Open mike 12/11/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 12th, 2011 - 70 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

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

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

Step right up to the mike…

70 comments on “Open mike 12/11/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    12 November 2011 at 7:13 am

    Andrew Geddis suggests the NZ Bill of Rights overrides city bylaws and therefore Occupy Dunedin has the rightn to keep camping and protesting in ther Octagon.

    People are asking if this means anyone can camp anywhere as long as they protest. Right to protest a right to camp?

      • Colonial Viper 1.1.1
        12 November 2011 at 7:43 am

        And only Occupy has done it on this scale in every major NZ city for many a year, if ever.

      • KJT 1.1.2
        12 November 2011 at 10:31 am

        Yes. And we should have a right to camp on roadsides etc anyway.

        Typical Kiwi way. A few people abuse a right. Instead of dealing with the guilty, lawmakers remove the right for everyone.
        With a bit of an extra push, as usual, from those who will make more money out of removing that right.

        Motor camp owners in this case.

        Financial scheme touts for superannuation.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2
      12 November 2011 at 7:49 am

      Good question. I’m camping here because I’m protesting climate change, so I’ve set up a stall to sell badges and T shirts to raise people’s consciousness. All proceeds donated to protesters.

    • just saying 1.3
      12 November 2011 at 7:58 am

      Brilliant Pete.

      And you can beat the stampede of all those people who have been gagging to camp there. I expect you to get your tent and grab your iphone, and get camping. You can protest the protest! You’ve obviously got the hide of a rhino, so a bit of ‘roughing it’ on the hard ground shouldn’t be a problem.

      Think of the publicity man! The TV will come and visit you in your (non-virtual) campaign headquarters, as you campaign hard-out in the blogosphere. And what a photo op.

      Just keep your mind on the money. How much does a backbencher get? Nice little supplement to your benefit. And the glory. The power, and the perks, and the glory…

  2. Jenny 2
    12 November 2011 at 7:49 am

    Rocky and Minto win their case.

    Hooray for democracy!

    “Decision a victory for democracy” stuff.co.nz

    The courts have backed up the democratic right to protest even if it creates annoyance for those who might not agree with the protesters stand point or even their right to make it.

    (Take note Dunedin City Councillors)

    In the absence of, as in the US, a constitution which protects the right to peaceful assembly, this ruling has direct relevance to the OWS movement here in Aotearoa.

    Quite rightly the NZ police force have decided not to act on the DCC’s directive to close down the occupation. The Police’s legal advice is probably of the view, that such actions would involve the police in ultimately fruitless time wasting and expensive litigation and even the possibility of damages.

  3. Pete George 3
    12 November 2011 at 7:53 am

    A different campaign approach in Anne Tolley territory – speed dating in Gisborne.

  4. Tiger Mountain 4
    12 November 2011 at 8:13 am

    No wonder Paula Benefit has been looking rougher than usual lately, TV3 last night turned up the progress on the Fuller privacy case mediation that had been stalled for about a year. It seems a case against the Minister by the Human Rights Tribunal may proceed. Mr Hesketh from the tribunal did not want the matter reported apparently and Bennett is whinging about the matter being made public trying to portray it as electioneering.

    Hmmm. Not fun is it being outed in public guilty, or innocent. (A repost, Herald doesn’t seem to have covered this yet).

    • JAS 4.1
      12 November 2011 at 5:11 pm

      It seems our govt think they can do what they like and say what they like, but they also seem to think they can shut down other peoples right to speak.

      The Antipodean Mariner has been shutdown, and I am trying to find anything that shows this post relates to

  5. LynW 5
    12 November 2011 at 8:35 am

    Good Morning

    Brian Gaynor’s column today outlines the rorting practised by the wealthy.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10765409

    Also Fran O’Sullivan exposing the lack of political integrity…but what’s new!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10765423

  6. just saying 6
    12 November 2011 at 8:41 am

    I’ve (kind of) resigned myself to another three years of National. In the long term it might be best that people are reminded that the dog-eat-dog path leads to the worst of all possible worlds, as the depression becomes more apparent.

    But what I just can’t stomach is the thought of a triumphant Key on election night.

    This is the song going round in my head:
    What’s the time Mr wolf?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spf1bvMQAsU

    Infectious Pacific reggae. Enjoy.

    • ianmac 6.1
      12 November 2011 at 10:44 am

      Yes JS. The sight of that little man hugging himself, flanked by a team of heavies to protect Key from rampant National supporters, giggling hysterically onstage on Election night is sickening. No dignity there. “I cheated all these mugs and I won. I won!”
      Put that against the Banks-Key suck-up and I feel ill.
      So let’s be positive. Still time!

  7. chris73 7
    12 November 2011 at 8:56 am

    A couple of changes to MMP I’d like to see:

    You’re either an electorate or list, not both
    Threshold dropped to 4%
    Even if you win an electorate seat you still have to gain 4%
    No leaders allowance for single MP parties

    • Sookie 7.1
      12 November 2011 at 9:25 am

      Never thought I’d say it ever, but I agree with you 100%. I think those are reasonable reforms. MMP is great, but it does have a few annoying flaws.

      • chris73 7.1.1
        12 November 2011 at 10:02 am

        I just hate seeing MPs (on both sides) get the flick and then slide back in on the list

        the people spoke and removed the MP but the party ignores the will of the people…

        • The Voice of Reason 7.1.1.1
          12 November 2011 at 10:11 am

          Nah, that’s rubbish, Chris. I can think of a few seats where parties have excellent candidates who aren’t going to win the seat, but still deserve to be in Parliament. Every Green candidate, for example. Do you think we should be deprived of Nikki Kaye if she loses Ak Central by a couple of votes? Or Jacinda Adern if its the other way round? Andrew Little or David Young? Stuart Nash? Paula Bennett? David Parker?

          You’ve simply bought into a failed meme. While a few plonkers have made it via the list, to say that a local preference should overule a potentially positive national contribution makes no sense.

          • chris73 7.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2011 at 10:24 am

            If they’re considered able then they can get a high placing on the list

            As an example the polls arn’t looking good for Gosgrove so he might lose because the voters prefer wilkinson BUT hes high enough on the list to get in anyway so really hes got two chances of getting in while someone equally (or even more) able might be further down the list and not even contesting a seat

            and if Kaye loses well too bad its what the people in the electorate want

            • rosy 7.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2011 at 10:45 am

              So you’re saying that able politicians shouldn’t stand in safe opposition seats if they are on the list?

              Really good politicians should stand in opposition safe seats IMO to make the challenge more robust. Then when they inevitably lose they have had the experience of interacting with an electorate, which can only make them more able politicians. As a bonus they’ve made the incumbent work a little harder for those electorate ticks that they’re ensured of getting, even if they’ve done a lousy job as an MP in the previous 3 years.

              • chris73 …
                12 November 2011 at 11:00 am

                I disagree, either stand on the list or take your chances winning a seat. A seat is only safe because of the work of the electorate MP. I think an MP would probably work harder if they only had one chance of getting in.

                A guaranteed list placing makes some (many?) MPs a little…complacent, in my (always) humble opinion

                • rosy …
                  12 November 2011 at 11:12 am

                  “A seat is only safe because of the work of the electorate MP”
                  Maybe in your electorate. I don’t think that is true of Tamaki, Ohariu*, Ilam, most of the Dunedin seats, and most of the rural seats… just for starters.

                  Edit: That’s not a comment on how hard they work, or not – it’s because the party that holds them can take them pretty much for granted.
                  * changing this election, with any luck.

          • KJT 7.1.1.1.2
            12 November 2011 at 10:46 am

            Wouldn’t like to lose a couple of the younger MP’s on that list, but it would be cheaper, long term, and better for all of us to pay incompetents, like Bennett, to stay home and do nothing.

            Under FPP we had a whole train of incompetents in safe party seats, as a reward for party donations or sycophancy. Don’t see how we can avoid that in a representative system.

            I will vote for MMP as the best of a bad bunch. Don’t see why we need a threshold though. If 1% are stupid enough to vote for Brash/ Banks then they should be represented. 100 MP’s with seats allocated per percentage.

            What we should be able to vote for is Democracy. But that will only happen over politicians bodies.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.2
          12 November 2011 at 11:00 am

          the people spoke and removed the MP but the party ignores the will of the people…

          But, the people spoke through their party vote to elect them back in.

          • chris73 7.1.1.2.1
            12 November 2011 at 1:58 pm

            No I don’t believe that the people gave their votes to the party to specifically get the people dumped from the electorates back in.

            The people don’t have much of a say over party lists so as an example if I want to give my party vote to National but don’t like the list placements theres not much I can do about it

            I’m also sure that there are some people out there that want to give their party vote to labour but are perplexed about the listings

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.2.1.1
              12 November 2011 at 2:12 pm

              No I don’t believe that the people gave their votes to the party to specifically get the people dumped from the electorates back in.

              But you don’t actually know do you? And the lists were made public before the election. The only possible interpretation that can be assumed is that the people who voted for that party did, as a matter of fact, vote for that person.

              • chris73 …
                12 November 2011 at 5:11 pm

                The interpretation is that they vote for the party first and the individuals second (of which they have no choice)

                • felix …
                  12 November 2011 at 10:33 pm

                  So you think people vote for a party but not for the party list, chris?

                  How does that work? What do you think they’re actually voting for when they tick the box if not the people on the list of that party?

            • mikesh 7.1.1.2.1.2
              12 November 2011 at 3:23 pm

              One could institute a rule that list allocations be in accordance with the support that each unsuccessful candidate receives in his/her individual electorate.

    • Dv 7.2
      12 November 2011 at 9:59 am

      Not convinced about either list ot electorate, but the other three are excellent.

      • chris73 7.2.1
        12 November 2011 at 10:05 am

        To me its like two bites of the cherry, voted out of your seat but can still get back in (if you kiss enough arse i guess)

    • Lanthanide 7.3
      12 November 2011 at 11:14 am

      “Even if you win an electorate seat you still have to gain 4%”

      Does that mean you have to gain 4% to get into parliament, or 4% to bring in others on your coat-tails?

      The first is nonsensical.

      As to the second, I agree this needs to change but I’m in favour of a more moderate change: you get your electorates and up to 1 additional MP. So if you win 0.6% of party vote + 1 electorate, you get 1 electorate, if you win 3.9% of the party vote + 1 electorate, you get 1 electorate + 1 list, and if you get 4% then you get your electorate + appropriate list top-ups (4-5 MPs I guess).

      This would allow smaller parties who can win an electorate but not be largely represented Nationally to still get a toe-hold in parliament.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1
        12 November 2011 at 11:44 am

        This would allow smaller parties who can win an electorate but not be largely represented Nationally to still get a toe-hold in parliament.

        No it doesn’t, it prevents those smaller parties from having the representation that their votes say that they should have. The only fair option is to drop the threshold 0.8%. If a party gets enough votes to get one seat then they should be represented in parliament.

        As for the argument we’ll end up with too many small parties…, well, that’s just a load of bollocks. The number of parties in parliament just make the initial negotiations to form government a little more complex but does nothing detrimental to the actual running of the country. Also, we seem to be getting a few one person parties anyway and we could always end up with independents in electorate seats (which actually require less of the vote under current electoral law and yet have the same say). If the people vote for them then they should be in parliamnet.

        • Lanthanide 7.3.1.1
          12 November 2011 at 1:07 pm

          Here’s what Wikipedia says about Israel’s 2% threshold:

          “Knesset seats are allocated among the various parties using the D’Hondt method of party list proportional representation. Israel requires a party to meet an election threshold of 2% of the overall vote to be allocated a Knesset seat. Parties select their candidates using a closed list. Thus, voters select the party of their choice, not any specific candidate. Elections are conducted by secret ballot.

          In practice, the Knesset’s ability to legislate has often been limited due to the consequences of Israel’s low 2% threshold of eligibility for a party to obtain a seat (one of the world’s lowest; though it was previously at 1%, then 1.5%). As a result, no party has ever gained a majority on its own (the most being 56 seats), and thus the government is formed on the basis of a coalition. The inherent instability of the coalitions (the average life span of an Israeli government is 25 months) results in numerous successful no-confidence motions, which automatically dissolve the Knesset and necessitates an early election call.”

          • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1.1.1
            12 November 2011 at 2:20 pm

            There are other solutions such as confidence and supply agreements, having the smaller party as part of government or, my favourite, have the policies voted on by the populace and then the MPs overseeing the implementation of those policies (parliament as administration rather than government).

            Just because the Israelis don’t know WTF they’re doing doesn’t mean we have to have the same problems.

      • chris73 7.3.2
        12 November 2011 at 12:26 pm

        I typed that while dealing with an attention-seeking puppy so i didn’t get it all down

        I meant that even if you win an electorate seat you still have to reach 4%

        • Lanthanide 7.3.2.1
          12 November 2011 at 1:04 pm

          Right, so if Jim Anderton wins Wigram, because his party didn’t get 4%, Jim Anderton doesn’t go into parliament, we end up with 119 MPs and the people of Wigram don’t get an electorate representative?

          That doesn’t make any sense.

          • chris73 7.3.2.1.1
            12 November 2011 at 1:53 pm

            The person who wins the electorate seat goes in and if they want to bring anyone else in their party still has to make the 4% threshold

            • Lanthanide 7.3.2.1.1.1
              12 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

              Right, that was my interpretation number 2. Your post at 7.3.2 indicates you meant interpretation number 1.

              • chris73 …
                12 November 2011 at 5:08 pm

                I assumed (my fault there) that everyone on here knew what I meant when I mentioned electorate seats and getting to 4%

    • mikesh 7.4
      12 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

      I think I would simply get rid of the threshold.

  8. KJT 8
    12 November 2011 at 10:26 am

    The meme. We cannot afford, super, benefits is continually repeated until even people who should know better repeat it.

    Notice that it is fund managers and other representatives of the financial sector. Those who get big commissions from private sector savings, including Kiwi saver, who continually repeat this as if it is true.

    They just want to repeat the killing of the taxpayer subsidised work schemes of the 70’s and 80’s where they took out more in fees, than most schemes earned. Looks like they succeeded. 42% in fees from Kiwi saver.

    The simple fact is, unless we invest in a sustainable future for New Zealand, (not in the financial sectors ponzi schemes), and in our youth, any super scheme savings will be inflated away with too much boomer savings chasing too little productivity.

    The obvious solution is to make those who have taken the most from our society, especially the over compensated financial sector, pay their fair share in tax to invest in the future of New Zealand. Not dodgy US derivatives,.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      12 November 2011 at 11:11 am

      +1

      We have enough resources in NZ to ensure everybody a good living standard. The only reason why this doesn’t happen though is because of a few greedy bastards and a delusional financial system that rewards people for being psychopathic.

  9. aerobubble 9
    12 November 2011 at 10:28 am

    I like MMP and will be voting to keep it.

    I recommend voting for first past the post as the alternative, as
    it has already been proven firstly to work, second to have been
    overruled by the people, and thirdly isn’t one of the rigged
    proportional systems that will favor national and the two
    large parties (voter cards).

    why take the risk of change when you can pick a system
    first past the post that has proven to be challengable.

    • Janice 9.1
      12 November 2011 at 10:59 am

      Why vote for any alternative when you have ticked MMP? It will just give them something to hang their gerrymandering hat on.

      • Lanthanide 9.1.1
        12 November 2011 at 11:16 am

        If we choose not to answer the second question, is our answer to the first question still accepted as valid?

        Even then, it’s still better to vote in the 2nd one: if you vote in the first but not the second, then you’re shrinking the total pool of votes and allowing other people to choose for you.

        • ianmac 9.1.1.1
          12 November 2011 at 11:42 am

          Graeme Edgler says your vote is valid if you just vote for Keep MMP. You don’t have to vote for an alternative. In fact it would seem a bit silly to Vote for Keep, then vote for Alternative. Unless they just tally in % rather than total votes cast. Mmm

          • Tiger Mountain 9.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2011 at 12:10 pm

            This is an important point actually ianmac, I’ll just be ticking retain MMP. The link has a sample of the actual voting paper. There is part A and part B and Elections NZ clearly state that you can tick an option in both A and B OR just one of A and B. The more people that just tick retain MMP will reduce credibility for STV etc.
            http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/2011-referendum-on-the-voting-system.html

            • Vicky32 9.1.1.1.1.1
              13 November 2011 at 8:03 pm

              There is part A and part B and Elections NZ clearly state that you can tick an option in both A and B OR just one of A and B

              That is quite a relief! I don’t like any of the alternatives..

    • Kty 9.2
      12 November 2011 at 10:59 am

      If things dont change they remain the same.

  10. ianmac 10
    12 November 2011 at 11:53 am

    A fascinating talk with Kim Hill this morning with Raf Manji: money and the economy.
    He is a former London investment banker, like John Key, who moved to Christchurch and founded the independent policy development space, The Sustento Institute. (30′27″)
    I am a bit nervous about trying and sum up his ideas but he thinks that the European problems are going to grow and that we need a serious alternative to Monetary Policy. Capitalism is in trouble if not dead and NZ will not be exempt, though our Government debt is relatvely low (thanks to Michael Cullen). Create money $5billion for direct application for the Christchurch rebuild but not given to the Banks who make their profit from dealing with the interest.
    Hope some open-minded people with an economics understanding would comment.
    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20111112-0810-raf_manji_money_and_the_economy-048.mp3

    • Treetop 10.1
      12 November 2011 at 6:27 pm

      Yes this interview was as good as last weeks one with Ravi Batra.

      What Raf Manji had to say about technology causing unemployment and needing to be realistic about high unemployment was sensible.

  12. thejackal 12
    12 November 2011 at 12:49 pm

    National’s Election Hoarding’s 12

    On the 4th of October, John Key said in Parliament:

    “[Standard and Poor’s] did go on to say, though, that if there was a change of Government, that downgrade would be much more likely.”

    However Standard and Poor’s sovereign rating analyst Kyran Curry, who attended the meeting in Auckland, said that did not happen:

    “In Auckland last month, I might have talked about the importance of the Government maintaining a strong fiscal position in the medium term but I would never have touched on individual parties.

    “It is something we just don’t do,” Mr Curry said. “We don’t rate political parties. We rate Governments.”

  13. Francisco Hernandez 13
    12 November 2011 at 1:11 pm

    I don’t like the new format of the Standard 🙁

    Please change it back.

    [lprent: What new format? This has been the same since the March 2010. If you’re seeing a bug, then it’d pay to say what the problem is. ]

    • BillBrowne 13.1
      12 November 2011 at 3:14 pm

      Started to ramdomly flick to mobile mode on pc

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      12 November 2011 at 3:51 pm

      I’ve had the Comments/Opinions/Online section disappear randomly on me for the last couple of days. Since you mentioned turning off the cache in fact.

      And the edit function goes to its own page rather than being a pop-up. As this was what you said you were going to be looking I’d just assumed you were working on it and that the other was a side effect.

      Can’t say I’ve seen any other changes.

    • Carol 13.3
      12 November 2011 at 5:54 pm

      I had some Standard posts & their comments come up in an unusual (for me) form (mobile form?) at work today when accessing the site on IE. Doesn’t happen with firefox at home.

  15. Carol 15
    12 November 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Good on Goff for pointing out the Epsom “rort”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5955798/Goff-looking-to-stop-MP-smuggling

    Labour leader Phil Goff is calling for a law change to stop minor parties “smuggling” in MPs when they’re “not entitled”.

    After campaigning in the Otara market this morning, Goff responded to questions from the media about the “cup of tea” meeting between National leader John Key and Act’s Epsom candidate John Banks.
    […]
    Goff today said that was “a rort”.

    “This is a way to get a party back in to Parliament that New Zealanders don’t want there and John Key’s allowing that – in fact, he’s not just allowing it, he’s making it happen,” Goff said.

    “Frankly, I think the law needs to be changed to stop this kind of gerrymander. You either get in because you’ve got an electorate seat or you get in with list MPs if you get over five per cent.

    “But this idea that one party like National can gift you a seat so you can smuggle three or four members of parliament in when you’re not entitled to, that’s wrong. They know it and New Zealanders know it.”

    John Key made a “not me” kind of slippery response to the smuggling accusation, and blamed MMP for it being possible:

    After yesterday’s meeting at Newmarket’s Urban cafe, Key defended the tactic, insisting he was not telling anyone how to vote. However, he would “not be at all unhappy” if National supporters voted strategically and split their vote.

    “We’re saying this is MMP and in MMP, you want to work with a variety of parties,” he said.

    “Many people” in Epsom would still give both of their votes to National, but others too would vote strategically.

    “What I’d like to see is a National Government with partners in Government post November 26.”

    Key dismissed Goff’s call for a law changes, saying: “I don’t take a lot of what he says seriously.”

    “That would be a scrapping of MMP,” he said, while campaigning in Palmerston North today. “If he’s proposing to get rid of MMP, he’s welcome to vote it out in the referendum.

    He’s using Goff’s call for a law change as a way to suggest people vote out MMP if they don’t like what’s happening in Epsom. But Goff had said that the required law change didn’t mean scrapping MMP:

    If a majority support keeping the system, there will be a review.

    Goff said he would be voting to keep MMP but wanted changes as a result of the review.

    The changes should cut out the “rort” being attempted by Key and Banks, he said.

  16. randal 16
    12 November 2011 at 7:54 pm

    kweewee has got a very poormouth lately.
    anythin he doesn’t like gets the out of the side of the gob treatment.
    I guess its just him revealing his true self.
    nasty brutish and short. (apologies to thomas hobbes)

  17. Jackal 17
    12 November 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Key barks up wrong tree

    The problem for Key is that 3 News didn’t obtained the document from the Human Rights Commission… showing that he’s barking up the wrong tree.