Open mike 16/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 16th, 2015 - 142 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen 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 …

142 comments on “Open mike 16/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Paul 2
    16 September 2015 at 7:09 am

    Beneficiary bludger.
    Harry Windsor costs NZ over 4 million dollars for 9 day paid holiday.

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/life-style/72000007/prince-harrys-visit-cost-nz-taxpayers-426000

  4. Paul 4
    16 September 2015 at 7:24 am

    The Herald is obsessed with the trivia surrounding the Key family.
    Journalists? What a miserable excuse for the 4th estate this rag has become.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11513568

    • maui 4.1
      16 September 2015 at 12:33 pm

      A business article turns into Max pashing his girlfriend. Hopefully this is the end days for the herald, distorted reality mirroring what’s happening in government and capitalism in general.

  5. Paul 5
    16 September 2015 at 7:31 am

    A quarter of kids in poverty.

    ‘Responding to the bleak statistic that almost a quarter of all New Zealand families with children experience income poverty (2014 Child Poverty Monitor), Social Justice Week this year is focused on family poverty and what it would take for all Kiwi families to flourish.
    An annual awareness-raising campaign, the week is set aside by the Catholic Bishops of New Zealand and runs from 13-19 September this year. The aim in 2015 is to increase awareness and understanding of the challenges struggling families face today in Aoteraoa New Zealand, while also inspiring people to take action.
    This year Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand has produced a short documentary – ‘Kiwi Families: It’s Our Story’ – featuring four community groups across the country and the families they support.’

    Yes, the Herald sees this as less important than Max Key’s new ‘job’.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1509/S00126/social-justice-week-addresses-family-poverty-in-new-zealand.htm

    • KeepLeft 5.1
      16 September 2015 at 7:46 am

      So long as Key and the nasty Nats remain in power we will have poverty.

      Democracy has failed Aotearoa. The RWNJS control the media and use it dupe the masses.

      I am not advoting violence but the only answer is a violent if necessary revolutionary coup to force change! Private property will then be banned, a Maori Upper House set up in according to Te Tiriti O Waitangi, all ties to the fascist state of Isreal destroyed, and everyone giving according to their ablities and getting according to their needs. All equality! No poverty!

      • Sabine 5.1.1
        16 September 2015 at 8:03 am

        no democracy has not failed Aotearoa. Democracy is an idea of participation in the political process. What has failed Aotearoa are the Men and Women that have voted for high house prices (yei! us too are rich!!) and nothing else, that have voted for beneficiary bashing as they are not yet beneficiaries, the ones that have voted for the dismantling of our school system, our health system, our public service sector because they will never need to use it again or at least don’t want to fund it, the ones that will vote for greed and themselves cause when history will judge them they are dead.

        Greed, stupidity and short shortsightedness is failing Aotearoa, and if you only need to look at the current flag debacle / farce to see that it afflicts people of all stripes and political affiliation.

        • KeepLeft 5.1.1.1
          16 September 2015 at 9:16 am

          Those “Men and Women” are the wrongful majority. How can the rightful minority gain power in a democracy against a wrongful majority? For democracy to work the majority participating in it must at least have a brain!!!

          • Sabine 5.1.1.1.1
            16 September 2015 at 9:35 am

            the right full minority could have voted, all 1 million non voters of them, they could have worked together and forced their parties to vote together. But they did not. They voted for ‘their party’ ‘their candidate’ and sadly they are still arguing for ‘their party’ and ‘their candidate’ as if it were to make a difference. They don’t.

            No National won, because 1 million people want to associate with them and have no issues with poor kids, poor parents, crap housing, high unemployment and under employments, crap work safety and so on and so on because it serves them well.
            Then National won, because the opposition parties did not work together, they did not show spine and guts, they fiddled and sadly they are still fiddling, but hey, we got a new Labour Leader, and the Greens had the victory of a cycleway somewhere of national importance, and Winston won Northland, and Hone is retired.
            Then National won, because 1 million people could not be asked to vote, a lot of them white middle aged men cause no one does anything for them. A lot of them women on a benefit, cause no one does anything for them too. A lot of the young ones that just got the right to vote, cause why bother we are screwed anyways.

            The right full minority, needs to grow a spine, guts, and heart. They need to start working together, they need to start voting, not because someone will do something for them, but because the alternative is a government that will absolutly do nothing for them, be on record about not doing anything for them and be happy about it.

            So there, National won, because 2 million people were to occupied to do a nothing, b. to occupied to find fault with the ones that could do something, but hey ….they are not my party.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2
        16 September 2015 at 11:19 am

        a Maori Upper House set up in according to Te Tiriti O Waitangi

        I don’t recall a Māori upper house being mentioned in Te Tiriti.

      • The Lone Haranguer 5.1.3
        16 September 2015 at 11:34 am

        Keep Left,

        was there no poverty under the Helen Clark lead Labour Governments from 1999-2008? Get real!!!!

        I would prefer our current “failed democracy” to anything that you are advocating as our “failed democracy” has law and order – without violence – as its guiding principle.

        You may not like our “failed democracy” but t me it seems better than your jungle bunny violence driven model.

      • Naturesong 5.1.4
        16 September 2015 at 1:36 pm

        Woah!!!

        Take a breathe, make yourself a cup of tea and have a sit down.

        Hysterical ranting doesn’t do anyone any good. Least of all yourself.

  6. adam 6
    16 September 2015 at 7:49 am

    I thought this did a good job explaining it…

  7. James 7
    16 September 2015 at 7:53 am

    I’m assuming that you are saying that’s the only answer because you know that will never be voted for by the good people of new Zealand. But nice to see some people on here think that a violent rise up again the wishes of the majority of the country is the way to go. And to think you call right wingers nut jobs.

    • DoublePlusGood 7.1
      16 September 2015 at 8:10 am

      Pretty sure that one twit (that could even be a right-winger pretending, for troll purposes) doesn’t represent all left wing people.

    • Stuart Munro 7.2
      16 September 2015 at 8:19 am

      Ultimately fascism is never put back in its box before there is a certain amount of skirmishing. The last one was called World War Two.

  8. Murray Simmonds 8
    16 September 2015 at 8:12 am

    CHANGE OF TOPIC:

    I’m starting to look at an interesting line of conspiracy theories regarding the question of “Who owns the Federal Reserve?”

    If you “Google” that question, one of the first statements to come up is from the U.S. Government itself; essentially it denies that the Fed is a privately owned operation. To which, a conspiracy theorist might reply “Well they would say that, wouldn’t they!”

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

    Look a bit further down the list thrown up by Google and there’s an interesting article by Ellen Brown who argues that (quote) “The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks”:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

    Brown is the author of eleven books; her article begins with this quote:

    “Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
    The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s.

    There are also several Youtube videos on the topic including this lengthy but fascinating 3 hour 20 minute effort, published in Oct 2014:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtiOEpOnqtI

    It is accompanied by a couple of quotes:
    “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” ~ Rothschild

    “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” ~ Rothschild

    There are also shorter versions available on Youtube.
    Even if they are only half true, they give the citizens of the world an AWFUL lot to worry about!

    And now, both Australia and NZ have prime ministers who formerly worked for the U.S. Banks! Am I getting paranoid in my old age???

    • Chooky 8.1
      16 September 2015 at 9:06 am

      +100…thanks…interesting

    • vto 8.2
      16 September 2015 at 9:26 am

      “Am I getting paranoid in my old age???”

      No Murray Simmonds you are not. You are simply waking up to one of the most real realities of our world. More people are waking up to it.

      Pre-interweb days it was easier to keep such things on the downlow, but today all information is out in the public arena so people are in fact waking up to the fact that;

      One, the US Federal Reserve, which prints all US money, is privately owned.

      Two, the printed money brings a return for the private owners equating to the interest rate (pretty good money for doing some printing……..).

      Three, all loans by banks, including NZ banks, are created out of thin air – the loan money didn’t exist before it was lent, it is simply printed. . . and all interest paid on that printed loan goes to the bank (pretty good money for doing some printing).

      Four, that this privately-owned money system requires economic growth so that the interest can be paid i.e. most all growth in our economies goes to banks, hence why the average Joe’s position is the same as it has always been despite economic growth (and the rich just are spectacularly rich)

      Five, that John Key knows all of this full well, and knows that the people don’t know this.

      Six, if you think about it, the entire system is a Ponzi scheme incapable of running forever. It is on its last legs imo.

  9. esoteric pineapples 9
    16 September 2015 at 8:23 am

    I see the Prime Minister gets to decide when he can delete his texts – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11513398

    • tracey 9.1
      16 September 2015 at 3:00 pm

      Are we paying for his phone and all those personal/party texts?

      • odot 9.1.1
        16 September 2015 at 5:37 pm

        I genuinely cannot believe that Key got away with this, there is no logical reason to be deleting texts in this day and age. Back in the late 1990s or early 2000s when phones only had memory measured in MBs, sure deleting texts would have been necessary but in this day and age with phones that have GBs worth of memory I cannot see any logical reason for it (aside from the obvious – keeping information out of public record).

        This is a man who represents the entire country, a man who should be answerable to everyone, yet he gets to pick and choose which conversations are deletable and which are on public record? Give me a break.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1
          16 September 2015 at 6:52 pm

          there is no logical reason to be deleting texts in this day and age.

          Of course there’s a logical reason – when you don’t want people finding out what you said because it’d send you to jail.

          • mac1 9.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 10:41 am

            I think someone in somebody’s office just read the news. A teacher got sacked and removed from the profession for sexual misconduct evidenced by 8,000 texts.

  10. esoteric pineapples 10
    16 September 2015 at 8:34 am

    Just a thought on conspiracy theorists

    I received a post on my Facebook page from a conspiracy theorist that claims Hitler was right when he talked about a conspiracy and this is being proved at the present time. I have noticed before that some conspiracy theorists refer to the “Rothschilds” which seemed to have an anti-Jewish flavour. It seems now that some conspiracy theorists who previously have focused on 9/11 etc have now gone full circle in their attempt to save us all from the dangers of the “Illuminati” etc to the point that they are actually in the same camp as holocaust deniers and support the arch conspiracy theorist of all time – Hitler – who exterminated millions of people. Conspiracy theorists can make a useful contribution at times to analysing events and highlighting inconsistencies but recognising irony is not their strong suite. For instance, a good number are deniers of man-made climate change which puts them in the same camp as far right Republican politicians in the United States which they usually see being part of the evil forces they are trying to alert the world to. Going full circle to supporting Hitler’s conspiracy theories is taking irony to a whole other level.

    • The lost sheep 10.1
      16 September 2015 at 8:43 am

      Someone who has access to secret information told me last week that there is a conspiracy to brainwash the unenlightened masses into believing that Conspiracies are not real, and that the people who claim to know about them are nutters.

    • vto 10.2
      16 September 2015 at 10:14 am

      Conspiring is one of the most core attributes of human behaviour. People conspire all day every day – it is human nature…

      Footy players conspire to beat the opposing footy team

      Hunters conspire to kill antelope

      Wife conspires to get husband to mow lawns

      Business people conspire to get a deal

      Children conspire to get lollies

      Armies conspire to kill huge swathes of humanity

      Politicians … well no, politicians never conspire …………

      …

      to conspire is to be human

      • tracey 10.2.1
        16 September 2015 at 3:01 pm

        for clarity

        verb
        make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.
        “they conspired against him”
        synonyms: plot, hatch a plot, form a conspiracy, scheme, plan, lay plans, intrigue, collude, connive, collaborate, consort, machinate, manoeuvre, be/work hand in glove;
        More
        (of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular negative result.
        “everything conspires to exacerbate the situation”
        synonyms: act together, work together, combine, join, unite, ally, join forces, cooperate;

        • Rodel 10.2.1.1
          16 September 2015 at 8:35 pm

          Also- ‘ working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone’s detriment’
          DETRIMENT is a key concept

        • vto 10.2.1.2
          17 September 2015 at 6:38 am

          Thanks for the clarity Tracey but it was not necessary as a closer consideration of the examples provided will highlight the negative result required for the victim in each case, for conspiracy to exist …

          You must have missed it in the haze fog which seems to envelope your eyes with each response to mine

      • Puddleglum 10.2.2
        16 September 2015 at 9:27 pm

        Yes, human sociality is built on shifting alliances and the gossip and network of conversations that individuals and groups of individuals have with each other.

        But as Tracy points out, the word ‘conspire’ (when applied to people rather than events) is usually used when the aim is to harm. (The Red Cross doesn’t ‘conspire’ to help in disaster situations, for example.)

        I’d actually call conversations involving how best to ‘spin’ a political event as ‘conspiring’ since I believe that attempting to generate a partial and limited understanding of events in the mind of the public is to do harm to the public, whose interest is to know the whole truth and consequences of an event.

        The way in which the Tories are currently misrepresenting Corbyn’s words in their video, for example, is a classic, conspiratorial act in my books. They know they are misrepresenting him – but they wish to do that to give the public a false impression of him.

        Given that so many thousands of people today make their livings out of these kinds of conversations and spinning efforts I suppose it wouldn’t be ‘good form’ to call them ‘conspiracies’ – more like ‘business’ perhaps? (Reminiscent of Adam Smith’s comment about business people gathered in a room always conspiring against the public.)

        • vto 10.2.2.1
          17 September 2015 at 6:33 am

          Exactly Puddleglum, but no everyday spin merchants should be called out on what they are – conspiracists, conspiring to negative ends…

          … on which, you may notice (seems Tracey missed it) that each of my examples involve the ‘negative outcome’ required for a conspiracy…

  11. Rosie 11
    16 September 2015 at 8:37 am

    When does the employment relations amendment act come into effect? There was to be a new provision included that would go some way to protect workers against zero hours contracts.

    However I keep reading job ads that still appear to expecting the prospective employee to be on call 7 days a week:

    Here’s one example, see what you make of the requirements:

    “have full availability across all retail hours – must be able to work 12-3pm weekdays and weekends”

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.aspx?id=949998029

    I read that as you are rostered on for 7 days, 3 hours per day, for 21 hours of work, but then you must be available across “all retail hours”

    If I’ve read this correctly you are working 7 days a week and then still expected to be on call when ever they need you at other times. 21 hours + ?

    These are shitty hours and this employer must know they are using desperation as a lever

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      16 September 2015 at 2:26 pm

      These are shitty hours and this employer must know they are using desperation as a lever

      Which is why they will vote National – they know that National will attack beneficiaries and make life far more difficult for the poor so that it will be easier to exploit them.

  12. STONE SHI 12
    16 September 2015 at 8:46 am

    Revealing Freudian slip from Gower this morning on Paul Henry (paraphrasing):

    Paul: “You could be a political strategist Paddy!”
    Gower: “I don’t think Lab… I don’t think anyone would want me, Paul!”

    [r0b: Please stick with this name / email from now on, It’s a pain for moderators when you change your name all the time because the first comment from every new name gets held for moderation. One name / email – or I’m just going to delete them from now on.]

    • half crown 12.1
      16 September 2015 at 9:30 am

      Did anyone see Henry this morning? The reason I asked, I normally don’t go down that sewer but when I switched the TV on it was tuned to TV3 and I could not avoid hearing Henry as the inspection cover to the sewer was off. Before a managed to change channels I heard that prat say something about Andrew Little should be more respectful to Key or something as it gives a bad impression overseas or something and he will never become a PM or something. What the fuck was that dick on about?

      • tc 12.1.1
        16 September 2015 at 9:32 am

        Ensuring he gets his sycophant quota filled whatever way he can.

      • b waghorn 12.1.2
        16 September 2015 at 12:15 pm

        He was pushing the same line a few of the rw muppets where pushing here about Little not being statesman like with his comment about pitying Australia if the new leader wants to be like key.
        He’s got to earn his money some how.

        • Puddleglum 12.1.2.1
          16 September 2015 at 9:47 pm

          Oh, I thought Henry may have been referring to Little playing hard to get on the flag referendum, Red Peak, etc..

          Speaking of giving ‘a bad impression of Key overseas’ it seems Key is managing that all by himself.

          Here’s The Economist on the flag debate:

          ““FARCE” barely describes the process by which New Zealand is deciding whether or not it needs a new flag. John Key, the prime minister, caught everyone by surprise during last year’s general-election campaign when he floated the idea of changing it. He wanted to get rid of the present one, which incorporates Britain’s Union Jack as well as the stars of the Southern Cross, to one that, as he put it to The Economist, “screams New Zealandness”. The immediate reaction was that this was at best an irrelevance, at worst a cynical diversion from the difficult stuff of politics.“

          • b waghorn 12.1.2.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 7:49 am

            “”Oh, I thought Henry may have been referring to Little playing hard to get on the flag referendum, Red Peak, etc..”
            It is a long show so you are possible right I’m sure henry takes any chance available to attack labour.

            • Puddleglum 12.1.2.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 8:17 am

              I was just going on half crown’s comment – I have no idea what Henry said as I have never listened to him.

              So you’re first hand account is the one I’d go with.

              Sounds like Henry has no sense of humour when it comes to his main man 🙂

  13. half crown 13
    16 September 2015 at 8:54 am

    James said @ #7 7.52 am

    “And to think you call right wingers nut jobs.”

    Not all of them James, In fact occasionally we do get one who comes on here with a
    very valid argument. Although one may not agree with it, one can see the logic of their point of view.
    But that is extremely rare.

    • Stuart Munro 13.1
      16 September 2015 at 8:58 am

      Most of the non-nutjob righties have better manners than to come here to stir up trouble.

    • Puckish Rogue 13.2
      16 September 2015 at 9:41 am

      Thank you

      • half crown 13.2.1
        16 September 2015 at 4:34 pm

        Hey Puckish I say this in jest. As us lefties are all for spending our dollar and banking others dollars, according to a good right wing myth. Please,don’t thank us, buy us something

        Regards

    • Anne 13.3
      16 September 2015 at 9:42 am

      An example is David Farrar. We know he is a National Party fan boy and his blogsite is indicative of that, but on the rare occasion he has come here to debate something he is polite and respectful, and he receives politeness and respect in return.

      • Morrissey 13.3.1
        16 September 2015 at 11:55 am

        Farrar is a fool, and a liar, and his opinions are nasty. However, his amiable persona means he can get away with a lot. Other lightweight commentators like Jordan Williams could learn a lot from him.

        • rhinocrates 13.3.1.1
          16 September 2015 at 1:03 pm

          That “amiable” personality only appears if you’re a man. Women to him are slabs of meat. Other RW commentators have indeed learned a lot from him at his “Princess Parties.”

  14. esoteric pineapples 14
    16 September 2015 at 9:31 am

    A friend on Facebook posted a clip of Jeremy Corbyn and said “We are behind you”. I fully support the sentiment but commented that it is better to say “We are beside you”. I think people expect too much of the people they want to be their champions. We can’t expect another individual to take all the heat while we stand behind them. I think this has been a problem for Labour for quite a few years. It votes in another leader and then that person is expected to engage the opposition on their own. Phil Goff seemed to be fighting all by himself in 2011 and there didn’t seem to be much back up support from the rest of the party, especially cabinet members for David Cunliffe. Things seem to be a little bit better for Andrew Little but he still seems to be doing all the heavy lifting by himself. The same principle applies to all progressive parties and organisations. Bob Dylan was right – “don’t follow leaders” – see them as part of a chain that you also are part of as well.

  15. Morrissey 15
    16 September 2015 at 9:38 am

    Three hours of Hosking and Henry every morning.
    Could New Zealand’s media get any more dismal?
    The Mike Hosking Breakfast, NewstalkZB and PAUL HENRY, TV3
    Wednesday 16 September 2015

    vacuous adj. 1. lacking in ideas or intelligence: a vacuous mind. 2. expressing or characterized by a lack of ideas or intelligence; inane; stupid: a vacuous show.

    Just before the 8 o’clock news, Sky City and National Party booster Mike Hosking said: “I thought what Andrew Little said yesterday about the new Australian prime minister was CHURLISH.”

    After the news, it was time for the weekly “Wednesday Politics” feature…..

    MIKE HOSKING: What are your thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn?
    STEVEN JOYCE: It’s going to cause them a lot of trouble.
    ANNETTE KING: I think it’s a case of wait and see. He’s certainly popular.
    JOYCE: Yeah THAT’S true.
    HOSKING: Hmmm…. But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?
    KING: I didn’t say that.
    HOSKING: He’ll be printing money! Will he even BE there for the next general election?
    KING: He’ll be there.
    HOSKING: And they’ll LOSE!
    JOYCE: He’ll be gone. They’ll wake up and see what they’ve done.

    …ad nauseam…

    Half an hour later, another Sky City ambassador was winding up his show. Apparently Dame Helen Mirren must have said something that offended Paul “Kill them ALL” Henry, because he snarled about “silly old Helen Mirren” to his guest, then right at the end of the program, he said this:

    I’d like to dedicate this program to Dame Helen Mirren, because no matter how hard she tries, she’ll never be Dame Judy Dench.”

    His slaves Jim Kayes and Hillary Barry looked unimpressed, and frowned in a troubled manner.

    • Puckish Rogue 15.1
      16 September 2015 at 10:01 am

      The only way this could be better is if Michael Laws is brought in as well

    • The Chairman 15.2
      16 September 2015 at 2:45 pm

      “But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?
      KING: I didn’t say that”

      Another one from Labour distancing themselves Corbyn’s left wing position.

      Why is the Labour Party so afraid of being left?

      Apart from members, is there anybody in the Labour Party actually left-wing?

      • Morrissey 15.2.1
        16 September 2015 at 4:43 pm

        People like Annette King and Josie Pagani are the reason that Labour is at such a low ebb.

        • The Chairman 15.2.1.1
          16 September 2015 at 5:55 pm

          I totally agree, Morrissey.

          Attitudes like this from Labour merely reinforces the perception that being left is some how bad. Giving their media (clowns like Hosking) and political opponents a larger stick to bash them with.

          • Alethios 15.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2015 at 2:39 am

            To be fair to the woman, she was being asked (and hence NZ Labour) to effectively, out of the blue, carte blanche endorse Corbyn’s entire position. I’m glad she didn’t. Hosking’s show is hardly the place for nuance.

            • The Chairman 15.2.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2015 at 8:14 am

              I totally disagree, Alethios

              Any astute Labour MP should have seen this coming. They are well aware of what has taken place in the UK, thus the repercussions that would be reflected on them.

              Moreover, Corbyn’ s monumental victory presented a prime opportunity for Labour here to cement a new position.

              She should have stood tall and proud and hammered him with the facts (all the good things) Corbyn stands for.

              She coward like a little girl and fell straight into his stratagem.

              Labour needs to badly up their political game.

              If the need assistance, I can help with that.

              • Alethios …
                17 September 2015 at 1:18 pm

                Maybe you’re right, but surely she’d need a mandate from, at the very least, caucus first – before personally realigning NZ Labour?

                • The Chairman …
                  17 September 2015 at 1:29 pm

                  She could have answered from a personal position.

                  Moreover, an astute Party would have prepared for the possibility.

                • McFlock …
                  17 September 2015 at 1:43 pm

                  I agree Alethios.

                  Everyone has some policy or other that might sound nutty, if only to someone on the other side of the planet.

                  Hosking, being a nat fanboi, could well have one of those policies or a statement from Corbyn in reserve just in case King did categorically endorse Corbyn – probably a longer rant of the “Hell be printing money” line that he used before he flipped to speculation as to how long Corbyn will last (if morrissey’s ).
                  I note that when hoaxing asked whether corbyn will see the next election, King said “He’ll be there”. So not blanket about policy specifics, but firm on the stability of UK Labour under Corbyn.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 September 2015 at 1:52 pm

                    She could have simply said she largely supports his position, highlighting a number of strong points, giving further weight to her last remark, while leaving scope to counter any further challenge from Hosking.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 September 2015 at 2:05 pm

                      Three commas and a “while” does not “simply” make, not on radio with two opponents and no friends in the discussion.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 September 2015 at 2:14 pm

                    We all know Annette can handle herself, McFlock.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 September 2015 at 2:32 pm

                      Indeed.
                      But live broadcasts, can only handle nuanced responses if the interviewer isn’t an active opponent.
                      King makes complex response, hosking “simplifies” it, joyce tagteams with mockery of the straw man hosking just raised, King has to debate what she actually meant and so looks defensive.

                      Interviews with hostile media are holding actions, not advances.

                  • The Chairman …
                    17 September 2015 at 3:11 pm

                    The response I suggested to you was far from complex. Moreover, a well seasoned MP like King knows what to expect and how to counter in kind. As I do with you, McFlock.

                    Interviews with the media, regardless if they’re deemed hostile (which most are to the left) is where the fight for voters is largely fought. It’s where the larger audience are.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 September 2015 at 3:19 pm

                      Not too complex for text, where you get to write all you want, whenever you want, are guaranteed to be uninterrupted if it looks like you’re making a good point, and existing for future reference when it’s misinterpreted.

                      But no good for an interview on mediaworks. Short answers, clear, not being drawn in to rash commitments – that’s what she needed, and that’s what she gave.

                      As you say, she’s experienced and “well seasoned” enough to know how to deal with different media environments. I suspect that you are not.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 September 2015 at 2:18 pm

                    Rubbish.

                    The spoken word is faster than the written word, thus you’re clutching, McFlock.

                    And that was an example of how one can quickly shutdown a fictitious contention.

                    She could have hammered Hosking with a few quick points and then swiftly shutdown any contention from Joyce, irrespective of the media setting.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 September 2015 at 2:34 pm

                      An example that relied on a single bullshit assertion and a complete lack of interruption in delivery of said bullshit. EG:

                      TC: Rubbish. The spoken word is faster than the written word, thus you-

                      McF [voice raised in laughter]: on what planet? If you’re going to start making stuff up, at least make it plausible!

                      hammered Hosking with a few quick points which he’d never let her finish without interruption – the technique used to defeat the gish gallop.
                      swiftly shutdown any contention from Joyce because nact ministers are famous for accepting opposition points without protest, regardless of the points’ merit?

                      The result of your tactical plan is simply to end up in a shouting match that makes men look strong and women look pushy and alienates the public, adding to the missing million.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 September 2015 at 3:23 pm

                    A single bullshit assertion? Nonsense. It’s a fact and you know it. The spoken word is faster than the written word.

                    Clearly, you don’t know how to take control of an interview. One simply shuts down any attempted interruption.

                    Winston often shows how it’s done, thus generally dominates the debate.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 September 2015 at 3:48 pm

                      Feel free to keep asserting. I can still read faster than most people talk, especially if they wish to be understood.

                      And how will you interrupt me? Sure, you can glance over sentences, but there is no way for you to derail or distract me from composing this paragraph as I write it. My full message is guaranteed to be delivered (moderators permitting 🙂 ).

                      You talk about taking control of an interview as if it is a passive thing. Two other people were attempting to take control of that conversation, too. All three highly experienced at dealing with the medium. Yes, Winston is exceptionally good at it, and even he has his bad days.

                      “One simply shuts down any attempted interruption.” Lol. One does not simply shut down any attempted interruption. That’s why even Winston only “generally” dominates the debate.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 September 2015 at 5:40 pm

                    Read faster?

                    Now where did I assert that?

                    We were discussing the speed of the spoken word compared to the written.

                    Therefore, you are now resorting to presenting strawmans. Clearly you have no credible counter.

                    I don’t need to interrupt you, not that I can online. My counters stand solid, regardless what fictitious crap you write.

                    There are numerous ways to take control of the spoken medium. Below are several examples.

                    By being on point. Ensuring the delivery is hard hitting and presented swiftly, robbing opponents of the opportunity to interrupt. This is the quick jab approach.

                    Highlight the question was put to you. Thus, highlighting their rudeness, thereby getting the audience on your side while gaining back the floor.

                    Stating excuse me sharply, stunning opponents into silence, thus presenting the opportunity to regain the floor.

                    Shame and embarrass them for asking a question (or speaking out of turn) and not giving you the opportunity. Again, winning the audience over to your side.

                    Getting the audience on side in a debate/interview, puts one in the winning position.

                    Yes, we all have our bad days from time to time, thus the use of the word ‘generally’ above.

                    Are you now going to conveniently excuse this as one of Annette’s bad days?

                    You seem to making a lot of excuses for her. She could have performed better and we both know it.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 September 2015 at 9:36 pm

                      Ah, so the spoken word is “faster” than the written word, but the written word doesn’t need to be read.

                      “By being on point. Ensuring the delivery is hard hitting and presented swiftly,” She did that. Corrected hosking when he attributed comments to her that she didn’t make, and said firmly that corbyn will be the labour leaderin the next election. You’re just pissed because she didn’t carte blanch attribute to NZ Labour all the policies of UK Labour and every single personal belief of Corbyn.

                      “Highlight the question was put to you. Thus, highlighting their rudeness, ” – yadda yadda, all joyce does then is explain how you’re wrong when you’ve barely started answering, then you get into an argument that simply adds to the missing million.

                      “stunning opponents into silence” – lol yeah, right. Got any clips of that happening to joyce or hosking, ever?

                      “Shame and embarrass them” – they have no fucking shame. They’re tories. Try another one.

                      Basically, the only “excuse” I’ve made is to point out that king was in the real world, not in whatever fantasy land you’re picturing.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 September 2015 at 9:56 pm

                    No. I’m disappointed she was quick to distance herself from his left wing stance. And in doing so fell straight into Hosking’s stratagem,
                    reinforcing the perception that being left is some how bad.

                    Not off hand (re clips). Moreover, it was merely a general example – not a specific one.

                    Have you got any clips to prove it hasn’t worked on them?

                    To shame and embarrass them to win over the audience. How they feel is of no concern.

                    And no, you are full of excuses – see your posts above.

                    What else you got?

                    • McFlock …
                      18 September 2015 at 10:15 pm

                      I’m disappointed she was quick to distance herself from his left wing stance.

                      cite, pls. Or did you want her to “endorse his positions”, as hosking put it?

                      You’ve made the assertion that she could have stunned hosking and/or joyce into silence. You’re welcome to provide evidence that that has ever happened.

                      To shame and embarrass them to win over the audience. How they feel is of no concern.

                      lol so basically your advice is for king to get the audience on her side. People who tune in to specifically watch hosking. Slight audience bias, there, easily covered by the bluster and confidence joyce and hosking exude.

                      Oh, sorry, that was a refernce to the real world again, so you’ll probably call it another “excuse”.

                  • The Chairman …
                    18 September 2015 at 11:05 pm

                    Of course not (as Hosking put it) That was most likely also part his stratagem. However, she could have handled far better, as I’ve already explained to you above.

                    The way she handled it also fell into his stratagem, handing him a larger stick to bash the left.

                    Therefore, you are now going over covered ground. Clearly, you’ve got nothing new to add

                    And again, it was a general example – not a specific one. As we also already covered.

                    You’re the one that specifically named Joyce and Hosking, implying its never worked on them, thus I called you out.

                    Now your speculating on who tunes in, hence I’m now also calling you on that too.

                    No, that was an example of you’re amateurish spin, which I just unspun and served back to you.

                    Too easy. Up your game.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 September 2015 at 11:22 pm

                      You’ve outlined alternative ways she could have handled it. They were not ways she could have handled it “better”, for reasons I have already explained to you above.

                      Yes, I specifically named joyce and hosking, for the simple reason that they were the people she was facing. In order for her to deal with something “better” in that situation, it needs to work on them, not just “generally”. Again, a reference to the real world rather than an excuse.

                      Saying that people who tune in to watch hosking’s programme are tuning in to watch hosking’s programme is not speculation. It’s a statement of the obvious: the “audience” you wanted king to win over choose to tune in to hosking. Hosking is a rabid national party propagandist and I believe a former national party candidate, as well as a fuckwit. You wanted king to appeal to people who choose to tune in to watch that type of person. My speculation is that singing the internationale wasn’t going to do the job.

                  • The Chairman …
                    19 September 2015 at 12:15 am

                    Yes. I did outline how. And explained why it was an improvement. Moreover, I fully countered your flawed reasoning on every point.

                    I know you named them. Hence, I called you out on it.

                    And you still haven’t shown that it wouldn’t have worked on them.

                    I also gave an example (the quick jab approach) which you conceded has worked on them. King just didn’t apply it well, thus fell into his stratagem.

                    Therefore, it’s time for you to front up.

                    You were speculating on the mindset of who tunes in – not the obvious, they’re tuning in to Hosking’s show, as you just spun.

                    Not everybody that tunes in has the same mindset as you incorrectly implied. I don’t support Hosking, but I tune in.

                    I wanted King to up her game and not fall into his stratagem, making the left look bad.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 September 2015 at 12:39 am

                      Here’s the thing: you reckon she could have done better against hosking and joyce in that conversation. Not some general hypothetical debate, you reckon she should have done better in that specific, precise circumstance.

                      So maybe you could demonstrate how your suggestions would be “better” in that precise, specific incident against those specific people, rather than pretending that naming the specific people in that specific situation is somehow a dirty trick to “call me out on”.

                      You talked about how she should have won the audience over in that specific conversation. The nature of that specific audience is therefore a reasonable factor to consider. You watched it. so did morrissey. Big deal. Surely it’s a reasonable assumption to assume the bulk of the audience were fans of the host, rather than frustrated lefties more eager to score points against Labour than the tories?

                      The one time she followed “your” strategem, you didn’t like the result. There’s no pleasing some people, I guess.

                  • The Chairman …
                    19 September 2015 at 1:38 am

                    Indeed. We both know she could have done better. And how has been demonstrated/outlined above. She even used an approach I gave as an example. Which you went on to concede worked. However, her execution was flawed.

                    But this, is once again, all covered ground.

                    I didn’t say or pretend naming them was a dirty trick. That’s more of your lies and spin

                    I was calling you out on your claim that another of my examples wouldn’t have (because you implied it never has). Thus I called you on it.

                    Claiming I’m not in the real world or spinning it proves nothing. You’ re just wasting my time.

                    How about you cut the crap, front up and substantiate your claim. Or own that you’re wrong

                    The make up of the mindset of the bulk of the audience is anybodies guess. People may have tuned in because she was airing. Moreover,you went further than just assuming, thus I’m calling you on your claim.

                    You may be happy with a poor performance and making the left look bad. I know she is cable of better, thus expected better.

                    Do you work for her? You seem overly keen to defend her.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 September 2015 at 8:01 pm

                      You want evidence that you live in a fantasy land? How about your repeated claims of what I do and do not know. Not only are those claims without basis, they frequently run contrary to everything I’ve said.

                      You want to know why I give a shit? I’m not employed by labour, anyone in labour, and I’m not employed to comment here. I give a shit because I think that the eternal bitching by self-loathing labourites is the haemorrhoids on the arsehole of the left. They profess genuine concern and a goodwilled desire for caucus to “improve”, but really they’re just throwing their toys out of the cot. Leadership and caucus can be huge puss-filled pimples on the face of Labour and the left, but some of the tories’ best allies are self-proclaimed lefties who whinge obsessively. In my opinion, anyway.

                  • The Chairman …
                    19 September 2015 at 8:14 pm

                    Well, considering I countered all your points thus far (and you even conceded to a couple) you should very well know. Therefore, your evidence doesn’t really stack up.

                    As for the rest of your post, it’s merely your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions? They are like assholes, everybody has one. And I just kicked yours.

                    [lprent: Claiming victory around here is dangerous. I like to exhibit it too. But I have more toolkit and I really don’t care about do the debating bit. I jump to you losing.

                    If you use anything like a pwned/owned strategy, I will happily demonstrate who always wins. It is the sysop, who has had to clean up too many flamewars caused by jumped up gits playing stupid debating games. Read the policy on flamewars. This is your only warning. Let me know when you have read this. It will be in auto-moderation. ]

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

                      OK.

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 September 2015 at 9:56 pm

                      By the way, I posted in a couple of other threads before reading this. Will they now be released? Or will I have to re-post them?

                      [r0b: released the commments, left automod on for lprent to decide.]

                    • The Chairman …
                      20 September 2015 at 11:11 am

                      lprent

                      The OK was in reference to reading your warning.

                      Here’ my perspective.

                      You wanted me to engage more, thus I was. Countering points being made (debating).

                      Nevertheless, it takes two to participate in a so-called flame war. I don’t see McFlock being warned for his participation.

                      Furthermore, when ones opponent resorts to strawmans, spin and lies to points made, clearly they have no credible counter, thus are losing the debate. Hence, I wasn’t claiming victory, merely stating fact. Which surely isn’t against this site’s policy?

                      Therefore, now that this has been made clear, I would expect you (if you are balanced and reasonable) to reconsider and revoke the warning made.

                      [lprent: Don’t try to use strawman arguments on me! Read the warning. Nothing you said here has ANYTHING to do with that warning. I wasn’t talking about the conversation you were having. That was fine. You can argue that all you want.

                      What I warned you about was using pwned/owned arguments. That is a specific flamewar starter that I look for, and stomp on hard. You may have noticed that others don’t use it? There is a reason for that.

                      If you can’t read clear warnings, I will take what I consider is the appropriate action. ]

                    • The Chairman …
                      20 September 2015 at 11:18 am

                      Additionally, people like me are beneficial to Labour. it allows them to covertly test voter support of their position (or newly considered policy) while gauging potential counters to positions being considered.

                      Allowing them to better counter things or improve them, before going public.

                    • McFlock …
                      20 September 2015 at 8:45 pm

                      well, all that was your opinion, I guess.

                      Do you want to keep monday-morning-refereeing two short comments King made in a panel discussion, or are we done here?

            • The Chairman 15.2.1.1.1.2
              17 September 2015 at 8:37 am

              Additionally, Annette is one that is capable of dishing it out. Unfortunately, she decided not too.

          • Tracey 15.2.1.1.2
            17 September 2015 at 1:36 pm

            yup… when the left quietly aquiecse to the notion that left = bad… what hope?

            • The Chairman 15.2.1.1.2.1
              17 September 2015 at 2:07 pm

              What hope indeed.

              Her response helped seal the perception Hosking was attempting to paint.

              And we know Annette (a well seasoned MP) is more capable than that.

    • Bill 15.3
      18 September 2015 at 6:29 pm

      Q. – But surely Annette, you couldn’t endorse his positions could you?

      Answer: “Why not?”

      The questioner then (I think) has no option but to list/rant various ‘outrageous positions’ .

      Points can be agreed with, repudiated or ignored and at the end something like “So, we know you certainly don’t endorse him Mike…but that’s no surprise to anyone”, can be thrown in.

      Take away confidence, insert fear or uncertainty (a constant state of affairs for the NZ Labour Party, it seems) – and you get something along the lines of what happened.

  16. Morrissey 16
    16 September 2015 at 10:02 am

    Jerry Seinfeld, Andrew Dice Clay and Sasha Baron Cohen eat your hearts out:
    Here’s another insane right wing “comedian”.

    Wayne Rogers used to play the part of Trapper John in the hit television show M*A*S*H. Trapper John was a funny, witty, nice guy. Wayne Rogers, on the other hand, is neither funny nor witty nor nice….

    Fox Guest EXPLODES: Will You SHUP UP? You’re a MORON https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZH4xm8_SPw

  17. vto 17
    16 September 2015 at 11:42 am

    Just when are farmers going to stop demanding to eat the environment?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/72042704/grasmere-station-owners-doing-everything-humanly-possible-to-limit-lake-pollution

    Isn’t it clear that farming has ruined this lake in just the last recent years? Yet he wants to intensify further?

    Do these guys have rocks in their heads or something?…. Listen to what the planet and people are telling you mr farmer….stop acting like a child …. stop and listen to what you are being told …..

    … the land cannot be irrigated as it is way too sensitive. Stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Ffs.

    … when will farmers learn to farm within the confines of their farm and their climate? If it is a dry place then farm as a dry place.

    ffs, farmers attitudes and approaches drive me nuts with their square-peg-round-hole demands.

    edit: whats the bet that the previous owners of this station always used to claim “blah blah we are custodians of the land and want to leave it better for the next generation blah blah”. All farmers do. Yet the evidence shows that farmers have NEVER left the land in a better condition for the future. Never. It is a lie. Proved by their own actions and results.

    • weka 17.1
      16 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Yeah that one makes me see red too. I wonder how much is a result of 30 years of neoliberalism socialising people into an overdevelopped sense of entitlement. Adding that to the culture of importance within some farming sectors, plus the banks and farm advisors encouraging all their clients to see the environement in terms of profit, it’s a bad mix.

      If you’ve done everything you can to protect the environment and you’re still polluting it, then you just have to stop farming.

    • weka 17.2
      16 September 2015 at 1:55 pm

      edit: whats the bet that the previous owners of this station always used to claim “blah blah we are custodians of the land and want to leave it better for the next generation blah blah”. All farmers do. Yet the evidence shows that farmers have NEVER left the land in a better condition for the future. Never. It is a lie. Proved by their own actions and results.

      There are whole systems of farming that address this, broadly called regenerative agriculture and holistic land management. Biodynamics and some organic farms too. The underlying ethos is that all practices have to build health in the land not deplete it ie there is a net increase. There are farmers in NZ already doing this, and there is no reason that we couldn’t be doing this en masse, apart from greed, ignorance, and the control that the banks and Fed Farmers have.

      • Draco T Bastard 17.2.1
        16 September 2015 at 2:51 pm

        There are farmers in NZ already doing this, and there is no reason that we couldn’t be doing this en masse, apart from greed, ignorance, and the control that the banks and Fed Farmers have.

        True and the only way that we will get the farmers doing sustainable farming is to legislate for it. The farmers will whinge for awhile but I think that they’d all come around eventually.

        I also think we need to limit farming to ~15% of the land mass of the country and to suitable locations.

  18. James 18
    16 September 2015 at 1:38 pm

    From the Conservatives youtube channel this morning…

    https://youtu.be/_hgJokgNJHo

    • Mrs Brillo 19.1
      16 September 2015 at 3:24 pm

      For a man who owes his job to the charity of the National party, he shows precious little charity of his own.

      • Tracey 19.1.1
        17 September 2015 at 4:10 pm

        he has only just realised that he and his friends had advantages growing up… so one step at a time

  20. The Chairman 20
    16 September 2015 at 2:39 pm

    The vulnerable are missing out.

    Paula Bennett said more money would be pumped into social services if it was needed but she didn’t think funding was the issue.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/72055569/government-needs-to-do-more-than-just-tinker-with-social-services–report

    But haven’t reports cited low benefit payments as a contributing factor adding to social, health, and poverty problems? Therefore, isn’t more money needed?

    Thoughts?

    • Draco T Bastard 20.1
      16 September 2015 at 2:54 pm

      More money is needed but that means that the rich will have to pay more in taxes and wages and National won’t support that.

      • The Chairman 20.1.1
        16 September 2015 at 3:36 pm

        Not necessarily, the long-term savings in health and other related areas can offset an increase.

        Moreover, there was little public outcry when National recently increase some benefits.

        Labour should take note.

    • tracey 20.2
      16 September 2015 at 3:03 pm

      funding isn’t the issue if you cut off claims at the pass

  21. greywarshark 21
    16 September 2015 at 2:53 pm

    A Guardian short address on post capitalism by Paul Mason Journalist and very erudite and experienced observer.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/aug/12/paul-mason-capitalism-failing-time-to-panic-video
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mason_%28journalist%29
    (Not the worlds previous fattest man!)

    One on Jeremy Corbyn. Everyone knows who he is.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/sep/15/jeremy-corbyn-attacks-tory-welfare-bill-during-tuc-conference-video

  22. b waghorn 22
    16 September 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Please sir Mr Lprent the side bar is only showing the feeds and no comments or replies.

  23. Ad 23
    16 September 2015 at 3:57 pm

    From the US Federal Reserve today:

    Debt ratios have reached extreme levels across all major regions of the global economy, leaving the financial system acutely vulnerable to monetary tightening by the US Federal Reserve, the world’s top financial watchdog has warned.

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said the wild market ructions of recent weeks and capital outflows from China are warning signs that the massive build-up in credit is coming back to haunt, compounded by worries that policymakers may be struggling to control events.

    “We are not seeing isolated tremors, but the release of pressure that has gradually accumulated over the years along major fault lines,” said Claudio Borio, the bank’s chief economist.

    ….So, if at all possible people, lower your mortgage, keep your cash savings high, and buckle in for the next really tough ride.
    😉

  25. Shane Le Brun 25
    16 September 2015 at 4:45 pm

    NZ Herald did a poll on Medical Cannabis, 70% support access to Medical Cannabis under strict conditions. I would take that as a win. Class B drugs by definition are strict anyway…..

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11512929

    • adam 25.1
      16 September 2015 at 5:37 pm

      About bloody time. OK let me add more having now read article. What planet is the Minister on? Evidence, bloody nora, has he not heard of google, or indeed “The American Journal of the Medical Sciences”? What does a minister have to read? It seems not a lot these days.

  26. The Chairman 26
    16 September 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Australia conducted their first air strikes in Syria.

    Australians learned about the first strike via the American military.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/72102727/australia-bombs-islamic-state-in-syria