Open mike 16/03/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:19 am, March 16th, 2014 - 147 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

147 comments on “Open mike 16/03/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    16 March 2014 at 8:06 am

    ‘

    No Increase in the Age of Super entitlement

    No Cardboard Cathedral

    Or:

    No Deal

    Winston Peters gets it. (and it is the clue to his longevity in politics)

    Winston Peters publicly sets his conditions on coalition. (if only Green Party leaders would do this.)

    While Green Party leaders say they will have “no bottom lines in coalition negotiations”, Winston Peters understands the importance of entering coalition talks with a set of conditions.

    Everyone remembers the iconic Gold Card that Peters wrangled out of Labour as a condition of coalition.

    This time around Peters is demanding that any coalition partner drop any plan to raise the age of superannuation entitlement to 67.

    And bizarrely in a new twist, Winston Peters new demand is that his government partner bail out the Christchurch Cathedral rebuild.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9831041/Peters-backing-fix-for-icon

    Whatever you think of Winston Peters priorities, these things are concrete achievements that Peters can point to and people will remember.

    If the Greens go into formal coalition with Labour without gaining any similar iconic concrete concessions, what will they have achieved?

    Agreeing to be out voted on every single issue raised in cabinet and then shackled by cabinet collective responsibility to agree to silence the opposition in their ranks and publicly back policies they disagree with?

    Without achieving any major concessions from Labour to haul back on the their mine it, drill it, frack it, programme the Green Party will be finished in the eyes of the their supporters as an environmental party.

    And apart from the big salaries and high public profile, if the Greens don’t get any major concessions from Labour in their negotiations for cabinet positions, what could the Green Party cabinet Ministers possibly achieve locked in a cabinet room with the likes of Shane Jones and David Parker browbeating and insulting them and voting them down on every single controversial issue that comes up?

    Why on earth would the Green Party leaders choose the indignity of being forced by the rules of collective cabinet responsibility to have to publicly support majority cabinet decisions on policies that they and their party fundamentally disagree with? When if they weren’t in cabinet, the Green Party caucus would be free to publicly support and champion and lobby for any policy they liked.

    My bet is that at this stage in history the Greens would achieve far more being outside of government than in it.

    Look at the Home Insulation Agreement, for instance, or the campaign for MMP, all achieved by the Green MPs vigorously lobbying and campaigning outside of government.

    The risks of being locked into a Business As Usual, mine it, drill it, frack it, administration opposed to everything the the Greens stand for is obvious. Going on the example of the Alliance under Jim Anderton, such a strategy risks the Green Party, just like the Alliance before them, destroyed as a parliamentary and electoral force.

    Rather than take a page out of the book of Jim Anderton and repeat the experience of the Alliance, the Greens should take a page out of the book of “The great survivor” Winston Peters, and remain to fight again.

    No Deep Sea Oil Drilling.

    No New Coal Mines

    Or:

    No Deal

    • weka 1.1
      16 March 2014 at 8:40 am

      Who will you be party voting for this year Jenny?

      • Jenny 1.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 9:07 am

        Come on weka, you can do better than this.

        • Pasupial 1.1.1.1
          16 March 2014 at 9:49 am

          Jenny

          Weka’s question seems fair to me. If you want to dictate Green election year strategy, but have no intention of supporting us with your party vote, then your motives may be suspect.

          Perhaps better phrased as; what political party other than the Green do you believe has a climate-change policy for which you would rather vote? Winston First??

          Policy in the Green Party is written by those members who have the time and inclination to be involved in that process. You clearly have an interest in stopping new coal mines (as I do in prohibiting deep-sea drilling). Plus you can string words together comprehensibly enough, and obviously have the time to do so. If you want to have a say; why not join up with the party and put your ideas forth where they’re likely to have an affect?

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.1.1
            16 March 2014 at 10:20 am

            just clarifying the parameters here..

            ..so..you cannot comment on the green party with any credibility..unless you are a member/pledging yr vote..?

            ..’cos if neither of the above..your ‘motives are suspect’..?

            ..right ho..!

            ..so..two greens have commented so far..both choosing to not address the questions raised..

            ..but to (passive-aggressively..of course..!..)..attack the author..

            ..once again..

            .right ho..!

            ..phillip ure..

          • greywarbler 1.1.1.1.2
            16 March 2014 at 12:05 pm

            Jenny has the right to put suggestions forward for the Greens as good strategy. She has the right to comment on Shane Jones and his behaviour and suitability. You don’t have to agree with her but she can speak an idea. There seem quite a few pedantic pedagogues that crop up in the left camp. Which is supposed to be open to ideas, progressive, thoughtful, etc.

            But can get bogged down in self-made rules that are often as effective as the rules that the health sector make up like the one about using margarine not butter is better. Now open to question. But couldn’t be questioned once.

            Dogmatic no. Thoughtful and pragmatic and practical and principled. That chant will take us a long way – in the right direction.

        • weka 1.1.1.2
          16 March 2014 at 12:29 pm

          “Come on weka, you can do better than this.”

          Actually I was genuinely interested Jenny. It would help me understand your approach better I think.

          • phillip ure 1.1.1.2.1
            16 March 2014 at 12:33 pm

            how about putting the strawman to one side..

            and addressing the questions/issues raised..?

            phillip ure..

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.2.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 5:24 pm

              How about gaining a more reality-based understanding of what a strawman is?

          • Jenny 1.1.1.2.2
            16 March 2014 at 4:20 pm

            My approach is simple. I want the Greens to get Labour to agree to ban deep sea oil drilling.

            I want the Greens to get Labour to agree to ban all New Coal Mining.

            I want New Zealand to be a world leader in fighting climate change.

            For the Greens to be in a position to do so they will have to have a mandate, to get that mandate they will have to campaign and campaign strongly on these issues, no more mutual gentleman’s agreement to play down the issues like last time.

            The snake that ate the elephant in the room

            [lprent: You might like them to do those things. However you cannot insist that they do. If I was looking at the value of your vote for either party or indeed for Mana, I’d place it at somewhere close to zero. You are likely to either vote for one of these parties or not vote at all.

            In the end coalition talks will be based on the how large numbers of voters set the relative strength of each party. Each of these parties (even mana) will wind up as being a broad coalition of voters with a range of issues, many of which will be incompatible.

            Currently with your demands that everyone should believe as you do, then I suspect that you’d wind up as being a voting bloc of one or a handful.

            Anyway, I’m getting tired of seeing your comments in auto-moderation. Putting you into auto-spam until April 1 when your ban expires. ]

            • Matthew Hooton 1.1.1.2.2.1
              17 March 2014 at 5:38 pm

              lPrent says: “In the end coalition talks will be based on the how large numbers of voters set the relative strength of each party.”

              I don’t think this is true at all. Say, for example, National and Labour each won 40 MPs, Act and the Greens 18 MPs (this is hypothetical!) and NZ First 4 MPs. There is no doubt that NZ First would have far more power than either Act or the Greens.

              Coalition negotiations don’t follow any rules – they are pure anarchy, and only counting to 61 (or stopping the other bloc from doing do) matters.

              • McFlock …
                17 March 2014 at 5:54 pm

                but the art of negotiation in that case is to play chicken.

              • lprent …
                17 March 2014 at 6:09 pm

                lPrent says: “In the end coalition talks will be based on the how large numbers of voters set the relative strength of each party.”

                I was referring to the election not the coalition talks.

                Trying to second guess what seats in the house the voters will give each party and therefore what coalitions they’re “voting for” before the election is pretty much an exercise in futility. Especially this far out from an election. Quite simply parties will go through contortions of statement, policy, posturing, presentation, and perception between now and the election.

                For instance National’s rather pathetic posturing trying to tell other parties what they should “do” about post-election coalitions would have to be one of the more stupid things I have seen in a while.

                Coalition talks happen after elections and are based on the actual results of the election rather than some fictional construction of what voters will do prior to it. You say it is “anarchy”. It isn’t at all. Just the usual process of deal making over a scarce resources – in this case MP’s votes.

                Something that National appears to scared about being able to get. Lyn got polled again yesterday and it was clearly a poll done for National desperately seeking confirmation of issues to campaign on.

      • Tim 1.1.2
        16 March 2014 at 10:19 am

        I’m afraid I agree with Jenny (Shock Horror). Actually not ‘afraid’ at all
        Party Vote will be Green (with an electorate to Labour) until Labour PROVE themselves – and right about now, they’re 50-50 with an ‘entitled old-guard’ in their dying throes quivering and exerting their egos.
        I reckon it’ll take a David CUNLIFFE ‘skillset’ (erk …. FUCKING ERK – apologies for even using the word) … to ensure the Parker, Jones, Mallard quacking bullyboy, and several others in check.
        If he succeeds – there goes Labour for another Century. If he fails … there goes Labour down the Moa Point sewer plant all tangled up with used tampons, bits of plastic, spent egos, cudda shudda wuddas, possibly an Hataitai Matron whose intentions were always good, but matrydom and victimhood got the better of her, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera……

        Maybe 2017 eh? Not right now until there’s something substantial (and as I’ve said before – there’s probably about 23 other ‘eligibles’ in my sphere thinking likewise) Fuck em – we’re all sick of voting least worst and we have this system called M M P

    • phillip ure 1.2
      16 March 2014 at 8:40 am

      i totally agree with jennys’ post..

      ..the historical-political facts of life..

      ..are that the big winner of the minnow-parties..

      ..is hands-down..peters/nz first..

      ..the gold card is cited..

      ..but i have as much respect for the free-healthcare for under six-year old he negotiated out of a national govt..

      ..and in doing so he turned back the tide of stripping healthcare away..the de-socialising of healthcare rampant at the time..(another rogernomic-orgasm causing collective loss of sense..)

      ..and the biggest losers in/of the minnow parties..are the greens..

      .a few pink bats..(and good on them..!..)..is about it..

      ..for some 12 yrs in parliament..

      ..and i agree..aside from some greens sliding their arses into ministerial limos/perks..

      ..cabinet collective-responsibility will emasculate/silence the green-leadership..

      ..and they may well end up with little more in govt..

      ..than they have got to date outside..

      ..so..the personal ambitions of those individuals who will become ministers to one side..

      ..it may serve the greens/environment more for the green party choosing to offer their support to legislation on a case-by-case basis..

      ..this may well give them more power..

      ..than they will get from signing up to a formal coaliition..

      ..from sliding into those ministerial bmw’s..

      • phillip ure 1.2.1
        16 March 2014 at 9:17 am

        russel norman just gave a really good interview on q&a…

        ..talking a lot about economics..and talking sense..rational-alternatives to what this govt is currently doing..

        ..and that is good..

        ..(but some emotion around environment-issues/poverty wouldn’t go amiss..)

        ..interesting how the best longform interviews lately have been from the smaller parties..

        ..from peters on the nation yesterday..and norman just now..

    • Jim Nald 1.3
      16 March 2014 at 8:49 am

      It will be interesting to see the approach in the coming months that the Greens will take.

      As for Winston, what is the source please for “This time around Peters is demanding that any coalition partner drop any plan to raise the age of superannuation entitlement to 67” ?

      Ah ok, I see there have been a few, the most recent going back to five months ago:

      http://nzfirst.org.nz/news/alarmist-campaign-raise-pension-age

      http://nzfirst.org.nz/speech/king-canute%E2%80%99s-courtiers-and-silver-tide

      “Surely you must have read or heard their numerous dire warnings of unaffordability of National Super.

      “The problem doesn’t end there.

      “Labour has foolishly plumped for lifting the pension age to 67.

      “In our view this is a serious mistake.

      “The Labour party under Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser led New Zealand from the Great Depression and did more to ease poverty than any other government.

      “It’s disappointing that party should now target some of the most vulnerable members of society.

      “The attitude is wrong. It’s attacking the victims as so often happens in this country.

      “New Zealand First will not stand by and watch the pension age lifted or the amount reduced.”

      28 Feb 2013

      • Chooky 1.3.1
        16 March 2014 at 10:12 am

        +100 Jim Nauld…Labour is going to have to back down on this issue …there are too many votes in it….apart from the fact that many who are 65 need to take it easier and retire…(good on those who dont wish to retire however)

        • Jim Nald 1.3.1.1
          16 March 2014 at 10:48 am

          Here’s a challenge to issue to all our current representatives in parliament:
          Before you touch the people’s super, declare the present value of your super and how old you are.

          Also, …
          “MPs elected prior to 1992 have access to the parliamentary superannuation scheme established as part of the Government Superannuation Fund (GSF).”
          [https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-scrutiny-gold-plated-mp-super]

          So let’s start with each one in the Labour caucus, for they are the ones wanting the policy change to super.

          Of particular interest would be a certain …

          Philip Bruce G (about to turn 61 in two months, MP since 1981)
          Annette Faye K (will be 67 this year, MP since 1984)
          Trevor Colin M (will turn 60 in two months, MP from 1984-90, and since 1993)

    • bad12 1.4
      16 March 2014 at 9:23 am

      Jenny, what makes you think that ”no deep sea oil drilling”, and, ”no new coal mines” will not be part of the coalition agreement between Labour/Green, as a Party member, Green that is, i don’t feel the need to be ‘up in arms’ demanding the Party take a grandstand position on such issues as they are simply fundamental to the Parties core beliefs and will be addressed as part of any coalition negotiation,

      Winston has another bottom-line policy of the State buying back ALL of the electricity network, not just the generators, the retailers and the lines companies as well, although my opinion is that the State need not waste monies purchasing retail electricity supply companies with the States aim best achieved by simply establishing a nationwide electricity retailer of its own,

      You have to hand it to Peters to be able to come up with a number of populist policies with which to fight the 2014 election with,

      How many of us here at the Standard would find a major disagreement with Peters stance on buying back the electricity network and not raising the age of entitlement for superannuation,(incidently the Green party has the same policy),

      IF, we are to believe that after the 2014 election, and, that’s a BIG if, these 3 policies are to be NZFirst’s bottom lines that they will ruthlessly stick to in any coalition negotiations, then i would suggest that there is NO way NZFirst will be forming a Government with the National Party,

      So, Bounce, Bounce, Bounce, the superannuation ball dribbles back into the Labour court with both it’s probable coalition partners opposed to raising the age of entitlement the question must again be asked of Labour,”why are you pushing a policy that you cannot hope to implement”???,

      Peters bottom lines, IF they are as set in concrete as He has made them out to be are a clear signal that the only possible place for NZFirst after the 2014 election will be in coalition with Labour/Green…

      • felix 1.4.1
        16 March 2014 at 12:06 pm

        “what makes you think that ”no deep sea oil drilling”, and, ”no new coal mines” will not be part of the coalition agreement between Labour/Green”

        What makes you think they will?

      • Jenny 1.4.2
        16 March 2014 at 12:22 pm

        Jenny, what makes you think that ”no deep sea oil drilling”, and, ”no new coal mines” will not be part of the coalition agreement between Labour/Green,…

        Time will tell of course. But making statements; “We have no bottom lines”, does not create confidence that these “core beliefs” will be addressed as part of the coalition agreement.

        As they say politics is all about pressure I don’t care how principled someone thinks they are can stand up to opposing pressure without support.

        What if no agreement can be reached with Labour on these “core beliefs”?

        There are several alternatives. (With my estimates of the their likelyhood.)

        1/ The Green leadership will walk (possibility ranking 4 out of 10)

        2/ The Green leadership will abandon their party’s core beliefs (possibility ranking 50/50)

        3/ An agreement is struck to agree to disagree over issues like Deep Sea Oil Drilling and No New Coal Mines. Which will leave the Greens free to put up bills and to vigorously campaign and lobby inside and outside parliament on climate change issues and against the government on specific issues related to increasing CO2 pollution like Deep Sea Oil Drilling and mining the Denniston Plateau for the coal export market.

        (Possibility ranking: As this ranking depends on the balance of forces inside the Labour caucus, at this time with out a clean out of admitted fossil fuel supporters like Shane Jones, David Parker and David Shearer I would say highly unlikely. I give it 2 out of 10)

        Add these figures together and you can see that the numerical balance, by my estimation is of the Green Leadership caving in.

        As they say politics is all about pressure I don’t care how principled someone thinks they are, no single person can stand up to opposing political pressure without support.

        What this means is that the Green Party leaders (and the Labour Leaders need) to be given a clear message addressing climate change is not an option that they can leave lying on the floor and walk out with unscathed.

        • bad12 1.4.2.1
          16 March 2014 at 12:53 pm

          Your whole little thesis Jenny depends on you having a belief that Labour will dig it’s toes in on drilling for oil,(i would suggest that Anadarko’s raging success will make this a non issue by the time the election rolls around),

          And,

          Dig it’s toes in around new coal mines, except for those already consented by National i do not see many of these on the horizon,

          The whole debate is a moot point until such time as the election has occurred, and, as a Party member my vote is hardly going to be shifted by such esoteric issues…

        • Sacha 1.4.2.2
          16 March 2014 at 4:07 pm

          “2/ The Green leadership will abandon their party’s core beliefs (possibility ranking 50/50)”

          Gee if only the Green party’s policy mechanism allowed that possiblity. You’ve been told previously many times how it doesn’t, so this can only be bad faith on your part. Stop being a troll.

      • Jenny 1.4.3
        16 March 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Jenny, what makes you think that ”no deep sea oil drilling”, and, ”no new coal mines” will not be part of the coalition agreement between Labour/Green,…

        Time will tell of course. But making statements; “We have no bottom lines”, does not create confidence that these “core beliefs” will be addressed as part of the coalition agreement.

        But to more deeply answer your question;

        If in negotiations Labour flatly refuse to make any concessions to the Greens on these “core beliefs”

        There are several alternative outcomes. (With my estimates of the their likelyhood.)

        1/ The Green leadership will walk
        (possibility ranking 4 out of 10)

        2/ The Green leadership will despite the cost to their credibility abandon their party’s core beliefs (possibility ranking 50/50)

        3/ An agreement is struck to agree to disagree over issues like Deep Sea Oil Drilling and No New Coal Mines. Which will leave the Greens free to put up bills and to vigorously campaign and lobby inside and outside parliament on climate change issues and against the government on specific issues related to increasing CO2 pollution like Deep Sea Oil Drilling and mining the Denniston Plateau for the coal export market.
        (Possibility ranking: As this ranking depends on the balance of forces inside the Labour caucus…. At this time with out a clean out of admitted fossil fuel supporters like Shane Jones, David Parker and David Shearer I would say highly unlikely. I give it 2 out of 10)

        Put these figures side by side and you can see that by my estimation of the current balance of forces, the Green Leadership, on these issues, will cave in to the political pressure from Labour.

        However on saying this, things could change, and it depends on two main external factors outside of mainstream politics.

        1/ Climate change becomes an election issue due to any deepening of the current local drought which would focus people’s minds on our changing climate, or another nearby climate related holocaust like tropical Typhoon Haiyan which struck the Philippines struck (God forbid) one of our closer Island neighbors.

        2/ The rise of a powerful mass protest movement against deep sea oil drilling.

        • Sacha 1.4.3.1
          16 March 2014 at 4:09 pm

          “2/ The Green leadership will abandon their party’s core beliefs (possibility ranking 50/50)”

          Gee if only the Green party’s policy mechanism allowed that possiblity. You’ve been told previously many times how it doesn’t, so this can only be bad faith on your part.

          • bad12 1.4.3.1.1
            16 March 2014 at 4:57 pm

            Sacha, yes imagine what would occur to the Party rankings should such an occurrence happen,

            Jenny tho appears to demand Fanaticism from the Green Party while never addressing the fact that if the coal being burned isn’t NZ coal then it is being mined in some other country and still being burned,

            Still being burned the salient point…

      • Draco T Bastard 1.4.4
        16 March 2014 at 1:50 pm

        So, Bounce, Bounce, Bounce, the superannuation ball dribbles back into the Labour court with both it’s probable coalition partners opposed to raising the age of entitlement the question must again be asked of Labour,”why are you pushing a policy that you cannot hope to implement”???

        They can hope to implement it – with National. And make no mistake – they will do so.

        • Jim Nald 1.4.4.1
          16 March 2014 at 4:15 pm

          That would make sense – law changes to superannuation will be passed by a grand coalition of National and Labour!

          So much for the new sounding ‘there is no alternative’ Labour led by Cunliffe??

        • felix 1.4.4.2
          16 March 2014 at 5:08 pm

          Hasn’t National also ruled out raising the age?

          • Draco T Bastard 1.4.4.2.1
            16 March 2014 at 5:18 pm

            Only while Key is leader. If National loses the election Key will no longer be leader as he will do what every other party leader does after losing an election – leave.

            • Jim Nald 1.4.4.2.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 6:02 pm

              Btw, John Key ruled out raising GST in 2008 and then he put it up in 2010.

              • felix …
                16 March 2014 at 6:40 pm

                That’s odd, he always seemed so legit…

              • Draco T Bastard …
                16 March 2014 at 7:59 pm

                On this one National know that raising the retirement age is a vote loser and so they won’t take it as a policy. But once they’ve lost the election and Key is no longer leader then they’re free to support Labour doing it and afterwards they’ll always say that it was Labour that did it – the same as they do for the repeal of s59.

        • Macro 1.4.4.3
          16 March 2014 at 9:05 pm

          If Labour continue with the lunacy of raising the retirement age (no matter how fiscally responsible it might or might not be) they will be lucky to gain 30% of the vote if that, and will probably hand the election to National. Key realised just how toxic this policy was and wouldn’t have a bar of it.
          There are thousands approaching 60 – 65 they will not vote to have that which they have waited for taken away. And it pisses all over Maori men – only a tiny percentage can hope to “enjoy”. What can possibly be the lunacy to this policy I fail to understand, it’s almost as if Labour does not want to govern.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.4.4.3.1
            16 March 2014 at 9:23 pm

            it’s almost as if Labour does not want to govern.

            Labour are, essentially, refusing to make the changes to society that need to be made. They are, quite simply, working to maintain the failed status quo. Interestingly enough, inline with the a finding of the research I linked to down thread:

            “While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

            Labour are most definitely part of such an “elite” that refuses to do anything except twiddle at the margins.

            • Macro 1.4.4.3.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 10:05 pm

              Yes! Totally agree. It’s depressing seeing a Party one has so much respect for over the years simply missing the plot so badly.
              That was a fascinating article. Thanks for that link.

    • Chooky 1.5
      16 March 2014 at 10:39 am

      @ Jenny ….”And bizarrely in a new twist, Winston Peters new demand is that his government partner bail out the Christchurch Cathedral rebuild.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9831041/Peters-backing-fix-for-icon

      I dont think this is bizarre at all!…The Christchurch Cathedral is an icon and historical treasure for many in Christchurch and Canterbury, whether they be Anglicans or conventionally religious or not ( and many who want the Cathedral restored are atheist or agnostic…but they are Cantabrians and they love their old cathedral)

      …It is a pretty astute move on the part of Winston Peters and will win him votes..He has his finger on the pulse …no two ways about it!.

      …The only person who is being bizarre about it is the newly arrived Canadian Bishop, and her coterie of acolytes, who for some reason does not want the Christchurch Cathedral restored.

      The Cathedral belongs to the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and the Anglicans should relinquish it to the citizens of Christchurch . ….Restoring the Cathedral would do a lot to help restore the shattered nerves and heal wounds of a populous which desperately wants to return to some level of normalcy and the old Christchurch

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/perspective/9826910/Bishops-attitude-to-Cathedral-bizarre

      • Jim Nald 1.5.1
        16 March 2014 at 11:21 am

        Here’s another line that Winston is drawing, before entering into coalition arrangements (whatever “not work” might mean):

        “New Zealand First would not work with United Future or the Maori Party after the election, he said.”

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11220574

      • red blooded 1.5.2
        16 March 2014 at 1:29 pm

        I know how passionate this issue makes some people, but frankly the cathedral isn’t the heart of MY ChCh; I think it would be irresponsible to spend millions restoring an grey, forbidding monument to what is no longer a majority belief system when there is so much to be done that is relevant to so many more people. Christchurch needs the courage and imagination to reinvent its centre city. Sure, restore public historical buildings like the Arts Centre (a vibrant, welcoming place that has adapted and stayed relevant to the society it serves), but the Anglican cathedral belongs to the people of that faith and they have every right to decide its future (as the Catholic people do, with regards their cathedral). The Anglican cathedral stood in the centre of a drab concrete square; it was totally at odds with its surroundings and most ChCh people never went inside its doors. Let the people who did, and who will continue to use whatever ends up being their new cathedral, decide what shape it should take. (And let them spend their own money on it.)

        • Chooky 1.5.2.1
          16 March 2014 at 3:59 pm

          …drab concrete square?!….well of course it is after the earthquakes!…… and so is the Cathedral……it is down right sad and depressing!!!!.

          …But once it was vibrant and alive and the Christchurch Wizard can attest to that …In fact I suggest the Cathedral be given over to the WIZARD and the people of Christchurch….the sooner it is restored the better for everyone…it should become a Cathedral for all faiths, for all Handel recitals, choirs , concerts etc

          The Cathedral is only wanted by the Canadian woman Bishop ( a very recent arrival) and her male coterie of Anglicans for its insurance money imo

          ….and I speak as one brought up as an Anglican but who is now an Animist Pagan ( like Richard Dawkins…ha ha)

          ( “most people never went inside its doors ” is crap!….many children and visitors and those tired from shopping went inside its doors from a busy hot Cathedral Square for generations….many Christchurch people want their Cathedral restored back and you would be surprised by some of them ….eg working class males their arms covered in tattoos….so You are not speaking for the long term Christchurch residents i have met…who say like the tattooed man “Christchurch IS the Cathedral!”)

    • Ad 1.6
      16 March 2014 at 11:02 am

      It’s a fair point about negotiating hard.

      But your main point fails because you misread the different politician and supporter behind NZFirst and the Green Party.

      NZFirst have neither convictions nor hard values. They certainly have emotions. They erupt in outbursts. Their supporters are all early baby boomers well on the way to retirement and shuffling off this mortal coil. The party has achieved minor things for New Zealand and aspires to nothing more than a really good wine list.

      Greens supporters are idealists who are willing the radical overhaul of New Zealand. Some Green MPs may well wish to be out of government for 12 years in total, and keep their little 7-10% in Parliament – thereby condemned to continuing their insignificant level of achievement (even less than NZFirst).

      Anyone knows what the Greens want to stop. What the Greens need to announce is what they want to achieve. Your path, however, will see Russell Norman’s face turn over the years into something remarkably similar to Winston Peters’: a Gollum, always seeking The Precious, vexed to his soul about why nothing changed for the better in his country, remembering dimly what it was like to believe in something. Under your plan, the Greens could indeed become the new New Zealand First.

      • cricklewood 1.6.1
        16 March 2014 at 11:37 am

        I often think that given our mmp environment with two main parties that there is room for single issue type parties who can happily exist between left and right I think there could be significant achievements to be had given the closeness of the left and right blocks.
        NZ First sort of fills this space at the moment and things like the free doctors visits for under 6 are policy’s that actually make a big difference to people.

      • Jenny 1.6.2
        16 March 2014 at 3:46 pm

        “But your main point fails because you misread the different politician and supporter behind NZFirst and the Green Party.”

        Ad

        I don’t miss this point at all, NZ First as you say, “have neither convictions nor hard values”, which is why Winston Peters though campaigning on a a Nationalistic and anti-Asian platform, on achieving his agreement, and the all the free flight baubles and luxury world travel in his (honorary) role as Foreign Minister, was quite relaxed with Labour going over his head to negotiate a free trade deal with Communist China.

        But would the Greens, and particularly their members and supporters be similarly relaxed over their leaders supporting Labour’s plans to continue cooking the climate?

        I think not.

        • Ad 1.6.2.1
          16 March 2014 at 4:47 pm

          Let the Greens poll their members on the issues most important to them, prior to voting. Don’t presume or guess their priorities.

    • Bill 1.7
      16 March 2014 at 12:49 pm

      Agreeing to be out voted on every single issue raised in cabinet and then shackled by cabinet collective responsibility to agree to silence the opposition in their ranks and publicly back policies they disagree with?

      Pretty close to the position they created for themselves by signing that stupid Memorandum of Understanding Gagging Order with National. Hopefully they’ve learned from that and won’t put themselves in such a hopeless position again.

      I can’t see why any culture of ‘cabinet responsibility’ need exclude public disagreement at a party level as long as that disagreement simultaneously acknowledged that cabinet is a numbers game and, as such, that disagreement did not necessarily equate to a desire to usurp or undermine whatever has been pushed through.

    • karol 1.8
      16 March 2014 at 1:05 pm

      Actually, Jenny, Peters is quoted as saying he’d raise that in negotiations, not that it is a bottom line.

      He said the same on the Nation yesterday. He said they had priorities on asset re buy but hedged on making bottom lines.

      he said they won’t know til the voters have spoken

      • bad12 1.8.1
        16 March 2014 at 1:25 pm

        Yeah agree with your read of ‘the Nation’ performance by Winston having had a look at it this morning Karol,

        During the week on RadioNZ National it was reported as a ‘bottom line’,(i can’t remember if Peters was interviewed saying that or it was just a news report),

        On ‘the Nation’ tho Winston equivocates immediately when Gower asks Him a direct question on the issue,

        i take it then that ‘buying back’ the assets is not a serious policy of NZFirst and is simply being used as a dog whistle to gather votes and will likely be used as leverage to gain a bigger bauble for Winston in future coalition negotiations…

      • Jenny 1.8.2
        16 March 2014 at 1:37 pm

        I hate to be rude karol but this is semantics.

        It is the Greens who said they “have no bottom lines”.

        Winston Peters says that rebuilding the Cathedral is one of his “conditions”.

        “Bottom lines”, “conditions” a different language for the same thing.

        Peters says he has conditions the Greens say they have none.

        Who would like to bet on whether Peters gets his rebuild, or the Greens get a ban on new coal mines and deep sea oil drilling?

        I would say the odds greatly favour the former, over the latter.

        • karol 1.8.2.1
          16 March 2014 at 6:27 pm

          No, Jenny @ 1.37pm. It was the author of the article you linked to in your first comment today that used the word “condition,” and it has got the word “could” before it. The article says:

          Restoration of the Christ Church Cathedral could be a condition of any post-election coalition deal, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says.

          It’s not a direct quote – no quote marks.

          What Peters is quoted as saying in the article:

          He told The Press restoration of the cathedral would “certainly” be part of coalition talks with the Government if he secured enough votes in the September election.

          “I’ve already given a written commitment that I would raise this in any negotiations,” he said.

          “I am seriously committed to this project. It means much more than just the cathedral.”

          Peters was “very, very confident” a deal could be reached.

          He says nothing about bottom lines, but that it is something NZ First would bring to post election negotiations. aAnd this was in keeping with his position on The Nationa with respect to his “priority” of buying back the powerco assets. He would not be pinned down to saying it was non-neogotiable.

          Peters does say NZ First has committed themselves to bringing those things to the negotitations.

          So, basically, NZ First’s position is no different from the Greens – neither have bottom lines.

          Both have learned that you need to be in a strong position, with a significant number of MPs in relation to other parties, in order to push for a small party to push hard on specific policies in post-election negotiations.

  2. phillip ure 2
    16 March 2014 at 8:28 am

    “..10 Things We Can All Learn From Uruguay’s Weed-Legalizing President..”

    ..Uruguayan President José Mujica first caught international attention when he was dubbed the ‘world’s poorest president’.

    The austere leader donates 90% of his salary –

    and keeps life simple living on his farm with his wife and three-legged dog – Manuela – according to the BBC.

    Since then ‘Pepe’ has continued in the international spotlight –

    by becoming the first head of state to create a national marketplace for legal marijuana.

    These moves prompted The Economist magazine to name Uruguay country of the year for 2013.

    If you’ve watched or read any interview with Mujica –

    you’ll notice that he’s overflowing with wisdom.

    Here are some of his best quotes..”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/14/mujica-quotes_n_4965275.html

  3. Tony P 3
    16 March 2014 at 9:34 am

    How many more stupid ideas can Parata come up with?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11220325

    • bad12 3.1
      16 March 2014 at 9:45 am

      Hekia doesn’t, come up with stupid ideas that is, Her suitcase of intellectual rigor is emptier than that of Slippery the Prime Minister’s,

      Hekia’s idea is simply that passed on from the Neo-Liberals still in the ascendency at the NZ Treasury…

    • ianmac 3.2
      16 March 2014 at 9:48 am

      Strangely Tony the Editorial declares Parata out of step with everyone, including the Education Ministry.
      “In racing ahead with the idea of school performance funding, she finds herself isolated, with neither the measurement tools to reliably compare pupils’ progress nor the evidence to show it can work.”
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11220528

      • ianmac 3.2.1
        16 March 2014 at 9:55 am

        On reflection does the Parata announcement, which is sure to raise a storm, smell like a distraction? Hey you guys. Look over here. Look at me. Don’t look at our Party’s troubles!

        • Tony P 3.2.1.1
          16 March 2014 at 10:08 am

          Yeah strangely this announcement and the SST editorial that attacked the NZEI’s stance on wonder principals made me wonder if it’s “let’s get at teachers week” to make a distraction.

          • ianmac 3.2.1.1.1
            16 March 2014 at 10:54 am

            Haven’t seen the SST editorial but there are some serious misgivings that the Wonder Principal Scheme has many more flaws that will be worse for Primary Schools than for Secondary. The Secondary School teachers have one subject to excel in where the Primary teacher has multiple subject areas. And how to become a chosen one is full of fish-hooks.

            • greywarbler 3.2.1.1.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 12:52 pm

              I tried to get the SST editorial on line. I found it is hard to access anything I want on line when it comes to newspapers. The page was dominated by the NZ Herald and stuff. But when I did get through I got a security alert notice that the page was not encrypted right – something about akiemet and that ‘someone might be trying to eavesdrop on you;. It was something to do with it being an https address. Really getting information is quite hard, though supposed to be more available and open with the net.

              I did find this listed on google – just the headings of the items shown. Interesting.
              Sunday Star-Times … ACC is stepping boldly into the minefield of sex education, amid claims that schools are failing to teach teens how to say “no”. … Rape Prevention Education executive director Kim McGregor said there were “huge gaps” …

          • red blooded 3.2.1.1.2
            16 March 2014 at 1:59 pm

            This whole line of argument (I can’t bring myself to call it “thought”) rests on the idea that schools are businesses and that teachers and school boards are largely motivated by the pursuit of profit. This is ridiculous bullshit and Parata (and Key, who is there in the background, speaking through her) needs to be called out on it. Teachers and schools work bloody hard and do their best for their students. Not all will achieve arbitrary goals like the minister’s 85% for NCEA Level 2. The narrative that runs in the minister’s head is pretty simple: “Less impressive results = Must Try Harder. Teachers obviously not really working hard. Take money (i.e., resources for students) away – that’ll teach ’em!” It’s moronic (and that’s not a word that often comes out of a teacher’s mouth)!

            The minister attacks decile funding as a blunt instrument (which it is), but at least it isn’t the kind of blunt instrument that is used to clobber schools (i.e., the students in those schools); it is used to give extra support to schools working with students whose lives (and thus, learning experiences) are more likely to be restricted by poverty. Kids from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have plenty of books in the house, less likely to have full bellies, less likely to have private space for homework, less likely to have computer access at home, less likely to have travelled, less likely to be able to afford schools camps and extra-curricular activities… Less likely to have lots of benefits that allow better off kids to be secure and confident learners. Parata and those of her ilk don’t want to hear this – they don’t want to understand that the playing field isn’t level and that it’s not all just down to personal choice and levels of effort; that some kids (and some schools) have more to contend with than others. Decile funding may be a blunt instrument but at least it’s an attempt to provide for the educational and resourcing needs of kids who are less well-off. The loony-tunes line that Parata is running is a denial of all these social and educational complexities and it has been a disaster wherever it has been implemented. We shouldn’t believe that it’s unexpected, though – this is in line with what the NACTs have always said about educational funding and achievement. It’s where all the Standards and “targets” have been leading. They’ve strenuously denied it at every turn, but (surprise, surprise) here it is again!

    • Puddleglum 3.3
      16 March 2014 at 9:31 pm

      It all comes out of the ‘Step Change’ report from the Inter-Party Working Group established in 2009, after the 2008 election. It’s members included Parata, Roger Douglas, Heather Roy, Chester Burrows, Jonathan Young and Te Ururoa Flavell.

      Here’s the announcement of the report (there was a second – minority – one from Douglas and Roy that, predictably, went even further).

      The group existed prior to Parata becoming Minister of Education – so she’s been keen on this kind of thing for a while.

      Parata should listen to the interview with Margaret Heffernan this week on Sunday MorningSunday Morning with Margaret Heffernan in which Heffernan Heffernan argues against the notion of competition (it undermines innovation, creativity, etc. – which will be a surprise to its advocates).

      Getting schools to compete for funding on ‘progress’ in student performance is an excellent way of ensuring, paradoxically, that real student progress will be the last means used to get rewarded.

  4. bad12 4
    16 March 2014 at 9:42 am

    Bill English, another abysmal performance on this morning’s Q+A, claiming interest rates reached 10% under the previous Government might look ‘smart’ to Bill, but, when you look at the numbers from all angles you can only conclude English is a Liar or and Idiot,

    The price of housing especially in the bigger cities has since National became the Government risen by at least 40%,

    See my point, raising interest rates by 2% in a situation where the borrowed capital has risen by 40% means that in dollar terms those paying for such mortgages will be paying in dollars an amount of interest that in the Clark era of Government was an effective 10%,

    The devil is in the detail, the amount having to be borrowed has nearly doubled on average during the rule of the present National Government…

    • tc 4.1
      16 March 2014 at 10:56 am

      And did any of the so called msm experts pulled him up on the blatant lies or just let it slide by and as such de facto endorsing it as an acceptable reply.

      msm = missing significant maturity. A performance like that across the ditch and he would not be finance minister much longer, not that he cares as hes already preparing his exit.

    • Herodotus 4.2
      16 March 2014 at 12:28 pm

      Your statement only holds true for a minority of those with mortgages, as most mortgage owners have not increased their mortgages., ( unless you are advocating for property speculators )and increases in property values for most are unrealised.

      • greywarbler 4.2.1
        16 March 2014 at 1:12 pm

        But if you have to shift, that is when the effects will be noted. You immediately enter the house market at the higher valuations. Hopefully you will find that your place had risen in parallel when you sell. But to get another mortgage you may require a bigger deposit in monetary terms even if the percentage you are contributing remains the same. And the upward moving interest rates influenced by the RB will likely cost you more than before. T

        The council rates are calculated on house sales near you in line with the new values. So they are not tied to some historic bank rate. So while you remain in the house, you will still be affected by rising house values through the rate calculations around the new local values.

        • Herodotus 4.2.1.1
          16 March 2014 at 5:57 pm

          If council spending say for this example in line with inflation 2%, property prices increase by 10%, rates will still for each property increase by 2% and not the 10% that property values have increased by.
          http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/aboutrates/Pages/faqs.aspx
          When a property value increases we do not collect more rates overall. Each year, the council determines, through the annual plan process, how much money needs to be collected through rates to fund its activities and services for the year. This rates requirement is then divided between all the properties in the region based on council’s rating policies.

          Bad 12- you/I cannot stop kiwis from increasing their debt/ mortgages as their equity within a property also increases, leading Horses to water comes to mind. More so with investors being able to fund their schemes from low equity models.
          Given the huge advances that property has over if not all then most alternative investments available. IMO the best solution is to limit the creation of new money sourced from debt, and to dis incentivise this form of investment.

          • bad12 4.2.1.1.1
            16 March 2014 at 7:27 pm

            Herodotus, now you engage the art of prevarication as a tool of debate, i have suggested no such wish to limit credit spending via a raised amount of property mortgage allowed by property value over-inflation,

            i have simply pointed out to you the falsehood in your prior suggestion that those with high mortgage in dollar terms are not necessarily ‘only’ those who have bought into the market during the current 40% hike in property values,

            The thrust of my argument contained in a number of comments over a number of days is that the OCR is a heavy blunt instrument misused by the Reserve Bank Governor to target a small sector of an overall market,(housing), to the detriment of the wider economy which includes the Government accounts,

            In terms of those Government accounts, staggering under the weight of an 80 billion dollar gross Government debt, along with a current 2 billion dollar shortfall between taxation and expenditure and bearing in mind we are talking from a position of current taxation settings there can be only one means that the hole between revenue and spending along with a start to the repayment of that 80 billion dollars can occur,

            Inflation currently at, in terms of raising the OCR,a ridiculous 1.6% must be allowed to run at a level of 3–5%, this equating to an increase in GDP of 4–6.5% annually, equating to a positive in the Government accounts large enough to begin paying down this debt along with closing the current revenue/expenditure gap,

            The current situation where the OCR will be lifted by a further 2% n the next 18 months will suck a conservative 6 billion dollars out of the economy which only at this point addressing directly the Government accounts means a conservative estimate of 2 billion dollars annually not accruing to those accounts…

            • Herodotus 4.2.1.1.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 9:01 pm

              Funny how you throw at me the prevarication term. When your original statement in para 3 above has its foundation based on all mortgages, this does not hold true, which from my reading of some of your posts you should have recognised such falsehood. Your comment holds true for a limited number of mortgage holders, of which some are investors.
              And I never said you did suggest that you did want a reduction in credit, that was a suggestion on my behalf of a part way to a cure.
              With nz’s reliance on funding our lifestyles and living styles by debt what are you suggesting as a solution and to then turn this around so we can be net savers, given that for most we are a low wage economy but paying 1st world prices?

              • bad12 …
                16 March 2014 at 10:23 pm

                Herodotus,again you perpetuate a falsehood formulated from something that i neither said nor intended,

                You will have noticed, unless you are as dumb as your latter comment suggests you to be, that i do not use the word ALL in paragraph 3 of my original statement,

                You will also have noticed that the statement contained in paragraph 3 is qualified with the words, ”where the borrowed capital has risen by 40%”, nowhere is there a suggestion that that all mortgages have risen by that 40%,(except where you choose to make such a suggestion up in your mind),

                As to the rest of the point you are attempting to make, it has nothing to do with the OCR which is what i have been discussing so appears to be the usual tactic of ‘subject change’ when the debate gets a bit much for your intellectual level…

                • Herodotus …
                  17 March 2014 at 9:23 am

                  http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/household_debt/
                  Yes you use a very isolated example in an attempt to validate your argument. The data does not even support you cause, if so household debt would have increased, where in reality it is the reverse. Your initial paragraph contains ” when you look at the numbers from all angles…”
                  Read your thread again., ps don’t get personnel when your basis or crap examples are discredited. Many resort to such tactics.

                  • bad12 …
                    17 March 2014 at 10:28 am

                    Dancing on the head of a shaky pin Herodotus, so having what you alluded to from paragraph 3 of my comment above discredited you immediately abandon that line of your false conclusion,

                    Even if you have figures showing household debt has decreased such data unless showing the household debt figures either city by city or region by region are pretty much meaningless,

                    In the over-inflation landscape of Auckland and Christchurch only a fool,(like you), would conclude from such figures that household debt has decreased while such figures are in all reality skewed by a decrease in household debt across an all of country data set,

                    Remember this is a debate about the 40% increase in Auckland and Christchurch property prices and the relationship such inflation has vis a vis interest rates paid where during the tenure of the Clark Government they may have been 10% but in terms of the Reserve Bank’s projected rise in the OCR by 2% points will in terms of dollars paid in interest in conjunction with that 40% property price inflation have mortgage holders paying in dollar terms that 10% interest rate supposedly the norm under the Clark Government,

                    See the Q in the first line of paragraph 1 of my original comment, perhaps you will stoop to debating that next, for all that you have contributed so far, nothing except an exhibition of ‘putting words in the mouth of others that they have not uttered’ and, a highlight of your ability to attempt to change the subject, your debate on the letter Q and what is intended by its inclusion in a comment will quite possibly mark a step up in your ability to form a point of debate,

                    i tho have my doubts…

      • bad12 4.2.2
        16 March 2014 at 1:14 pm

        Your statement only holds true if you put a number on ‘new mortgages’ issued since National took office,

        You also have to remember how the credit economy works, those with increased values on their property are then allowed/encouraged to spend this increased value which across a broad swathe of mortgage holders they do,

        Using their raised house price values as spendable credit is in fact realizing those higher property values through raising the amount of the mortgage,

        IF, as you say this is not a majority situation i would suggest that there will be a significant minority who are in a situation of having dramatically increased the dollar value of their mortgage either as the up front cost of property has inflated…

    • aerobubble 4.3
      16 March 2014 at 1:27 pm

      There’s a divide. Its caused by helping the top and assuming trickle down. It did work, and has never worked, it just looked like it was working (due to cheap high density fuel glut).

      The NZ economy is experiencing deflation in imports, this rewards those with money, and inflation in housing, power and locally products and services.

      This is precisely due to the polices of Keys government.

      Under Key first time house buyers can’t get into the market, as Key has failed to address the tight remit of the reserve bank.

      Under Key power prices keep rising during the greatest collapse in the world economy for a generation, because Key won’t address the lack of a competitive market for consumer in power.
      i.e. you can’t compete if you can’t create collectives of consumers who buy as a block.

      Under Key housing boom continues unabated, inflating house prices due to Key unwillingness to address the high dollar. A high dollar caused in part because of printing of money in much of the world, and a inadequate attempt to build more housing into the local market. Also the inability of the players to use free trade and source quality building materials offshore.

      Under Key debt has gone from zero to unsustainable in five years, thanks to Key tax cuts to the wealth, and business, that rewards cheap short term economics like fast food and property speculation. Key’s GST rises also hurt those who live day to day buying goods and service inflated by his handling of the domestic economy.

      Sure the devils in the detail, the boomers like where they live sitting on a ever inflating house price bubble and wanting to stop cheaper higher dense living going up in the neighborhood. They don’t want to get out of the way, but live under a cliff about to collapse. Politicians need to assist them with moving, but that would require living elsewhere was secure, practical, and generous. But the
      inequality did start yesterday, gangs, sprawl, and poor regulation (leaky homes) etc have made the idea of moving very uncomfortable. And there’s no change in the ungenerous nature of property speculators that are the National base.

      Hey, that was funny, how someone said Peters was a natural National party person. And they were right, only problem its the National party that changed colors and became anti-national party.
      Peters will, if he’s smart, sit on the cross benches in most scenarios. And Key’s the largest party rules principle will come back to haunt the National party and its inability to compromise on any and all of its extreme policies which is most of them).

  5. geoff 5
    16 March 2014 at 10:04 am

    Has National explained why the minister of justice was visiting China?

    • veutoviper 5.1
      16 March 2014 at 10:13 am

      Collins was visiting China to attend – and speak at – a conference on corruption. Ironic. Plenty of media reporting on this. Go google it.

      • geoff 5.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 10:37 am

        haha thanks!

      • geoff 5.1.2
        16 March 2014 at 11:07 am

        Some classic quotes from this article:
        http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/judith-collins-visit-china-and-singapore-5653096

        “New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world,” Ms Collins said.

        “I look forward to speaking to the Academy about our experience in building an accountable, transparent government and how these features benefit our governance system and economy.”

        • Foreign Waka 5.1.2.1
          16 March 2014 at 1:02 pm

          Have we missed the rest?
          “New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world,” Ms Collins said. So we have to change that, as we are the government of change.

          The whole story is very Kafkaesque.

        • freedom 5.1.2.2
          16 March 2014 at 1:22 pm

          ““I look forward to speaking to the Academy about our experience in building an accountable, transparent government and how these features benefit our governance system and economy.””

          Now she has returned, do you think she would mind telling us where that government can be located?

        • veutoviper 5.1.2.3
          16 March 2014 at 3:38 pm

          And here is Collins’ speech to the Conference in China, which expands on the quote above.

          http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/address-china-executive-leadership-academy-pudong-celap-china

          And as a slight aside, here is another of her many speeches etc on building NZ-China business relationships. This short speech in Sept 2013 made me laugh cynically about her remarks about Chinese Kiwis.

          http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/businesses-should-look-nz-china-relationship

          The knowledge and connections of Chinese Kiwis contribute to New Zealand’s innovation, productivity, and access to wider markets and help our companies consider new possibilities, and different perspectives.

          “I encourage New Zealand businesses to draw on the expertise and talent of Chinese kiwis, who understand the language and the culture, and who are well placed to assist at board level and in senior management positions.”

          Looking for more directorships for hubby? But he does not speak Chinese according to this Stuff article yesterday which provides a bio of David Wong-Tung.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9830875/Minister-dines-with-big-money

          EDIT – sorry i was wrong the Stuff article does not meant Mr W-T’s ability or otherwise to speak Chinese. I read it somewhere in the last day or so. If I find it, will provide a link.

      • miravox 5.1.3
        16 March 2014 at 12:47 pm

        Iss that a different conference to the APEC Womens forum sponsored by Oravida that Collins was invited to talk at by her close personal friend Julia Xu?

        • veutoviper 5.1.3.1
          16 March 2014 at 3:50 pm

          Yes, as per my comment at 5.1.2.3, the October 2013 conference was not an APEC conference.

          The APEC Women’s Leadership Forum less than one month later, in November 2013 again in China , was this one

          http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/collins-debate-apec-leadership-forum

          Here is part of the release that I found ironic – ie Collins debating in the negative about Aggressive Leaders. Also note the other two NZers attending in the last sentence.

          As part of the Forum, Ms Collins will take part in a debate alongside Chandran Nair, Founder & CEO, Global Institute For Tomorrow, Hong Kong.

          Ms Collins and Mr Nair will negate the moot ‘Breakthrough Innovation is Driven by Aggressive Leaders’. Speaking for the motion are Vice-President of IBM research Dr Josephine Cheng and Chinese businessman Mr James Li.

          Around 300 women leaders from the Asia Pacific region are expected to attend the Forum, including New Zealanders Dame Jenny Shipley and Dame Wendy Pye.

          EDIT – cannot find a transcript of the debate, but here is yet another Collins’ press release on transparency and corruption in November 2013.

          http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/collins-welcomes-transparency-assessment

          Busy lady, our Mrs Collins ….

  6. bad12 6
    16 March 2014 at 10:05 am

    Lolz, reading between the lines, the last word from Corinn Dann on this morning’s Q+A, apparently off to China with the Prime Minister next week will be quite a ‘Posse’ of media,

    ”Yes we will be visiting Oravida” says Dann, snigger, look out Judith Collins, if you aint told the truth about the dinner table discussions with the ‘unnamed Chinese Border Control Official’ the excrement may well and truly be about to become entangled in the ventilation system…

    • tc 6.1
      16 March 2014 at 11:00 am

      My monies on the posse returning satisfied its all a big misunderstanding etc, these trips are nact PR exercises and since when have we ever had serious jounalism applied to the wrecking crew.

      • geoff 6.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 12:03 pm

        JK’s a playah and he’s just got to worm his way back into his girl’s (MSM) good books with an overseas holiday so he can get his fingers on her rich daddy’s Ferrari (NZ) again.

        Something like that?

  7. phillip ure 7
    16 March 2014 at 11:07 am

    “..Tony Benn Eulogy – by George Galloway..” (video..)

    “..Making mistakes is part of life.

    The only things I would feel ashamed of –

    would be if I had said things I hadn’t believed –
    in order to get on.

    Some politicians do do that.” – Tony Benn..”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37956.htm

    • wyndham 7.1
      16 March 2014 at 2:57 pm

      Thanks for that link Phil. It’s a double bonus with comment from George Galloway and Tony Benn.

      • phillip ure 7.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 5:50 pm

        mother jones has reprinted a piece christopher hitchens penned on benn..in 1981..

        ..and this jumped out at me:..

        “..First – Benn points out – the previous Labour governments were a disappointment to their own supporters.

        They were voted out not because of Tory and media hostility – but because they could not generate enthusiasm –

        and because they surrendered – once in office – to the International Monetary Fund and the civil service.

        Benn accuses those forces of having consciously sabotaged plans for industrial democracy and economic planning when he was a minister –

        and of “destabilizing” reformist programs by cutting off investment and squeezing the pound on the international market.

        Therefore—and this is his second point—the root problem with Labour’s strategy is not too much advocacy of socialism and decentralization – but too little.

        This last point is most important.

        Conventionally Britain and its fairly conservative electorate have only turned to the Labour party in times of crisis –

        such as the immediate postwar period.

        In times of crisis Labour prime ministers tend to move very cautiously.

        They warn their voters and activists that the New Jerusalem may have to wait while urgent repairs are carried out on the existing structure.

        They postpone policies of redistribution and emancipation to better days.

        When the better days come – the electorate votes Tory again –

        and Labour becomes psychologically identified with austerity and instability.

        This three-card trick has discredited and trapped the Left in Britain on three occasions since World War II..”

        (does any of that sound familiar..?..current..?..)

  8. marty mars 8
    16 March 2014 at 11:48 am

    Such a beautiful animation of the wind on this site

    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-184.92,-34.12,640

    Looks like the eye will pass over Takaka soonish – off out a bit later to check on the rivers – we needed rain and we’ve had it.

  9. marty mars 9
    16 March 2014 at 12:08 pm

    I thought I’d offer this – you never know it may help

    A Colonized Ally Meets a Decolonized Ally: This is What They Learn

    1. A colonized ally stands in the front. A decolonized ally stands behind.
    2. A colonized ally stands behind an oppressive patriarchy. A decolonized ally stands behind women and children.
    3. A colonized ally makes assumptions about the process. A decolonized ally values there may be principles in the process they are not aware of.
    4. A colonized ally wants knowledge now! A decolonized ally values their own relationship to the knowledge.
    5. A colonized ally finds an Indigenous token. A decolonized ally is more objective in the process.
    6. A colonized ally equates their money and hard work on the land as meaning land ownership. A decolonized ally knows that land ownership is more about social hierarchy and privilege.
    7. A colonized ally projects guilt. A decolonized ally knows it is their work to do.
    8. A colonized ally projects emotions. A decolonized ally knows Indigenous people have too much to deal with already.
    9. A colonized ally has no respect for Indigenous intellectuals. A decolonized ally knows Indigenous people have their own intellectuals.
    10. A colonized ally has no idea they need to decolonize. A decolonized ally understands they have to continually decolonize.
    11. A colonized ally has no idea of the concomitant realities of Indigenous oppression. A decolonized ally understands the many, layered, and intersectional oppressions Indigenous people live under.
    12. A colonized ally speaks for Indigenous people. A decolonized ally listens.
    13. A colonized ally takes on work an Indigenous person can do and is doing. A decolonized ally takes on other work that needs to be done.
    14. A colonized ally makes things worse. A decolonized ally understands.
    15. A colonized ally says, “It is time to get over it.” A decolonized ally realizes one’s relationship to the harm is subjective.
    16. A colonized ally appropriates another nation’s Indigenous knowledge. A decolonized ally does the hard work to uncover their own Indigenous knowledge.
    17. A colonized ally will loath this truth offered. A decolonized ally will recognize the hard work telling this truth is.

    https://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/a-colonized-ally-meets-a-decolonized-ally-this-is-what-they-learn/

    Hattip Kim on Fbook

    • Bill 9.1
      16 March 2014 at 1:07 pm

      Just speaking as a semi-colonised/decolonised or a hopelessly compromised bundle of conditioning and deconditioning….but no. 10 pins it for me; that the decolonised or deconditioned is always faced with a drift towards assuming a position of the colonised or conditioned. And as such, there are no end points or arrival to decolonisation or deconditioning. As soon as one is perceived, the drift has successfully taken hold and delivered everything back to an approximation/parody or reflection of square one…which is maybe why I hesitate at some of the definitive descriptions for the decolonized (sic) ally.

      Notions of fluidity and crystalisation come to mind…

      • marty mars 9.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 1:33 pm

        Yes I like the fluidity – constant motion and ever changing consideration and adjustment (a bit like the wind animation above). Hopefully good food for thought – I also hesitate to be too rigid or definitive – this is just one person’s view and absolutes just don’t work well with humans in my experience.

    • Chooky 9.2
      16 March 2014 at 1:53 pm

      @marty mars “A Colonized Ally Meets a Decolonized Ally: This is What They Learn”

      thanks …I like it!

  10. greywarbler 10
    16 March 2014 at 12:13 pm

    DTB and others thoughtful about our business pattern and memes.
    A good speaker on Radionz this morning has written a book on competition. Discussing its value and ways that it is misused and is deleterious. Worth a listen and the book would be good. She is competent to comment with lots of background.

    11:12 Margaret Heffernan – Taking on Competition
    Competition is everywhere. In families, in schools and in the workplace – but is it any good for us? Bestselling author and entrepreneur Margaret Heffernan will tell us why competition can be the enemy of innovation – and why competition may not always be the best way for us to truly win.
    A Bigger Prize, by Margaret Heffernan is published by Simon and Schuster.
    Margaret Heffernan : taking on competition ( 26′ 19″ )
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

    • ianmac 10.1
      16 March 2014 at 12:56 pm

      Excellent greywarbler. Totally agree with the premise. Increase the competition decrease the enjoyment of participation and the risk taking/innovation.

      • ianmac 10.1.1
        16 March 2014 at 1:06 pm

        And when David C was talking about working with companies to enhance their performance he was really talking about getting cooperation amongst workers rather than competion.
        A corrollary is also around being punished with Rewards which fits with the Competitive models.

        • ianmac 10.1.1.1
          16 March 2014 at 1:08 pm

          And think Performance Pay for teachers. Destructive.

          • tc 10.1.1.1.1
            16 March 2014 at 1:34 pm

            Yup gotta keep smashing up those teacners

            • ianmac 10.1.1.1.1.1
              16 March 2014 at 1:53 pm

              Militant bunch of ignorant buggers those teachers who will not do as they are told. They keep on saying “Show us the mone… err research.Show us the research!” What do they think we politicians are? Honest? Well informed? Researched based? Yeah ah NO. We are just following blind ideology. Are they blind? And another thing……..

              • freedom …
                16 March 2014 at 2:29 pm

                nice one ianmac 🙂

                which reminds me….Over the last twenty years or so, was there not a firmly developed participation matters culture across NZ schools that said “taking part is more important than winning” ?

                How will these “winning” teachers justify their performance pay to pupils that are being told it is the “taking part” that matters most?

    • Draco T Bastard 10.2
      16 March 2014 at 2:26 pm

      A Bigger Prize
      Why Competition Isn’t Everything and How We Do Better
      A Bigger Prize: How We Can Do Better than the Competition

      The latter book will be released in a month.

      And, no, it doesn’t surprise me that competition causes such negatives.

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    16 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

    Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?

    “A new study sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

    Just more and more evidence coming out showing that our present socio-economic system is a failure.

    • greywarbler 12.1
      16 March 2014 at 4:37 pm

      Draco T B
      The weather here is stormy. It’s a good day for exploring the net. Looks as if it might be wet where you are. You have found some deep stuff. Thanks for the links.

  13. freedom 13
    16 March 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Watching Labour and Greens bicker over coalition policy implementation is avoiding the big picture.

    To be in a coalition Government, first you must get the votes.

    I may just be a damaged human in a shed but the way I see it, unless a drastic and revolutionary one-off approach is made this election, the risk of National waltzing in for a third term is all too real. Don’t know about the rest of you but that makes me sincerely terrified of what would come next.

    The parties can bicker about details once in power. They all will anyway. Regardless of what promises are made up front. Get the power first, by any means available. National knows that.

    The topic is raised in this comment I posted earlier, but I guess no-one read it or no-one thought it warranted dialogue. As election issues go I see none that needs an honest and open dialogue quite so badly.

    Have the left forgotten that you support each other to win, or fall aside fighting as New Zealand is lost.

    • Jim Nald 13.1
      16 March 2014 at 4:07 pm

      Watching Shane Jones shooting the Greens and then Labour’s own foot, before stuffing his own face with the damage caused, would be enough to put off some people voting Labour, let alone bring out the so-called missing million 🙁

  14. Rogue Trooper 14
    16 March 2014 at 3:19 pm

    just Looking for Spinoza .
    Hope everybody is having a great day; and as for recent NZ politics phenomena… ‘Kafkaesque’ indeed.

  15. Chooky 15
    16 March 2014 at 5:32 pm

    More on Tony Benn and relevance and lessons for the New Zealand Labour Party …

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/mar/14/tony-benn-a-giant-of-20th-century-politics-video

  16. North 16
    16 March 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Retirement villages as distinct from reitrement homes (in respect of the latter there being serious questions under other headings anyway).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11220355

    On reading this article my first reflex was to mutter disgustedly to myself “Huh…….Planet Key !

    I then reminded myself that years and years ago well before ShonKey and before I completely changed focus and area of involvement in my work I advised numerous people about these sorts of licence to occupy contracts.

    They were a spectacular rip-off then and looks like they remain so, notwithstanding the Retirement Villages Act or whatever it’s called. They struck me at the time as so draconian, so onesided, and such patent capital and income guzzlers that I was always very careful to provide written analysis of the in/out cost/residual value because residual value was always an effective loss of substantial capital.

    Clipping and reclipping and reclipping the ticket seems to be a national pastime sadly. Bet they have fabulous annual general meetings of delighted shareholders though. All clapping themselves on the back about how wonderful they and ilk are. Vomit !

  17. lprent 17
    16 March 2014 at 7:11 pm

    I’d advise people to not fetch more than 10 pages per minute in any minute period. You’ll get and automatic short ban.

    I’m getting too many unknown crawlers (identified as being human) scanning the site and causing too many server instances to spawn. So I’ve changed the behaviour from “throttle” to ban from reading the site for 2 hours.

    I’ve also permanently blocked a number of systems who’d repeatedly (250 times) hit limits over the last few months. Only 1 in NZ who’d hit the limits 1142 times

    • greywarbler 17.1
      17 March 2014 at 11:15 am

      Thanks lprent for keeping the site going reasonably smoothly. It seems constant care is needed to keep the various negative effects from diminishing its effectiveness. I have noticed it very slow to load from Opera and much faster from Firefox.

      • lprent 17.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:03 pm

        Never optimized for opera. I mostly use Chrome, Firefox, and Android. On the odd occasion I use iOS, Internet Explorer and safari – mostly to remind myself how awful much I dislike Macs, Windows, and iAnything.

  18. Penny Bright 18
    16 March 2014 at 9:05 pm

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Brown-remains-confident-as-Mayor/tabid/423/articleID/336094/Default.aspx

    Unfortunately for Mayor Len Brown, there are currently FIVE complaints filed with Auckland Central Police, FOUR of which I am responsible.

    Alleged ‘money-laundering’ by Mayor Len Brown, for not disclosing free hotel rooms and upgrades, particularly from Sky City.
    Alleged ‘contravention of statute’ by former Auckland Council CEO Doug McKay, for not following the process outlined in the Auckland Council ‘Code of Conduct’ (section 8 ‘Compliance’) for an investigation into the ‘misconduct’ of Mayor Len Brown.

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/governingbody/codeofconductelectedmembers.pdf

    8.5. Conduct Review Independent Panel

    The governing body shall constitute a Conduct Review Independent Panel.

    The members of the Panel will be selected from a list of persons with appropriate skills and knowledge, to be recommended by the Chief Executive.

    The Independent Panel is not a Committee of the governing body and its sole function is to investigate those matters referred to it and to make recommendations on those matters to the governing body/local board.

    Up to three members on the list will be deemed to be ‘convenors’ who will be the Council’s primary contact in relation to convening a panel when required.

    ‘Convening’ a panel includes chairing that panel. A convenor may appoint other convenors to a panel.

    Together with fellow community ‘Public Watchdog’, Lisa Prager, filing a complaint for alleged ‘bribery and corruption’ by Mayor Len Brown.
    Assault complaint against 2 Auckland Council Officers who tried to physically remove me from the Auckland Council CEO Review Committee meeting on 20 February 2014, after Chair Councillor Chris Fletcher (unlawfully) denied me speaking rights in order to expose that new CEO Stephen Town was a member of the unelected private (invitation -only) lobby group – the Committee for Auckland (which he denied).

    http://www.committeeforauckland.co.nz/membership/member-organisations

    So – as a New Zealand anti-corruption ‘whistleblower’ – I have been censored, assaulted and now Auckland Council have threatened to sell my house to enforce (disputed) rates payments.

    (I refuse to pay rates, because the Council are not acting LAWFULLY and telling ratepayers exactly where our monies are being spent on thousands of private sector consultants and contractors. See for yourself – Public Records Act 2005, s 17.)

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345729.html

    Requirement to create and maintain records

    (1)Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.

    This is WAR.

    (All happening in Auckland, the biggest city in New Zealand, ‘perceived’ to be ‘the ‘least corrupt country in the world’).

    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

    Pity about the REALITY! )

    You may wish to pass on views directly to Mayor Len Brown?

    len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

    ‘WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW -RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY!’

    Here is an ACTION PLAN for a domestic legislative framework which would help ensure genuine transparency and accountability at local and central government level, and within our judiciary:

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    Attendee: 2009 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2010 Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference
    Attendee: 2013 Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
    http://www.occupyaucklandvsaucklandcouncilappeal.org.nz

  19. greywarbler 19
    16 March 2014 at 9:12 pm

    In the historical section on Radionz there was a mention of Ernie Abbott who died in a bomb attack in 1984 at the Trades Union Hall. The bomb was in a suitcase that was set up to go off when someone moved the case. That would require a special sort of mechanism wouldn’t it. Not a student prank gone wrong I think.

    This link has a picture of Ernie who looks a good sort.
    http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/now-showing/the-hatred-campaign/
    It contains a suggestion that it followed a concerted anti union campaign deliberately fostered by Muldoon and the National Party. The thinking was that it was set up to take attention away from a poor economic performance by the Nats. Seems extreme but dirty tricks by Muldoon and the Nats extended to holding Colin Moyle to ridicule, and then there was the hunting of the Sutch some time around then. So who knows? Some people did. And they were prepared to commit murder and justify it to themselves.

  20. captain hook 20
    16 March 2014 at 11:34 pm

    I think penny bright is off her f*cking head. Her pursuit of len is verging on the psychotic and obsessive.
    what happened.
    is she a woman scorned?

    • McFlock 20.1
      16 March 2014 at 11:44 pm

      bit sad her lack of proportion means she could well lose her home, though.

    • lprent 20.2
      17 March 2014 at 8:45 am

      29k in 6 years of unpaid rates + penalties + legal fees. I think that she thinks that the other ratepayers of Auckland are out to get her.

  21. greywarbler 21
    17 March 2014 at 11:29 am

    Ukraine – no surprise really that the vote was toward Russia as that has been indicated by recent press. But over 90%. Did a lot abstain?

    Now there is the situation with Ukraine troops in Crimea cut off and virtually imprisoned. Apparently because they have stayed put, the Russians haven’t bothered about their welfare. Now is the time to do this and the Russians must make arrangements for them to have water and food, as apparently the people have been providing those and that is an unsatisfactory situation.

    The Russians now have to show statesmanship and conduct talks with the Ukraine government about how the troops will leave if that is required. And Ukraine and Russia should be thinking of how to co-operate enough to protect each other’s interests. It is in both their interests to do so.

    And talking about WW2 moves, and what Europe and the USA want is a secondary issue. Sanctions could be just an interference in what the protagonists there believe is necessary political reorganisation.