the first time in nz history..with a clear/logical plan/policy to legalise/regulate/tax cannabis..

    ..their partner the mana party has a decriminalise for medical-use policy..

    ..(but i can tell you..as a mana member..that the mana party membership would be more in step with the internet party policy..)

    ..and in laila harre…you/we have a party leader who has stated that she has a ‘personal commitment’ to ending the madness that is cannabis prohibition..

    ..and i can’t really see how it can get much better for your/our cause than that..

    ..and so for all the above reasons..i would ask/urge those speaking for/to the aotearoa legalise cannabis party..

    ..to ask their supporters..and the nearly 12,000 people who voted for the party at the 2011 election..

    (for which i commend them..there was no other choice/option then..)

    ..to this time to cast their party votes for the internet/mana parties..

    ..’cos..should everything go to plan..and we get the changes so many of us want..

    ..there should be no need for you to continue this struggle in 2017..

    ..’cos we should already have sane cannabis/drug policies..

    ..we will already have won..

    ..and aotearoa legalise cannabis party members/voters..if they help this come to pass..

    ..they will go into the history books as heroes..major engineers of positive-change..(that is some potent-dope..eh..?..)

    ..i would ask you to discuss all this in yr forums..

    ..to (ahem!..)..mull it over..as it were..

    ..and hopefully to come to the conclusion that casting yr party votes for the internet/mana party..

    ..is your/our best option since forever..

    ..to get what we all want..

    ..yours in peace/righteous-herb..

    ..phillip ure..

    (and can i please have an invitation to yr celebration-party..when that day comes..?

    ..chrs..)

    • The Al1en 1.1

      😆 with a hint of 🙄

      I can’t help but think you’d have a better response if you stuck a copy, wonka style, inside mars bar wrappers at the 24 hour garage.

      “(but i can tell you..as a mana member..that the mana party membership would be more in step with the internet party policy..)”

      So why isn’t it mana policy?

      “.yours in peace/righteous-herb….phillip ure..”

      That’s just embarrassing.

      • Te Reo Putake 1.1.1

        Ah, well, Al1en, the sun’s shining, I’m in fine fettle and it’s Friday, so even though I didn’t read Phil’s comment, I’d like to dedicate this to him:

        (I’ve been playing this song every Friday morning for years as a reminder to actually get some work done on a day it’s easy to slack off on)

      • Tracey 1.1.2

        And he posted it yesterday on open mike, bu not right at the top…

        • McFlock 1.1.2.1

          and if he’d written it clearly, I might have bothered to read it yesterday. Let alone today.

          I look forward to ignoring it tomorrow.

          • phillip ure 1.1.2.1.1

            heh..!..

            ..here you are flocky..u can read all about yrslf..eh..?

            .“..So your a pedant? – It’s nothing to be proud of..

            ….Is there anything more tedious than grammar keyboard warriors?

            I doubt it..”

            (cont..)

            http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/are-you-the-next-pedant-in-chief-prove-it

            • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1.1

              tg:dr

              • d’ya know what wa:ae. stands for..?

                ..wanker-alert..!..auto-eroticist..!

                • McFlock

                  This, from the guy who intentionally uses unorthodox syntax and punctuation, and then gets pissy when people tell him that they don’t bother reading his drivel.

                  🙄

                  • yr a grammer keyboard warrior..

                    ..and as such a source of mirth..eh..?

                    ..not ‘pissiness’..

                    • McFlock

                      I assume that you want people to read the shit you post here.
                      I ignore most of what you post because I cannot be bothered deciphering the point you might or might not be trying to communicate (although subsequent comments from others are frequently entertaining).
                      I suspect I am not alone in this attitude.

                      You initiated this discussion with me. I merely said to someone else that I looked forward to ignoring your duplicate comment tomorrow.

                      And here we are, several comments later, with you calling me a “grammar keyboard warrier” because I choose to read only those comments that I am obviously meant to understand.

                      Your pissiness is indeed a source of mirth, if only because I still haven’t read your original comment. If it was so important for you that others read your insightful dicta profundi, you’d make them readable.

                    • you still haven’t had that cup of tea/wee lie-down..?..have you..?

                      ..i can tell..

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      McFlock vs. Phil.

                      Phil: 0.

                      McFlock: got covered in it anyway.

                      😈

            • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1.2

              Although I did just read the link to the guardian.
              There’s a massive difference between an occasional typo and the intentionally unintelligble drivel you produce.

              The intended meaning is still generally implied, regardless of an occasional typo or poor choice of construction. Whereas you just turn the screen into a combination of “word finder” puzzle and the Jabberwocky.

        • The Al1en 1.1.2.2

          “And he posted it yesterday on open mike, bu not right at the top…”

          Attention who(a)r(e)?

          That or repeated just in case the stoners from the ALCP are up at 6.53 am, wide eyed and bushy tailed, tuning in to find out how they should vote from an odd fellow with ego issues on the internet who says they’re wasting their democratic right.

    • Clemgeopin 1.2

      Good on you Phil for smart thinking. I don’t do drugs, but do think that decriminalisation/regulation for dope is a more sensible way to go rather than enrich the gangs.

      I find Laila Harre such an excellent leader. Amazing amount of wisdom, common sense and hardwork.

      She has been creating her own ‘Not the Six O’clock News’ clips which are short and make excellent clear statements/clarifications. Worth watching them. I think there are 4 or 5 so far.

      Here is her ‘news clip’ [Episode # 3] regarding proposed changes to the marihuana laws, supposed rift in the party and the actual stance of IMP regarding the dope issue.

      The other episodes are here:
      http://tinyurl.com/o6wr8ct

      • Chooky 1.2.1

        Clemgeopin +100 .. “I find Laila Harre such an excellent leader. Amazing amount of wisdom, common sense and hardwork.”…Agreed!

        …Laila Harre is exceptionally smart and ethical !….especially compared with the calibre of women ( and men) in NACT! ( and the Conservatives)

        ….Laila Harre will be an asset to the NZ Parliament … as well as the Left and Internet MANA!

    • Lanthanide 1.3

      I thought Whoar was some great shining beacon of free online journalism, widely read and admired by all throughout the land?

      Surely you’re not posting this first thing on Open Mike because The Standard just gets slightly more views than your own site…?

      • phillip ure 1.3.1

        thanks for asking..f.y.i..google global page-rank has whoar on 5/10…

        ..(they have the standard as 6/10..)

        ..and i posted that open letter to the aotearoa legalise cannabis party/voters..

        ..because i am concerned that 12,000 progressive votes may be wasted..

        ..when they don’t need to be..

        • Lanthanide 1.3.1.1

          And how many page views do you get a month…?

          • phillip ure 1.3.1.1.1

            enough to get me up early in the morning..

            ..were there not..i wouldn’t..

            ..and f.y.i. re page-rank..

            “..In true Google fashion, Google found a cool way of ranking all the sites in the world based on how important they are.

            The result is a numerical score on a scale of 0 to 10 called Google PageRank.

            The algorithm includes many elements like traffic and keywords –

            – but it is primarily made up of the number and authority of the inbound links to your site –

            – that is, other sites posting a link to yours.

            In other words – it’s a measure of how popular you are on the web..”

            (hope that helps..)

            • Clemgeopin 1.3.1.1.1.1

              “enough to get me up early in the morning.”

              Did you watch ‘Backbenches’ on Wednesday?

              When asked, ‘What makes you get up every morning?’,
              David Parker replied with a grin, ‘to pee’!

              • far too much information..

                ..about parker..

                ..a hard image to erase..

                • Clemgeopin

                  You didn’t find that funny?…Ok, dots, as you were…

                  • from the benny hill school of humour..?

                    ..did he get a good audience reaction..?

                    ..i’ve never thought of parker as being one with the timing etc..

                    ..to be a one-liner delivery-vehicle..

                    to summarise:..

                    .don’t watch/like backbenches..

                    ..am not really a parker fanboy..

                    ..so..out of context..a mental image of him urinating really has a hard funny-hill to climb..

  2. Cancerman 2

    Let hope Dotcom has got some dynamite on Monday cause these polls aren’t looking good.

  3. AsleepWhileWalking 3

    Attended the Wellington Disability Election yesterday afternoon and was particularly impressed by Chris Faafoi who stepped in at the last minute to replace Ruth Dyson. He clearly understood the issues faced by disabled, and spoke to people afterwards which were less known.

    Good luck in winning Mana again in 2014, you deserve it.

    • Sirenia 3.1

      I too was impressed with Chris Faafoi. When I heard that Ruth Dyson, who knows this sector inside out, was caught in fog in Christchurch, I thought that he would be a weak substitute. But he was great, respectful, knew and understood a lot of the issues raised, and stayed around to talk to people afterwards. Most telling was that he obviously knew and had a good relationship with some of the disabled people in the audience.

      The National candidate there, Paul Foster Bell, knew very little about what his party had done in power and little detail about their policies for this election, and rushed off afterwards. He didn’t know that his party had cut funding to after school care for disabled kids. He seemed a nice enough man, but it is not good enough to send a back bench list MP to a large meeting such as this which represents 24% of the population in the latest census. The National Party policies have had and have ongoing potential to have a major and often negative effect on disabled people via their Health, Education, social development and benefit policies and they should have sent someone who actually knew something or cared.

      And Te Ururoa Flavell denied that his party had voted for the Funded Family care policy in 2013 which denied family carers any avenue for complaints about lack of payment for their work, on grounds of human rights. (They did and enabled that unjust bad law to pass).

    • Tracey 3.2

      Good to hear, cos Ruth and the last Labour Govt struggled to understand some areas of disability…

  4. Sanctuary 4

    Concerned trolls are going to troll.

    I was listening to ex-Federated Farmers head and now ACT candidate Don Nicholson on the radio this morning and I realised just how important it is to make sure ACT is finally destroyed this election. Although it a zombie party that almost no one votes for them and requires a gerrymander to keep alive it is the ideological beating heart of the hard-right in this country.

    Wipe out ACT, and we chop away some of neo-liberalism’s rotten core.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      But evil political spirit that ACT came to embody is already re-incarnating as we speak…

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

          sorry, I meant as the ‘Conservatives.’

          • s y d 4.1.1.1.1

            so many horcruxes…..

          • weka 4.1.1.1.2

            I thought that was what you probably meant. Love the idea of those libertarians having to suck up the godbothering and moonlandings.

            • nadis 4.1.1.1.2.1

              I think the chances of any “true” Act-ites supporting the Conservatives are remote, unless they weren’t true libertarians to start with. Anyone that claims to be a libertarian but then suggests how any individual should live their private life doesn’t understand what Libertarian means. The conservatives are about as far removed from libertarian philosophy as the Greens are. I woiould speculate that Conservative party support is coming mostly from Nats and a little from Labour, and Winston First is coming mostly from Labour.

              • McFlock

                I’m happy for far-right voters to face the same conundrum that centre-left voters have had for decades: who do you vote for when no party even vaguely represents your policy basket? Do you even bother?

                Mind you, given that libertarians are generally emotional if not also intellectual morons, I shan’t have any sympathy for them. If they were honest, they’d shrug off to a failed state somewhere, and make NZ better off.

    • Tracey 4.2

      I am truly sorry you had to hear that

    • Draco T Bastard 4.3

      By placing the burden of proof on departures from market outcomes, everyday libertarianism skews the public debate about tax policy and distributive justice.

      Tax policy analysis needs to be emancipated from everyday libertarianism; it is an unexamined and generally non-explicit assumption that does not bear examination, and it should be replaced by the conception of property rights as depending on the legal system that defines them. Since that system includes taxes as an absolutely essential part, the idea of a prima facie property right in one’s pretax income – an income that could not exist without a tax-supported government – is meaningless.

      The Myth of Ownership.

      It’s really tearing Libertarianism apart and I’m still only in the introduction 😈

    • yeshe 5.1

      Hi Karol .. well, I am on their email list, so received a Green Party email this morning from Russel Norman.

      Sorry to say, as someone who did see the TVNZ News last night, I was stunned all over again. as Norman drew attention to it, with no correction:

      Here you are, the opening lines:

      “Did you see it? One News led tonight with the story of our best ever Colmar Brunton poll result!

      Our campaign has real momentum. More New Zealanders than ever before are saying they are going to vote for us.”

      So I am confused — holding my breath now for Monday night, and am not voting early as I had planned. I can vote only for a party guaranteeing not to support Key, and it seems Greens are no longer it.

      Colour me with a sadly broken heart.

      • yeshe 5.1.1

        It’s a crying shame Dr Norman did not see fit to include the GP tweet from last night ..

        Green Party NZ @NZGreens · 14h

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

        When I see Dr Norman saying it, firmly correcting last night’s report on TV One News, my vote goes back to them, but not until.

        Whatever dirty politics’ role in this, Russel Norman is not correcting it and I think it very unwise.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1

          I can see Norman choosing to push for a closer pragmatic working relationship with National if the voter chips fall that way, but not Turei.

          • weka 5.1.1.1.1

            Norman is very clear in this interview: yes, we will continue to work with National on individual policy, but highly unlikely we would support them on C and S because of overall National party policy. That means, no they won’t support the formation of a National govt, and yes they still want to form a govt with Labour. Really really clear.

            If anyone doesn’t understand why Norman says ‘highly unlikely’ instead of ‘no fucking way’, it’s because the GP want to be understood on policy and principle, not partisan politics.

            http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/20149341/norman-cagey-on-poll-implications-for-relationship-with-labour

            • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1.1

              +1

              any suggestion I make regarding greens squeezing policy concessions out of national is intended only as a major fall back position.

              I do not want nat led govt.

              I consider this national party to be a leech on NZ and UF.. ACT… CP merely fleas hitching a ride.

            • Puddleglum 5.1.1.1.1.2

              Hi weka,

              But the “highly unlikely” refers to Confidence and Supply, not to cooperation on specific policy.

              I can’t see why they simply wouldn’t say ‘no’ to confidence and supply and ‘yes, (if National were to lead the next government)’ on policy that they support.

              The ‘highly unlikely’ is not, that is, about being seen as a party that is concerned with ‘policy and principle’. It’s about potentially agreeing to support a full three year term for National irrespective of what policies National implements.

              • weka

                “I can’t see why they simply wouldn’t say ‘no’ to confidence and supply and ‘yes, (if National were to lead the next government)’ on policy that they support.”

                That is exactly what Norman said on RNZ this morning. Exactly.

                “The ‘highly unlikely’ is not, that is, about being seen as a party that is concerned with ‘policy and principle’. It’s about potentially agreeing to support a full three year term for National irrespective of what policies National implements.”

                What do you mean by ‘support’?

                • Olwyn

                  I took the “highly unlikely” as simply to do with accuracy of expression. He was saying that in the extremely unlikely event that National followed policies that the Greens supported, then a coalition or C & S agreement would be considered, but not otherwise. It is also a way of showing the Greens as putting policy before tribal allegiance. It suggests, for example, that they would not support a tribal-left party whose policies were similar to those of Roger Douglas.

                  • weka

                    Thank-you Olwyn, that’s how I understand it and that’s very well put.

                  • Thanks Olwyn.

                    I have a different view expressed in the last paragraph of my comment at 11:57am below.

                    Election campaigns and politics in general are not exercises in formal logic. I believe the truly principled position is to be as honest and clear as possible about political realities.

                    That might mean transgressing the rules of formal logic but, frankly, I call that application of logic and rationality to politics ‘hyper-rationality’ – a term I usually reserve for the libertarian, neo-liberal right who construct an ideology that is absent of human realities and propose policy on the back of it.

                    Having said all of that, I don’t for one minute believe that the Green Party would support National – that’s the political reality.

                    • Olwyn

                      Eek! I don’t want to lump myself in with the libertarians, who are actually a bit free with their all-or-nothing premises. 🙂

                      I think the politicians on the left do try to be as honest and straightforward as possible, but often find themselves in hostile interviewing situations, where they are forced to avoid giving the interviewer a stick with which to beat them. Hence they split hairs.

                • I’m glad to hear that Norman has said ‘no’ to confidence and supply – I just thought you were defending the position of saying ‘highly unlikely’ to confidence and supply. That position leaves open a possibility of providing confidence and supply.

                  By ‘support’ I mean vote with the government on questions of confidence and supply. That is – assuming the ‘highly unlikely’ scenario eventuated – if a confidence vote were held, the government of the day would receive the votes of Green Party MPs. Similarly, the passage of the budget would be voted for by Green MPs.

                  Both of those types of vote ensure that a government can govern for the full term.

                  I thought that notion of ‘support’ was exactly what a confidence and supply arrangement involves and would have been clear.

                  But it is now of no concern if Norman has said ‘no’ rather than ‘highly unlikely’ to confidence and supply for a National-led government.

                  It is very important to be clear about real intentions rather than blurring the discussion in the media with hypothetical logical possibilities (e.g., that in some alternate reality the National Party may be willing to negotiate away the bulk of its current and planned policies in order to secure a Confidence and Supply agreement with the Green Party).

                  • weka

                    “That position leaves open a possibility of providing confidence and supply.”

                    Yes, but with conditions. Which the GP has always been clear about.

                    “It is very important to be clear about real intentions rather than blurring the discussion in the media with hypothetical logical possibilities (e.g., that in some alternate reality the National Party may be willing to negotiate away the bulk of its current and planned policies in order to secure a Confidence and Supply agreement with the Green Party)”

                    I suggest you listen the RNZ audio if you can and then decide if Norman was unclear about intentions. I don’t think he was. Likewise, look at the GP and Turei’s twitter accounts from the last 24 hours. GP intention is very clear.

                    It’s not about hypothetical logical possibilities, it’s about how the GP see themselves within the political sphere. Olwyn above expresses this very well. In addition, IMO Norman is after some right wing votes. Good on him I say.

                    • I have listened to the audio.

                      The part that concerned me was Norman’s initial ‘highly unlikely’ phrasing (which, I agree, is in the position document).

                      The part that reassured me was later on when he sketched out that, should National be re-elected to government, the Green Party would not be voting for confidence and supply but only in support of particular policies where appropriate. That directly addresses political realities at present- in other words how, in the current election, the position document will be implemented (i.e., acknowledging that the highly unlikely scenario is not present).

                      If, as you say, the wording of ‘highly unlikely’ comes from Norman being “after some right wing votes” then that wording stems as much from political expediency as from principle, presumably.

                      That does not concern me particularly but in ‘going fishing’ in that way there may be unintended consequences – people will always take what is said in ways that don’t align with how you wish them to take what you have said.

                      I have no problems whatsoever with the Green Party – or any party – campaigning as an independent party. I support many, but not all, of their policies.

                    • weka

                      “If, as you say, the wording of ‘highly unlikely’ comes from Norman being “after some right wing votes” then that wording stems as much from political expediency as from principle, presumably.”

                      That’s not what I said, and it’s not true. The wording ‘highly unlikely’ comes from the 2011 GP AGM remit, as created by the GP membership

                      (ii) The Green Party could work with a National-led government to progress particular Green Party policies as we have over the last three years; but based on current National Party policy positions and track record it is highly unlikely that we could support a National-led government on confidence and supply.

                      https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-greens-could-support-labour-national-unlikely

                      What I said was that in addition to the GP’s position that it works on policy not partisan politics, Norman is also this week signalling to wavering right wing voters that the GP will work with National on policy and thus they might pick up some votes. In my opinion (I have no evidence of what Norman’s actual thinking is this week). You can call it a dog whistle, but if the GP’s position on policy not partisan is valid, then how could they get around that?

                    • Hi weka,

                      I misunderstood your meaning. You were saying that the appeal to right leaning voters is via the policy cooperation rather than via the ‘highly unlikely’ on C&S.

                      And, yes, I know it is not just Norman’s phrasing which is why I said I agree it is in the ‘position document’ (i.e., in the remit you quote).

                      I think this quite widespread misinterpretation could have been avoided by clarifying the relationship between the remit’s wording and the current election campaign in something like the following terms:

                      “The remit passed in 2011 over our negotiating position makes it clear that it is ‘highly unlikely’ that we would give confidence and supply to a National-led government. In this 2014 election, the conditions for meeting that ‘highly unlikely’ circumstance are not present because the National Party’s policies do not come close to meeting them. Therefore, after this election we will not be providing confidence and supply to National unless that party is concealing a secret Green Party policy agenda which it plans to unleash on an unsuspecting public post-election” 🙂

                    • weka

                      Can you please send that to the GP for them to use as a Press Release? 😀

                      yes, I don’t think Norman is trying to mislead right wing voters that he might support C and S at this election, and that instead he is signalling that if National wins, the GP will try and get some environmental policies through. Plus the bit about being able to work with everyone, it’s just a core GP thing.

                      The ‘highly unlikley’ phrase… I suspect that they have to use it because of the policy document.

          • karol 5.1.1.1.2

            I have always trusted Turei more than Norman. And Turei has come out stronger than Norman in rejecting the idea of working with the Nats.

            However, in this case, it looks like Norman is being careful to follow the Green line on working on policy with any party that they can agree with.

            NRT has just tweeted a link to this 2011 Green Press release, which says exactly the same thing as Norman was saying on RNZ this morning.

            So, no change there.

            And on RNZ this morning, when asked if the Greens wanted Cunliffe for PM, Norman said “yes”.

            • Ant 5.1.1.1.2.1

              From what I remember of what he has said in the past, Norman believes the Greens are post-ideological, so that framing is probably half of the problem there.

              Personally I find its a naive view of politics, and I’m not sure Norman is actually sincere about it, but saying it probably picks up some votes from the “can’t we all just get along” crowd.

            • KJT 5.1.1.1.2.2

              Where is Russell repeating what has been the Green position since the 2011 AGM, work with any party to forward Green policies, become “signalling support for National”.

          • Clemgeopin 5.1.1.1.3

            But don’t you think that such matters should be considered after the election and not preempt it prior in advance, causing some more division and harm to Labour’s prospects, demoralise supporters in both Labour and the Greens camps and reduce the chances of a possible left wing coalition?

            It might bring in some soft National voters into the Greens, but is it all worth it overall?

            • karol 5.1.1.1.3.1

              It looks to me that this latest line is being pushed by journos and not the Greens. the Greens are responding to their questions around it.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.3.2

              You really should direct that question at Corin Dann.

        • weka 5.1.1.2

          Yeshe you are entitled to vote for whomever you want, but please don’t buy into the MSM bullshit.

          I got that email this morning too, and it would have been written some time ago as part of the launch of the new website. They’ve added the bit in the top about the Colmar Brunton poll because it was timely. The reason they haven’t put anything in about Corin Dann’s bullshit is because it would be a negative distraction that would take away from the main message of that particular email.

          “When I see Dr Norman saying it, firmly correcting last night’s report on TV One News, my vote goes back to them, but not until.”

          Why him and not Turei, or the official GP election team?

          • yeshe 5.1.1.2.1

            Hi weka .. I am not so much buying into the bullshit, as waiting for a decent response. I nominated Russel Norman because he was the one who has dropped them in it, imho, in his interview that appears to have been done yesterday afternoon at the electric car launch. ( And yes, there is the stench of set-up about it.)

            But honestly, any firm statement would be helpful .. see my post below, I rate MT very, very highly, none above; I just think they are letting this play very badly.

            And watch out .. dirty politics likely next move is to suggest disharmony between the co-leaders; I can feel it coming and I want to be wrong.

            Russel made a big mistake. He should clean it up. Would look awful now for Metiria to correct it, or the official GP election team.

            • weka 5.1.1.2.1.1

              “any firm statement would be helpful”

              The GP have always been clear on their position, and Norman has confirmed this in the RNZ interview this morning. Nothing has changed.

              He didn’t make a mistake yesterday, he got soundbited as part of a manipulative story. It happens all the time and they know from long experience to not buy into to it.

        • yeshe 5.1.1.3

          And now Bomber informs me from the link above that it is likely a careful
          calculation:

          ” … those staunch left vote who want to be assured their vote would never support National have options to go to Internet MANA.
          This isn’t stupid. The 1% they may shed to Internet MANA is offset by the 2% they could pick up from National.”

          So happy to know I can become part of an offset total with a National voter !! WTF ?

          IMP here I come.

          Beyond disapppointed. Metiria Turei is my favourite politician, with integrity and mana outshining almost everyone. Come on, MT, help this ‘offset’ voter — what is really going on ?

          • karol 5.1.1.3.1

            Oh, please, yeshe. Bradbury is touting for IMP votes, and he’s willing to bad mouth the Greens to do it. he is being rather breathless and opportunistic in his uncritical acceptance of last night’s One News report.

            • weka 5.1.1.3.1.1

              +1

            • adam 5.1.1.3.1.2

              But why should he not go for IMP votes, were ever he can get them Karol? SO if it’s green voters, the young, business people, indeed the whole 9 yards. It’s this type of politics and an election – and quite frankly that is the game you, and others play one way or another. You could come join us libcommunalists and poo poo the lot of them – but where the fun in that for social democrats?

              • karol

                Mate, show me where I have done posts bad mouthing the IMP.

                I am supporting the Greens this election, and mostly try to do that by talking up the positives about them. I have consistently done “vote left” at the bottom of my posts, and have not got into bad mouthing other opposition parties, or repeating the MSM spin about them.

                • adam

                  Please, don’t think I thought for one moment you’d bad mouthed anyone for votes. Karol, I apologize if you thought that from what I wrote – that was not my intention.

                  What I mean is the game is the game, and whilst you may play clean, it’s still the game. Hell I don’t like the game, I’m just saying the game is being played.

            • bearded git 5.1.1.3.1.3

              if you read bomber’s article carefully he is actually very suportive of the Greens.

              • karol

                backhanded compliments of the Greens there by Bomber. The whole point of his post is to drum up votes for IMP.

              • weka

                “if you read bomber’s article carefully he is actually very suportive of the Greens.”

                Of course he is. He wants a L/GP/IMP coalition. Problem is, it’s more likely that we will end up with a L/GP/NZF coalition that excludes IMP. The problem for lefties is that yes, more IMP MPs would be fantastic, but too many party votes to them at the expense of L or the GP and NZF won’t support a left wing govt.

        • crocodill 5.1.1.4

          Some clarity on these issues would be nice, I am waiting on a reply to an email that I am pretty sure will never come. It is disappointing. Using weasel words is no longer acceptable to me. Russell saying “our intention is to work with Labour” is just plain deceitful when you think how many ways he could come out and just say one way or the other. “We intended to work with Labour…. honestly, we did… we couldn’t possibly have foreseen an alternative…. but National could assure our salaries, so we had to be pragmatic.” Ah well I have only myself to blame. Didn’t vote last time, for the reasons that are now repeating themselves, only with greater audacity.

          I made a mistake recommending the one party over another – they’re proven to be the same “in intention”.

          • weka 5.1.1.4.1

            The problem is that you want the GP to play old style politics and they simply won’t do it. They’re not weasel words, they’re Norman being clear that they’re not second fiddle to Labour and are going hard for whatever party votes they can get.

            Have you listened to the RNZ audio? What was unclear for you?

            • crocodill 5.1.1.4.1.1

              If that’s what you have to label me to support your cognitive dissonance, I’d like to make it clear that it has nothing to do with me or reality.

              • weka

                ad hominem much? You are better than that.

                • crocodill

                  It’s true. I don’t want you to risk feeling disillusioned, but the way The Greens are saying what they say is purposely ambiguous. You are ignoring the line between intention and expediency, (both of which are extremely clear) to save your own hope. When did recognising the obvious become “old style” = bad. At what point do you believe that The Greens – with limited power – will be allowed to have any real effect by working with National who believe their greater power allows them to override everyone and everything else? Have you been sleep-writing these past few months? Did the importance of Hagar and Rawshark’s work completely fly over your head?

                  No. You are better than that. Take the pain, find another way.

                  • weka

                    Lolz, I worked through my disillusionment with the GP many years ago, including the first time they came out with ‘we can work with National, depending..’.

                    “but the way The Greens are saying what they say is purposely ambiguous.”

                    Yes. But I understand that the GP do that because they don’t want to be pigeonholed as Labour’s little friends, and they don’t consider themselves to be politically partisan (I know that’s hard for some lefties to understand and it’s tempting to say that if they’re not going to label themselves left then that must mean they are centrist or right).

                    And in this particular week, they are going hard after Labour votes. Whereas you seem to think that the reason they are saying that in that way is because they genuinely want to consider supporting National on C and S. Despite there being no evidence of that, and Norman actually said this morning they wouldn’t support National on C and S. Nothing ambiguous about that.

                    “When did recognising the obvious become “old style” = bad.”

                    I think you have misunderstood what I meant by that. What I mean is that the GP don’t work in the old mould of partisan, power-grabbing politics. Until people understand that and why that is, they will continue to misinterpret what is going on in the past 24 hours.

                    “At what point do you believe that The Greens – with limited power – will be allowed to have any real effect by working with National who believe their greater power allows them to override everyone and everything else? ”

                    I don’t believe that at all, so why are you saying it?

        • weka 5.1.1.5

          “Whatever dirty politics’ role in this, Russel Norman is not correcting it and I think it very unwise.”

          Actually he is. See the RNZ audio now linked in a couple of places.

          • yeshe 5.1.1.5.1

            Thx Weka .. like I said, I am no longer voting early. But it’s going to take more than just “unlikely” to get me back.

            I can not vote for anyone who could end up in any arrangement with this filthy bunch of corrupt and treasonous bastards.

            Sorry to take up this much space this morning .. but I am gutted by Norman’s statements. ( Including his Bill English favourite politician number last week.)

            • karol 5.1.1.5.1.1

              yeshe, Greens forming an alliance with a Nat government would sign the party’s death knell. The membership would not allow it.

              Please don’t buy into Bradbury’s spin for IMP.

              Why would you accept his uncritical use of a single One News report over Turei’s and Norman’s consistent line over several years?

              • framu

                the weird thing is – weve been here before

                this isnt the first time people have been unable to grasp the rather simple things norman has been saying

                1) we will happily form a govt with whoever has a complimentary policy platform
                2) we wont give confidence and supply to a govt that has an uncomplimentary policy platform
                3) but were quite happy to work with anyone on a case by case basis if that particular case aligns with one of our aims
                4) we dont belong to labour

                it really is that simple

                • brian

                  Thanks framu. I’ve been scratching my head about the commentary in this topic, and have had exactly the same thoughts as you. The Greens have been consistent for years, and are shaping up to be the main opposition party .

                  We are trapped by the media into their game
                  (a) crystal ball gazing on who wins (polls)
                  (b) crystal ball gazing on the makeup of the coalitions
                  (c) reporters trying for a scoop; trying to trick politicians into saying something ambiguous

                  I wish the reporters would spend more time on cleaning up their own role in dirty politics; and at the same time do some more analysis of policies. Good reporters should be like good sport referees; extremely important, but not the focus of the game.

                  • anker

                    I have to say, I am really glad I am voting Labour. They are completely clear about who they will and won’t go into coalition with.

                    Brian, what is your basis for saying the Greens are the main opposition party. They get one great poll (and I would have said good for them) up till this lack of clarity over working with National. THey don’t need to specify that they will do policy agreement with National. Even Labour does that at times.

                    I never criticize any party on the left (god know Labour gets badly criticized even on this site).

                    Labour and Cunliffe are not polling where we would like them to be but they have been the victims of dirty politics (far more that any other party). If you look at National and the msm smears, and then look at polling for Labour and Cunliffe that’s when they have dropped in the polls. I would have expected the Greens to see this and not want a bar of the disgusting National Party. Surely they can see what happened to the Maori party????

                    • brian

                      I did not mean to infer that they are close to being the main opposition party now. By “shaping up” I was thinking in the six year time frame. Of course, lots of things may happen before then…..

                      I actually prefer a coalition of at least two parties, regardless of whether it is a right or left government. Otherwise the governing party will suffer more easily from what I call the “arrogance of success” that was a feature of first past the post, the current Key administration, and I recall feeling the same way about the 3rd term Clark administration.

                • Tracey

                  Well put. Thanks.

                  From the people around me it is national voters considering party voting green. Two more people today of that persuasion. Thats four this week.

                  That will scare Nats. Spare undies time john.

                  • brian

                    The original Values Party, as the forerunner of the Green Party, (of which I was once a candidate) consisted of members who came equally from National and Labour, and possibly more from National.

                    It’s a long time ago, and politics have changed much …. but it is not surprising to me that there are a large bloc of National voters who have an equally sincere concern about environmental issues as those on the left side of politics. I see an underutilised strategy that Labour /Greens have perhaps underestimated – to use the Green Party a little more to woo those National Blue/Greens. Perhaps that is what Norman has been doing deliberately? Swing votes from Labour to Greens are an “inhouse left” battle, but Swing votes from National to Greens are valuable to both Labour and Greens

                    A sincere question …probably best left until after the election, regardless of how well the Greens perform …. is whether our environment ..and environmental issues are best protected by having a “Green Environment” voice trapped on the left (or possibly on the right) of politics.

                    I presume it’s a topic that exercises the minds of Green strategists; just as it was an issue that exercised the minds of the fledgling Values Party a generation ago. The “Left-Right” battle are actually rather insignificant issues, compared to the issue of climate change that threatens humanity

              • yeshe

                Thx Karol, but It’s not really about Bomber. It’s Dr Norman’s carelessness yesterday that has me so disappointed, and what he has unleashed with it. Stupid and ill-timed.

                Karen skilfully sums up the same problems I have — below, in reply to you at your 5.1.1.5.1.3 .

                • karol

                  Turei handled it well, and she has my confidence. Norman I like more than I used to, but I don’t rate him as highly.

                  Turei and the party have strengths that go beyond Norman’s role, even though the MSM like to talk him up as de facto leader of the Greens.

                  It was a very good news story fr the Greens yesterday in terms of their support. And not such good news for key and the Nats. And there’s been too much diversion onto the Greens from the MSM.

                • weka

                  “and what he has unleashed with it”

                  Sorry, but you’ve got the wrong target. Corin Dann and TVNZ are the ones who fucked up here. You do realise that TVNZ cut and pasted Norman’s comments as soundbites? And that he doesn’t get to control that? By all means hold Norman accountable, but he is not the one at fault here for causing this situation.

                  I think the issue here is that some people don’t like the fact that the GP is now mainstream. They will frame their language to appeal to the widest range of people who are most likely to vote for them because of their policies. This is how they have increased their party vote, and it’s also how they’ve become more accepted by the MSM as competent and a go to party for real comment instead of being the party of bean munchers and morris dancers. It’s also how they have had a significant influence on consciousness about the green issues in NZ.

                  We can’t have it both ways – either we want the GP to do well, or we want them to be marginalised. Sorry yeshe, because I like you and value you comments on ts, and I can understand why this has upset you, but we really have to get over this idea that political parties are there to meet our personal needs.

                  I still trust the GP to find the best balance between their principles and the pragmatics of having to function within a highly dysfunctional system.

                  btw, I agree with Karen to a point too.

            • weka 5.1.1.5.1.2

              I think you don’t understand yet what Norman is saying and why. There is no way in hell that the GP will support the formation of a govt with that filthy bunch of corrupt and treasonous bastards. It just ain’t going to happen. Norman said on the radio this morning that the GP won’t support National on C and S, which is the crucial vote for the formation of govt.

              There is a lot of confusion over the term ‘work with’. Please listen to the audio and pay attention to what Norman is actually saying (ignore Espiner).

              The GP has said that the only way they would support a National govt is if National changed it policy, which it’s not going to do. In other words, if National were to give up its corrupt and treasonous ways, and agree to run a smart green economy instead of a pollution economy, then the GP would consider supporting them. Do you really think that National is going to change that much?

              If that still doesn’t make you feel better, consider why the GP answer these questions in this way. You seem to think it’s because they are considering supporting National. It’s not. It’s for an entirely different reason.

            • karol 5.1.1.5.1.3

              Read Turei’s Twitter stream and her tweets and choice of retweets today and last night.

              • Karen

                I don’t believe the Green Party membership would countenance supporting the Nats , and I have absolute faith in Meteria Turei. However I am really disappointed in the way Russel Norman has allowed this story to develop.

                Yes, the TVNZ story is a distortion of true position of the Greens but Russel is smart enough to know how this would be reported. The result is, instead of an item on the Nats dropping support, it becomes one of Labour being unable to win and their potential coalition partners abandoning them.
                Russel had an opportunity this morning to point out the Nats always poll at least 5% more that their actual result so the election is actually very close, but he didn’t. As a result three people I know who were going to party vote Green are returning to Labour. Not what the Greens wanted, I suspect.

                • karol

                  Well, a shift to voting Labour is not a major catastrophe. What we need is more undecideds to vote and to vote left.

                  I agree the big story is that Nats/Key is losing support.

                  I stand by Greens. They offer the best hope of a government with a change of direction.

                  People are talking though. When there is intense debate about issues, people are more likely to vote.

                  • Karen

                    I agree that people changing their vote from Green to Labour isn’t a disaster. I am more worried that less politically aware people, who may have voted Labour this time, will now not bother voting at all because the MSM are saying it is a lost cause.

                    Some in the Greens are playing a dangerous game, and I expected better of them.

                    • yeshe

                      Thx Karen — very dangerous game and especially in this known dirty politics climate. Bad play and careless of Norman; they have been gamed.

                    • KJT

                      It is not the Green’s it is a lying reporter. Get it right.

                    • yeshe

                      KJT .. it’s both. Norman was careless. Dann made the most of it.

                    • Karen

                      Read the tweets about this on Tiso – this isn’t just a TVNZ beat up. The Greens are helping the Nats seem okay as an option as long as they get policy concessions. This is the most corrupt government ever and the Green Party should be saying so at every opportunity.

                    • yeshe

                      this is ugly, and from a star performer such as she is … how to shoot at foot, take aim and fire:

                      Follow

                      Julie Anne Genter
                      ‏@JulieAnneGenter
                      @JoGillett1 @gtiso @egorub Our support for a govt is based on policy wins over next 3 years, we can’t know for sure until after election.

                      and what does she mean with this ??

                      Julie Anne Genter ‏@JulieAnneGenter 2h
                      @JoGillett1 @gtiso @egorub @RuminatorNZ Remember in 1984 when the Labour party was elected & then implemented radical neolib agenda?

                      and from Tiso:

                      Follow

                      Giovanni Tiso
                      ‏@gtiso
                      See, it’s not all in my head, or a media beat-up. From the mouths of Green MPs. Anyyyywaaaaay…

                    • KJT

                      Don’t you get it. Norman has been misquoted to feed a bullshit Nact line. There is no way Green MP’s can go against the clearly stated wish of the party members that we cannot support putting National in power, as a our policies are too far apart.

                      There is nothing to stop us from working with any party when they help Green objectives, as we did with the insulation scheme.

                      Russell made that clear. A “journalist” sic, chose to spin it differently.

                    • blue leopard

                      +100 Karen 10.43am and

                      Read the tweets about this on Tiso – this isn’t just a TVNZ beat up. The Greens are helping the Nats seem okay as an option as long as they get policy concessions. This is the most corrupt government ever and the Green Party should be saying so at every opportunity.

                      This is my concern with Norman’s recent statements – and he said something similar on the minor parties leaders debate too.

                      Attempting to appeal to centrist/right voters in this manner has ended up sounding supportive of National on a certain subtle level. It is a dog whistle and IMO undermines the more important narrative that this government mustn’t be re-elected.

                    • weka

                      ” The Greens are helping the Nats seem okay as an option as long as they get policy concessions.”

                      Bullshit. See the email the GP office has just sent out,

                      Open mike 12/09/2014

                      Am I the only one that noticed the right putting out this idea about the GP supporting National earlier in the week? At least 3 times I reckon. Will try and find the examples later. We’re being taken for a ride folks.

                    • weka

                      and what does she mean with this ??

                      Julie Anne Genter ‏@JulieAnneGenter 2h
                      @JoGillett1 @gtiso @egorub @RuminatorNZ Remember in 1984 when the Labour party was elected & then implemented radical neolib agenda?

                      I assume she means that the GP won’t wed itself to Labour permanently in a partisan way (National evil, Labour good) for perfectly good fucking historical reasons.

                    • Clemgeopin

                      @weka: Was there a green party strategy meeting about Greens-National cooperation last evening as reported by TV1? Was there a meeting and was this issue discussed? What was decided? Do you know or not?

                    • yeshe

                      @weka .. replied to you at 16.1

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Weka,

                      I really think the Greens are messing up on this one.

                      You put forward:

                      Julie Anne Genter ‏@JulieAnneGenter 2h
                      @JoGillett1 @gtiso @egorub @RuminatorNZ Remember in 1984 when the Labour party was elected & then implemented radical neolib agenda?

                      I assume she means that the GP won’t wed itself to Labour permanently in a partisan way (National evil, Labour good) for perfectly good fucking historical reasons.

                      To calm the concerns being expressed?

                      Yet all this puts forward is that JAG is prepared to put down Labour (Labour 30 years ago at that) in order to get more votes for the Greens.

                      I would prefer that the Greens and Labour were showing how well they will work together at this point, rather than putting one another down, presumably to get votes off one another.

                      I think the Greens are making a mistake over this one. It is a pity, because usually they are very savvy with messaging.

                    • @weka 1:06pm

                      Am I the only one that noticed the right putting out this idea about the GP supporting National earlier in the week?

                      I saw it too. There’s Armstrong’s piece about the Greens needing to 'compromise':

                      "If the Greens want to be able to negotiate with National as well as Labour, they are going to have to compromise by putting much of their social justice agenda on the backburner and pushing their environmental credentials harder.

                      One possibility would be to move to the cross benches and abstain on confidence and supply motions, thus possibly making National less reliant on Winston Peters and New Zealand First.

                      There’s definitely a meme being propagated.

                    • weka

                      “@weka: Was there a green party strategy meeting about Greens-National cooperation last evening as reported by TV1? Was there a meeting and was this issue discussed? What was decided? Do you know or not?”

                      No fucking idea mate. Why are you asking me? Ask Corin Dann, or, if you want a real answer, the GP.

                    • weka

                      bl, I’m not entirely happy with how the GP are handling this, but I still believe that you and others here are buying into a narrative that’s been created at the least by a sensation seeking MSM and at worst by the VRWC.

                      “Yet all this puts forward is that JAG is prepared to put down Labour (Labour 30 years ago at that) in order to get more votes for the Greens.”

                      I don’t see it like that at all. I took it as an explanation of why the GP are signaling they don’t belong to Labour. This is such a crucial point. The GP will not support Labour as a matter of course. Labour have to deserve and earn that support. Hence the Roger Douglas reference.

                      “I would prefer that the Greens and Labour were showing how well they will work together at this point, rather than putting one another down, presumably to get votes off one another.”

                      Oh, I would prefer that too, but you really should talk to Labour about that (although I don’t see them as putting each other down, more that they are competing). Labour are the ones that refused to work with the GP this election, and Labour are the ones that have shafted the GP in the past. There are several good reasons for why the GP is promoting itself as independent of Labour and is trying for Labour votes. One is because Labour are letting down the left massively, and until they sort that shit out their votes are up for grabs. Another is that the GP learnt the hard way that Labour would not cut them any slack, so they now play hardball. In the nicest possible way of course.

                    • weka

                      Thanks Puddleglum!!

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Weka,

                      If you are not entirely happy with how the Greens are handling this, I really think we aren’t in that much disagreement – if at all!

                      That, really, is all I am expressing.

                • Banter

                  If yesterday you were voting Green but today you are shifting to say IMP that is more likely a vote for a National government than otherwise….ie Hone loses his seat, IMP get under 5%. I believe this is exactly what the MSM are spinning for, they aren’t exactly massive advocates for a strong and united left. Remain calm.

                • Clemgeopin

                  “As a result three people I know who were going to party vote Green are returning to Labour.’

                  Shows that early voting does have its drawbacks!

                  Your comment does makes me glad though. Every dark cloud has a silver lining after all! To me, Labour is THE BEST party in town overall for their very well thought out comfortably doable economic, social, monetary and environmental policies.

                  I am convinced that for the LONG term survival, stability and good of the country, the best scenario on Sept 20 would be if the party votes are somewhat like this:

                  Labour=35%
                  Greens=10%, NZF=10%
                  IMP=5%

                  National=35%
                  The Cons=4%
                  The Maori P=1%
                  ACT=0.5%
                  U Fut=0%

  5. RedBaronCV 6

    Watched people at a meet the candidate meeting last night waving away the Nact leaflets whilst accepting those of the other parties. Around 25% to 30% doing so and this was not a young electorate.

  6. Tautoko Viper 7

    I’m so sick of the fact that a high percentage of media questions on radio and Herald& Stuff articles are about the polls. Over half of politician interview time is being wasted and little of the questioning time is directed towards actual policy. The Ferguson-Peters interview on Morning Report was typical and it’s time the journalists did a critical analysis of their own work.

    • karol 7.1

      I totally agree. I’m sick of their obsession with The Game.

      • Tracey 7.1.1

        Cos they are on the winning team 😉

        Democracy has become sport, i feel like throwing a brick through a window, but which one.

      • adam 7.1.2

        So for after the election, how to end that game? And Tracey
        – Bricks, you will need a lot of bricks.

    • Olwyn 7.2

      Did you hear the Espiner-Norman interview? It was enough to drive me out of the room, so that I didn’t get to hear the Peters’ one. “Would you agree to abstain from voting then?” “Can you agree, 100%, that you have never said X?” when after the Lui business, everyone knows that agreeing 100% is dangerous territory. Norman conducted himself well, but it really was 100% pure propagandist crap.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/20149341/norman-cagey-on-poll-implications-for-relationship-with-labour

      • framu 7.2.1

        it was, much like most of RNZ interviews these days, an exercise in trying to make the subject fit a pre-determined narrative and play gotcha

        its high time the interviewees just stopped and ask the interviewer what they are playing at

        If the interviewer appears to be a propogandist – assume the roll of interviewer yourself and turn it back on them

    • greywarbler 7.3

      Polls should be limited somehow. This focus group approach, wanting to find what people seem to be prepared to let the government get away with, undermines the idea of a government with policies for the good of the country getting on with it.

      Polls are just a different way of testing in what way the government should morph itself. A government of fog and shapes and appearance, rather than solid commitment to good policies that will be good for all the country and which have been ascertained as being wanted by mot in the country.

    • nadis 7.4

      I seem to recall the same thing happening in 2002 with Bill English. It’s not partisan – it’s just an easy story to sensationalise. If the next poll showed National at 40% you can be sure that 90% of the questions fielded by Key would be about the polls.

  7. Adrian 8

    I have been up and down the Picton-Chch road a few times in thhe last week and couldn’t help but notice the amount of big gear ( cranes, etc ) leaving Christchurch.
    Had a wander around the dead centre as well and there is absolutely nothing happening, even on the periphery very, very few sold signs on empty sections.
    What Chch rebuild?.

    • Tracey 8.1

      In Epsom electorate there has been an explosion to rival an influenza epidemic. Judder bars appearing everywhere. A wee bribe for the good folks of Epsom whose children are so much more valuable than, say, mt roskills.

    • greywarbler 8.2

      Gerry Brownlee was rushed into the position of Czar of Christchurch with powers that exceeded any seen before, but that was to be able to look after the requirements of friends of the Nats. The rest had to be ‘resilient’ (I hate that word, it’s a cover-up often for people struggling along trying to manage and not just falling over in the streets, weeping everywhere or taking guns into offices where they had been led to understand that help would be given but has not been available). h

      So many in need down in Christchurch have been left to dig holes of various types, and first evacuate into them, then to move on to burrow into them.

  8. Rosie 9

    Ohariu update with a whiff of stale old whale smear, for those interested.

    Back in summer 2012 when activity was getting under way, around the country to oppose partial state asset sales Slater thought it would timely to make up some crap about People’s Power Ohariu, who were newly formed then and whose major platform was opposing asset sales. This is long before I had heard of them or joined.

    The link below is from that time, contains several lies and at this point in time is irrelevant. However, our querie is who alerted Slater to John Maynard, the founder of the group, as they certainly had no knowledge of one another. Was Peter Dunne gossiping with some of his nat mates about his annoyance with PPO and if so did some one then get in touch with lalter or did the Natz goes directly to Slater? Who was it? (And are those people the ones nicking our billboards!!!???)

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/tag/john-maynard/

    Some clarifications:

    1) Charles Chauvel and John hand’t even met each other at the time that article was written, so there is no colluding between the two groups, in that time or ever. PPO remains independent from any political party.

    2) The Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa is NOT affiliated with the Labour Party

    3)The CTU premises are Willis St Wellington and The PWUA are in the Trades Hall in Vivian St, hence they do not share the same building, and never have.

    Slug Slime , never one for letting the facts get in the way of a non story.

    I would add that we are getting very good feedback from our leafleting campaign, with 14,000 households so far having received a leaflet educating them about Dunne. Theres approximately 22,000 households in the electorate so it’s a big effort but the feedback is worth it.

    • yeshe 9.1

      kate sheppard would love you all for it ! well done.

      • Rosie 9.1.1

        Hey, the regular green man cross now signs at pedestrian crossings are now being replaced a graceful Kate Sheppard cross now sign, around the Lambton Quay area of Wgtn. How fabulous is that!

        • alwyn 9.1.1.1

          A bloody great waste of $12,000 of ratepayers money, that is how “fabulous” it is.
          There are 8 traffic lights involved. To replace the green man glass in these has cost $12,000 dollars, according to our Green aligned mayor in the Dom/Post this morning. How can it possibly cost that much to do something so simple?
          I can think of a lot of better ways of spending that amount of money, including not doing it at all.

          • yeshe 9.1.1.1.1

            eeyore much ?

          • Rosie 9.1.1.1.2

            Well ya know alwyn, as one of those ratepayers who are contributing to this project I’m just and dandy fine with that. I’m more than happy for Kate Sheppard to be honoured in this way.

            If you’re concerned I suggest you contact the Mayor’s office and request a breakdown of the costs.

            I’m more concerned about the huge waste of money, I think closer to $40K, that was spent on the cynical, prejudiced and authoritarian “alternate giving” campaign, that turned out to be a failure any way.

            • alwyn 9.1.1.1.2.1

              Don’t get me started. Of course the $40,000 was a waste of money.
              It is chicken-feed compared to this little item that was in yesterday’s Dom/Post of course.
              http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10484621/Upgrade-of-Victoria-St-a-big-part-of-16-4m-spend-up
              They underspent last year by $45 million. Why bother to keep it for things that have to be done, like improving the sewerage and waste water schemes?
              No, as the article says “The council embarks on a $16.4 million spending spree to use up spare cash”, and even then “several councillors were concerned the new festive fund was not enough”.
              Then there is a few hundred million to extend the runway, even though there aren’t any airlines that want to use it. Still, it makes the Mayor feel important as she jaunts off on “sister city” holidays.
              Irrespective of this of course is the question. Why should I have to pay for your amusements?

              • Rosie

                For what it’s worth alwyn, there is a loomio forum that folks can offer their opinion on council planning. It was on that forum that they floated the idea of the Victoria St upgrade. I was opposed to it, and stated it strongly. I believe it to be unnecessary. I would rather they spend the money on upgrading and building public loo’s, which are so desperately lacking around the place.

                You may have seen the recent huha in the Wellingtonian about the lack of loo’s at Tarakena Bay for instance.

                If you don’t like something, then get involved. I’m not the right audience to be complaining to about council spending. Take it to them.

                As for you paying for “my” amusements. Kate Sheppard in not an amusement. She is a hero and in the form of a green pedestrian crossing “GO” figure she has been transcended into a form of public art. I’m really proud of what she did for our country. Having her illuminated presence in our city is a reminder of hope and of what can be achieved if you put your mind to something. Rather symbolic she is the GO figure, and not the STOP figure.

    • gsays 9.2

      more power to your arm, rosie.

      i have, for many years, not liked peter dunne.
      when he speaks he so often offers nothing but vague, broad utterings.
      this was confirmed when he went into coalition with national after being a labour minister.
      he seems to be there for himself and keen to keep his nose in the trough.

      to have parliament rid of his presence would be a blessing.

      act rightfully catch so much flak but this clown seems teflon in nature.

      down with dunne.

      • Rosie 9.2.1

        You are so right gsays. I think you have correctly assumed his motivation too, which is self advancement.

  9. ScottGN 10

    According to Tracey Watkins senior Nats are toying with the notion of offering Winston the Speaker’s job in the next parliament. That might well suit the National Party but does anyone really think that, having lead his party back into government, Winston is going to let himself be neutered politically by taking the Speakership? If NZ First’s polling is as high as the polls suggest I would l think it much more likely that Ron Mark would be their candidate for Speaker.

  10. greywarbler 11

    There was a good flashmob musical event in Spain sponsored by Sabadell Bank where people gathered in a square and performed Ode to Joy.

    In Aachen a group of young people copied this as a way of raising interest in voting for the European Parliament. Ode to Joy flashmob –

    What about NZ musicians doing something similar before our election day.? Don’t know if we are allowed to play music and encourage democracy and hold up banners about it on election day here? There probably is a law against it.

    Incidentally Auckland Council has decided to sell off an important inner area to private interests and instead increase waterfront open areas because they say the other area is shaded by large buildings around. That means protected from bad weather which waterfront open areas would not have.

    Mike Lee doesn’t think it’s a good idea. And less area for democratic gatherings and protests I think!

    Here is Sabadell Bank clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qT5BOl2XU

    • Anne 11.1

      Thanks for the Sabadell Bank clip grewwarbler. Beautiful.

      • greywarbler 11.1.1

        @ Anne
        Yes I think so too. Often listen to it to bring some grace and pleasure into my day.

    • gsays 11.2

      ref sabadell clip: what a powerful, majestic and beautiful display.

      the music and choir aside, look what we can achieve when we cooperate.
      this should lead the 6pm news. all 5.40mins of it.

      truly inspirational and moving.
      thanks greywarbler for sharing.

      • Anne 11.2.1

        So civilised, gracious and uplifting gsays. Compare that with what is happening in this country. Deeply sad.

  11. adam 12

    For all the Greens at heart. If you’re voting for the green party or not.

    http://libcom.org/blog/climate-populism-people%E2%80%99s-climate-march-10092014

  12. karol 13

    Interesting post from Russell Brown, which ends:

    It’s tense out there. Far too fucking tense.

    It’s a post about the impact of, and confusions around Dirty Politics. He nails it on some of the MSM spin, and the impact of Rawshark’s withdrawal – he uses a metaphor of a meth habit and sudden withdrawal:

    Dirty Politics is the methamphetamine of Decision 2014. Remember how it made you feel 10 feet tall? Remember when Guyon demanded the Prime Minister account for the behaviour of his errant Justice Minister? It was titanic.
    […]
    Just a couple of days ago, Tova O’Brien was reduced to signing off a completely unrelated electoral story with the intonation that ”the fight for Mangere just got dirty,” as if saying so would turn rock salt into pure ice. And Corin Dann found himself in a surreal fever dream where everyone had been hacked.
    […]
    The problem is that the Man has left town. Whaledump, Rawshark, Heisenberg – whatever you want to call him – he had the good stuff, and the fucker just skipped. He left a note saying he’d deposited the rest of his supply with some retail dealers, but they’re getting heat from the law and the fuckers won’t even say if they’re holding.

    The only happy crew are the gang that used to run things. They figure maybe they’ll be able to start dealing that shit stuff they flooded the market with for so long. But even they’re feeling the fear. Maybe people don’t want that stuff now they know where it’s come from. I mean, are you gonna go back to something made of borax, horse tranquiliser and water from the toilet bowl?

    • Tracey 13.1

      Thanks for this karol.

      Having to second guess stuff sucks…

      Voting Green.

      • weka 13.1.1

        +1. After today I don’t think I can bring myself to read the whole article.

        I think the whole cognitive dissonance issue really needs to be looked at re the MSM and their complicity in Slatergate, esp those on the periphery who are having a hard time seeing what is wrong. There’s a big conversation to be had on this post-election (or even next year).

        • Anne 13.1.1.1

          Well put weka. In a nutshell.

          This ‘conversation’ must be huge and it must continue for as long as it takes. The Standard has an important role to play in it too. The MSM and the public in their sublime ignorance must be dragged kicking and screaming into it as well. Nothing less will suffice. But, as I said on this site yesterday, someone has got to stand up and be willing to lead the battle because without leadership we will drift in disparate directions and end up getting nowhere fast.

          We know all roads lead to John Key. At the very least he has set this example of base behaviour, but most of us know he is more deeply implicated than that. Like Richard Nixon… he’s got to go!!

    • TheContrarian 14.1

      It what way was the downing of the Malaysian flight a false flag?

    • KJT 14.2

      The USA “intelligence” organisations are not clever enough to do a false flag operation without being found out.

      • emergency mike 14.2.1

        There aren’t any secrets coz you’d know about them?

        • KJT 14.2.1.1

          In every thing else they have been exposed, from the “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq to the forced changes of South American Governments.

          Which is why even US propaganda TV programs, such as NCIS, are cynical about the CIA.

          • Draco T Bastard 14.2.1.1.1

            Well, the evidence about the WMD in Iraq seems to show that the US Intelligence Community was telling the US Administration something different but the US Administration didn’t want to hear that and so built up a new agency that told them what they wanted to hear.

          • emergency mike 14.2.1.1.2

            “In every thing else they have been exposed”

            Kind of missing my point. You know about the ones that were exposed. It seems a failure of logic to say that therefore you know about them all. You’re saying I can name all these operations that were exposed, so all false flags get exposed. But you’re really only saying all the false flags that were exposed, were exposed. Those are the ones that we know about. For all you know there could be ten times more that were never exposed.

      • phillip ure 14.2.2

        @ kjt..they do however have a long history of trying..

        ““..Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List..

        ..Instances of the United States overthrowing –

        – or attempting to overthrow –

        – a foreign government since the Second World War..”

        (cont..)

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39625.htm

        “.. Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?

        A: Because there’s no American embassy there..”

        • KJT 14.2.2.1

          Yes. But we all know about it. They didn’t manage to keep it secret.

          We even know about the US dollars, and renminbi, flowing into New Zealand to influence our elections. Despite the MSM ignoring it.

          • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2.1.1

            They didn’t manage to keep it secret.

            Once they’d done it they didn’t need to as the world accepted it as a fait accompli.

    • sockpuppet 14.3

      🙄

  13. the voter 15

    How can you tell if someone supports National Act Conservative United Future Maori
    They all start their sentances with AWE LOOK !!

    Have a good listen next time of course these AWE LOOK people have been around for awhile and they could do with their clocks cleaned

  14. weka 16

    A friend just flicked this email to me, from the Green Party main office. I didn’t get the email so assume this hasn’t gone out to the general membership yet, so please forward this widely.

    Kia ora
    Thank you for your query.

    There has been some confusion as a result of last night’s TV One news story.

    To be clear, our goal in this election is to change the Government in order to achieve a cleaner, fairer, smarter New Zealand. The best way to advance good green change is for the Greens to be in Government.

    Our intention is to form a new government with Labour. So a party vote for the Greens is a vote for a big Green presence in a new government with Labour.

    The Greens have momentum in this election. Last night’s TVNZ poll had us on 14%, the highest we have ever been in that poll. More New Zealanders than ever are saying they are planning to vote Green.

    We have always said it would be highly unlikely that we would give confidence and supply support to a National government. Three more years of National will be bad for our environment, our kids, and our economy.

    If, in the unfortunate event National does end up the Government, an even bigger Green Party will continue to be a strong and effective voice opposition that holds them to account and stops them from doing bad things and, wherever possible, achieving good green change, like we did by securing the $300 million home insulation scheme and national cycleway in 2008.

    Again, thanks for your email and I hope this clarifies our position.
    Kind regards,

    Julian Boorman
    National Office Administration Assistant

    • yeshe 16.1

      Sorry weka .. ‘highly unlikely’ just isn’t good enough.

      So yes, it does clarify their position. There is no statement: We will never offer C and S to National Party. Why not ?

      The difference is that this time we know it is the most corrupt Govt ever in our history. It isn’t like last time, when we didn’t know.

      This time I need this party of integrity to stand against this corruption, unwaveringly, and not intimate an “unlikely” collusion if it becomes necessary.

      Bugger.

      • weka 16.1.1

        ok, if you want to operate from sound bites and semantics rather than being able to understand a complex position in its entirity, that’s up to you (not that it is taht complex). They’ve just said they will support a Labour govt and will oppose a National one. If you can’t see that that’s your problem, but please stop contributing to the right wing smear.

        eg “and not intimate an “unlikely” collusion if it becomes necessary.”

        They haven’t said that. At all. What you have said is a gross misrepresentation of the GP. Well done, Slater and co will be happy.

        Sorry, but now I have to take it that you really aren’t bothering to read and understand what many of us have been saying in the past day.

        • blue leopard 16.1.1.1

          The issue is with it being election time and perceptions are important, Weka.

          I really believe that the Greens are attempting to shift the perception in order to gain more votes. In this particular case it is centrist support that is being appealed to.

          To do this, however, there is always the risk of alienating another part of their support and I think that is what some people are expressing here.

          I am finding I am thinking similar things as Yeshe expresses on this one.

          It is a bit unfair to say Yeshe is contributing to a right wing smear. If Yeshe was saying they were going to support a right wing party in response to what the Greens are saying – that would be contributing to a right wing smear. That is not what Yeshe is putting forward.

          I do believe, though, that msm are perfectly happy to report this matter, due to the potentially damaging effect it could have on Green/Left support.

          • weka 16.1.1.1.1

            “The issue is with it being election time and perceptions are important, Weka.”

            Oh quite. So what’s with the misinformation being spread by lefties on this page? Huh?

            “I really believe that the Greens are attempting to shift the perception in order to appeal to, and therefore gain, centrist support.”

            Yeah, nah. Norman probably is trying to get some wavering right wing votes, but the GP position has been consistent for years. Apart from TVNZ last night, what evidence do you have?

            “I am finding I am thinking similar things as Yeshe expresses on this one.”

            Really? How about you show me where the GP have said that they wil go with National in govt if that becomes necessary? Seriously, I’d love to know why some people here think that.

            • blue leopard 16.1.1.1.1.1

              Yeshe @ 16.1.2.2 has responded the same way I would have.

              I was reading the initial statements made on twitter by Metiria after those items were aired and I, too, noticed the ‘highly unlikely’. You linked to a press statement (somewhere else on this thread) which also used the term ‘highly unlikely’. These are weasel words.

              All well and good if Greens gain support by taking this approach. (I was spewing when Labour distanced themselves from the Greens earlier in the year, yet quickly came to accept this was to gain more votes from centrists), however I think it is also fair to accept that the stance taken may put certain people off, those who want a stronger condemnation of what Key’s National have been up to.

              Fortunately there are other options on the left to vote for. My main concern would be to these statements that it doesn’t put some left supporters off from voting altogether.

              edit:
              “I really believe that the Greens are attempting to shift the perception in order to appeal to, and therefore gain, centrist support.”

              Yeah, nah. Norman probably is trying to get some wavering right wing votes, but the GP position has been consistent for years. Apart from TVNZ last night, what evidence do you have?

              “Norman probably is trying to get some wavering right wing votes” That is all I am putting across.

              I have outlined the evidence previously – as in a comment Norman made in the minor parties leaders debate and Green responses to the item on TV. It wasn’t simply the item on TV. The media picked up on these comments and ran with it…and extended it. But these comments are topical – if they weren’t we wouldn’t be discussing them.

              • weka

                If you think that the GP membership okayed weasel words in that remit, then you have no idea about the kaupapa of the party or what the intention of the remit was. By all means vote somewhere else, but I am curious as to how you see that working? Do you think that party voting IMP increases or decreases the chances of a change of govt.

                You didn’t answer the quesions in my comment.

            • Tracey 16.1.1.1.1.2

              I havent seen or heard them say it weka. This morning I was expressing my own thought.

              Greens are a party that wants to try consensus. Accordingly they are not saying never will they have a discussion with National BUT i agree with you, it wont include c and s and is highly unlikely to produce anything for either.

              Greens dont have to say stuff just cos some want them to.

              I like the Greens policy and principles. IF they formed a govt with labour i would like to see metiria turei as deputy pm.

          • McFlock 16.1.1.1.2

            But alleging C&S support for national is a right wing smear.

            Yes, I think the greens are softening their image, but that’s to get away from the other smear that if the greens were in government all private businesses would be nationalised, meat-eating would be made illegal and they’d declare that animals can vote, too.

            I.e. that they can sit at cabinet as equals, without the threat of economic collapse.

            There’s a massive distance between that and giving john key C&S before he fucks off to hawaii.

            My concern about the greens is that their priority mix means that they’re easy to play against themselves: let’s say whichever govt wants to raise minimum wage to only $X/hr. But they need the greens vote. So the govt escalates a industrial proposal that by itself is marginal, but it entails maybe killing some frogs. Then the govt says they won’t raise the minimum wage either. After too-ing and fro-ng with the greens, the government “concedes” to raising the minimum wage to $X/hr and canceling the marginal project and “save” the frogs.

            And that maybe they go blue in 15 or 20 years.

            I’ve never been too concerned about them giving C&S to an ACT/Cons/Nat govt.

            • blue leopard 16.1.1.1.2.1

              “Yes, I think the greens are softening their image, “

              All I am really putting across is that I think some people are objecting to this softening.

              I am, particularly due to the context of how corrupt this government has been.

              I am also stating that some people may be more drawn to voting for the Greens due to this softening and that I think it is fair to say that others will be put off by it. Such people expressing concerns shouldn’t be put down as taking part in a right wing smear. That is simply unreasonable.

              • McFlock

                All I am really putting across is that I think some people are objecting to this softening.

                I am, Particularly in regards to the context of how corrupt this government has been.

                The nature of this government is irrelevant to whether the greens are fringe eco-worriers or a mainstream party.

                The greens will sit down with anyone on an issue-by-issue basis. Always have been. This is one of their strengths – finding strange bedfellows with mutual concerns about a narrow issue. It is light-years away from giving john key confidence and supply for another three years, to watch prisoners forced tinto slave labour that undercuts other workers, or to watch the ladder-kickers remove more of the safety net that enables workers to avoid crime, or to watch NZers become less and less able to own a piece of the country they live in (be it a farm or a home).

                Tying together “greens becoming a mainstream party” with “john key’s corrupt government” is a disingenuous smear.

                • weka

                  +1

                  “I am also stating that some people may be more drawn to voting for the Greens due to this softening and that I think it is fair to say that others will be put off by it.”

                  If people want a further left party they should vote for IMP. But bear in mind the consequences of that for this election, and the next term.

                  • blue leopard

                    What consequences are you referring to here, Weka?

                    A stable centrist inclined government of Labour, Greens and NZ First with a party outside of the coalition deal who keeps the other left parties honest?

                    • weka

                      If the Labour and GP portion is too small or the IMP portion too big, the risk is that Peters will go with National. I don’t think we should let Peters’ power games unsettle us, but I am a tactical voter and I do think there is an issue here.

                      I also think that if L and the GP have to form govt with Peters, then it’s better for the GP to be as big as possible. Having NZF and the GP too close in numbers will seriously undermine the shift left and the progress of a left wing govt.

                      “A stable centrist inclined government of Labour, Greens and NZ First with a party outside of the coalition deal who keeps the other left parties honest?”

                      I want a left wing govt, not a centrist one. I’m not sure how much power IMP will have, or whether there will even be an IMP post-election or for the full term.

                      I have been tempted to vote IMP myself, but the pragmatist in me seems to have the upper hand currently 😉

                    • blue leopard

                      Thanks Weka,

                      Oh dear, this gets more and more complex. What a pity we can’t trust the accuracy of the polls.

                      I have been thinking considering the bias in polls that the Labour/Green block could well be neck and neck with National currently.

                      [The article I link to adds up all the bias – yet also shows that Roy Morgan were estimating Labour 4 points too low & National 2 points too high]

                      This means that Labour could actually be around 30 and National around 43. It would be the best outcome for Labour +Greens to gain more than National (which they might actually be achieving now).

                      I reckon it would be pretty hard for NZ First to justify going with National under such conditions.

                      If IMP have achieved solid support too, this just ends up being more of a majority achieved when passing policies for the L/G/NZF coalition whereas if NZ First went with National under these conditions there would be a lot of policies that wouldn’t get through because National + its shabby support partners wouldn’t have as strong a majority and their policies are less compatible with NZF from the outset.

                      Oh gee, I hope I am explaining myself clearly, but I suspect I am not…

                      The problem only comes in if Labour and Green are both not achieving good numbers – at present I think they will be achieving higher support than the polls are indicating (Greens have notoriously received higher support in the polls, than in the actual election, however with such a strong push to mobilise the youth vote – not least by IMP – I am hoping this will not be so much the case this year).

                      Thanks for your thoughts – this is a fairly important point you raise, that I hadn’t considered.

                      To assess all the dodgy polls:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2014

                    • weka

                      🙂

                      “If IMP have achieved solid support too, this just ends up being more of a majority achieved when passing policies for the L/G/NZF coalition”…

                      Not if those IMP votes came from L or GP voters though. It doesn’t increase the left block (although there is a tricky calculation there because of the overhang. Also I expect the IMP will pick up lots of previous non-voters, so it’s very hard to know how well they will do).

                      Further, Peters has been openly antagonistic towards the IMP and has stated he won’t work with ‘race based’ parties (whatever that means). I take that to mean that he will be opposed to deals with the IMP. If NZF is part of a formal coalition on the left, I’m not sure how that would work. Would Labour just do its own deals anyway? Or would Peters insist on Mana and the IP being excluded. If he does that then any extra MPs to IMP at the expense of the GP IMO would create a weaker left wing govt, and probably increase the antagonism over the first term, which Labour definitely doesn’t want or need.

                • Tracey

                  They believe in conversation and attempted consensus, so many FPPers just dont get it.

                • blue leopard

                  “Tying together “greens becoming a mainstream party” with “john key’s corrupt government” is a disingenuous smear.”

                  Trouble is, McFlock, I am discussing perceptions and that is the perception that has been generated for me.

                  What you and others are saying may be factually correct, yet I am simply pointing out the concern* that Greens recent approach raises for me is that it sounds supportive of this corrupt government and this may not be the wisest idea the Greens have come up with at this point in the election and considering the conditions surrounding this election.

                  Labour only recently came out saying that Greens would be part of the government too.

                  (* I also involved myself in this conversation because people were starting to attack those expressing such concerns, and I very much think attacking someone in a discussion clearly being conducted in good faith is a weak and damaging thing to do. If you want an intelligent discussion, that is.)

                  • McFlock

                    Well, a smear campaign’s objective is to alter perceptions.

                    If the greens call the nats tory swine who are untouchable on every issue in the next three years, they won’t get any policy through if the nats win. And they’ll be portrayed as rabid eco-comm1es, the green terror that will destroy a labour govt.

                    If the greens simply say that they’ll talk with the next govt, even if it’s nats, about any issue, then that gets spun into supporting the next worker-beating nat budget.

                    I think there’s more chance of labour supporting the nats than there is of the greens – and there’s not much chance of that IMO, either.

                    • blue leopard

                      And it has also been the Greens idea to alter perceptions too, with the comments they have been making. That has been what I think those of you being defensive of the Greens are ignoring.

                      As I said, it is fine if they gain more support from doing so, it is not so good if they freak people out leaving them voting for noone.

                      That was good of you to ignore this point I made:

                      Labour only recently came out saying that Greens would be part of the government too.

                      I really don’t think this message was good timing. Hopefully I am wrong. You can be sure that I will not be complaining if they manage to rummage up more support from having done so. 🙂

                    • McFlock

                      The greens are damned by spin no matter what they do.
                      So all they can do is clearly state their position. Which they did. People scared about the greens going with the nats are scared of nat spin, not of anything the greens have said or done.

                      I ignored the point about labour’s comments because frankly I thought it irrelevant. Unless you want to suggest that the greens moving mainstream has resulted in it being more acceptable for labour to acknowledge them as cabinet partners, but frankly I think it has more to do with the fact that labour need to demonstrate that it can form coalitions – and with whom – at the end of september.

                    • blue leopard

                      I mentioned the reference to what Labour said because I fully viewed Labour’s statement as effectively endorsing the Greens, and yet the Green’s have chosen to appeal to centrist voters in a manner that effectively undermines Labour/Left. ( I fully accept that was not their intention, but view it as clumsy).

                      I thought the Labour statement occurred prior to Norman trying to appeal to centrist/swing voters. I may be wrong on that.

                      I can’t say I am impressed with the Greens recent ‘that is our business’ comments with reference to Labour either. It is great not to get pulled into discussing Labour’s issues, however I don’t like the unfriendly nature by which they are doing it.

                      I am critical of any left-wing party that omits to see the importance of showing a good working relationship, harmony, between the left wing parties. Labour, the Greens and IMP have now all been guilty of failing to value this aspect.

                      My opinion being if there is one thing that will switch people off from supporting the left – antagonism between the parties is it.

                    • McFlock

                      well, frankly I don’t think labour or the greens have put a step too far wrong, this campaign.

                      One or two tactical things, but by and large it’s been pretty solid. We’ll see how it plays out in a week.

            • Ergo Robertina 16.1.1.1.2.2

              ‘My concern about the greens is that their priority mix means that they’re easy to play against themselves….’

              I don’t agree. It’s a bit like saying Labour pre 1984 could not govern effectively because it would be held to ransom by union power.
              The difference between the Greens and National, say, is that the former would abide by decent process around things like the Resource Management Act, regional councils decisions, etc, accepting outcomes, rather than run roughshod over them. That is the divide; and I imagine the Greens would keep/accept the existing legislative framework, perhaps tightened up a bit.
              Pretty much anyone in the parliamentary wing of any of the parties is more conservative than members/activists.
              Of course politics involves compromise and the Greens are not the only party with different internal agendas and competing priorities.
              And I don’t think they’d be silly enough not to spot if they were being blatantly manipulated.

          • Clemgeopin 16.1.1.1.3

            “They may well achieve that by what they are saying, however there is always the risk of alienating another part of their support and I think that is what some people are expressing here”

            It is simple I think :
            The Greens are playing a game here, especially after voting has already commenced with only eight days left for the election. By now the Greens may probably have got their required over 5% plus support already from the hundreds of thousands of advance votes cast many of whom I suspect would be Labour party sympathisers. Making sweet noises about National now is an electoral ploy to try and get some soft National votes too.

            To me, the better option in this election, is to give the party vote to Labour to keep it strong, and that is what I will be doing.

        • yeshe 16.1.1.2

          weka .. I am reading directly from their letter. It leaves a door open. Take it any way you wish; I am not trying to misrepresent anything at all. I am a Green voter, who is trying to work through it.

          Can you understand that if I am seeing it this way, possibly many others are also ?

          Green Party words, not mine:

          “We have always said it would be highly unlikely that we would give confidence and supply support to a National government.”

          Which part of ‘unlikely’ do I not understand ?

          And really ? To attempt to align my thoughts with Slater and co is just unnecessary and nasty.

          signed The bleatee who disgraces Open Mike

          FFS

          • weka 16.1.1.2.1

            “I am not trying to misrepresent anything at all.”

            yes, I’m sure it’s not your intention. But it is what you are doing. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you mean by this? “and not intimate an “unlikely” collusion if it becomes necessary.”

            I’ve never heard the GP say they would support National if it becomes necessary. To me this means you don’t actually understand what the GP mean.

            “Which part of ‘unlikely’ do I not understand ?”

            The bit that is qualified by this,

            (ii) The Green Party could work with a National-led government to progress particular Green Party policies as we have over the last three years; but based on current National Party policy positions and track record it is highly unlikely that we could support a National-led government on confidence and supply.

            Which has now been linked or quoted at least 3 times in this thread.

            “Can you understand that if I am seeing it this way, possibly many others are also ?”

            Of course. But there has been considerable effort put into explaining this and you appear to still not be getting it, and still misrepresenting what the GP has said and intends. Tell me this, do you think that there is any chance that the GP will support the formation of a right wing govt in 2014?

            “To attempt to align my thoughts with Slater and co is just unnecessary and nasty.”

            It’s not your thoughts, it’s your actions. You blamed Norman for what was probably Dirty Politics. Can you not see how fucked up that is? You’ve taken part in diverting the whole drama away from the MSM misrepresentation of the GP and focussed instead on a strawman that should have been dealt with a short, easy conversation.

            • yeshe 16.1.1.2.1.1

              You and Blip seem to have missed the whole point that I am a Green voter. Please don’t shoot the messenger.

              I watched and recognised early on it was DP at play, see my posts from last night.

              The ONLY thing I have repeatedly questioned today is how Dr Russel Norman has dealt with it, and I find his response seriously wanting.

              We must agree to disagree.

              I believe they have left a door open, simply by not closing it and confirming they would never sign a C and S with Key. The word NEVER matters for me. (Hence my phrase about collusion if necessary. That does seem to be the only possible reason not to close the door 100% now. If there is another, please, I have been listening all day, and I’m still here.)

              Now, you are fine with that. I am not at this stage of this specific election. And if I can’t discuss it here, then where do you suggest ?

              The comments from you and Blip are very harsh imho and hardly called for, but that is your choice.

              • weka

                I’m going to take a break for a bit. I have already said that there is no problem with open discussion. I really feel like you are not listening to what I say, or not understanding it.

                I have asked you a number of quite specific questions. Can you please go back and answer them so I understand what you mean?

                btw, if BLiP and I are coming across as harsh, consider if we are usually like that, and what might make us like that today.

              • blue leopard

                +1 Yeshe,

                In the hope shedding some light on the subject of how much common ground we have, I suspect all in this discussion would agree with this picture I have just been shared on twitter:

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxTLrfpCYAAxHYA.png

                (Originally from FUN2014 @nzsaysfun)

    • BLiP 16.2

      Thanks weka.

      This Open Mike today is a disgrace. Have those here purporting to support the Greens really learned nothing from Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics over the last few weeks? Have they not read the dozens of statements from the Green Party leaders which been posted here in the last 24 hours? Have they not even bothered to read the Green Party’s own website which explains exactly what the position is and has been since 2011? Seriously, if people are not willing to make a personal effort to inform themselves from reliable sources about issues giving concern and instead bleat on and on about an blatant MSM dirty politics misdirection then . . . oh, I dunno, but WTF!!! Slater and his minions will be chortling themselves silly.

      /rant.

      • weka 16.2.1

        + a zillion. Have we really learned nothing?

      • yeshe 16.2.2

        Blip, assuming I am a ‘bleatee’, you should know I have read just about everything you mention.

        Today, for me anyway, It is not as crystal clear as you suggest, though I seriously wish it were. See my reply at 16.1

        “Disgrace” Open Mike .. what an odd thing to say. Open discussion only if it
        fits ? WTF yourself. You are better than that.

        /rant back.

        • weka 16.2.2.1

          The disgrace isn’t the open discussion, it’s that so many people here have believed Corin Dann’s smear over GP historical record of integrity and transparency, and appear to have accepted the MSM’s version so uncritically. Let’s not forget that Dann wasn’t the first one this week to start with the ‘GP will work with National’ meme. Have you thought about where Dann got his material from? Why aren’t we talking about that? Instead we’ve been diverted by a classic slatergate tactic.

          • yeshe 16.2.2.1.1

            weka .. I questioned immediately where Dann got it from. I talked about it last night. I AGREE WITH YOU FFS.

            yeshe 33.1.1
            11 September 2014 at 7:04 pm
            Thank you all — so is this just more dirty politics ? Greens are going to have to come out very cleanly and clearly .. repeating what Metiria has tweeted.

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

            • weka 16.2.2.1.1.1

              Fair enough. So why attack Norman and take part so fully in the shit storm that Dann created?

              • yeshe

                oh weka .. have a look at 16.1.1.2.1.1

                You can see last night I said their response needed to be clean and clear .. has it been today ? I don’t think so; you do.

                sorry, have to go now or else no food for weekend .. not running or hiding .. will be back in spite of the heat.

                • weka

                  So you are attacking Norman, and partaking of the Dann-created drama because the GP didn’t handle things as well as you would have liked? How does that work?

                  • yeshe

                    really ?

                    • weka

                      That’s not an answer. You seem unwiling to answer the questions I have asked in an attempt to gain clarity, so it’s hard to see what the point is in this conversation.

                    • yeshe

                      weka .. back from shopping … I have tried to fairly and honestly answer everything you have asked, with no personal attack. We just have to agree to disagree and you can accuse me of anything you wish. The level of personal attack and criticism on me because I dared to question what Russel Norman has said is edifying. Not much fun to end the week being accused of making Slater happy. Hi ho and all that.

                      Fwiw, I believe Norman screwed up; he is only human after all.
                      He also screwed up on the minor leaders’ debate on TVNZ late last week imho on the same issue. That was not edited, sound-bited and semantics from anyone except himself. Find it and watch again. The oddest is where he names Bill English as his favourite MP. And if you can find Corin Dann’s commentary there, it is likely where the MSM meme began as you ask below in another post.

                      That’s why I think Russel might have been vastly more cautious yesterday.

                      But that is simply my opinion, as yours is, and everyone else likewise. Democracy can win after all.

                      Maybe see you after the weekend, and I hope you have good one.

                    • yeshe

                      And then there is the news tonight on TVNZ and TV3.

                      qed

                      and I am outta here.

        • BLiP 16.2.2.2

          Here, let me ease your angst: if you don’t trust the Green Party, then don’t vote for it. Go find a party which has told less lies. Seek a party which has behaved more honourably in the House. Locate a party which which has sounder policies. Identify with a party which will say the exact words you wish for. Simple. Problem solved. If your dilemma is really that you find yourself unable to trust any political party, even the one you would most like to, then John Key and Cameron Slater have won.

          • weka 16.2.2.2.1

            Fucking excellent BLiP.

            To me this whole thing is about trust.

            • Tracey 16.2.2.2.1.1

              Labour was right in 2008…

                • Tracey

                  It campaigned on trust, and that we shouldnt trust National… They just couldnt prove it, and couldnt get past the expensive network used by the nats to create the illusion of trustworthiness

                  • Anne

                    It campaigned on trust, and that we shouldn’t trust National.

                    Interesting in this context that Helen Clark said at the time (in private of course) John Key is a liar. At the time, I doubt anybody who knew about it appreciated what she was saying. We do now.

            • greywarbler 16.2.2.2.1.2

              @ weka 2.11
              And throw in judgment. A thinking person knows that there are conflicting demands on policy and politicians. And that everyone is imperfect.

              But that some politicians aim to keep promises, and have achievable promises and explain how they will be good for all so that most people can agree with them. And then they set out soberly to do positive things that make life better for all in a practical and even a spiritual way.

              Looking for who doesn’t ever make an error, or say the wrong thing is a path to disillusion. Being in politics is about trying to please enough people so you can make honourable progress to get the power to achieve at least something worthwhile of your aims. And with nothing being perfect, it is a case of choosing the best our of what is offering, and if dissatisfied attempting to get a better offering.

              • weka

                very good gw.

                I need to go back and rewatch the piece from last night to see what Norman’s great sin has been, but I suspect it will simply be the case that he got shafted by Dann.

          • yeshe 16.2.2.2.2

            Thx Blip. I just wish it made me feel better. It doesn’t.

            • emergency mike 16.2.2.2.2.1

              BLiP is right yeshe, it comes down to whether you trust them or not. When have they ever done anything to make you think they are untrustworthy?

              The Greens have said that National’s policies are not compatible with theirs, that three more years of them would be bad for NZ. You’re getting caught up in semantics, and the same old making something out of nothing spin we’ve been spoonfed for years, by demanding ‘never’ instead of ‘highly unlikely’.

              No political leader is going to say that they will absolutely never team up with other party. Things can change, who knows about what a National party of the future might look like. Look at that dickhead John Key who not so long ago said there was no place for Winston in one of his govts. Now he looks like a bullshit artist who just says whatever crap he thinks sounds good at the time (not that he gives a shit).

              If you’re not mollified by any of the above arguments from others yeshe, throw this one on the barbie too: the Greens aren’t stupid. They know very well who their core support base is. And they thus know that it’s a core support base that vanish overnight, and not come back for a long, long time if they stabbed them in the back by signing a confidence and supply arrangement with National.

              Some of us remember 1996, when Winston spent his whole campaign spitting tacks about the failings and evils of the Bolger led National govt. He seemed to make it pretty damn clear that a vote for Winston was a vote to get rid of National. NZ First got 13% of the vote, Winston was the kingmaker. After weeks of grinning like an idiot and basking in unlimited media attention he finally signed a very sweet deputy PM deal with… National. Some say that was always his intention. At the next election Winston First got… 4% (And Green supporters aren’t the kind that can be later brought back into the fold with stunts, self-righteous self-promoting gossip, and timely cracks about Asians.)

              As others have pointed out the Greens don’t want power, they want change. And even in opposition they have been effective in achieving it. If Winston Peters was to say that a NZ First confidence and supply deal with National was ‘highly unlikely’ I’d have a wee chuckle along with him, but if Russel Norman says it about the the Greens, I believe him.

              As BLiP says, if it’s just not good enough for you because of a special message brought to you by Corin Dann, then go find yourself a party with more integrity than the Greens. Good luck with that. Or else just stay home on election day like Simon Lusk wants you to. Your choice.

              • yeshe

                Why do you want to believe I am seduced by something Corin Dann said ?

                Look back over everything I have written today ( I wouldn’t personally, but go for it !). My whole discussion, as a passionate and determined Green voter of years, has been around what Russel Norman did or rather, did not say, and not simply last night.

                FFS I DO NOT BELIEVE CORIN DANN, ok ?

                Nowhere in any TS posting by me could you ever imagine I would stay home and not vote, so your last para, as much of what Blip wrote, is patronising in the extreme, tho I appreciate the time you have taken to reply so thoughtfully.
                (There, was that patronising too ? You’re welcome.)

                Have a fine weekend, and may Monday bring us what we hope for.

                • yeshe

                  Dr Norman confirmation on ‘ language change’ tonight on TV3 News has assured my Green vote going elsewhere. Nothing more to say except that he needs to stop talking on the fly.

                  • The Al1en

                    The greens have a solid voter base and look like the only party, colin’s weirdos aside, that are in the election business of building their vote.
                    Now I wouldn’t know what was discussed at that top level meeting, but if labour not attracting anywhere near the third of the vote needed to form a government, forcing us to opposition again came up, with more mps, I hope they decided to all out go for as many votes as possible from all sides of the spectrum and keep going onwards and upwards until they win.

                    I’m an old red with green blood and I have full confidence in MT RN and the party, so still very much party vote green.

                  • karol

                    It’s hard to tell what’s going on because there’s so much of Sabin’s spin in their. OK, I think I’m kind of getting it. The Greens are wanting to exert their influence (and independence) because they see their poll results give them an increasing mandate to be in government.

                    And they are pushing for more votes.

                    Also an eye on NRT Tweeting from a Hager talk in Palmerston north. ontent of some of his tweets:

                    Hager: journos had a deep, morbid fear of right having dirt on them

                    Hager: some people (nats) not sorry to see turnout go down

                    Hager: every meeting he meets new casualties of #dirtypolitics . ordinary people smeared for speaking out

                    Hager: solutions to #dirtypolitics : public-service media, independent commentators, participation</blockquote.

                    I do find Turei is giving more definite and clear statements than Norman. She just tweeted:

                    Morning telly aye, good for clear statements. Let’s change this bloody government already! http://fb.me/3U0usBSSc

                    The linked 3 News morning report says this:

                    “We intend to grow and the faster we grow, the bigger we grow [and] the more influence we have,” co-leader Metiria Turei told Firstline this morning.

                    “But it is really pleasing to see the poll results. It’s clear to see that more and more New Zealanders are wanting to vote for the Greens.”
                    […]
                    Dr Norman says the Greens’ still want to form a government with Labour, but as his party’s poll ratings increase he’s emphasising its independence.

                    “We’re a strong party, an independent party, and we’re campaigning for every vote we can get,” he says.
                    […]
                    “We will increase our influence, I think, with any government we are part of and the stronger our influence the more likely we can take it in a new direction,” says Ms Turei.

                    In between these assertive statements from the Greens, 3 News editorialises, making it all about Labour being weak in the polls – they use statements like “The Greens are believed…”

                    It is just as likely to be that Greens are wanting to assert themselves because Labour is under-rating them.

                    If some people shift their votes from greens to IMP or Labour, that doesn’t seem a problem to me in the overall scheme of things. If any of these parties grow their votes among non-voters, it’s a win for us all.

                    I will be voting Greens based on their policies, their values, processes, their experience, their people, and their track record. One or two TV appearances, accompanied by a load of spin, are not likely to change my vote.

                • emergency mike

                  Sigh. I didn’t imply that you said anything about not voting, nor did I imply that I thought you might do that. I was simply laying out your options for argumentative effect.

                  However I did see you say that you, ‘a passionate and determined Green voter of years’, will not be voting for the Greens this time unless Russel Norman makes a statement with the exact wording that you require. Even though what he did say has been the Green’s position forever – they will work with whoever where they agree on policy. Even though Turei, who is the co-leader has said they are 100% committed to changing the govt because National cannot be trusted with the country’s books.

                  That’s not good enough for a passionate and determined Green voter?

                  Espiner was demanding that Norman tell us about the contents of Green party private strategy discussions, about how they position themselves against a rival: Labour. Note the word private in that sentence.

                  Just for fun, I just had a look at the two related articles on the TVNZ and TV3 websites.

                  TV3: Green Party hints at independence

                  “As their chances of getting into government with Labour appear to be slipping away, the Green Party is looking to run a more independent campaign.

                  Co-leader Russel Norman denies there’s a significant strategy change, but admits senior members met on Thursday night to discuss the situation.”

                  Hints at independence?! What like they think they are they’re own party or something? The ‘situation’ is never specified. The article goes on to reckon that the Greens want to to get even more votes (omg), and that they want people to know that the Labour party doesn’t own them. And Winston thinks it’s ‘out of left field’. Nice pun Winnie!

                  TVNZ: Greens eye radical change days before election

                  Over here TVNZ agree that the Green’s are quietly trying to (omg) get more votes! In a massive scoop one of their puffed up little shits manages to get Russel Norman on video saying revealing things like “Well, that’s really an issue for Labour,” and “We’ve worked with National on particular issues, and we might do so again in the future.” Which means that a whole news segment of what ifs gets slapped together with the nostalgic whif of the good old days when going on about the ‘divided left’ was de rigueur. Ah, smell that pre-Slatergate air…

                  Meanwhile on Stuff, it looks like Key has turned the poor bastards down anyway: John Key Nixes Deal With Greens

                  “”They have fundamentally said they are not going to make it, and my view is that they are trying to get clear air between Labour and themselves.”

                  He said the Greens were trying to “assert themselves” over Labour.

                  “I think rather than they have all of sudden found a resurgent belief in what National is doing … what they are doing is not trying to get closer to National; they are trying to get further away from Labour,” he said.”

                  Gosh it’s uncanny how the words that come out of John Key’s mouth sound so much like the narrative that TVNZ and TV3 were pushing. Like it’s coordinated or something.

                  We’ve been here before folks. It’s called bullshit.

    • Tracey 16.3

      Thanks Weka.

      I got the first email but not this one.

      I dont see how they can be clearer than this and their past actions support this position.

  15. McFlock 17

    I guess that I should formally announce that I might vote National next week, although it’s highly unlikely.

    If, between now and then, they renounce the past 6 years and put forward a comprehensive social democratic policy platform, and at least half a dozen current ministers report themselves to the police for various shenanigans (currently exposed or unexposed), and another few dozen mps resign permanently from all politics, then I might vote for a National party that has more left wing policy than IMP/Green/Labour. If they could convince me they meant it.

    It’s just pretty bloody highly unlikely.

    • greywarbler 17.1

      @McFlock 1.50
      Roger Whittaker tells us that If is an illusion
      If is for children building daydreams.

    • emergency mike 17.2

      “If they could convince me they meant it.”

      Even if they did all you say I’m actually struggling to conceive of a possible universe where they’d be able to convince me of that at this point.

      I f would consider voting, of my own free will, for National if… Cameron Slater found an 11 year old letter that Cunliffe forgot about… if Stuff tells me it’s all over bar the shouting… if a Chinese businessman bought a $100,000 bottle of wine from Labour that no one can find any record of.

      Nope, it’s not working.

      • McFlock 17.2.1

        Indeed.

        I suspect the greens have a similar assessment of the likelihood of the nats meeting a suitable threshold to obtain C&S support over the holidays.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.3

      😆 😈

  16. weka 18

    Does anyone remember the sources of the ‘the GP will/should work with National’ meme from earlier in the week?

    Puddleglum posted the Armstrong one. There’s also a comment from Wayne about this somewhere. But I think there was more. Anyone?

  17. joe90 19

    I suppose we’ll find out how deep those pockets are now blubber boy’s a journalist.

    http://www.donotlink.com/blhy

    • yeshe 19.1

      now I need to vomit.

    • greywarbler 19.2

      I think the judgment about Pretorius is out now too. Strangely the cases seem connected in my mind despite the many differences.

      Possibly the deeply troubled would say that after Slater has been admitted to the august realm of NZ journalism the average IQ of dem dere journalists has been raised.

    • mickysavage 19.3

      I reckon Slater lost.

      The argument was that he was a journalist AND that the source should be protected. The Amicus Curae argued that he was a journalist (well sort of) but that the public interest did not justify the protection of his source. Slater has not mentioned this second argument in his post.

      I reckon he lost and he is trying to pretend otherwise.

      • Tracey 19.3.1

        Mickey

        Does that mean the same applies to apn et al, and slater could force them to give up what they know about the identity of rawshark?

        • mickysavage 19.3.1.1

          Different circumstances and APN et al are much more professional but there is power under section 68(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to order disclosure and interrogatories to be answered even if journalist’s privilege applies.

          • karol 19.3.1.1.1

            3 News article just up:

            Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater is a journalist, but he won’t be able to protect his sources over an attack on an Auckland businessman as the story wasn’t in the public interest, a judge has ruled.
            […]
            Justice Raynor Asher found that while criticisms could be made of Slater’s style and modus operandi, Whale Oil is not of such low quality that it is not reporting news.

            “The style of journalism may be criticised and can be dramatic and abusive, but the style is vigorous and coherent, and there is no evidence provided to this court of consistent inaccuracy or deceit (although there is evidence of consistent hyperbole).”

            Although Whale Oil was considered journalism Slater still has to disclose his sources because the case wasn’t in the public interest, the sources weren’t whistleblowers, and the case had the mark of a “private feud”, Justice Asher said.to

            • lprent 19.3.1.1.1.1

              Cool. That was the verdict I was anticipating after watching it in court.

              Hey, author / journalists. All you have to do to be a journo is to have some mates willing to violate the law (including privacy laws) and allow you to make news from stolen information. You won’t be forced to disclose your sources *unless* it is a private vendetta that is not in the public interest.

              I’d guess that now Cameron is left with the unenviable task of proving the public knowing his collusion with Collins, Key, Ede and other ministers and MPs was not in the public interest (despite the reek of corruption and people abusing their positions) *and* that Hager was on a vendetta against him… Then he too can find out rawshark.

              But in the meantime, I’m looking forward to Cameron Slater either going to jail for refusing to give up his source. Or (more likely) he cringes all the way to the court and Matthew Blomfield to give up the person(s) who most likely paid him to run a vendetta against him.

              Popcorn pleeze…

              • karol

                Heh. And Slater’s been ordered to pay costs:

                The justice said the blog published by Slater “are extreme and vindictive and have the hallmarks of a private feud.”

                Justice Asher also states that the sources used by Slater came “hard-drive and other documents (that) appear to have been obtained illegitimately.”

                Slater has therefore been ordered to comply with discovery requirements in the substantive defamation hearing ahead and must pay Blomfield’s costs.

          • ianmac 19.3.1.1.2

            Can Slater use the judgement for his own purposes against any enquiry relating to Dirty Tricks?
            Or can he now claim journalist confidentiality regarding the source of his info from Key’s lot? Hope not.

            • Sans Cle 19.3.1.1.2.1

              I think not….from Herald’s initial report, it says:
              ‘justice Raynor Asher said the definition of a journalist under the Evidence Act could include a blogger…..the judge said that Slater was a journalist and could invoke source protection under the Evidence Act. However, the judge also granted orders sought by Blomfield that this section of the law not apply to to Slater in this case. There was a public interest in the disclosure of the identity of Slater’s informants, Judge Asher said. “There is a real public interest in those who claim that they are defamed being able to fully explore the circumstances of the defamation…” the judge said. This is not a whistle blower case and it seemed the information was obtained illegally by sources, which diminished the importance of protecting them, the judge said’

      • McFlock 19.3.2

        lol
        so he gets to call himself a journo, but still might have to say how he got the proerty?

        • mickysavage 19.3.2.1

          And Slater lost. He has been ordered to give up information about his sources …

          “Although Whale Oil was considered journalism Slater still has to disclose his sources because the case wasn’t in the public interest, the sources weren’t whistleblowers, and the case had the mark of a “private feud”, Justice Asher said.

          “Any public interest in protecting sources must be further diminished when there is evidence that a personal vendetta appears to be driving the disclosures,” he said.

          http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8904982/whale-oil-a-journalist-judge-says

      • Te Reo Putake 19.3.3

        Yep, it’s a loss alright. The court has decided his own behaviour removes the protection normally afforded journalists to protect their sources. And the judgement makes it clear that the same thing wouldn’t apply to Hager/Rawshark as they can clearly be seen to be acting in the public interest.

        btw, it amuses me that so many folk seem to think that things that are in ‘the public interest’ are the same as things that ‘interest the public’.

      • Sans Cle 19.4.1

        Thanks! Strike one for integrity and freedom against persecution from tyrannical scary bloggers…….I feel a change is definitely coming.
        Disgusting that the Herald tried to smother this story with a non-story on Len Brown. I swear, the Herald is WORSE than the English Daily Mail.

  18. and pregnant women should stay away from that white-death/calf-food…milk..

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11323442

    • The Al1en 20.1

      Worry not from the scare monger headlining mothers to be, some pregnant women who drink lots of milk may have an iron deficiency. Yes, that’s all, a lack of iron.

      Solution: Still drink your calcium rich, osteoporosis busting milk, the supermarkets stock them with vitamins, or you can eat loads of iron rich food.

      Very good sources of heme iron, with 3.5 milligrams or more per serving, include:
      Bearing in mind certain Seafood and Fish with high mercury levels.

      3 ounces of beef or chicken liver
      3 ounces of clams, mollusks, or mussels
      3 ounces of oysters
      Good sources of heme iron, with 2.1 milligrams or more per serving, include:

      3 ounces of cooked beef
      3 ounces of canned sardines, canned in oil
      3 ounces of cooked turkey
      Other sources of heme iron, with 0.7 milligrams or more per serving, include:

      3 ounces of chicken
      3 ounces of halibut, haddock, perch, salmon, or tuna
      3 ounces of ham
      3 ounces of veal

      • phillip ure 20.1.1

        factcheck:..

        ..milk leaches calcium from the body..

        ..which explains all the lots-of-dairy eating people..

        ..with calcium deficiencies..

        ..go figure..!

        • The Al1en 20.1.1.1

          Factcheck – 🙄 😆

          You just keep your flawed facts to yourself and stop scaremongering to pregnant women.

          • phillip ure 20.1.1.1.1

            ‘scaremongering’..?..go and read the link..idiot..!

            ..and any other questions/doubts you have..

            ..let google be yr friend..

            ..and just because the peddlers of this crap..

            ..have been telling bullshit/lies since forever about the ‘health-qualities’ of their product..

            ..doesn’t make it so..

            ..we have been suckered…

            • The Al1en 20.1.1.1.1.1

              Believe years of health advice bull shit or a embittered nobody-come-lately bull shit stirrer with a grudge? Tough call.

              Used sick kids for pro pot message, now scaring pregnant women from drinking milk. Who’s next with your selective supporting ‘data’ as fact checker extraordinaire?

              “idiot..!”
              😆

            • The Al1en 20.1.1.1.1.2

              “pregnant women should stay away from that white-death”
              “‘scaremongering’..?..go and read the link..”

              “The study published in the New Zealand Medical Journal found seven per cent of New Zealand newborns are iron deficient, and established iron stores are lower in babies whose mothers consumed three or more servings of milk per day during their pregnancy.

              “While milk is an important source of calcium it is a poor source of iron,” said Associate Professor Cameron Grant, a paediatrician at Starship Children’s Hospital and the senior author of the paper.”

              So it’s not dangerous then doc? And 93% of women and kids are fine? Phew!

              Believe it or not, in the old days before fetal alcohol syndrome, Brit mums in waiting drank a bottle of stout to boost their iron count. Thank goodness now it’s just have a juicy steak or pill.

              • Draco T Bastard

                While milk is an important source of calcium

                See, that is actually a lie. It’s a source but not a particularly important one and taking too much if it is damaging to your bones. And possibly your children.

            • The Al1en 20.1.1.1.2.1

              That came up in my own earlier google search too, among others, but I read “as long as you get enough calcium from other sources.” to be relevant, and parallel to folic acid in bread. A lot of people don’t eat healthily, especially on low incomes, so for some milk is a vital, if not the only source of calcium.
              I’m not a flat earther and don’t deny science – Milk is naturally leached from bones to help digest and pass meat. Drinking it isn’t bad for you. it’s not a poison or death juice, so panic over.

              Anyway, I’ve drunk it since I was a baby and I’ve never had a broken a bone in 47 years.

              Edit:
              I just did a test and fell over on each hip, twice.
              Good as gold. Bonehard.

              • Draco T Bastard

                A lot of people don’t eat healthily, especially on low incomes, so for some milk is a vital, if not the only source of calcium.

                Which increases the unhealthy diet. Much better to go for leafy greens than milk which are usually quite cheap and taste better.

                The problem we have with bad diets is often due to ignorance and a lot of that ignorance is being told, through advertising, that something’s good for us when it really isn’t. Milk certainly fits that pattern.

  19. Weepus beard 21

    Too much to ask that instead of bickering we unite against a common enemy?

    • ianmac 21.1

      Hear hear Weepus. Go Green/Labour/and even NZF.
      The un-Right Key lot is the enemy! Fire! Fire! Fire!

      • Weepus beard 21.1.1

        Yeah, well it is disappointing that the leaders of these two parties seem unwilling to show the way for their supporters in terms of a united front. I can’t see what is so hard about it.

        Ok, so Metiria Turei today reiterated that their preference is to form a new government with Labour but, like Russell Norman’s language, it was hardly stake in the ground stuff.

        Likewise, David Cunliffe hardly mentions what would be vital Green participation in any new and socially just government.

        It reminds me of the cricketer who is more interested in personal stats than the success of the team.

        Unfortunately this plays into the hands of the dirty and socially unjust National government.

      • Weepus beard 21.1.2

        Case in point:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10492794/John-Key-nixes-deal-with-Greens

        Senior staff from both parties talked today, and he was given “reassurances” that the Greens had “every intention of working co-operatively in a Labour-led government”.

        That’s nice, but how about really pushing that message to your supporters from the start? I’m no strategist but surely that would go further to consolidating and growing the confidence of the left vote than this odd idea that there exist a horde of supposed “blue-green” voters ready to usher in a new government at the last minute.

        I mean, “blue-green”? Contradiction in terms, innit?

    • greywarbler 21.2

      @ Weepus beard 2.50
      No! We have got to find distractions to argue over. Many of us are stressed, liverish and on edge and sick of NZ politics. As the saying goes –
      The moment for calm and rational reasoning has passed. Now is the time for senseless bickering.
      Hah. So true. Now back to the travail of facing an election which we hope will yield fruit, even if it is not the low-hanging kind.

  20. Lisa 22

    Great idea for generating interest in your site.Smart Kids

  21. ianmac 23

    “Dita De Boni: Let’s hear it for the lobbyists.” A wicked, wicked column you naughty girl Dita!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11322818

    • bearded git 23.1

      lol, superb, but far to subtle for many National voters who will believe it and vote for the man they love (clues-mate of slater, employed person in his office to carry out dirty politics) with the fetchingly thinning hair.

      Where is Jason Ede?

      • Sans Cle 23.1.1

        Yes, some of the comments to article were very funny, from Nat supporters who just didn’t get it! Rofl! They commended her! Own Goal!

  22. b waghorn 24

    Why don’t labour and greens just except it and become one party , bound to happen in the end.

    • Draco T Bastard 24.1

      No, I think present trajectory shows a declining Labour that will give way to Greens as the main Left party with IMP building up over time. Eventually, Labour will be recognised as the centre-right party that it is.

  23. karol 25

    So everyone has a view on what Norman, and or the Greens were saying last night.

    But, however it’s viewed a Nat-Green coalition ain’t gonna happen. They just don’t have anything in common.

    This afternoon, Andrea Vance wrote:

    Prime Minister John Key has ruled out any post-election deal with the Greens, saying the party’s “home” is with Labour.

    The Greens signalled yesterday that they may be open to a memorandum of understanding with National similar to that struck in 2011.

    It was interpreted as a move to distance itself from Labour, after more dire poll results, and appeal to blue-green voters.

    The Greens had no intention of supporting National with a confidence and supply agreement.

    Key has his view of what was said last night – It’s cause Labour is polling too badly

    Cunliffe has a view

    Senior staff from both parties talked today, and he was given “reassurances” that the Greens had “every intention of working co-operatively in a Labour-led government”.

    “I think [Greens co-leader Russel Norman] has obviously got his reasons for saying what he said, but I think we can put that into perspective,” Cunliffe said.

    “He is a minor party chasing the votes from a particular set of voters.

    “We understand that. If they can pick up a few of the votes for the Centre-Left, then that would be great.”

    And, as far as the MSM goes, which is all for The Game, it’s really about the latest poll -. And Key & the Nats are slipping.

    • Bill 25.1

      The Key and Nats are slipping, aye. But did you hear the take on TVNZ this morning? Apparently the Greens are distancing themselves from ‘the sinking ship’…ie, Labour. Unreal.

      • karol 25.1.1

        Oh, and now the Herald seems to be headlining a breaking non-story about Len Brown, Bevan Chuang and an OIA that, so far at least, shows nothing.

    • yeshe 25.2

      well karol, I guess everyone will also have a view on Russel Norman on TV3 News just now. I won’t express mine, I’m sure you will understand.

      • karol 25.2.1

        Well, I’m not keen on Norman’s hesitances. But Sabin was also beating it up as the Greens being negative about the polls.

        Really, It’s the Nats that should be worried about slipping in the polls.

        • blue leopard 25.2.1.1

          So why is Russel saying things that helps feed a notion/ leave the impression that it is Labour in trouble.

          🙁 🙁 🙁

          • Karen 25.2.1.1.1

            I have now spoken to a number of people on the left who are really angry with Russel for not absolutely refusing to work with the Nats. The Greens have just lost a number of party votes in order to get a few Blue Greens.

            As a result of Russel Norman, and whoever in the Green Party thought this was a good idea, David Cunliffe has had to spend all day denying that the Greens have given up on Labour. He should have been able to talk about the decline in National support.

            So thanks, Russell – can I have my donation back now? There are left wing parties that could do with it.

            • karol 25.2.1.1.1.1

              Looking at the various articles and news reports today (Andrea Vance, 3 News), it was never about the Greens contemplating going into a coalition with the Nats.

              It’s about the Greens wanting the influence in a Labour government that they believe they should get because of their consistent strong polling, and because they believe they can have a big influecne in changing the direction of NZ’s governance..

              The journos are trying to make it about Labour’s stagnation in the polls, when the bigger story (that they are diverting from) is about the Key/Nats looking to be sliding.

              The Greens are making statements about their intent, the journos are weaving their spin into it about it being because Labour is weak.

              I don’t see any problem if Labour and/or IMP pick up votes as a result.

              In the end, it’s about working together to change the government, the policies and the style of politics in NZ.

              The Greens are in a unusual position in this election, being medium sized party. they feel they should have more influence than some of the 1-5% parties. But they don’t get a look into the major leaders’ debate.

              Whether or not they have done it well, I think they are aiming to exert their independence because they have a tendency to be under-rated in the wider scheme of things.

              • blue leopard

                @ Karen,

                Oh dear, that is just what I was fearing. The only possible silver lining is that what Russel is saying picks up more votes than it loses.

                @ Karol, Thanks, that makes more sense than I could make of wtf Norman is up to!

                I don’t think this is very skilful at all though. His comments are more than saying he wants more influence with Labour when it is National he is talking about working with.

                • karol

                  That was last night. It hasn’t been the lines he’s quoted as saying today.

                  I took from Turei’s tweet tonight, that she thought Norman was more clear in this morning’s 3 News report than in tonight’s one. But even then, the 3 News journo was spinning a lot and adding stuff they someone (who?) believes, which were focused much more on Labour’s poll result.

                  • blue leopard

                    Hmm, perhaps they have the full interview with Russel somewhere online?

                    I just don’t think Norman is playing this skilfully, however, the Greens are usually pretty onto it – so can’t quite understand this one. Perhaps we just have to wait and see if there are any further developments – might be just a storm in a teacup.

                    I accept that the media are talking it up – but it is the words coming out of Norman’s mouth that is disturbing me 😐

                    • KJT

                      I have now been through the whole lot. Russell is simply restating Green policy for the last 6 years.

                      I can’t see anywhere it can be read into it that Greens are going to support National in Government. That would require a National policy about face of the magnitude of Labours in 1984. Extremely unlikely.

                      It is a Green position that we will work with anyone on policy that advances a more sustainable society and economy.

                    • blue leopard

                      Where have I said I think the Greens are going to support a National government???

                      This is simply not what I have been discussing.

                    • karol

                      Actually, just looking at this 3 News interview with Metiria from this morning, it’s interesting that the 6pm evening news is going with comments by Norman.

                      Turei responds to questions about working with National by emphatically saying the Greens are committed to changing the government. She then talks strongly about Greens policy.

                      Maybe it was just that Sabin asked Norman about Labour’s poll share, and he couldn’t say anything much about it as being positive, because it is a fairly low poll share for them.

                      It seems to me that the MSM are just out to undermine Labour-Green at this stage.

                    • Ergo Robertina

                      I agree blue; like any story it’s framed, but Russel is feeding it. By rights eight days from an election a party co-leader should of course be bullish and energetic, talking up Labour Green chances, not countenancing any other outcome.
                      Norman’s given up on Labour, and is venting some pent-up resentment about Labour’s stupid decision not to agree to the joint campaign.
                      He knows a third term Nat Govt is not going to enter into an MOU with the Greens anyway – there is real antipathy between the parties now – but that isn’t really the point.

                    • blue leopard

                      Cheers Robertina (& Karol) ,one can’t help starting to wonder whether one is not going slightly mad when everyone starts disagreeing and misinterpreting one’s comments 😉 …think I’ll quickly exit while its gone quiet…..

                    • yeshe

                      sweet dreams, blue leopard. funny and strange day it has been.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Norman’s given up on Labour, and is venting some pent-up resentment about Labour’s stupid decision not to agree to the joint campaign.

                      This is an assessment which had some value IMO. Labour’s campaign architects are stuck in a very conservative 1990’s gearing. When Labour still had a hope of hitting 40% at the polls.

                    • blue leopard

                      Aww Yeshe, thanks – you made me laugh! 😀

                    • blue leopard

                      +100 Yeshe Brilliant 😀

            • weka 25.2.1.1.1.2

              “I have now spoken to a number of people on the left who are really angry with Russel for not absolutely refusing to work with the Nats.”

              If you have been reading this thread, you will now be able to tell those people that Norman doesn’t make the rules for the GP, the membership decided on how to position the party (in 2011 and this was confirmed again this year).

              Also, Norman has quite clearly stated that the GP will not give C and S to National after the election. Why does that not suffice? Or are you suggesting that the GP not work on policy issues with National as well?

          • weka 25.2.1.1.2

            “So why is Russel saying things that helps feed a notion/ leave the impression that it is Labour in trouble.”

            bl, can you please give a specific quote and the linked context? I haven’t seen Norman doing that, but I might have missed some things.

            • blue leopard 25.2.1.1.2.1

              It is the way he is wittering on about working with a National government!!!! This provides the idea that the stupid clowns will get in again – right at a time when National’s polls are [finally] plummeting. i.e Why speak about National getting? Easy to conclude ‘because Labour is in trouble’ (or the left). It would be better to be emphasizing the plummeting polls National are currently experiencing at this point in time.

              Also this has occurred after Labour recently announced the new government will be made up between Labour, the Greens and NZ First – a veritable endorsement for the Greens, is being responded to by this rubbish from Norman.

              The first time I heard Norman say things about working with National was on a minor debate with the leaders. The one on TV One.

              • KJT

                Yeah. Repeating what has been Green policy since 2011.

                We will work with any party to advance Green policies such as house insulation.

                Anything more is just the spin and BS that people read into it. I thought you were better than that, BL?

                • blue leopard

                  Nah, there is a lot of context to consider. Please read all the comments I have made on this thread* prior to jumping in and implying negative things about me, thanks.

                  (*I am not repeating myself, have spent too much time on this topic today as it is)

                  • weka

                    I have read all of them, and sorry mate but you are not making much sense. I asked for a specific quote of Norman making a statement that that leaves the impression that Labour is in trouble. Link or it didn’t happen. Everything else is your interpretation and spin.

                    “The first time I heard Norman say things about working with National was on a minor debate with the leaders. The one on TV One.”

                    Have you voted for the GP before? Do you realise they had a formal agreement with Nation in 2008? Are you aware of the policy gains they have achieved during a National govt? Do you have a problem with that? Do you want Norman to lie about it?

                    I can’t believe that after all that has been said today there is still confusion over what is meant by ‘working with’.

                    • blue leopard

                      I directed you to where to go, Weka. TV ones minor party leaders debate. It is also very clear that it has been on both channel one and 3 news last night and tonight I watched both and wouldn’t be able to remember which one was the most dodgy to watch – I would say watch both.

                      Bit disingenuous of you to stipulate a link or these comments don’t exist. Is it too much effort to find the site yourself?

                      No, I do not know about the inner workings of the Green party, nor do hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.

                      I’ve said my bit in rather a lot of detail elsewhere in the thread. I am sorry you can’t understand what I write, I have attempted to be quite specific on this subject, yet you continue to ask questions unrelated to the specific concerns I have expressed.

                      So be it.

                    • weka

                      “Is it too much effort to find the site yourself?”

                      Actually yes. I watched the TV bit from last night, and listened to RNZ this morning, and I can’t pick which bits you are referring too. Plus I am on limited broadband data and can’t afford to just watch a whole lot of stuff on a hunt for something you should be able to point to fairly easily. All I am asking for is a specific quote to support what you ahve said. If Norman has been doing this as much as you say that shouldn’t be too hard.

                    • weka

                      “I’ve said my bit in rather a lot of detail elsewhere in the thread. I am sorry you can’t understand what I write, I have attempted to be quite specific on this subject, yet you continue to ask questions unrelated to the specific concerns I have expressed.”

                      I asked you some very specific questions, which you haven’t answered. So I’m not accepting that my this is about my not understanding you. I’ll ask again – have you voted GP before, and did you know that the GP has worked with National in the past?

                    • blue leopard

                      @ Weka I did answer the relevant questions, 😯 Please read again.

                      lol re broadband, actually that is my problem too – I am on limited and expensive broadband too! 🙁
                      I only heard those comments on the two news programs. I didn’t read them hence no links to written articles. Doing a google search “russel norman will work with National” leads to mainly TV and radio items. It was the TV ones I am basing my responses on.

                      One thing that I didn’t realise though – I could have sworn that I heard the Greens categorically state that they wouldn’t work with National in the last election – I went looking for that and all I can find is the the same as is currently occurring. This was one reason for my surprise at Norman’s comments – I thought they had shifted their stance from last election (was it 2008 election, perhaps, where they stated they wouldn’t work with National? I distinctly remember it – I did find an article saying they had changed their stance at some point, so it must have been the 2008 election)

                      Anyway, here are two links that won’t cost much data:

                      re One News item

                      Bryan Bruce’s comments on this topic

                    • weka

                      One thing that I didn’t realise though – I could have sworn that I heard the Greens categorically state that they wouldn’t work with National in the last election – I went looking for that and all I can find is the the same as is currently occurring. This was one reason for my surprise at Norman’s comments – I thought they had shifted their stance from last election (was it 2008 election, perhaps, where they stated they wouldn’t work with National? I distinctly remember it – I did find an article saying they had changed their stance at some point, so it must have been the 2008 election)

                      This is what makes me thing you haven’t understood what a number of us have been saying in the past day. Or maybe you didn’t believe us? The GP adopted a position prior to the 2011 election. Here’s the link again. It lays out pretty clearly the situation.

                      https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-greens-could-support-labour-national-unlikely

                      Prior to that, in 2009 the GP had a MoU with National (no C and S). Despite some policy gains, the overall thing didn’t work out, I think it lapsed, and then it wasn’t renewed after the 2011 election.

                      You are still using the term ‘work with’ ambiguously and confusingly. I really wish you would stop doing that and instead be clear whether you mean work with, or whether you mean prop up/enable/C and S etc. The GP has ‘worked with’ National over a number of years without supporting them to be govt. This is still their position. See here,

                      https://home.greens.org.nz/history-green-party#toc-2008

                    • blue leopard

                      Yes Weka,

                      I have noted that I certainly got that bit wrong about what stance the Greens had taken in the last election.

                      That does affect my take, somewhat, on what they are doing now, but not completely. As I have been saying all day, it is about the timing and what has been going on with this election, that has made it come across as questionable. (as well as what I incorrectly recalled their stance being in the last election)

                      I thought that you had said earlier you weren’t that impressed with the way they were handling it, and I thought at that point we were basically agreeing. That was my main bone of contention. Yet an argument starts up again?

                      I jumped in because those who were expressing concern over what Russel was saying were not having their concerns addressed they starting to be attacked and clearly those attacking were not actually hearing what was causing the discontent – rather preferring to continue with repetitive responses that didn’t actually answer the concerns at all. Then attacks started up when the poorly aimed responses didn’t have the desired effect. This attacking isn’t necessary when the people involved are all actually on the same side and expressing concerns in good faith.

                      These responses made it seem like a few of you were in denial about anything being at all dubious with what Norman was saying and that it was all being made up by the media. The media were not making up what Norman was saying at all. People needn’t be attacked for trying to understand something that appears odd to them.

                      As you say, this is the stance the Greens have taken for a while – others may still prefer a harder line this year. Or some still may feel it is not excellent for the Greens to have started in on this message at a time when National are just starting to fall in the polls. I don’t think people should be accused of right wing smearing for concluding something different from another leftwinger – we have a lot of parties to choose from after all. People who are sincerely trying to understand something shouldn’t be attacked for doing so. That is simply unhelpful.

                      Rather than attacking others claiming that they are not understanding what you are saying, it might pay to ensure you are taking time to ensure you are understanding the other.

                      Did you read the Bryan Bruce article I linked to? He fairly well sums up where I have been coming from.

                    • weka

                      “As I have been saying all day, it is about the timing and what has been going on with this election, that has made it come across as questionable. (as well as what I incorrectly recalled their stance being in the last election)”

                      RIght. But where you and I appear to disagree is that I believe the timing was orchestrated by the VRWC, or at best by the MSM shit stirring, and that Norman was simply responding to that and had no control over the timing. You and others appear to think that the GP was responsible for the timing. Is that right?

                      “I thought that you had said earlier you weren’t that impressed with the way they were handling it, and I thought at that point we were basically agreeing. That was my main bone of contention. Yet an argument starts up again?”

                      You assumed that the reasons for not being impressed were the same. I don’t think they were. I think the GP should have sent an email out to its membership (afaik it hasn’t), and done a press release. I don’t hold Norman responsible for creating the mess, wherease others appear to either think him co-culpable or mostly to blame. I’m in two minds about how he has handled the interviews. The ones I saw/heard seemed reasonable to me, but I haven’t seen most of the ones from yesterdat.

                      “I jumped in because those who were expressing concern over what Russel was saying were not having their concerns addressed they starting to be attacked and clearly those attacking were not actually hearing what was causing the discontent – rather preferring to continue with repetitive responses that didn’t actually answer the concerns at all.”

                      Here’s how I remember it. The TVNZ piece happened, and people started posting things about the GP that were at best misleading and and at worst outright factually wrong. This continued over time and many posts, so yeah, some of us got pissed off at not being listened to on the facts.

                      It’s true that with yeshe I didn’t stop and respond to their obvious emotional distress. That was largely because the basis of their distress that they were presenting was wrong (ie the GP might support National after the election). I appreciate some people were very upset, but I don’t think it’s my job to help people resolve that when they aren’t listening to people who know what they are talking about.

                      “Then attacks started up when the poorly aimed responses didn’t have the desired effect.”

                      I think you are really off here with your assessment of what happened. Yes, later there were some harsh posts, but the earlier ones were not attacks and were reasonable. See this exchange, one of my earlier ones with yeshe,

                      weka 5.1.1.5
                      12 September 2014 at 9:21 am

                      “Whatever dirty politics’ role in this, Russel Norman is not correcting it and I think it very unwise.”

                      Actually he is. See the RNZ audio now linked in a couple of places.

                      Reply

                      yeshe 5.1.1.5.1
                      12 September 2014 at 9:36 am

                      Thx Weka .. like I said, I am no longer voting early. But it’s going to take more than just “unlikely” to get me back.

                      I can not vote for anyone who could end up in any arrangement with this filthy bunch of corrupt and treasonous bastards.

                      Sorry to take up this much space this morning .. but I am gutted by Norman’s statements. ( Including his Bill English favourite politician number last week.)

                      Note that I quote yeshe and directly address what they said about Norman. Yeshe replies and largely ignores what I have said, or reduces it to a single word and competely ignores everything else Norman said. They don’t come back and check out what I mean when I think that Norman was correcting the RW spin. Instead they carry on with the same theme that went through the whole debate – that the GP might form govt with National after the election. Which was untrue and had been pointed out such. I have no idea if they even listened to the audio, or what they thought of Norman’s statements, or even what they thought of my comment. Really poor communication.

                      That was a very common pattern yesterday. Me picking up on things that were being posted about what was happening, replying to them and often correcting facts (using links), and those things being ignored. This happened to other people too. Over and over.

                      Under other circumstances that would all have been annoying but whatever. What took it right over the edge was the context of Dirty Politics and the inability of people to place blame in the right place. Norman was blamed repeatedly for not just his responses but for causing the whole drama. That focussing on Norman instead of Dirty Politics is exactly what the VRWC wants. It’s no wonder that later BliP came along and called the thread a disgrace.

                      So yeah, feelings were running high, all round, but I’m not going to be held responsible for other people’s distress when their distress was largely based on misunderstanding that they were unwilling to correct.

                      “This attacking isn’t necessary when the people involved are all actually on the same side and expressing concerns in good faith.”

                      Yeah, nah. This is a political forum, and it’s an unspoken ground rule to get facts right. I feel like I’ve onlu recently had an acknowledgement from you that you were wrong in your understanding about the GP. I’m actually gobsmacked that this debate went on for so long. By all means ignore me, but there were people posting here that are actively involved in the GP and were also being ignored. All that had to happen was to stop and engage with what they were saying.

                      “As you say, this is the stance the Greens have taken for a while – others may still prefer a harder line this year.”

                      Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If you think the timing of all this was off, you can’t now say that this is an ok time to want the GP to be different. The time to prefer a harder line was well before the AGM when the stance would have been discussed at the local level. That’s how the membership works.

                      “Or some still may feel it is not excellent for the Greens to have started in on this message at a time when National are just starting to fall in the polls.”

                      They didn’t start this. Did you read Bill’s post Bombs Away? Do you dispute that the right was rolling this meme out well before the GP said anything?

                      “I don’t think people should be accused of right wing smearing for concluding something different from another leftwinger – we have a lot of parties to choose from after all. People who are sincerely trying to understand something shouldn’t be attacked for doing so. That is simply unhelpful.”

                      They weren’t accused to of wing smearing, they were accused of buying into the bullshit games of the VRWC. Are you saying that people shouldn’t be called out on that?

                      “Did you read the Bryan Bruce article I linked to? He fairly well sums up where I have been coming from.”

                      All I get from that link is a picture of some minties.

          • Clemgeopin 25.2.1.1.3

            Going by the 6 pm news on both channels today,

            Cunliffe and Labour=4/5
            Key and National =2/5
            Norman & the Greens=0/5

            Clearly Norman has belittled and damaged Labour by his unwise statements today and yesterday. I also doubt if he has done the Greens any real favour. If he has, then it is at the expense of Labour. Nice one, Doctor! Some doctors make you feel well, some make you feel sick.

  24. Tautoko Viper 26

    Just a thought.
    Wayne Eagleson refused an OIA request for briefings to bloggers saying that the OIA didn’t cover them.
    https://fyi.org.nz/request/1911/response/6746/attach/3/12092014110457%200001.pdf

    But, but, but if Cam Slater is now and was considered to be a journalist…….

  25. Richard 27

    First time visitor,

    Having been stuck reading the Herald daily online for NZ news and political information, I find this site. Hmm very interesting.

    First observation was all the posts on dirty politics, I wrote to David Cunliffe before the story even broke about the Herald being extremely bias and thought something was wrong, Armstrong, Trevett, O’Sullivan and other press journalists we’re overtly pro national and Key, blatantly influencing the election outcome, 2 days later Hagars book launched and all hell broke loose.

    So having followed it all, been to whaleoil, joined the hate National even more brigade and now the press as well, I find a link on the Herald pointing here as the arch typical Whaleoil site and frankly it’s exactly the same as whaleoil but for the left.

    My point is how can we all actually progress as a nation and people having better lives if the people who make the decisions and the people who are the forth estate keeping them honest, have all sold out? Are in collusion, it’s like judges hanging out at the local gang headquarters?

    The media I feel are now slowly killing democracy by deviating from the principles they were founded upon. Journalists scoop, MP’s govern, they don’t mix and if one catches the other out, well it keeps them behaving.

    It’s supposed to be the voters choice, not the media’s choice? lets have policy and facts be the only legal media publishing allowed on election topics. Lets stop all types of political opinions, it’s not for the media to voice an opinion on parties, as it may influence people incorrectly being an opinion. It also stops parties influencing the press, to write pieces that can influence voter outcomes.

    If we cannot do the above what chance is there for any of us to make an educated vote based on actual policy. We can judge their personalities by the debates or live interviews.

    Thanks for reading, I’m just a concerned member of society who thinks he’s being brainwashed by bad media lines.

    • karol 27.1

      I’m definitely with you on needing a better media.

      There’s always going to be differing perspectives, but we need a range of perspectives. Currently the media tends to favour perspectives supportive of our current government.

      We need a public service media that is not dominated by the corporate values. We need a strong public service media, free from commercial or political/government influence.

      Something to work for when we get a change of government.

    • RedBaronCV 27.2

      Er unwanted concern here I think. Stating this is just as bad as Whaleoil misses this:
      – no one here is getting paid to write this stuff. It’s from public sources. Donations are collected for server costs
      -nobody here has a fast track OIA to the beehive.
      -no evidence that this site is being used by ministers to pursue private vendettas’

      Read Dirty politics if you cannot measure the difference.

  26. karol 28

    NRT just tweeted from the Hager talk tonight:

    Hager: nothing more to come, not sitting on any more stories #dirtypolitics

  27. Paul 29

    The NZ Herald and Bryan Gould .. the Heralds latest news from Bryan Gould page

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bryan-gould/news/headlines.cfm?a_id=804

    ….. not really the Herald has not published any of his recent articles in the wake of “dirty politics”.

  28. greywarbler 30

    Wanting a little light relief from politics.
    The latest economic lecture I’ve come across Dr Steve Keen.
    Crash Course in Non-Equilibrium Economics Lecture 1A

    Published on Sep 16, 2013
    Lectures on non-equilibrium economics at FLACSO (Latin American Social Sciences Institute). This first lecture covers why economics must be a disequilibrium discipline, and why it has thus far failed to become one.
    “Treating government like a business is a fallacy.”…..Talking about Greece a lot.

  29. Interesting how right wing extreme claim MSM bias while the left extreme claim the opposite. Conclusion the MSM must get it about right barring if your a right or left wing tragic who often can’t see pass your ideological bias

    • Te Reo Putake 31.1

      Fascinating.

      • McFlock 31.1.1

        brought to you by the people who think that because an interviewer spoke to an accomplished professional and a crackpot, both views must be equally valid.

        • greywarbler 31.1.1.1

          The correct interpretation of meaning and self-evident truth is exactly halfway between the biased, entrenched professional (possibly) and the crackpot. Measured with a tape measure in millimetre progressions, a digital weight scale and an atomic clock. Just to show how modern and precise the machinery backing our official judgments are.

    • emergency mike 31.2

      “Conclusion the MSM must get it about right”

      Or: Accusing your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of is a known manipulation tactic of psychopaths. Making the same complaint that your opponent makes is down the same street.

      But then, which one is the underhanded manipulator eh Red? Which one could it be…

      BTW, have you read a book called Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager? Could be some clues in there I’ve heard.

  30. Green finally coming to their senses, not their yet but slowly working it out. Ditch the Labour Party that has lost its sense of purpose and constituency. It is now simply a party of fragmented minority factions, disgruntled unionist, teachers lawyers and academic. National is labour lite, Greens simply need to give up the far left economic and social policy and focus on green policy and they might achieve something in the next 20 years instead of repeating the last 20 been lost in the wilderness of opposition

    • Draco T Bastard 32.1

      National is labour lite,

      That’s what they want people to think but National are actually an extreme right-wing party.

      Greens simply need to give up the far left economic and social policy and focus on green policy

      Greens are fine where they are doing what they do. It’s only the RWNJs in National that think that the Greens should be anything else and their reason for doing that is to protect National.

      and they might achieve something in the next 20 years instead of repeating the last 20 been lost in the wilderness of opposition

      And another RWNJ proves his disconnect from reality. The Greens have achieved a hell of a lot over the last 20 years and they’re set to achieve a hell of a lot more.

    • anker 32.2

      unionist, teachers, lawyers and academics…………….sounds pretty good to me. Understandable they they are disgruntled.

    • Tautoko Viper 32.3

      National is labour lite- yeah right!

      The biggest difference between National and Labour is that National policies are acceptable to people who have very little empathy with people outside their own social sphere and Labour policies are designed by and for people who have compassion for those less fortunate for themselves. These policies are designed to provide a reasonable life for all people in the country, regardless of whether they are in the same region, have the same ethnicity or belong to the socio-economic group.

      The Green Party has strong policies on social justice and would not compromise these policies to prop up National.

  31. More humerous the whining and whinging than fascinating, a bit like every loosing side blaming the ref

  32. Your conviction is admirable DTB, unfortunately if your view was the prevailing view the greens don’t have much of a future. The green know they have to evolve and become main stream as they did by moving on from the Values party, moving on from jannette and rod. Russell Normans views today is simply continued evolution of the greens growing up

    • One Anonymous Bloke 34.1

      Mr. Norman won’t be a leader for long if he gets in bed with ratfuckers like you. Tick tock.

    • Draco T Bastard 34.2

      There’s a little truth that you RWNJs refuse to accept:

      Reality has a radical left-wing bias

      The Greens are accept reality.

  33. emergency mike 35

    Anyone else noticed the click warriors out in force on political Stuff articles? Until a couple of weeks ago pro-Cunliffe comments were consistently getting big positive scores, and big negative scores for pro-Key comments. Recently it’s abruptly switched to a narrow margin in the opposite direction. How sad and pathetic.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago