Open Mike 15/10/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 15th, 2017 - 242 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

242 comments on “Open Mike 15/10/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Once was Tim 1
    15 October 2017 at 7:33 am

    PUBLIC SERVICE WARNING:
    Today’s RNZ Sunday Morning on National is hosted by Jim Mora

  2. cleangreen 2
    15 October 2017 at 7:47 am

    Thanks Tim,

    It was a good well balanced show finally Jim Mora shut his gob after asking pointed questions.

    A show well worth listening to.

    The upshot concenus was that the final process of choosing a Government could well take much longer as Winston was covering all his responsibilities well but they agreed that the process should not be expected to be finalised in one week rather they feel it may be likely to be finalised by another three weeks.

    It was made clear that the whole process along all parties must be made carefully and needs time to be done correctly.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018617899/political-panel-on-the-constitution-and-the-hiatus

    Radio NZ Sunday 15th October 2017.

    Political panel on the constitution and the hiatus
    From Sunday Morning, 33 minutes ago
    Share this

    Listen
    The political hiatus is almost over with Winston Peters due to meet his board on Monday. Otago Law Professor Andrew Geddis and Associate Professor Jennifer Curtin from the School of Politics and International relations at the University of Auckland discuss the limbo and why it’s not such a bad thing.

    • Ed 2.1
      15 October 2017 at 8:07 am

      Also on show…..

      ‘The vision of the Ministry of Social Development is to help New Zealanders to help themselves to be safe, strong and independent. But many beneficiaries are taking to social media to talk about what they see as poor treatment from its agency, Work and Income. Is this a sign of real problems or the opinions of a disgruntled few?’

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018617779

      • greywarshark 2.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:41 am

        Metiria Turei opened the lack of concern for welfare of citizens suffering from the government and treasury’s decision to open us up to world competition and destroying business. The results of cold unconcern have been revealed by Metiria to public scrutiny, which is needed as the neglect and irresponsibility of government has been going on in sad and secret for so long.

        The helping agencies are not able to advocate for improvement as the government will withdraw the funding they need to just apply the band-aids. By withdrawing from provision of services of every sort that NZs need and want, they place themselves in a position relatively safe from criticism as anything that goes wrong can be blamed on the agency.

        • lurgee 2.1.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 2:25 pm

          I wish this was true but it sounds like an attempt to put a gloss on what was a dreadful blunder. I doubt any politician will risk talking meaningfully about poverty in the immediate future, after seeing what happened to Turei and the Greens. And as for actually DOING something …

          Probably the only good to come out of it was it gave Labour an opportunity to vacuum up some Green support, which ave them a bit of useful momentum at a critical time.

          • Incognito 2.1.1.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 4:37 pm

            I doubt any politician will risk talking meaningfully about poverty in the immediate future, after seeing what happened to Turei and the Greens.

            I think and hope (!) you’re wrong.

            Poverty is the defining & dividing issue of our time. There is no way, in my mind, that serious inroads can be made into poverty without changing the status quo and challenging the Establishment.

            People have tried to scale the walls of status quo with which the Establishment is protecting itself; they have tried to bring down those walls brick by brick. Neither has made a dent. Until Metiria Turei made a sizeable breach in the wall.

            Before this breach is repaired, and they will try to repair this as fast as they can, others can cease the opportunity and they must or Metiria’s actions will be largely fruitless. Nobody has to do repeat exactly what she did as that would be unnecessary and indeed receive the same kind of treatment & response by Establishment and their foot soldiers in MSM.

            We need radical political action and bold politics & politicians and I’d like to think that the right people will do the right thing and continue now Metiria has prominently paved a path of opportunity to deal poverty in NZ a major blow.

            We don’t need timidity or nay-sayers; we need radical optimism and we need grassroots activism to grow a movement that takes the power back to where it rightfully belongs: with the people.

            Enough said.

            • lurgee 2.1.1.1.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 7:05 pm

              I hope I’m wrong, too. But if I didn’t think I was right, I wouldn’t think what I think. If you follow.

              Sadly, our politicians are mostly spineless and / or stupid.

              They are like this because New Zealand is a country that fundamentally doesn’t seem to care. We tell ourselves comforting little myths about all being good Kiwi battlers who are in it for the long haul and look out for our mates and take care of one and other, but it is mostly bollocks. We step over beggars and don’t care too much (maybe we wish Something Could Be Done About Them because they make us feel uncomfortable). We’ve elected right wing and even more right wing governments for the last thirty years. We wouldn’t have done that if we weren’t in the privacy of the voting booth, fundamentally selfish, uncaring bastards.

              Sorry if I seem a little bit negative.

              • Incognito …
                15 October 2017 at 7:39 pm

                No need to apologise; it’s hard to not become negative & pessimistic at times …

                Every nation has its stories that make its citizens feel proud and that they belong to a great place with great traditions, etc., and New Zealand is not unique in this sense. Many if not all countries in the world struggle at the moment and many of the struggles are common and in fact eerily similar.

                The fact that many of our problems are shared global issues can be seen as good and bad. On the one hand, we have no full control over our own fate. On the other hand, we can help each other to find solutions.

                When reading stuff I’ve become much more selective and I try to ignore the negative stories that almost always just pile more negativity on top of negativity from which there’s no escape. I prefer stuff with more balanced views & criticisms that ideally try to look for common ground, build consensus and/or find a way forward; these have become increasingly rare in (NZ) MSM. That said, generally it is easy to criticise but much harder to imagine a better scenario.

              • Steve …
                16 October 2017 at 12:11 pm

                We wouldn’t have done that if we weren’t in the privacy of the voting booth, fundamentally selfish, uncaring bastards.

                Im not yet convinced its due only to selfishness or an uncaring nature.Some of it may have to do with people feeling a little afraid their vote could be wasted perhaps.Just seems,to me, too easy to blame it all on Kiwi people just being selfishly right wing.Because the flip side of this is that there’s also little use people being overly unselfishly caring, if in being too much so,it might then later come back to haunt and slap them back in the face

                I don’t feel i see much evidence that generally New Zealanders just don’t care.Far from it in fact.So if people have been voting right wing like you fairly point out.Maybe the left wing might need to provide far better intelligently designed and defined policy and information in regard to why they should be receiving more votes

                I feel ive seen and heard people within the street openly discussing politics together, in regard to how they don’t any longer feel confident in left wing politicians performance or policy.The key being they are openly discussing it

                Sadly the left wing finally have only just started to up the game of their own performance,and rather late in this show.So who’s fault is that then?.The voters?.I’m a real lefty at heart.Always have been, and always will be from now on too.However perhaps us lefties still need to remember to use our head better,so as to then also help compliment our heart felt feelings as well too.IMHO

                I’m open to correction.I sure as hell don’t claim to be any kind of expert.Just saying it, as i feel i see it is all.From a grass root level.For the moment ,i still find it a little too hard, to accept,Kiwis just simply don’t care.That seems far fetched.Seems to me the explanation may run deeper

            • Steve 2.1.1.1.1.2
              16 October 2017 at 11:07 am

              Before this breach is repaired, and they will try to repair this as fast as they can, others can cease the opportunity and they must or Metiria’s actions will be largely fruitless.

              Enjoyed your comments

              Not to be picky ,but for benefit of other people who read through your comment, who also consider “exactly” what you say.I get the feeling you might have meant to say seize,rather than cease. Wanted to point that out

              We don’t need timidity or nay-sayers; we need radical optimism and we need grassroots activism to grow a movement that takes the power back to where it rightfully belongs: with the people.

              I agree with you.But speaking from my own experience,timidity is not easy to overcome.And then optimism can soon become hard to hold on to as well.I doubt grass roots people have the wherewith to grow the movement,and here i’m just speaking from point of view of my own experience again.If we define grassroots people, as being ordinary people working from the basic level of an activity.And its not even so easy to need to publicly admit to these things either (IE:that we don’t feel so capable).I admit it here publicly,only because i feel the situation need to change

              Please correct me if i’m wrong ,good chance i might be, but i feel grass roots folk may perhaps need a little more help,and most of all guidance from people more knowledgeable higher up.More than anything, we grass root people really don’t need to experience too “many” more Metiria Turei type situations.

              Just saying

              • Incognito …
                16 October 2017 at 11:07 pm

                Hi Steve,

                Thank you for your great feedback and the correction; indeed it should have been “others can seize the opportunity”. It was a very silly and unfortunate mistake.

                I also agree with your comments about timidity and optimism; I am a timid person and lean towards pessimism, negative thoughts and depression. But I don’t want these to define me and hold me back for the rest of my life! Writing (here and elsewhere) is kind of therapeutic and formative for me …

                By grassroots I mean any people, “ordinary” or not, who not in positions of leadership or formal/official power or influence. As such, I believe this comprises a much larger and deeper resource than the actual few who are ‘in charge’. I’m sure you’ve heard of “wisdom of the crowd” and I believe there’s much hidden & silent (latent) talent & potential in the crowd, among ‘men in the street’. Put it differently, are our current leaders really the meritocratic elite, the crème de la crème? I believe they are not by a long shot, although they have a few really strongly developed and prominent characteristics that set them apart from hoi polloi, generally speaking, of course.

                In short, I don’t think a grassroots movement needs help from people higher up although it can be welcome; it may also have a stalling effect …

                Lastly, it is o.k. to make mistakes and learn from these rather than hang your head in shame and try and crawl back under a rock; activism means taking personal and collective risks.

                • Steve …
                  18 October 2017 at 1:00 pm

                  Incognito fair comment.And perhaps grassroots people need to become more proactive in having closer contact with people in positions of leadership.Not wait around until elections arrive

                  I believe there’s much hidden & silent (latent) talent & potential in the crowd, among ‘men in the street’.

                  Yes its ok to make mistakes.However once people get to the stage of feeling like they have made too many already.They then lose confidence.So i just don’t feel its the best way to go,to allow too much room for that to happen.Its a natural human manner for people to be able to lose confidence within certain situations.It happens in a number of different situations all over the globe.

                  Im not saying grass roots people shouldn’t still try.I’m merely only trying to say,statistic of grass root global natural human mannerism may suggest,it would be like something kind of supernatural to ask of these people.Now of course, these people will continue to step up and have a go at times,because experience of the situation will force them to try.In much the same kind of way that POW would also still try to escape from Colditz castle

                  My point is our society is not ruled over by any Hitler type situation.There is opportunity that people from higher up can work in and help out,so as to be sure to see that far fewer people would need to fail or lose confidence

                  Hey good luck with life.Best wishes from me !. Here’s hoping all our futures will be brighter

          • greywarshark 2.1.1.1.2
            16 October 2017 at 12:21 pm

            Me an Incognito hope you are wrong. I bet you would be pleased to be wrong too. But your comment sounds sound. Bad vibes in that music!

            Otis Redding sings it like the blues we have.
            Sitting on the Dock of a Bay
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMe059zoYb4

            I left my home in …
            Cuz had nothing to live for
            Looks like nothing going to come my way

            Look like nothing’s going to change
            Everything still remains the same…

            So guess I’ll remain the same.

            Could then go on to Bill Withers sing Lean on Me
            and maybe it will sweeten the mood.

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    15 October 2017 at 8:05 am

    Stuff assumes MMP needs to be altered. Winston has too much power.

    So, they are not feeling powerful today? That is democracy.!!

    • DH 3.1
      15 October 2017 at 10:17 am

      Stuff show five headlines in their politics section, the contents of which all are sneering at Winston Peters and attacking MMP;

      Rein in kingmaker before 2020
      ‘King’ Winston before country
      No winners among leaders
      The sublime to the ridiculous
      21 years of MMP ‘whisky’ talks

      Don’t recall the MSM complaining much about the Act scam which is a blatant rort of MMP.

      I’m hopeful one of Peter’s demands is for the MSM to be properly sorted. IMO it’s time they were prevented from meddling in our elections and electoral process.

      • cleangreen 3.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 11:44 am

        DH yes thanks for alerting us to the MSM pressure tryimg to coerse NZF to hurry up and finish their call.

        MSM is an arm of Government and must be roundly critisised for interfering with our democracy now.

        I can’t wait until Winston gets his ‘public broadcasting policies’ into force to clean up this shoddy media in NZ today.

        MSM should be ashamed of themselves, they are disgusting.

  4. marty mars 4
    15 October 2017 at 8:19 am

    Hint for the Greens – if you agree to forego Māori rights to a legal decision and are part of arrangement to set up the Kermedec sanctuary then you will have made a big mistake. Let the court’s decide and then follow the law. Don’t be part of another foreshore and seabed debarcle.

    • veutoviper 4.1
      15 October 2017 at 10:48 am

      + 1, marty mars. Was a bit concerned to see this in the media – both in relation to the aspect you pointed out, but also because it supposedly has been leaked.

      • marty mars 4.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:58 am

        Yeah not sure I believe it tbh but I was quite shocked by rus Norman when he left the Greens for greenpeace and began advocating this heavily – that indigenous rights be sidelined for this ocean sanctuary – i had a few arguments on here about that position. And i’ll say again i dont really believe this has happened.

        • Sacha 4.1.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 11:19 am

          What a coincidence that particular hack would write allegations that favour the Nats.

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 11:22 am

            Yep the anti green lines have really gone overboard – shows how scared they are and their utter contempt for this planet and its inhabitants.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.1.2
              15 October 2017 at 12:22 pm

              I haven’t followed the issue, but here’s a GP press release from 2016,

              “The Green Party is proud of our principled history of standing up for Treaty rights, including on the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. We are absolutely committed to that.

              “It is entirely possible to achieve environmental protection and uphold Treaty rights, and there are plenty of good examples where this has been achieved.

              “In Government, the Green Party would introduce a new marine protection law for the EEZ which recognises the Treaty, ensures there is serious consultation in establishing new marine protected areas, and introduces more effective mechanisms for iwi management of new areas,” said Mrs Turei.

              https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/protecting-environment-and-upholding-treaty-possible

              • The Chairman …
                15 October 2017 at 1:36 pm

                Overriding indigenous rights or the ability to use the legal process to protect those rights is upholding and recognising the Treaty?

                • KJT …
                  15 October 2017 at 2:25 pm

                  I think you will find the Greens, will make treaty rights and consensus, part of setting up any sanctuary.

                  The media. Starved of news about coalition negotiations have resorted to “making shit up”.

                  However I have my own reservations, about the power of the brown kleptocracy in these instances. No different from the Pakeha one.
                  Profit overrides every other consideration, including stewardship.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    15 October 2017 at 2:45 pm

                    The media. Starved of news about coalition negotiations have resorted to “making shit up”.

                    Yep, that’s what I’m thinking.

                    However I have my own reservations, about the power of the brown kleptocracy in these instances. No different from the Pakeha one.
                    Profit overrides every other consideration, including stewardship.

                    And that too.

                  • The Chairman …
                    15 October 2017 at 2:46 pm

                    “I think you will find the Greens, will make treaty rights and consensus, part of setting up any sanctuary.”

                    Yet, unlike Labour (who put its support under review after Te Ohu Kaimoana mounted a legal challenge) the Green’s had always argued the sanctuary should go ahead.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:58 pm

                      It should go ahead but that’s different from will go ahead no matter what anybody else says.

                    • The Chairman …
                      15 October 2017 at 3:45 pm

                      Willing to push ahead with it despite the fact it was going to court implies they weren’t too prepared to listen to what the court has to say about the matter.

                    • KJT …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:21 pm

                      Allowed to say it should be a sanctuary.

                      Some Iwi are saying the same.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      16 October 2017 at 1:37 pm

                      Willing to push ahead with it despite the fact it was going to court implies they weren’t too prepared to listen to what the court has to say about the matter.

                      Not really. Making plans for whatever happens in the court is exactly what I’d expect a competent government to do.

    • The Chairman 4.2
      15 October 2017 at 12:01 pm

      It seems people and their rights come second to saving the planet.

      • weka 4.2.1
        15 October 2017 at 12:18 pm

        only if you think those two things are incompatible.

        • The Chairman 4.2.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 12:23 pm

          Well they’re not going down too well together at the moment, hence the court case and Marty’s disappointment and disbelief.

          • marty mars 4.2.1.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 12:36 pm

            Only that a legal process may not be followed. I am happy to debate the merits one way or the other – i have one position and others like rus Norman have a different one. I’m okay with that if due process is adhered to. Personally I’d put sanctuaries everywhere but not by overriding indigenous rights or the ability to use the legal process to protect those rights.

            • The Chairman 4.2.1.1.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 12:42 pm

              Overriding indigenous rights or the ability to use the legal process to protect those rights seems to be what the Greens are aiming for.

              • KJT …
                15 October 2017 at 2:27 pm

                Only according to journalists making shit up, again.

                • The Chairman …
                  15 October 2017 at 2:53 pm

                  Despite being able to easily do so, Shaw never shut it down when asked for comment.

                  Add to that the Green’s had always argued the sanctuary should go ahead, are you sure journalists are making this up?

                  Seems more likely to be true.

            • Karen 4.2.1.1.1.2
              15 October 2017 at 12:46 pm

              + 1000 Marty

            • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1.1.3
              15 October 2017 at 2:47 pm

              I still haven’t seen any indication that Māori have any traditional rights to the waters around the Kermadecs. The Kermadecs only became NZ territory after the signing of Ti Tiriti.

      • marty mars 4.2.2
        15 October 2017 at 12:20 pm

        The sanctuary wont save the planet – need more than western pretense for that. The article on Kiribati on stuff special features entitled ‘where will we go’says it all. We dug the islands to make money for farmers from the phosphate. the island is going under as the sea level rises due to CC. We make it hard for those islanders to come here. We abdicate our responsibility for CAUSING the shit and then often blame the victims for getting in our way and spoiling our sense of righteousness.

        This is pretty much 101 treatment of indigenous peoples and their rights around the world.

        • weka 4.2.2.1
          15 October 2017 at 12:30 pm

          Yes, lots of hypocrisy.

          Greens have a Pacifica climate refugee policy, which is a start, but we’re nowhere near close to dealing with these issues well.

        • The Chairman 4.2.2.2
          15 October 2017 at 12:36 pm

          “The sanctuary wont save the planet “

          Not on its own, but it is part of that larger plan.

          • marty mars 4.2.2.2.1
            15 October 2017 at 12:46 pm

            No it really isn’t imo. But people will believe anything while eating their fish or factory farmed food and they do that because someone else is always going to make the sacrifice, take the pain – ANYONE but us. Although I have to say I stopped eating fish years ago when I realised how they catch them and destroy so much to do so including by catch.

            • The Chairman 4.2.2.2.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 12:52 pm

              “No it really isn’t imo.”

              How did you come to forming that opinion, Marty?

              • marty mars …
                15 October 2017 at 1:10 pm

                By doing a hell of a lot of reading, studying, thinking and activating with other activists. How about you outline the plan that this fits into?

                • The Chairman …
                  15 October 2017 at 1:25 pm

                  I was always under the impression the Greens wanted to save the planet. Hence, I assumed this was one step towards that larger plan.

                  But if I’m wrong, then it would have been more correct for me to say it seems people and their rights come second to creating and enforcing a sanctuary. Which is less of a cause, opposed to saving the planet.

                  Therefore, it doesn’t paint the Greens in a better light, but I’m happy to stand corrected.

                  • marty mars …
                    15 October 2017 at 1:46 pm

                    The story may not be true so we should all withhold judgments until that is known imo. Hence my initial comment with the ‘if’ in it.

                    • The Chairman …
                      15 October 2017 at 1:59 pm

                      Surely, Shaw would have shut the story down if it wasn’t true.

                      All he had to say was he doesn’t respond to fake news.

                      Alas, Shaw refused to confirm or deny, which, I’m afraid, speaks volumes.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:19 pm

                      No it doesn’t – you are going off without knowing as you did about the ‘plan’. My advice is to wait until you get a fact before abusing the greens or declaring they shudda this or that. There is no need to pile on unless you have some agenda – do you?

                    • The Chairman …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:26 pm

                      Of course it does, Marty.

                      It tells us it is either true or Shaw is incompetent.

                      As in, he’s a political party leader that can’t shutdown a potentially fake (and also damaging) news story when asked for comment. Which, I just showed how easy it would have been for him to do.

                      But I see you’d rather make this about me again, Marty.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:51 pm

                      There are more than 2 scenarios imo. You seem to get something from putting a dualistic worse case scenario on things, not sure why but I oppose that sort of thinking.

                      Happy to be wrong – why not give me two benign interpretations, from a left perspective, about the issue.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:56 pm

                      As in, he’s a political party leader that can’t shutdown a potentially fake (and also damaging) news story when asked for comment.

                      Shaw is in the position of not being able to say anything because of the ongoing negotiations. It’s a pity that they’re secret but that’s traditional and it won’t be changed just yet.

                      To be honest, this stinks of something done to damage the Greens.

                    • The Chairman …
                      15 October 2017 at 2:57 pm

                      I am from the left and that is my perspective. I tell it the way I see it

                      What other scenarios do you see?

                    • The Chairman …
                      15 October 2017 at 3:01 pm

                      Rubbish, Draco.

                      I provided an example of how Shaw could have easily shut this story down if it was untrue, without impacting upon his negotiations obligations.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 October 2017 at 4:14 pm

                      I provided an example of how Shaw could have easily shut this story down if it was untrue, without impacting upon his negotiations obligations.

                      No, you provided an example of what you think Shaw should have said and then extrapolated what he actually said in the worst possible terms.

                • KJT …
                  15 October 2017 at 2:29 pm

                  Having worked on a trawler. And seen the destruction through the trawl cams, there is nothing sustainable about industrial fishing.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                15 October 2017 at 2:51 pm

                Marty is right there. The sanctuary around the Kermadecs is essential but we need to decrease the fishing that we, and the rest of the world, do as well. We also need to seriously improve fishing practices so they’re not as destructive.

                • CoroDale …
                  15 October 2017 at 3:23 pm

                  UN plan to stop their deep see mining in the region, if reading between the lines was accurate. They will have to move the fleet to the next hot spot, to pay off the investment.

            • greywarshark 4.2.2.2.1.2
              15 October 2017 at 1:00 pm

              I’ve stopped eating canned tuna. I thought it was time to give up this item as a species under pressure. In about 1995 the stocks were much smaller than the previous proliferation. Now?

    • Karen 4.3
      15 October 2017 at 12:30 pm

      I don’t believe this story. There is absolutely no chance that Labour would agree to override Māori legal rights again – it took a while but the S & F lesson has been well and truly learnt.

      To me, this looks like a story made up by a Nat supporting dirty politics operative and leaked to a gullible journalist in order to undermine Labour and the Greens.

      • The Chairman 4.3.1
        15 October 2017 at 12:39 pm

        If that was the case, surely Shaw would have shut the story down.

        I think the leak came from Labour.

        • weka 4.3.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 2:39 pm

          It must be hard not knowing which party to have a go at. When in doubt default to Labour.

          • The Chairman 4.3.1.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 3:08 pm

            No.

            Unfortunately, parties provide me with more than enough. And as usual, it’s the messenger that cops the flack from the party faithful.

            • weka 4.3.1.1.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 4:32 pm

              No, as usual it’s your need to always pull things down that is coping flak.

              • The Chairman …
                15 October 2017 at 4:41 pm

                I’m not putting the action into play, merely commenting on what I see.

                Therefore, if you feel things are being pulled down, perhaps you should look a little further afield than merely looking at the messenger.

          • The Chairman 4.3.1.1.2
            15 October 2017 at 3:23 pm

            As for the leak

            Logic would suggest a Maori (within the coalition talks between Labour and the Greens) opposed to this, leaked it.

            • marty mars 4.3.1.1.2.1
              15 October 2017 at 3:40 pm

              WTF – you are simply speculating from a bias basis – your logic has been shown to be flawed many times, even by me a couple of times today but still you persist. You are a sad little prick imo.

              • The Chairman …
                15 October 2017 at 4:02 pm

                You haven’t shown my logic to be flawed, Marty. That was merely your opinion you were spouting.

                I see you are reverting back to hurling the abuse, Marty.

                Have fun with that.

                • marty mars …
                  15 October 2017 at 4:17 pm

                  I just can’t stand bullys like you. Po faced pretenders who use anyone to score paltry points while exhibiting ignorance and nasty bile. No wonder you are ridiculed.

                  Edit. You add no value to the debate. I’m fact your contributions stifle debate and it all becomes about you. Yet sly little creature that you are, you have learned to slide within the rules of this site.

                • weka …
                  15 October 2017 at 4:33 pm

                  “You haven’t shown my logic to be flawed,”

                  That’s because it’s not logic, it’s making shit up.

                  • The Chairman …
                    15 October 2017 at 4:46 pm

                    You don’t think it is logical for a Maori involved in the talks and opposed to this to have been the one to have leaked this?

                    If this story isn’t true, I wasn’t the one that made it up. Again, you need to look further afield and direct you shit there.

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 5:31 pm

                      I’m not really interested in a game of what if. Trevett is untrustworthy, and you are the one pushing out some theories based in her rumourmongering.

                    • In Vino …
                      15 October 2017 at 9:45 pm

                      +1 marty and weka. Chairman persistently concern trolls, often appearing for some time to be really left. But he always ends up selling wet blankets (hat-tip to Robert Guyton).

                    • greywarshark …
                      15 October 2017 at 9:54 pm

                      In Vino at 9.45pm
                      Your point that Chairman changes in approach, concern troll and then goes quite RW confirms something that has puzzled me.
                      Thanks.

        • Sacha 4.3.1.2
          15 October 2017 at 3:30 pm

          “If that was the case, surely Shaw would have shut the story down.”

          Either confirming or denying an allegation is still a comment on the negotiations.

          • The Chairman 4.3.1.2.1
            15 October 2017 at 4:06 pm

            All he had to say was he doesn’t respond to fake news. Boom! The story would have been shutdown, without impacting upon his negotiations obligations.

            • Sacha 4.3.1.2.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 6:41 pm

              You may be underestimating the desperation of the newsmongers involved for a story, any story.

      • John up North 4.3.2
        15 October 2017 at 12:55 pm

        WHAT!! are you saying Claire Trevett just kind of makes shit up and it just kind of gets printed in the granny????? Nah, you gotta be joking.

      • marty mars 4.3.3
        15 October 2017 at 2:23 pm

        I agree Karen but I just can’t see the point of that other than trying to destabilise the ship before it has sailed. Mind you with the rabid gnats and their dire supporters and their vitriolic anti green everything nothing would surprise me tbh.

      • CoroDale 4.3.4
        15 October 2017 at 5:42 pm

        I want to see a re-vote. Maori Party should confirm they support a change of govt, and the Greens could stand in the Maori Electorates and split the votes.

    • CoroDale 4.4
      15 October 2017 at 1:57 pm

      Yeah, there are other points too, equally solid as reasons for the GP to stay in an opposition VS. re-vote position. Would be the end of the gnat party if they got back, in for a fourth term, in crisis. They have no answers. Re-vote is a good vote 🙂 the next election would tip back GP NZ1st, they could negotiation the next.

  5. cleangreen 5
    15 October 2017 at 8:41 am

    Here! here! Patricia,

    I wonder why a newspaper (rag) thinks it has more skin in the game than political scientists and those academics who presented the case on RNZ today???

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018617899

    Media is far to self serving and full of their own self worth than is good for us all.

    Butt out Stuff!!!!!!!!!

    Let Democracy reign finally!!!

  6. Ed 6
    15 October 2017 at 8:45 am

    DdPa has a go at Peters…….
    ‘Instead, we got a grumpy grandad performance that sounded something like “I don’t need to explain myself to you’

    and Shaw and Arden.
    ‘There are two other people who also deserve a good telling off for this situation: Labour leader Jacinda Ardern and Greens leader James Shaw. It doesn’t help to have those two fawningly making excuses for Peters.’

    No criticism of English or Bennett.

    Such a predictable Tory.
    dPA is such a propagandist for the National Party

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11933022

  7. joe90 7
    15 October 2017 at 8:53 am

    … and there were gnats on man and beast….and tropical storms making landfall in Ireland….

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/graphics_at2.shtml?cone#contents

  8. Once was Tim 8
    15 October 2017 at 8:55 am

    Well said Alison Mau:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/97775351/when-my-tormentor-died-i-didnt-feel-a-thing

    Let’s not pretend it’s limited to the Media ‘industry’ or to sexual harassment.

    Some think they have a Divine Right to pull pony tails, others simply to control others in any pathetic, cowardly way they can think of because of the power they perceive they have

    • Carolyn_nth 8.1
      15 October 2017 at 9:35 am

      Yes. And women everywhere have always warned each other about known (usually older male) predators, and kept it on the quiet, for good reasons as Mau states.

      In the course of doing some research, I’ve had a couple of women, off the record, make such claims about a guy who was a bit of a respected name in local politics in his time. These women are of different ages, and volunteered similar claims independently, without any prompting from me.

      But, going public also risks getting slammed with a defamation suit, if a person doesn’t have clear evidence. Also, in the above case, at least one of the women is a friend or acquaintance to relatives of the guy who was subject of the allegations. It’d be tough on the guy’s family to go public.

      And so, in most cases, the predator, and abuser of power is known to many. It is whispered about in private. But people rarely coming forward to blow the whistle publicly.

      • Once was Tim 8.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 12:05 pm

        Sounds like we must mix in similar circles @C_n. That local politics example you mention echoes loud in my mind – but then it’s occurring everywhere, so probably not the same example.
        You can bet you friend would be subjected to the arsehole throwing everything at it (and making out the victim).
        Occasionally though there are ‘wins’: Harvey, and in NZ – one Master of the Universe only just got out of clink whilst his ‘squeeze’ passed into the next life not long ago.

      • RedLogix 8.1.2
        15 October 2017 at 1:43 pm

        What makes anyone think these bullies and predators are all males, and confine themselves to just female victims?

        • Bill 8.1.2.1
          15 October 2017 at 2:09 pm

          If power and privilege “encourages” a sense of entitlement and even a sense of immunity, then it’s reasonable to assume that most people in that position are men given the systemic bias at play in various cultures.

          But I don’t think, bar a few spiteful individuals, that people’d generally limit accusations of abuse to men, or heterosexual men, or maintain that all victims are women.

          That said, media coverage isn’t at all interested in examining power and how it might encourage abuse. Media’s far more interested in “bad apples” and “sensation” and “crusades”.

          And some people might just buy into a kind of simplistic and somewhat narrow narrative because it plays to their own prejudice and/or understanding of the world…I guess.

          • marty mars 8.1.2.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 2:26 pm

            Good points Bill.

          • tracey 8.1.2.1.2
            15 October 2017 at 2:50 pm

            And remember the pony tail pulling? Pretty much a nothing to see here response from half the population cos they liked the puller

          • RedLogix 8.1.2.1.3
            15 October 2017 at 4:04 pm

            But I don’t think, bar a few spiteful individuals, that people’d generally limit accusations of abuse to men, or heterosexual men, or maintain that all victims are women.

            That’s good. So why then is any attempt to expand the framework beyond this immediately shouted down as ‘derailing’?

            • marty mars 8.1.2.1.3.1
              15 October 2017 at 4:32 pm

              Why do you want to expand it when others don’t? That reflection may offer some clues to your question.

              Maybe the guest post could work – you have already disclosed some of your personal historic situation so it may help.

              • RedLogix …
                15 October 2017 at 5:14 pm

                Why do you want to expand it when others don’t?

                I can’t really speak to why others feel the topic must be confined to Harvey Weinstein (ie powerful males abusing powerless females) … but I have explained why I believe it more helpful to expand the framework to a gender neutral basis.

                First of all what is happening now is inherently confrontational. 95% of men are reading about Weinstein, (or Crosby, or Savile) and feel incredibly conflicted about it. Part of them is repulsed and repudiates what these men have done; part of them feels deeply complicit because they too are men.

                Nor does any person, male or female, make their path through life without making some mistakes. We have all made missteps we regret; sometimes we struggle to forgive ourselves. But the vast majority of people learn from these experiences and never repeat them. But lingering guilt is a powerful silencer.

                And keep in mind that the vast majority of men also experience powerlessness, abuse and exploitation in their own lives, but are made to feel invisible in this framework. We all experience people in positions of power misusing that power in one form or another. And the older you get the more you realise there are many forms of power than can be abused, both overtly and covertly.

                Really there is nothing more wonderful and inspiring than reading and watching these women speak of their experiences and confronting their abusers on their own terms. But it takes courage and support to get through it. Men are no different.

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  15 October 2017 at 5:38 pm

                  You are taking the original topic, and trying to turn it in a different direction.

                  There are gendered patterns of abuse of the less powerful by those with more institutional or political power.

                  The one initiated re-Weinstein is to do with sexually predatory, scary and abusive behaviour of younger women by older men with more power.

                  Yes there have been changes in gender-related power in recent times, with some women behaving in that way – although the ways of doing it differ somewhat.

                  However, the evidence, and experience of most women when young, is that it tends to be a male on (young) female thing, so that young women learn to protect themselves from it – some research shows many young women just accept it as part of life: saying that’s the way men are.

                  The examples of abuse by women in positions of power that I am aware of, are less likely to be of a sexual predator type. (Though, of course it does happen sometimes – as does predatory sexual abuse by older men of younger men)

                  The NZ political abuses of power I’m aware of are the likes of Bennett abusing women on benefits who criticised her; Judith Collins in Dirty Politics allegations; ditto Katherine Rich and paid hits via WO, etc.

                  I am very critical of the latter kinds of abuse of power when I hear about it.

                  But that is not the topic here.

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 October 2017 at 5:51 pm

                    You are taking the original topic, and trying to turn it in a different direction

                    Sorry but that’s flat out wrong insinuation. Find three quotes where I have said anything that changes the topic from the misuse of power and predatory behaviour in any or all of it’s forms.

                    But from where I’m sitting it feels very much like you want to only allow a discussion about ‘cyclones’ (terrible and destructive as they are) and yet silence any mention of ‘climate change’ as an underlying common cause.

                    If it’s really important that women monopolise this conversation, that the only narrative allowed is the one that women approve of … then just say so. It would stop us going around in circles and I’ll go back to saying nothing as usual.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:33 pm

                      Women aren’t monopolising the discussion at all. I’m a man and I value women’s voices and experience on this topic. Don’t speak for all men because you don’t, far from it. You’d do better to listen because you might actually learn something and it also may help your guest post on the subject if you decide to write it.

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:38 pm

                      I think women’s voices should be amplified at the moment. And yes, if on the basis of that if you want to step back again, that would be good.

                • marty mars …
                  15 October 2017 at 5:45 pm

                  The topic was a woman recounting her experiences. That actually can be discussed without expanding.

                  Your description of what men think is subjective. I don’t think like you think I think and id personally prefer you to just speak for yourself.

                  The topic isn’t about mistakes or regrets so irrelevant imo.

                  The way some men feel within patriarchy is not related to the topic – but feel free to write a post about it – I’d read it.

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 October 2017 at 5:52 pm

                    The way some men feel within patriarchy is not related to the topic

                    Really? How men feel about this is ‘not related’? No wonder most of us just STFU.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 5:57 pm

                      Yes really, stop being a one note song – write the guest post you might get the debate you’re so anxious for.

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:12 pm

                      I thought you were stopping this thread? Or did you mean we let you have the last word?

                      [RL: The thread mentioned was specifically under my reply to Tim where you butted in and promptly muddled the conversation. However I see you’ve decided to have another snark at me. It looks harmless enough on the surface, but what you are doing is how women like to hide their own forms of abuse. Just saying.]

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:12 pm

                      100+ marty mars

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:38 pm

                      @marty

                      I’ve explained why I’ve never written a post on this at 6:28

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:07 pm

                      And using your moderator power to silence me is what??? Having to have the last word is what?

                      I find it deeply offensive that you are now framing me as an abuser.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:16 pm

                      @tracey

                      Nope. If I was moderating you would have noticed by now. It was just a simple way of replying in a now complex thread.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:43 pm

                      Mate it was a display of power imo and it got the point across really well.

                      Anyway I’m going to butt out now before I get banned ☺

            • Bill 8.1.2.1.3.2
              15 October 2017 at 5:52 pm

              Maybe because the actual examples that have made headlines involve a man predating on women (and that it’s a sadly commonplace thing)?

              And maybe because there is a habit by some to use an expansive discussion as ‘cover’ for diminishing the seriousness of the specific examples that have come to light, and/or of diminishing the more general concern of men being predatory towards women?

              In short, I’d say that timing is everything.

              I definitely wouldn’t try to expand the conversation out beyond whats’isface right now on any public forum. But maybe that’s just me.

              • RedLogix …
                15 October 2017 at 5:54 pm

                From experience it seems the ‘time is never right’. But that may just be me.

                • tracey …
                  15 October 2017 at 6:13 pm

                  Can you link me to your past guest post on the topic on women abusing men? TIA.

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

                    Whenever I mention this in comments it gets such a hostile reception from a certain group of regulars that I’ve always felt it best not to.

                    Nor would I ever frame such a post purely in terms of “women abusing men”, simply mirroring the same gender confrontational discourse I’m objecting to.

                    I will add this. Years back when I first ventured my thoughts on this I was met with blunt and brutal denial. I was told no such thing ever happened, or if it did it was extremely rare. Well in recent years it’s become plain that such a position is completely untenable. While the forms of abuse perpetrated by both genders are differently organised, the basic components are pretty much the same. And occur at broadly similar rates.

                    And while the world is plainly ready to hear what female victims have to say, it really struggles to hear male victims. Even just writing that phrase has an underlying shame to it.

                    But just to be emphatically clear on this; in no sense am I privileging one gender as victim over the other. I really don’t care what genitals you have, if you’ve been used, manipulated and exploited by a serial predator … the sense of violation and helplessness is the same.

                    Honestly I struggle to see why this is such an offensive concept.

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:36 pm

                      I’ve been around people doing anti-violence work my whole adult life, and there’s always been discussion about violence against men.

                      “Honestly I struggle to see why this is such an offensive concept.”

                      yes. I would say that is the core of the problem.

                      As long as there are men who try and present violence as not gendered, or try to minimise women’s politics around violence, the conversations will go like this one.

                      Eg

                      “And occur at broadly similar rates.”

                      No, they don’t. Women are sexually assaulted at far higher rates than men.

                      This is why there is so much push back against your position.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:56 pm

                      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/breaking-wall-secrecy-sexual-abuse-men-women

                      Women are sexually assaulted at far higher rates than men.

                      As I’ve said above, the organisation and details of gendered abuse is different (it would very surprising if they were not), but the underlying components are the same. As is the emotional impact of unresolved trauma regardless of it’s cause, regardless of gender.

                      As a comparison, while we know that men are injured and die at much higher rates in industrial accidents than women; no-one would dream of framing a work safety program in male terms only.

                      There is also the still contentious debate around definitions of sexual assault, reporting rates and the responses police, courts and wider society have towards male victims. While it’s absolutely true that sexual assault is a generally under-reported crime, it’s highly likely that male victims are drastically under-reported.

                      But really that should be a topic for a better organised discussion than this one. Again emphatically I’m not attempting to privilege one gender over another here; just arguing that a gender neutral approach (while cognizant of gender differences) is more likely to; one, get us closer to the common root causes of human behaviour, and two, be far more likely to constructively engage the vast majority of men who still feel silenced and shamed by this whole topic.

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:09 pm

                      We are not talking about you raising it in comments ( and every time I have seen you do this it is to hijack a discussion of male abuse of men) but writing it as a guest post.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:17 pm

                      @red I ask again that you stop generalising to all men and supposing you speak or your attitudes speak for all men. I say again you DO NOT speak for me.

                    • greywarshark …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:45 pm

                      RL
                      I don’t know why you keep on arguing with women about women’s concerns and keep thinking you are going to be able to explain yourself and be understood in the way you want. It’s head-banging brick wall time. I thought you were too mature and intelligent for this. You spend a lot of time and don’t seem to win.
                      Do you go and stir up beehives with a stick? The bees don’t appreciate it and come out angry and likely to sting. Analogy is fair I think.

                    • Anne …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:14 pm

                      Hi Redlogix @ 6:28pm
                      I remember your attempt here a couple of years ago where you tried to point out that women are not the only victims of abuse and that women can also sometimes be the abusers. You even described your own experiences which I recall were pretty horrific. It seemed on that occasion no-one understood what you were trying to say and some of the verbal abuse you received was deplorable.

                      I know from personal experience the depth to which some women will go to in their attempt to totally destroy another person and it can be a terrifying ordeal. What is worse, because female abusers are not nearly as prevalent as male abusers (and they are often brilliant in covering their tracks), the victim can end up being re-abused by other individuals because the perpetrator has succeeded in convincing people they are the victim.

                      I was on the receiving end of sexual harassment in the workplace (which thankfully did not include rape) but my experiences at the hands of a woman who I had for years regarded as a friend was infinitely worse. The ‘abusive behaviour’ continued on and off for years and because they were always conducted in a clandestine manner, it took me years more to discover the identity of the culprit. I then went through a further few years suffering PTSD as a result of what she did to me. My recollection is you suffered a similar fate.

                      It is not wrong to point out the other side of the coin and it does not in any way detract from the women/children who have suffered sexual and other abuses sometimes over a period of years. If I was to nominate the NZ woman whom I most admired it would be Louise Nicholas. I put her on the same pedestal as Kate Shepherd and – like Kate Shepherd – she will go down in history as one of our most courageous women. I’m sure Louise Nicholas would understand what you are saying and she would applaud you for having the guts to stand up and say it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:20 pm

                      @gw

                      I guess it adds up over time, but really I’ve been silent on this for at least the past year. And it certainly no-one could sanely suggest this is the only ‘one-note’ topic I ever comment on.

                      Still you are probably right. Not timely; probably won’t be for some time yet.

                      @Anne

                      Much appreciated. This kind of debate is bruising, regardless of what others think.

                      At the same time I still want to extend my deepest respect and regards to everyone participating, whether we have agreed, snarked or not.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 October 2017 at 9:21 pm

                      Way late to a conversation that frankly appalls me.

                      I second Marty’s comment at 7:17 – RL doesn’t speak for me, either.

                      I also suggest that maybe the moderators look at a general policy of not using their moderating powers (including editing responses to other people’s comments in bold type) in a thread that’s particularly close to their heart. That might help minimise the mixing of official functions and personal impulses that, funnily enough, is also frequently the shield for so much of the sexual harrassment and coercion of the sort that Weinstein and so many others have done.

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 9:38 pm

                      Thanks McFlock.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 9:49 pm

                      @Mc Flock

                      I note that you carefully make yourself a ‘small target’ by not actually saying what ‘appalls’ you, instead you indulge in the emotive attack shorn of any useful content.

                      If you have a problem with my argument, feel free to explain why, but personal attacks in a thread that as you say is ‘close to people’s hearts’ is just not helpful.

                      Below I did make this moderator comment to tracey and the intent pretty much applies to you as well:

                      [RL: In over a decade as moderator here I have never, ever moderated a person I was having a conversation with. Yet other authors/editors here have on numerous occasions in the past done exactly this with scarcely a murmur from most people. They usually frame it as ‘attack on an author’.

                      However you have now twice accused me of just this. Yet I have mentioned no ban, no specific warning, nor any hint at any of the usual moderation actions. I conclude you are being quite selective in your objections here.

                      So I will make this very, very specific. You are entirely free to contribute to this thread to your heart’s content, subject to the usual rules. But if you accuse me once again of using moderation to bullying you into silence I will ban you for a whole year. Please reply below to indicate you have understood.]

                      And at no point did I ever claim to be speaking for all men. That would ridiculous; no-one can because we all hold to different values and ideas. Equally though, it would be hard to claim that I’m speaking for no men at all.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 October 2017 at 10:45 pm

                      RL, what I found especially appalling, since you ask, was when you found “a simple way of replying in a now complex thread”. That way was a method only available to you in your role as a moderator, specifically editing another commenter’s comment in bold.

                      That’s exactly the sort of thing I meant by “using their moderating powers”. It’s the mixing of the official and the personal that makes people unsure whether one is issuing orders or merely making an observation as an equal. Will you respond to this comment with further discussion? Or will you just ban me for an entire year? I honestly do not know. I’m not even sure how I’d go about appealing that ban, or to whom. This is an odd situation to be in.

                      I’m also generally appalled as to how quickly, and thoroughly, the topic moved from a pretty darn good article by Alison Mau into whatever the hell this is all about.

                      edit: you might speak for some men. I just wanted to be clear that you don’t speak for me.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 11:07 pm

                      @ McFlock

                      If you want to understand the exact sequence look here at 6:04pm:

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15102017/#comment-1400550

                      This is where in a normal comment I politely and even-handedly asked tracey to terminate that particular thread because we were talking at cross-purposes.

                      Her response was a snarky ‘sure if it will shut you up’, and then later here at 6:12pm her claims that I’ve agreed to be silenced completely:

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15102017/#comment-1400555

                      As you correctly note, it was a complex and fast moving thread with multiple commenters all making multiple replies, and simply in order to make sure my response to tracey was clear and obvious I made a bold edit to her comments; which is something moderators have done in the past from time to time. There is plenty of precedent. Up to that point I made NO hint or suggestion of any moderation action.

                      However when tracey completely misrepresents this as ‘misusing moderation to bully her into silence’ she steps right over my personal boundary. (Which incidentally you are doing as well McF) She did this twice before I responded clearly and firmly with a warning which I copied above in italics. To which she did not deign to reply despite a clear request to do so.

                      Normally a lack of response in this circumstance would earn an automatic ban. All standard procedure.

                      Moderators usually don’t explain their actions in this detail; in my experience it usually just provokes more quibbling, more time-wasting and ultimately someone finishes up copping a ban anyway. There is every reason to respectfully finish this conversation here.

                      I just wanted to be clear that you don’t speak for me.

                      I would have thought that blindingly obvious.

                      Incidentally I found this an intelligent read:

                      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women

                    • McFlock …
                      15 October 2017 at 11:35 pm

                      The thing is that when you used a moderator privilege (editing another person’s comment) to make your position clear, you muddied the waters as to whether you were simply adding a further comment in the discussion, or whether you were in fact “moderating”.

                      One thing that is clear to me from going over the thread is that almost everyone is passionate about the issues they take from this thread, and feeling they’re not being heard.

                      Then on top of that it’s safest to read boldface as coming from a moderator, in case one misinterprets just how strongly a moderator is calling for a change in discussion. Hell, if I’m scrolling through random threads and see bold, I stop just to see who’s in the shit.

                      So while you might have intended something as a comment, ordinary readers are conditioned to see it as a moderation instruction.

                      This isn’t a dig at you by any means. It actually surprises me that asymmetric power issues seem to have come up here in such a textbook fashion.

                • weka …
                  15 October 2017 at 6:31 pm

                  I’ve yet to see a conversation about violence against men on TS that didn’t start in a conversation about violence against women and didn’t head fairly quickly in the direction of MRA politics or portrayasl of violence as not being gendered. Not that I’ve seen all the conversations on TS but I’ve seen a fair few of the ones about violence, and there’s definitely a pattern there.

                  Talking about violence against men in a conversation about violence about women requires certain approaches, understandings and politics, if it’s not going to be a derail or minimisation of women and their politics. I’m not seeing that here.

                  • tracey …
                    15 October 2017 at 7:11 pm

                    This. I brook no abuse of any kind. Physical , sexual or power. By men or women. Above, RL is, in a less than subtle way, calling me an abuser.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:29 pm

                      And your “+100” to marty was not an example of an ever so subtle snark at me? As I said, it’s how women like to frame their power, in subtle, deniable attacks. Don’t try and tell me otherwise.

                      And you can climb down off the victim horse here. You are an adult and you understand the difference between behaviour that is ‘abusive’ and someone who is an ‘abuser’. We all have a range of behaviours and motives; it’s only when someone persistently centers themselves in abusive behaviour that they can be fairly labelled ‘abuser’.

                      For instance, there can be scarcely an adult man or woman alive who hasn’t at some time been at least a little sexually manipulative, coercive or exploitative at some time. But that doesn’t automatically make us all abusers. It just makes us complex, human, and fallible. Most of us just pick ourselves up, learn a hard lesson or two and try not to repeat.

                      Abusers learn a different, darker lesson.

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:39 pm

                      You are right RL, this has always been all about you.

                      I surrender. You win.

                    • marty mars …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:40 pm

                      Wow red your comment is inaccurate and insulting imo. Sad, really sad.

                      Not sure why you want to go down these roads – that maybe worth contemplating i’d say.

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:46 pm

                      I haven’t seen any abuse from you tracey. I’ve just reviewed all your comments in this thread and I can see nothing abusive there. Even the snark is just snark, pretty tame by TS standards.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:12 pm

                      That’s the point weka. Women do snark in a different way to men; overtly it’s very tame, but the intent and effect is there all the same.

                      And it’s often very deniable.

                      I really only stray into this because it’s an example of how each gender wields power in different ways, and how each experiences it differently.

                      And is why the male experience of powerlessness is different to the female one. It’s organised differently and has different aspects … but the underlying components are the same. To risk a comparison; both genders have the same genital tissue for some six weeks after conception, and then the same basic components develop quite differently after that. But even as adults, each part of our genitals still has an exact homolog in each gender. They look and function differently, but they’re still essentially the same thing.

                      Or another example; the male experience of forced redundancy often has a traumatic emotional impact similar to the female experience of sexual assault. It’s not rare at all for men to suicide in the days or months afterwards.

                      Obviously a redundancy and a rape are not the same things; but in general men are more likely to be traumatised by a redundancy than women. Just as the female experience of sexual assault is more likely to be experienced as a deep violation of self. (This isn’t a binary distinction, just a broad generalisation that illustrates how each gender is different.)

                      But in each case it doesn’t help if one gender says “Get over it, it was just a root” or the other says “Harden up, get a job or me and the kids are off”. Both offensively deny and erase the trauma. The context is different, but the pain and grief is the same.

                      Which is why I have to deal with abuse and trauma from non-gendered perspective; for me it opens and broadens the debate in a way I find quite optimistic and potentially constructive. But that may just be me. (Not speaking for marty of course.)

                    • weka …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:17 pm

                      If you have a problem with snark you’re on the wrong site.

                      I haven’t read the rest of your comment because I’m not interested. Until there is respect here for women to talk about violence against women without those conversations being derailed there is little point.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 October 2017 at 8:35 pm

                      @weka

                      And that is an example of contempt; tame and deniable enough, but real all the same. If you had been motivated to constructively close or converge this conversation there were a dozen other things you could have said.

                      But you chose that instead.

                      Still if you think to provoke me into replying in kind, you are not on a winner here. Of course women have every right to express themselves loudly and clearly about their experience of sexual predators, but clearly any other aspect of the conversation that is not on your terms is going to be labelled ‘derailing’ or ‘MRA politics’. That’s your prerogative, and I’m under no illusion I will persuade you otherwise.

                      But at no point am I going to treat your perspective with contempt.

        • Carolyn_nth 8.1.2.2
          15 October 2017 at 2:17 pm

          In the historical times, which I commented on above, the people in positions of power, and who abused that power as sexual predators, were most often men.

          It is about the abuse of political and institutional power. And with more women having some political and institutional power these days, then I would think maybe some women would be guilty of abuse, too.

          But I don’t think it happens as much as the abuse by powerful men – it’s still a masculine-dominated world.

        • tracey 8.1.2.3
          15 October 2017 at 2:53 pm

          Because Mau is writing about her experience and it was of males. Now if you wantvto write about your experiences with women abusers please do so, in a guest post but do not use NOT ALL MEN to derail a post about a womans experience of male abuse. We have this exchange every single time. It is not about silencing you but getting you to see if you want to focus on men being abused by women, do it seperately and not to shut down or divert from this issue.

          satirical tweet by Shafiqah Hudson in February 2013: “ME: Men and boys are socially instructed to not listen to us. They are taught to interrupt us when we- RANDOM MAN: Excuse me. Not ALL men.”

          And the famous

          http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

          • RedLogix 8.1.2.3.2
            15 October 2017 at 3:57 pm

            It is not about silencing you but getting you to see if you want to focus on men being abused by women,

            Now where did I say that? Right now every other op-ed on the planet is telling us about males abusing females; and no other voices or experiences are welcome at the moment. That much is plain. Still reality will remain stubbornly more complex than this.

            David Lisak’s research indicates that only 5% of men perpetrate the overwhelming majority of assaults, which also means that a lot of men have partners who have survived an assault. Yet we almost never mention these cosurvivors, teach them how to support their partners or look after themselves. They’re totally invisible. Not to mention all the other survivors, male and female who are on the outside of this discussion because they don’t fit the narrative either.

            I found these sources interesting:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lisak
            http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original

            Misuse of power, predatory behaviour and abuse of all kinds are emphatically NOT gender specific; understanding root causes is the only way problems are actually progressed. But as long as we are only allowed to talk about this in a specific framework of ‘males abusing females’, something else is happening.

            If we were discussing say the increasing frequency of intense cyclones and someone was to say, “this is part of a larger more complex picture relating to humans burning fossil carbon” … I don’t think anyone would yell “derailing”. Or if they did we’d pretty quickly detect what they were doing.

          • weka 8.1.2.3.3
            15 October 2017 at 5:33 pm

            +2

        • Once was Tim 8.1.2.4
          15 October 2017 at 3:52 pm

          Of course they not, and nobody is saying they are you pratt. You should know of course – those little femmes that align with your ideology are completely in line. Do you have a wife? or a ‘missus’ or a wifey or a her indoors?. I’d not be surprised if you started calling her ‘mum’ as you tend towards your dotage.
          Of course there are Tolleys and Tolleys and sexy-voiced Maggies in shitloads all with the eye on the main chance. ZB and an hour and a quarter of a Mora seem to be their best opportunity to vent.
          @RedL – you’d be interested in the past two days of MSM ‘most popular’ and ‘editor’s picks’ messages to the Whurl:
          That’s why I killed my husband, juxtaposed against another about bromancing.
          Check out the comments too (if they still allow them).

          Then there’s that ‘truck stop gal’.

          • RedLogix 8.1.2.4.1
            15 October 2017 at 4:30 pm

            That’s why I killed my husband,

            My partner (who is quite aware of my participation here) read that story out to me. Interesting how a woman who lied to the police about her actions, and then only went to the police with her version of events years later after the victims family mounted public pressure … was eventually sentenced to just 11 months for manslaughter.

            Reverse the genders in this case and ask yourself what the outcome would likely have been. The pendulum needed to swing but you can’t help but think it might have gone a bit far in this instance.

            • tracey 8.1.2.4.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 4:33 pm

              And yet you only bring it up when someone is highlighting an experience of a woman being abused by a man.

              And so we go round in circles again

              • RedLogix …
                15 October 2017 at 4:47 pm

                I didn’t bring it up … specifically Tim, and quite independently, my partner did. I just relayed pretty much what she said about it.

                Oh and Tim’s misogynist assumptions about my partner are of course offensive, abusive and a misuse of his privileges as a commenter here. But I choose not to respond to them; life is too short for that.

                But as I said above, only female voices relating their experiences as victims of male abuse are welcome at the moment. I get that.

                I’ve made my point above @ 8.1.2.3.2 and really have nothing to add.

                Cheers

                • tracey …
                  15 October 2017 at 5:53 pm

                  ” 15 October 2017 at 4:47 pm

                  I didn’t bring it up … specifically Tim ”
                  Where did Tim first bring up that women abuse men needs highlighting before you did @ 8.1.2

                  You have taken quite the wrong message from this, again.

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 October 2017 at 6:04 pm

                    I was responding to Tim’s mention of this story:

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932661

                    Please end this thread here, it’s no wonder we’re getting wrong messages.

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 6:11 pm

                      If that will stop you continuing, sure. Let’s stop

                      [RL: I asked you to end the thread politely. Getting one last snark in was not part of the deal.]

                      [Belatedly removed the bold that gave undue prominence to what I assume was meant to be a ‘level playing field reply’. I’ve done the same below. And yes. I realise the damage is done and that this action might have further, unfortunate and unintended consequences.] – Bill

                    • tracey …
                      15 October 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      Again, why are you resorting to your power as a moderator to bully me into silence so you can have the last word?

                      [RL: In over a decade as moderator here I have never, ever moderated a person I was having a conversation with. Yet other authors/editors here have on numerous occasions in the past done exactly this with scarcely a murmur from most people. They usually frame it as ‘attack on an author’.

                      However you have now twice accused me of just this. Yet I have mentioned no ban, no specific warning, nor any hint at any of the usual moderation actions. I conclude you are being quite selective in your objections here.

                      So I will make this very, very specific. You are entirely free to contribute to this thread to your heart’s content, subject to the usual rules. But if you accuse me once again of using moderation to bullying you into silence I will ban you for a whole year. Please reply below to indicate you have understood.]

                    • tracey …
                      16 October 2017 at 7:31 am

                      That you think I have no empathy or experience of women bullying men and women or abusing them in other ways shows how blinded you are by your own pain.

                      That you cannot see how using bold, in the manner of moderation, and a power held by few here, mostly men was a form of silencing me shows how blinded you are by your pain.

                      You do not need to ban me to plaster over your pain. I am leaving.

                      Kia kaha Red Logix I hope you find the healing that can take a lifetime.

                    • Bill …
                      16 October 2017 at 12:14 pm

                      Tracey. As also relayed to Carolyn_nth, I genuinely value the contributions you make and would really like your comments and posts to continue. C’est tout.

                    • RedLogix …
                      16 October 2017 at 1:30 pm

                      @tracey

                      Bolding type is a convention to gain attention. While I understand the two are often associated, it does not automatically imply moderation.

                      We were getting our wires crossed and I suggested it would be better to stop that particular thread under Tim’s comment. If you had taken up that suggestion in good faith, then nothing further would have happened.

                      But seeing as you ignored this courteous request, I resorted to bolding an edit to get your attention. Keep in mind I was also busy responding as best I could to several other people at the same time, and the threads do tend to fill up in unpredictable ways with all sorts of interjections that can easily distract from the order of what is being said. It’s a fruitful source of misunderstanding I was trying to avoid.

                      In hindsight it was an unfortunate shortcut.

                      However you’ve chosen to interpret my action in the worst possible manner, accusing me of ‘bullying you into silence’. Well I was not, and that quite simply is how I feel about it. But I realise I have no control over how you feel about it and it is entirely your choice about how you respond.

                      Having said this, I would of course much prefer you reconsider leaving.

                      Regards

        • tracey 8.1.2.5
          15 October 2017 at 4:38 pm

          Please quote where Carolyn said what you suggested… namely that they confine themselves to only male victims or predators are only men?

          This is where you are derailing. Have you a story of a woman in a powerful media position bullying or predating on men? Share it. Write a guest post.

          But you only bring up the reverse when others highlight their experiences of male abuse on women.

          Now had you started the conversation …

    • JanM 8.2
      15 October 2017 at 2:09 pm

      Sadly, it was just something taken for granted in the 60’s/70’s when I was working in the public service. Some senior men (and there really weren’t any senior women back then) felt quite at liberty to treat the young women on their staff with disrespect involving sexual harassment and bullying.
      I don’t think most men fully realise the limits women consistently place on themselves in order to remain safe.

      • Once was Tim 8.2.1
        15 October 2017 at 3:04 pm

        Indeed!
        And now I have a daughter (30/40) years on who’s experienced pretty much the same and who changed departments/ministries a couple of times recently as a result.
        Same shit – different stink as they say. I’m pretty sure the latest move however will improve things.
        It’s not one where it’s Dear Leader is an arsehole who is prepared to bow down to his Munster as far as I know, but of course (and probably as a result), it’s open to pressure in other ways – such as lack of resources, under-funding, etc.
        Under the current junta, there is this culture of whispering – all of which says:
        ‘You be my bitch, or you’ll never work again’.

        I understand what you’re saying about life in the 60/70s (Geeze Wayne – care to comment? – well even Wayne wouldn’t know or care to comprehend), but in my experience the 80’s reforms actually made things worse. From then on, we began to get the true Masters of the Universe and it all became normalised.

  9. North 9
    15 October 2017 at 8:56 am

    Top of the morning Standardistas !

    Just checked a little maternity ward card completed in now faded fountain pen ink which was pressed into my hand by a loving mother a long time ago. Yes……Baby North entered this world at 7.20 pm on 15/10/XXXX. In the then Marsden now Whangarei electorate. Fair to say the momentous event has long since ceased to be marked with the glee and spree of yore. This year it’s different.

    The usually sly-smiled scribbler and Tory brown-tongue, Heather Plastic-Allan, squeeze of scruff Barely Sopher, is FURIOUS !!! Winston. Winston. Winston. Fucking Winston !!! Clutch my matronly pearls. Winston’s 4 days ‘late’ and already …..”Democracy Under Attack” by this demon man !

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11933022

    The (variously) sneering, croaking, know-it-all faux oracles in the Plastic/Barely Sopher household found in some gentrified Auckland slum…… they really should get over themselves. Perhaps a fine-wine tipple at Mikey Hosking’s this arvo will give solace ?

    That said…..thank you Plastic. You’ve ‘sort-of’ made my day.

    • Ed 9.1
      15 October 2017 at 9:00 am

      Her comments about Shaw and Arden contain similar venom.

      ‘There are two other people who also deserve a good telling off for this situation: Labour leader Jacinda Ardern and Greens leader James Shaw. It doesn’t help to have those two fawningly making excuses for Peters.’

      Yet nothing on Bennett and English who have also been ‘making excuses for Peters.’

      ‘Kelvin Davis and Paula Bennett defend Winston Peters after decision delayed’

      http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/10/kelvin-davis-and-paula-bennett-defend-winston-peters-after-decision-delayed.html

      ‘

    • joe90 9.2
      15 October 2017 at 9:02 am

      15/10/XXXX.

      oops

    • Once was Tim 9.3
      15 October 2017 at 9:24 am

      She made my day too – especially considering the state of her ‘squeeze’.

      And right now I’m listening to Mediawatch. I never ceases to amaze me (Duncan Garners, Sean Plonkers et al) how ready THEY are to claim vitimhood when they get themselves in the shit.
      (Sean Plunket pretending a “social experiment” ffs! He’s currently performing verbal acrobatics with Colin Peacock)

      • red-blooded 9.3.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:11 am

        Note that Plunket has changed the wording of his Tweet in his retelling of events – from “Anyone ELSE feeling for Harvey Weinstein?’ to “Anyone OUT THERE feeling for Harvey Weinstein?” He claims people falsely assumed he was feeling for the guy – what other interpretation was possible? I do think Media Watch should have pressed him on this. They also seemed to give Duncan Garner pretty much a free pass on what was a pretty clearly racist line in his piece about our vision for NZ in 20 years time. If he was just worried about overcrowding, there was no need to identify racial groups.

        • Once was Tim 9.3.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 11:38 am

          @r-b: I don’t have Twitter or Facebook or the time or inclination to indulge, so I rely on what was reported.
          But you’ve nailed it (as you often do). Colin P could have nailed him during the discussion on that basis alone.
          I’m reluctant to criticise Colin Peacock OR Jeremy Rose and a few others (Campbell and others pushing uphill at RNZ, and Morrah, Reid, etc.) if only because they’re among the last of the truly analytical journalists we have left.
          I hope to Christ they hang in there and don’t take off to Bob Jazeera

        • tracey 9.3.1.2
          15 October 2017 at 2:59 pm

          And by now Plunkett believes his new version, completely. So his victimhood has sincerity

        • tracey 9.3.1.3
          15 October 2017 at 5:59 pm

          So he is denying this…

          https://thestandard.org.nz/anatomy-of-a-plonker/

          Still a plonker

        • mpledger 9.3.1.4
          15 October 2017 at 8:59 pm

          I think “media watch” was totally taken aback by the re-writing of history.

      • John up North 9.3.2
        15 October 2017 at 1:15 pm

        Yep, listened to this in disgust as the Plonker was given free reign to deflect, spin and generally billshit about the whole episode. Would have helped if Collin had done some homework on the fiasco (Kim Hill would have crucified Plonker) and had hard facts to counter Plonkers spin. No mention of the initial denial of the tweet, then the “social experiment” line being trotted out, Plonker just casually implied he had “quickly” made further tweets outlining his “true” feelings on the HW matter and that he was aksually the viktim of the whole shrill, nasty, pile on mentality that exists on twitter and was taking the hits so that others could be spared!

        What an A#sehole!!

        • Brigid 9.3.2.1
          15 October 2017 at 2:19 pm

          “What an A#sehole!!”
          And plunkett demonstrated that perfectly so I think Colin Peacock let him hang himself rather nicely.

      • tracey 9.3.3
        15 October 2017 at 2:58 pm

        Lots of white men pontificating about how misunderstood they are…

        • Incognito 9.3.3.1
          15 October 2017 at 3:53 pm

          Men need to be better communicators, I reckon. Women generally have better intuition but they are no frigging mind readers (nor minders, for that matter).

    • Psych nurse 9.4
      15 October 2017 at 11:46 am

      Four days late! I’ve a mare four weeks late foaling, now thats more of a worry.

      • tracey 9.4.1
        15 October 2017 at 3:00 pm

        Oh no…. best of luck

      • greywarshark 9.4.2
        15 October 2017 at 7:36 pm

        Good luck with that Psych nurse. Let us know what happens and what you do now. Do you know the exact date of conception? What does the vet usually do? What sort of horse?

    • Patricia Bremner 9.5
      15 October 2017 at 1:02 pm

      Many happy returns North.

      And a pox on rwn journalists

  10. joe90 10
    15 October 2017 at 9:32 am

    The Kakistocracy continues.

    President Donald Trump nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, a fringe player in the climate debate who promotes the idea that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is good for humanity, to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality on Thursday.

    Hartnett White, a senior fellow and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment at the fossil-fuel funded Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), has questioned the scientific consensus that human activities are the major driver of catastrophic climate change. She has described efforts to combat climate change as primarily an attack on the fossil fuel industry.

    […]

    Hartnett-White is “even more extreme” than the other environmental and energy officials appointed by Trump, surpassing even Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, said Goldfuss, who is now vice president of energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed within the Center for American Progress.)

    “Her views are so out of the mainstream, it’s almost as if she falls in kind of a flat earth category,” Goldfuss said. “Her number one task is to rip and throw out the environmental laws that this whole country has come to accept as standards and norms.”

    https://thinkprogress.org/trump-nominates-ceq-head-e02da9396d1a/

    • adam 10.1
      15 October 2017 at 12:30 pm

      Some are so fixated on Trump, they are missing the wreckers he is appointing. It would appear this is another one.

  11. Cinny 11
    15 October 2017 at 9:42 am

    Question please… how are the fuel prices in your town?

    In Motueka the price of diesel is all over the show. These 3 service stations are within around 1.5km of each other

    $1.179 – NPD (nelson petrolum distributors) self serve
    $1.339 – Caltex/Challenge
    $1.349 – Z

    Did judith collins do naught about fuel price disparity in your town/city as well?

    judiths efforts were nothing more than meaningless propaganda in the election lead up,

    • Ad 11.1
      15 October 2017 at 9:58 am

      She was more concerned as she should be when prices are too similar.

    • JC 11.2
      15 October 2017 at 10:10 am

      Taking the heat off the Pipeline maybe…

      By the way Cinny…. know anything about the Wiamea Dam plan?

      “Members of WIN were concerned about a range of issues including the economics of the project and the effect on rates, he said. Dawson himself has long argued there is no need for additional water. There was also concern that due process had not been followed by the council, ”

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/97757910/new-incorporated-society-plans-series-of-public-meetings-on-waimea-dam-plan

      • greywarshark 11.2.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:52 am

        The Waimea Dam – one thing that worries me is that though the developers say that it is intended for horticulture, I don’t know if there is some legal bar that has been signed ensuring that.

        If dairy keeps on returning well in the near future I think that good horticultural land will be tempted to go, be sold to some moneybags from outside. The effect on the cluster of horticultural users, who are considered by local planning for necessary transport and the things that are viable when there is enough volume and expertise in one area, might be undermined or drowned out by the milk rush.

        What do you know Cinny?

      • Robert Guyton 11.2.2
        15 October 2017 at 11:37 am

        From the comments in JC linked story about the Waimea dam:

        “The smelliest part of this proposal is that $7M of taxpayer funded central Govt money has been allocated to this scheme, not from the $450M Irrigation fund but from the Freshwater Improvement Fund, set up to help water bodies and rivers recover from excessive pollution/extraction. How does a dam for irrigation purposes qualify for environmental improvement funding? Is it related to the fund being controlled by the Minister for the Environment (Nick Smith) who just happens to be the MP for Tasman, where the Waimea dam will be located?”

      • Cinny 11.2.3
        15 October 2017 at 4:17 pm

        Hey JC and Grey

        Personally I think the dam is a rort engineered by the old boys club, aided and abeited by nick (hoardings all over vineyards and farms on the waimea plains) smith and assisted by richard (i like john key very much) kempthorne.

        Meeting would be worth checking out if I can make it, thanks for the link JC.

        Kit Mailings interests run deep, so many benefits for him and his friends.

        I would have thought the land on the plains was earmarked for housing in the long term plan.

        Actually am catching up with someone who could shine a bit more light on the whole thing. Will ask them about it, because since you fellas brought it up, it’s had me thinking a bit today and I’ve a few more questions about it as well. Will get back to you on that 😀

        Almost international cup of tea time, better put on the kettle

        • JC 11.2.3.1
          15 October 2017 at 9:22 pm

          Tnks Cinny.

          “a rort engineered by the old boys club, aided and abetted by, … (National).
          Sounds just like Canterbury, and ECAN!

          Although curious to hear that much of the land on the plains is “ear marked” in the plan for housing! Are there”Special Housing Areas” designated there also?

          Have to seriously wonder just where the water will come from then, (given the high nitrates and limited supply!), without a Dam?

          Lets hope then that Damien gets to have more of a say! … and interested to hear more on the goss …

          Almost time for a chamomile! but will go with Lapsang..

        • greywarshark 11.2.3.2
          16 October 2017 at 11:55 am

          I like your idea of international cup of tea time Cinny. Somewhere in the world it always will be, eh!

          Also like your summation of things in the region. Seem to match what I have read and heard. And your succinct descriptions of the state of play, and players. Lol.

          Nick is Head of some Department for giving things cheaply to farmers and tourism and BB (big business). For the farmers its a sort of WINZ agency
          (Water and Irrigation for NZ) brought to you today by your fairy godfather for being good children and giving Nats all your spare pocket money.

          Of course the vineyards need a lot of water too. And are probably all owned by big international conglomerates. Some of the sales to big entities have been beneficial in gaining access to their distribution channels and markets.
          Some will just be a lovely clean way to invest piles of money gained with
          variable business practices.

    • DH 11.3
      15 October 2017 at 10:28 am

      I don’t pay much attention to diesel Cinny but in Auck 91 octane is similarly priced in any particular area. South Auck is often up to 10c litre cheaper than central & north shore but in a localised area they tend to watch each other and keep prices similar.

      I get up north quite often and save up to 15c per litre gassing up in Wellsford rather than at home. They have a Gull self-service there and the other two stations are forced to keep their prices within a few cents of the Gull one. 91 is usually around $1.80 there, in my Auck area it’s currently floating around $1.95

    • tracey 11.4
      15 October 2017 at 3:01 pm

      Can only tell yoj 91 is well north of $2 in chchch

  12. Penny Bright 12
    15 October 2017 at 10:13 am

    This, IMO, is a $1.6 billion Tamaki housing SCAM – which goes to the highest levels of the National Government.

    ‘Open Letter’ to Bill English, Steven Joyce and Nick Smith regarding, IMO, misinformation about Tamaki Regeneration Ltd to which over 2,800 former Housing NZ properties were transferred.

    (13 October 2017)

    As you may be aware, in July 2017, I was invited to, and attended the 2017 World Justice Project International ‘Rule of Law’ Forum, at The Hague.

    There I was known as the ‘NZ Whistle-blower’, and I am now keeping fellow International ‘Rule of Law experts’ from 75 countries updated with these latest developments.

    HISTORICAL DOCUMENT:

    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/auckland%E2%80%99s-t%C4%81maki-housing-transfer-confirmed

    Bill English, Nick Smith
    31 MARCH, 2016

    Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed

    The transfer of ownership of thousands of houses today marks a significant step in regenerating the Tāmaki area and improving the stock of social and affordable housing in Auckland, Ministers Bill English and Dr Nick Smith say.

    The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council.

    “The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.

    “The Government is undertaking a wide range of social housing reforms and the redevelopment of Tāmaki is an example of where we’re working to improve the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders, while increasing new housing developments in Auckland.

    “The Tāmaki regeneration has a social as well as a development focus – this Government is working hard to empower its tenants to be independent where possible, and a safe and secure home environment is the first step towards that.”

    TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme, which will see the delivery of 7500 social, affordable and private homes in the next 10-15 years.

    Building and Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith says all tenants directly affected by redevelopment and still in need of social housing will be able to stay in Tāmaki.

    “All existing tenancy agreements will be transferred from Housing NZ to the Tāmaki Housing Association with no change, and the transfer will not affect their eligibility for social housing assistance.

    “This transfer of ownership and responsibility for tenancy management is about more than just houses – it is about delivering on the vision of the TRC for community-based urban regeneration.

    “TRC has been engaging with the Tāmaki residents over the past three years to understand their housing, social and employment aspirations, and this transfer will help deliver on this huge community redevelopment project,” Dr Smith says.

    ______________________________

    “The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council.”

    1) There is NO SUCH COMPANY as Tamaki Regeneration Company, which is listed on the NZ Companies Office.

    2) There is Tamaki Redevelopment Company Ltd.

    59% Crown and 41% Auckland Council.

    https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3937662/shareholdings

    3) There is Tamaki Regeneration Ltd.

    100% Crown owned.

    https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/5840214/shareholdings

    4) These are two different companies, with:

    – Different shareholders.

    – Different Constitutions

    – Different ‘aims and objectives.’

    4) This 5 minute video where I explain the, IMO, ‘Tamaki Scam’ has now had over 168,000 views on facebook.

    IMO, the essence of the ‘Tamaki Scam’ has been to use similar-sounding names for different companies, in order to disguise the real private property developer-driven GENTRIFICATION’ agenda, as ‘Regeneration’ of poorer communities.

    https://www.facebook.com/penny.bright.104/posts/1796625243683493‬

    5) As the Crown Shareholding Ministers on 31 March 2016, can you Bill English (former Minister of Finance – now NZ Prime Minister) and Nick Smith (Minister of Building and Construction) please explain why you have, IMO, misled the public?

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-privatisation / corruption whistle-blower’.
    …….

    Attendee 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2010 transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2014 G20 Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2015 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2017 Transparency International Australia Anti-Corruption Conference.

    Attendee 2017 World Justice Project International ‘Rule of Law’ Forum – The Hague.

    • The Chairman 12.1
      15 October 2017 at 12:12 pm

      Good work, Penny.

      • In Vino 12.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:12 pm

        Yeah, right.

        • greywarshark 12.1.1.1
          16 October 2017 at 1:13 pm

          Very right Penny – it is a complete let-down from the hype and the beliefs that the promises led to. An attempt at affordable. No chance, just another government led profitable investment opportunity for their favoured compatriots. That is what patriotism is about in NZ.

  14. JC 14
    15 October 2017 at 10:44 am

    Rod Oram notes a growing mood among New Zealand business leaders for any new Government to create a climate commission. Those calling for change include Air New Zealand’s Christopher Luxon and Sir Rob Fenwick…

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/14/53467/open-your-eyes-to-create-a-climate-legacy

  16. cleangreen 16
    15 October 2017 at 11:05 am

    Q+A did a crap job with this political subject today – shame on them.
    Not worth a watch.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a

    Corrin Dann was flying the blue flag wildly and anchor Greg Boyes was pathetic with his loaded “National is right” questions, making the whole presentation become so unbalanced.

    The whole thing was capped off with the blue flag standard bearer Fran O’Sullivan was disgustingly proud to show her ‘bias’ toward the National Party with a solid ‘long served stable policy’.

    We hope Winston’s new Media broadcast policy rids all these national cling-on’s for good later this year, it can’t come soon enough as this is the worst example of MSM I have ever witnessed on public media.

    Even Radio NZ did much better than this.

  17. Penny Bright 17
    15 October 2017 at 11:22 am

    This is, IMO, actually quite a big deal – in terms of NZ’s perceived status as ‘the least corrupt country in the world’?

    (Transparency International’s 2016 ‘Corruption Perception Index’).

    Exposing the, IMO, Tamaki ‘Regeneration’ – GENTRIFICATION SCAM:

    DEVELOPMENTS:

    100% Crown-owned ‘Crown Entity Company’ – Tamaki Regeneration Ltd, with $1.6 billion worth of former Housing is not listed under Sch 4A of the Public Finance Act, or Sch 2 of the Crown Entities Act, or listed as a company monitored by Treasury’s Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit.

    How ‘banana republic’ is THAT?

    I have raised my concerns directly with:

    *The Office of the Auditor-General.

    *The office of the Attorney-General.

    *The office of the Solicitor-General.

    * Treasury (legal).

    * The State Services Commission.

    (My concerns are being addressed by all the above-mentioned.)

    This 5 minute video where I explain the, IMO, ‘Tamaki Scam’ has now had over 169,000 views on facebook.

    IMO, the essence of the ‘Tamaki Scam’ has been to use similar-sounding names for different companies, in order to disguise the real private property developer-driven GENTRIFICATION’ agenda, as ‘Regeneration’ of poorer communities.

    https://www.facebook.com/penny.bright.104/posts/1796625243683493‬

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-privatisation / anti-corruption whistle-blower’.

  18. The Chairman 18
    15 October 2017 at 11:22 am

    Have we on the left let Helen Kelly down?

    On the first anniversary of her passing, I was hoping we’d be unveiling her commemoration statue and boasting how well her work has carried on.

    Unfortunately, we are told her work has fallen to the wayside with work place accidents and deaths increasing. And of course, there is no statue to unveil.

    Shame on us.

    • The Chairman 18.1
      15 October 2017 at 3:18 pm

      Are we going to do better come the second anniversary of her passing?

      It would also be good to see a statue erected. Right outside the Beehive.

    • tracey 18.2
      15 October 2017 at 6:09 pm

      Have you put together a committee to get a statue erected?

      • In Vino 18.2.1
        15 October 2017 at 10:14 pm

        Chairman is too busy pretending to take practical steps like that. Or he could prove me wrong by starting a petition?

  19. mary_a 19
    15 October 2017 at 11:26 am

    @ (8) Once Was Tim … Yep.

    When I first began reading about the abuser of women and pervert Harvey Wienstein, the first thing that came to mind was our very own home grown perverted creep, the serial pony tail tugger and hair stroker (females), using his position of power to abuse, assault and intimidate!

    However, where was the public and media outrage when that was going on in NZ?

    • The Chairman 19.1
      15 October 2017 at 11:30 am

      I was surprised the parents of the children he fondled didn’t lay charges.

    • North 19.2
      15 October 2017 at 5:48 pm

      Forget about “public and media outrage”. That Glucina person set in train further abuse of the victim and Key and his minders connived in that.

    • tracey 19.3
      15 October 2017 at 6:04 pm

      But then a serial sexual harrasser became POTUS…

  21. miravox 21
    15 October 2017 at 12:30 pm

    So Austria decides today.

    It’s not looking good for a generally fair and equitable society. Here’s my take on the state of play.

    • Ad 21.1
      15 October 2017 at 6:35 pm

      Kurz will win easily.

      At age 31, he will be the youngest Austrian leader I can think of.
      He will also be one of the hardest anti-immigration political leaders in Europe outside of Hungary.

      I can’t think of a single continental EU country in which the centre-left are not going backwards. And it’s all fixated on immigration.

      • Incognito 21.1.1
        15 October 2017 at 7:09 pm

        And it’s all fixated on immigration.

        And yet this not the root cause of the problems of the current socio-economic system. Consequently, stopping immigration is not a solution. But it is a good platform on which to get elected and into power …

        • Ad 21.1.1.1
          15 October 2017 at 7:27 pm

          I am sure that “zero-black” budgets from centre-right austerity Finance Ministers are a fair part of the dissatisfaction, but if reversing austerity budgets were sufficient, then centre-left or hard-left governments will all be in place now. Instead they are going backwards, or at very best in just a few cases not attaining power.

          Immigration is specific to the politics across most of them.

          • Incognito 21.1.1.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 8:15 pm

            I think it is more than just “dissatisfaction” and, in fact, bordering on social unrest & unravelling in some countries. Policy measures that look & sound ‘impressive’ are aimed at the usual suspects (scapegoats) such as immigrants and unemployed, with all the negative epitaphs, but they are only damage-control and crisis-management and always avert real socio-economic & political reform. So, we go from crisis to crisis, which is exactly as it is …

            • Ad 21.1.1.1.1.1
              15 October 2017 at 8:50 pm

              Closer to the GFC I would have agreed with you.

              Once the Austrian election is done, I’ll generate a post and contend some patterns to European elections. See if we can make some patterns out. Have an argument.

              • Incognito …
                15 October 2017 at 10:07 pm

                Excellent! Although I prefer to look at/for the bigger picture and commonalities of underlying causes rather than specifics and/or idiosyncrasies – I’m familiar with only one European country – I’ll start my training regime now 😉

        • miravox 21.1.1.2
          15 October 2017 at 8:29 pm

          “And yet this not the root cause of the problems of the current socio-economic system”

          Agree incognito. In Austria’s case, immigrants are needed, if only because the birthrate is low. The last far-right government removed opportunities for integration in communities. This one is about to do the same. The knock-on effects of that will reduce integration in communities.

          As for the economic system – Austrians haven’t felt the full force of the changes we have. The people will now have there first real taste of poorly-targeted tax cuts, deregulation and the likes that have ruined the lives of people in Anglo countries over the past 30 years.

          I’m just hoping that the two big egos involved leads to a coalition that will collapse very quickly.

      • miravox 21.1.2
        15 October 2017 at 7:24 pm

        Yup he’ll win – and more so because of the disaster of a campaign for SPÖ.

        Austria needs electoral reform so people who are non-citizen residents can vote. It’s a far more liberal society than this result is going to suggest.

        • James Thrace 21.1.2.1
          15 October 2017 at 8:54 pm

          There are only five countries where non citizens residents can vote. NZ is one of the five where residents can vote after one year of living here. Far too loose imo.
          Sharing company with such enlightened countries of Malawi, Chile, Ecuador and Uruguay says something about the ability of other western democracies to offer the franchise to people who are likely to put down roots for the long term.

          We need to tighten up the right to vote, not loosen it further! Currently, only citizens can run for public office, ergo, only citizens should be able to vote

          Allowing people the franchise after just one year, without any need to become citizens risks marginalising people who are the most affected by terrible policies.

          • miravox 21.1.2.1.1
            15 October 2017 at 9:22 pm

            I don’t see your ‘ergo’ as a valid one. There is no clear explanation why only citizens can vote because only citizens can run for office.

            I also I didn’t write anything about one year…

            E.g. we’ve lived in Austria for seven years, paid taxes and used services. We have a friend who was a child refugee from Hungary with an Austrian partner and children. She’s lived here for 30 years. Almost 20 percent of Austrians are immigrants or have parents who are immigrants.

            Yet this group has only a very limited say in how the taxes they pay, the services they use and the decisions made for the country on behalf of its population are managed.

            For a country to reflect the people who have made it their home, residents (after some defined period, if you like) need voting rights.

    • DoublePlusGood 21.2
      16 October 2017 at 11:56 am

      Well, Neo-Nazis polling at 26% basically means your country is fucked regardless.

  22. mary_a 22
    15 October 2017 at 12:47 pm

    Where is Blinglish hiding himself these days? Is he still the caretaker PM of a caretaker government? Haven’t seen hide nor hair of him much since the election! Hasn’t said much either. Whereas on the other hand, Jacinda has been keeping the public updated from her perspective.

    Perhaps Bingles has packed up his office already, anticipating Jacinda will be the next PM. I’d say the Natz knives will be out this week all sharpened and shiny, ready for some backstabbing, with Judith ready and willing to make the first plunge.

  23. greywarshark 23
    15 October 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Manawatu has Horizons Council which seems to be so low its below water level as its horizon level.

    12/10/17
    Seventy-four of the 80 swim spots monitored posed a health risk at some point during the summer.
    Health risks could include the presence of faeces orcyanobacteria.

    When entering cyanobacteria-contaminated water, people are at risk of getting diarrhoea, nausea or gastroenteritis, which can lead to liver damage or even death in some cases, a council report says.

    Other sites monitored include the Hokowhitu Lagoon, which despite not having many bathers is swimmable about 20 per cent of the time. About 55 per cent of the time it was unswimmable. There were possible health risks 25 per cent of the time.

    The estuary at Akitio River is the worst spot to swim in as it was unswimmable 67 per cent of last summer.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/97766291/wet-summer-makes-rivers-unswimmable

    • Andre 23.1
      15 October 2017 at 5:26 pm

      The Hokowhitu Lagoon is one of the very few cases where Nick Smith’s claim about waterfowl being the pollution problem actually has any validity. It’s thick with mallard ducks at the best of times and when hunting season starts it can be difficult to actually see any water. I’m astonished it ever makes the grade as swimmable, although that might be a reflection of how full of crap water can be and still be “swimmable”.

  24. greywarshark 24
    15 October 2017 at 2:09 pm

    Good covering of news items – from overseas.
    Caution – this did not happen in NZ but here are all the details for your anxiety.
    14/10/17
    A healthy mum gives birth at a hospital. Days later, flesh-eating bacteria strikes
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/97876733/a-healthy-mum-gives-birth-at-a-hospital-days-later-flesheating-bacteria-strikes

  25. cleangreen 25
    15 October 2017 at 7:41 pm

    Caution From ANZ tonight on TV one.

    The bubble is about to burst finally now, so where is the invincible National Party at now then eh?????

    We will need a labour coalition to get throuigh this.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/starting-smell-bit-like-2007-anz-economist-warns-next-government-global-market?auto=5611013327001

    TV one 15th October 2017.

    ANZ said today; Trouble ahead.

    “A stark warning the global financial market is “starting to smell a bit like 2007” has come from an ANZ Economist who has shed light on what the next government could face.”

    Economist Sharon Zoller gives an insight into the global economy which the next government could face. And it might be bleak.
    Source: Q+A
    Speaking on TVNZ’s Q+A programme this morning, Sharon Zollner said when the next government is briefed on the state of New Zealand’s economy, she acknowledged there are “still plenty of tailwinds” to the so called ‘rock star economy’, but confessed “a number of those tailwinds seem to be running out of puff.”
    Advertisement
    When discussing potential shocks the new government could face, Ms Zollner said, “It’s fair to say that some things are starting to smell a bit like 2007 out there in global financial market land.
    “‘There’s been a bull market in everything,’ as the Economist called it.
    “And that’s completely understandable, because the price of borrowing money has been at record lows for a very long time, and so the price of anything you could borrow money to buy has been pushed up, whether that’s equities, commercial property, residential property, collector cars, fine art – you name it, it has all benefited from this extreme monetary policy stimulus.
    “Just not wages, not inflation.
    “It’s been a bizarre time, but it is probably fair to say that the quality of the growth that we’ve seen since 2008 has not been great. It’s been fuelled by debt and by leverage. And at some point, that debt has to be paid back.”
    Fuelling concern for the future of the New Zealand economy is the Auckland housing market.
    “Our major vulnerability, I’d say, is Auckland house prices – how stretched they are. And also consumer debt, mostly mortgage debt, is now at a record high relative to income.”