Open mike 13/05/2012

82 comments on “Open mike 13/05/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   13 May 2012 at 7:22 am

   My goodness. That has been one LOOOOONG cup of tea, and still the cup’s not empty, nor has it been cleared away.

   Herald on Sunday must have been quite p*ssed at the PM’s behaviour over it. HoS has 2 articles on it, both include criticisms of JonKey’s behaviour over the cuppa.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10805498

   Prime Minister John Key personally phoned Solicitor General David Collins to pass on his gratitude for work on the so-called teapot tape case, two days before the election.

   The Solicitor General’s office is meant to be kept strictly independent from all political influence.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10796192

   An independent review finds nobody at the Herald on Sunday or its sister publications commissioned, suggested or condoned any recording in the teapot tapes saga. For the first time, Jonathan Milne can tell how the storm in the teacup was brewed and then stirred up.
   […]
   An independent review finds nobody at the Herald on Sunday or its sister publications commissioned, suggested or condoned any recording in the teapot tapes saga. For the first time, Jonathan Milne can tell how the storm in the teacup was brewed and then stirred up.
   […]
   John Key faces a decision, too. It is a simple one, but a challenging one for any public figure.

   Will he admit that, this time, he got it wrong?
   • ianmac 1.1

     13 May 2012 at 10:33 am

     Well pointed Carol. I guess that Mr Key will ignore the implications but somehow I wish that Ambrose would get a Declaration and thus force some sort of political/legal resolution.
     The catch is of course the political forces would no doubt dig some sort of dirt on Ambrose to forestall credibility, or further damage credibility.
     But doesn’t that bluddy ad that heads the Herald page annoy? I will never buy one of those cars!
   • deuto 1.2

     13 May 2012 at 10:51 am

     I am also pleased that the HOS is continuing to have an interest in this case, and while one phone call in itself is not a major issue, it is again another instance of Key acting inappropriately.

     I am also pleased that today they included a prominate link to the earlier article on 1 April, as I felt at the time this was published, that it was somewhat overshadowed by other events. It gives a very plausible account of what actually happened by someone else who was there at the tea party and involved in the aftermath.

     And, yes, Ianmac that ad also bugs me!
     • Jackal 1.2.1

       13 May 2012 at 1:55 pm

       The phone call thanking the Solicitor-General is serious because it reconfirms the corruption. There is no doubt that the Solicitor-General’s office was acting on behalf of John Key, who got special treatment by what is meant to be an independent entity.

       Solicitor-General compromised

       Finlayson’s reason for the Solicitor-General representing is basically because John Key got into trouble in a private capacity and this would impinge on his ability to function as the PM… so the crown was obliged to step in. If that’s not corruption I don’t know what is.
       • deuto 1.2.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 2:32 pm

         Thanks, Jackal. After I hit the submit button, I thought that my wording was wrong particularly in suggesting that the phone call was insignicant which it is not. But I had to go out so left it.

         I totally agree that the whole way this situation was handled by Key and his people, from the actual tea party onwards was way out of order and corrupt. Having worked in the justice sector although not a legal beagle and being well experienced in the machinery of government, the use/misuse of Crown Law and the Solicitor General’s office in this case was extremely disturbing. Part of the problem is that we seem to be seeing such actions from Key and his Ministers on an ongoing basis, but yet the general public do not seem to comprehend or be interested in what this means and continue to support this PM and his mob.
       • Frida 1.2.1.2

         13 May 2012 at 4:22 pm

         +1 Jackal. The Solicitor-General should only ever have abided in this one, or perhaps made some lowkey submissions on how any criminal investigation would be affected. He should never have advocated for the leader of a party like he did (this was an electoral issue). And now he’s a judge, despite a record of fuck ups while in office. Go figure.
2. Pete George 2

   13 May 2012 at 7:37 am

   The Cunliffe cancellation from The Nation yesterday has been seen by some as a ruckus in the ranks.

   I think it may be a potential positive, with Shearer starting to actually lead, and making it clear to others what their position in the party has to be.

   Is it, at last, signs of Shearer’s leadership? But where are genuine signs of party unity and support?

   Perhaps Shearer’s making steps in the right direction, but his party has to visibly unite behind him. Obviously some commenters here are independent of Labour and will voice disagreement, but it’s up to known Labourites like Anthony, lprent and mickysavage to sound like they are backing and promoting Shearer’s leadership.

   Until that show of support happens in a sustained way I don’t like Labour’s chances of successfully rebuilding credibility as a party ready for Government..
   • Socialist Paddy 2.1

     13 May 2012 at 7:44 am

     It is nothing of the sort.

     It is a sign of weakness and insecurity to stop one of your best performers from appearing on television and taking the fight to the Government because you are afraid of him getting airtime.

     If Shearer is a real leader he will support Cunliffe in his role and not muzzle him.

     The Labour Party needs to stop playing games with each other and unite against the real enemy, the National Party.
     • Ad 2.1.1

       13 May 2012 at 7:51 am

       It was not a sign of leadership of any kind to have absolutely no-one front The Nation 10 days out from the Budget.

       It was not a sign of leadership of any kind to allow Tony Ryle a free and unopposed interview about asset sales, in the week they had announced that National would actually stand in the market after the sale to buy back shares for some New Zealanders.

       Net outcome from the weekend: Labour was not an effective opposition.

       David Shearer has no sack.
       • Pete George 2.1.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 8:09 am

         I’ve just heard Garner’s spiel on this on The Nation and he mostly discusses Shearer apparently standing up to Cunliffe and “bawling him out” in caucus.

         He also made the point that Shearer’s office said they didn’t want to have David Parker’s role as finance spokesman intefered with leading up to the budget. Reasonable point. Why wasn’t Parker lined up for The Nation in the first place?
         • Ad 2.1.1.1.1

           13 May 2012 at 8:13 am

           (a) Because Parker is weak
           (b) Because Shearer is petulant enough to have no-one front for Labour rather than let the effective Cunliffe have a crack
         • felix 2.1.1.1.2

           13 May 2012 at 8:29 am

           “I’ve just heard Garner’s spiel on this on The Nation and he mostly discusses Shearer apparently standing up to Cunliffe”

           Pete, that just shows how badly Shearer handled it. If he’d done his job then Garner would be discussing what Labour says about the budget, but instead he has to talk about why Labour didn’t send anyone to talk about the budget.
           • Jackal 2.1.1.1.2.1

             13 May 2012 at 10:08 am

             So let me get this straight… Rightwing commentator Duncan Garner has a bleat about Cunliffe’s no show on The Nation, making up some rubbish about Shearer telling him not to appear and suddenly we have the “Divided Labour” claims again coming from more rightwing hacks who’s commentary has proven itself incorrect on many occasions.

             I agree that somebody should have represented but that’s not a signal of any division. It’s a media beat-up by a rightwing hack for rightwing hacks… nothing more.
             • felix …

               13 May 2012 at 10:18 am

               “…that’s not a signal of any division. It’s a media beat-up…”

               Yes of course it’s a beat-up, but a totally predictable and easily avoidable one.
             • Vicky32 …

               13 May 2012 at 5:46 pm

               I agree that somebody should have represented but that’s not a signal of any division. It’s a media beat-up by a rightwing hack for rightwing hacks… nothing more.

               Seconded! AFAIK all the most anti-Shearer people here are not Labour people.
               I am for one, and I back Shearer…
   • mickysavage 2.2

     13 May 2012 at 8:16 am

     Morning Pete

     I can assure you that I am a dedicated and loyal member of the party and support the party and its leader.  I wish that whoever apparently leaked to TV3 confidential information from what happened in Caucus would do the same.

     You keep asking me to again pledge support.

     I can recall you being asked repeatedly who you were going to vote for in the 2011 election and you never committed to voting for United Future even though you were on its list and an electorate candidate in Dunedin. 

     Do you think your failure to commit hurt the party?  After all it did very poorly in the election.  

     A simple yes or no answer will do. 
     • Pete George 2.2.1

       13 May 2012 at 8:29 am

       Do you think your failure to commit hurt the party?

       Simple answer – no.

       I think there were much bigger forces at play than I was able to influence. I was standing in Dunedin, where the main media ODT had a policy of virutally no local electorate coverage. I had only been in the party for three months with minimal profile.

       The significant forces included:
       – Winston Peters successfully capturing a lot of small party share of media coverage
       – media promotinjg “Dunne at risk in Ohariu” despite being shown polling suggesting Dunne was safe. Dunne was right, Chauvel and the media were wrong.
       – Dunne having to commit so much time and focus on holding Ohariu, for obvious reasons.
       – UF having no one with a national profile able to campaign nationally.

       I can assure you that I am a dedicated and loyal member of the party and support the party and its leader.

       That’s a repeat of a fairly weak assurance. Can you directly name and indicate support for David Shearer?
       • rosy 2.2.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 8:47 am

         Jeez Pete, now that’s how you really annoy me. Weak?? MS’s statement was crystal clear.

         No-one is bigger than the party, even it’s leader (something Key should learn). If MS had written ‘…support the party and David Shearer’ you would probably given him grief about not being able to move on if Shearer was rolled!

         A bit rich coming from someone who refused to even state that he’d vote for his party until seriously pressed to do so.
         • Pete George 2.2.1.1.1

           13 May 2012 at 8:53 am

           A bit rich coming from someone who refused to even state that he’d vote for his party until seriously pressed to do so.

           You’re confusing playing games on a blog that had no target market to the actual campaigning I did. And I wasn’t “seriously pressed to do so”, I freely chose to add my voting intentions under no pressure, along with everyone else who did so on the thread for it.
         • felix 2.2.1.1.2

           13 May 2012 at 8:57 am

           You got that far through Pete’s comment?

           I got stuck in a loop trying to figure out why Dunne had to spend “so much time and focus on holding Ohariu” that he couldn’t help Pete retain the votes from the previous election, despite knowing that he was safe in Ohariu all along.
           • rosy 2.2.1.1.2.1

             13 May 2012 at 9:05 am

             No, I always read the last line of his comments first to see if it’s worth the effort of going back through through the groups of words before it.
           • Pete George 2.2.1.1.2.2

             13 May 2012 at 9:18 am

             felix – indications were better than media reported, but nothing was guaranteed. Going by the party vote polls Ohariu was essential and he couldn’t take the risk not to give it most of his attention.
             • felix …

               13 May 2012 at 9:24 am

               Oh of course. But it was “safe”?
               • Pete George …

                 13 May 2012 at 9:34 am

                 Safe with sustained attention. Dunne acknowledges he didn’t pay Ohariu enough attention leading up to 2008 and was determined to do more work in his electorate.

                 It’s a huge task looking after an electorate, being a sole MP running the parliamentary side of a party, and being a minister in Government. National campaigning took a hit. If UF is to survive it needs more effort from more people, Dunne can’t do it all.
                 • freedom …

                   13 May 2012 at 10:19 am

                   “If UF is to survive it needs more effort from more people, Dunne can’t do it all.”

                   – having candidates not openly and directly state who they are voting for must have really helped the party
                   • deuto …

                     13 May 2012 at 10:37 am

                     having candidates not openly and directly state who they are voting for must have really helped the party

                     Exactly – this statement at 2.2.1.1.1 above from PG is delusional BS And I wasn’t “seriously pressed to do so”, I freely chose to add my voting intentions under no pressure, along with everyone else who did so on the thread for it. I for one, clearly recall the plethora of comments to and from PG on this.

                     I have no doubt that having a candidate that spent most of his time during the election campaign commenting on websites rather than out there actually campaigning and walking the talk did not help the party either.
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 12:30 pm

                     a candidate that spent most of his time during the election campaign commenting on websites

                     You’ve got no idea how I campaigned.

                     Nor how local campaigns work in Dunedin – when Channel 9 went out into the suburbs asking about candidates many didn’t even know who the eventual MP was. And I bet that now if the electorates were surveyed here many wouldn’t know many if any of the four Dunedin based MPs.

                     One of the only ways to get much profile is to get on national media. As one TV journo told me, the bosses in Auckland are only interested in Benson-Pope type stories down here.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     13 May 2012 at 12:35 pm

                     You’ve got no idea how I campaigned.

                     No we don’t. But we do know how many votes you got.
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 12:41 pm

                     Which not surprisingly was very close to nation wide votes and party vote, indicating most people vote for parties and many electorate contests are barely contested.
                   • felix …

                     13 May 2012 at 1:27 pm

                     “You’ve got no idea how I campaigned.”

                     Of course we have no idea how you campaigned Pete. Because no-one here exists offline.

                     And there definitely aren’t any Dunedinites here with an interest in politics.

                     I did happen to see a few clips of you in your offline campaign, and it struck me that you were always talking about what you do online.
3. Pete George 3

   13 May 2012 at 7:48 am

   If Shearer is a real leader he will support Cunliffe in his role and not muzzle him.

   If Cunliffe is a real party man and not an individual with his own leadership agenda he will show support for Shearer. When he has earned respect and trust Shearer should allow Cunliffe to workn freely in his spokesman role.
   • Ad 3.1

     13 May 2012 at 8:19 am

     If that were the case, Shearer would have allowed to go on The Nation, as a simple example.

     Instead we are seeking Shearer and his masters centralize everything to the Leader and the Leader’s office. It is precisely this paranoia that was Goff’s undoing. No-one was prepared to tell Goff that he wasn’t as good as Key, and needed the whole team to take Key on.

     Exactly the same thing is happening here. Shearer cannot take on Key and never will. But rather than acknowledge this and enable his whole team take Key on, he prefers to suppress them. All except Trevor Mallard.

     Which goes to show that as Mallard and Shearer allow their own house to remain divided, Key’s government is allowed to stand.

     The focus here should not be on those who try and actively engage with the Government like Cunliffe (which is of course the core Opposition’s job), but on those who are not effectively leading.
4. Tiger Mountain 4

   13 May 2012 at 8:42 am

   Actual Labour Party members should have the floor on this type of issue, sure we can all put our 5 cents worth in, 2 cents in Pete’s case, but the members (as in not United Future members) will have to sort it out in the end.
   • Te Reo Putake 4.1

     13 May 2012 at 9:49 am

     Nicely put, TM. From my vantage point, while there is some concern that Shearer risks being seen as being too passive at this early point in his leadership, party members I talk to are heartened that both Labour, and the left generally, are holding up in the polls. We have a good platform to build on and Key seems determined to burn off National’s support base, one insult at a time.
      
     So that leaves the obvious question: is Shearer’s strategy to allow National to collapse without Labour being seen as having contributed to the fall? I’m picking that it is a desire to go into the next election with what the lawyers call ‘clean hands’ that is motivating Shearer. He wants to be able put Labour up as honest brokers of change, untainted by the negativity of National.
      
     An indication of this is the asset sales campaign, which is not a purely LP initiative, of course, but one into which they have a significant input. Gone are the ‘No Asset Sales’ signs, in comes the more up beat message of ‘Keep Our Assets’. I think we will see Labour do more and more positive positioning as they seek to be seen as the alternative to the messages of misery from Key and co.
     • felix 4.1.1

       13 May 2012 at 10:03 am

       “in comes the more up beat message of ‘Keep Our Assets’.”

       Ah, the Greens’ message. lol
       • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 10:06 am

         I’d be keener on ‘build our assets’, but I’m not sure the electorate is ready for a nationalisation program just yet!
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           13 May 2012 at 10:12 am

           😀
         • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.2

           13 May 2012 at 11:52 am

           I think that a lot of people are. They’ve seen how bad privatisation has been and are willing to go back some to get better services.
       • Pete George 4.1.1.2

         13 May 2012 at 10:12 am

         Ah, the Greens’ message.

         The Greens ran a much more positive election campaign, no surprise they improved and Labour went backwards. At last Labour are starting to get it, even if it’s an anti the other lot campaign at least it’s framed more positively.
     • Ad 4.1.2

       13 May 2012 at 10:04 am

       Te Reo you are being very generous. If Labour wanted to do it with as you say “clean hands”, you would need to be be mighty sure that National were going to fall by themselves. You are dead right that is a valid medium-term tactic.

       But I see National with Key at the helm as masters of distraction and dog-whistle. They are definitely weak for coalition partners, so the “do nothing” option is definitely fair.

       But I still think it’s a core job of being in Opposition to demonstrate that you are a credible Government-in-waiting. Both in policy clarity and in the coalition partners you can tell the public will function well together.
5. freedom 5

   13 May 2012 at 8:55 am

   Funny thing with the Tony Ryall interview, when he was discussing what the money from the sales is to be spent on there was not any mention of schools or hospitals or anything other than paying off debt. (and we know how well that worked last time!) What a shocker, seems the spin prior to the election worked, hook line and cement block.

   also amusing to see Ryall unable to follow the breadcrumbs Garner laid out showing that for the Government to use shares in treaty settlements meant they have to buy some. Either when first floated or as Ryall said, later on from the market. Now if the shares are not bought immediately upon floating, and banked for later use, surely they will only cost more as the value of the shares is expected to increase. I would lay short odds that the purchase of shares at a later date is going to cost a whole lot more than the cheap loans we could be getting today, and we lose the ongoing dividends. The closer they get to the sales the more of a pigs breakfast it is becoming.

   At least Ryall admitted National have added 42 billion dollars of debt in a little over three years.
6. Well Balanced: a Chip on Both Shoulders 6

   13 May 2012 at 9:29 am

   Q&A: how did Labour manage to be absent from today’s show? Two days in a row when the Nats are on the back foot, and they are AWOL from the TV.

   Was there no one in the Shearer’s office answering phone calls from TV current affairs producers during the week?
   • felix 6.1

     13 May 2012 at 9:49 am

     Maybe they’re boycotting political shows. You know, like John Key does.
     • ianmac 6.1.1

       13 May 2012 at 9:57 am

       Just what I was about to say Felix. The number of no-shows of the PM and of Ministers is legion. But there is hardly a murmer.
       Just hope that there is method in the Labour strategy. Watch this space -optimistically?
       • Anne 6.1.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 11:49 am

         Umm… the Greens and NZ First had their turn today. Do you think it is possible that Labour is holding it’s arsenal for next Sunday… only days before Budget day? Voter attention is likely to be more focused by then. No Mum’s day to distract them either.
         • Pete George 6.1.1.1.1

           13 May 2012 at 12:36 pm

           It’s a bit pointless before the budget.

           All Norman and Peters did was say that the Government is doing it all wrong and if they were in Government their policies would be all successful, unlike in just about any other country during the GFC. Pointless pontificating.

           There’s no way of knowing if things would be better or worse if Government made none of the changes they did, or if a different Government had made different changes. The much touted CGT would have taken many years to have had much effect.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             13 May 2012 at 12:42 pm

             There’s no way of knowing if things would be better or worse if Government made none of the changes they did, or if a different Government had made different changes.

             That must be why UF doesn’t challenge the Nats on anything. After all what’s the point of being in Parliament beyond collecting the paycheck?
             • Pete George …

               13 May 2012 at 12:50 pm

               That must be why UF doesn’t challenge the Nats on anything

               That’s a claim you can’t substantiate.

               Policies were negotiated in the C&S, and UF driven policies are progressing, like:
               http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/child-support-bill-big-step-fairer-scheme
               (Admittedly National didn’t challenge UF on this, Neither did Labour).

               Part of Dunne’s job is to discuss issues with various National ministers, getting an input into policy. And it’s well known that Dunne has different positions to National on a number of issues. But don’t let reality stop you from generalised nonsense accusations.

               BTW, I get accused hijacking threads off-topic, several have tried that here today, and it hasn’t been me.
               • felix …

                 13 May 2012 at 1:30 pm

                 It’s open mike, Pete. 😉

                 “That’s a claim you can’t substantiate.”

                 Ok, what has Dunne challenged the Nats on exactly?
                 • freedom …

                   13 May 2012 at 4:35 pm

                   i think you have finally cracked it Felix. A perfect PeteG vaccine. We only have to administer that question once a day and Pete G dissapears in a puff of fallibility. 🙂
                 • Pete George …

                   13 May 2012 at 5:19 pm

                   Monday-ising Waitangi and Anzac days, TVNZ7, and 26 weeks maternity leave are ones he has publicly said he will challenge National’s position on if they come to a vote, that’s just obvious ones from the past couple of months.

                   National have to consult with Dunne to see what he will agree to in order to pass any none confidence and supply legislation that the Maori Party don’t support. All of Dunne, Banks and the Maori MPs have a degree of influence on what National can do.

                   Dunne has probably more influence than his 1/61 share of the vote, but is aware of the need to not exceed a reasonable degree of influence. There’s a fairly strong sentiment against tail wags dog – apart from those who expect to get their own way regardless of democratic principals.
                   • felix …

                     13 May 2012 at 5:59 pm

                     “National have to consult with Dunne to see what he will agree to in order to pass any none confidence and supply legislation that the Maori Party don’t support.”

                     Right, but are you saying that in the last three and a half years there have been things the Nats wanted to pass that never made it to the floor because there was no point without Dunne’s agreement? (Mondayising holidays et al don’t fit here btw because the Nats want to pass those at all – those are private members bills opposed by them)

                     And therefore everything they have passed has had the Dunne stamp of approval?
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 6:17 pm

                     Last term his vote wasn’t necessary, National could get votes with either Maori Party or Act.

                     As far as I understand how things work (limited), what is do-ableamongst coalition partners is worked out before bills are put forward to the House. It makes sense to do that – doesn’t it?
                   • felix …

                     13 May 2012 at 6:26 pm

                     “Last term his vote wasn’t necessary”

                     So? The question still applies: what govt bills has he actually opposed.
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 9:32 pm

                     They don’t have voting in a database (it’s being considered) but the first week’s journal I checked had this:

                     Wednesday, 2 May 2012
                     Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill

                     The House resumed the interrupted debate on the question, that the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

                     On the question, That the bill be now read a third time, the votes were recorded as follows:
                     Ayes 63 New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1
                     Noes 57 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1; United Future 1

                     http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Journals/3/a/0/00HOHJournals201205011-Journals-of-the-House-for-the-week-beginning.htm
                 • Socialist Paddy …

                   13 May 2012 at 5:35 pm

                   But Pete will Dunne challenge National and then go along like a scolded puppy when they say no?  Or is he going to actually grow a pair and vote against the Government on these issues?

                   Or is retention of the limo privileges more important to the member (said in the nicest possible way).
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 5:39 pm

                     He’s said he will vote for these or would support these if they come to that (Curran’s TVNZ7 members bill is far too late). There’s no reason to doubt that.

                     Mondayising is on the go now:

                     Labour MP David Clark says he has the political support he needs for his members bill, which would make Monday a public holiday when either Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fall on a weekend.

                     Mr Clark says he has the support of all parties except National, giving him the votes he needs to get the bill to a select committee.

                     http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/105742/bill-to-%27monday-ise%27-holidays-has-support-labour

                     As soon as the bill was drawn I contacted Dunne and he confirmed then he would support it. I’ve been on record here on all that.
                   • Socialist Paddy …

                     13 May 2012 at 6:06 pm

                     So is that it?

                     We provide this bugger with limos in the hope he will Mondayise a couple of holidays?

                     I would rather support Hone. At least he stands up and says shyte that challenges Key and his cronies. 
                   • Pete George …

                     13 May 2012 at 6:14 pm

                     He does a lot more than that. He is Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health. I’ll try and get a summary of what he does.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.2

             13 May 2012 at 1:12 pm

             There’s no way of knowing if things would be better or worse if Government made none of the changes they did, or if a different Government had made different changes.

             There’s this thing called history that we can learn from and, interestingly enough, what this government is doing has been tried before and it didn’t work then whereas what the other parties are suggesting is closer to what did kinda work before. It’s still capitalism and so it won’t ever truly work and will need to be bailed out again sometime in the future.
             • Pete George …

               13 May 2012 at 1:21 pm

               what the other parties are suggesting is closer to what did kinda work before.

               Kinda worked where and when? In what global economic conditions?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 13 May 2012 at 2:24 pm

                 Try the Great Depression and after.
7. Hammer 7

   13 May 2012 at 10:04 am

   Peak Oil hits another snag

   The story of Peak Oil just can’t get legs; for 50 years the Greens have found that stating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true.

   The US Geological Survey has just announced a 200 year supply of Shale OIL under Utah/Colorado. It may be about equal to all the world’s proven oil reserves.

   http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/5706-200-year-supply-of-oil-in-one-single-shale-formation.html

   Not a good day for the sheiks or the Greens.
   • Ad 7.1

     13 May 2012 at 10:09 am

     Global supply is interesting, but the question is what price at the pumps here? I don’t presume to be a petroleum expert, but I can imagine that harder-to-extract oil being more expensive, and can also easily imagine future Labour-Green governments raising the excise tax on petrol.

     Even if there is a very soft and long peak, price may still be driven up here. We still need to prepare for a significantly higher pump-price. We have already seen pretty high price elasticity at over $2.00. Imagine it under Labour-Greens at cover $3.00 91 Octane.

     Anyone seen any MoT or MoT scenario modelling on petrol price elasticity in New Zealand?
   • Clashman 7.2

     13 May 2012 at 10:31 am

     Well the Greens wont be happy but the Sheiks will be.
   • Bill 7.3

     13 May 2012 at 11:20 am

     Shale oil?
     How much oil can be refined per tonne of shale; and ‘petrol grade’ per tonne (or in whatever measurement it is that is commonly used.) of extracted crude? What’s the environmental impact of attempting to recover the stuff in it’s present form? What sort and quantity of ‘by-product’ are we looking at? What’s the energy input required for recovery and refining? What other resources need to be used in the extraction process and what quantity of them are used in relation to recovered ‘crude’ product? And what do we do with the ‘by products’…disposal wise. And what’s even jut the basic financial cost of extracting it? And so on.

     Plus. Why do it?
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       13 May 2012 at 11:38 am

       Exactly:

       No attempt was made to estimate the amount of oil that is economically recoverable because there has not yet been an economic method developed to recover the oil from Green River Formation oil shale.

       http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3063/pdf/FS11-3063.pdf

       I’m guessing that EROEI in this shale oil is under 3:1.

       And it appears that this USGS survey was done in 2011, with oil prices >US$100/bb, and its still considered uneconomic. My guess is that The incremental cost of pulling this oil up is over US$100/bb.

       So the oil is there, but chances are no one will ever be able to afford to extract and use it.
   • Lanthanide 7.4

     13 May 2012 at 6:51 pm

     Hammer, you need to find out more about Peak Oil. It is talking about a peak in extraction rate. This is definitely not the same as “running out” or “used up half of all oil”.

     Imagine a long-tail scenario, where it takes 10 years to get to peak production and then a long long tale lasting out for 200 years. The peak has still been reached after 10 years, but that solitary fact doesn’t tell us anything about the length of the tale.

     We reached the peak of conventional oil production in 2006. This means it’s highly unlikely conventional oil will ever get back up to those levels again. Meanwhile growth in alternative sources of oil, such as tar sands and deep water have kept total liquids on roughly a plateau since then. Eventually we’ll fall off the plateau. The fact that there’s 200 ‘year worth’ of oil shale available doesn’t help (in the short-medium term) us if it actually takes 300 years to process and extract it all.
8. muzza 8

   13 May 2012 at 11:19 am

   Yemen next on the chopping block eh. Must have been all the great work from that super hero double agent eh!

   Here comes the collateral expended in order to cover up the obvious lies, I mean story about the intercepted hyjack, hi tech nappy bomb!

   “The Pentagon recently sent American military trainers to Yemen, and Washington has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to assist the impoverished Arab nation fight al-Qaida and other extremist groups in the country”

   —Translation – We sent in our brass to make sure that the “rag heads” had their story straight, and knew who is boss, as well as give the fiat they needed to pay the ” made up AQ” guys, and whoever else they could round up to fire the weapons we provided. See we have to give funding and arming these groups, so that the military machine has never ending control of the planet, and so as the yanks can blow up the same “rag heads” with the drones, no matter where they hide, and claim the mighty victory!

   America – Fcuk Yeah!
9. Draco T Bastard 9

   13 May 2012 at 11:36 am

   Ha, this is funny.

   Wozniak added that there are “50 companies” trying to sell him DSL, but they would have to go through the local phone company Horizon’s wires.

   “I’ve got one of the two worst Horizons in the country. And so I can’t get broadband in my house,” he reportedly said.

   Lots of competition, no service.
   • weka 9.1

     13 May 2012 at 12:17 pm

     Yeah that is funny. Not quite as funny as the broadband situation in NZ though 😉
      
     • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1

       13 May 2012 at 1:07 pm

       Actually, it’s close to exactly the same. In most places there’s only one network and that’s Telecom. You may connect through a different ISP but the connection is still Telecom and there’s a very good reason for that – multiple networks are very expensive and highly inefficient. What we have is faux competition which actually made it worse because the monopoly that Telecom had with an already viable network meant that they didn’t have to improve that network and the new ISPs had to buy from Telecom anyway.
       • Kevin Welsh 9.1.1.1

         13 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

         You may connect through a different ISP but the connection is still Telecom and there’s a very good reason for that – multiple networks are very expensive and highly inefficient. What we have is faux competition which actually made it worse because the monopoly that Telecom had with an already viable network meant that they didn’t have to improve that network and the new ISPs had to buy from Telecom anyway.

         Unless you work in the Onekawa industrial suburb of Napier. Unison (the community owned lines company) have used the power poles to supply fibre throughout the suburb, and now almost a year later, Chorus are digging up the streets… laying fibre. Money wasted and a duplication of infrastructure.
       • weka 9.1.1.2

         13 May 2012 at 8:26 pm

         Yes, I’m aware of that Draco, but at least in the US you can buy fairly decent mobile internet, plus there are massive amounts of free wifi.
          
         I shouldn’t complain I suppose. The main reason (apart from Telecom being evil) that we have poor internet is because we have small population. I’d rather have crap internet access and less people to be honest.
         • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.1

           13 May 2012 at 9:53 pm

           The main reason (apart from Telecom being evil) that we have poor internet is because we have small population.

           Nope, the only reason we have crap internet is because we sold Telecom and deregulated telecommunications. If we hadn’t have done either of those then we would have a much better network and cheaper access as all the surplus would have been reinvested rather than being taken out as profits.
10. muzza 10

    13 May 2012 at 11:37 am

    So they send teams to the local growers market, but put signs up at the super markets

    You put a specimen in a trap , then use the opportunity as a dry run for the Food Safety Bill enforcement techniques?

    “There is no guarantee there will be more than one fly,” said Quirke

    — Translation, another will NOT found, as we put the original in the trap so this drill could be run!

    Lets see if we get some Food Safety Bill articles this week!
    • Poission 10.1

      13 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

      The larger present problem is the Kiwifruit PSA outbreak,the concomitant outbreaks in the world largest export nations of NZ,Italy,and Chile are a remarkable geographical “coincidence” and the trackback suggests the originating strain originated in China.

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036518&annotationId=49635;jsessionid=A957222400BC66D0A515AF8A9741DCC6

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120509180040.htm
11. Dave Kennedy 11

    13 May 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Why can’t we have a New Zealand “Hard Talk” with a capable and truly informed interviewer?

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/paul-holmes-needs-to-go.html
    • Chris 11.1

      13 May 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Greg Boyed?
      • Dave Kennedy 11.1.1

        13 May 2012 at 11:17 pm

        I’m sure he would be fine, I think there are many real journalists who could do the job better than Mr Holmes.
12. Adrian 12

    13 May 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Good work Poission. It appears as though you don’t even have to read between the lines when the researchers state ” …imported independently to Italy from China and to NZ from China ” . We have been in a “soft’ war with China for a long time and it will only get nastier. Meanwhile as usual, the generals and the politicians are preparing to fight the last one.
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    13 May 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Now this is an interesting thought:

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/descent-into-stasis.html

    Still, the ability to plunder one corner of a complex system is not the same thing as the ability to control the whole system, and the freedom with which so many people pillage the institutions they’re supposed to be managing could as well be understood as a sign that there’s no center of power willing or able to defend the core interests of the US empire against death by financial hemorrhage. The only power the executives of, say, Goldman Sachs need is the power to block any effort to stop them from stripping their bank to the bare walls for their personal enrichment, or to cut them off from the access to tax dollars that’s made that process so lucrative. That much power they certainly have—but it’s a kind and a degree of power shared by many other influential groups in America just now.

    He’s going on about power distribution and that instead of it being concentrated it’s become diffuse and thus prone to stasis. Of course, the diffuse that he’s talking about is pure oligarchy/plutocracy.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS