Open mike 15/03/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, March 15th, 2014 - 111 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike 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 …

111 comments on “Open mike 15/03/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. North 1
    15 March 2014 at 7:32 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219867

    ” Nationals’ Boadicea likely to shrug off her week from hell ”

    That’s the problem perhaps. Collins will simply shrug it off. Assisted in doing so by essentially congratulatory analysis the like of that from Audrey Young.

    Such ‘higher standards’ already.

    • karol 1.1
      15 March 2014 at 8:31 am

      John Armstrong disagrees.

      Fran O’Sullivan says Collins is lucky Key needs to save face.

      And David Fisher puts John Key more firmly in the Oravida picture.

      So all is not looking that rosy for Collins.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        15 March 2014 at 9:23 am

        The O’Sullivan article contains some fresh details:

        On Thursday, she confirmed she had another dinner with Xu during the invitation-only Apec Women Leadership Forum last November. Both Collins and Xu were forum speakers. So too were other prominent New Zealand women including Dame Jenny Shipley – the former National Prime Minister who has long been well connected in China – Auckland City Hospital’s Dr Emma Parry and entrepreneur Dame Wendy Pye.

        Collins could have mentioned (but didn’t) that Oravida was also a key sponsor of the leadership forum. The company was one of two Platinum sponsors.

        She should now reflect how her lapses have cost Oravida and her friends.

        Oravida is a New Zealand based-company that promotes premium products for the Chinese market through direct online sales.

        The website for the event is at http://www.apecwomenleadershipforum.com

        I would love to see a video of Collins’ comments and what she said about Oravida who were one of the sponsors for the conference.

    • bad12 1.2
      15 March 2014 at 8:44 am

      Was Slippery the Prime Minister really as angry at the actions of Judith Collins during Her trip as Minister of Justice, along with the drip drip of revelations of what is best described as an incestuous relationship between Oravida and the Minister, as we all have been lead to believe,

      My opinion says No, what angered the Prime Minister so was the fact that His Bullshit, usually so glibbly passed by the media into the public domain was within hours proven to be the Lies it actually was,

      Slippery doesn’t give a ‘rats’ about Collin’s behavior or lack of it, that’s glaringly apparent with His initial approach to the accusations against Collins, it was only when caught out Lying about the Cabinet Office having obtained a translation of the Oravida literature showing Collins ‘endorsing’ Oravida’s products, a translation that never occurred, that our PM lost His rag….

      • floyd 1.2.1
        15 March 2014 at 9:46 am

        b12 That is what I think as well. Considering he came out firing to shut things down knowing that he was going to lie to do so he deserves to sink in the bog as far and as quick as he can.
        He also changed his rhetoric quite quickly from ‘UNEQUIVOCALLY NO CONFLICT!!!’ from ‘the ministry of guidelines’ or whatever they call themselves, to a hushed ‘no conflict to see here’ you can all go home now. What? No, sorry, I can’t show you the written advice I was given. Why? Because it doesn’t exist, how can I show you something that never existed. Moron.

        • bad12 1.2.1.1
          15 March 2014 at 10:01 am

          Yes the final retreat of the compulsive Liar is to be found in the sudden appearance of ’emotion’ in their dialogue where no emotion has thus far been previously perceived,

          Collins in what can only be described as ‘bizarre’ acting resorted to ‘Crocodile Tears’ seeking sympathy from the gathered media,

          Slippery the Prime Minister not having the option of a public display ‘cry me a river’ in defence of being caught red handed lying to the press and public had only anger as the last refuge,

          D grade acting from the pair of them, should the media continue to catch either of them using glib lies in the discourse in coming months i would expect such displays of anger to be directed at the media, a real Muldoonish scrape of the bottom of the barrell…

          • Tigger 1.2.1.1.1
            15 March 2014 at 11:41 am

            Gusher Collins is like many bullies who bash others and laugh at their tears but will break down when the truth of their actions is outed.

            I don’t know why some MSM think she can come back from this. Her ‘Crusher’ brand is now too damaged and she’s too hard headed to reinvent herself. Justice for the Minister of it.

    • kenny 1.3
      15 March 2014 at 7:46 pm

      I wonder how Q&A will report on this? Subject it to the same innuendo and digging that Cunliffe got?

      I live in hope. Either way we will see how TVNZ is going to behave during this build-up to the election.

  2. karol 2
    15 March 2014 at 8:26 am

    I thought the Internet Party had quietly died – it seems not.

    • phillip ure 2.1
      15 March 2014 at 9:25 am

      that is precisely why anyone making predictions about election outcomes..

      ..is really just pulling it out of a lower-orifice..

      ..there are far too many unverifiable/unquantifiable variables..

      ..for it not to be so..

      ..and the internet party is one of them..

      ..and i repeat my claim from before..

      ..that this elections’ outcomes..more so than any in recent memory..

      ..will be largely driven by the quality/novelty of the policies on offer..

      ..this is crucial for labour esp…

      ..and as for the minnow..this policy-imperative perhaps none more so than for dotcoms’ vehicle..

      ..their policies will determine how they are viewed..

      ..and if just a libertarian-wank-fest…(put to a dance-beat..)

      ..they/the internet party will be largely ignored by most..

      ..and just seen as a competitor to act/chem-trails-col..

      ..way out there on the fringe..

      ..if they come up with big-ideas that grab the publics’ imagination/have broad appeal..

      ..they could do well..

      ..and as i say..throw any of the pundits’ current-predictions..

      ..out the window..

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        15 March 2014 at 9:52 am

        (and confirming the above..)

        peters has just jumped-started his vote/support..

        ..vowing to buy back all the power-companies..

        ..and to return them under a single authority..

        ..plus a raft of other populist policies..

        ..and for those looking at craig/act..with a degree of alarm..

        ..peters will be looking like a safe pair of hands..

        ..and of all the leaders’ interviews to date..on the nation..

        ..peters has pulled one out of his hat..

        • Jackal 2.1.1.1
          15 March 2014 at 11:10 am

          The Nation was predicting this morning that the chemtrail Conservatives will get 3 MP’s at the next election. I wonder what they’ve been smoking?

    • veutoviper 2.2
      15 March 2014 at 10:14 am

      While news on The Internet Party has been very quiet for some time, this short report on Radio NZ news back on 3 March indicated that it had not died before launch.

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/237705/internet-party-seeks-commission-approval

      As it is very short, the report in full

      The Internet Party of Kim Dotcom is waiting for Electoral Commission approval to gather membership data via online applications, including allowing a member to sign directly on to a computer screen with a finger or using a mouse.

      IIRC Dunne and UF had no success in persuading the Electoral Commission to allow them to accept membership applications for the purposes of reregistration of UF.

      So, it would seem from the Stuff article in your link that the Internet Party may have had some success in persuading the Commission to allow online membership applications.

      KDC has said very little on his Twitter site about the IP of late, but on March 10 tweeted that:

      ” I welcome the Sept 20 election date. We’re doing our own polls now & the numbers look good. Get ready for our ‘Call for Members’. #InternetParty”

      and

      “Launching #InternetParty website, mobile apps, call for members and funny short film about my opponents next week. Its on!”

  3. bad12 3
    15 March 2014 at 9:49 am

    Putting Out The Fire With Gasoline, are interest rate rises a cause of inflation in the economy, my opinion says Yes, raising interest rates is a definite inflationary push,

    A further opinion would say that to ‘hide’ this inflationary push that has as a direct cause the Reserve Bank’s raising of the Official Cash Rate ‘the rack’ of a continuing series of rises in the OCR is employed by the Reserve Bank where in the ensuing ‘pain’ and ‘noise’ the fact that part of the inflation the bank is ‘stomping’ upon had as its direct cause the initial raising of the OCR by the Reserve Bank,

    A Stuff article attempts to translate the numbers surrounding the raising of the official cash rate and subsequent raising of interest rates charged by the trading banks,

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money…/interest-cost-pain-to-slow-spending

    ”According to the Reserve Bank the Business sector has $79.1 billion of debt with financial institutions while the Agricultural sector has $51.7 billion of debt”,

    ”Homeowners, Businesses, and Farmers could be paying an extra $6.3 billion a year in interest if mortgage rates rise as the Reserve Bank expects over the next two years”, unquote Stuff.co.nz,

    While Stuff.co has to be applauded for at least making the effort to explain the numbers to the public surrounding the interest rates rises there is room for a far more detailed analysis, breakdown, and publication of the numbers and likely effects, so this article while highlighting the costs to the economy in dollar terms also highlights this countries general lack of in depth economic journalism,

    The inflation caused by the Reserve Bank’s raising of the OCR???, its hidden in the $6.3 billion cost to the economy,to you,me, them, of raising those interest rates,

    i have no means of ‘shaking the actual numbers out of that $6.3 billion dollar cost to the economy, But, lets apportion 60% of that ‘cost’ to Joe Public the average homeowner with a 300 thousand dollar mortgage, thus we are left with the Business sector and Farming sector, both carrying substantial amounts of debt carrying the can of 40% of that $6.3 billion dollar cost of two years of interest rates rising,

    When faced with a rising input cost in any area what do Business as a rule use as the first means of maintaining their profit margins, You guessed it, Put Up The Price Of Their Goods Or Services,

    So, the initial moves by the Reserve Bank supposedly with the impetus of clamping down on inflation will have in the first instance the creation of inflation as a direct result, supremely unworried by this inflation spike the Reserve Bank will then justify All it’s later OCR rises on the basis of that inflation spike that it initiated with its initial raising of the OCR,

    Putting out the fires with gasoline???, you bet, its the monetary system of a tribe of primitive chimp like people who upon seeing a non-venomous snake enter their territory come down from the trees using heavy blunt clubs to beat the harmless snake to a pulp, only to realize belatedly that such a carcass has called predators of a far more dangerous nature onto their turf…

    • Herodotus 3.1
      15 March 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Anyone or party that rests it’s reputation of inflation rates is only IMO selling its succes based on the lack of our illeracy of economics. Success of inflation is how our non tradables trend. Nz has imported low inflation for all this century whilst paying for this with the exporting of employment and our high dollar.
      The OCR rise this week was widely tipped and swap rates had already had most of the 25 pt rise already priced onto it, and we are incessantly being told that the 2 yr swap is the driving force for mortgage rates.
      A note that banks make their greatest margins from floating mortgages , not fixed term.

  4. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4
    15 March 2014 at 11:08 am

    From Cunliffe’s Speech thread

    Reply to Just Like Tiger Woods

    “Labour would also have to distance themselves from the Greens, or give an indication of what Green policy positions they would adopt, and what they would rule out. I like how Cunliffe is talking centrist economic policy, but I have no time for the Greens and would not vote to enable them.”

    Without knowing either parties’ policies extensively (have only been through some of each) -I view that Greens and Labour have a lot of compatibility. I find it a bit difficult to know what is so wrong with the Greens that you would take such a stance.

    The Greens emphasis on a healthy environment stands to benefit everyone health and ultimately wealth wise. (Taking care today saves a lot of costs in the future).

    The Greens have proven themselves to be very disciplined and focused and have good principles when it comes to their party’s organisation, their politicians’ conduct and on aligning their policies and reactions to contemporary issues on research.

    Can you please tell me what it is that you find so off putting about the Greens that you would take such a stance?

    • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1
      15 March 2014 at 11:56 am

      There are many reasons, but here’s just one.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10755089

      Would they support bright Kiwi innovation that lead to more productive fracking? How about better oil drilling technology? Somehow, I doubt it. Yet they would, in all likelihood, back some clean-tech farce, even if we have no comparative advantage in such areas. I doubt they even know what that term means.

      Fine if we have some advantage in such areas, but if we did, we’d probably already be doing it.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.1.1
        15 March 2014 at 12:21 pm

        Thanks for the response Just Like Tiger Woods

        The article you link contains a fair concern – governments investing into trends that then turn out to not be trends. Callaghan, however appears to justify the industries that are big now in NZ by the same logical error that he fears the Greens are falling for. i.e. milk products are big now and therefore we should continue expanding – this despite there are serious problems being caused to our water due to this industry. This despite there are increasing numbers of people moving away from using milk products (another trend that may or may not continue).

        The question needs to be asked – considering sourcing drinking water is an increasing and serious problem occurring in many places throughout the world – does the money coming in from selling more and more raw milk products really balance with the risk this is posing to our water system? You can’t buy water once it is ruined throughout the world. Is this the smartest solution for NZ? Could we ‘add value’ to products prior to selling them and therefore require less expansion of cow farming – and all the environment costs this is creating?

        Again, fracking is a process that threatens our water systems. What is the priority here? How useful is profit when we haven’t any water to drink? Do you think that wouldn’t happen? There are plenty of documentaries around about this world wide water issue. Specifically fracking – have you seen ‘Gaslands’?

        To Gaslands website: http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

        Finally, how likely is it that ‘clean tech’ is a flash in the pan trend – given our universal and absolute human need for a healthy environment and our historic and ongoing use of energy?

        • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.1.1
          15 March 2014 at 1:04 pm

          He specifically states we cannot scale dairy indefinitely.

          Is economic diversification a good idea? Of course. But, like I said, the Greens are bound by their narrow, ideological view that – I feel – is based on a falsehood. They will likely support innovation that is in line with the unproven AGW worst-case scenarios.

          It does not follow we’ll have no water to drink if we undertake fracking. Gasland is an activist propaganda movie – possibly worse than “An Inconvenient Truth” – and I’m amazed anyone would take it seriously given court rulings on its depictions.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/07/10/fiction-masquerading-as-news-in-the-oil-and-gas-shale-world/

          Clean tech may well be a flash in the pan. It may not. Either way, it doesn’t mean we have a comparative advantage in it. If we did, we’d already be doing it, and I’d be investing in it.

          • geoff 4.1.1.1.1
            15 March 2014 at 1:25 pm

            No point trying to argue with a climate change denier who rejects scientific consensus.

            Even conservative IPCC is now saying 4 deg C warming is possible by the end of the century.

            You won’t be around then though so what do you care eh?

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.1.1.1.1
              15 March 2014 at 2:35 pm

              “Denier” is a religious term, not a scientific one. Also a vile attempt to associate someone with holocaust denial.

              There is no consensus. Consensus is not science. IPCC are not credible as their guesswork so far has been wrong. They’re also a political organisation, and their politics appears self-serving and alarmist.

              The fact is no one knows what is happening with climate long term in terms of warming or cooling. Anyone who claims they do is deluded. Fact.

              High degree of complexity, very low degree of certainty.

              • geoff …
                15 March 2014 at 2:48 pm

                Lol!

                Thanks for that……you big ‘ol denier.

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  15 March 2014 at 3:07 pm

                  Evidence based decision making.

                  You believe whatever alarmist monster-under-the-bed story you like. Like a child.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 March 2014 at 3:12 pm

                    Too funny. Are you trying to tick all the wingnut boxes, you innumerate flat-Earther?

                    I doubt you have any more idea of Climatology than you do of Economics.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 March 2014 at 3:55 pm

                      lol yep the denier denies being a denier – woody is getting quite woolly and all the toys will come out the cot soon – give up justlikewood you are well outgunned and outclassed – too funny and good while waiting for the storm to arrive.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      15 March 2014 at 4:47 pm

                      You simply believed what someone told you, like a child believing in Santa Claus. Your position is not evidence based.

                      Mine is.

                      The fact is that no one has a clue what is happening with climate. There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.

                      None.

                      If you believe otherwise, you hold an irrational belief.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 March 2014 at 5:05 pm

                      How do you explain the trend in the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio, little wingnut?

                      How do you explain the fact that winters have warmed more than summers, nights more than days, the Arctic more than the Antarctic? All predictions made in 1896, incidentally.

                  • geoff …
                    15 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

                    Hey don’t get snotty with me just because you can’t accept scientific facts.
                    Talk about childish…

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      15 March 2014 at 4:44 pm

                      Moore’s evidence to the senate committee.

                      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

                      “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years”

                      Fact.

                      All the believers can produce is alarmism, speculation and some really bad guesswork.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/

                      The sceptics were right. The believers were wrong.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      15 March 2014 at 4:54 pm

                      Only an idiot looks for scientific “proof”. Science deals in probabilities, but we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – this can be shown experimentally and is theoretically explained by Quantum Mechanics. We know that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising, by observation, and -also by observation – we know that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.

                      We know that Svante Arrhenius’ predictions were all correct – by observation. We know that destructive weather events have increased in magnitude and frequency – cf: Munich re cited below.

                      The fact that you cite Anthony Watts and congressional testimony, rather than peer-reviewed research, demonstrates that as in statistics, you are out of your depth.

                    • geoff …
                      15 March 2014 at 5:58 pm

                      Even nuttier than I had suspected…

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      16 March 2014 at 10:14 am

                      Then produce the proof.

                      There’s a Nobel prize awaiting the first person to do so.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 March 2014 at 10:46 am

                      The proof? Prove things is what Mathematicians do.

                      Physicists, not so much. Quantum Mechanics is a branch of Physics, not Mathematics.

                      Before we go any further, please indicate that you understand these simple concepts.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      16 March 2014 at 6:33 pm

                      @JLTW Perhaps I’m being too complicated. An example:

                      How many possible series (n1-nx), with a mean, m, are there where all n>0.6m?

                      Multiple choice answers:

                      a. 0
                      b. ∞

                      The fact that (in the context of a discussion of the minimum wage) you answered (a) is proof of your innumeracy.

                      However, it is impossible to prove Quantum Mechanical principles because they rely on probabilities – cf Heisenberg’s Uncertainty.

                      Do you see the difference?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 March 2014 at 4:35 pm

                Earth to flat-Earther: the IPCC doesn’t do any “guesswork” – it collates and summarises existing research. If you’re going to criticise something you need to learn what it is first.

              • miravox …
                15 March 2014 at 7:23 pm

                Climate change forecasts vs Treasury forecasts

                http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/climate-forecasts-setting-the-record-straight

                One set of probabilities seems believable.

          • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.2
            15 March 2014 at 1:37 pm

            unproven AGW worst-case scenarios

            In strict scientific terms all AGW scenarios are unproven. However all the most probable ones commit us to a greater than 2degC global average rise.

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.1.1.2.1
              15 March 2014 at 2:38 pm

              What is most probable is that we are within natural variation. It is a non-problem, although prudent to keep asking questions.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 March 2014 at 3:18 pm

                Numerate capitalists disagree.

                …the number of weather-related loss events in North America nearly quintupled in the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of four in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, two in Europe and 1.5 in South America.

              • Paul …
                15 March 2014 at 10:25 pm

                Please everyone DNFTT

          • tricledrown 4.1.1.1.3
            15 March 2014 at 2:16 pm

            Lost your mojo jltw.
            How come the largest shareholder and chairman of the board of exxon mobil is fighting tooth and nail to prevent any fracking witin 200 miles of his private ranch in Texas.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.4
            15 March 2014 at 4:19 pm

            possibly worse than “An Inconvenient Truth”

            And you just proved that you’re not worth listening to as you obviously just parrot the BS that conforms to your inbuilt bias.

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.1.1.4.1
              15 March 2014 at 4:49 pm

              Don’t tell me you fell for that as well?

              What happened to your hurricanes? And your melted icecaps? And your silly hockey stick? All now proven wrong.

              You lack the intellectual honesty to admit you were had by Al “Mansion By The Sea” Gore.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                15 March 2014 at 4:58 pm

                Which hockey stick? Mann et al? Or Huang et al? Or Oerlemans et al? Or Muller et al? Or Smith?

                You are out of your depth little wingnut.

                PS: and yes, you idiot, the ice is melting.

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  15 March 2014 at 5:01 pm

                  You just keep believin’ in the c02 scare story. Like a religious nut. Pray for your soul, brother else y’all burn in hell, I tells ya!

                  I’ll stick to evidence-based decisions.

                  Each to their own….

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 March 2014 at 5:07 pm

                    I’ll stick to evidence-based decisions.

                    That would be rather difficult to do when you’re denying the evidence.

                    • geoff …
                      15 March 2014 at 6:00 pm

                      Nah ya see, DTB, evidence is just the sentence that precedes Tiger writing “FACT”

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    15 March 2014 at 5:08 pm

                    Which hockey stick do you believe is wrong, little wingnut?

                    Or are you lying when you say you’re all about evidence?

                    I think you’re lying, and you had no idea that hockey sticks were so abundant, and all from independent lines of evidence, too.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 March 2014 at 5:06 pm

                The hockey stick has been shown to be more or less correct and Mann is now taking people to court over the defamation that he’s received over it.

      • freedom 4.1.2
        15 March 2014 at 1:33 pm

        when fracking companies release detailed information about the chemicals they pump into the ground then you can discuss the pros and cons, till then it is just a con

          • freedom 4.1.2.1.1
            15 March 2014 at 3:09 pm

            funny
            I always thought the phrase “release detailed information” when discussing something being pumped would involve quantities of the materials being pumped. Guess we have different ideas on what “detailed” means

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.2.1.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 10:17 am

              I guess you didn’t specify quantities. So, you have no issue with the chemicals unless they exceed quantity X?

              • felix …
                16 March 2014 at 6:54 pm

                The fact that you think that would be an unusual position to take on chemicals just shows how utterly illiterate you are.

        • Jackal 4.1.2.2
          15 March 2014 at 3:09 pm

          Interestingly, a Wyoming Supreme Court has recently rejected the fracking industry’s argument to keep what chemicals they use a secret.

          JustLikeTigerWoods

          Yet they would, in all likelihood, back some clean-tech farce, even if we have no comparative advantage in such areas. I doubt they even know what that term means.

          Firstly, the comparative advantage to the government in supporting clean technology instead of outdated polluting industries is easily quantifiable. In financial terms, National’s energy policy states that there is the potential for future royalties from all oil and gas production of $12 billion at the most. In comparison, a PWC reported in 2013 stated that clean technology could be worth $22 billion, plus there is no risk of widespread environmental damage.

          It should also be stated that the National Party’s 2011 estimates are likely wrong, being that recent exploration has failed to find any new oil. That means the governments investment and subsidies, amounting to $326.6 million between 2008 and 2012, has been lost. It was in fact a complete waste of taxpayers money that would be better spent on clean technology endeavors that guarantee a return.

          You appear to be another right wing idiot JustLikeTigerWoods who just spouts nonsense in the hope that nobody will fact check your gibberish.

          • freedom 4.1.2.2.1
            15 March 2014 at 3:16 pm

            Add the half a billion it cost to sell the assets, the various corporate handouts, the loss of dividends from everywhere, mix in plummeting tax takes and that surplus thingy is really starting to get some wonky legs eh! Before long I expect we will hear how the expected surplus was always in the 2015/2016 year and the reporters are just falling for lefty disinfo campaigns and John Key never mentioned a surplus and if Bill did you better ask him as the budget is really an operational matter.

          • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.2.2.2
            16 March 2014 at 10:25 am

            It’s not either/or.

            We’ll take the $12b AS WELL, thanks.

            As for the $22b guesswork, will they be advising their clients to invest boots and all? If not, why not? You see, if clean tech was a sure thing, I would already be investing, as would many other people. The reason I don’t is because it is very high risk and the returns, globally, have been abysmal.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2013/04/09/solar-companies-continue-to-go-bankrupt/

            http://live.wsj.com/video/economics-clean-tech-funds-yielding-poor-returns/B80B7F56-55C8-467C-B45F-00DD08817FEF.html#!B80B7F56-55C8-467C-B45F-00DD08817FEF

            This is the last thing we should be “investing” in. If the US can’t even do it, after pouring billions into it, then what makes you think we can?

            • Jackal 4.1.2.2.2.1
              16 March 2014 at 6:49 pm

              It is clear from your response JustLikeTigerWoods that you haven’t bothered to read my comment properly. Nor does it seem that you have read the article you have linked to either.

              Here is what the Forbes article states:

              There were close to 1,000 companies just in China involved with the solar industry. With crystalline-based module prices dropping by about 35% in 2012 a thinning of the herd had to occur even with increasing demand (partially fueled by the lower prices).

              According to the link in the forbes article, last year there were 21 solar company bankruptcies worldwide. However many of those companies listed are mergers or branches of companies not wanting to compete anymore in a very competitive market. They are not actually bankruptcies. In other words the figures the article is based on are incorrect.

              Just to make things a bit clearer for you…nobody is arguing that we should be competing to produce solar panels JustLikeTigerWoods. We should however be taking advantage of a competitive solar panel market to future proof our energy requirements.

              It’s not either/or.

              Unfortunately the current government has refused to help clean tech companies to anywhere near the extent they help the oil and gas industry with our tax dollars.

              We’ll take the $12b AS WELL, thanks.

              Wrong! The $12 billion was a best case scenario including large finds of new oil. That exploration has failed and it is unlikely that the oil and gas companies will consider further exploration without considerable government funding, investment that has no guarantee of any return at all. That type of investment is therefore not worthwhile, considering there is a viable alternative to simply throwing taxpayers money away on an environmentally damaging sunset industry.

              As for the $22b guesswork, will they be advising their clients to invest boots and all?

              What makes you think the PWC report is guesswork? Is it simply that their findings don’t fit into your deluded philosophy, so you have dismissed the report out of hand…probably without even reading it?

              You see, if clean tech was a sure thing, I would already be investing, as would many other people.

              Considering there was approximately $254 billion invested globally last year into clean technologies, it appears that many people thankfully don’t share your defunct viewpoint.

              The reason I don’t is because it is very high risk and the returns, globally, have been abysmal.

              Do you have any actual figures to show that returns are abysmal? Please don’t link again to your industry driven propaganda.

              It is true that investment has been dropping off recently, mainly because of the cost of photovoltaic systems reducing considerably because of competition, and the impact of archaic government policy towards renewable power.

              In effect many governments around the world, including New Zealand’s, have failed to hold to any proper CO2 emission reductions because they are corrupted by the oil and gas industry who spend billions on lobbying to try and hold onto their out-dated business models.

              Do they perhaps employ you to promote their disinformation JustLikeTigerWoods?

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3
        15 March 2014 at 4:15 pm

        Yet they would, in all likelihood, back some clean-tech farce, even if we have no comparative advantage in such areas.

        Comparative advantage is a load of bollocks.

        Fine if we have some advantage in such areas, but if we did, we’d probably already be doing it.

        No we wouldn’t because the free-market paradigm has worked to destroy our economy.

        • JustLikeTigerWoods 4.1.3.1
          16 March 2014 at 10:29 am

          It’s pretty simple, Draco.

          If you’re going to divert money away from areas that do make profits into areas that are pretty much guaranteed to make a loss, as this is the experience globally, then you’re going to harm a lot of people.

          Green tech may sound warm, fuzzy and the “right” thing to do, but I would ask you to take a more thorough look at the performance of this sector globally. Keep in mind that areas of performance in this sector are almost entirely reliant on subsidy.

  5. phillip ure 5
    15 March 2014 at 11:12 am

    “..Colbert on Colorado: ‘The Market Has Spoken – and the Market Is Toking’..” (video..)

    http://www.alternet.org/colbert-colorado-market-has-spoken-and-market-toking

    • Murray Olsen 5.1
      16 March 2014 at 1:56 am

      The ironic thing is that white men will now get rich off legal marijuana while whole generations of black men have been criminalised. A cynic might think that the war on drugs had served its purpose of marginalising the most potentially revolutionary force in American society and now it was time to go back to the real business of making a buck.

  6. newsense 6
    15 March 2014 at 11:29 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11220184

    Thought this was a fucking disgusting depiction of Grant by Aussie Emerson. He has been fantastic in this and this depiction is- he’s gay so he can’t be a serious minister (not like Cunliffe or Key in a suit) but he has to be some kind of pervert…

    Angry. Maybe we can role out Shano to get stuck into the almost Aussie monopoly on cartoons in our paper of record?

    • Tigger 6.1
      15 March 2014 at 11:38 am

      Ick. That’s very off.

    • RedLogix 6.2
      15 March 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Definitely over the very loose line we give cartoonists.

      The castle clown is given license no-one else would get away with; but every now and then one of them finishes up feeding the moat-monsters.

      • newsense 6.2.1
        15 March 2014 at 5:30 pm

        I don’t think we should regulate cartoonists…craziness. but I’ve never been a big fan of Emmerson’s. He’s an Aussie. You’d think for our one paper we’d manage to find a kiwi. And often he does a cartoon that really offers no insight or opinion it just is some kind of reflection of what’s been going on. There’s no real connection to waterboarding, but it was vaguely topical last year, so it passes for insight into what’s going on. But doesn’t really say anything at all.

        And it seems BS that Robertson’s very credible showing in the house over this is turned into this cartoon…it would be interesting to go through (and other than the battle of the babes for Auck Central) it would be interesting to see how sexualised other depictions are. Do we regularly see cartoons of Bennett and Parata as whores or as dominatrixes? No? Because they can be shown a bit of respect, but Grant can’t?

        Send him back to Aussie. Wanker. Grrrr.

        • newsense 6.2.1.1
          15 March 2014 at 7:03 pm

          like this cartoon mentioned above actually making a point and bringing an actual relevant quote in:

          https://twitter.com/bryce_edwards/status/444198339349708800/photo/1/large

          Actually all three cartoons listed by Edwards make intelligent visual points and the Herald cartoon is just a sneaky attack on Grant Robertson.

          The others show up Collins hypocrisy, or the persona of her apology. Anyway I guess one bad cartoon doesn’t make the guy a bad cartoonist- he’s had people liking him here before. But as you can guess I really disliked the cartoon. An actually he’s had 2 good cartoons on Oravida this week. Sorry Rod! But this was a shocker

    • Stephanie Rodgers 6.3
      15 March 2014 at 12:45 pm

      This is beside the point, but it also doesn’t make any sense! If you’re going to make jokes about horrific torture methods shouldn’t you know what you’re talking about?

    • marty mars 6.4
      15 March 2014 at 4:03 pm

      yep – disgusting and sick – tells us more about the cartoonist than most would want to know. Jokes about waterboarding? What a scum.

  7. JK 7
    15 March 2014 at 11:57 am

    Over on WhaleOil, that nasty scote is trying to equate Judith Collins’ corruption with a publicly-announced opening of the law office of David Cunliffe’s wife, by PM Helen Clark a few years back. A secret dinner, a forgetting to tell the current PM what went on, an overseas taxpayer funded trip, and an endorsement of the company product your husband is connected with – is hugely different from an office opening which would have been announced publicly beforehand., and is a basic function of the prime ministerial office.

    • bad12 7.1
      15 March 2014 at 12:09 pm

      Meanwhile over here at the Standard the usual array of scrotal crabs that regularly appear have all gone into hiding having no defense of their Prime Minister being caught lying along with Justice Minister Collins being seen to have caught the same condition…

    • freedom 7.2
      15 March 2014 at 12:54 pm

      my reply to puckish rogue when it was posted here yesterday

      an article, six years old no less,

      Now the PM opening a NZ business in NZ, even if that business is owned by the wife of a Minister, is not really the same thing as a Minister having a private dinner with the owner of a company her husband is a director of, in the presence of a senior Chinese Government official who has influence over the importation of products supplied by the Minister’s husband’s employer.

      Not the same thing at all.

      The fact that Helen Clark’s visit was published openly in a legal magazine shows it was a public event and is more than likely clearly on record, as it was an opening of a commercial premises.

      Compare this to Collins who despite having vast experience with Cabinet realities, not only decided against all procedural briefs, to consider the dinner not worthy of being recorded in her diaries, the Minister was not forthcoming until pressured by the PM to do so and is now openly stating that she is only allowed to say the words she has been told to say otherwise there may be an issue with China.

      oh yeah Puck, I can see how you think they are comparable 🙄 🙄 🙄

  8. captain hook 8
    15 March 2014 at 12:20 pm

    wail boil is an expert at disinformation and plainoutright lying which is the national party preferred way of doing things.
    they cant lie straight in bed.

  9. Morrissey 9
    15 March 2014 at 1:58 pm

    John Kerry calls on Venezuela to call off “terror campaign”
    from Joe Emersberger, Media Lens, 14 March 2014
    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1394797682.html

    http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-cracks-down-protests-rage-000008363.html?.tsrc=appleww

    excerpt:

    But in Washington, US Secretary of State John Kerry — using his strongest language to date on the lingering crisis — called for an end to what he called a “terror campaign” by Maduro’s government.

    Kerry, speaking before US lawmakers, called on the international community to “focus on Venezuela appropriately.”….

    “We are engaged now with trying to find a way to get the Maduro government to engage with their citizens, to treat them respectfully, to end this terror campaign against his own people and to begin to hopefully respect human rights and the appropriate way of treating his people,” he said.

    Comment on these insane remarks by Kerry seems unnecessary. I can only attribute them to desperaton on the part of Kerry given the USA’s almost total isolation in the hemiphere as exposed by the rcent OAS resultion on Venezuela….
    http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-084/14

  10. phillip ure 10
    15 March 2014 at 2:28 pm

    having a peep at the succession-jostling within national is interesting..

    ..you have slater in the collins camp..

    ..you have joyce-ites with enough reason to give collins that final trip of the ankle..

    (..or they leave her there..as a damaged non-opponent..?..easily beatable ‘cos of that hint of corruption..)

    ..then of course..(as was pointed out to me the other day..)..in the background you have english..

    ..who may well be looking at these two most unlikable candidates..

    ..and thinking that he could well be in with a chance..(as a compromise-candidate..for a stalemated party..)

    ..some are touting bridges and adams..

    (but they must be just having a bit of a laff…adams has got upcoming dodgy-dealings/conflict-of-interest allegations of her own..on a slow simmer..and ready to be brought to the boil..)

    ..and if you were going to have an anti-superhero trio..called the unlikeables..

    ….you’d have collins/joyce..and bridges as their eager apprentice..

    ..so english may well be dreaming of a 2nd chance..

    ..(and if you thought labour leadership battles were ugly..?

    ..whoar..!..

    ..those tories get well down and dirty..

    ..i wd imagine the cabinet-meetings must have some interesting sub-texts/undercurrents going on..

    ..making things maybe not quite so ‘relaxed’…

    ..(darting/narrowed eyes to the fore..)

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    15 March 2014 at 4:11 pm

    The Stupid, it hurts:

    Mr Swain acknow-ledged there was a lot of nostalgia around the network, but said a call had to be made. “They are less reliable overall, and they’re more costly to run.”

    An interesting thing to say considering that:

    NZ Bus owns the trolley buses, and chief executive Zane Fulljames said it was pointless deciding to get rid of them without deciding what would replace them. “A decision hasn’t been made . . . There needs to be a solid plan in place from trolleys to the next piece of technology.”

    They haven’t actually made any comparisons to anything else.

  12. risildowgtn 12
    15 March 2014 at 4:52 pm

    Of course Nicky Wagner CHCH MP wasnt in CHCH to help out after the floods….
    Her piss ass sad excuse

    Her vote was needed in Wgtn hahahahahah

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9832173/Talkbacks-Chris-Lynch

    I think Wagner is in for a whitewash in Sept 2014 election….
    bye bye wont be missed…..

    • ScottGN 12.1
      15 March 2014 at 6:48 pm

      I think National as a whole have given up on any ideas they might once have had at holding Chch Central.

    • captain hook 12.2
      15 March 2014 at 8:22 pm

      what was she supposed to do in CHCH. Heat Jerry Brownlies pies for him.
      You are a tugger dude.

  13. phillip ure 13
    15 March 2014 at 5:30 pm

    “..How to unhook all those apps with access to your data..

    ..how to kick forgotten corporate eyes out of your Twitter – Facebook – and Google accounts:

    ‘it’s time to start deleting’..”

    http://boingboing.net/2014/03/14/how-to-unhook-all-those-apps-w.html

  14. millsy 14
    15 March 2014 at 9:42 pm

    Hi JustLikeTigerWoods,

    If you like dumping toxic waste so much, then perhaps we should all have it trucked round to your place. Perhaps even pay you for the privilige.

    I get sick off all these people who bash the green simply because they want to keep our rivers free of toxic waste. They really need to put their hands up and invite people to dump toxic waste in their own back yard.

    Pollution is a crime against humanity and should be treated as such.

  15. greywarbler 15
    15 March 2014 at 10:19 pm

    Looking at RadioNZ News about David Cunliffe’s speech to NZ Institute.
    The heading – ‘Vision for economy short on detail’.

    It appears to be inspired by a quote from Mr Key lifted from the last few lines of a 2.46 minute news item.
    Prime Minister John Key said on Friday that Labour is running out of time to come up with new policies ahead of this year’s election on 20 September.
    “The truth is actually, Mr Cunliffe hasn’t said anything new today. The best announcement he’s come out with is he’s gonna make further announcements.
    “Well, we are starting to run out of time before we get to an election – so if he had a new idea, it would be interesting to hear it.”

    How is it that the heading is negative when there was so much detail in the speech that would have lent itself to a positiveone. Such as, with some hyperbole :
    [Labour plans regional industry development with a hint of Think Big.]
    from ‘ development of industry in the regions and a focus on more transformative projects’.

    But the reporter found it all unsatisfactory because there was no firm detail on other projects!
    As if. First Labour would not be releasing these too soon, and secondly it is possible that the reporter wouldn’t understand them anyway, and thirdly that little twist that gets put on (like mine of Think Big) can skew them in people’s minds from the start.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 15.1
      16 March 2014 at 2:16 am

      +1

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.2
      16 March 2014 at 11:42 am

      Fourthly, if past elections are anything to go by, Labour will produce detailed and costed policy before the election, National will produce a series of vague press releases, and reporters will apply the double standard.