Open mike 14/12/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 14th, 2011 - 93 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

93 comments on “Open mike 14/12/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    14 December 2011 at 6:30 am

    OK so I am feeling a bit bruised.  Cunliffe is not leader and that is the democratic choice of the Caucus.  But if Shearer has done no deals, wishes to build an inclusive Caucus, and wants to reunite the party then he has to give Cunliffe the finance position.  And he has to give Mahuta a significant role and a front bench seat. 

    If he does not then he will be confirming the existence of two factions, one of which is essentially the old faction that led Labour into its worst election result in many decades.

    • tc 1.1
      14 December 2011 at 7:13 am

      Whatever the case he’s got to overcome a MSM that’s already primed with the 2 CT themes.

      That deep factions exist, they often refer to a divided party, and secondly that Cunliffe will challenge anytime. Poor poll numbers will fuel the second and they’ll persist as it fills up space whilst the wrecking crew go about their backers business.

      Shearer has the wrest control of the agenda within 12 months or he’s screwed and labour will be worse off then under phildo and kong.

    • dancerwaitakere 1.2
      14 December 2011 at 8:04 am

      Exactly mickysavage.

      To put Parker or Jones ahead of Cunliffe would secure the death of Labour’s economic credibility that is already at stake by having a Leader and Deputy who do not have a good enough knowledge of economics to win the debate between now an 2014.

      • In Vino Veritas 1.2.1
        14 December 2011 at 10:20 am

        dancer, by saying “the death of Labours economic credibility”, you are implying that Labour had economic credibility. It wouldn’t be a long bow to draw to say that 27% at the polls belies that.

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          14 December 2011 at 10:28 am

          ACT with Don Brash and John Banks had less than 1/20 the economic credibility of Labour then, according to your measure.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.2
          14 December 2011 at 12:14 pm

          None of the parties have economic credibility as they all listen to mainstream economists who wouldn’t know what an economy was if they tripped over one. National and Act are actually the worst as they actually go further into the delusion than the economists.

    • mik e 1.3
      14 December 2011 at 4:48 pm

      if labour does improve its position by next xmas shearer should stand down,and make way for cunliffe.NZ can’t have 6 more years of band aids and borrow and hope!

  2. Sanctuary 2
    14 December 2011 at 6:44 am

    Hekia Parata will replace John Key as his annointed successor in 2-4 years.

    Heard it here first.

    • tc 2.1
      14 December 2011 at 7:04 am

      Be afraid kids……very afraid. Lord that’s a scary thought.

    • Colonial Viper 2.2
      14 December 2011 at 8:21 am

      Joyce and Parata will tussle for it. Very likely that the corporate minders of National will pick Parata for PM. It would be classic – first Maori woman PM ever, and on the young side too, matched up against a white middle aged white guy from the Opposition. You can see the jaws of the C.T. trap already.

      • Jackal 2.2.1
        14 December 2011 at 11:04 am

        Parata is immensely qualified being that none can match her prevarications… considering her colleges, that’s high praise indeed. Sanctuary might be on the money… but the dynasty queen might have to tone it down a bit and turn into a man first.

    • Lew 2.3
      14 December 2011 at 8:34 am

      Not Collins? (An even scarier thought.)

      L

  3. logie97 3
    14 December 2011 at 7:37 am

    Revealed – why All Black belted his son
    Will the “sewer” be “naming” him or is this one too political …?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10773089

    • David H 3.1
      14 December 2011 at 11:07 am

      And the one time you need ‘Name ’em All whaleslime, he seems to be having a brain fart, what with not outing people, and shock horror, he apologised for some things he got wrong. Or the docs upped his meds

  4. Craig Glen Eden 4
    14 December 2011 at 8:14 am

    You know Labour’s in the shit when it gets praise from John Armstrong: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772967

    • deuto 4.1
      14 December 2011 at 8:40 am

      My impressions of that Armstrong article was that it was probably written before the results were known – release time was 1.17pm, about two hours after the decision was released.

      Armstrong has another article on Shearer this morning which I have only skimmed so far and will re-read properly but which appears to take a more cynical view

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10773088

      • RedLogix 4.1.1
        14 December 2011 at 8:44 am

        Armstrong can’t help himself… everything he writes queers the pitch against Labour. What annoys me about this headline is that it completely overlooks the reality that this was actually quite a close election.

        A mere 3% swing to the left, or less, would have seen Phil Goff forming the government. Some ‘wilderness’.

        • Lew 4.1.1.1
          14 December 2011 at 8:47 am

          A mere 3% swing to the left, or less, would have seen Phil Goff forming the government. Some ‘wilderness’.

          No. Nobody could hold Richard Prosser and Catherine Delahunty, Hone Harawira and Winston Peters together. On the bare numbers it looks like a majority, but in reality it would have been a ticket to a second election and a Key majority early in the new year.

          L

          • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.1
            14 December 2011 at 8:55 am

            Bollocks. Nobody imagined ACT and the MP could stand being in the same room… but NZ has moved on from the early days of MMP. Politicians are a lot smarter and more sophisticated about how to make it work these days.

            Everyone understands that if you want to achieve anything in that kind of environment, you have to negotiate. The alternative is nothing.

            • Lew 4.1.1.1.1.1
              14 December 2011 at 9:01 am

              The difference was that Key didn’t need ACT and the māori party to vote together in lockstep on everything. And for the most part, they didn’t.

              This is more of the same old “oh, we didn’t do so badly” fantasy. It’s complacent.

              L

              • RedLogix …
                14 December 2011 at 9:10 am

                This is more of the same old “oh, we didn’t do so badly” fantasy. It’s complacent.

                The numbers make a lie of that. The centre-right vote was a mere 50.4%. That’s hardly an overwhelming landslide however you want to label it.

                Yes the centre left-wing vote is fragmented at least four ways… but the reality is that as a block it’s still very close to the 50% mark. Focussing on just the National/Labour divide is obsolete FPP thinking and only serves the purposes of the right.

                Whether or not that centre-left block could form a stable govt is a valid question, but a rather separate issue from the numbers it got in the election. Nor a cause for complacency either… I simply object to the sack-cloth and ash merchants telling us we’re lost in a wilderness from which we stand little hope of ever getting out of. That’s not true either.

                • Lew …
                  14 December 2011 at 9:38 am

                  The numbers make a lie of that. The centre-right vote was a mere 50.4%. That’s hardly an overwhelming landslide however you want to label it.

                  That’s only true if you count a party including Richard “ban the burqa, arm everyone, boot camps” Prosser, and Peter Dunne and the “Hori Tories” māori party you lot have been ranting about for three years as allies of the left.

                  I can agree about the latter and it’s nice to see you’ve come around to my way of thinking. But the former? Come off it.

                  L

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    14 December 2011 at 9:47 am

                    Time to start thinking in MMP and coalition partner terms mate. We’ve had two decades to figure it out now.

                    • Lew …
                      14 December 2011 at 9:53 am

                      Right, but I am. Coalitions work fine where there’s a common thread to bind them — ideology, policy preference, naked self-interest or whatever. No such thread binds these disparate parties. It might have worked if some were able to opt-out, as one or other of Key’s partners has frequently done through the past term. But when all are needed to pass even the most trivial legislation there will emerge — I think the term Marxists use is “irreconcilable contradictions”.

                      L

                    • aerobubble …
                      14 December 2011 at 3:07 pm

                      If hone had not left the Maori party, we could have had 122 parlliament and so a 61-61 split of the seats leaving the Maori-Green alliance extremely powerful.

                      Now its just waiting for a National constituent MP to fall out.

                  • RedLogix …
                    14 December 2011 at 9:50 am

                    Focussing on extremists like Richard Prosser doesn’t help your argument.

                    The fact is that NZ1, discounting the ACT -led media putsch run against him, served as a pretty stable and effective coalition partner in the last Labor govt. So did Peter Dunne.

                    The MP has been a stable partner to National, despite some obvious and deep policy divisions.

                    Yes Phil Goff would have had his work cut out for him if National had fallen by one or two seats, or Epsom hadn’t voted in John Banks. Questioning the stability of such a left-wing block in that particular configuration is valid.

                    But that isn’t the same thing as saying that the electorate has swung whole-heartedly to the right either. The voters… who by and large care less about the machinations of MMP negotiations… are still pretty solidly plunking their ticks next to identifiably center-left parties… even if those parties do represent a pretty wide range of views.

                    • Lew …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:00 am

                      Focusing on extremists like Richard Prosser is perfectly reasonable — the weakest link in a chain determines the overall strength. NZF saw fit to rank him high up their list, which speaks to a sanity deficit on their part; and extremists who don’t get their way tend to go rogue. In the situation we’re talking about that could be all it would take to bring a government down.

                      I don’t think the electorate has swung wholeheartedly to the right — although if you count NZF as “right”, as I do, then it’s something like 57-43. But they have swung away from Labour, and most of all they have swung away from voting at all. That’s a problem that Labour needs to address, because the Greens and NZF got out their vote.

                      L

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:09 am

                      Focusing on extremists like Richard Prosser is perfectly reasonable — the weakest link in a chain determines the overall strength.

                      No, this does not apply in a team sport like politics, which is quite different from a sytem with only linear relationships (like a chain).

                      Because if you looked down National’s list and applied the same criteria to their weakest members, they would fall apart immediately.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:14 am

                      Lew you keep deliberately misinterpreting what I’m saying. So in words of very few syllables:

                      1. Yes I agree such a left-wing coalition would be very hard work. Quite probably not make it through to next election. No need to keep repeating that point.

                      2. But that is not the same thing as saying the left is ‘lost in the wilderness’… because there are still plenty of voters ..NOT voting National/ACT.

                    • ak …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:15 am

                      I think you’re forgetting the strongest “common thread” of all, Lew: “being in Govt”. Strong enough even to pull the MP to its own certain demise. Not to mention its alternative; “being the nutter who brought down the Govt”.

                    • Lew …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:16 am

                      Because if you looked down National’s list and applied the same criteria to their weakest members, they would fall apart immediately.

                      No, because as weak as they might be they broadly agree with the direction and are well-served by remaining part of it. Not so in an ideological and institutional grab-bag like NZF.

                      L

                    • Lew …
                      14 December 2011 at 10:17 am

                      Ad you keep misinterpreting mine, RL. So also in simple words:

                      that is not the same thing as saying the left is ‘lost in the wilderness’… because there are still plenty of voters ..NOT voting National/ACT.

                      I’m not saying the left is lost in the wilderness. I’m saying Labour is. Or was. Seems to be un-losing itself. About time.

                      L

                • In Vino Veritas …
                  14 December 2011 at 10:50 am

                  Red, as always, making an argument to suit the outcome you want. Claiming Peters as centre left is palpably ridiculous, the man has never been centre left, and never will be. You say the “centre left” would be close to 50%. Another nonsense. The best Labour could have hoped for as centre left was:

                  Labour 27.48
                  Greens 11.06
                  Maori 1.43

                  That would be a grand total of 39.97%. Not quite the “very close to 50%” you claim.

                  If you are including Mana, then think again. No-one could seriously consider them to be anything other than extreme left.

                  Even if Labour had been invited to form a government. Amongst this disparate lot, imagine the cost?

                  • mik e …
                    14 December 2011 at 4:52 pm

                    Since National has back stabbed peters 3 times basically Peters has been stealing votes of the right just like the Maori party steals votes of the left.
                    Peters will never go into any form of govt with National because of how they have treated him.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      14 December 2011 at 4:58 pm

                      small policy issues too. Like Peters will never vote for asset sales in a hundred years, and NZ First has a very friendly policy of $15/hr minimum wage.

            • Pete George 4.1.1.1.1.2
              14 December 2011 at 9:01 am

              Ah, negotiate, that means co-operating and working together positively doesn’t it.

              Divide doesn’t conquer.

          • Puddleglum 4.1.1.1.2
            14 December 2011 at 10:49 am

            Hi Lew,

            If Armstrong is correct in the following quotation (and this leadership race has all been about the ‘blokes’ battling the ‘minorities’ and the ‘politically correct’), then won’t the election of Shearer shift Labour more towards the right wing, social conservatism that you appear not to like about NZF?

            “Shearer will bring change by making the party less hostage to the political correctness that still plagues its image. He is interested in things that work, rather than whether they fit the party’s doctrine. ” 

            I may misunderstand where your ‘loyalties’ or preferences lie, but it does seem odd if you are supporting a shift in Labour’s focus towards something that would be much more compatible with NZF (including Prosser and Peters, neither of whom strike me as staunch upholders of ‘political correctness’), given how little regard you appear to have for NZF.

            (As an aside, I’m not sure why Armstrong is so sure he knows Shearer’s mind – he’s obviously heard Shearer say more than he’s been reported as saying – but I guess he is a political journalist … It would have been good to hear Shearer say these things to the public if, indeed, Armstrong has it from the horse’s mouth, as his tone strongly implies – “Shearer will …”, etc..).

            • Lew 4.1.1.1.2.1
              14 December 2011 at 12:03 pm

              Hey PG,

              I’m not convinced by this argument that Shearer represents the forthcoming defenestration of Māori, women, gays, the disabled, and so forth as a matter of doctrine, although folk who hope it does have been eager to say so — Armstrong, Audrey Young, Trotter amongst them. Shearer’s MSc was on the tension between Māori cultural values and environmental resource management, and he has worked on behalf of Māori in that field, preparing Tainui’s land claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and looking at sultural issues around wastewater treatment in Auckland. I have as yet seen no evidence that Shearer represents the social “right” of the party either. His pairing with Robertson as deputy certainly seems to counterindicate that argument. He says he’s “right in the middle” of Labour, though I suppose he would say that. I am open to persuasion on both these points, however, and if such defenestration does occur I may yet come to regret my support for Team Shearer.

              But I think there’s also a misreading of my “loyalties”. The much-loved canard around here and at Trotter’s placer is that I want Labour to be an “identity politics” party, whereas, in actuality, I want an end to the infighting that pits “the workers” against other marginalised groups or seeks to subsume everyone’s needs to those of straight white blue-collar blokes. All must have a presence within any progressive movement. I think there’s a false dichotomy that to appeal to “middle New Zealand” a party must be just a wee bit racist, homophobic and sexist, because that’s what “middle New Zealand” is. I don’t agree; although I can see how that is one route to popularity, I don’t think it’s one that’s very suitable for Labour.

              Notwithstanding all of that I do think that being able to break the factionalisation and patronage — crudely expressed by Damien O’Connor — that has resulted in a weak list and a dysfunctional party apparatus is the most crucial task facing Shearer, and I can see how this could be spun against him. But on balance, getting the overall institutional and overall health of the party back on track is the priority. As long as it’s not simply replacing one lot of factions with another.

              L

              • Anthony …
                14 December 2011 at 12:22 pm

                It really depends if he plays zero-sum loss/gain, instead of fixing problems that when addressed help everyone. But even though I preferred Cunliffe I don’t think Shearer is a evil bastard who will throw women, gays and Maori under the bus.

                It’s just convincing insecure pricks like Armstrong that they’re not missing out (and normal people who are perfectly fine), while they lift everyone up.

                Been one of the problems with the left for a while – not taking middle NZ with them in their thinking and just expecting them to “get it” after it’s done and dusted.

                You can see how the Nats do it better with their policy formation and with the task forces they set up, they admit there is a problem that needs to be solved in some way, get a team of “experts” in place, get feedback from all quarters then create policy based on it (even if they were planning that policy all along). It’s a great way to create a narrative that the electorate can follow to understand policy or at least get some understanding that a problem that needs to be solved exists in the first place.

                If it looks in the slightest way controversial or a potential wedge issue they will use this method.

              • Puddleglum …
                14 December 2011 at 2:39 pm

                As I said, “If Armstrong is correct …”

                I think previously you’ve noted the importance of symbolism (e.g., in the early days of the MP coalescing with National).

                There is a danger that the symbolic projection being attempted (‘we are ordinary New Zealanders too’ – whatever that means) can box Labour in when it comes to ‘judgment calls’ on those social issues.

                Trying to benefit electorally from symbols you don’t really believe in (in its crudest form, ‘dogwhistling’) can bite you back.

                I think, for example, that Shearer may well be keen not to “get in front” of middle New Zealand on any of these issues (wasn’t that one of the concerns about Clark’s government, for ‘middle New Zealand’?).

                That’s fine and pragmatic, and doesn’t mean necessarily being a little bit racist, homophobic, or whatever. But it might mean muting your commentary and positioning on those issues a tad.

                And that could make some, at least, leap from the windows rather than waiting to be ‘defenestrated’.

                I think that’s the challenge with the more ‘centrist’ positioning. 

                • Carol …
                  14 December 2011 at 9:01 pm

                  Are “centrism” and “middle New Zealand” the same things.

                  “Middle New Zealand” usually comes across to me as a dog whistle for the majority, and/or the socially dominant groups. This then relegates “others” to “minorities”, often seen as “extreme” and in some way, socially a bit suspect. It can also have overtones of “the silent” but also law abiding, well-behaved (etc) majority.

                  In contrast, I understand “centrism” as straddling the centre-ground of the left-right political spectrum – but this also has overtones of distancing oneself from nasty “extremes”.

                • Lew …
                  14 December 2011 at 9:01 pm

                  Incidentally, Anthony and Puddleglum, so as to prevent this pretty good discussion from ending up down the memory hole (& thus my having to repeat myself, since I’m sure I will have to answer this question again) I’ve reproduced it at KP. Continue there or here, whatever suits.

                  Cheers,
                  L

              • Vicky32 …
                14 December 2011 at 7:05 pm

                I think there’s a false dichotomy that to appeal to “middle New Zealand” a party must be just a wee bit racist, homophobic and sexist, because that’s what “middle New Zealand” is. I don’t agree;

                I am with you there, Lew!

              • Lew …
                14 December 2011 at 8:19 pm

                Anthony, I agree with all of that.

                PG, I think that is the challenge with a more “centrist” positioning, but ultimately the long game is what matters. It’s mostly futile to try to campaign outright on unpopular topics — or those that are “in front” of popular thought, as you aptly put it — when you don’t control the agenda. Clark found out in 2004/5 when Brash hijacked the agenda at Orewa after a very progressive first term, and again in 2008 when the s59 repeal became a de facto government bill about the childless lesbians Helen Clark and Sue Bradford* wanting to personally bring up Waitakere Man’s kids.

                I daresay there will be a lot of ideological austerity shared about over the coming term, not limited to the usual whipping children of progressive movements, but likely encompassing the unions and hard-left factions as well (and much of this may be pinned on Shearer to frame him as a “right” leader, when his hand may have been forced by political circumstance.) The project is to rebuild Labour as a political force, because if Labour continues to decline nobody — not Māori, not women, not the unions — is going to benefit.

                Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. My major stipulation is that whatever gets nudged out onto the ledge, as it were, is done with due engagement and consideration of those it impacts, not simply decreed by the leadership as being “not a priority” (and if you disagree you’re a hater and a wrecker.)

                L

                * Notwithstanding the fact that neither are lesbians, and Sue Bradford isn’t childless.

                • Olwyn …
                  14 December 2011 at 9:00 pm

                  As I have said in earlier post, fear of centrism from the left arises because the party tends to shift focus rather than extend its ground. Where National holds its right wing position and moves toward the centre by making concessions, Labour tends move to the centre and make concessions from there to its natural constituents – that is how the centre gets winched slowly rightwards. It is natural because of the way power works, but it needs to be resisted. It is why I favoured Cunliffe – I thought him more likely to re-establish left wing ground and reach from there toward the centre. But you can’t really abandon class politics so the neo-libs accept you, and then abandon identity politics so the Waitakere Man accepts you, & then abandon the Waitakere man so that the firm putting him on contract accepts you, without waking up one day with a pompadour and a name like Dunne.

      • Pete George 4.1.2
        14 December 2011 at 8:55 am

        I think this is an astute view:

        But Shearer’s easy-going nature disguises what will be a tough-minded approach to rectifying Labour’s deep-seated problems.

        At his first press conference as leader, he made nonsense of the notion that he lacks polished communication skills by giving an authoritative, unambivalent dissertation on Labour’s need to not only reconnect with middle New Zealand, but make Labour relevant to those people’s lives.

        He said more about that in 12 minutes than Labour has said in the past 12 months. Suddenly the fog around Labour is lifting.

        As long as the fog isn’t replaced by steaming disgruntlement then Labour have a grand opportunity to be different and to be in a much better position to make a difference.

      • Carol 4.1.3
        14 December 2011 at 9:07 am

        And there you have it, according to Armstrong, it’s “middle NZ that Labour needs to re-connect with (by implication not the struggling poor, working or otherwise, and:

        He will make the party’s various groups – union affiliates, Labour women, Labour youth, Maori, Pasifika, gays and so on – start working for the party rather than feeding off it.

        It seems men, older people, pakeha etc are not a “group”, but presumably the ordinary middle NZ kiwis who have been ignored and/or haven’t been the ones “feeding off” Labour in recent years.

        So I guess any gains for Maori, Pasifika, gays, women etc over recent years, weren’t real gains, just a self-indulgent feeding frenzy. *sigh*

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.1
          14 December 2011 at 12:53 pm

          And there you have it, according to Armstrong, it’s “middle NZ that Labour needs to re-connect with (by implication not the struggling poor, working or otherwise, and:

          Yeah, noticed that and it’s probably what Labour are going to go off and do – ignoring the 26% of people who didn’t vote.

  5. Jackal 5
    14 December 2011 at 10:35 am

    Heatley lies again

    256 demolished + 471 more vacant + 548 sold = 1275. Total new build since 2008 (including those arranged under Labour) = 1096. That’s a grand total of 179 less houses being provided since National gained power…

  6. vto 6
    14 December 2011 at 11:36 am

    This on the Stuff website re the US Federal Reserve… “The US central bank …….. and has bought US$2.3 trillion ($3.0 trillion) in government and mortgage-related bonds in a further attempt to stimulate a robust recovery. ”

    Why is it that the by far larger story here is ignored by the media? Namely, in order to pay that US$2.3 trillion invoice the privately owned business called the Federal Reserve simply prints the dollar notes. Nothing more. Then it gets repaid in ‘real’ dollar notes when it falls due for repayment by the taxpayers. US$2.3 trillion. Good business if you can get it.

    Money for nothing in the most gobsmackingly simple way. It defies belief.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      14 December 2011 at 11:41 am

      and nothing is even printed these days…they just electronically credit their own accounts.

      • vto 6.1.1
        14 December 2011 at 11:48 am

        Yep, so not even the paper manufacturers get any benefit from it. Just the keyboard maunfacturers.

        Why is the money system privately owned and not publicly owned?

        Why is this not discussed by our political leaders?

        Why is the entire money system not part of the education system?

        serious questions

    • Draco T Bastard 6.2
      14 December 2011 at 1:00 pm

      Then it gets repaid in ‘real’ dollar notes when it falls due for repayment by the taxpayers. US$2.3 trillion. Good business if you can get it.

      And accumulates interest as well. Don’t forget that bit especially considering that they’ll probably be printing the money to pay the interest and charging interest on that as well.

      • Colonial Viper 6.2.1
        14 December 2011 at 9:24 pm

        Because interest charges always increase the amount of debt owed beyond the money released into circulation by the original creation of that debt, there is literally enough money in the world to repay what is outstanding.

        At that stage you can actually ignore (hide) the inconvenient fact that you are insolvent for a while longer, as long as there is money available to service the month to month payments on that debt.

        When even the most complex schemes fail to deliver on that, well, kicking the can down the road no longer works because you run out of road.

  7. BLiP 7
    14 December 2011 at 1:02 pm

    A little bird tells me that the Henderson / Massey Local Board is meeting with the Henderson Business Association tonight to discuss the privatisation of Henderson Square.
    This meeting – originally a public one – but now apparently so secret that all the details have been suppressed to any member of the public wanting to attend will take place at 6pm at the old Waitakere City Council Chamber.

    The issue is that the Local Board want to hand over the public land of Henderson Square (Catherine Street) to the business community so that they can have private security patrolling it to ensure no “undesirable elements” hang about there. Obviously anyone wanting to collect signatures on a petition, stand on a soap box or wear a hoodie will have to take their chances in future if that takes place.

    Personally I don’t think the Local Board should be handing over public land to anyone without full public consultation and I would question whether their delegations currently permit them to make that decision. I certainly don’t think they should be excluding the public from any meeting on the subject.

    So, if you’d like to join me and others in picketing this meeting in the hope that we will be allowed to enter the meeting please be there by 5.45pm tonight.

    . . . and so it begins.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      14 December 2011 at 1:50 pm

      Yep shame on them.  There is a proposal to close Catherine Mall so the local businessmen can then trespass “undesirables” such as young people, buskers, and anyone who wants to be slightly unusual.
       
      The right wing Henderson Massey Board have bought into this.
       
      It is another example of creeping corportisation of our public areas that must be opposed at all costs.

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        14 December 2011 at 1:54 pm

        This is pretty much what the Greek Government is doing with Greek public assets. Handing them over to private business interests.

        The true meaning of ‘inside job’.

        • Vicky32 7.1.1.1
          14 December 2011 at 7:10 pm

           

          This is pretty much what the Greek Government is doing with Greek public assets. Handing them over to private business interests.
          The true meaning of ‘inside job

          Pretty much as predicted, but disgusting …
           

  8. Jackal 8
    14 December 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Rural effluent delivery

    Last Saturday, Rural Delivery reported that Taranaki farmers were already fencing around waterways before the Clean Streams Accord was introduced in 2003 and according to the Taranaki Regional Councils Director of Operations, Rob Phillips, the water quality in the area was “pretty good.” Apparently there was a rigorous testing regime that ensured clean waterways. Yeah right!

    Today, Idiot/Savant blew their bullshit out of the water:

    • BLiP 8.1
      14 December 2011 at 4:59 pm

      Beautifully done. Do you think the Minister of Tourism might be interested in how this news might impact on brand NZ™ . . . or do you think there’s no need to worry because the media are busy with Dan’s honeymoon and pulling apart the Labour Party leadership change-over . . . plus, these days, no one seems to give a fuck any more. Open slather.

      • Jackal 8.1.1
        14 December 2011 at 6:38 pm

        They’re relying on their propaganda to keep enough people in the dark about the pollution… that means no signage even when waterways are too polluted to swim in.

        It’s not just dirty dairying though… today, NZ apparently launched a post-oil spill tourism drive for the Bay of Plenty, just a week after yet more oil spilled from the Rena and the first lot of oil is still not cleaned up from Motiti Island and other sites not required for toursim.

        New reports of oil coming ashore on Motuhoa Island in the Western Bay of Plenty have been completely ignored by the MSM… because they have been ordered not to damage tourism. Instead they’re willing to put peoples live in danger, which completely sux!

  9. haydenarrrrgh 9
    14 December 2011 at 1:19 pm

    What a smarmy git (as usual):

    Asked about Shearer’s call to open a new ministerial poverty committee to other parties, Key said: “I’m more than happy for David Shearer to be a part of the ministerial committee if he’s happy to give the Government confidence and supply.”

    (from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6136995/New-Government-sworn-in (why can’t I make this open in a _blank?))

    I’m glad that you can be so flippant about things like this, John.

  11. randal 11
    14 December 2011 at 2:26 pm

    the thing is that when Labour goes to the polls it is 3 to 1 when you factor in the teevy and the radio.
    Labour only gets a go when the right has swung too far and needs to be brought back into line.
    time to even things up with micropulse radio stations and a “proper’ discourse instead of the swingeing hectoring from geeks like mary wilson on rnz who thinks she can dictate the parties policy.
    and she is not the only one.
    this country has gone on the wonk and it is time to right the ship.

  12. Tigger 12
    14 December 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Vile hunting of whales meet wet bus ticket… http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1112/S00097/joint-statement-on-whaling-and-safety-at-sea.htm

    All that’s missing is McCully wagging his finger and sighing.

  13. Colonial Viper 13
    14 December 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Riots against US police and National Guard – Great Depression

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5PcJx46gpw&feature=related

    This is truly fascinating. Only takes 3 generations for the rich pricks to forget hard learned lessons it seems.

    • rosy 13.1
      14 December 2011 at 8:57 pm

      Truly fascinating. And, of course poverty riots have already begun again in the UK (and other countries under ‘austerity measures’).

      The Guardian’s reading the riots detail very clearly the relationship between poverty, police, race/class and riots. Of particular interest to me are the poverty maps and the data about the causes of the riots, from the rioters’ perspectives and how these conflict with the official narratives of causation.

  14. Toosense 14
    14 December 2011 at 7:52 pm

    I hope DS doesn’t give Foreign Affairs to David Cunliff. Give him finance, it’ll appeal to his ego and his abilities…

  15. Draco T Bastard 15
    14 December 2011 at 7:59 pm

    War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us

    Last month the Guardian was told by British defence ministry officials that if the US brought forward plans to attack Iran (as they believed it might), it would “seek, and receive, UK military help”, including sea and air support and permission to use the ethnically cleansed British island colony of Diego Garcia.

    Apparently the attack is a done deal, just waiting for it to actually happen. This bits interesting though and it’s probably got the West terrified:-

    A US or Israeli attack on Iran would turn that regional maelstrom into a global firestorm. Iran would certainly retaliate directly and through allies against Israel, the US and US Gulf client states, and block the 20% of global oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Quite apart from death and destruction, the global economic impact would be incalculable.

    This is actually worse than just the 20% of oil shipped through the Straight of Hormuz because all of Iran’s oil will probably be shipped to China to pay for the weapons it needs to defend itself. So that will be even more oil taken from the global economy.

    Russia and China are also allies of Iran so if the US,UK and Israel attack it’s got the potential to expand from a local conflict (which would be bad enough) into a global conflict.

  16. randal 16
    14 December 2011 at 10:03 pm

    so has kweewee resigned yet.
    has the country woken up to the fact that a cruel joke has been played on them.
    never mind Obama.
    cut to the chase.

Links to post