Open mike 13/04/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 13th, 2011 - 139 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…

139 comments on “Open mike 13/04/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    13 April 2011 at 6:13 am

    ‘
    Let me tell you a story about a man named Key

    A rich financier who looked for oil in the sea

    Oil that is, black gold, texas tea.

    Even though he was a powerful millionaire

    Greenpeace said move away from there

    Said opposition is where you oughta be

    Joined with local iwi,

    Greenpeace built a protest movement

    And changed his-tor-y

    • mickysavage 1.1
      13 April 2011 at 6:16 am

      Very good Jenny.

      • chris73 1.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 6:45 am

        But if theres an econimic amount of oil there it’ll be mined which would be a very good thing indeed

        • todd 1.1.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 8:10 am

          And if there is an oil spill because the drilling is dangerous and there are no proper safety measures, that is a very bad thing indeed.

          • ianmac 1.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 9:47 am

            -especially since the environmental concerns nor conditions set before the permit was issued. Enter Spinner Smith.

            • prism 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2011 at 10:20 am

              And all the time we know that any and all of the environmental and procedural conditions are very likely to be broken in time by the large companies as they were in the USA Gulf area.  Procedures will be done half-heartedly ignoring possible bad consequences, equipment will be shonkily manufactured and rupture etc.  

              After the disaster the companies make ineffectual dabs at remediation, holding back on major effort till forced by overwhelming  evidence of failure to cough up the money needed, and fight in the Courts over payment for services used to contain it and then have apologists (paid? or just naturally twisted and argumentative) who will whitewash the whole thing and present it in a good light.

              The thread may be long but it stretches unbroken from the beginning with the surveying for oil reserves to the end when our food resource can be so damaged it is destroyed and the plants and animals who could live without us and have their own cycle of life are killed off.

              • M …
                13 April 2011 at 2:02 pm

                Indeed prism.

                The Gulf of Mexico is dead and people have lost their livelihoods and a source of healthy protein.

                Drill, Chris73? Don’t be a buttmunch.
                 

                • chris73 …
                  13 April 2011 at 5:27 pm

                  Buttmunch? You sir are a flibbertigibbet.

                  If theres oil there in an amount thats worth getting out I say we get it out, just like any other mineral deposits in NZ

                  Though I would like to see us start up oil refining instead of just shipping it out

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 April 2011 at 5:35 pm

                    To me the issue is not about accessing the oil or not. It’s about
                    – The timing. Our oil is going to be far more valuable in 6-7 years time than now.
                    – Ensuring we get a substantial cut of the oil revenues as a country. We should own 50% of any oil extraction company, and taxes on the operation should be high.
                    – Making sure that new Government oil revenue is invested in infrastructure and capital funds for NZ’s future. Not given away as tax cuts to the rich.
                     
                     

                    • chris73 …
                      13 April 2011 at 5:44 pm

                      So you agree we should allow the prospecting so we can find out the amount of oil we could be dealing with?

                    • the pink postman …
                      14 April 2011 at 3:21 pm

                      If we are still thinking oil is the answer to our tranport and cartage in six years we will be in big trouble. Instead of risking our coast and beaches with what will be an outdated method  of transport amd energy we should be working none  stop to find an answer now. Both oil and nuclear are now outdated or too dangerous,

                  • prism …
                    13 April 2011 at 8:14 pm

                    Chris73 – Other mineral deposits in NZ?  The Pike River disaster is a relatively contained one, not like going through water where the pollution is harder to clean up, probably impossible.  Anyway you are made of minerals – should we be looking you over hungrily for your pennyworth of whatever?I say we get it out, just like any other mineral deposits in NZ
                    Perhaps we will get to the stage of donating our bodies for mineral extraction, when we get more desperate for some.  We donate our bodies for medical studies to carve up and study so what would be different.
                    Like your imaginative abuse, I think it adds tone to this site.  Flibbertigibbet! Buttmunch!

                  • McFlock …
                    13 April 2011 at 10:18 pm

                    we should also remember that the Gulf of Mexico incident killed 11 workers – plus the destroyed livelihoods.

    • logie97 2.1
      13 April 2011 at 7:10 am

      Anyone remember The Penguin on Jim Mora’s Afternoon programme, a couple of weeks back, giving us his knowledge of things nuclear and how there was nothing to be really concerned about with Fukushima.  Sorry David but suggest you to stick to your knitting…

      • ZeeBop 2.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 10:59 am

        Wait up! Where did the radiation comes from, what part of the nuclear process, the panic might have been one reason to not tell but what’s the reason for not telling how the nasty radiation came from the spent fools pools when the water boiled off. The story is about waste, waste from nuclear fuel is its down fall. You can’t talk about cutting carbon emissions because its waste and then not talk about the risks from nuclear waste. Waste now entering the food chain globally.

        • travellerev 2.1.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 3:16 pm

          What gets me is that Lanthanide was so full of himself with all his “knowledge” about Fukushima and Chernobyl but now that the disaster has finally been upgraded he is nowhere to be seen.
          I’d like to see him explain this away.

          • The Voice of Reason 2.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 6:50 pm

            I’ll have a crack. It’s not an upgrade in the sense of something happened today which made it worse, but a reappraisal of the entire accident. It was initially thought to be a 5, now it’s recognised as a 7. Similar to the initial estimates of earthquakes and their eventual proven intensity.
            There hasn’t been a catastrophic release of radioactive materials, so it’s still not Chernobyl. Certainly, it’s going to be No2 on the list of nuclear accidents, but it’s not Hiroshima or Nagasaki either.

  3. PeteG 3
    13 April 2011 at 6:59 am

    Bryce Edwards has a detailed look at the Labour list. He and others believe it is underwhelming, many interesting comments. He summarises:

    The regeneration of the Labour Party is clearly been happening too slow  and too late. The 2011 party list was a chance for the party to come out  with something unexpected, and with a lot of fresh new blood and faces  near the top, but the party’s chosen to be ultra-cautious. Andrew  Little’s placement at number 15 is the best they could do, but clearly  that’s “too Little too, too late”.

    The blandness of Labour’s list is reflective of the party as a whole at the moment. They party never seems to have anything bold to say – it  appears to be highly scared of doing anything different or saying  anything that might be radical or outside the mainstream view. In fact,  as David Slack said this week, Damien O’Connor’s unfortunate outburst  was in some ways actually a bit refreshing: ‘I think it’s a pity for the  party that they don’t have people who are speaking with as much emotion  as he is. I think that is really part of their problem, they’ve been so  careful and dull that you don’t know what the hell they’re talking  about’.

    But there is no certainty that strong public figures become strong MPs, and that people entering parliament with mediocre credentials won’t grow into the job and become effective MPs.

    So we can hope that something similar to the Highlanders can happen and a bunch individuals with modest credentials can form into a reasonably strong team with heart. Goff doesn’t look to be a Jamie Joseph though. And it doesn’t look like they will top the table this year.

    • logie97 3.1
      13 April 2011 at 7:14 am

      Just remind us what they were saying of the National line-up prior to 2008 – there were a lot of 1990’s MP’s in their lot from memory – seem to remember the only difference was that the major media focus was on Key.

      captcha: engineering

      • PeteG 3.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 7:39 am

        But Key was better supported then than Goff is now? He was certainly a contrast to the fading star of Clark.
         
        Anyway, the Labour list is fixed, they have to use what they have and try to stop sleepwalking right through this year’s election. As is emerging from a number of blog comments, like this:

        Labour’s problems is not too many gays or too few Maori and Asians.  It is a chronic lack of policy innovation and courage and a culture that mitigates against dissent which is the necessary prerequisite to important thinking.

        Labour has to somehow beat the blandness. Rather than close ranks they need to open up to a diversity of ideas, or at least be seen to be trying to do that.
        Damien O’Connor’s boneheaded criticism used poorly chosen words and the wrong targets, but it was refreshing because it was admitting “Hey, we have a problem that needs addressing rather than shoving under the carpet”.
         
        Labour can choose to raise their game for this year’s election (and not just go through the motions until 2014) – if they can break from their rote, lethargy and defensiveness.
         

        • todd 3.1.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 8:13 am

          Two words… Roger Douglas.

        • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 3.1.1.2
          13 April 2011 at 1:57 pm

          I frequently disagree with much of what you say, Pete, but I think your comment completely nails it. Labour needs to take a firm and decisive step to the left, and back it with some visionary policy rather than indulging in blandness.

          National may have been able to get elected by being “Labour Lite”, but there’s not a chance in hell that Labour will get the Treasury benches back by being “National Lite”.

      • ianmac 3.1.2
        13 April 2011 at 9:55 am

        I have an assurance from one of the Herald writers that she will examine the National List with as much interest as she did on Labour’s List. I suggested to her that the National List lacked representation from gays and unions given their important representation in NZ’s makeup. The experience with Mr Gould about how inept businessmen were outside the fields made them inept narrow-minded as MPs and if so how will the Nat List reflect this?

        • PeteG 3.1.2.1
          13 April 2011 at 10:06 am

          I’m sure there will be much examination of the National list.
           
          I’ll repeat something I’ve said before – diversity should be less important than competence. And Ianmac makes a good point – competence (even if to an expert or highly successful level) in a field outside parliament does nothing to guarantee competence as an MP, and especially competence as a minister or PM. Strong leadership matters a lot. None of the parties excel at that.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      13 April 2011 at 7:45 am

      I propose that from this day hence anyone who comments on the Labour Party list selection process and obviously shows that they do not know anything about the process or the people selected should be branded as a troll.
       
      PeteG do you always wax contiunuously about stuff that you know nothing about.  Try watching question time in Parliament and then feel qualified to comment.
       
      One thing I will respond to is this theme developed by RWNJs that Labour should have gone outside the party and selected exciting new candidates.  To be frank when the party has done this in the past the candidates have been disasters.  Remember John Tamihere?
       
      By strong public figures do you mean people like Michael Laws or Paul Homes?  Give me any day more thoughtful representative dedicated representatives.
       
      If you want excitement and drama can I suggest you watch TV.
       

      • PeteG 3.2.1
        13 April 2011 at 7:53 am

        MS, your attitude is typical of Labour’s problems. You are either blind to it or you are trying to fudge over it.
         
        How many shouts from how many directions are needed?
        The Dominion editorial? Labour needs to look like a party for all
        The ODT editorial? Labour’s list problems.
        You could write letters to them and tell them to watch more TV I guess.
         
        You can’t change your List but you can open your bloody eyes. Labour has a public image problem. The spin doctors have failed and what does Labour do? Gives them safe seats.

        Why not own the problems and be seen to be dealing with them?

        • mickysavage 3.2.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 8:04 am

          No PeteG you do not know what you are talking about.
           
          Rely on the papers!!  The day papers like the Dominion come out and support Labour is the day lefties should get very worried.
           
          Can you tell me anything about candidate number 36 on the list (Jerome Mika)?  How about candidate number 44 (Susan Zhu)?  How can you comment on their abilities if you know nothing about them?
           
          What do you suggest?  Do we approach Justin Bieber to see if he wants to be a politician?
           
           

          • lprent 3.2.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 8:21 am

            Absolutely. I vaguely knew Susan from previous regional meetings and had never run across Jerome prior to the list meetings. But both rightfully got high placements in the Mangere meet, and I am glad to see that it carried through to the mediation.

            We’re interested in electing politicians, not showboating celebs with more ego than political abilities. The latter swan around doing bugger all. They wind up like the ineffectual Pam Corkery or being promoted well past their abilities like John Key.

            If PeteG or the frigging writers at the ODT or Dominion don’t like it then they should work within the party to convince others. Of course since they aren’t in the party and like most critics are simple ineffectual whiners who avoid work of actual members – I suspect that I will keep ignoring them.

            • PeteG 3.2.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2011 at 8:34 am

              Captcha: lose

              I suspect that I will keep ignoring them.

              That summarises Labour’s problem. Self absorbed, ignoring voters, ignoring reality.

              • mickysavage …
                13 April 2011 at 8:40 am

                But PeteG you were never going to vote Labour.  So why should Labour take your advice?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 April 2011 at 8:46 am

                  Quite the opposite to voting for Labour, PeteG’s vocation is to work against Labour.
                   
                  Any “friendly sage advice” out of his keyboard cannot be trusted.

                • PeteG …
                  13 April 2011 at 8:58 am

                  I have never said that – I don’t make up my mind which way I’ll vote until election day. On current form it’s unlikely I’ll vote for Labour, but that leaves me with a bit of a dilemma. National don’t deserve a single party majority. I’ve never been a fan of WP. The Greens may once again be the beneficiary of no better option, either that or spoiled vote or no vote.
                   
                  Labour don’t have to take my advice. Nor take any notice of the growing chorus of bewilderment about how introspective, uninspiring and defeatist they appear. If they had half a clue they would see that their current approach is not working for themselves.
                   
                  If Goff can shake Labour out of it’s lethargy I would consider voting for a recovering opposition but it’s not looking like that’s going to happen.
                   
                  CV, Labour seem to be managing working against themselves. Notice that there’s just a few faithful trying to attack the messenger. Not much else they can do I guess.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 April 2011 at 9:06 am

                    Any “friendly sage advice” out of his keyboard cannot be trusted.

                    To be clear, I wrote this was about you, Mr Wise and Moderate Self Appointed Advisor to Labour.

                    And as anyone here knows, I criticise Labour aplenty, thanks. Critical feedback is how organisations improve, after all.

                    • ianmac …
                      13 April 2011 at 10:03 am

                      PeteG It is a standard form for the plants to say, “I don’t make up my mind which way I’ll vote until election day.” or they say “I am a Labour Supporter but…..” or ” I think Phil Goff is a great man but he is totally ineffectual and he should step down…..”
                      Suspect PeteG? Sure do!

                    • Vicky32 …
                      13 April 2011 at 3:25 pm

                      There’s no reply button to IanMac or I would have said this to him. Lump me with Pete G although I have disagreed with him strenuously in the past, I don’t care, after all, I am mental – or so I am told. But the point is, that before I started hanging out here, I was a staunch Labour supporter. I know and like David Shearer, he’s my ‘local’.
                      I know y’all say you don’t represent Labour, and that can only be a good thing. Even so, despite the risk of its being a wasted vote, the Greens will get mine this year.
                      I’ve tried to make similar points to his, about how public perception of the list is simply not good – and for my pains, I’m told I’m mental.
                      Fairy nuff…

                    • lprent []
                      13 April 2011 at 4:54 pm

                      As the policy says, it is a robust debating environment. Doing moderation, we stomp on certain things that cause operational issues, but essentially the debate tends to stay pretty wide open. The upside of that is the the issues get debated pretty throughly and a lot of disagreements get aired in a pseudonymous environ. The downside is that differences between people tend to get quite well explored as well.

                      If you think this is bad, you should try some of the actual political debates I’ve been in inside the party. Especially in the 80’s and early 90’s, but also ever since. People who get involved in politics are generally there because they are quite opinionated and not shy about expressing them. From what I understand from friends around the Greens, it tends to be just about as contentious especially on the boundaries between pure green issues vs social issues or incremental vs revolutionary, but in a quieter fashion. But that tends to be the difference IMHO between a wide church and an even wide church.

                  • lprent …
                    13 April 2011 at 2:14 pm

                    …abour seem to be managing working against themselves. Notice that there’s just a few faithful trying to attack the messenger.

                    I think that it has been pointed out before, that the vast majority of the leftist commentators here by number of comments neither normally support or vote Labour all of the time. Even fewer are members of the party. In fact even amongst the authors that was the case at the last election and probably now.

                    I tend to ascribe it to most Labour members.

                    Not much else they can do I guess.

                    From your comments and theirs, a more credible hypothesis would be that many off the left (and a few of them Labour members) commentators are patiently or impatiently trying to give you the knowledge that you so clearly lack. However you seem to be so interested in hearing the sound of your own keyboard, that you fail to listen to them.

                    Perhaps if you noticed you’d try to be less of a blowhard and more of a listener. Then you may actually learn something?

              • lprent …
                13 April 2011 at 2:18 pm

                What you clearly fail to understand is that just winning elections is only part of the political process. If you don’t take care of the quality of the people you’re putting into parliament then you’ll get grossly incompetent governance.

                It is a lesson that National has been failing to learn since I was a teen in the 1970’s, and just like the current NAct government is now.

                Since it is clear that you don’t think about the political process but just react to political events like one of Pavlov’s slobbering dogs, I guess that point will escape you as well.

      • RobC 3.2.2
        13 April 2011 at 8:02 am

        PeteG do you always wax contiunuously about stuff that you know nothing about

        You need to ask????????

        Although to be fair, he is talking about blandness.

      • Bored 3.2.3
        13 April 2011 at 9:28 am

        Well said Mickey, hugely generous of you to only brand as trolls RWNJs…I suppose allowing them here keeps them off the streets causing distress to fellow citizens. Sort of a social service really.

        • lprent 3.2.3.1
          13 April 2011 at 2:02 pm

          I like having those of the right here. It forces me to ramp up my argument levels.

          But for all of PeteG’s rush towards OOS and his apparent simplicity of political thought, I don’t tend to see him as a troll either. I just see him as a person with an addiction to fingering his keyboard.

          • RobC 3.2.3.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

            Except at times it dumbs down the standard (pun, geddit) of debate which seems to frustrate some; full-mock mode I find the only way not to be the same

            • Vicky32 3.2.3.1.1.1
              13 April 2011 at 3:31 pm

              Except at times it dumbs down the standard (pun, geddit) of debate

              No doubt I’ll be told that it’s irrelevant, but  the grammatical errors I’ve read here today are going into my blog and my next ESOL lesson. Hint – ‘meet’ is not a noun, except perhaps in Bugtussle Ark.!

              • ianmac …
                13 April 2011 at 4:05 pm

                Vicky, “geddit” and “meet as a noun” have entered the vernacular, ‘less you are speaking from a pulpit.

                • Vicky32 …
                  13 April 2011 at 4:24 pm

                  I don’t teach ‘vernacular’, I teach proper English, in which plurals don’t take apostrophes, meet is a verb and ‘geddit’ is something only tradesmen with butt cleavage, and teenage boys say. Meet as a noun is a pathetic piece of business jargon, or an Americanism, most likely both. My students want proper English, and your sneer about pulpits is simply ignorant. I expected better from you!

                  • RobC …
                    13 April 2011 at 6:10 pm

                    My apologies Vicky. It is lazy typing, not grammatical errors. The ‘d’ is adjacent to the ‘e’ on the keyboard and when you factor in the space bar, the offending word is a little quicker to type. I will attempt to refrain from this practice in future.

                    With kind regards,

                    RobC

                    P.S. I didn’t realise “y’all” and “fairy nuff” was proper English; I consider myself suitably enlightened.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 6:36 pm

                      ‘fairy nuff’ is a grotesque of course, but “y’all” is a very handy American contraction that is bloody good shit, and should be used more. It’s polite, and precise, and nice. 

                      http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw006.html

                      also, “ain’t”

                      http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw003.html

                      And as for this ‘proper’ english shit; pays to remember that a language is just a dialect with an army. Anyone who says different is just failing at it IMO, YMMV FWIW, but TBH, WGAF?

                      amirite?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 6:56 pm

                      And if word people really want see someone going spare in an amusing fashion; read this:

                      http://www.word-detective.com/gry.htmlpeople

                    • locus …
                      13 April 2011 at 6:57 pm

                      I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid! Aoccdrnig to a rseecherar at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? And you awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt?!

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 April 2011 at 7:11 pm

                      🙂

                    • Vicky32 …
                      14 April 2011 at 3:05 pm

                      Just making y’all comfortable, hey? (Americanisms abound, so it seems appropriate.)
                      Fairy nuff was an attempt to bring in some levity.
                      Someone says he’s OCD about trolls, well I am OCD about language, and I mean, I really am… (as I’ve previously said, and got jumped by the lovely Queen of Trolls* for saying, I am not neuro-typical.)
                      To cover all the objections I’ve read, it was Lyn who used ‘meet’ as a noun, when talking about Labour party selection meetings.
                      Locus, I’ve seen your contribution as an email forward and a Facebook status, only about 24 times! It was interesting the first time. Because of my recent work, I always think in terms of making communication easier for people who are either learning English, or who have varying disabilities.
                      Athletes talk about ‘going to meets’ because we have been culturally colonised by the USA. It both amuses and sickens me to read people here banging on about cultural cringe, and how much they hate any residual influence on NZ that Britain has, when these same people kowtow (to use a cliche) before all things American (except for the Tea Party!)
                      * It can’t actually be Queen of Trolls can it? Maybe I have remembered wrongly.. If so I apologise to him/her…

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    13 April 2011 at 7:13 pm

                    Great wee debate. I’m pretty careful with my words and take care to get my grammar right, because that’s me. I’m tolerant of people who comment here and don’t follow the grammatical rules, because that’s them. This is a blog, not an exam, so who am I to quibble?

                    I would be keen to see what you mean by ‘meet’ as a noun. Where was that? I can’t for the life of me think of a sentence where it could be used in that way, but I don’t want to wade through all today’s comments to find it. And yes, lads, I know I risk public fogeydom for not being down wiv da kids, but I’d like to know.
                    Just as an aside, the single greatest influence on my grammatical style is Private Eye magazine, the English fortnightly founded in the sixties by a bunch of public schoolboys, including comedian Peter Cook. One of Cookie’s early contributions was the word ‘geddit’. So that’s stereotypical builders, spotty teenagers and the well educated sons of the English aristocracy who use the word.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 8:02 pm

                      I don’t know where ‘meet’ was used a noun here, but athletes talk about going to meets, so it’s not unheard of.

    • RobC 3.3
      13 April 2011 at 8:15 am

      RobC has a detailed look at PeteG’s opening statement of the day. He and others believe it is underwhelming, with no interesting comments. He summarises … well actually he can’t because there’s nothing to summarise.

      Although the rugby analogy at the end is pure gold. CT would be proud.

    • Mac1 3.4
      13 April 2011 at 9:21 am

      PeteG, at # 3 above, did you read the link you posted? Did any alarm bells ring?

      There was a lot of opinion about who is effective, meritous etc  in his blog piece but when it came to hard facts Bryce Edwards has problems.

      For instance, lazily, I suggest, he quoted David Farrar to support his arguments that straight white males didn’t do well. Farrar said there was only one straight non-union European male in the top 15, and only two in the 30 top effective spots.

      These are the males in the top 15. Goff, Cunliffe, Parker (Farrar’s nominee),  Horomia, Cosgrove, Mallard, Chauvel,  Robertson and Little.  Only two straight non-union European males in that list of 9 males?

      Add in the next 15 – Sio, Prasad, Huo, Davis, Barker, Nash, Burns, Hipkins. Only two straight non-union European males in that list of 17? Arrant nonsense from Farrar.

      A writer who can be caught out on large errors of fact is not worth considering when it comes to accepting their opinions. Similarly, using such shonky evidence irreparably harms Bryce’s case. Linking to such shoddiness does your arguments no good, either.

      • PeteG 3.4.1
        13 April 2011 at 9:32 am

        Mac, I suggest you re-read the paragraph that explains ‘effective party list’, which starts:

        Farrar, here, talks about Labour’s ‘effective party list’ – which is an important difference to talking about ‘all’ of Labour’s likely caucus, because about half of Labour’s MPs will come in by winning constituencies. It’s certainly helpful to make this distinction, and political scientists do distinguish between ‘party lists’ and ‘effective party’ lists. This is because in analysing party lists, the only relevant candidates are those that are actually likely to be list MPs – in terms of the Electoral Act 1993, those that win electorates do not come into Parliament via the list.

        Your numbers include those who are likely to win seats so won’t get in on the list.

         

        • Mac1 3.4.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 9:52 am

          PeteG, thanks for the correction, and the ensuing linkage to the quality of your argument no longer stands.

          • RobC 3.4.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 10:57 am

            You have to laugh at the fact PeteG now understands the concept of an “effective party list” when on Mon he couldn’t work out why the loser in the selection for Dunedin North was ranked ahead of the one who actually won.

            • PeteG 3.4.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2011 at 11:29 am

              Yes, laughing, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the shit barrel today Rob. 4x
               
              Do you not understand that there may be separate concepts there?
              The comments on “effective party list” were in relation to diversity of the effective list.
              I was pointing out that Labour chose a candidate (Clark) over another (Alexander) and then ranked Clark lower on the list. There may be internal justification for that, but from the outside it looks nuts and doesn’t show much confidence in or support of the chosen Dunedin North candidate.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                13 April 2011 at 12:00 pm

                It shows confidence that he is going to win his seat, ya big mugg.

                • PeteG …
                  13 April 2011 at 12:05 pm

                  Is Goff not confident about his seat? Horomia about his? Little about his chances?
                   

                  • Mac1 …
                    13 April 2011 at 12:15 pm

                    peteG, why else would the Leader of the Opposition and of the Labour Party be number one in the list? Ummmm………… Or the leading Maori politician and long serving MP be up there? Aaaaaaahhh………or the ex-President of the NZLP and former Union leader? Hmmmmmmmm……?

                    Three questions back for you. Their answers will answer your questions. The ummmm,aaaah and hmmm indicate places where you think.

                    • RobC …
                      13 April 2011 at 2:07 pm

                      Silly me – I thought the Ummmm, Ahhhhh and Hmmmmm were his actual answers

                    • Mac1 …
                      13 April 2011 at 6:00 pm

                      RobC, “idle entertainment. like a cat playing wih a mouse.”

                      But what entertainment, as in your 2.07 p.m. above. Felix himself would have liked that one.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 April 2011 at 12:19 pm

                but from the outside it looks nuts and doesn’t show much confidence in or support of the chosen Dunedin North candidate.
                 

                Love your Right Wing imagination.
                 
                David Clark will win the seat on his own merits, and as a first time candidate that is what he will want to do.

                • PeteG …
                  13 April 2011 at 1:49 pm

                  David Clark will most likely win the seat thanks to it almost always being a Labour seat (since 1922 except for losing for a term in 1925 and a term to National in 1975) and thanks to a large majority carried over from Pete Hodgson. He might win a few hundred votes on his own merits.
                   
                  If he sticks around as long as Hodgson he might eventually rise up the list a bit. If Alexander makes it in on the list and especially if Little makes it in to leadership she may stand a better chance of getting promoted up the list.

                  • mickysavage …
                    13 April 2011 at 2:07 pm

                    Aaarrrggghhh
                     
                    PeteG you do not have a clue.
                     
                    Dunedin North is one of Labour’s strongest seats.  It has very good resources, great membership and a strong activist base.  If Labour loses Dunedin North I may think about joining the Greens things will be that bad.
                     
                    David Clark is an exceptionally good candidate.  Go and google him before you case aspertions on him.  He will be a great MP.  Giving him the privilege of being the candidate for the seat is something that every list MP would give their eye teeth for.
                     
                    His ranking is not a reflection on him or on the area, just as David Shearer’s list ranking is no reflection on him or the seat of Mt Albert.
                     
                    Why don’t you try converting this into a real debate where you receive information that you did not have and change your point of view?
                     
                     

                    • PeteG …
                      13 April 2011 at 2:27 pm

                      Dunedin North is one of Labour’s strongest seats.

                      Yes, having held it for 80 of the last 83 years I sort of got that idea.

                      David Clark is an exceptionally good candidate.

                      Maybe. The electorate doesn’t know that yet. I don’t know that yet (and I haven’t cast aspersions on him). Time will tell. Do you think he will win because of his strong credentials or because Dunedin North is one of Labour’s strongest seats?

                      People in the party may think his list rank is not a reflection on him or the area, but it has raised some attention here. Don’t you think some people may justifiably think it a bit odd that an exceptionally good candidate in one of Labour’s strongest seats may end up being the Labour MP with the lowest list rank?

                      Or are you so engrossed in Labour’s inner workings that you do not have a clue how that may appear here?

                    • Ben Clark …
                      13 April 2011 at 2:45 pm

                      Hi Pete,
                      I can assure you my brother is a fantastic candidate 🙂

                      The way it tends to work is that if you’re a first time candidate in a safe seat it’s viewed as: if you lose it maybe you shouldn’t be in parliament.  It’s kind of a “prove you’re a good candidate” test.  It’s certainly not a lack of confidence – if Labour weren’t entirely confident in him they wouldn’t have put him in a safe seat; they don’t want to be lumbered with a useless candidate for however long. And Grant Robertson doesn’t seem to have been held back by a low list ranking in 2008, if you’re worried about him being elected with the lowest list rank.
                      Glenda Alexander, having not won the nomination for Dunedin Nth, should have her list position viewed entirely differently (& separately).

                      But generally there’s far too much focus on exact placements on the list.  It should after all be about which party and policies you trust to deliver a better New Zealand.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 3:05 pm

                      Ben, my mother-out-law is well impressed with your bro as a candidate. Says she might vote for a candidate for the first time since mmp came in. And she didn’t have a problem with PeteH particularly. She’s just a tough crowd.
                      I ‘d introduce her to PeteGeeWilikers, for similar reasons that I like watching nature docos, but she’d probably never speak to me again.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 April 2011 at 3:10 pm

                      PeteG desperately spinning how things “appear”.
                       
                      Yeah mate just look into a mirror, you’ll see some interesting things.

                      PS why don’t you get another job you suck at astroturfing.

                    • PeteG …
                      13 April 2011 at 3:12 pm

                      Thanks Ben, it’s good to get a reasonable response and explanation. If you could encourage more from your party to not resort to dissing and arrogance so much they might help attract a bit more interest and even some votes.
                       
                      I’ll be sussing David out with interest. If I think he’s the best candidate here I’ll vote for him, regardless of what I decide on the party vote.
                       
                      Somewhere else here today someone called me suspect for being a late decider. They seem to miss the fact that late deciders may actually vote your way, especially if you don’t diss them off.
                       

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 April 2011 at 6:58 pm

                      PeteG now positioning himself as a “late decider”
                       
                      lolz the choice between ACT and National is simply not that difficult.

              • RobC …
                13 April 2011 at 2:01 pm

                Yep, and I’m still laughing at the shit I find at the bottom of the barrel.

                I understand concepts well, except meaningless ones such as “diversity of the effective list”. As Mac1 implied, any rational assessment of diversity should be made on MPs likely to enter/return to parliament from both electorate seats and party lists.

                Even DPF acknowledges this, for while he makes the observation of the absence of non-union heterosexual white males from the party list, he states in his very next sentence:

                Now some will argue this is a good thing, as HWMs are over-represented in electorate seats, and the list is about balancing the overall caucus. This is broadly correct – the list is about overall balance …

                So to put it in really simple terms for you, there’s a lack of HWM in the effective party list because there’s a lot of them going to win electorate seats.

                Yes, it does amuse me when you start to use the term “effective party list” when you can’t understand the effectiveness of placing a person (who according to Ipredict has an 88% chance of winning his electorate) at 49 on the list, instead trying to suggest it is somehow a lack of confidence in him. Hmmm and isn’t David Clark a HWM???

                Mind you, it’s not as funny as your arguments about regional representation … even DPF assesses Dunedin will probably have double the MPs they should have based on population.

                Yep, I’m still laughing. You do bring a certain humour in a Homer Simpson kinda way to these pages.

                • RobC …
                  13 April 2011 at 2:11 pm

                  Edit 3rd para: Even DPF … from the effective party list …

                • PeteG …
                  13 April 2011 at 3:01 pm

                  Hmmm and isn’t David Clark a HWM???

                  I believe so. And isn’t the person he beat for the candicacy, and who has been placed higher than him on the list, a female union person? Hmmm indeed.
                   
                  If Clark was placed above Alexander on the list it would make no difference to whether Alexander made the list cut or not.
                   
                  Trying to be too clever with the list may have some repercussions apart from public perceptions. It has surprised some that Claire Curran is only at 28 on the list. Maybe this is using similar “logic” – she is a shoe in to win her seat. If others are bumped up to give the list a “better balance” they might get to like it there, and expect shadow portfolios. And those like Curran, Nash, Twyford and Shearer may not be very happy staying in their lowly places “for the good of the party” for too long.

                  • RobC …
                    13 April 2011 at 3:20 pm

                    I believe so. And isn’t the person he beat for the candicacy, and who has been placed higher than him on the list, a female union person? Hmmm indeed.

                    Let me help you out. Clark = HWM. Alexander not HWM.
                    “Effective List” needs more non HWM to balance caucus.

                    If Clark was placed above Alexander on the list it would make no difference to whether Alexander made the list cut or not.

                    Incorrect. If we use Ipredict as a guide, there’s a 11-12% chance Clark will not win the electorate seat, and having Clark (HWM) above Alexander (non HWM) would potentially imbalance caucus if he had a ranking above Alexander’s 43 and Labour won enough of the party vote.

                    Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.

                    • PeteG …
                      13 April 2011 at 3:35 pm

                      Ok, that’s possible. But far more likely is Clark wins the seat and Alexander misses the cut on the list. So an imbalance is more likely. If Labour wanted to virtually ensure more WFU in caucus they would have chosen Alexander for the seat.
                       
                      There are many potential angles to this, hence the dangers of trying to be too clever with the list.
                       
                      Coincidentally Michael Woodhouse was 49 on National’s list in 2008. What say he was bumped up to say 29, he’s got reasonable credentials and potential? He got a fair number of votes first time up, there’s little doubt he will improve on that this. If voters see that he’s middle of National’s list, an up and comer compared to Clark’s low 49 it could sway votes.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 4:19 pm

                      Only time I’ve noticed the up and comer was here:

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16062010/#comment-225619 

                      I’m intrigued by your notions. It seems to me that you think that when people are deciding about which constituent candidate to vote for, some will have a squizz at the party list, and if the candidate is high on the list, be more likely to give them their constituency vote.

                      Now I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen, but I am saying it’s daft. What is the thinking behind doing that?

                      Is it a sort of:

                      I don’t know anything about the candidates per se, or how the lists are drwn up; but if this person is higher on their party list than another candidate is on their party list, then the first person’s party must think they are awesome so I’ll vote for them?

                      Genuine question there, because like I said, this strikes me as la-la-land stuff. Why would someone do that?

                    • PeteG …
                      13 April 2011 at 4:37 pm

                      Many people like to have people of influence in their electorate. I’d guess that having PM in your electorate would be popular. More chance of getting local things considered in the decision making.
                       
                      Say you had too pretty good candidates in your electorate  from the two main parties. You’d be comfortable with either as MP, and you vote based on what might be best for your electorate, you use your party vote for preferred party for government.
                       
                      You have a choice between:
                      – an unproven new candidate way down the bottom of the list of a party unlikely to win
                      – a proven candidate mid list with the potential to be promoted to cabinet of a winning party
                       
                      I doubt I’m the only voter who may consider things like that. I understand people who are closely committed to a party may not understand that therev are many things that can contribute to a decision.
                       
                      And possibly more important than candidate choice is turnout. The more profile and party credibility a candidate has the easier it will be to get people out to vote.

                    • lprent []
                      13 April 2011 at 5:01 pm

                      I’d guess that having PM in your electorate would be popular. More chance of getting local things considered in the decision making.

                      I had the Leader of the opposition / PM in my electorate for 15 years. I think it got less attention because of it. As an example Helen was certainly constrained about doing the fight against the SH20 extension when that came up. The public meetings were somewhat raucous because it was pretty difficult to find many of her voters in favour of it.

                      Sounds like another of your pretty theoretical myths to me

                    • RobC …
                      13 April 2011 at 4:52 pm

                      If Labour wanted to virtually ensure more WFU in caucus they would have chosen Alexander for the seat.

                      Except Pete, the candidate for Dunedin North is chosen by (I assume) Labour Party members (or a subset thereof) of Dunedin North

                      Balance/diversity of the whole caucus would not rate as much of a factor in the selection, I think it is safe to assume.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 April 2011 at 4:58 pm

                      Is PeteG still giving his poisonous “advice” to the Labour Party?
                       
                      *guffaw*

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      13 April 2011 at 5:18 pm

                      I still think it’s daft mate. If you want the attention of the up and comer, far better to vote someone else into the seat. That way he has to prove himself.

                      That’s if you’re down with the whole pork barreling business in the first place of course. 

                      I reckon you’re just doing the old tory, plum-in-the-mouth status bullshit; as if somehow having a flash harry mp reflects on how awesome you are as a constituent. Bit sad really.

                      Also, counter productive.

                      As Lynn says, having a top govt person as your electorate mp means that they will be under national pressure to not do you any favours, and that pressure is on top of the fact that their workload means you get less of their time.

                      It’s simple physics mate.

                    • PeteG …
                      13 April 2011 at 7:12 pm

                      I didn’t say I voted on that basis but I’d be surprised if there aren’t quite a few that do. Many people respond to celebrityitis.
                       
                      You seem to be looking at why people might vote from your own point of view. You have to imagine how others might. Standard marketing, think like the target. Those pulling Labour strings certainly haven’t figured it out very well. Too PR orientated?
                       
                       

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 April 2011 at 7:28 pm

                      NFTT 🙂

  4. Carol 4
    13 April 2011 at 8:13 am

    Good on the Green Party, Hone Harawira & Chris Carter for opposing the first draft of the Christchurch Recovery Bill last night.  Labour was more timid, but also

    all Labour’s Canterbury MPs criticised it.
    Labour earthquake recovery spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said he would suggest a series of amendments.
    “Mr Brownlee is the earthquake tsar. He holds the pen over the [Cera] chief executive and all he or she does,” he said.
    Green Party MP Kennedy Graham said the bill gave too much power to Brownlee.
    “The powers granted are excessive, the extent of public involvement is inadequate and our constitutional principles are violated,” he said.
    Select committee hearings were set down to continue in Christchurch today.

     
     
     

    • freedom 4.1
      13 April 2011 at 8:50 am

      sorry but i see no reason to congratulate them for doing what they should have done months ago with the original dictator bill
       
      the horse has not only bolted
      it has been caught, shot and delivered to the glue factory
       
      All that will now happen is some theatre on the continued erosion of democracy

      • Carol 4.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 9:13 am

        Yes, voting for the originally CERRA was a bad move by Labour & the Greens.  They wouldn’t have stopped the law so the horse would have bolted anyway.  However, they should have made a strong stand against the attack on democracy, and made a very public statement about its faults.
         
        I’m hoping the Greens at least have learned from this, and aim to be more bold in taking a principled stand now & in the future.  There’s a limited number of Left parties to vote for, I would like the Greens & Labour to be more bold & principled in the future.

    • ianmac 4.2
      13 April 2011 at 10:06 am

      Christchurch folk are a bit pissed off as they only got one day warning of the Christchurch select com meeting today.

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    13 April 2011 at 8:57 am

    The RWC sets out to screw patrons from the very start. Who the hell is running this chickenshit scheme.
     
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10718914
     

    Fans at the Rugby World Cup will need either cash or a special new Mastercard ‘tap and go’ cards to buy food and drinks at the tournament, organisers have revealed.
    And while ATMs will be available at all venues, Eftpos facilities will only be available at Eden Park in Auckland and Westpac Stadium in Wellington, but only for the Mastercard “PayPass” cards.
     

    • millsy 5.1
      13 April 2011 at 9:11 am

      So people are going to have to queue in long lines at the ATM (yes there will probably be just one), to get cash out to pay for a $5 plastic cup of urine, a $3 sandwich, and a $4 punnet of undercooked chips.

      Better just to stay at home with your mates and watch it all on TV.

      At least youll be able to drink whatever beer you want, without having it taken off you and poured down the drains by a flourovested goon.

      The whole thing feels like one big overpriced school social

      • Lanthanide 5.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 9:54 am

        The whole point of using the tap & go cards is to reduce the transaction time dramatically. Paying by eftpos or credit card is generally much slower than paying by cash (if the person has correct $ ready and the checkout person is efficient), but paying by tap & go will be significantly faster than cash.

        • freedom 5.1.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 11:02 am

          so you are quite comfortable with Tap’nGo?
           
          Used as a bus fare system is one thing, having thousands of these cards in a crowded space full of boozers and bravado is a pickpocket’s dream and that is even before the multiple frauds that could occur. These systems are locality driven transactions.  You only have to be within the reader’s field of activity to be victim to a false transaction.  This has already occured at numerous events and is one of the most supressed stories in this folly.  Speaking of folly the image used on Mastercard’s PayPass  page is a fine example of the stupidity they are creating, ever lost your keys?
          http://www.mastercard.us/paypass.html#/home/
           
          Why would you want to remove the PIN function from the transaction process.  To save a few seconds you are willing to risk losing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.  It is still your money, you should really try to protect what little is left of it.
          http://consumerist.com/2006/10/no-swipe-credit-card-no-problem-for-thieves.html
           
          Believe the banks if you wish but there is no way that magic wand payments are more secure than the physical credit authority you exercise every single time you enter a PIN.

          I may be more suspicous than some of you but when a Bank says ‘trust me’ i have to ask why?

          • Lanthanide 5.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 12:55 pm

            I never said I supported Tap’n’Go. I simply said the point of it is to dramatically reduce the queues that millsy was complaining about.

            • vto 5.1.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2011 at 1:20 pm

              ho ho, upon peering into my misty crystal ball I see hordes of partly munted hordes storming the bars in utter frustration…

            • freedom 5.1.1.1.1.2
              13 April 2011 at 1:46 pm

              i didn’t mean it to sound so smarmy. sorry ’bout that
               
              TapnGo, PayPass and the other manifestations of this transaction technology is just one more step in the preparation of people for RFID implantation and that is all there is to say about that  :]  long live cash !

  6. prism 6
    13 April 2011 at 11:04 am

    Pike River – the latest comment I’ve heard.
    Radio nz morning report Wed 13/4 Pike River Mine ‘safe enough for specialists to enter’
    A mine safety expert believes the Pike River coal mine is safe to re-enter nearly five months after an explosion that killed 29 men. Pike River Coal Ltd and its receivers say the mine is still unsafe. (duration: 3′29″)
    And he thinks that the time to enter would have been shortly after the explosion (two people with proper safety procedures).  That has been said earlier.  I wonder if this man was the originator of the point.  I remember the leading policeman saying he wouldn’t put anyone at risk to go and reconnoitre.  He was determined not to consider it, and made that clear.

    I wonder if some of the mining families would like to have had the opportunity to take the calculated risk of checking out the mine, bringing their understanding of the low ignition state after the explosion. They might have been able to place low heat lights, cameras, check oxygen lines on the way to their wounded or dead?  Is it satisfactory to have a non-miner as decision maker in such a specialised rescue? Professionals taking over and sidelineing those locals who have expertise and could and would give valuable help, guided within bounds of safety, seems the current practice.

  7. Jim Nald 7
    13 April 2011 at 1:08 pm

    A fortnight ago, the Finance Minister tried to entertain the country with his newly found vocabulary and phrase with “nice to have”.
     
    Yesterday, the Prime Minister ambitiously tried to clown better in the House by muttering “it depends”.

  8. Jim Nald 8
    13 April 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Re Blimey Blingish’s new found strategy of wages 30% below Australia:
    John Key affirms Blingish and brings good tidings of great joy to Don Brash, his 2025 Taskforce and ACT.

    Remember Finding #5 of the second 2025 Taskforce report (p139)?
    “Closing the gap requires unwavering focus on growth-promoting public policy. Strong political leadership will be needed to ensure a consistent policy focus on allowing the private sector to drive productivity, sustainable employment creation and growth. Unless this happens, those of us who remain in New Zealand will find ourselves spending an increasing portion of our incomes travelling to Australia or other countries to visit our wealthier brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren.”
     
    * Readers – please continue to spend more of your income travelling overseas to visit your loved ones.
     
    * Readers may now regard John Key as officially ending his bluff to grandparents about closing the Oz-NZ gap and having their children and grandkids here. [Winston: here’s a political pressure point]
     
    * John Key has rejected the finding of the expensive, wasteful, backroom policy pontifications of Brash and his Taskforce, and now moves clever policymaking to the policy frontline being led by Blingish.
     
    * The Taskforce can now pack up, Brash and ACT can leave for overseas, and taxpayers can save more than 30% on the Taskforce’s meeting fees.
     
     

  9. Jim Nald 9
    13 April 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Live streaming Question Time.
    Is Hekia Parata ambitiously trying to be Sarah Palin Down Under ?
    Where did they dig out this one?  Aahm, rhetorical question.
    Actually I don’t need to know.

    • Jim Nald 9.1
      13 April 2011 at 3:01 pm

      Thought I heard a pin drop in the House. Trevor (thanks, Pete) had some documents he wanted to table but was denied leave.
       
      Sounds like Pansy Wong has left a lasting legacy as Minister of Sammy’s Affairs for the National Government.
       
      Thought I glimpsed Shipley’s shade in the House.
       
      Keep it up, Shonkey. (Shipley+Wong+Key)

  10. lprent 10
    13 April 2011 at 2:47 pm

    The new server for The Standard has been handed over to me. I will be working on it this evening and hopefully have it up and running either tomorrow or friday. Then we can depart from the now traditional March/April crush where usage exceeds CPU capacity…

    • prism 11.1
      13 April 2011 at 8:28 pm

      There was a kid’s chant – Don’t care was made to care.  Good that the Courts went against the school in Oz.  Learning how to respect others differences is part of education, perhaps more important than learning about past participles, what gneist is and so on.  Tolley here should spend time getting schools to support kids so they can be happy and do well at school instead of measuring their passes or failures to jump high enough to get over the bar.

  12. Carol 12
    13 April 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Supplementary from Trevor Mallard for question #10 today in the House:  raises questions about the tenders for Kiwirail in Auckland, and implications that there should be oversight of the Minister of Transport & caution (forgot the details – maybe no tender granted to a Chinese enterprise) until the investigation by…. erm the auditor general (?) of Sammy Wong is concluded.

  13. Carol 13
    13 April 2011 at 3:26 pm

    There’s a law being rushed through the House today to combat Internet piracy. According to Stuff:

    The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill bans file sharing. It would allow copyright owners to ask for a six-month suspension of the internet accounts of those who repeatedly infringe.

     
    Does this mean there will be a ban on ALL file sharing?  Not all file sharing infringes copyright.

    • anarcho 13.1
      13 April 2011 at 4:02 pm

      this totally fucking sucks. Bad law – and sneaking it in under the glare of CERA.
       
      What can one do? Peerblock? Any cybergeeks with possible answers? (‘don’t file share’ is not answer!)

      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 11:17 pm

        Vote NACT+MP out and pressure the new government to put in proper, rational laws.

  14. Dai 14
    13 April 2011 at 5:05 pm

    Brilliant idea, get rid of all legal aid, buy shares in private prisons.

  15. Pascal's bookie 15
    13 April 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Remember when one of Key’s little minions went on the record to call Pete Hodgson a ‘fuckwit’?

    Reckon apologies are in order and that one should be asked for in the house. Minion said that he could be quoted, minion works for the PM.

  16. Deadly_NZ 16
    13 April 2011 at 5:57 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10719004
     
    Looks like he’s going to be saving his pennies so he can buy lots of nice NZ power company shares.

  17. Pascal's bookie 17
    13 April 2011 at 8:27 pm

    This new law they are talking about then:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4879519/will-family-fist-like-this?

    Does it mean that spouses will be obliged to report s59 type cases?

    • dad4justice 17.1
      13 April 2011 at 8:37 pm

      So legal aid will continue to assist vindictive mothers to make malicious false allegations to the feminist Femily Court system without consequences. Nothing changes in the land of lies!

      • RedLogix 17.1.1
        13 April 2011 at 8:45 pm

        Indeed… d4j. Middle New Zealand has become frightened and mean. This is why the fascist streak is showing.

        • dad4justice 17.1.1.1
          13 April 2011 at 8:51 pm

          Is the “middle New Zealand” the poor sods on $12 hr who have to pay the fat cats huge bucks for a loaf of bread and a glass of milk!
          Name one good reason why a young person would stay in this corrupt cess pit Nation? I blame the demented pollie scumbags.

          • RedLogix 17.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2011 at 8:58 pm

            Middle New Zealand … has been propagandised into voting against it’s interests. We’ve seen the same for decades in the USA, where the poorest working class consistently votes Republican for instance. It just took us a while for us to catch up.
             
            They are grateful to the big business men who are good enough to give them $12 per hour.

            • higherstandard 17.1.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2011 at 8:09 am

              I’ve just reviewed the last dozen or so comments from you RL. You have become a troll. Welcome to the club….HS

              [lprent: 🙂 I’ll let that stay in the bold as a one-off (even if you’re wrong IMHO). Looks to me more like a case of sour grapes in a spirit glass? ]

              [I invite hs to do a quick search on his name and read the last twenty or so comments he has made. Most of them are sneering put downs that have contributed little to nothing. Everyone gets snarky from time to time, but when it becomes the dominant theme then it’s time for a warning. That was all it was. For hs to then make this sour grape response is scarcely smart on his part… but I guess he’s had his jollies this morning. RL]

  18. Jum 18
    13 April 2011 at 8:50 pm

    dad4justice,
    Written any letters to your hero, Key, lately, from one misogynist to another how you want to make women suffer for daring to reject you and he answered by stopping them having pay equity, then got rid of thousands of them from their part time work on to unemployment so that he could say the average wage had gone up?
    You’re never happy are you crxxp?

    • dad4justice 18.1
      13 April 2011 at 8:54 pm

      Jum
      My 10 year forced legal aid nightmare cost the kiwi taxpayer well over $2 million. All built on false allegations. No doubt you will be pleased. [Deleted… You know that’s flame baiting….RL]

  19. Jum 19
    13 April 2011 at 10:01 pm

    Having seen you in action, d4j, and knowing that in relationships, it is never the fault of just one of the couple, I believe you wasted at least one of the $2million.
    While I hate for anyone to suffer from relationship breakups i.e. the kids, Mum, Dad, the extended family… I remember when women had no rights at all; in fact they had no rights to their own children.  They got pregnant, had the child and then ceased to have any rights over their schooling, their religion, their welfare – everything – because women had no rights.
    Care to comment on historic facts and then put it in the context of now where the law is a lot fairer?

  20. ianmac 20
    13 April 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Great! The Breakers have reached the Finals!

    • RobC 20.1
      14 April 2011 at 7:31 am

      Hell yeah. Although given they’re more productive and 30% cheaper I’d expect nothing less 😀