Open Mike 14/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 14th, 2017 - 98 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

98 comments on “Open Mike 14/07/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pete George 1
    14 July 2017 at 7:02 am

    Worth considering?

    In the past week, the options have narrowed for Labour.

    The Greens, through motormouth Metiria Turei, have ruled themselves out of the next Government. Labour’s tax proposals, while progressive, are too easily dismissed as complicated and paternalistic. The polls, while probably underestimating the left as usual, give no comfort.

    The current Labour leadership are repeating the mistakes of David Cunliffe, who went in to his election with policies that were watered down and downright timid. The irony is that his predecessor, David Shearer, who was derided by many on the left, campaigned on a far more red tinted platform and did better than expected.

    So, what should Labour do?

    Tinker with tax? Hold their nerve and hope to muddle through? Keep putting out bland, meaningless slogans like “It’s Time for a Fresh Approach”?

    Nope.

    Labour need to be bold.

    Andrew Little should dump the current campaign direction. He should be brave enough to say we’ve been too timid and put up an easily understood message instead.

    It’s the UBI.

    If Labour go into this campaign saying we’ll gut the benefit system, simplify taxes and give all New Zealanders a weekly minimum income equivalent to the current super payments, we’ll win handsomely.

    Not because voters will instantly understand the UBI concept. Not because voters will suddenly unleash their dormant inner revolutionary. Not because it’s financially sensible.

    Labour should do it because it plays to prejudices, and to back pockets.

    There aren’t many middle class Kiwis who don’t look down on beneficiaries in some way or another. There aren’t many in the middle who wouldn’t fancy $400 a week. There aren’t many who wouldn’t abandon National if Labour gave them a simple reason to switch.

    Sure, that message distorts what a UBI is really about, but so what?

    It’s bold, it’s revolutionary and it’s better than meekly accepting defeat.

    Do it, Andrew.

    Win it with UBI.

    Is it too late for a bold policy shift?

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/07/14/guest-blog-te-reo-putake-better-to-be-hung-for-a-sheep-as-a-lamb/

    [link added]

    [put a link next time, consider this a warning – weka]

    • Psycho Milt 1.2
      14 July 2017 at 7:42 am

      Worth considering?

      Worth considering Anonymous Internet Guy’s proposal for wholesale policy change two months’ out from the election? Er, no. But thanks for the concern trolling, I’m sure everyone here appreciates your efforts on National’s behalf.

      • Pete George 1.2.1
        14 July 2017 at 7:51 am

        I left it anonymous so the messenger wouldn’t distract from the message (that tends to happen here) but it is from very much a left wing source.

        I doubt that National cares, they will be happy to see the Andrew/Jacinda/Metiria/James and now Winston – see ‘I want Greens and NZ First in my Govt’ – Andrew Little – helping their cause.

        Most concern about the Labour-Green risk of a train wreck that I’ve seen comes from the left, from here at TS and at The Daily Blog and elsewhere on social media. Despair drives radical change.

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 10:40 am

          See my moderator note above and acknowledge please.

          • Bill 1.2.1.1.1
            14 July 2017 at 10:45 am

            Funnily enough, two sentences in I’d picked it and then couldn’t help but get into eye roll skim mode (with a healthy smattering of disbelief sprinkled on top) : -)

          • Pete George 1.2.1.1.2
            14 July 2017 at 6:37 pm

            I didn’t source it from there, it was sent to me in an email, not possible to link to that.

            I did post it (last night, well before TDB) but didn’t put my link because it tends to distract from the message here, but if you want it here it is:
            https://yournz.org/2017/07/14/better-to-be-hung-for-a-sheep-as-a-lamb/

            [none of which tells me that you won’t do that again or that you’ve understand what the warning was for, which wastes my time as a moderator. Two week ban. – weka]

    • marty mars 1.3
      14 July 2017 at 7:49 am

      Just because you look down on those receiving support doesn’t mean other middle class people do. Your ramblings are idiotic.

    • billmurray 1.4
      14 July 2017 at 8:46 am

      Pete George,
      Andrew Little needs to dump on the Greens big-time.
      He and his advisors need a kick up the arse for putting up with the nonsense which is the Green party.
      The MoU has been made a joke by the Greens and Labour’s cravenness to it.
      Labour let me tell you the message on the streets “a vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens”, that’s why you can’t get traction.
      Fair dinkum party members have had a gutsful, they don’t like the Greens. Ask them now.
      Get some guts Andrew Little and company or suffer the consequence in September.

      • Muttonbird 1.4.1
        14 July 2017 at 8:58 am

        How would you know what the message on the street is? You never go outdoors.

        • billmurray 1.4.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 9:04 am

          Muttonbird,
          South Auckland and Auckland City every day, except Sunday.
          Please enlighten the readers, Why can’t Labour get traction?.

          • Muttonbird 1.4.1.1.1
            14 July 2017 at 9:07 am

            Middle New Zealand has become selfish and morally corrupt.

          • Grafton Gully 1.4.1.1.2
            14 July 2017 at 6:41 pm

            Labour has traction with one young voter, who said to me they admire Jacinda Ardern (role model), Andrew Little they had slight reservations about but optimistic for “he’s working on it”. Liked the Labour brand (not the word used but I think sums up the sentiments).
            This young person’s main issues were Climate Change (“if you vote Labour your voting for the Greens”), housing and the cost of education.

    • AB 1.5
      14 July 2017 at 12:45 pm

      If UBI is to be mentioned at all, it will be surfaced as part of a taxation system review during a first term. New taxes will be required to pay for it. Preferably these will be taxes on unearned (non-labour) income such as speculation and rents, plus doing something about tax avoidance/evasion.

      Nor can it be separated from the ‘Future of Work’ strategy. Well-implemented, a UBI should break the power of bad employers by removing employees’ fear of penury, but it should also deliver some flexibility for good employers to take more risks and try things.

      The whole thing has to hang together otherwise you discredit the idea for years by making a mess of it. (This is probably what Pete wants to happen). A UBI is not worth the effort if it doesn’t deliver the downwards redistribution of wealth and power we so badly need

  3. The Chairman 3
    14 July 2017 at 7:42 am

    I see Labour and the Māori Party both have new Chinese candidates.

    Does anybody happen to know where they stand on China’s (lack of) human rights?

    Moreover, have they ever publicly spoken out on the matter?

    • The Fairy Godmother 3.1
      14 July 2017 at 8:03 am

      Um considering people of Chinese ethnicity have been resident in New Zealand since the 19th century I would say it’s great we have candidates of Chinese ethnicity. What the Chinese government is up to has about as much relevance to our Chinese ethnic candidates as the UK government has to the British origin ones.

      • The Chairman 3.1.1
        14 July 2017 at 9:34 am

        It’s not their ethnicity that is being questioned, it’s their principles.

        Ponder this:
        Do you think having someone standing for NZ Parliament who adheres to the doctrine of the Chinese Government isn’t a concern and something voters should be aware of?

        • marty mars 3.1.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 12:03 pm

          if it is their principles then why not ask the question of others?

          it’s all a bit smelly TC

          • The Chairman 3.1.1.1.1
            14 July 2017 at 12:10 pm

            “If it is their principles then why not ask the question of others?”

            Some I already know their position on the matter, but I have no problem with us doing so. It’s no different than asking a new Green MP their environmental position and if they have ever publicly spoken out.

            • marty mars 3.1.1.1.1.1
              14 July 2017 at 12:16 pm

              green isn’t an ethnicity

              you’re pushing this one uphill imo

              • The Chairman …
                14 July 2017 at 12:58 pm

                Their ethnicity isn’t the concern, it’s their principles that is being questioned. Hence, you’re pushing this one uphill.

                • McFlock …
                  14 July 2017 at 1:07 pm

                  if their ethnicity isn’t the concern, why bother mentioning it? Shouldn’t you be asking what the opinions of all our MPs are on China’s policies?

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 2:27 pm

                    “If their ethnicity isn’t the concern, why bother mentioning it?”

                    While it’s not a concern, their ethnicity relates (more so than some other MPs) to the possibility they may have Chinese Party ties, the manner of which may be a concern.

                    Isn’t the Chinese Students’ Association funded by the Chinese Government? And aren’t they expected to largely tow the Party line?

                    “Shouldn’t you be asking what the opinions of all our MPs…”

                    I’m doing my bit asking about these two at the moment, who have you asked about?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2017 at 2:46 pm

                      I don’t feel the need to ask anyone whether ther are now or have ever been members of the Chinese communist party. Especially when they come from a completely different country (thinking particularly of NZ and Malaysia).

                      “may be a concern”. 🙄 The only one looking for Chinese Reds in the House is you.

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 3:22 pm

                    “The only one looking for Chinese Reds in the House is you.”

                    Really? Well if that’s the case we’ll be an easy walkover if any attempted to try.

                    Let’s hope Labour have done their due diligence on their new candidate.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2017 at 3:32 pm

                      oh, fuck off.

                      The nats have illustrated pretty much all the major fuckups that can happen with an MP: incompetence, bigotry, inexperience, poor management skills, hubris, and perhaps something that must never be mentioned, but leads to resignations anyway.

                      Much farther down the list is the likelihood that the mp is an agent for a foreign power. Closest we got to that was Key, and he probably just mixed thrall for hollywood with a market-trader’s flair for corruption.

        • Gabby 3.1.1.2
          14 July 2017 at 12:38 pm

          Do you believe this to be the case?

    • John up North 3.2
      14 July 2017 at 8:06 am

      So do you know where Billshit and Pullya stand on China’s (lack of) human rights?

      Why do people of Chinese ethnicity have to display their ethics for your consumption when the lack of same in our PM and DPM don’t phase you one bit?

      • Carolyn_nth 3.2.1
        14 July 2017 at 8:17 am

        And Judith Collins on China’s human rights?

      • The Chairman 3.2.2
        14 July 2017 at 8:27 am

        While where Bill and Paula sit on the matter is also of interest, it isn’t the question currently being asked.

        Nevertheless, I’d say many on the left would believe their ethics overall leave a lot to be desired.

        And while people of Chinese ethnicity don’t have to display their ethics solely for my consumption, these two are seeking our vote, thus voters have a right to know.

        Moreover, we need to keep our eyes open for the more concerning agenda – power and influence.
        https://youtu.be/PNq1PhkQePE

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.3
        14 July 2017 at 10:55 am

        Billshit and Pullya obviously don’t have any ethical character at all. But that’s pretty much normal for National Party candidates.

        Actually, I think all MPS and prospective MPs should tell us their take on ethics, about their morals. Makes it easier to hold them to account when they break them.

    • The Fairy Godmother 3.3
      14 July 2017 at 8:11 am

      And they can’t be Chinese nationality because they would have had to reliquish their Chinese nationality when they took up New Zealand citizenship.

      • In Vino 3.3.1
        14 July 2017 at 10:47 am

        “.., it isn’t the question being asked.” “I’d say many on the left..”

        Dishonest, Mr Chairman. As far as I can see, only you are asking the question. Be fair and admit it with the honest wording, “…the question I am asking.” Nobody here seems to agree with you.

        And it is utterly pompous of you to presume what many on the left should be asking, and pretend that this happens to be what so far only you are asking.

        Transparently deceptive techniques of a concern troller.

        • The Chairman 3.3.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 11:21 am

          Hi Vino.

          Thanks for exposing us to another of your feeble attempts to play the man and not the ball.

          Are we to expect (going from past experience) further personal condemnation and the threat of violence to follow?

          • In Vino 3.3.1.1.1
            14 July 2017 at 12:01 pm

            Sorry – if you re-read my comment, I did not employ ad hominem. I made perfectly valid criticism of your deceptive debating technique. You have failed to reply to that.
            I have never threatened violence – please give a citation if you can.
            For a valid reply, you must justify the techniques I criticised.
            Ironically, your reply plays the man far more than my criticism. As a chairman, you ought to know more about debating procedure.
            Please raise your level.

        • The Chairman 3.3.1.2
          14 July 2017 at 1:29 pm

          Highlighting your attempt to play the man and not the ball isn’t me playing the man. I have no interest in discussing you. Nevertheless, I will highlight it (your attempt to play the man) if required.

          “I have never threatened violence”

          Yet it was only the other day you were going on about wanting to play with my balls with a hefty softball bat.

          “I made perfectly valid criticism of your deceptive debating technique.”

          It was far from valid criticism as there was no deception taking place.

          It was blatantly clear I was asking the initial two questions. And I wasn’t questioning their ethnicity, thus the deception at play is yours. 

          “And it is utterly pompous of you to presume what many on the left should be asking, and pretend that this happens to be what so far only you are asking.”

          I did no such thing.

          Despite your deceptive attempt to paint it as if my assumption (I’d say many on the left would believe their ethics overall leave a lot to be desired) was/is related to my questions is incorrect. It was in relation to a question put to me in regards to Bill and Paula.

          • In Vino 3.3.1.2.1
            14 July 2017 at 2:24 pm

            ‘Play the man’ means to attack character instead of the argument. Your debate technique is part of your argument, not your character. I criticised you for saying ‘the question being asked’ (as if many were asking it) when in fact you were the only one asking it. I told you to be honest and say it that way ( ‘the question I am asking.’) Fair accusation of using a deceptive technique.
            I linked that point to much the same thing, where you presumed to speak for many on the left, in the very same comment. Same attempt by you – one person – to pretend to be speaking for many people on the left when you are actually pushing your own point, regardless of whether you were replying to somebody else. Calling that act pompous is just that – it is not attacking your general character. 2 examples of same deceptive technique.
            So where is the ‘playing the man’?
            Or are you too dim to understand? (Now that is playing the man. Get the difference?)
            As for the softball bat thing, I seem to remember that as a humorous play on words (balls) in a thread where nobody was threatening real violence of any sort. But I guess it now suits you to cynically scream blue murder. I hope you didn’t need trauma counselling…

            • The Chairman 3.3.1.2.1.1
              14 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

              “‘Play the man’ means to attack character instead of the argument”

              Dishonest, Mr Chairman ring any bells? How about deceptive techniques of a concern troller? All attempted character assassination.

              “I criticised you for saying ‘the question being asked’ (as if many were asking it) when in fact you were the only one asking it.”

              Saying ‘the question being asked doesn’t necessarily imply many were asking it. That’s merely how you perceived it and then went on to state it was me being deceptive.

              Moreover, the fact I was the only one asking it was blatantly obvious. Bringing your perception into question while making your accusation flawed, thus incorrect. Hence, far from a fair accusation at all.

              I didn’t presumed to speak for many on the left, I clearly stated I was assuming what many of them may be thinking in regards to Bill and Paula’s ethics, thus wasn’t speaking for them as you incorrectly claimed. Which makes the rest of your post garbage.

              Oh, and as for the hefty softball bat thing, you may want to reconsider what you deem funny.

              • In Vino …
                14 July 2017 at 3:46 pm

                The explanation of ‘Dishonest’ clearly showed I was attacking your technique as a dishonest method of argument.

                Grammatically, a general passive (being asked) is the equivalent of active (people ask – not all people but at least a good number) and you ought to be literate enough to know that.

                Your implication in both cases was that others as well as you held your point of view.

                In view of your persistent obfuscation I will leave other readers to make their own conclusions.

      • The Chairman 3.4.1
        14 July 2017 at 8:39 am

        “Who is the new Chinese Canadian (candidate?) for Labour?”

        Naisi Chen. Former President of the New Zealand Chinese Students’ Association.

        • Carolyn_nth 3.4.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 8:54 am

          Thanks. All the articles I’ve found about her show her to be for reducing inequalities, housing affordability – and human rights in general.

          The last sentence in the above linked article is a bit concerning.

          • The Chairman 3.4.1.1.1
            14 July 2017 at 12:00 pm

            “China will exert every effort to increase housing supply while pursuing affordable, environmentally friendly and safe living standards in accordance with the country’s practical situation,” said President Xi.

            As you can see, expressing concern for housing affordability doesn’t necessarily give rise to the protection (and improvement of) human rights.

        • Johan 3.4.1.2
          14 July 2017 at 9:15 am

          Let’s play the other racist card TC. You sound pathetic better have a cup of tea and a lie down.

          • The Chairman 3.4.1.2.1
            14 July 2017 at 9:48 am

            You sound pathetic attempting to paint this as racism.

            Two new Chinese candidates have recently been announced and I’m questioning their principles. There is nothing racist in that.

            • Bill 3.4.1.2.1.1
              14 July 2017 at 10:55 am

              What you want? “NZ principles? I’ve no idea what that might actually mean. Do you?

              Maybe dropping white phosphorous on civilian neighbourhoods is a Kiwi principle? What about training Indonesian fighter pilots back when? Is that a Kiwi principle?

              People have principles. Some of those principles are diabolical and some laudable. None of them are determined by nationality or ethnicity.

              Did I say it appears you’ve lost the plot?

              • The Chairman …
                14 July 2017 at 11:17 am

                It’s rather simple, Bill. What I want to know is what I initially asked.

                Where do they stand on China’s (lack of) human rights?

                Moreover, have they ever publicly spoken out on the matter?

                • marty mars …
                  14 July 2017 at 12:07 pm

                  No you are being racist – ask the other candidates the same question. See you are mixing up two new chinese candidates with two new candidates with chinese ethnicity. FFS they have probably got stronger roots to this country than you and your lot – how the fuck would you know? “umm I looked at their picture”

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 12:29 pm

                    “No you are being racist – ask the other candidates the same question”

                    No. See my reply to you at 3.1.1.1.1.

                    How the fuck would you know?

                    I don’t know, hence why I’m asking.

                    Moreover, considering the recent revelations coming out of Australia, there seem to be good reason not to be asleep at the wheel. Don’t you agree?

                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2017 at 12:35 pm

                      no I don’t.

                      dog whistle racism – not a good look TC – are the comments saying you are a stool stirring stirrer true?

                      What is your ethnicity? When did you immigrate here? Who did you vote for last time?

                    • Carolyn_nth …
                      14 July 2017 at 6:38 pm

                      Are you referring to allegations that wealthy Chinese, with connections to China’s ruling communist party, had been giving donations to Aussie political parties, allegedly to try to influence Aussie politics?

                      If so, it’s an issue about donations to political parties by foreigners, and not of people of Chinese descent, or birth, now resident in NZ, standing for a political party.

                      Are you aware of Trump’s family and associates potentially colluding with Russians to influence US elections?

                      Maybe in NZ we should be wary of wealthy male politicians of European descent.

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 12:44 pm

                    “No I don’t.”

                    Really, Marty? Why not? Surely you don’t think we are immune to such power and influence taking place here?

                    It’s not dog whistle racism, Marty. It’s just logical for us to be on our toes.

                    “What is your ethnicity? When did you immigrate here? Who did you vote for last time?”

                    Nice try Marty, however I’m not standing for public office, nor am I the topic of discussion.

                    • marty mars …
                      14 July 2017 at 12:51 pm

                      on our toes for what?

                      be honest you are talking trojan horse scenarios – deep sleepers and Manchurian candidate shit – hint – BULLSHIT. You have just let your wee racist out – sad.

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 1:40 pm

                    Just to be clear, Marty, are you aware of the recent revelations coming out of Australia that I was alluding too?

                    And by calling bullshit do you genuinely think we are immune to the possibility of it happening here?

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  14 July 2017 at 12:27 pm

                  Wetex Kang seems to be from Malaysia (he went to high school in Malaysia), and he seems to have a strong identification with Malay as indigenous people, and their links to Māori whakapapa – hence his affiliation with the Māori Party.

                  In Malaysia, Malay people tend to have secondary status compared with Chinese people.

                  Why not ask about Julie Anne Genter’s position on US imperialism?

                  • The Chairman …
                    14 July 2017 at 12:36 pm

                    “Wetex Kang seems to be from Malaysia”

                    Nevertheless, he identifies as being Malay – Chinese.

                    “Why not ask about Julie Anne Genter’s position on US imperialism?”

                    I have no problem with doing so.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 July 2017 at 1:02 pm

                      So to recap: you haven’t asked his position on Malaysian policies or human rights, and you haven’t asked her position about US policies or human rights, and you haven’t asked any of the Pakeha MPs about their opinions on UK/European policies and human rights, but you’re asking only for the opinions of ethnic Chinese candidates?

                      Hmmm.

        • Gabby 3.4.1.3
          14 July 2017 at 12:41 pm

          I see she’s a lawyer -ish.
          Thank God we’re adressing the shortage of lawyers in politics.

    • greywarshark 3.5
      14 July 2017 at 8:08 pm

      Have you spoken out on China’s human rights defict TC? That is something that many people haven’t done I think. If anyone would like to take a stand on some human rights offences, then please join Amnesty International. We who try to better things should belong to this group.

      In the meantime be careful about gong on about ethnicity. Chris Trotter has done a piece on Lionel Terry from 1905, and his superior delusions and fears. West Coast bovver boys killed a Korean backpacker not many years ago because they could.

      In England an unbalanced guy with delusions went off the deep end and a nice woman and MP suffered death for it. Her fault was being for the EU which meant too many immigrants in most British people’s opinions, but killing one of the better people of the world because the attacker is one of the sour, sad people not getting a good deal doesn’t add up.

      On 16 June 2016, Jo Cox, the British Labour Party Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, died after being shot and stabbed multiple times in Birstall, West Yorkshire, England, shortly before she was due to hold a constituency surgery. A Scottish-born 52-year-old local man named Thomas Alexander Mair was arrested in connection with Cox’s death. On 23 November 2016, Mair was found guilty of murder and other offences connected to the killing. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.[2][3]

      Cox was singled out for attack as a “passionate defender” of the European Union and immigration. Mair viewed the Labour MP as “one of ‘the collaborators’ [and] a traitor” to white people.[1]

      The incident was the first killing of a sitting British MP since the death of Conservative MP Ian Gow, who was murdered in a Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorist attack in 1990, and the first death of a politician during an attack since Andrew Pennington, a county councillor, was killed in 2000 while defending Liberal Democrat MP Nigel Jones.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

      What thoughts you give out today may walk and talk tomorrow!

  4. Muttonbird 4
    14 July 2017 at 8:55 am

    Regarding Labour’s steadfast positioning slight left of centre (with a healthy dose of compassion for struggling families), there’s been a surge in concern trolling from the RWNJs in the past week or so.

    Now articles and blogs are saying Labour isn’t left enough which suggests the National Party and associated sycophants don’t like it when Labour begin moving into their territory.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      14 July 2017 at 10:59 am

      National love it when Labour move into their territory as it allows them to go for even more radical right-wing policies, to claim that the right-wing is now the centre.

  5. Red 5
    14 July 2017 at 8:56 am

    I see Bryan Edwards pushing the green nuclear option today forcing another election if locked out of power by nzf or shafted by labour, not buying shaws denials, what a mess, Winnie laughing all the way The left again portrayed as not been able to organise themselves, let alone be in government, Similarily labour pilloried from all sides re p… weak campaign and policy’s National could just stay home and win this election

    • Muttonbird 5.1
      14 July 2017 at 9:03 am

      Not a bad strategy for National to keep their mouth shut. Whenever they’ve opened it recently, disaster follows.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      14 July 2017 at 11:00 am

      I see you still spouting BS that’s already been disproven.

      • Red 5.2.1
        14 July 2017 at 4:58 pm

        Moan to Edwards not me, like wise most of the criticisms of labour coming from the left, trotter, pagani , edwards, TDB, Quin,

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          14 July 2017 at 5:01 pm

          No, I’ll blame you as you’re the one who stated the BS.

        • David Mac 5.2.1.2
          14 July 2017 at 5:36 pm

          I think the Greens covered all this speculation with the simple claim: We will need to flex with some of our policies, our values are not negotiable.

          To me, that means that they may have to initially wave ‘Hello’ to visiting nuclear US vessels. This does not stop them from banging the caucus table and saying “We still don’t want them here and here’s why….”

          I think that’s cool, arguing the toss, thrashing out a best way forward for all of us rather than steamrolling through rules that suit a particular agenda.

    • OncewasTim 5.3
      14 July 2017 at 8:14 pm

      Bryce Edwards? Who or what is that?
      I heard a rumour that it was some mover and shaker from the ‘incroud’ bubble….even that it might come from the whurl of academia and feature on various radio frequency media outlets as a sage and commentator/wanker
      Can you provide me witg more????
      I’m loathe to rely on a Mora panel

      • OncewasTim 5.3.1
        14 July 2017 at 8:26 pm

        I keep hearing these ….um…. names or labels.
        There’s this Arm Strong, and a Joe See Pah Gunny, and a Fill something they keep saying have entered the world from the west (Staged LEFT).
        There’s a Kruss Trtta and a shitload of others that seem to live someplace adjacent to the Hear Zezzis a Parlya Mint in a synthetuk Michael Bouble.
        Oi jiss dun unna Stan

  6. Jenny Kirk 6
    14 July 2017 at 9:10 am

    Andrew Little has clarified just where he stands on this little spat between the Greens and NZ First. I think he’s capable of pulling both these Parties together for the common good of us all. He’s done it before (pulling difficult/problematic people together), and he can do it again. See the link below.

    “We can form a good government and I want the Green Party to be part of that and the New Zealand First party to be part of that,” he told Newshub.
    “We have a lot of common ground with the Green Party, we have a lot of common ground with New Zealand First. I think our three parties offer New Zealand the best chance of fixing the problems we know New Zealanders want us to fix.”
    “I’m totally confident that I am capable of putting together if the numbers fall our way a government that will have a good solid programme of change involving up to three parties,” he said.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/07/i-want-greens-and-nz-first-in-my-govt-andrew-little.html

    • james 6.1
      14 July 2017 at 9:28 am

      ““We can form a good government and I NEED the Green Party to be part of that and NEED the New Zealand First party to be part of that,” he told Newshub.”

      fixed it for him

    • Red 6.2
      14 July 2017 at 5:02 pm

      “We can probably form a government of some form at least for 6 months before imploding in acrimony if every one would just STFU and not say what they really feel and or think” is probably more honest

  7. Johnr 7
    14 July 2017 at 9:12 am

    Just listened to Kim Hull on morning report, interviewing an Act spokesperson on restricting poor people having children.
    Act says “We’re not giving away lollies this election”.
    Kim Hull replies “Just condoms it seems”
    She’s a gem.

  8. Morrissey 8
    14 July 2017 at 9:16 am

    MEMO MAX BOOT: When Tucker Carlson looks
    much smarter than you, it’s time to give up.

  9. joe90 9
    14 July 2017 at 10:10 am

    Bully in Chief.

    I don't know what's worse: tRUmp telling France's FL she was fit or yanking her arm when she tried to pull away *hangs head in shame* pic.twitter.com/ShpLsSD6xw— Royce Christyn (@ChristynRoyce) July 13, 2017

    https://twitter.com/ChristynRoyce/status/885567483649769472

  10. james 10
    14 July 2017 at 11:26 am

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/07/high-earners-don-t-want-tax-cuts-ardern.html

    High Earners dont want tax-cuts.

    Thats an interesting call.

    Most High Earners I know think that they pay too much tax (Note vast majority simple PAYE people only – not properties etc – but all in 150k+ pa brackets),

    Which I assume is the kind of people Ardern is talking about.

    • Sabine 10.1
      14 July 2017 at 11:45 am

      nah she is talking about the Top dudes and dudettes.

    • halfcrown 10.2
      14 July 2017 at 12:12 pm

      Well this is what the OECD says about tax cuts for the higher earners in NZ as our inequality is now on par with Mexico the worse in the OECD

      “The thinktank suggests higher top rates of income tax, scrapping tax breaks and reassessing how assets are taxed as methods of combatting inequality.”

      Full article at
      https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/09/new-zealand-mexico-oecd-economies-most-affected-inequality

      Also, this is worth a read.
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/12/how-new-zealands-rich-poor-divide-killed-its-egalitarian-paradise

      When I read that article I thought to myself funny that, as I remember the then New World order saying TINA, that they had to take the measures they did otherwise in 30/40 years time New Zealand would end up exactly as the article describes it today.
      Biggest fucking con ever.

    • McFlock 10.3
      14 July 2017 at 12:51 pm

      Of course there are some who are happy to forestall their own tax cuts because they see what’s happening to the country. Just as there are some who are terminally avaricious.

      I hope you have to meet the latter only for work. I think it says more about the sort of people you and Ardern meet with rather than any broad-brush claim it makes about high earners in general.

    • adam 10.4
      14 July 2017 at 1:39 pm

      “Most High Earners I know think that they pay too much tax ” and that is the problem.

    • Psycho Milt 10.5
      14 July 2017 at 3:38 pm

      Most High Earners I know think that they pay too much tax…

      Oh, I don’t doubt that for a second. Right-wingers generally fail to connect their financial success with the society that facilitated it for them, and accordingly reject the idea of contributing a share of that financial success to running that society. High-income earners who aren’t right-wingers tend not to suffer from this deficiency, so you and Ardern are probably both right.

  11. Ed 11
    14 July 2017 at 12:01 pm

    A great message from Angela Rayner.

    ‘Over 80,000 people have watched Angela Rayner’s brilliant message to the Prime Minister on abusive trolls. And it’s going down a storm for multiple reasons.

    Firstly, because Rayner is incredibly honest about her own experiences of bullying; and because her words seem to have given heart to those who have experienced the same.

    But also, the Shadow Education Secretary discusses the role politicians themselves have in restricting abuse. And her advice for politicians to lead by example has struck a chord.’

    https://www.thecanary.co/2017/07/13/thousands-watched-angela-rayners-brilliant-3-minute-takedown-pm-media-cronies-video/

  12. Redlion Seratus 12
    14 July 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Thanks for the link Halfcrown .. erosion of workers rights & casualisation & piece rates. Yesterday I was talking with a friend about his situation, he’d come unstuck prunning grape vines.He was the fastest in his gang & getting just on minimum wage… fixing of rates between the
    Contractor managers & Vineyard Manager had resulted in most on the job getting below minimum

  14. Sumsuch 14
    15 July 2017 at 2:55 am

    The default start point at The Standard seems to be the Labour Party. Hence, awry follows. People-ism starts to the definite left of Douglas’s party. Voting for his party makes me laugh. But not you lot. Why your arrows never near the mark. I leave you to your wateryness,