web analytics

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 ”

  1. Paul 2

    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

  2. Paul 4

    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

      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.

  3. Paul 5

    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

      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

        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

          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

            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

        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

        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

        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.

  4. adam 6

    I thought this did a good job explaining it…

  5. James 7

    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

      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

      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.

  6. Murray Simmonds 8

    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

      +100…thanks…interesting

    • vto 8.2

      “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.

  7. esoteric pineapples 9

    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

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

      • odot 9.1.1

        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

          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

            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.

  8. esoteric pineapples 10

    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

      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

      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

        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

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

        • vto 10.2.1.2

          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

        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

          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…

  9. Rosie 11

    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

      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.

  10. STONE SHI 12

    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

      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

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

      • b waghorn 12.1.2

        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

          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

            “”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

              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 🙂

  11. half crown 13

    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

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

    • Puckish Rogue 13.2

      Thank you

      • half crown 13.2.1

        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

      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

        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

          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.”

  12. esoteric pineapples 14

    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.

  13. Morrissey 15

    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

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

    • The Chairman 15.2

      “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

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

        • The Chairman 15.2.1.1

          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

            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

              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

                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

                  She could have answered from a personal position.

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

                • McFlock

                  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

                    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

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

                  • The Chairman

                    We all know Annette can handle herself, McFlock.

                    • McFlock

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      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

                    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

                      OK.

                    • The Chairman

                      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

                      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

                      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

                      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

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

          • Tracey 15.2.1.1.2

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

            • The Chairman 15.2.1.1.2.1

              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

      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.

  14. Morrissey 16

    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

  15. vto 17

    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

      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

      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

        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.

  16. James 18

    From the Conservatives youtube channel this morning…

    https://youtu.be/_hgJokgNJHo

    • Mrs Brillo 19.1

      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

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

  17. The Chairman 20

    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

      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

        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

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

  18. greywarshark 21

    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

  19. b waghorn 22

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

  20. Ad 23

    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.
    😉

  21. Shane Le Brun 25

    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

      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.

  22. The Chairman 26

    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

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Twenty highlights of 2020
    As we welcome in the new year, our focus is on continuing to keep New Zealanders safe and moving forward with our economic recovery. There’s a lot to get on with, but before we say a final goodbye to 2020, here’s a quick look back at some of the milestones ...
    2 weeks ago

  • Cook Islanders to resume travel to New Zealand
    The Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern and the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Mark Brown have announced passengers from the Cook Islands can resume quarantine-free travel into New Zealand from 21 January, enabling access to essential services such as health. “Following confirmation of the Cook Islands’ COVID ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    14 hours ago
  • Supporting communities and landowners to grow employment opportunities
    Jobs for Nature funding is being made available to conservation groups and landowners to employ staff and contractors in a move aimed at boosting local biodiversity-focused projects, Conservation Minister Kiritapu Allan has announced. It is estimated some 400-plus jobs will be created with employment opportunities in ecology, restoration, trapping, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Border exception for some returning international tertiary students
    The Government has approved an exception class for 1000 international tertiary students, degree level and above, who began their study in New Zealand but were caught offshore when border restrictions began. The exception will allow students to return to New Zealand in stages from April 2021. “Our top priority continues ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Tiwai deal gives time for managed transition
    Today’s deal between Meridian and Rio Tinto for the Tiwai smelter to remain open another four years provides time for a managed transition for Southland. “The deal provides welcome certainty to the Southland community by protecting jobs and incomes as the region plans for the future. The Government is committed ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New member for APEC Business Advisory Council
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has appointed Anna Curzon to the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). The leader of each APEC economy appoints three private sector representatives to ABAC. ABAC provides advice to leaders annually on business priorities. “ABAC helps ensure that APEC’s work programme is informed by business community perspectives ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Govt’s careful economic management recognised
    The Government’s prudent fiscal management and strong policy programme in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic have been acknowledged by the credit rating agency Fitch. Fitch has today affirmed New Zealand’s local currency rating at AA+ with a stable outlook and foreign currency rating at AA with a positive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Additional actions to keep COVID-19 out of NZ
    The Government is putting in place a suite of additional actions to protect New Zealand from COVID-19, including new emerging variants, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “Given the high rates of infection in many countries and evidence of the global spread of more transmissible variants, it’s clear that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • 19 projects will clean up and protect waterways
    $36 million of Government funding alongside councils and others for 19 projects Investment will clean up and protect waterways and create local jobs Boots on the ground expected in Q2 of 2021 Funding part of the Jobs for Nature policy package A package of 19 projects will help clean up ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New Zealand Government acknowledges 175th anniversary of Battle of Ruapekapeka
    The commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the Battle of Ruapekapeka represents an opportunity for all New Zealanders to reflect on the role these conflicts have had in creating our modern nation, says Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Kiri Allan. “The Battle at Te Ruapekapeka Pā, which took ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Better care for babies with tongue-tie
    Babies born with tongue-tie will be assessed and treated consistently under new guidelines released by the Ministry of Health, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall announced today. Around 5% to 10% of babies are born with a tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, in New Zealand each year. At least half can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison over
    The prisoner disorder event at Waikeria Prison is over, with all remaining prisoners now safely and securely detained, Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis says. The majority of those involved in the event are members of the Mongols and Comancheros. Five of the men are deportees from Australia, with three subject to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Pre-departure COVID-19 test for travellers from the UK and the US from 15 January
    Travellers from the United Kingdom or the United States bound for New Zealand will be required to get a negative test result for COVID-19 before departing, and work is underway to extend the requirement to other long haul flights to New Zealand, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. “The new PCR test requirement, foreshadowed last ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • PM congratulates New Year Honour recipients
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has added her warm congratulations to the New Zealanders recognised for their contributions to their communities and the country in the New Year 2021 Honours List. “The past year has been one that few of us could have imagined. In spite of all the things that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • David Parker congratulates New Year 2021 Honours recipients
    Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment David Parker has congratulated two retired judges who have had their contributions to the country and their communities recognised in the New Year 2021 Honours list. The Hon Tony Randerson QC has been appointed a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Year’s Honours highlights outstanding Pacific leadership through challenging year
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the New Year’s Honours List 2021 highlights again the outstanding contribution made by Pacific people across Aotearoa. “We are acknowledging the work of 13 Pacific leaders in the New Year’s Honours, representing a number of sectors including health, education, community, sports, the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Supporting seniors to embrace technology
    The Government’s investment in digital literacy training for seniors has led to more than 250 people participating so far, helping them stay connected. “COVID-19 has meant older New Zealanders are showing more interest in learning how to use technology like Zoom and Skype so they can to keep in touch ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Additional COVID-19 tests for returnees from higher risk countries
    New virus variants and ongoing high rates of diseases in some countries prompt additional border protections Extra (day zero or day one) test to be in place this week New ways of reducing risk before people embark on travel being investigated, including pre-departure testing for people leaving the United Kingdom ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago