Open mike 14/11/2010

39 comments on “Open mike 14/11/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Carol 1

   14 November 2010 at 8:54 am

   Just turned off TV 3’s The Nation’s party political broadcast. What a come down for Sean Plunkett to roll over and not push the people being questioned with any kind of a critical approach. So, according to the Nation, National will win the vote or the momentum in Mana. Kiwis need to save more…. but not indivually – ie we need to cut back on public services, and take the pain so the “tradeable” sector can get productive… The people won’t like it, say The Nation’s white, middleclass smug suits, it’ll be a hard sell for the government, but it’s what Kiwis need

   ie: more top-down, we-know-what’s-best-for-you, right wing rorts.
   • Olwyn 1.1

     14 November 2010 at 9:11 am

     How many times do people have to hear that mantra before taking up their pitchforks? It has been said so often, over so many years, that everyone must have noticed by now that the second step (higher productivity) has so far failed to follow from the first (public service cuts). Perhaps we could try thinking it the other way round; that we need to build up the tradeable sector if we are to adequately maintain our public services.
2. Sanctuary 2

   14 November 2010 at 9:26 am

   $7000 meal a ‘steal’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10687466

   The open decadence of our latifunda elite disgusts me. What this meal needs is a raid from the poor and the unemployed, to trash their night and let a bit of rude reality intrude into their sealed bubble of unearned privilege.
   • ianmac 2.1

     14 November 2010 at 10:12 am

     “Well now I mean, some people are just a bit ah um envious of those of us who have shown a lot of cunning er no um clever manipulation, oh clever hard work to get where we are and justly deserve a place at the table but the moaners and jealous ones do not,” said a smug fellow with a fixed grin. “Let them eat cake!”
     • prism 2.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 12:12 pm

       A seat at the table will set each couple back at least $7000 – which includes a three-night stay at the five-star resort near Napier. – NZ Herald.

       A degustation (disgusting) meal by Michelin chefs. One planned piece de resistance is to be conch shells containing mini ipods playing sea sounds. The cost only $3500 per head.

       At this moment a discussion on Nat radio as to how old people’s homes can supply better care to their charges. Also the mention of low wages for the carers coupled with understaffing. The word ‘warehousing’ wasn’t used but needs to enter the discussion. One old lady of 103 had an unpleasant demise brought about by advanced itchy then painful scabies which led to further sickness. She was seen by a doctor who diagnosed something else and refused to allow a second opinion from a gerentologist or laboratory tests on skin samples which would confirm the problem.. The rest home denied that it had any scabies. Enjoy your dosh and spend it all in your youth because if you squeak through all the pitfalls of strokes etc. there is the long twilight of the modern world. Good opportunities and funding for business though.

       One suggestion for a new model for funding old people’s care is individualised funding as in the disabled sector. This could amount to $42,000 per person a year for a growing number of ageing people. There is no fun in living long to achieve some world-recognised statistic when one is just a shambling wreck. Also getting enough staff, why they get paid $12.50 an hour, and how to get training (when one business chain – provider – is opposed to the ITO and won’t use). Someone called Dwayne Crombie speaking for ‘providers’ sounds just like John Key to me, were there cloning experiments when the thought of these guys was being conceived.
       • joe90 2.1.1.1

         14 November 2010 at 1:34 pm

         Did you note that the mention of taxpayer capital investment in private provider facilities drew a dismissive ‘conspiracy theory’ response from Crombie, with Laidlaw letting the smarmy prick side step the issue, and then he proceeded to say that money wasn’t the issue. And yes, they’re clones Prism, surprise surprise, Crombie has an MBA.
         • prism 2.1.1.1.1

           14 November 2010 at 10:47 pm

           MBA Meretricious Business Administrator? – MBAs were regarded as top notch degrees I thought. Seeing the way that the finance industry have fouled up the whole business and private transaction world maybe my form is the right version.
         • Dwayne crombie 2.1.1.1.2

           5 December 2010 at 3:49 pm

           I have spent my life working in the public health system and now latterly in aged care in the private sector (given there isn’t any public provision anymore). Almost all of us who Work in aged care believe in doing as good a job as we can given what society is prepared to pay. Seems easy for people like you to make cheap shots, what have you ever done for caring for older people? if you think providing 24 hour care for rest home level older people for $95/day is a free lunch why don’t you get off your backside and see if you can do it any better. Dwayne
       • Vicky32 2.1.1.2

         14 November 2010 at 5:59 pm

         Oh yes, I heard that… and got mightily depressed! (My son, my friend and I have all worked at rest homes temporarily) and have all noticed that they are horribly understaffed, and all try to force staff to use unsafe practices.) My son who was a student nurse at the time, got into trouble for his refusal to for example, lift residents albeit using a hoist, while on his own. (I can’t say ‘I hope I die before I get old’ – that ship has already sailed – but I do say ‘I hope I die before I get old enough to need residential care!)
         That guy Dwayne Crombie was a complete jerk.
         Deb
         • prism 2.1.1.2.1

           14 November 2010 at 10:49 pm

           Deb
           It makes the option of having some decision-making look rational. Exit International, Death with Dignity etc.
           • Vicky32 2.1.1.2.1.1

             15 November 2010 at 6:55 pm

             I can’t do that for family reasons…. So, meh!
             Deb
         • Dwayne crombie 2.1.1.2.2

           5 December 2010 at 3:57 pm

           Try visiting some more nursing homes before making such overwhelming generalizations, there is a lot of good care going on by staff who do their best in difficult circumstances. most care is funded by government so we get exactly the care that we deserve by giving aged care such a low political priority.
           • BLiP 2.1.1.2.2.1

             5 December 2010 at 4:06 pm

             Pity the private operators prefer to focus on profit rather than actually feeding those in their “care”. You’re right, though. The staff do their best on minimum wage and despite a lack of training. My fear is their lack of training and any incentive to go the extra mile could end up causing early deaths and it will be the staff who get it in the neck, not the operators.
             • joe90 …

               5 December 2010 at 6:41 pm

               Try visiting some more nursing homes before making such overwhelming generalizations,

               First off I’ll agree that aged care is the poor cousin and both financial and policy wise, the elephant in the room.
               And getting my father a bed in a rest home after caring for him myself at home for two years is another story but yeah, I’ve tried visiting aged care facilities, four.

               The first was a church run self care facility and then an attached rest home that I couldn’t fault but when the old man’s dementia took off at a gallop and his care needs were beyond them, the nightmare started.
               Over the next eighteen months the old boy was in two privately owned and operated dementia units that used medication to manage him, the food was awful, he spent all day in his pyjamas, the staff were surly and poorly trained, the nursing care was poor and the constant stench of piss and shit was absolutely disgraceful.

               But Hallelujah!, finally we managed to get Dad a bed in the secure unit at Ranfurly where the medical staff managed the acquired fungal growth on his feet and legs properly and his medical straight jacket was removed. And contrasting the half arsed sit in the corner treatment that the other two providers had passed off as diversional therapy Ranfurly manages to keep my Dad diverted and relatively contented.
               As expected his dementia has advanced but he’s comfortable, fed properly and very well cared for in their hospital .
               So my experience Dwayne is that the for profit facilities were both shockers and the others, both trusts, were wonderful.

               btw Dwayne, thanks for fronting, appreciated.
3. mickysavage 3

   14 November 2010 at 10:24 am

   The more I think about it the Pansy Wong debacle must have generated a large scale headache for the National Party.

   Their ethnic list candidates in 2008 were obviously part of a campaign to make their list look like Labour’s and increase their appeal to the various ethnic communities. And it worked.

   But they suddenly have a major problem with both of their Asian MPs.

   It has long been thought that Melissa Lee’s future was terminal and she would not be back in Parliament. But with Wong’s difficulties and the apparent imminent demise of her political career perhaps they are going to have to think about retaining Lee?
   • Jim Nald 3.1

     14 November 2010 at 4:19 pm

     In terms of a South Asian MP, there is Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi.

     captcha: worse (!!)
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 4:34 pm

       Agreed although I always hesitated before grouping the first, second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, twentieth … most populous nations into the same ethnic grouping.
4. Logie97 4

   14 November 2010 at 10:28 am

   You saw and heard it on Q+A

   So Fran O’Sullivan believes that the majority of beneficiaries in New Zealand are 19 year old male slob stay-at-home layabouts…

   I think we have a real problem when a serious commentator shows such insight….

   Incidentally, what part of the “Public Purse” is paying the likes of Rebstock and how much does she get?
   • trademark 4.1

     14 November 2010 at 1:01 pm

     Yes, there were many cringeworthy comments said on welfare by Fran, but I think the wrinkle-making prize goes to Rebstock. Ex chair of the Commerce Commission, Treasury economist in the late ’80s – she’s certainly got the credentials to decide what’s best for beneficiaries. It’s all about getting up in the morning, showing up somewhere and doing something. Nothing like it to keep people in line. Even when there are no jobs. And the youth are such an easy target.

     Thankfully, Jon Johansson pointed out that beneficiaries were not just dope smoking kids bludging off the state and their parents, and that welfare should not be isolated from the broader macroeconomic framework.

     And then we had Paul Holmes suggest that the Public Service Association was more frightening than the kiwifruit disease. Someone really needs to look into the rampant left wing propaganda being spouted on Q+A(!)
     • Anne 4.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 3:43 pm

       Did anyone notice the deference Espinor showed Murray McCully? Didn’t interrupt him once. I recall the interview he did with Phil Goff about six weeks ago. The man wasn’t allowed to complete an answer and no… he wasn’t waffling either. In fact, Goff appears to have had some training at last. He hasn’t done a waffle job for quite a while. Fingers crossed!
       • Logie97 4.1.1.1

         14 November 2010 at 5:11 pm

         Agree with you about Espiner and his style. He appears to be the creeping whisperer even more now.

         As for Goff I wasn’t sure what he was trying to say on Nat.Radio regarding Pansy Wong on Friday night. Sounded waffly to me.
5. jcuknz 5

   14 November 2010 at 10:54 am

   If there are no rewards then where is the incentive to be other than a “19yo male slob stay-at-home layabout” ?
   Think how that $7000 trickles down the food chain rewarding those who are working hard. Stealing from the rich to feed the poor. Robin Hood would love the situation.
   Note the $7000 is for a three day weekend, not just a meal, if you check the article, and that is Kiwi$ not real money. ‘Steal’ is just advertising hype to lure the suckers..
   • Joachim's 5.1

     14 November 2010 at 11:21 am

     If the National Govt could produce 100,000 $15/hr jobs tomorrow, our unemployment would halve tomorrow.

     Fact of the matter is you are covering up for National’s lack of an economic plan and the fact that its been two years of wasted opportunities under them.

     “Think how that $7000 trickles down the food chain rewarding those who are working hard. ”

     Sorry mate thats not reward as you say it is moral theft: no CEO or consultant type deserves to earn more in a weekend than a labourer or machine operator does in two months. Defend income inequality all you like but it marks you as an agent against the people, not for the people.
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     14 November 2010 at 12:19 pm

     In this particular case, a lot of that $7,000 will be going to the international chefs, and therefore heading out of the country pretty quickly.

     Also, swanky hotels don’t really employ huge numbers of staff, and I would bet that they’re not being paid particularly much more than other hospitality workers. So in this case I don’t think he trickle-down effect is going to go very far.

     This is in stark contrast to The Hobbit movies, where a lot of the money being spent would go directly into the pockets of workers as wages, and a lot more would be spent on accommodation, food and other services.
   • Logie97 5.3

     14 November 2010 at 2:06 pm

     Robin Hood did not steal from rich. He simply returned to the poor what was rightly theirs and had been stolen from them by the tyrants
     .
6. Zorr 6

   14 November 2010 at 2:28 pm

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4343437/Key-chats-with-Obama

   Can we get rid of him already? This man is a walking embarrassment. If it isn’t the fact that there aren’t enough cameras around him to capture his cringeworthy grins in all their “glory” then it is that he “sat “pretty much next to” President Obama at a Kabuki show”.

   I think this is where their lives diverge though. If history is to be believed, Obama is highly likely to be a two-term president. We can only hope National and Jonkey only have the one.
   • Joachim's 6.1

     14 November 2010 at 2:37 pm

     “If history is to be believed, Obama is highly likely to be a two-term president.”

     Odds are low for Obama on this one. Not sure how he is going to get in again after 2 more years of congressional deadlock and an economic model which is still sliding down the tubes.
     • Zorr 6.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 2:42 pm

       There are a lot of reasons for the bet being good for Obama.

       1) Poor potential candidates on the Batshit Crazy side of the spectrum
       2) Americans voted for Republicans/Teabaggers more out of malcontent with the whole system than specifically with Democrats
       3) Give the Republicans 2 years in charge of the purse strings – hopefully Obama lets them hang themselves with those strings because if they gridlock the system then it should be easy to use that against them
       • ianmac 6.1.1.1

         14 November 2010 at 5:04 pm

         Zorr, I read one commentator point out that “so far the Republicans have opposed everything that the Democrats put up. Now however they have the casting vote so will have to show the electorate that they are responsible and they must compromise, or face the perception that they are the problem.” Thus Obama might make more progress.
         Perverse if that is what happens?
         • Zorr 6.1.1.1.1

           14 November 2010 at 5:40 pm

           That is pretty much enough to give Obama odds on to win in 2012.

           The only issue with the picture is Obama himself. The man is turning in to the spineless wonder whenever it comes to actually fronting policies that he was voted in to, hopefully, represent.
           • Joachim's 6.1.1.1.1.1

             14 November 2010 at 5:53 pm

             Yeah well your rationale so far is that Obama will get back in because despite being spineless, everyone else will be worse and the Republican majority will be a fail.

             I can see the sense in that but I’m not feeling much more optimistic about the future of the USA because of it.
             • Zorr …

               14 November 2010 at 5:58 pm

               Me? Being optimistic about the future of the US? LOL

               I am optimistic of Obama’s future career chances. US is fucked. Short and simple. The issues with their system are deeply institutionalized and, short of a dictator coming to the throne, will not be changed.
     • Jim Nald 6.1.2

       14 November 2010 at 4:26 pm

       A friend sent me this piece saying Obama should declare himself a one-term Pres:

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html?nav=hcmodule
       • Zorr 6.1.2.1

         14 November 2010 at 4:50 pm

         lol

         Because anything published as opinions by the Moonie press should be regarded as valid?
   • RedLogix 6.2

     14 November 2010 at 5:28 pm

     My Best Link for the Weekend

     My own answer to the question of how things got this bad has less to do with whether Obama should have been more liberal or more centrist than with his and his party’s apparent inability, or perhaps refusal, to offer broad and convincing arguments about their central beliefs that counter those of the Republicans. This problem goes back to the Reagan years. It is a failure that many Democrats and liberals hoped Obama could change—something he seemed capable of changing during the campaign but has addressed rather poorly once in office.

     In American politics, Republicans routinely speak in broad themes and tend to blur the details, while Democrats typically ignore broad themes and focus on details. Republicans, for example, speak constantly of “liberty” and “freedom” and couch practically all their initiatives—tax cuts, deregulation, and so forth—within these large categories. Democrats, on the other hand, talk more about specific programs and policies and steer clear of big themes. There is a reason for this: Republican themes, like “liberty,” are popular, while Republican policies often are not; and Democratic themes (“community,” “compassion,” “justice”) are less popular, while many specific Democratic programs—Social Security, Medicare, even (in many polls) putting a price on carbon emissions—have majority support. This is why, when all else fails, Democrats try to scare people about the threat to Social Security if the GOP takes over, as indeed they are doing right now.

     What Democrats have typically not done well since Reagan’s time is connect their policies to their larger beliefs. In fact they have usually tried to hide those beliefs, or change the conversation when the subject arose. The result has been that for many years Republicans have been able to present their philosophy as somehow truly “American,” while attacking the Democratic belief system as contrary to American values. “Putting us on the road to European-style socialism,” for example, is a rhetorical line of attack that long predates Obama’s ascendance—it was employed against the Clintons’ health care plan as well.
7. NickS 7

   14 November 2010 at 5:34 pm

   And just when you thought Dunne couldn’t get any less cynical, he’s now embraced the anti-1080 movement, claiming that 1080 poisoning is “indiscriminate”.

   I guess that’s why DoC hasn’t done any research in what baits need to be used to minimise native birds and other fauna eating it, while maximising impacts on introduced pests, like possums, rabbits, deer and pigs. Of course, I somehow doubt this will provide his ego-mobile with any more than 1.5% of the party vote, and it will likely slide into the background during coalition talks. Although given NACT’s short term thinking, they may see this as a means of “saving money” by cutting 1080 and control measures back.

   Despite the fact it more than likely cost more in the long term to bring pest population levels back down. Along with drops in endangered and threaten native fauna and flora populations.
   • RedLogix 7.1

     14 November 2010 at 5:59 pm

     What’s boof-boy proposing as the alternative? Given that doing nothing is not an option, how the hell does the ‘anti-1080’ lobby propose controlling pest numbers without a dramatic increase in funding?

     Because arguing to ban 1080 (which is not by itself wholly unreasonably) but failing to support funding it’s alternatives is simply a position with no credibility.
8. Descendant Of Smith 8

   14 November 2010 at 10:14 pm

   Nice link in the cricket reminding us of what happens when it all goes wrong.

   This issue and the lack of effort to help those affected by the companies concerned was nicely highlighted in the recent yes-men doco as well.

   Bhopal

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 13 November 2010 at 5:12 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS