Open mike 13/10/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:50 am, October 13th, 2014 - 198 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

198 comments on “Open mike 13/10/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Not a PS Shark Sashimi 1
    13 October 2014 at 7:02 am

    Mike Williams: use the phone.

    How FFS does it help the Labour movement to have a former President’s thoughts on the leadership broadcast on TV?

    Some people get wiser as the grow older. Others just get more vain.

    • Skinny 1.1
      13 October 2014 at 7:16 am

      Yes it is hardly inspiring having negative views from Mike. His attacks on Cunliffe are very much over the top and are ‘his’ opinion. Let us see if he gives David Parker the same grief over his stupid notion of continuing the raising of the retirement age policy. For goodness sake calling for a referendum will only drive further supporters away.

      • Clean_power 1.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 7:23 am

        His comments are telling: Mike Williams seems to be working for Grant Robertson. He is never away from a microphone, so the coming weeks will reveal who his candidate is. Certainly, not David Cunliffe.

        • phillip ure 1.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 7:28 am

          williams is a card-carrying member of the neo-lib/fuck-the-poor consensus..

          ..and his hatred of what cunnliffe/progressive-policies cd offer..

          ..is bordering on pathological..

          …and williams first supported rightwing-sell-out shane jones – in that previous leadership race..

          ..doesn’t that really tell you all you need to know..?

          • felix 1.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 8:04 am

            Wasn’t he backing/endorsing Cunliffe last time though?

          • Chooky Shark Smile 1.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2014 at 8:36 am

            Williams has spent too much time in the company of Matthew Hooton!

            ….Shearer went to Hooton’s barbeques ….but David Cunliffe declined !

            Says it all really!

            • CnrJoe 1.1.1.1.2.1
              13 October 2014 at 9:23 am

              Hooten the self-professed alcoholic? 2-3 bottles of red wine a night up to a month before the last election? What boozy affairs those bbq’s must have been… in vino veritas may of been a risk for Cunners.

              • CnrJoe …
                13 October 2014 at 9:38 am

                I have my twitter exchange with Matthew regarding this if that would assist moderation?

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 10:18 am

                  linky?

                  • wekarawshark …
                    13 October 2014 at 1:17 pm

                    um, I asked for a link on the basis of the twitter exchange post, but the one about Matthew’s drinking was not visible at the time. I also think it’s irrelevant.

                    I think Hooton commented on ts that he had given up drinking. Good on him.

              • Tracey …
                13 October 2014 at 11:34 am

                wow, relevance?

                • greywarshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 11:43 am

                  For sure relevant. The cosy ol’ boy relationships confirmed, the risk of challenge as to veritas, plugged.

                  • CnrJoe …
                    13 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ
                    @Raindance_33 haven’t touched alcohol or other drugs for 10 days
                    11:08 PM – 30 Aug 2014
                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ
                    @jadelta7 I am fine. I gave up alcohol two weeks ago and I think that is what @johnkeypm was referring to.
                    8:28 PM – 1 Sep 2014

                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ
                    @farleftandproud I think @johnkeypm was talking about my alcoholism which I discussed on Facebook after giving up drinking 2 weeks ago
                    Fiona McDonald ‏@FiMcD Sep 1
                    @MatthewHootonNZ hmm didn’t mean that in a gloomy way! Statistics are grim that’s all. The best thing I ever did was give up, v happy 4 you!

                    M@MatthewHootonNZ
                    @FiMcD yep, no gloom angle taken. Have heaps of support this time
                    7:04 AM – 2 Sep 2014
                    David Tong ‏@Davidxvx Sep 1
                    . @MatthewHootonNZ @farleftandproud @johnkeypm Okay, all else aside – congratulations on giving up the booze! That’s a hard road.

                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ
                    Thank you @Davidxvx, best decision I’ve ever made. @farleftandproud @johnkeypm

                    Matthew Hooton ‏@MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    @MitchellAndr 2-4 bottles of red wine a day

                    Matthew Hooton ‏@MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    @Olivefarmer @pohutukawa Of course it is not all about me. But @johnkeypm said I was lying and had personal problems so I had to respond.

                    ‏@Olivefarmer Sep 1
                    @MatthewHootonNZ @pohutukawa @johnkeypm Mathew you pop up everywhere…just rest,take a breather let the spotlight shine where it should..

                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    @Olivefarmer @pohutukawa @johnkeypm But I love politics and in a strange way even enjoying watching this awful campaign

                    ‏@Olivefarmer Sep 1
                    @MatthewHootonNZ @pohutukawa @johnkeypm You have an addiction …..just Tai Hoa

                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    Yes @Olivefarmer, dropping one addiction – booze – but can’t do a second – politics – at the same time! @pohutukawa @johnkeypm

                    ‏@MitchellAndr Sep 1
                    @MatthewHootonNZ How much did you drink?

                    @MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    @MitchellAndr 2-4 bottles of red wine a day

                    ‏@CnrJoe
                    @MatthewHootonNZ @MitchellAndr an ‘addiction’? or a real strong habit?

                    Reply to @MatthewHootonNZ @MitchellAndr
                    ‏@MatthewHootonNZ Sep 1
                    @CnrJoe @MitchellAndr whichever

                    @CnrJoe Sep 1
                    @MatthewHootonNZ @MitchellAndr good grief – wat happens if u go frm strength 2 strength? p.m?

                    @Jackalblog Sep 2
                    Aw! Matthew Hooton has blocked me for writing this article: http://thejackalman.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/matthew-hootons-dirty-tactics.html … What a sad guy @MatthewHootonNZ #DirtyPolitics

                    ‏@CnrJoe
                    @Jackalblog Hooton twttd he sunk 2-4 bottls of red wine a day up till 2 weeks ago.fits th playbook yeah?

                    5:57 PM – 2 Sep 2014
                    Lew ‏@LewSOS Sep 1
                    DHC writes: “Oi, you lot. Can you all please stop being so mean to my friend Cathy Odgers!”
                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11317080 …

                    ‏@hamish_keith Sep 1
                    @LewSOS There is no love so rare that a giant stuffed panda can’t buy

                    @hamish_keith @LewSOS wats witht hese ppl? Hootons now a 2wk recvring alkie, DHCones and Slater on meds – i… cld… just…cry…

                    8:54 PM – 1 Sep 2014

                    • Matthew Hooton …
                      13 October 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      Thank you for your interest in my alcoholism. Now close to two months without a drop. Even more sure than when I sent these tweets that it is the best decision I ever made.

                    • Murray Rawshark …
                      13 October 2014 at 6:08 pm

                      What’s the point of posting that? I despise Horton because of his vile politics, not because of how much wine he does or doesn’t drink.

                    • Huginn …
                      13 October 2014 at 8:54 pm

                      CnrJoe:

                      Matthew Hooton’s political judgement is often crappy. When he’s like that he just talks rubbish, he’s a man with no common sense or insight, silly as a wet hen – and many of us feel a powerful need to shout the self-evident truth at him.

                      But sometimes Matthew Fucking Hooton gets it right and when he does that he makes a little bit of room in our hearts for him.

                      Recognising that alcohol is a problem and doing something about it is getting it right.

                    • Huginn …
                      13 October 2014 at 9:13 pm

                      Matthew Hooton:

                      Given that you shared the insight with us, yes – I am interested in your alcoholism – and I mean that in a good way.

              • CnrJoe …
                13 October 2014 at 1:08 pm

                sorry, make that 2-4 bottles a night which makes me a total pharking liteweight;-)

    • Saarbo 1.2
      13 October 2014 at 7:41 am

      The attacks against Cunliffe are a proxy attacks against the membership and the democratic changes made at the November 2012 Labour Party conference. William’s is one of the Labour Party power elite who lost some power, and he, like the rest of these arse-holes are fighting back.

      • just saying 1.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 7:47 am

        The attacks against Cunliffe are a proxy attacks against the membership

        I agree, for the most part, they are. Still won’t vote for him.

        I’m curious to know what others thought of Little’s performance yesterday. Those that haven’t already said.

        • karol 1.2.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 8:07 am

          I’m fairly neutral in my response to Little’s qu & a. He seemed to be saying many of the general things that people on the left and right of the Labour Party say.

          Nothing really new or inspiring; nothing that upset me.

          He sounds like a very good manager. But a managerialist approach is very much part of the “neoliberal” MO.

          • wekarawshark 1.2.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 9:19 am

            +1

            I found the managerial thing interesting. Might be what’s needed to clear out the dead wood. However I found myself having to try and read between the lines alot. Some of that I’ll put down to first time in Q and A online with the likes of us. Some of it because he’s not leader yet and so can’t preempt what Labour wants (eg policy). Some of it the same old shit of holding cards close to ones chest. I’ll be interested to see what he’s like if he does another Q and A at some point.

        • Chooky Shark Smile 1.2.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 8:47 am

          @ just saying …”I’m curious to know what others thought of Little’s performance yesterday. Those that haven’t already said.”

          I didnt even bother to read Little’s Q@A…the fact that Michelle Boag has endorsed him, says it all for me…(weasel words are easy)

          …and how successful has Little been as President of the Labour Party?….not very!…it is fractured and non cooperative….maybe Little has been waiting in the wings for his big chance?

          …i support David Cunliffe…and hope he hangs in there , despite the calls for him to resign!…in my opinion the attacks against a real Labour Party offering a viable alternative to Nactional are continuing unabated

          …the right wing are just using Labour MPs and Williams to do the attacks for them…it is a battle for the soul of the Labour Party…and the grassroots members MUST win this battle

          • Pat O'Dea 1.2.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 9:12 am

            Andrew Little praises the Labour Party democratic process;

            Mr Little admits the leadership contest is getting pretty crowded but said it was good for the party.
            Radio NZ News

            But then in a complete turn around, asks the front running candidate David Cunliffe to step aside;

            “I know this will be a very difficult choice for David, but I think in the best interests of the party, and for himself, he should step aside and make way for a contest between whoever is lined up when nominations close at the end of tomorrow.”
            Radio NZ News

            With this statement Andrew Little is echoing the Right Wing demand, made immediately after the election, that David Cunliffe step down without a contest.

            Notably, Andrew Little has not asked right wing contenders David Parker, or Grant Robertson to step aside.

            That Andrew Little seeks the undemocratic recall of the main Left Wing Contender through bureaucratic means, and not an open contest is not a good sign.

            In my opinion these contradictory statements signal three things;
            First, that Andrew is very personally ambitious for himself,
            Second, that Andrew is seeking an accomodation with the Right.
            And third, that he favours back room bureaucratic methods over democracy.

            • phillip ure 1.2.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 10:36 am

              @ pat o’dea..

              ..+ 1..

              • Skinny …
                13 October 2014 at 12:23 pm

                I will put the acid on Little to front up regarding getting rid of deadwood when I’m in Wellington later this week. Any ‘snake oil’ won’t wash infront our hard nosed group, especially considering we endored DC publicly last time and may well do so again if we don’t like AL’s speak on a number of issues.

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 1:30 pm

                  Skinny, will you be able to talk about that conversation publicly? It does seem to be the crucial factor in the whole mess.

                  Little said this yesterday,

                  “That’s something I have a lot of experience in. As the leader of the EPMU for 11 years, I undertook a careful and strategic reshaping of the union to turn it into a campaigning organisation that engaged powerfully with the public on the big issues”

                  Do you have more detail on this, how he was in that job, what kinds of things he did? eg is he likely to have the skills and strength to deal with the ABCs/neoliberal/Rogernome issue (however it’s called)?

                  • Tracey …
                    13 October 2014 at 1:34 pm

                    did he have hire/fire power at epmu, cos i dont think he has that power over caucus? if he can force resignations, that take effect next election, if they are in electorate seats, and can get list dissenters toresign now, it makes me wonder how cunliffe and shearer didnt/couldnt?

                  • Murray Rawshark …
                    13 October 2014 at 6:12 pm

                    Wow, he turned the EPMU into a PR agency. The fact that he stresses this, rather than the pay and conditions of the members, says a lot to me.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      13 October 2014 at 6:22 pm

                      Ok, clearly you haven’t got any understanding how a modern union works or why campaigning is not PR. In answer to another question I gave the 5 in 05 campaign as an example. There, the Little led EPMU pushed for a 5% rise for not only their own members, but all workers. They campaigned, we all won. That’s not PR, that’s union organising.

            • Keir 1.2.1.2.1.2
              13 October 2014 at 10:45 am

              Pat, why do you think Robertson is right? He’s probably to the left of Little, in my experience in the party.

              • Tracey …
                13 October 2014 at 11:42 am

                it might be because he, like others is talking in sound bites and lip service rather than substance. like the party itself i am struggling to work out who these guys stand for.

                i have read the lp vision etc… but then they came out in favour of nzf… which made a mockery of their progressive label, imo.

            • Tracey 1.2.1.2.1.3
              13 October 2014 at 11:40 am

              i dont get the impression thatlittle thinks the leadership is anyones business but caucus. of course he is not alone in this. i sense he is promising us a lp that represents at least 15% of those who voted national…

              it doesnt appear that any candidate is prepared to say who the LP actually stands for, although parker seems to allude to the 15% who voted national that might come back if they are right enough. 15% is my plucked figure based on them getting close to 40% of the vote.

              lip service and bs so far from little, parker and robertson, imo. cunliffe quite rightly doesnt have to say anything cos the last year sees him rise or fall.

          • phillip ure 1.2.1.2.2
            13 October 2014 at 10:43 am

            @ chooky..

            “..it is a battle for the soul of the Labour Party…and the grassroots members MUST win this battle..”

            ..indeed..!

            ..if they don’t labour faces a future as a rump/nz first-like party..

            ..labours’ longterm life/health is in representing the disenfranchised million + who didn’t vote because labour..(as the main opposition party) had s.f.a. for them..except a raise in the age they cd retire..(!)..

            ..(i still claim you cd track the steps in the drop in labour support that happened every time after parker popped up to tell nz workers they were going to work longer/older..

            ..i..here at home..wd say to ‘the boy’..you wait and see..labour will drop again in the next poll..and yep..!..we all know they did..).

            ..and there is one fact that couldn’t paint clearer how ratshit labours’ policies were..

            ..colin craigs’ far-right conservative party had policies that wd have helped the poor..more than labour did..

            ..how fucked-up is that..?..

      • phillip ure 1.2.2
        13 October 2014 at 7:53 am

        @ saarbo..

        “..William’s is one of the Labour Party power elite who lost some power, and he, like the rest of these arse-holes are fighting back..”

        ..+ 1..

      • Clemgeopin 1.2.3
        13 October 2014 at 9:46 am

        The attacks against Cunliffe are a proxy attacks against the membership and the democratic changes made at the November 2012 Labour Party conference

        Well said. Pinning the election loss on Cunliffe is completely unfair and quite stupid. Cunliffe worked extremely hard and tried to support the caucus and membership along. The election loss was due to many factors not in the control of Cunliffe. In my opinion, all of Labour should put their complete support behind Cunliffe but make any other necessary changes as revealed by the ‘review’ that is in progress.

    • Clemgeopin 1.3
      13 October 2014 at 9:32 am

      Yes, I cringed when I heard his ‘expert’ comment. One would think he, like some of the caucus ‘seniors’, would have had better sense. A shocking set of stupid nincompoops!

    • rhinocrates 1.4
      13 October 2014 at 1:04 pm

      I’m wondering when someone is going to tell the poor fellow that Hooton is already married. He’ll be devastated.

  2. boldsirbrian 2
    13 October 2014 at 8:06 am

    Andrew Little – Minus 1

    His suggestion this morning (Morning Report, Radio NZ) that David Cunliffe step aside ‘in the interests of the party’

    A Tui advert?

    • Treetop 2.1
      13 October 2014 at 9:07 am

      For goodness sake I can think of a number of things which are in the interest of the Labour party and Cunliffe not running is not one of them.

      I have got to the point where I think that the process used to elect the leader needs to occur to elect the deputy leader.

      Parker put it in a nut shell, people, policy and presentation is what wins an election. I would like to add that being loyal to the party leader is under the control of caucus and that I expect the caucus to be loyal to their democratically elected leader.

      Suggesting that Cunliffe steps aside in the interest of the Labour party is un – democratic.

      The infighting has to stop, because everyone in caucus are being undermined and are being distracted. It is not hard to see why any leader Labour has had in the last 6 years does not last.

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 9:24 am

        @ treetop..

        ..they are like a seriously dysfunctional hillbilly family..

        ..you cd almost build a reality-telly show around them:

        ..starring cunliffe the cunning:..is he really all he seems..?..or is it too good to be true..?..you be the judge..

        …blokey gay-guy robertson..did he go to acting-school for voice-training..?..and cd he be more ‘blokey’ when he tries..?

        ..’posey’ parker – retired hall-monitor…could he be more of a prefect..?..and if you lived in a flat with him…he wd use different coloured maker-pens to record the levels in/of ‘his stuff’ in the fridge..(you just know he wd..)

        ..’lizard-lips’ little – gurning rightwing unionist trying to pretend he isn’t..rightwing..could anyone fit more ‘urm’s..um!’s..ah!’s into a sentence..?..has the guinness book of world records been informed of his prowess in this area..?..

        ..and ‘bennys on a hot tin roof” shearer…the original fumbler/mumbler..carrying his faint hope of being revived from the dead..

        ..’im baaacckkkk..!!!!’

        • Treetop 2.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 9:43 am

          Just don’t stop here with the candidate profiles, (excluding Shearer) keep going with every member in caucus. A work in progress, take your time.

          Cunliffe has the most promising profile AND he had the job for a year and still WANTS the job. The guy is going in with his eyes open.

          • bearded rawshark 2.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 10:22 am

            cunliffe is smart, eloquent, has name recognition, does not require yet another leadership change.

            given a fair go by the media and the caucus he will win in 2017 against this mob who have already been found out on the rock star economy, and are now selling off state houses without mentioning this at the election

        • Clemgeopin 2.1.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 10:08 am

          Not bad! Very good in fact! Don’t forget other fringe characters inside and outside the party.

          [It is an indictment on some of the stupid, disloyal, self centred, nasty caucus that we the ‘supporters’ of Labour are writing these sorts of comments now]

          • Treetop 2.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 10:24 am

            The nominations for leader close tomorrow which is a good thing.

            I am aware of being critical about the infighting because I would like this to be conducted in private (leadership challenge) and realise that some members are worse than others. Your last paragraph is good feed back.

            As for the review of the election result this is in the interest of the voters.

    • Clemgeopin 2.2
      13 October 2014 at 9:55 am

      Did he say that on radio! I can’t believe that! Oh dear. How stupid.

      I think those that want Cunliffe to ‘step aside’ in the interest of the party should themselves ‘step aside’ and ‘leave’ in the interest of the Labour party.

      If he did say that about a candidate that is standing for ELECTION, then that is both stupid and unfair. So, why have an election at all?

      Besides, he is being unwise because what happens if Cunliffe wins?

      That definitely firms my vote for Cunliffe.

  3. boldsirbrian 3
    13 October 2014 at 8:08 am

    David Parker – Plus 1

    His refusal this morning (Morning Report, Radio NZ) to agree that he was standing ‘against’ the other candidates. It’s a subtle distinction, but important. He is putting himself forward because he thinks he can do a better job, not that he considers the others cannot also do a good job. Clever

  4. boldsirbrian 4
    13 October 2014 at 8:17 am

    David Parker – Minus 1

    His insistence this morning (Morning Report, Radio NZ) that Labour must aim for 50% of the vote (not sure of exact words). No mention of other parties. Not even a thought to a ‘Labour Led Government’

    This is an MMP environment. At the very least, I would have hoped that the candidates for Labour Leadership would have got their head around that by now. It’s a time when the voters expect and want strong coalitions. Why on earth does Labour appear to consider the Greens a partner reluctantly? Why on earth does Andrew Little have so much antagonism to Mana? What policies do the Greens and Mana have that are presumably so opposed to Labour philosophy? Or is this really just a personal power trip?

    • just saying 4.1
      13 October 2014 at 8:29 am

      I feel a bit like I’m reading “best bets’ or the old ‘turf digest’.
      But enjoying the updates and your reading of the various horses’ ‘form’, Boldsirbrian.

    • wekarawshark 4.2
      13 October 2014 at 9:26 am

      My current theory about the antagoism to Mana is that it’s the old guard who still don’t quite get MMP. They think it’s about power plays not co-operation. Kind of understandable for the ones that have spent their whole political careers having to watch out where the knives are.

      They’re only just getting their heads around working with the GP to form govt (after how many years? nearly 2 decades now), and even some like Parker still don’t get it. So Mana are the ones with the potential to distrupt things even further, better to stomp on them and squash them when you get teh chance. God forbid they should be kingmakers at some point.

      I also suspect that Mana’s policies and kaupapa make many in Labour very uncomfortable, given that Mana seem to have genuine left wing policies. If you betray your constituency and they reject you and then someone else comes along and starts talking to them in ways that address their needs, then it’s going to be unpleasant.

      • mikesh 4.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 10:36 am

        I think that both the Green Party and Mana are unpopular with wider voting public, and the fact that Labour apparently can’t govern without coalescing with one or both of them is putting many people off voting Labour. I think this is why the party tends to distance itself from these parties.

        I say this as someone who regularly votes Green.

      • Tautoko Mangō Mata 4.2.2
        13 October 2014 at 10:37 am

        I agree. It seems that many deem it to be shameful to be seen standing up for the most deprived in the community, especially those not working. I think it was a sad day when Hone was voted down and I am really sad that so many people are of the view that Hone sold out to KDC. It seems that money going to the Tory side is considered to be “clean” while money going to progressive causes is “dirty”.
        In addition, I cannot understand why Labour went to such lengths to distance itself from other parties which were basically on the “same side” of politics. That made no sense to me! Maximise the party vote by all means but not by diminishing potential allies to the point that makes a stable coalition look nearly impossible.

        Labour needed to be in coalition to form a government. It needed to emphasise the common policies and the harshest thing it should have said about potential coalition partner policy is that more controversial policies would have to be subject to compromises depending on the distribution of the progressive vote among the various parties in the potential coalition. “We will be part of the progressive coalition which will be your government.
        “If you prefer our policy to that of the other coalition members then vote for us so that we can get our version through.”
        I would like to see the progressive parties meeting to work out areas in which they can co-operate and even pool resources to reach the non-voters, etc including deliveries of material, etc.

        • wekarawshark 4.2.2.1
          13 October 2014 at 12:04 pm

          Labour needed to be in coalition to form a government. It needed to emphasise the common policies and the harshest thing it should have said about potential coalition partner policy is that more controversial policies would have to be subject to compromises depending on the distribution of the progressive vote among the various parties in the potential coalition. “We will be part of the progressive coalition which will be your government.
          “If you prefer our policy to that of the other coalition members then vote for us so that we can get our version through.”

          This.

          I’m now thinking that it’s the personal shortcomings of Labour caucus MPs that prevent them from seeing how to change the narrative and communicate how left wing governments are going to work from now on. They’re probably incapable cognitively of thinking this through. That sounds very patronising, but how can Parker still be going on about Labour on 50%? even if they get out the non-vote, some of those voters are going to vote GP and IMP (probably proportionally).

          Very disappointed that Norman is doing this anti-IMP shit too.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2
          13 October 2014 at 1:35 pm

          It seems that money going to the Tory side is considered to be “clean” while money going to progressive causes is “dirty”.

          That’s because that’s how the Tories paint it with help from their assistants in the MSM.

        • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks 4.2.2.3
          14 October 2014 at 5:51 am

          I agree with your whole post Tautoko.

          I would like to see the progressive parties meeting to work out areas in which they can co-operate and even pool resources to reach the non-voters, etc including deliveries of material, etc.

          The parties that begin to understand the links between poverty and non voting, and to take steps to address this in practical ways, stand to win big-time. One million potential voters.

          This is a discussion that we need to have, if there is to be any real change.

    • b waghorn 4.3
      13 October 2014 at 1:06 pm

      The sooner labour excepts that they need to team up with the greens the better. And you people that are still in denial that the shamozzel caused buy the internet mana in this election helped gift key another 3 years need to wake up.

  5. Skinny 5
    13 October 2014 at 8:28 am

    The deadwood MP’s are going to play a tricky game with the members during this contest. They will either bloc vote their first choice of either Robertson or Parker but not splitter their vote. Their second vote the same. They will be gauging which one has the most support from the members and pull in behind the one that has the most. They won’t be fussed which one as long as it’s not DC or Little.

    The Maori caucus have been entrusted with a solid return of the Maori vote, they can not squander and dilute their vote and repay the faith put into them. They ‘must’ ban together behind the candidate who will serve them best and back up the second vote down to the last. They need to get out to their LEC’s and get a consensus/mandate to bloc vote and use the very strong bargaining position they now have to ensure Labour represents the poor with sound Left policies. A non-negotiable rejection of the retirement age policy is a must, along with any other policy that is not to their advantage.

    • phillip ure 5.1
      13 October 2014 at 8:38 am

      i am hoping the maori/pi-caucus will see that cunliffe+progressive policies will be the best package for who they represent..

      ..and that they will be major players in this election..

      ..i can’t see how they can’t see that the other neo-lib candidates just mean more bad news for those they represent..

      ..whereas a labour leader + a brace of progressive policies..

      ..cd herald a new dawn/way out of poverty for many maori/p.i..

      ..they have muscle in this depleted labour caucus..

      ..time to flex it..

      • boldsirbrian 5.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 8:48 am

        .
        @ phillip ure (5.1)

        Can you please provide an example of a “progressive policy” that Cunliffe will support that your so called “neo-lib” candidates will not?

        Can you please define who these “neo-lib” candidates are?

        Can you please provide an example of policies that will be implemented by the “neo-lib” candidates that will mean “bad news”?

        (I’m expecting a few references too, to back up the claims)

        A minor query. What is the maori/pi-caucus?

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 8:54 am

          Relax mate even us casual observers can tell you that: Shearer, Parker and Robertson are most approved by the corporate media. Cunliffe and Little are least.

          • boldsirbrian 5.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 9:31 am

            @ Colonial Rawshark (5.1.1.1)

            Oh my god. Political debate has descended so far south that the penguins appear to be playing with the polar bears.

            According to your suggestion we do not have to even try and understand what any of the candidates are saying, what they believe, what policies they support, what policies they do not support; their leadership abilities, their ability to unify the caucus, their ability to present a vision to the electorate or to give a reason for wanting Labour.

            Nah. Just “relax mate”! For f. sake. Sounds like a John Key “I’m comfortable with that”

            Colonial Rawshark, as a “casual observer” recommends just following the opinions of “corporate media”. Apparently “corporate media” either know all, or know nothing.

            Yeah right.

            Mr. Botany (B.)

            • wekarawshark 5.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 12:35 pm

              Actually I think CV’s suggestion was to NOT follow corporate media. It’s not that they know all or nothing, it’s that they have an agenda that is not supportive of the left.

              • boldsirbrian …
                13 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

                @ wekarawshark (5.1.1.1.1.1)

                Of course. Which was the point of the final paragraph. Just follow the opinions of corporate media. Then decide what label you are, left or right (no alternatives provided) and then you are able to decide whether corporate media know all or know nothing. Politics for dummies. Real dummies.

                Mr. Botany (B.)

        • phillip ure 5.1.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 8:55 am

          @ bold brian..

          the actual policies offered will be down to labour to work on..

          ..but i wd hope a universal basic income..and a financial transaction tax on the banksters wd be somewhere in the mix..

          ..the ‘neo-lib’ candidates are all but cunliffe…(i parked little with them after his q&a here yest..how cd i not..?..)

          ..just continuation of neo-lib/fuck-the-poor! policies is all the ‘bad news you need’.

          .and yr last question..?..surely you jest..?

          • boldsirbrian 5.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 9:18 am

            @phillip ure (5.1.1.2)

            Thank you for your reply, clarifying that the differences between your favoured candidate, David Cunliffe, and “all the others, neo-libs” ……..is all smoke and mirrors.

            A puff of hot air.

            All based on hope! …. “I would hope a universal basic income” “I would hope a financial transaction tax”

            Lets face it. You have NO idea about what any of the candidates will do. No references that provide any justification about what anyone will definitely support or not support

            You cannot even define any of the “neo-lib/fuck-the-poor! policies” that you find so detestable.

            Just a load of adding “progressive” to who you hope will win, and adding “neo-lib” to who you hope will not win. “Progressive” and “Neo-lib” mean nothing more than that to you, do they?

            And finally I was not jesting about my last query. Your abbreviations are always annoying, but I can usually comprehend. I still do not know what the “pi” stands for. Perhaps it will be obvious in hindsight. But when I do not know something, and say that I do not know it, I generally mean it.

            Mr. Botany (B.)

            • phillip ure 5.1.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 9:32 am

              @ bold brian..

              ..p.i. means pacific island..(you didn’t know that..?..seriously..?..do you live in the sth island or something..?..)

              ..and i can’t be screwed giving you a history lesson of the last 30 yrs of neo-lib..

              ..if anyone else can be bothered..go for it..!

              (but i hafta warn ya..!..i am thinking of changing yr name to slow-brian..

              ..you are teetering..!..)

              • boldsirbrian …
                13 October 2014 at 9:56 am

                @ phillip ure (5.1.1.2.1.1)

                t.y.f.p.m.w.a.d.o.p.i.

                Let me know if you are slow in getting this?

                Mr. Botany (B.)

              • Karen …
                13 October 2014 at 10:02 am

                + 1 Phillip
                I am beginning to think Boldasbrian may be a rightwing troll pretending to espouse labour/mana ideas but only in order to disrupt dialogue.

                • boldsirbrian …
                  13 October 2014 at 12:57 pm

                  @ Karen

                  I am beginning to think Boldasbrian may be a rightwing troll pretending to espouse labour/mana ideas but only in order to disrupt dialogue.

                  Let’s look at that must influential right wing arsehole, Whaleoil. His 101 course says “Stay away from debating policy, ideas, and simply go on the attack. Sex if you can, but if that is missing, a good old ad hominem attack will suffice.

                  Now lets analyse your post……..

                  Mmmm

            • wekarawshark 5.1.1.2.1.2
              13 October 2014 at 12:45 pm

              Brian, not sure where you are going with all this exactly, but it is generally agreed that DC and AL are to the left of the other three in terms of traditional left wing politics. People have said recently that Robertson is left wing too, but how I interpret that is that he is the most left of the neoliberals rather than being left itself – so he supports many single issue left wing policies, but I don’t see him intending to take the party left.

              But you are right, it is very difficult to find these things out. Little managed to call himself left the other day but couldn’t bring himself to call Labour a left wing party. All the candidates appear to be equivocating and not really saying what they think or believe or what they will do. We’re still waiting on DC to take some actions that will swing the partly left again, but I suspect it’s a vain hope. I agree with Bill’s analysis on this, that unless DC plays hardball with the ABCs and demotes people, we’re just going to have BAU.

              btw, I don’t usually read phil’s posts because of the … so I may be missing some context.

              • phillip ure …
                13 October 2014 at 6:25 pm

                @ weka..

                “..btw, I don’t usually read phil’s posts because of the …”

                ..the amount of times you have moaned at me makes bullshit of that claim..

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 8:25 pm

                  You do know what the word usually means right? Because I’m about to use it again.

                  I have a go at your fundamentalist vegan comments sometimes, but any other comments I make are usually because I’ve read people’s responses to you. I rarely read your comments initally and almost never read the long ones, I just scroll on through, all day, every day.

                  Besides which, you comment so much that even if I moaned at you once a day that’s still a very small percentage of comments I would have to have read. Given I also comment a lot I think you will find that I don’t talk with you much at all relative to how much I say things.

                  So what’s this reallly all about? You don’t like that someone has said they don’t read your comments because of your use of punctution so you make up shit about them? 🙄

          • NeutObserver 5.1.1.2.2
            13 October 2014 at 9:30 am

            @Mr Ure: You want Labour to become the Green Party. Instead, why don’t you come clean and declare your Green membership?

            • phillip ure 5.1.1.2.2.1
              13 October 2014 at 9:34 am

              neut..i have been very upfront that i am a member of mana..

              ..f.y.i..my lifetime voting-arc has been labour – green – mana..

              ..yr point..?

              • NeutObserver …
                13 October 2014 at 9:39 am

                Mana or Internet-Mana…?
                Are you a KDC supporter…? Joh Minto and Miss Harre, those disciplined fighters..?
                Are you…?
                Uh…?

              • Manuka - Ancient Order of Rawsharks …
                13 October 2014 at 10:21 am

                voting-arc has been labour – green – mana..

                It’s possible your voting views are the same now as when you began, while all the parties have skipped, slipped, shuffled, stepped or leaped to “the right”

                mana/ imp emerged to fill the vacuum that was left

    • Keir 5.2
      13 October 2014 at 9:09 am

      Dude, maybe telling the Maori caucus they “must” do things is kinda offensive? They aren’t the brown Borg. Rino Tirikatene nominated Grant Robertson – he seems to think Grant is the best option. Other Maori MPs will have different views, and that’s ok.

      • phillip ure 5.2.1
        13 October 2014 at 9:42 am

        @ keir..

        ..you are aware that speechmarks indicate a quote..?

        ..i never used the word ‘must’…i used the word ‘hope’..

        ..and i am not insinuating they are all the same..

        ..i am expressing the ‘hope’ they will be able to see what is best for those they represent..

        ..and that has to be cunliffe + a brace of progressive-policies..

        ..and a renouncing of the neo-lib policies that got us to this place of high poverty/inequality..

        ..esp. amongst maori/p.i..

        ..what is unclear about that..?

      • Skinny 5.2.2
        13 October 2014 at 10:03 am

        No it is not it is a wasted opportunity to have a real say within the party, splitting their vote is plan dumb. Where is the consultation with the people that put him there?

        • Keir 5.2.2.1
          13 October 2014 at 10:11 am

          If the Maori caucus have different views on the leadership, then that’s ok. Maori within the party have different views on the leadership. As I say, not the brown Borg.

          I’m sure Rino has consulted about this decision – I’m sure he’s been pretty fiercely lobbied to support Grant by a big chunk of his Wellington based membership, and I’m sure other people have had conversations with him about other possible leaders. But he has free agency and isn’t just a prop in your political game, and has made his mind up. I think that deserves respect, not some patronising and vaguely racist “dumb” comment.

          • Skinny 5.2.2.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 10:44 am

            Maori have their own seats and collectively need to maintain a position that best benefits the collective. You only have to look at the policy platform that Labour ran. No specfic economic development policy for Maori. I had a Maori MP bemoaning this very fact to me. You would naturally expect Mahuta and some other Maori MP’s will have learnt the lesson of the split from Labour that saw the formation of the Maori & Mana Party. It’s is not a racist issue. It is a bargaining tool of representing your ‘overall constituency’ to get the best deal possible for the people who have the worst statistic’s of neo liberalism. United you stand, and as history showed Maori electorate MP’s, divided you beg and suffer a revolt from the Maori voters.

            • marty mars 5.2.2.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 4:14 pm

              Surely labour Māori MP’s are first labour MP’s and are beholden to labour and generally (apart from Tariana) toe the party line even if they may personally disagree with it. This is why someone will moan behind closed doors but not publicly about the lack of specific policies to address inequality affecting many Māori or your example of ‘no specific economic development policy for Māori’.

              Whichever leader they personally vote for is irrelevant apart from their personal preference – the leader chosen will be the leader they follow.

    • Treetop 5.3
      13 October 2014 at 9:31 am

      Looks like Parker has done to Cunliffe what Roberston did to Shearer. Parker could withdraw from being a candidate.

      Will need to see what happens in caucus tomorrow with Parker as he is interim leader and now a candidate.

      Does natural justice come into this?

      • AmaKiwi 5.3.1
        13 October 2014 at 10:53 am

        “Does natural justice come into this?”

        Haven’t you been following the news? In NZ, the politics and justice are mutually exclusive.

        • Treetop 5.3.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 11:54 am

          I meant applied to Parker standing and Parker filling in.

          I know how Key runs the show, his way and he does not work for NZ he works for another government.

      • Skinny 5.3.2
        13 October 2014 at 11:39 am

        Parker wants to stay on as interim leader, however the other candidates will force him aside. So it is King who will takeover, unless she stands too, which would add another round of laughs.

      • Tracey 5.3.3
        13 October 2014 at 12:11 pm

        only comes into it

        IF the party isnt following its own rules on leadership race

        AND

        if someone wants to go to the high court to challenge it

      • NeutObserver 5.3.4
        13 October 2014 at 12:13 pm

        There is no natural justice when the knives are out in the pursue of power.

  6. boldsirbrian 6
    13 October 2014 at 8:32 am

    .
    Pundit; Labour’s dilemma: The unelectable leader, by Tim Watkin

    Labour has done a fine job of selling the democratic virtues of their new way electing a leader; it rolls off the tongue to say that 40 percent of the outcome is determined by rank and file members. But whose democratic interests does it really serve?

    In 1980, the Labour Party in Britain similarly gave party members a say in the leadership; but, as Tony Blair points out, the reforms lacked “any appreciation of the vital necessity of ensuring that, as well as MPs or leaders being accountable to the Party, the Party was accountable to the electorate”.

    Given its paltry membership, Blair goes on, UK Labour “became prey to sectarian groups from the Ultra-Left”, a decent explanation for why the party remained in opposition for seventeen years after “empowering” members.

    I endorse all that Tim Watkin has to say.
    The above quote is about the UK.
    The same applies in New Zealand.

    • Colonial Rawshark 6.1
      13 October 2014 at 8:49 am

      Fuck Tony Blair. “Ultra-left” indeed. Lackey of transnational banking and oil interests. Part of the history of why UK Labour has a “paltry membership.” Because it suits a party elite consolidate its power over a political machine.

      I see he is now doing standups in Palestine, as part of the refinancing of the reconstruction of Gaza and the “peace process”. The irony.

      • boldsirbrian 6.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 9:04 am

        @ Colonial Rawshark (6.1)

        I do not have much time for Tony Blair either. But I rarely paint all the opinions of anybody in black or white. I think Dirty John is perhaps our most obnoxious politician. But I sure as hell rate the ways he is dealing with MMP and coalition partners a lot higher than any of the Labour Leadership candidates appear to be doing at the moment.

        I will certainly not defend Blair on banking and oil interests. His record on taking Britain into war. And whatever you say he is now doing in Palestine.

        They are however nothing to do with the comment I made.

        Your reply, trying to discredit an opinion by Tim Watkin about Labour Party methods of electing a leader, by the disgraceful actions of Tony Blair in the Middle East, is almost bizarre. But then Whaleoil has infused our political debate in an insidious manner.

        Mr. Botany (B.)

        • karol 6.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 9:12 am

          I had a few friends in the UK Labour Party. Their complaint about Blair was that under his watch the UKLP became very authoritarian and dictatorial.

          Tony Blair’s way of engaging with the electorate and getting them onside, is actually about engaging with the MSM and getting the MSM onside. Blair was always a favourite with the MSM long before he became leader (I was living in England at the time).

          Many people left the UK LP under Balir’s watch because it became so authoritarian.

          • boldsirbrian 6.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2014 at 9:48 am

            @ karol (6.1.1.1)

            That’s a fair call, karol. Authoritarian and dictatorial aint nice.

            The MMP environment in New Zealand may help. If people walk from Labour on the basis of Leadership style rather than policy differences, they may simply walk to the Greens or Mana. Which would not concern me at all.

            But the issue of Blair’s authoritarian style, is not quite the main point that I saw in Tim Watkin’s article in “Pundit”: With a small Party membership are there any safeguards from being prey to sectarian special interest groups? And the point he made, that while the membership may be given a large vote, the membership are not directly accountable to the electorate.

            Are the Labour Party members demanding the Leader wear a large steel ball on his leg, as he is told to swim from one election to the next?

            I do not have the full answer. I’m not totally convinced of my own position. The Greens for example appear to live in perfect harmony with flowers and nature, and yet have, potentially, the same issues. How does it work for them so well?

            Mr. Botany (B.)

            • karol 6.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 10:05 am

              With a small Party membership are there any safeguards from being prey to sectarian special interest groups? And the point he made, that while the membership may be given a large vote, the membership are not directly accountable to the electorate.

              The first sentence is even more applicable to the Labour Party caucus.

              The MPs require an active membership base in order to engage with the electorate. Without that, it is mainly the MPs talking to the electorate via the distorting mechanism of the MSM.

              Are the Labour Party members caucus demanding the Leader wear a large steel ball on his leg, as he is told to swim from one election to the next?

              FIFY

              • boldsirbrian …
                13 October 2014 at 11:26 am

                @ karol (6.1.1.1.1.1)

                The first sentence (With a small Party membership are there any safeguards from being prey to sectarian special interest groups) is even more applicable to the Labour Party caucus.

                The numbers are obviously smaller, so it would appear so. But the big difference is that the caucus are more directly accountable to the electorate. Sharpens the mind, when your job is on the line.

                (depending on how representative the Labour membership is of the voters that the Party is trying to attract)

                ~~~~~

                The MPs require an active membership base in order to engage with the electorate. Without that, it is mainly the MPs talking to the electorate via the distorting mechanism of the MSM.

                There is a big assumption here. (That I have referred to in my reply to Olwyn (6.3.1), and was the main point of the article by Tim Watkin in the Pundit: How representative are the Labour members of the electorate? Especially with a small membership?

                My own experience with Labour members at an electorate level, suggests that Labour members are a thoroughly nice lot of people, but definitely a unique group of people. If MPs relied only on this group of people “to engage with the electorate” they would be dog tucker before lunch time.

                You have put up an alternative, in which you suggest the other main way the MPs can engage with the electorate are through the MSM. Yeah, that is one way, but as we know from the last election, if they relied only on this group of people, they would be dog tucker before morning tea.

                The truth is that a good MP will be meeting voters in the electorate as part of the job, every day. Meeting members of the Party will be a very important part of that process. And so will listening to the MSM. And so will attending meetings of local groups, door knocking, attending public events etc. It’s a full time job. That can be done well, or poorly. Can they filter out the bullshit? Even more difficult, can they listen to criticism, and take on board what is fair criticism? And harder still, adapt to that fair criticism?

                And the smart parties use technology. Drum roll Kim Dotcom, obviously …. but as far as web presence is concerned, I do not know that the Greens could be trumped. And the master of them all, drum roll (of all people), Dirty John, the master of the POLL. The Nats have no philosophy, but adapt the flavour of this weeks announcements to what David Farrar tells them is concerning the voters most in the last week. There is something missing here, surely ….but, hell, it is mightily effective. At least at knowing what is on the public’s mind. I can surely assert with 101% confidence, that the information is a zillion times more valuable than listening only to the Party members.

                (Just tell me WHY Dirty John has suddenly hopped on board his form of an interest in poverty?)

                Mr. Botany (B.)

            • NeutObserver 6.1.1.1.1.2
              13 October 2014 at 10:11 am

              The Greens for example appear to live in perfect harmony with flowers and nature, and yet have, potentially, the same issues. How does it work for them so well?

              The Greens DO NOT tolerate dissent at all. They squash it and force members to follow the official line. In fact, few of those members ever dare to open their mouths, because the Green Party is under the firm control of its leadersship.

              The questions is: for how long? Electoral defeats like the last one cannot be neither pleasing nor kept away from Green supporters.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 October 2014 at 10:19 am

                ^^ Sounds like a RWNJ making shit up.

                Neuted, the Greens are the most democratic party in parliament.

                • wekarawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 11:42 am

                  +1

                  He’s probably referring to David Hay who challenged Norman’s leadership in an election year, and did various things to undermine the party. He got suspended for a year.

                • Murray Rawshark …
                  13 October 2014 at 6:33 pm

                  Toryobserver is not neutral at all. Their job is to spread Whalespew memes and they are as cunning as one and a half turnips.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                13 October 2014 at 10:25 am

                What?

                The Green Party members I know are not at all like the ones you describe.

                Then again, perhaps your idea of “dissent” is cretinous denial of scientific evidence or something. After all, you exhibit so little self-awareness in your choice of pseudonym.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.1.1.3
              13 October 2014 at 10:24 am

              But the issue of Blair’s authoritarian style, is not quite the main point that I saw in Tim Watkin’s article in “Pundit”: With a small Party membership are there any safeguards from being prey to sectarian special interest groups?

              I love how you are ducking and weaving from the obvious. You accept that Blair was highly authoritarian in his control over the party. You accept that Blair’s moral and economic legacy are pro-war and pro-corporates.

              Yet you still stand by Blair’s quotes about the necessity of party democracy and being accountable to ordinary people when history makes it crystal clear that he is only spinning lines and believes in no such thing himself.

              Get with it man.

              • boldsirbrian …
                13 October 2014 at 12:25 pm

                @ Colonial Rawshark (6.1.1.1.1.3)

                I love how you are ducking and weaving from the obvious

                I love how you appear as an irritating little fly, asking to be swatted.

                ~~~~~~~

                You accept that Blair was highly authoritarian in his control over the party. You accept that Blair’s moral and economic legacy are pro-war and pro-corporates.

                I am willing to accept propositions such as you have asserted. They are all possible, but totally irrelevant to what we were discussing. My main criticism of Blair relate to his actions in taking the UK into war on evidence that appears to have been a lie. Again, this is totally irrelevant to what we were discussing.

                ~~~~~~~

                Yet you still stand by Blair’s quotes about the necessity of party democracy and being accountable to ordinary people when history makes it crystal clear that he is only spinning lines and believes in no such thing himself.

                I’m always wary of other people’s interpretations of what has been said, when the actual words are available. The tactic may work in verbal debates, but I’m buggered if I’m going to be fooled into “standing by” your interpretations.

                The words that Tim Watkin wrote in his Pundit article, and I reproduced were:

                Given its paltry membership, Blair goes on, UK Labour “became prey to sectarian groups from the Ultra-Left”, a decent explanation for why the party remained in opposition for seventeen years after “empowering” members.

                Now this has nothing to do with Blair’s authoritarian style; it has nothing to do with his “pro-wars” and his “pro-corporates”.

                Blair made a comment that UK Labour “became prey to sectarian groups from the Ultra-Left”. Tim Watkin said that was a “decent explanation for why the party remained in opposition for seventeen years after “empowering” members”

                And I agree with Tim Watkin’s assessment, that it was a decent explanation.

                Now you can avoid the point of the article by introducing debates about all sorts of red herrings as long as you like. But if you have any concerns about the possibility of New Zealand Labour going through 17 years of opposition – as I do – then I think the issue of that ‘decent explanation’ needs serious consideration

            • Tracey 6.1.1.1.1.4
              13 October 2014 at 12:15 pm

              one thing is the greens know who and particularly what they stand for, and then they choose a leader.

              LP is at best schizophrenic and its leaders somewhat self interested…

              trust us we know what we are doing…

              yea right

              all evidence to the contrary.

              • boldsirbrian …
                13 October 2014 at 12:34 pm

                @ Tracey (6.1.1.1.1.4)

                What a wonderful post. What comes first is the vision, then the policies. The vision is paramount. You also accurately refer to it as “what they stand for”.

                Everything else you say is spot on.

                Labour presumably has a vision. It will be tucked away on a web page somewhere. It probably needs dusting off to see the light of day, considering everyone I speak to says that Labour seemed to “not know what the hell they were all about themselves”.

                It certainly never saw the light of day during the election. The election appeared to be more about scoring points off Key, and reacting to events, rather than setting the agenda.

                It’s not rocket science. And fortunately it is not too hard to fix. The harder part seems to be accepting that it is indeed a problem.

                Mr. Botany (B.)

          • phillip ure 6.1.1.1.2
            13 October 2014 at 9:58 am

            @ karol..

            ..i cringe in embarrassment that initially i welcomed the rise of tony blair and ‘new labour’..

            ..whereas he was just thatcherism in labour-drag..

            • greywarshark 6.1.1.1.2.1
              13 October 2014 at 11:00 am

              Blair gave an impression of fresh-faced youthful naive keenness for a better society, an open, cheerful face that seemed to offer the promise of a new and better direction.

              We need someone to invent special glasses that we can put on when looking at pollies that accentuates the small indications in their expressions to show the real character. Sort of like our own personal cartoonist – one of Terry Pratchett’s imps in a box perhaps.

              And we could have a special voice tone gadget as sound techs use, that would be like a worm on the speaker, not for the reaction. That would shoot up and down to match the subterfuge level and a lie would go sky high, and a false promise ring a bell, loudly. We can’t trust ourselves and our own brains to do this obviously, after this recent election.
              And perhaps we need to sit a basic test about government, the financial state of the country, our unemployment figures, and how our stats record these, before we can vote. We don’t let children or teenagers vote. But they may be more informed than many of us, and probably would make as good choices!

              (On reported stats note Mike Joy, environmental scientist on Radionz talking to Kathryn Ryan this morning, taking the MoE and local bodies to task for formulating a populist, simple and false summary from a technical document on the state of our waterways, not indicated by the data at all, which in its turn is only for the last ten years which should be 15 to get a full picture of the decline of our water quality. Also note he says that Taranaki is the worst area. I think they had 77 monitoring sites but only reported data from 11.

              You have to listen and try and understand to this, to be an informed citizen. I think a test should be a necessity before being able to vote. People whose heads only understand computer games moves, sporting details, tv personalities opinions and what their best friend did to make their car go faster should be left on Planet Zero.)
              edited

        • mikesh 6.1.1.2
          13 October 2014 at 11:11 am

          It was Watkin who argued that because something was the case in Britain it must be so here. Not Colonial Rawshark.

          • boldsirbrian 6.1.1.2.1
            13 October 2014 at 1:18 pm

            @ mikesh (6.1.1.2)

            (This reply copied from incorrect position at 6.6)

            It was Watkin who argued that because something was the case in Britain it must be so here

            First my mistake. Tim Watkin should read Phil Quin.

            However, Phil Quin did not argue that.

            I recommend you review Phil Quin’s article in full

            http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/labours-dilemma-the-unelectable-leader

            • greywarshark 6.1.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2014 at 4:22 pm

              boldsirbrian
              Phil Quinn is a floating piece of polystyrene. Goes anywhere the tide takes it and can never be sunk. As far as I can see that is. Just from looking at his past history. He makes his money from being a mouth with things to say that might create interest in the media from which he speaks. But what quality?

    • Tiger Mountain 6.2
      13 October 2014 at 8:58 am

      You will be hard pressed to point out any ultra left NZ Labour members or ultra left sectarian NZ Labour Party members. Go on.

      The LP ideology is reformism. Aka social democracy–the outward presentation of which changes from time to time while remaining class collaborationist at core. It is the antithesis of revolution or a fundamental change in class power.

      But having said that, more democracy in most settings from the bowling club on up is generally positive compared to less democracy. So yes Cunliffe is probably somewhat unwillingly and likely unknowingly the best bet for Labour leader as long as he wields the axe through LECs etc to the obvious rogernomes and is influenced to support the right of workers to strike etc.

      The main stream media and some of the blogs are part of the capitalist superstructure. It does not look like a one party state apparatus but has the same effect. Whaleboil with over 930 posts on David Cunliffe–what is that all about?

    • Olwyn 6.3
      13 October 2014 at 9:31 am

      As I see it, the LP membership is pretty representative of LP voters, and they are not hard left. Moreover, these people want to be represented and also want their side to win – hence they do not disregard the electability of candidates in casting their votes. They gain nothing by their side winning, however, if that side does not see fit to represent them. The tension is not between over-ideological members and the broad electorate, it is between people who seek representation from the centre left, and wealthy potential donors/influencers who do not want to see those people honestly represented. The “centre” and the “electorate” are euphemisms for this.

      Meanwhile, the precariat, both middle class and poor, are accumulating a “Boston tea-party” case – no taxation without representation. They pay GST on every meagre item they consume, but no one really wants to represent them.

      • boldsirbrian 6.3.1
        13 October 2014 at 9:51 am

        @ Olwyn (6.3)

        As I see it, the LP membership is pretty representative of LP voters

        How do we know that Olwyn?

        And even if that is true, are they representative of Labour Party Voters, and those other voters that we would like to be voting Labour?

        • Pascals bookie 6.3.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 12:36 pm

          Why would you expect them to be?

          Here’s the thing, that piece by Phil Quinn is his typical bullshit. The idea that he is a disniterseted player is laughable. Now you can come at me with ‘oh but that’s ad hom’ and I’ll just ask you why on earth I should trust him?

          Is he an a traight up guy? Does he have an agenda? Does he have a history of playing bullshit games?

          These are avild questions to bear in mind when considering his argument that the leadership should be left up to caucus.

          He claims that a opure caucus decision would be more democratic because MPs have been voted for. But that leaves aside the fairly salient pooint of how MPs are selected. He doesn;t want a borader range of input into leadership selection, he wants it controlled by a smaller group. Not coincidently, he has a history of playing games within that small group that he thinks should have control.

      • phillip ure 6.3.2
        13 October 2014 at 9:55 am

        @ olwyn..

        “..Meanwhile, the precariat, both middle class and poor, are accumulating a “Boston tea-party” case – no taxation without representation. They pay GST on every meagre item they consume, but no one really wants to represent them..”

        that is a very good point there..olwyn..

      • greywarshark 6.3.3
        13 October 2014 at 11:22 am

        @ Olwyn 6.3
        You sound perfectly right. But as boldsirB asks – how do you know definitely about Labour members? Is there a way of knowing or accurately positing?

        • Anne 6.3.3.1
          13 October 2014 at 12:07 pm

          Hi greywarshark:
          Olwyn, like me, is a member of the Labour Party who no doubt has known and socialised with many members over the years. I think we both have a good understanding of those members and how they are likely to respond to party matters. As Olwyn says, they are not hard left (far from it) and they certainly are not unintelligent. The problem which seems to have developed over a long period of time is that certain Labour MPs no longer seem willing to recognise that our viewpoints are very important and worth listening to…

          The most obvious example is that many of us knew Labour’s major policy planks were not sitting well with the general public (more to do with presentation than the sentiments behind them) yet our oft repeated concerns were ignored.

          On a related note I listened to Williams and Hooton on RNZ this morning and noticed that when discussing the leadership contest – especially as it related to David Cunliffe – both of them avoided mentioning the elephant in the room. That is, the effect of Dirty Politics and Key’s successful campaign in turning the blame around on the left and Labour in particular. When you add the also highly successful Liu campaign to smear Cunliffe then it is grossly unfair to label Cunliffe as a failure as both of them did. He made some mistakes, but they know only too well he was also destroyed by sinister forces out of his and Labour’s control.

          Having said the above, I have not yet made a decision how I intend to vote and I suspect I am far from being alone. So, media suggestions that so and so is way ahead… and someone else is history… is just mindless speculation.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.4
      13 October 2014 at 10:14 am

      As far as I can make out the problem is that members elect leaders rather than set policy. A parties politicians should be their only to advance what the party membership decides democratically.

      This come upon two other issues:

      1. People just aren’t used to having that sort input and control and so don’t have the self-confidence to do it and
      2. Getting people to engage at that level is difficult

      Then there’s the caucus that just don’t want to let power slip from their hands to those of the membership.

      • Olwyn 6.4.1
        13 October 2014 at 4:33 pm

        Thanks Anne, for coming to my defence – I had to run after writing that and have only just got back. I learned of David Cunliffe’s withdrawal on the bus, in a phone call from someone living in Australia. I will follow David’s advice and vote for Andrew Little now, but I have to admit I am finding the parliamentary LP very hard to like at the moment.

    • Tracey 6.5
      13 October 2014 at 12:12 pm

      when did the uk introduce MMP?

    • boldsirbrian 6.6
      13 October 2014 at 1:13 pm

      @ mikesh (6.1.1.2)

      It was Watkin who argued that because something was the case in Britain it must be so here

      First my mistake. Tim Watkin should read Phil Quin.

      However, Phil Quin did not argue that.

      I recommend you review Phil Quin’s article in full

      http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/labours-dilemma-the-unelectable-leader

    • The Lone Haranguer 6.7
      13 October 2014 at 1:24 pm

      I read a lot about the enthusiasm for Labour Party “democracy” with the members having 40% of the leadership vote. Now maybe Im a FPP kind of fossil (TLH was from the Wizzard of Id cartoons way way back) but why is voting for the leader a big deal to party members?

      As members, you have opportunity through your own branches, and I understand via the LEC and via conferences to contribute to policies that you want Labour to promote. And then once they are sorted, your team goes out and promotes those policies to the electorate, and you either win or do not win the election.

      If its because you cant trust your MPs in Wellington to do as the party members have agreed, then change the MPs.

      Why not get the 2017 list sorted by late 2015, and put those who arent with the program, in list positions from 50-60, and then open their electorate nominations at the same time. They might get the picture about then.

      Its not too dissimilar to what the Nats have done in the past, and to the electorate in general, it looks like renewal.

  7. Anne 7
    13 October 2014 at 8:47 am

    I have some questions.

    Who is heading this Labour Party review process? Has anyone even been appointed? If so, have they actually started and why have members not been advised?

    I ask these questions because after the initial announcement there appears to have been nothing…

    • Not a PS Shark Sashimi 7.1
      13 October 2014 at 9:00 am

      The acting leader, in conjunction with the Party President, are the obvious people to draft the brief and to come up with a short list of people to head the review. I’d guess the NZ Council would have to sign it off.

      The acting leader has been focused on his own career rather than the furure of the Party.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 7.2
      13 October 2014 at 11:36 am

      +100 Anne

  8. NeutObserver 8
    13 October 2014 at 8:55 am

    The interesting part is which of the candidates will win more votes in the Labour caucus.

    Now that Parker has entered the race, the split will increase among MPs, although it seems DC has the least chances and Grant Robertson the upper hand and could win the internal battle. Outside caucus is a different matter altogether.

  9. vto 9
    13 October 2014 at 9:16 am

    A curious thing seems to be happening amongst the large and loaded. A couple of recent social events have led to well-heeled people talking about the injustice of the low waged not being paid enough to even live on.

    There is a clear current in the community (right across it) that the lot of the low-paid is unjust and mean, not to mention grossly insufficient.

    These rich people are genuinely concerned and want to see it remedied … an interesting phenomenon. Of course then the conversation gets lost in the way to achieve that, always ending up at the cost of money i.e. the bankers.

    most interesting

  10. Tracey 10
    13 October 2014 at 9:19 am

    “.. data from property analysis company CoreLogic has shown activity among investors who owned two or more properties had hit a 10-year high. Big investors with more than 10 properties were the most active, buying about two out of every five homes in August. ”

    that worked well then!!

  11. hoom 11
    13 October 2014 at 9:45 am

    Just incase anyone thought there was any legitimate reason to sell off power asset shares:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10608177/Accessing-Mighty-Rivers-golden-stream

    Mighty River Power generates over 95 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, namely hydro and geothermal. These assets have incredibly long (bordering on infinite) useful lives, with relatively low annual maintenance expenditure required.

    The company’s crown jewels – its hydro-electric dams – are a unique asset. Built in the middle of the 20th century by the New Zealand government, these dams are located on the Waikato River. This location, close to the major population centres of Auckland and the central North Island, save the company from significant transmission losses.

    Those transmission savings combined with the low cost of hydro-electric generation give Mighty River Power a significant cost advantage.

    Even during times of lower consumption, the demand for the company’s base load electricity generation remains strong.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1
      13 October 2014 at 10:35 am

      That’s the sound of some National Party ratfuckers demonstrating their perfidy and false friendship.

  13. AmaKiwi 13
    13 October 2014 at 10:44 am

    Today I am announcing my candidacy for leader of the Labour Party.

    My platform is:

    1. Group therapy for the entire Labour caucus.

    2. Ego management therapy for most of the male caucus members.

  14. Chooky Shark Smile 14
    13 October 2014 at 11:48 am

    Kathryn Ryan on ‘Nine to Noon’ with Hooton and Williams.

    Hooton and (friend) Williams both bag David Cunliffe ….and seem positive towards Little and Parker

    ..Williams and (friend) Hooton both praise John Key on security and terrorism and war matters

    ….Hooton bags Facebook page in support of Cunliffe…says he and his friends are signing it to get Labour to lose again ( so the 5,000 signatures in support of Cunliffe are really fake signatures of support)….at this point Kathryn Ryan bags political blogs …doesnt take any notice of them

    imo …this slot is NOT worth listening to …except to find out how Hooton is spinning the right wing agenda on the Labour Party and what Labour should be doing and where it should be going…..and wonder at how Hooton has Kathryn Ryan and Mike Williams wrapped around his little finger!…no hard questions are asked on this show …and there is no contradiction of what Hooton says…it should be called the ‘Hooton Political Spin Report’

    …surely radionz could do better than this!

    • NeutObserver 14.1
      13 October 2014 at 11:54 am

      True. Another shocker from Ryan & friends.
      No doubt MW is openly against DC and doing whatever possible to see him defeated.

    • A VOTER 14.2
      13 October 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Oh foreshore foreshore the biased angst of Ryan is painful and Mike is getting like like a lot of us over 60, the realization that this Key winning the last 3 elections was no boyhood wet dream
      I just regret not finding his ivory tower back in the early 80’s and smashing it to hell before he could ever get started

  15. Tangled_up 15
    13 October 2014 at 12:18 pm

    The amount of stupid in this article is mind-boggling :

    “Greens-induced law is kinder to cattle” – http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/10602636/Greens-induced-law-is-kinder-to-cattle

    I’m not sure where SAFE stands on human induction – more commonly called abortion – but they certainly haven’t been as vocal on it as they were calf induction. The Greens have been vocal about both; it’s just that they loudly oppose calf induction and loudly support human induction.

    • wekarawshark 15.1
      13 October 2014 at 1:00 pm

      What, you mean that the woman basically argues that women should be treated the same as the slave cows in industrial dairying, and be forced to breed?

      • Tangled_up 15.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 1:10 pm

        Yep. And that because people are against forced induction at 8 months then they should be against women having a choice in the first few months.

        And that when a Bill passes a majority apparently it’s the Greens fault alone.

        • wekarawshark 15.1.1.1
          13 October 2014 at 1:14 pm

          What I didn’t understand is how the cows get pregnant out of synch with the other cows. I thought that kind of farming was tightly controlled, so isn’t this down to the farmer?

  16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16
    13 October 2014 at 12:32 pm

    ..and Cunliffe’s out.

    • karol 16.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:35 pm

      That’s what twitter says – not yet confirmed though. Cunlifffe to hold a press conference at 2pm

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    13 October 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Carney raises the heat on climate: you can’t burn all the oil

    A public call by Bank of England governor Mark Carney that the vast majority of oil reserves should be considered “unburnable” if the world wants to avoid catastrophic climate change makes him stand out among mainstream figures.

    Apparently even some banksters recognise reality.

  18. A VOTER 18
    13 October 2014 at 12:46 pm

    That aint workin thats the way u do it
    You play the voters on telliviz see
    For gods sake get some policies that represent the labour voters
    and attack National for its abuse of the poor and democracy and the parliamentary process
    National should have been gone by lunch time this election
    Their actions as a govt have been close to a crime on to many occassions
    Now the bastard wants to waste more of the countries resources getting us involved deeper in a war that is really the responsibility of the US UK France and any other nation directly involved in the mess since 911 get real we are 4 million people making a mess in our own backyard Clean that up Key

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1
      13 October 2014 at 12:56 pm

      Their actions as a govt have been close to a crime on to many occassions

      And probably were on many of those occasions.

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    13 October 2014 at 12:49 pm

    Worker Owned Cooperative Produces Independent Media

    We will give readers, not editors, control over stories. Patrons will vote on which projects get funded and which get dropped. We are even giving readers the chance to vote on which stories and pictures are included in our dead tree digest, Paper Fetish, and it’s bi-annual photo-special insert, Radical Transparencies. At ImportantCool, you will control the news.

    Will be interesting to see how it goes.

    • Chooky Shark Smile 19.1
      13 October 2014 at 3:55 pm

      @DTB…wow interesting!…we need that sort of cooperative grassroots media here ….and combined with a radio station!

      ….could really change the political and media landscape… and God knows we need it!

      • Draco T Bastard 19.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 5:41 pm

        It’d be excellent in changing our media landscape. Done well it’d show our present MSM up as the National poodles that they are.

  20. Treetop 20
    13 October 2014 at 2:09 pm

    I am wondering if United Future has 500 members. This can also be said about the ACT party.

  21. Penny Bright 21
    13 October 2014 at 3:21 pm

    When your rights are under attack – STAND UP!

    FIGHT BACK!

    FYI
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    13 October 2014

    MEDIA UPDATE – Penny Bright

    “Legal spanner now in the works to help stop the forced rating sale of my home.”

    I have just received this email from Auckland Council’s Senior Solicitor, Civil Litigation, regarding my:

    1. Application to set aside judgment (of the District Court dated 24 Feb 2012)

    2. Interlocutory application for stay of proceeding

    which were filed on Thursday 9 October 2014. and Friday 10 October 2014 respectively.

    The next step is for the Auckland District Court to set a hearing date to hear these two ‘intertwined’ matters.

    Auckland Council intends to oppose these applications.

    In the meantime – High Court proceedings to sell my home are effectively stalled.

    Legally, these applications are effectively a big, fat spanner in the Auckland Council works, in their historic and legally unprecedented attempt to force the rating sale of a freehold home.

    This stand that I am making is in defence of the lawful rights of ALL citizens and ratepayers for transparency and accountability of Auckland Council rates spending.

    How many billion$ are being spent by Auckland Council and Auckland Council Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) on private sector consultants and contractors?

    What are the NAMES of these private sector consultants and contractors?
    What is the SCOPE of these contracts?
    What is the TERM of these contracts?
    What is the VALUE of these contracts?

    Why aren’t citizens and ratepayers being given these ‘devilish details’?

    It’s OUR public money!

    Where EXACTLY is it going?

    How can you have transparency or accountability, without proper written records?

    The Public Records Act 2005, makes this a clear statutory requirement of local authorities under section 17 :

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345729.html

    Recordkeeping requirements
    Subpart 1—Key duties

    17 Requirement to create and maintain records

    (1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.

    (2) Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act or required by or under another Act.

    (3) Every local authority must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all protected records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act.

    __________________________________________________________

    Where are the STATUTORY ‘Third Party Public Watchdogs’ on this issue?

    Why are they apparently so spectacularly useless?

    Where are Transparency International New Zealand?

    Given that New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’, according to the 2013 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – shouldn’t we be the MOST transparent?

    Where is the NZ ‘Tax Payers’ Union?

    Don’t they purportedly support transparency in government spending?

    Why does an ordinary citizen like myself, feel the need to take such an extraordinary stand, in order to ensure that Auckland Council follows the law?

    Because NOBODY else is trying to hold Auckland Council and their ‘Corporate Controlled Organisations (CCOs), accountable to the law.

    That is why believe that this draconian attempt is being made to ‘neck stamp’ me – because I am an outspoken anti-corruption ‘whistle-blower’ – who has been ‘blowing the whistle until my eyeballs bleed’ (as it were 🙂

    I look forward to defending myself in the Auckland District Court (again), against Auckland Council (again), as happened when I was individually singled out over the Occupy Auckland legal proceedings, as a ‘Named Defendant’.

    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz

    In the Occupy Auckland case, it was proven (again) that you CAN ‘beat City Hall’.

    At the end of the day, I feel very comfortable and relaxed in anticipation that although these proceedings were started by Auckland Council – that I shall (again) finish them ……

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
    Attendee: Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010
    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2013
    Attendee: G20 Anti-Corruption Conference 2014

    …………………………….
    …………………………….
    __________________________________________________________

    Case Management Team

    Auckland District Court

    The Auckland Council has been served the attached applications by Ms Penny Bright (“applications”):

    1. Application to set aside judgment (of the District Court dated 24 Feb 2012)

    2. Interlocutory application for stay of proceeding

    The Council intends to oppose the applications.

    I understand that the court has yet to allocate a hearing date. Given that the applications are intertwined, could you please ensure that they are heard together.

    I look forward to receiving the notice of hearing for the applications.

    Ngā mihi | Regards

    John Hilario BA LLB | Senior Solicitor – Civil Litigation
    Legal Services | Auckland Council

    …………………………………………
    …………………………………………

    Visit our website: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

    Auckland Council

  22. Chooky Shark Smile 22
    13 October 2014 at 3:52 pm

    +100.. Go Penny!….brave anti-corruption campaigner

  24. wekarawshark 24
    13 October 2014 at 4:41 pm

    test

  25. Clemgeopin 25
    13 October 2014 at 5:18 pm

    “test”
    What?

  26. Draco T Bastard 26
    13 October 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Read this from Snowden:

    And the penchant for close, secretive cooperation with the government will only cost companies money and jobs, Snowden added, because no one would want to buy a phone made by a company that provides inherent backdoors for third parties to access your information.

    And wondered, after all he’d been through, how he could be so naive. Doesn’t he realise that the government today works for the companies?

    The answer doesn’t lie in private business and competition but in us being cooperative and using OpenSource software and hardware.

    • Te Reo Putake 26.1
      13 October 2014 at 6:30 pm

      Nah, the real naivete is that he is wrong. Nobody much cares that they have no privacy. We’re the most watched people in human history and we just don’t care. If anything, we rush to out ourselves on fb and similar platforms.

      • adam 26.1.1
        13 October 2014 at 8:13 pm

        Speak for yourself Te Reo Putake. I think the majority of people are willfully unaware they are the most watched people in history. They think, it’s not them being watched by the corporate edifice, it’s someone else – the bad people.

        They have not realised they are living in the corporate elects piffling smoke screen. Actually I think the majority here are willfully ignorant of the power of the corporations. They seem to think this or that politician is somehow above or removed from this corporate giant. It’s a worry – it’s also the reason I don’t comment on the posts about this or that political party shenanigans very much.

        It’s also the reason I say labour are dead – if you think any political party can drag us back from this corporatocracy you’re living in – I want what your smoking.

        Because after low wage, is no wage.

        Working people have nothing in common with their rules – the sooner they realise the elites hate them with a vengeance – the better.

  27. cogito 27
    13 October 2014 at 7:24 pm

    Paul Henry in the morning – yuk.
    http://www.3news.co.nz/business/paul-henry-to-host-cross-platform-breakfast-show-2014101316

    Michael Wilson and Sacha McNeil do a great job…. so they obviously need to be replaced.

  28. wekarawshark 28
    13 October 2014 at 9:24 pm

    James Macbeth Dann ‏@edmuzik 3 hrs,

    “so Foodstuffs have finally admitted that it was their produce that was linked to the Yersinia outbreak. The CDHB knew last week

    but the CDHB was asked by the MPI not to release the names, as they might damage the brands. As opposed to damaging people. With illness”

    https://twitter.com/edmuzik/status/521534681083154433

    • Draco T Bastard 28.1
      13 October 2014 at 9:52 pm

      Government of the people, by the politicians for the corporations.

      People who put the corporations before the people need to be locked away for our safety.

    • Huginn 28.2
      13 October 2014 at 11:32 pm

      Foodstuffs needs to fire Carrick Graham.

      He’s toxic

    • Huginn 28.3
      13 October 2014 at 11:37 pm

      Appalling

      Mr Key said the Ministry was dealing with the outbreak as best it can.
      “You wouldn’t want them jumping to conclusions, naming products, naming suppliers or naming supermarkets when it’s not exactly clear what is the particular product that is causing these tummy bugs.”

      Next story in National: Call for police to be fully armed