Open mike 15/05/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 15th, 2012 - 91 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…

91 comments on “Open mike 15/05/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    15 May 2012 at 6:13 am

    The government abolishes good faith.

    Employers will no longer have to reach a collective agreement during collective bargaining, under changes made to industrial relations laws, approved by Cabinet on Monday.

    nzherald.co.nz

    Defenders of this law will say, “This law doesn’t make mala fides compulsory.”

    • Uturn 1.1
      15 May 2012 at 10:45 am

      Perhaps John Key will tell employers the cost of abolishing good faith.

      Perhaps employers want subversion from free-acting, non unionised, employees within their businesses?

      Employers, do you want the guerrilla war National are forcing you into? Are you aware it has already begun?

      Even though employers can immediately remove threats, not just within 90 days, it can only happen after the fact. One person can inflict serious damage overnight, without warning. Employers, you are sitting ducks. It’s always been that way and you know it. You need co-operation from your work force. The more you support an ideology that pushes you into positions that are strategically impossible to hold, the more it will cost you.

      You know how it works, an organisation takes on the personality of its leader. Do you support John Key’s outlook? Are you planning to take all you can, then retire overseas? Is that your model, your ambition?

      So you buy advertisements telling people not to donate to union members you are trying to starve into submission. What next? Will you close your business? Up and shift to another location hoping that the population do not care you’ll try the same trick on them? Do you think the towns you descend on next won’t be warned? Will you pay to shift whole swathes of people from one town to another to staff your operations? No? You expect the poor to come on their own at their own cost? They can barely eat right now, where will they get money to move? How much do you reckon it will cost to move your operations, re-route resources, reskill a workforce?

      So you want tent cities all over NZ, like those in living in American tent cities now: in Portland, California, Washington and Seattle; or those under bridges in Las Vegas? Is this the model of your knowledge economy? What kind of knowledge, exactly?

      When you sneer back, saying the people will do as their bellies dictate, do you think no one notices? Do you think humanity hasn’t been here before? Do you think your psychosis is not on display? Who exactly, do you think envies you, who wants to be a soulless parasite on society? And who would want to follow the advice of universities and tertiary education providers and “take their place” in such a society, climbing towards an imitation of your psychosis? Who would sign up for a Bachelor of Business Psychosis?

      When you sneer back with your pathology, when you say any job is a good job, that work shall set you free – that slow deprivation and starvation should be met with gratitude, since it is not death – you contradict everything you say you want: Educated, intelligent, innovative, productive, people.

      Will you be the one who says: “I do not need to follow minimum wage rates, I always pay more, but another employer can chose as they please.”. Do you honestly believe condoning the immoral actions of your peers; voting for governments that consistently debase industrial and social relations; do you think that makes you innocent?

      Eager to sell news to a population that knows the reality, not even the media will support you. Do you honestly believe people will bother to differentiate between the good and the bad and the many shades of grey? Average people will see the insanity of bad employers and turn against all of you. There will be no clean green image, no “creators of wealth and jobs”, just opportunists, cheats and the untrustworthy.

      Good faith is not an option. It is an integral part of the social agreement that holds any society together. When your sole trick is intimidation, control and threat of starvation, you rob people of self respect and when they cannot afford to live; when they are discouraged from seeing a doctor by needing to jump through hoops to prove they are sick; discouraged from treating trivial diseases that none-the-less reduce productivity; trivial diseases left unattended that turn into more serious conditions; when they cannot afford to see a doctor or buy medicines; when they are treated as potential malcontents by default; and are restricted from all other options but to work under conditions that rob them of more resources than they can replace – they will have nothing to lose. Will you support an ideology and party that legislates the demise of the workforce that supports your business and future? Are you content to undermine your own interests?

      Employers, talk to your peers. Make them see reason, otherwise you silently condone an immediate future for NZ that is going to be far from bright and cost you more than it’s worth. You can wrestle control of sustainable business practices back from the government, wrestle your public image back from organisations like the EMA, or you can attempt to balance the books by 2017 – shortly before they are closed, entirely.

  3. Bored 3
    15 May 2012 at 6:38 am

    John Key says the worst slump in retail sales in 17 years is not a sign the economy is heading toward another recession..

    What is it about implausible denial this scheister wants us to believe? Back into recesssion? Did we ever come out of it? Cant the lying prick use the proper term “Depression”?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6920472/Key-banks-on-forecasts-despite-slump

    • rosy 3.1
      15 May 2012 at 6:52 am

      Notice he spent years saying the area we barely trade with (Europe) was the reason for our bad economy and is now saying we’re not going into recession because the countries we trade with (Australia, and also Asia) are booming. Can’t have it both ways John – nothing has significantly changed in the economic fortunes of both regions since 2008.

      • prism 3.1.1
        15 May 2012 at 10:47 am

        Yes and how come we are putting forward our millions for the world fund to prop up the European economy. We are so wealthy ahem! Well some of us are, but then they don’t pay in tax as much of a percentage of their Discretionary money as the poorer do. Funny that. Seems wrong somehow.

        And what about the United States – they are trying to be part of Asia, while still in a power competition with it. Are we looking to the USA too for trade Jokey Hen? Is it tied up with being dragged into their war machine which we hope will not cost us all the return we get from our exports to the USA.

    • Pete George 3.2
      15 May 2012 at 7:00 am

      Retail spending is a contradictory dilemma. One of our economy’s biggest problems was too much private debt caused by too much spending. Much of the tax changes have been used to reduce debt – a good thing – but at the expense of spending, which we want to grow to get the economy moving, but somehow without returning to excessive borrowing.

      The reasons for current economic lethargy are threefold – of course the GFC is a major factor. Secondly there are inherited debt and property value escalation problems.

      National, like Labour, was fooled into believing the pre-2008 budget surpluses were real and not castles in the air, puffed up by a massive household debt binge.

      That was the time to invest. Labour did set up the Cullen fund and did expand investment in roads. But it skimped on science and innovation. Mostly it spent the surpluses in redistribution through handouts and public services — spectacularly so in making student loans interest-free, which, curiously for Labour, favoured better-off families whose offspring are more likely to go into the expensive forms of tertiary education.

      And National’s efforts, while arguably may have prevented things from being worse, they haven’t got the economy going again either.

      English has de-emphasised redistribution and lifted investment in roads and broadband and, he would say, has improved conditions for business investment through tax and regulatory changes (though business’s response has been less than stunning).

      (Keener edge to consequences of Budget 2012)

      We will hve to wait and see whether the upcoming budget manages to prompt the economy to finally pick up, or if we keep borrowing to tread water.

      • tc 3.2.1
        15 May 2012 at 7:14 am

        How’s the weather down south Petey…..a bit shilly I see.

      • vto 3.2.2
        15 May 2012 at 8:06 am

        Pete, feel free to keep ignoring me if you like (lots do – guess my wording is a bit rough at times), but you continue to display a mindset that simply accepts what is placed in front of you with no consideration of any possible flaws. Here is an example …” One of our economy’s biggest problems was too much private debt caused by too much spending.”

        Has it occurred to you that the problem may have been the lender in lending too much, rather than the borrower in borrowing too much? …

        Also, has it occurred to you, given that the shortcomings of debt are now apparent to the entire world, that perhaps it is the nature of current debt production that is flawed and not the user? ….

        Have a wee think on just those two things Pete and imagine how things may be improved by attending to them rather than the man on the clapham omnibus who has to bend and scrape to the bank manager….

        • rosy 3.2.2.1
          15 May 2012 at 8:20 am

          … .or that wages have not been increasing with prices and the difference has been made up with debt?

          …. or that the interest being charged on the debt is out of all proportion to the risk for ‘too big to fail’ banks and that finance companies can have pretty much unregulated interest of short-term loans and unregulated lending ruining people’s savings. E.g. in Britain they now have payday loans that even small businesses are taking out because banks won’t lend out the money the taxpayer gave them to make the money-go-round kickstart.

        • Carol 3.2.2.2
          15 May 2012 at 8:29 am

          And still the media, and many pollies and activists, are promoting the housing market, looking everywhere for signs that house prices are rising, and that more people are or will be taking out mortgages…. and that will add to the country’s private debt.

          The focus should be on affordable housing for all, and an alternative basis for the country’s economy, rather than being focused on housing as a “market”.

      • Bored 3.2.3
        15 May 2012 at 10:11 am

        Pete, private sector debt was NZs biggest economic woe until National with the connivance of Peter Dunne allowed the government books to slide badly to pay for tax cuts in favour of the rich (thereby materially adding to our woes). Whilst all this has been going on Dunne and the Nats have this public pretense going on that the economy is sort of OK, recessionary but nothing serious. Which is why I raised the point that we are not in a recession, it is a DEPRESSION.

        My prediction: Dunne and NACT will soon admit there actually is a depression for which the only cure will be “asset sales”……

    • Rosie 3.3
      15 May 2012 at 11:11 am

      I’d like to know why the recession ins’t called a depression? Is the term “recession” for real or is using this term just a way of global govts pretending they didn’t F up by masking the truth of a depression? I’ve never understood this.

      • Bored 3.3.1
        15 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

        I think you have tumbled it, the words are pregnant with imagery and connotations. Recessions never “cut” so deep do they? And you can be responsible for a “recession” without blame, but a depression, well that is another thing entirely.

        Still now they only exist in cautionary tales mothers tell their children at bed time, everybody knows there is no such thing as a depression.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 3:04 pm

          A recession is merely part of the business cycle (no responsibility) but a depression is a failure of the economic model which the politicians and economists can’t admit to because it means that they were wrong.

          We are in a depression.

      • Chris 3.3.2
        15 May 2012 at 7:00 pm

        From my memory of 1st year/2nd year economics recession and depression are defined terms for a certain number of quarters in which GDP (? – may not be GDP but I think it is) decreases.

        For example a recession is 4 quarters in a row and a depression is 8 in a row (I just completely made those numbers up).

        Edit: Just checked Wikipedia and a recession is either 2 quarters of decreasing GDP or a 1.5% rise in unemployment in 12 months whereas a depression is a recession that lasts 2 or more years or a 10% decrease in GDP.

        So the current situation doesn’t fit the economic definition of a depression as there has been a couple of quarters with GDP growth in the last couple of years

  4. Carol 4
    15 May 2012 at 7:03 am

    First it was the bennies: it’s OK to pressure them to use long term contraception, because they are a minority of voters (if they haven’t already given up on voting.

    Then it was Labour laws because the right have had a long term successful PR campaign that convinces the majority of voters (or at least of swing voters) unions don’t act in their interests:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6913814/Secret-changes-to-labour-rules

    Prime Minister John Key says changes to industrial relations laws being considered by the Government are minor and won’t affect the vast bulk of New Zealanders.

    And this morning I heard Jonkey on TV3 say the rise in prescription charges won’t affect the majority of Kiwis. He said, …it’s a trade-off in the right direction for the bulk of New Zealanders.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/rise-in-prescription-charges-not-fair-labour-4887239

    How cynical is this? Will the REAL nasty party please stand up?

    • millsy 4.1
      15 May 2012 at 7:13 am

      RE: The meds charges.

      Gotta keep that top tax rate down somehow I suppose. And If that means people getting sicker, then so be it.

    • Carol 4.2
      15 May 2012 at 7:14 am

      And in the TV One link above, TV One reports the first part of Key’s “trade-of” statement, and censors the last part:

      Key says it is a trade-off. “We could have chosen to leave prescription charges at $3 and had less money to spend on health or said to New Zealanders ‘look, we think you paying a small increase more will give you much more peace of mind.'”

      • prism 4.2.1
        15 May 2012 at 10:21 am

        Oh that double talk from Key just is so funny – cynical laughter, the best medicine. Keep laughing you poor people you might be able to cure yourselves.

    • Socialist Paddy 4.3
      15 May 2012 at 7:46 am

      The guy is full of shyte.

      Of course changing collective agreement laws will not affect the vast bulk of New Zealanders. Most kiwis are not parties to a collective agreement.

      It is like saying (sorry Goodwin) that killing jews will not affect the vast bulk of New Zealanders. Of course it won’t.

      But it is still appalling.

      • travellerev 4.3.1
        15 May 2012 at 9:45 am

        Actually you might find it does effect everybody because these collective agreements were benchmarks for the rest of the country. What will happen is more downward spiral as the economy taks and employers will push for lower wages just to try to keep up with the global collapsing economy caused by money printing and resources getting more expensive.

    • Rick Rowling 4.4
      15 May 2012 at 8:57 am

      Rough calculation via http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/0135595.html the $3 prescription charge when introduced 20 years ago was $4.71 in today’s money.

      • McFlock 4.4.1
        15 May 2012 at 11:18 am

        Big deal – how much were they thirty years ago? And how high were benefits?
             
         

    • Kevin Welsh 4.5
      15 May 2012 at 9:09 am

      Just another assault on the working poor and beneficiaries of this country.

      • grumpy 4.5.1
        15 May 2012 at 2:53 pm

        Look on the bright side – they only need to cut back smoking by a maximum of one ciggie a week to break even…………

        • McFlock 4.5.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

          riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttttttttt.
                     
          And what about the majority of working poor and beneficiaries?

               
          Ah screw it – I’m on holiday for a week or two, so will be intermittent web access. Feel free to be as fucking moronic and bigoted as you want. 

  5. mickysavage 5
    15 May 2012 at 7:53 am

    The IMF is being warned by an internal report that there could be a permanent doubling of oil prices in the coming decade with profound implications for global trade.

    “This is uncharted territory for the world economy, which has never experienced such prices for more than a few months,” the report warns.

    In further bad news for the world the IEA believe that a period of declining demand triggered by the global economy’s slowdown is over and the upward trajectory in prices has resumed.

    The world is no longer going to grow itself out of the economic problems it faces.

    More details are at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/13/oil-price-doubling-decade-imf

    • vto 5.1
      15 May 2012 at 8:10 am

      I’m curious mr micky, who directs / controls / runs the IMF?

      Just looking for conflicts ….

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        15 May 2012 at 3:15 pm

        IIRC, it works on a share basis, the more shares the more influence, the US holds the most shares.

    • Jim Nald 5.2
      15 May 2012 at 8:56 am

      “Uncharted territory” indeed.

      Folks assume we will come out “business as usual” from the 2008 global financial crisis just like, hey hey hey, the world did after the 1973 oil-shock-cum 1973/74 stock market crash, and again after Black Monday 1987, and then again after the 1997 crash.

      Well, there may be unpleasant surprises coming up (although the major players should be clued up and are, using an expression Colonial Viper has used, playing a game of “pretend and extend” … or ahem, ?brighter future around the corner). Things may well be different this time with the protracted difficulty in trying to extricate from the debt crisis, and an energy crisis looming on the heels of that.

      Almost halfway into 2012 now, and the much awaited rebound of post-2008 is not quite in sight. If anything, some economies are slowing down or sputtering (again).

    • Bored 5.3
      15 May 2012 at 10:24 am

      There could be….how about will be a doubling of oil price?

      Reading the business pages is quite interesting as there seem to be enough commentaries pointing out future supply deficiencies in a lot of areas, but the mainstream commentary is all about business as usual. There is a strange attachment to metaphysics. It is probably the most cogent example I have seen of cargo cult mentality. Some call it techno narcissism, “they” (whoever “they” are) will magically “invent” something, break the laws of thermodynamics and, voila, nirvana…we will all be saved from the limits of our physical world.

      Funny question about the UK as well, if they had cheap energy into the future would they “grow”? I suspect not, they would send the production to some slave labour economy in Asia or similar, whilst factories and workers would stand idle in Manchester. That’s rational neo lib economics. What a joke.

  6. just saying 6
    15 May 2012 at 8:11 am

    My The Standard screen no longer shows the list of comments on the right hand side.
    Just me?

  7. travellerev 7
    15 May 2012 at 8:37 am

    While you might get distracted by all the hideous but ultimately small fry measures John Key’s administration takes to squeeze the lifeblood out of the poor and the middle class here is the real big Whopper they are going to hit us with:

    On Greece’s bancrupcy, JP Morgan’s loss and those pesky Derivatives Johnny “Derivatives” Key and Bill “Double Dipton” English invested in.

    • Bored 7.1
      15 May 2012 at 10:40 am

      Derivatives are quite obviously a fraud, as is gold (too many promisary notes and not enough kgs of gold to back them up, only 100 to 1 but hey whats that between friendly investors and their banker mates)?

      PS Why dont we use a real hard currency, a tangible that has real value and can provide feed on the table? Sheep come to mind, we have lots of them.

      • vto 7.1.1
        15 May 2012 at 10:47 am

        Sheep? I guess then money wouldn’t grow on trees it would grow on grass…

        Gold is fine, just make sure you physically hold onto it and don’t trust a banker to hold it – you know they just mortgage it up for their benefit, not yours, and without your knowledge. Same with existing cash. This is the way the system works. Scary if you think about it properly. Such a system never lasts – as this one isn’t.

        • Bored 7.1.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 12:01 pm

          Brings a whole new meaning to “grass mining” as our primary industry…watch the wealth grow, and the money breed….

          I have some gold, I reckon on the day the gold is requested en-masse from couponed deposit holders mine will soar 100 times in value…then to the shop immediately to buy ….a sheep!

  8. captain hook 8
    15 May 2012 at 8:57 am

    yep they all smartasses and big noters when they playing with the taxpayers money.

  9. Pete George 9
    15 May 2012 at 9:04 am

    TV3 is still running the story they started on Saturday about David Cunliffe not being interviewed. It continued with an interview with Chris Trotter on Firstline this morning (ironically because Key cancelled a planned interview).

    Cunliffe being “muzzled” and a leadership “row” has been emphasised. One puzzling aspect was clarified a little on the news last night – apparently David Parker was proposed as an alternative interviewee.

    But for some reason TV3 chose to run the Cunliffe no show story. Why didn’t TV3 interview David Parker?

    • tc 9.1
      15 May 2012 at 9:19 am

      Gosh we’ve no idea why garner would do such a story so Petey oh please tell us, we await your sage counsel.

    • freedom 9.2
      15 May 2012 at 10:44 am

      “Why didn’t TV3 interview David Parker?”
      i have a suggestion Petey McBleaty

      Keep asking TV3 and if you do ever get a response that is when there is something to share.

    • Pete George 9.3
      15 May 2012 at 10:48 am

      Duncan Garner has clarified.

      duncan garner May 15th, 2012 at 08:54

      Morning,

      The invite wasn’t for David Parker – it was for Cunliffe. Parker is coming on next week’s 3 News Budget Special and also on The Nation’s Budget Special two days later. That’s why we invited Cunliffe on. Parker is already booked to come in. Twice. In the end Tony Ryall was on our show and Peters and Norman on Q n A. Where was the Labour representative? They need to do better than this. In my view Cunliffe wanted to come on. He was gagged.

      Cheers
      Duncan

      That clarifies it quite a bit.

      But the answer to “Where was the Labour representative?” was still a dual responsibility, Labour chose not to put Cunliffe there, and TV3 chose not to put anyone else from Labour there.

      • freedom 9.3.1
        15 May 2012 at 11:05 am

        so TV3/Garner had replied to your question before you even posted here!

        big thumbs up there Pete, love your work

        • deuto 9.3.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 11:52 am

          No, Freedom, Garner did not reply to PG as I mistakenly assumed from the way he creatively worded his 9.3 above.

          The response by Garner PG quoted is actually Garner’s comment on Brian Edwards’ blogsite to a post by Edwards.

          Olwyn posted the link to Edwards’ site and Garner’s comment at 20.1 on the Warming to Shearer page.

          http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2012/05/on-david-cunliffe-the-political-divide-and-why-im-still-wondering/#comments

          • freedom 9.3.1.1.1
            15 May 2012 at 12:01 pm

            oooh that stinky weasel, thanks for the heads up. I had not followed the link in his 9.3, seems i gave him credit for honest presentation of a dialogue. (I should know better by now)

            one more reason to distrust anything Petey dribbles into his begging bowl.

            • deuto 9.3.1.1.1.1
              15 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

              Exactly. I too was surprised and thought that PG was actually being straight up for once and gave him the benefit of the doubt. But, no………

              • Pete George …
                15 May 2012 at 12:42 pm

                Garner may have just thought of answering that unprompted. But I was the only one (that I’m aware of) asking that question – at Edwards blog, here, at YourNZ, Kiwiblog, on TV3’s news site and on Twitter.

                Not that that should matter – there’s an explanation. It’s a credible reasonthat TV3 already had Parker scheduled so didn’t want him again sooner, they don’t want the same faces too often (apart from their own). They obviously didn’t see a need to explain when doing their stories, but it clarifies things for me.

                Labour’s “Top Team” would have known of Parkers scheduled appearances, so this shifts the glare back to them, why they didn’t want additional exposure from another of their economic spokespeople.

                The non-appearance will be soon forgotten. The only thing that will matter in the longer term is the effect of this wee episode on the power battle that is obviously going on.

                Cunliffe (and supporters) needs to either accept that Shearer is leader and do everything he can to work with and support that, or he can contribute to another wasted year of non-rebuilding.

  10. fatty 10
    15 May 2012 at 10:35 am

    New political TV comedy;
    I’m guessing most of the people on here enjoy the British political comedy ‘The Thick of it’.
    It has been redone as a US version called ‘Veep’, which is based on a fictional US vice president, has received little to no attention.
    Although it still suffers from many of the problems in translating high paced British wit to a US audience (‘The Office’)…this one is much better. A strong UK link remains…the genius creator of ‘The Thick of it’ (and Time Trumpet, etc, etc) Armando Iannucci, is heavily involved, as is Simon Blackwell from ‘Peep Show’ / ‘Four Lions’ fame.
    They are up to episode four in series one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veep_(TV_series)

    • Vicky32 10.1
      15 May 2012 at 6:18 pm

      I’m guessing most of the people on here enjoy the British political comedy ‘The Thick of it’

      I would have, but afaik it’s never been on free to air TV. (85-95% of free to air TV is American, including ‘re-makes’ of British shows. I see heaps of stuff listed in the pay TV schedules, that I would love to see but can’t afford.)
      I will never watch an American remake of a British show. Ever.
      In fact, I watch almost no TV as a result of trying to avoid reality sh*te, cop shows and American ‘comedy’. It all promotes violence and war!

      • fatty 10.1.1
        15 May 2012 at 7:21 pm

        “I would have, but afaik it’s never been on free to air TV”
        Try your local DVD store…free to air TV sucks, its a waste of time and braincells. I got rid of my TV cause its a waste of space. There are only 2-3 programmes worth watching, they are on TV7 and can be streamed on the net. NZ TV news is a sham and will lower your intelligence…avoid it.

        “I will never watch an American remake of a British show. Ever. In fact, I watch almost no TV as a result of trying to avoid reality sh*te, cop shows and American ‘comedy’. It all promotes violence and war!”

        A sad (colonial?) perspective…your loss. The US Office is OK, not great. But then I think the UK Office was way over-hyped, little more than an annoying boss & an office full of dorks…and they only did 2 six episode seasons.
        At the moment US comedy is more creative than the British…comedies from the BBC have been average for the past 5 years or so…TV4 and ITV are sloppy. BBC needs to learn from HBO.
        Louie, Curb Your Enthusiasm & Portlandia seem to me to be far more progressive than the current British offerings. Those 3 US programmes reflect and then critique society at a far deeper level than the UK Office ever did.

  12. freedom 12
    15 May 2012 at 11:19 am

    it may be a day old, but Stuff has finally decided to publish the many comments that were submitted yesterday on the Wilkinson story. Only after it has been buried deep in the soft peat of the site of course.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6913814/Secret-changes-to-labour-rules

    • muzza 12.1
      15 May 2012 at 1:34 pm

      “In a new move, Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson wants employers to be able to set the agenda for collective contract negotiations, raising concerns they will be able to walk away from bargaining if unions reject unreasonable demands”

      — KW is simply just another empty vessel being used as a way to push unwanted policy on unwitting NZ’ers. Makes me wonder what they get promised in return for being traitorous!

  13. Blue 13
    15 May 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Key has another whinge:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806048

    Boo hoo, the media don’t like me anymore, waahhh.

    There’s always Hawaii, John.

    • Bored 13.1
      15 May 2012 at 1:22 pm

      Woe diddums, diddums, diddums…. poor poor poor little Shonkers, boo hoo!!!!!!!! Dont be fooled.

      Meanwhile the psychopathic misanthrope is quietly smiling behind the scenes plotting another rip off…assets, tax etc etc, anything to enslave and enfeeble the people.

    • Pete George 13.2
      15 May 2012 at 1:34 pm

      If you get past the headline it’s not a whinge, just a statement of reality.

      He did not worry about the media “despite what they think”.

      “I am not that bent out of shape about that – I expected it,” he said. Former prime minister Helen Clark had warned him it would happen after the first term in office.

      He said he was not moaning about it – it was a matter of fact.

      Clark would know, she had plenty of experience.

      • Bored 13.2.1
        15 May 2012 at 3:43 pm

        Look Pete, it is obvious to me that in Johnnygrad there are a whole pile of homosexual grey-suit cabinet ministers (who is that one with the bright shirts and ties? Not to mention Lockie in his speedos)… then there is some fierce blonde lessie who looks like a dominatrix following him everywhere telling him what to do. I have seen it on the tellie and its all true (my mates confirmed it down the pub over a beer or three).

      • Jackal 13.2.2
        15 May 2012 at 6:44 pm

        If he wasn’t worried Pete, why was he whinging?

        Keys radio therapy

        Today, the Prime Minister of New Zealand accused the media of becoming more aggressive, hostile, and antagonistic towards his Government…

        • Pete George 13.2.2.1
          15 May 2012 at 7:16 pm

          This is one of the most stupid beatups I’ve seen. Desperate nonsense on a slow news day.

          • mickysavage 13.2.2.1.1
            15 May 2012 at 7:48 pm

            Pete you are just showing your prejudices.  

            Key’s sense of indignant resentment of criticism is palpable.  It will not go down well.  You can sense years of high paid Crosby Textor advice constructing old smile and wave going down the gurgler.

            It looks like National will smash through what they can this year and resign themselves to losing next time.

    • Rosie 13.3
      15 May 2012 at 1:48 pm

      He’d have a big ol whiney baby whinge if the media actually printed the whole truth about him: His dodgy dealings, his past as a trader and the effects of that. If they really wanted to they could end his PM joy ride, and put us all out of our misery.

      Its really funny how the massive media love fest with shonkey is now showing some signs of the honey moon after party blues. Its funny how shonkey is now snivelling like a spurned lover. “You don’t love me anymore, whhhaaaa!”

      PS: PG (Personal Grievance) He’s just pretending to not be hurt when he says “I’m not being bent out of shape…etc” He’s just like a silly school girl. No offence meant towards school girls. I can say that because I’ve been there.

    • mickysavage 13.4
      15 May 2012 at 2:58 pm

      The original headline was “Key takes aim at media: Herald in gun”.

      Then with a sprinkle of Crosby Textor pixie dist it becomes “John Key denies slamming NZ Media”. This is despite earlier “accusing it of becoming more aggressive, hostile, and antagonistic towards his Government”.

      It seems that whenever Johnny says something it actually does not mean what you think it means …

      • mickysavage 13.4.1
        15 May 2012 at 3:12 pm

        If anyone can bear listening to the original interview with Leighton Smith it is here but not recommended for anyone except those with the strongest of constitutions.

        • Pete 13.4.1.1
          15 May 2012 at 3:24 pm

          Key is now claiming that he didn’t slam the media. Maybe he’s developed some Banksian amnesia.

        • Anne 13.4.1.2
          15 May 2012 at 6:46 pm

          Nah ms. I want to keep my sanity in one piece.

          You know, approx. once every 2 months I inadvertently tune in to 1ZB in the mornings. I can say without a shadow of exaggeration, that within minutes I hear him having yet another hate-rave against Climate Change proponents. Not only is he wrong, he is clearly a dangerous and obsessed man and is not fit to be on the radio station end of a microphone.

    • rod 13.5
      15 May 2012 at 3:29 pm

      Geeze, talk about biting the hand that feeds him.

    • Vicky32 13.6
      15 May 2012 at 6:20 pm

      Key has another whinge:

      I just heard Garner explaining that the poor dear is under stress and that he didn’t really mean it… Arse licking with a soupcon of masochism, well done Dunc!

  14. Uturn 14
    15 May 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Applause for Helen Kelly, Laurie Nankivell and Martyn Bradbury on last night’s show. Excellent material, competent representations, skilled discussions.

    For those who want to know where and how the people are “fighting back”, you can meet some of them on Monday nights at 8pm on Triangle TV: The Union Report.

    (I am not paid to say this or associated with them in any way.)

  15. the pinkpostman 15
    15 May 2012 at 3:07 pm

    What a nasty disgusting way to announce the prescription charge rise by using a cancer ward to say that the extra charge would go o help cancer patients.This must surely be the most underhanded way to announce
    a rise in health costs. It stinks of Crosby Textor does it not?

    • weka 15.1
      15 May 2012 at 4:20 pm

      Kaitaia GP Lance O’Sullivan is a godsend. Not only did he speak out earlier in the week about the kids drinking from medicine bottles, and eating from pig buckets, but this morning on Nat Rad he spoke out against the prescription charges. He’s intelligent, articulate, compassionate, and obviously has a sophisticated analysis of the issues involved. Why can’t we have more comment in the media from people like him?
       
      The other man that Kathryn Ryan interviewed was also interesting. An academic willing to directly criticise govt policy, point out its stupidity, and back up his criticism with research.
       
      The thing I don’t understand about the Nats doing this is that it’s obviously not going to save any money (poor people will end up in A and E instead, which will cost more). They must know this, so why do it? Are they so desperate for cash in the short term?
       
      I’m also not clear about how WINZ factors into this – people are saying that prescription costs can be covered by Disability Allowance, but DA is only for long term conditions (over 6 months) and for costs that are ongoing. The Child DA criteria is harder (12 months and serious disability).

      • rosy 15.1.1
        15 May 2012 at 6:56 pm

        You’re right to feel confused, Weka. Even for a whole lot of people with drug-controlled chronic conditions WINZ doesn’t factor into it at all. That’s just spin – trying to say there is something around that will lessen the impact. For many people it’s not true.

        Already 6 percent don’t fill prescriptions because they can’t afford it.

  17. logie97 17
    15 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Banks, the bastions of Capitalism.
    Capitalism, supposed to benefit the masses through competition.
    How is it then that the banks serving NZ have made record profits in the last two years?

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      15 May 2012 at 8:26 pm

      Great to be an Australian bank shareholder feeding off little kiwis.

  18. Poission 18
    15 May 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Another problem for the economic whizz kid .

    Statistics NZ has revised the GDP figures for 2011.the revision is a decrease in the dismal figure of 1.4% by 21% down to 1.1%.

    Interesting in table 20 of the excel spread tables is the setting of real gdp per capita in fixed prices (95/96) This gives the absolute value, eg 2006- 31644 2011-31169.

    Oh dear.

    It is time that the “opposition parties” started to question the Govt,rather then be distracted by obvious smokescreens or advice by media advisors.