Open Mike 16/10/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 16th, 2016 - 196 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 …

196 comments on “Open Mike 16/10/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    16 October 2016 at 7:41 am

    NZ journalist suggests Trump’s endgame may be setting up a lucrative and influential cable channel to the right of Fox: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/315682/will-trump-outfox-the-right

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      16 October 2016 at 8:04 am

      Trump is breaking the traditional (and obsolete) right-left paradigm.

      • weka 1.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 8:25 am

        Lolz, that’s right, he wants to replace it with fascism 🙄

        Sunday morning and you’re reduced to sloganeering already CV? Give us a break eh?

        • Tamati Tautuhi 1.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 8:38 am

          WW3 on the horizon Hillary and the US military are itching to have a go at Russia and to try out their new toys, looks like Jill Stein is the only viable alternative?

          • weka 1.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 8:42 am

            Yes, but same as in NZ, not enough people are ready to vote that way yet. Stein won’t be president this time round, so as I understand it, people are safe to vote for her if not in marginal states, but if they are in marginal states they risk splitting the vote and giving the presidency to Trump. Which would be worse than Clinton. Whatever things we want to see changed in the world will be so much harder to achieve under a Trump presidency than a Clinton one.

            • xanthe 1.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 8:54 am

              thats just sad weka . your advice is dont vote for what you believe in so you acknowlege that there is no democracy and vote for statis quo, you are deluded if you think “what we want to see changed” is down that road

              • weka …
                16 October 2016 at 9:22 am

                Yes, there is bugger all democracy in the US. I’m a pragmatic voter, and I vote in accordance with my ethics. If that means voting Clinton in order to further the Green Party and allied values, so be it. I’ve been in two minds about the whole thing and whether a protest vote and a Trump presidency was worth the risk, but I now believe that a Trump presidency will do so much damage to the culture that it will take years to undo and we simply don’t have that time.

                At least with Clinton there will be room to be an activists and progress the most urgent issues. Under Trump I expect that to be actively oppressed. I suppose at that point one could argue that it’s better to let things get very bad in the short term in the hope that people will wake up, but I don’t believe people will wake up that way. The other argument is to let the US degenerate into a defacto civil war and maybe that will bring the empire down. Pretty risky strategy, but I’d be interested in hearing the argument.

                • xanthe …
                  16 October 2016 at 9:46 am

                  Thanks weka thats a fair and reasoned argument. Interesting to hear jill stein views that voting for the lesser evil has been a “race to the bottom” . In my case i am not in any way promoting the idea that we should let thigs get worse to “wake people up”. But rather in clinton I see a guarantee of business as usual which I believe will destroy us. I am not supporting trump in any sense but what i do think is that he is unlikely to just do what he is told and I also believe that he owes a lot less “favours” (and that hillary is totally compromised on that front). So all of that is enough to make me really unsure what would be the best choice (if it was mine to make)

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 9:56 am

                    That’s the lesser of evils argument right?

                    One of the first things the incoming National govt did in 1990 was cut funding to community groups (and ‘restructure’ what was left). I haven’t looked this up but I seem to remember that for instance they cut the Ministry of Women’s Affairs grants, which meant that the organisations doing the work on the fringes (where all good change arises) were screwed.

                    This isn’t a lesser of evils argument. This is a ‘we’re going to lose this vital aspect of our ability to effect change’ argument. And it’s not just funding. The activists I follow in the US are afraid that with Trump the lives of people already on the margins is going to get much much worse, and those are the communities that hold the activist heart.

                    Likewise in NZ, in 1990, it wasn’t just the cuts to funding, but it was cuts to benefits, so the people that were doing that activist work suddenly found their backs to the wall in their personal lives as well and unable to keep up with the work they were doing in the same way. I don’t think that was planned by National so much as a desirable side effect of their policies. With Trump it will be intentional.

                    • xanthe …
                      16 October 2016 at 10:15 am

                      You perhaps forget that it was the lessor of evil fourth labour government in 1984 that dismantled NZ government and established neoliberal corporate greed in its place ?
                      The fundimentals of all that you describe above were enacted by the fourth labour government and as NZ voters have chosen one or the other lessor evil for the last three decades. In each case the government has continued on that path

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 10:28 am

                      I’ve never voted Labour, always to the left. I’m not sure why you would think I forget about Labour in the 80s.

                      “The fundimentals of all that you describe above were enacted by the fourth labour government”

                      Actually, no. My point is that even under the worst that the neoliberal left does they still don’t directly try and suppress activism (although I’m sure someone will now be able to provide some examples). But now we are back to the lesser of evils argument. Given we can’t change the past, for where we are at now, in my politics protecting the people that are working for change is a very high priority. Otherwise we’re going down a deep dark hole worse than what is happening now.

            • Andre 1.1.1.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 9:11 am

              It’s not that the things we want to change will be harder, it’s that change will happen in the wrong direction. Meaning there will be a lot of lost ground to make up when (if) things swing back to being able to move in a good direction.

              • weka …
                16 October 2016 at 9:23 am

                I think Trump would actively suppress activism, so yeah, I think it would be harder.

                • xanthe …
                  16 October 2016 at 1:19 pm

                  please pleas weka read this…. all of it. At the vey least you will learn where some of us are comeing from!

                  https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 1:38 pm

                    I don’t have that much respect for Pilger these days. He quite obviously doesn’t understand rape culture and/or thinks it is unimportant (that’s based on his approach to the Assange situation).

                    Then I read things like this,

                    As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.

                    It’s just boring, superficial, ‘the liberals are useless’ type commentary. All he is doing there is exactly what pro-Trump or anti-Clinton people are accusing liberals of doing, creating divisions from the old mentality that if you want to change something you have to bash it (pretty much the kaupapa at the standard most of the time).

                    And this,

                    In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.

                    FFS, Sanders was running for president, of course he is going to say Obama did a great job. If he came out and said that Obama is a war monger, he’d not get the nomination. Any person who becomes the president of the US is going to be a war monger, so now we are just back at the lesser of evils argument.

                    “Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?”

                    In the age of the internet there is no silence. Silence is not the problem at this point.

                    I understand the issues that are behind some of the anti-Clinton arguments, and the pro-Trump ones. One of the things that has happened on ts is that the main person criticising Clinton has also been promoting Trump. That’s always going to be a problem on a left wing site. But worse, he’s done this in the context of a long history of trying to poison the well of his once natural allies. Lots of people here can’t stand the incessant hatred and I think that’s a big part of why the anti-Clinton argument gets combatted so strongly.

                    There are definitely moderate lefties here who will argue a pragmatic vote for Clinton line, and the ones I respect like McFlock and Lanth are a boon. If we had a different culture here, the conversation would have been going quite differently, and instead of the Trump-esque being forwarded, we would have learned some things and actually talked about what the issues are for Trump voters in the US and why they vote Trump.

                    We would also be having the conversation that Bill suggests, which is that lefties should be gearing up to put as much pressure on Clinton as possible assuming that she wins. Unfortunately I think what we can look forward to is more Trump-esque culture being pushed, and so expect people to react to that.

                    tl;dr, I understand the arguments you aand others are putting forward and I still disagree with you that voting Trump is a good thing to do. Further, I doubt that you understand why I think Trump would be more dangerous. Because of the current debate culture we haven’t really gotten to those conversations. Pity.

                    • xanthe …
                      16 October 2016 at 1:58 pm

                      If you have gone off Pilger and Stein because they have done dilIgence on the Assange case then you need to do the same. Sorry i cant help you with that on this forum i dont intend to discuss that matter further with you until you have done so. For you to voice further uninformed prejudice will only further injustice. All i ask is that when you have become properly informed on Assange that you re-evaluate your opinions of Pilger and Stein

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 2:42 pm

                      If you have gone off Pilger and Stein because they have done dilIgence on the Assange case then you need to do the same. Sorry i cant help you with that on this forum i dont intend to discuss that matter further with you until you have done so. For you to voice further uninformed prejudice will only further injustice. All i ask is that when you have become properly informed on Assange that you re-evaluate your opinions of Pilger and Stein

                      I haven’t gone off Stein due to the Assange case, in fact I haven’t gone off Stein at all. Please don’t misrepresent my views. And if you think me having some criticisms of some of the things Stein does = ‘gone off’ then you really are not listening to what I am saying.

                      I’ve engaged in good faith with you, but I note that you’ve come into this subthread, asked me to read something you recommended, and when I do and respond to that, in depth, you basically ignore my points and instead make out I am uniformed and prejudiced without backing that up. I’m well informed on the Assange case, having been debating about that on ts for years, and I don’t take kindly to people telling me that I’m ignorant just because I disagree with their position or politics.

                      (and, I seriously doubt that you have an analysis of rape culture and where Pilger fits into that, so don’t start lecturing me about being informed).

                      Argue the damn points, or by all means stop talking to me, because I’m sick of the whole trolly nature of people saying if you just read/watch what I do you will think like I do, instead of people being willing to debate their actual views.

                      Also, if you are going to accuse me of being uninformed or prejudiced then make a case for that. Otherwise it’s just an ad hom that wastes everyone’s time.

                    • Red []
                      16 October 2016 at 4:49 pm

                      “I’m sick of the whole trolly nature of people saying if you just read/watch what I do you will think like I do, instead of people being willing to debate their actual views”.

                      + 100 and something Paul should note he is also a pilger RT tragic

                    • xanthe …
                      16 October 2016 at 5:30 pm

                      Ok i give it a go
                      1 loss of respect for pilger because he “dosnt understand rape culture based on his stance on assange” …… You have not availed yourself of the facts !

                      2 You reject identity politics and dont understand that it is just a kinder more caring left form of prejudice. … ok i think it is prejudice and agree with pilger that it is a significant part of the problem

                      3 agreed sanders as a democratic candidate had to follow party line

                      4 ad hominum rant … not going to engage with that

                      5 i would suggest that there is ample blame to share for the failure of this forum to have reasoned discussion of the likely outcome of trump or clinton victory and agree that a reasoned discussion of how we like minded (sort of) people might best respond in either case could be more encouraged

                      whats tl;dr ?

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 5:50 pm

                      Ok i give it a go
                      1 loss of respect for pilger because he “dosnt understand rape culture based on his stance on assange” …… You have not availed yourself of the facts !

                      Yes, I have. I’ve had many many conversations here about Assange, and some of those have included people running rape apology lines quoting Pilger. So I followed their links and did the reading to see what was going on, and sadly Pilger was doing the same shit. Please note that I am not making a statement about the guilt or not of Assange, I am talking about the behaviour and politics of left wing people.

                      You can disagree with my conclusions about Pilger but you cannot claim that I am uninformed.

                      2 You reject identity politics and dont understand that it is just a kinder more caring left form of prejudice. … ok i think it is prejudice and agree with pilger that it is a significant part of the problem

                      If Pilger is against identity politics that’s another good reason to not respect him now. We will have to agree to disagree on the value of identity politics, but I will point out that I think it’s the underlying basis of the bad blood on ts at the moment. I don’t hold out much hope for CV, but there are others, yourself included, where we might find some common ground or at least some better understanding.

                      5 i would suggest that there is ample blame to share for the failure of this forum to have reasoned discussion of the likely outcome of trump or clinton victory and agree that a reasoned discussion of how we like minded (sort of) people might best respond in either case could be more encouraged

                      Nice 🙂

                      “whats tl;dr ?”

                      too long; didn’t read. It’s usually just a summation of what someone was trying to get across.

                    • xanthe …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:11 pm

                      Once upon a time before i ever engaged with this forum i found myself in the position of having to take a stance or not on the Assange case. I did what was required of me which was due diligence i sought out as many original source documents as i could find, not media reports of, but actual source and you will be suprised as i was just how many actual reliable first hand documents there are on this matter. On the basis of this information i formed an opinion. Now i am not going to argue this with you but I can catagorically state that in my informed opinion you weka based on your statements posted on this site are not in posession of the information availiable. i simply do not believe you have done diligence on this. Take it or leave it but that is my informed opinion.

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 6:14 pm

                      Do you get that I don’t have a position on the Assange case, and that all my comments in reference to the Assange case are about rape culture and the behaviour of lefties. What do you think that means?

                      I did due diligence on that.

                  • xanthe …
                    16 October 2016 at 6:35 pm

                    Nonsense….. if “Pilger does not understand rape culture on the basis of his stance on the Assange case” then you are making an uninformed judgment on Assange. Thats just misdirection ,…. and prejudice

                    • McFlock …
                      17 October 2016 at 8:31 pm

                      No.

                      A correct conclusion reached via an invalid path can still draw criticism for that path. If you ask me “what’s two plus two” and I say “my car has four wheels, so four”, wouldn’t you criticise my methodology even though the answer is correct?

                      Weka’s comment was on the path the pilger has taken to try to persuade people that Assange is a victim. Regardless of whether Assange is actually innocent, pilger’s comments (which I haven’t read recently so won’t comment on) apparently struck Weka as being typical rape apology lines.

            • idbkiwi 1.1.1.1.1.3
              16 October 2016 at 9:27 am

              “giving the presidency to Trump. Which would be worse than Clinton”

              It appears Ms Stein does not agree with your analysis, at least in respect of who is likely the more dangerous war-mongerer of the two. She clearly sees Trump as the safer option. From 2.10 in the clip…

              • weka …
                16 October 2016 at 9:41 am

                Haven’t watched the whole thing, but basically she is saying vote for her. She’s not saying if you don’t vote for me vote for Trump, which is what my comment was about.

                Obviously she has to say vote for her, but if people in marginal states vote for her and as a result the presidency goes to Trump, my points above about activism, including peace movement, anti-nuclear etc will get harder.

                It still gobsmacks me that people trust what Trump says about his foreign policy intentions.

                (and Stein is not without her blindspots in areas either).

                • TheExtremist …
                  16 October 2016 at 2:35 pm

                  “(and Stein is not without her blindspots in areas either).”

                  Yep – I seriously think the only adult left in the US political system is Bernie (and probably Warren)

                • Chris …
                  16 October 2016 at 3:07 pm

                  Stein’s comments about right-wing extremism growing out of the policies of the Clintons is very relevant to your observations about what the nats did in the 1990s. Either silence and even at times support from the opposition gave the right a heck of a head start when it comes to how culture has changed in NZ.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:26 pm

                    Do you mean that Key’s NACT have grown from the fertiliser of Labour being neutral or supportive of RW policy?

                    Or that the 90s National grew out of the 80s Labour? (that’s self evident I think).

                    • Chris …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:46 pm

                      Yes, that is of course self-evident, but I was referring more to the tag-team they’ve both become since then. That’s how the culture has shifted so dramatically and what has no doubt played such a large part in the rise of Key as a phenomenon.

    • Red 1.2
      16 October 2016 at 4:41 pm

      Trump ain’t right wing nor is he a conservative

    • save nz 2.1
      16 October 2016 at 8:09 am

      @Paul – it’s being spinned various ways as being pro immigration as well as curbing immigration in the media. Like Labour and the TPPA, think it is a middle of the road policy that might not appeal to either. (Too far or not far enough).

      With the lack of jobs and lack of job conditions and the burden on our health and social welfare system, feel that 1% or approx 45,000 new migrants per year is still too much immigration.

      Also concerned at the amount of political donations being given to pro immigration policy. AKA the Nats and Phil Goff for his Mayoral run.

      We need a radical rethink of the NZ economy. Are we just going to be a giant house building and milk and log economy being asset stripped, or can a political party think bigger than that and have a vision of the new local and sustainable economy?

      • Tamati Tautuhi 2.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 8:35 am

        Thinking logically and future economic planning is not part of the equation, it is about getting re-elected?

        • save nz 2.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:17 am

          Personally think Labour and Greens are so busy focusing on point issues on a day to week basis they are failing to unite under a bigger vision of a change of direction for New Zealand.

          It is a vision that will get people to the polls (even if that vision is just Change the government).

          My view is the best Green campaign was the one with the Kids next to the forests and in nature.

          Can’t even think of the last good Labour campaign… But I do think the Helen Clark approach of having a killer policy (Interest free student loans etc) has been mimicked by the Natz (Tax Cuts, more tax cuts, oh did I say Tax cuts?). So Labour will not win on that, they need to unite people against National with an alternate vision for New Zealand. (p.S Work longer and harder and have more taxes for middle NZ was not a Vote Positive, last election).

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 9:32 am

            Personally think Labour and Greens are so busy focusing on point issues on a day to week basis they are failing to unite under a bigger vision of a change of direction for New Zealand.

            I don’t think either of them see a real need for a real change.

            Labour has always been a pro-capitalist party and probably always will be.

            The Greens see a need to protect the environment, make life better for the majority even if that costs the rich but they still seem to be hanging on to capitalism and even consumerism (ie, promoting electric cars).

          • Tamati Tautuhi 2.1.1.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 9:44 am

            Labour need a plan otherwise they are just looked as a light weight version of National or as Ron Marks NZF states Red and Blue, just like Pepsi and Coke there is no difference?

      • Paul 2.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 8:41 am

        Unless Labour and the Greens act decisively here, New Zealand First are going to be the big winners.

        • Tamati Tautuhi 2.1.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:33 am

          I think NZF will get 15-20% of the vote unless MSM do another snow job/dirty tricks job on Winston like the Nats have done at previous elections, at least he knows what he is talking about and isn’t a show pony like our current PM?

      • xanthe 2.1.3
        16 October 2016 at 8:56 am

        That would be the internet party

        • james 2.1.3.1
          16 October 2016 at 12:11 pm

          Yay for Kim Dotcom – he has announced hes coming back for this election.

          • b waghorn 2.1.3.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 1:06 pm

            god no please tell me your joking

            • xanthe 2.1.3.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 1:43 pm

              Well he does understand quite a lot about how corruption and injustice is carried forward in NZ. He has had a heck of a immersive education on this over the last five years. his involvement would be a (desperately needed) boost for democracy

            • James 2.1.3.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 1:44 pm

              Nope. He tweeted it the other day.

              • b waghorn …
                16 October 2016 at 3:45 pm

                your barstard mates are paying him to come back, i know it.!!! (joke )

              • Chris …
                16 October 2016 at 4:13 pm

                But he’s also full of shit so nothing will come of it.

                • xanthe …
                  16 October 2016 at 6:59 pm

                  That will depend somewhat on the outcome of his high court appeal due shortly

                  • Chris …
                    16 October 2016 at 8:01 pm

                    Even if he wins the extradition case he still won’t cause the nats any trouble. It’d be great if he did but he’s got no idea about strategy – the way he personally fronted the Internet/Mana campaign for example, and doesn’t seem to deliver on anything big that he promises. I’ve got nothing against the guy and hope he deals to the US government, and I know the media went to town on him as soon as the image of folklore hero wore off, but as far as politics goes he just ain’t got it.

                    • xanthe …
                      16 October 2016 at 8:04 pm

                      Its a new world !

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 8:45 pm

                      I have to agree. The fact that he tweets that he is going to do something but won’t tell us what it is suggests he didn’t learn what a huge fuck up the moment of truth was (we still haven’t had an explanation afaik). Whatever goodwill or interest that was on the left I think is largely gone. I also hope he doesn’t get extradited and fuck the US prosecutors, but this looks like another ego trip and self-serving. He’s live in NZ long enough to know that money can’t buy everything, but here he goes again.

      • Chooky 2.1.4
        16 October 2016 at 10:24 am

        +100 save nz

    • Tamati Tautuhi 2.2
      16 October 2016 at 8:33 am

      Watch Susan Devoy doesn’t get involved you are racist if you discuss immigration here in NZ.

      • weka 2.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 8:37 am

        Probably because too often immigration discussions include racism. They don’t have to, so I guess we have a choice here today.

        • save nz 2.2.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:08 am

          If you close down the discussion about immigration citing racism, you are suppressing the issues or making them simplistic. Immigration and Globalism are linked and Globalism is being used to drive 21st century society, but is it the right direction or is it propping up neoliberalism which would fail without globalism?

          i.e. Is immigration being used as a vehicle to cannibalise people into commodity by plussing and misusing more people into and out of countries?

          • Paul 2.2.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 9:12 am

            The issue is exploitation by multinational corporations.

            • save nz 2.2.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 9:20 am

              But the corporations are only able to do that by buying the politicians ears with Lobbyists and cash. Making that illegal would be a good start.

              • save nz …
                16 October 2016 at 9:29 am

                The other interesting thing about immigration is that New Zealand has one in four of its population born in another country while one in four people born in New Zealand (who are still alive) live abroad.

                Why do one in four New Zealanders live abroad? Are our most educated forced to live elsewhere and grow other countries economies because our short sighted anti science, anti arts, anti intellectuctual government policies and poor wages and conditions mean that they can’t work in this country?

                Is it a problem, we replace them with chefs and Kiwi fruit pickers who need government subsidy for the employer low wages and then wonder why we have poor productivity?

                Are we so busy trying to make a profit from university education for foreign students we fail to concentrate on NZ students quality education and enabling them to stay in the country with a decent job and prospects?

                • Tamati Tautuhi …
                  16 October 2016 at 9:38 am

                  Very few good jobs in NZ for qualified people we do not have the critical mass here, most of our NZ owned companies have collapsed or have been taken over by multi nationals. The current Government would rather companies import cheap overseas third world product ie railway wagons from China rather than manufacture here in NZ.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    16 October 2016 at 9:46 am

                    Very few good jobs in NZ for qualified people we do not have the critical mass here

                    That’s the myth that used to stop us developing our economy but it is just that – a myth. If we have the productivity available so that all other necessary products are available with spare labour and resources left over then we can do it.

                    And we do have that productivity and those resources available.

                    Once you start looking at the economy in physical terms then whole new vistas open up and we find that we’re not as constrained as the capitalists would like us to believe.

                    So, why do the capitalists want us to believe that we’re constrained, that we’re poor when we’re not?

                    IMO, it’s because that artificial constraint allows them to be rich in the first place.

                  • save nz …
                    16 October 2016 at 9:51 am

                    Personally think the ‘we don’t have the critical mass’ here to create well paid jobs is a croc….

                    It’s not about quantity it is about quality.

                    We can never compete with China and India for a low wage economy, even if we keep up record immigration. We need to ditch the low wage economy and go high tech, high creativity, high wage economy.

                    Nowadays we don’t even need physical products, books can be down loaded, IP can be down loaded, and so forth.

                    I’m against the TPPA for many reasons, but it also will discriminate against Kiwis for IP and enable the giants to gain monopolies. It will kill the new economy.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  16 October 2016 at 9:39 am

                  Are our most educated forced to live elsewhere and grow other countries economies because our short sighted anti science, anti intellectuctual government policies and poor wages and conditions mean that they can’t work in this country?

                  Pretty much.

                  There was a lot of hope in the 1960s and even 1970s about manufacturing high tech stuff and not just being a farm. That hope got lost in the 1980s. It seems to be coming back slowly now but it’s pretty much along the lines that if you want to do anything that even mildly challenging then you have to leave the country as our ‘leaders’ keep doing the cheap stuff rather than the pushing the hard investment to build our economy.

                  Or as I put it on Facebook:

                  Lets face it, we cannot rely upon the private sector to provide anything without taking us to the cleaners. And even then we may not get it.

                  “The regions need jobs to boost their economies”

                  What type of jobs?
                  Just moving the government out there isn’t really going to cut it. What we should be looking at is R&D and manufacturing hubs. Look to extraction and processing of the resources we have in NZ as well. And, no, don’t sell them. Extract silicon, turn it into silicon chips and then sell it. This is what the government should be doing.

                  The government funds the R&D and builds the factories to produce electronics here. We do not sell those factories. Instead, we allow anyone to produce whatever they design in them for a small fee. Same way that China and Taiwan produce electronics under license.

                  Having them here and owned by the government does two things:
                  1. It forces us to do R&D to keep them current
                  2. It provides access for NZ electronics innovators to produce next generation stuff without having to sell out to offshore companies just to get their stuff made. Which means the profits stay here as well.

                  Do that across many, if not all, industries and we’ll start to see our economy develop. After thirty years of privatisation we know that leaving it to the private sector won’t do that.

                  • Tamati Tautuhi …
                    16 October 2016 at 9:52 am

                    It is a lot easier to just lease out your fishing quotas which were gifted by the Government rather than do the fishing and processing yourselves, and it is a lot easier to sell whole logs rather than processing here in NZ, likewise easier selling whole carcasses of meat rather than further processing. Selling whole milk powder is a lot easier than further processing into wholesale or value added products.

                    NZ Government and businessmen are not interested in producing value added product, New Zealand has never had a long term growth strategy apart from selling State Assets and borrowing from the US Bankers and the Federal Reserve?

                  • Tamati Tautuhi …
                    16 October 2016 at 9:59 am

                    Look what happened to the Railways and the BNZ when they got into private hands, the BNZ was a gold plated business which was virtually stripped overnight by the Merchant Bankers. The Rural Bank was virtually given away by the Government-mindless stuff?

                  • TheExtremist …
                    16 October 2016 at 11:44 am

                    Are you an MP Draco? I would never have guessed

                  • TheExtremist …
                    16 October 2016 at 12:34 pm

                    Sorry – for some reason I thought you were the original poster!

              • Paul …
                16 October 2016 at 10:06 am

                I would force corporations who do not
                pay their taxes
                pay living wages
                compensate for the damage (their externalities) they cause to society.
                to exit New Zealand.

                Goodbye Uber.
                Goodbye McDonalds.
                Goodbye Allied Domecq

                • james …
                  16 October 2016 at 12:17 pm

                  Really?

                  How the hell would you do this?

                  Lets see how long you stay in government after you force Google, Facebook, Apple, etc to leave New Zealand.

                  Given that they pay taxes on their NZ PROFITS (not revenue that is so often quoted) how can you bitch about their taxes – without looking ill informed (hint – you didnt). Where are all the profits on the southern cross cable? – are they all in NZ? – oops – lets stop that as well.

                  Oil companies pay alot of their tax overseas also – so lets close down those pesky petrol stations.

                  Pay living wages – really? You are going to force that on multinationals ignoring NZ companies (like some owned by posters on here who cannot pay a “working wage”?

                  Part of me says thank God you arnt in government – the other part of me wishes you were because National would be in power for a generation.

                  • Gabby …
                    16 October 2016 at 1:57 pm

                    Well jimbo, you change the law to prevent the exportation of preprofit revenue. So ‘licensing fees’ and ‘loan repayments’ are sourced from profits rather than being used to lower profits.

            • Tamati Tautuhi 2.2.1.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 9:25 am

              Who do not pay tax and only pay minimum wages and undercut local producers and distributors=new world order which our PM JK subscribes to?

          • weka 2.2.1.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 9:25 am

            “If you close down the discussion about immigration citing racism, you are suppressing the issues or making them simplistic.”

            I’m not suggesting that save. I’m saying that we can (theoretically at least) have a discussion about immigration that avoids racism. That was an invitation to have a discussion about immigration that avoids racism, and inherent in that is that we need to be more careful about how we say things and look at our own prejudices.

          • Chooky 2.2.1.1.3
            16 October 2016 at 10:26 am

            +100 save nz

  3. locus 3
    16 October 2016 at 8:20 am

    Dependency on oil? How do we stop using oil… prevent supply, or restrict demand?

    The daily volumes of oil and petrol imported into New Zealand. Figures are from 2012, but are increasing annually:

    110,000 barrels of crude oil daily
    25,000 barrels of gasoline
    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=nz&product=gasoline&graph=imports

    15 to 20 supertankers bring oil monthly to the Marsden Point refinery – each one with up to 750,000 barrels capacity of oil in their cargo tanks

    159 litres in one barrel of oil

    • weka 3.1
      16 October 2016 at 8:26 am

      Citizens can also make the connection between their own lives and oil production. We can choose to use less.

      • locus 3.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 9:12 am

        I have not owned a car for six years – although this is an easier decision for me than for others due to excellent public transport where I live.

        Given the ever increasing demand for oil, diesel and petrol in NZ, is it enough to rely on environmentally concerned people to stop driving cars?

        If we have to rely on people’s choice there has to be a massive change in current thinking. I see a focus on public transport from the Greens, but nothing much more from across the political spectrum about how we curtail demand.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:18 am

          I definitely don’t think it is enough on its own (see my posts on climate change for other ideas), and I didn’t suggest stopping driving cars. But I do think that at some point those of us calling for change have to make the connection between that and our own behaviour.

          It reminds me of all the protests around industry when I was younger e.g. people not wanting wood processing plants in their neighbourhood. But very few people were making the connection between that and them living in houses made of processed timber. When we start making those connections and acting on them, then we will see faster change than replying on the government to sort it out. They’re trailing, we’re leading, and they will follow when we get it right.

          How many of the people here in these conversations who want urgent action on CC are limiting how much they drive? I think a fair few are, and I think there are also people who want to keep their lifestyles and have other people make the changes for them. We don’t have time for that.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.2
          16 October 2016 at 9:48 am

          Given the ever increasing demand for oil, diesel and petrol in NZ, is it enough to rely on environmentally concerned people to stop driving cars?

          No it’s not. We have to make it so that even owning a car is simply too expensive. Which, as climate change now proves, it actually is.

  4. save nz 4
    16 October 2016 at 8:44 am

    People using Park and Ride have been pinged for more than $1 million in fines in the past five years.

    (Just another way to encourage people to use public transport sarc. Great spot to target the poor for fines as well!)

    Apparently P&R are often full by 7am. One would think this would mean AT would try to make more space so that they can get more commuters on public transport.. I guess if commuters find there is no space they just drive into work and don’t use the public transport or park illegally and have to pay the fine.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      16 October 2016 at 9:52 am

      AT are actually doing quite a bit to make public transport in Auckland better – but it’s going to take time after decades of there not being enough investment to even maintain it never mind to actually expand it.

      Of course, they still need to flip from focussing on cars to focussing on public transport but that has a lot to do with the governments and how they dictate how money will be spent.

      • save nz 4.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 10:09 am

        AT being in the news for their corrupt culture and targeting WOF checks at P&R (for the working poor who can’t afford a warrant) isn’t really the way to go. As is chopping down the Pohutakawa six and prosecuting people for road vege and plants, not a good look.

        Oh and there is the lack of public transport – not sure how long AT has been going but there is probably better public transport in practically every other city in the world. Even third world countries have better public transport than we have. Yes its government, but it is also local government’s fault.

        • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 10:19 am

          I didn’t say that they were perfect, just that they had been working hard to improve public transport in the city but it will take time after decades of neglect.

  5. save nz 5
    16 October 2016 at 9:03 am

    Ken Loach: ‘If you’re not angry, what kind of person are you?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/15/ken-laoch-film-i-daniel-blake-kes-cathy-come-home-interview-simon-hattenstone

    (Interesting article about Ken Loach and his life, including how he was bought up a Tory, never questioned it until going to university, had many of his films banned at one point and was in middle class poverty, made a commercial for McDonalds and the death of his son and his views on the UK Labour party).

    • Morrissey 5.1
      16 October 2016 at 9:34 am

      Thanks for that. Perhaps you’ve seen this classic clip of Ken Loach at his brilliant best, reducing one of Thatcher’s former henchmen to gibbering, incoherent fury….

  6. Morrissey 6
    16 October 2016 at 9:25 am

    Why I have trouble believing Andrew Little on child poverty
    by Janet McAllister, The Spinoff, October 12, 2016

    When it comes to cutting the granite rock of child poverty, it takes a lot more than a plastic pair of pinking snips. These are the reasons that Andrew Little hasn’t (yet) convinced me he’s serious about ensuring poor kids can eat and stuff.

    He didn’t mention money

    Families are poor because they don’t have enough money. It’s not because somehow, randomly, this generation is more financially feckless than any other. The gaps between rich and poor are growing so fast even the OECD, not the most rabidly pinko outfit, is telling us we need to redistribute more wealth.

    One reason families don’t have enough money is because family welfare hasn’t kept pace with other sources of income. For example, here’s a graph from the Ministry of Social Development, showing average household earnings rising on a lovely steady slope for the past 30 years while sole parent support (the benefit formerly known as the DPB) and other benefits got cut in Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of All Budgets” era and have mostly been flatlining since then.

    Read more…
    http://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/12-10-2016/andrew-little-says-hes-determined-to-slash-child-poverty-heres-why-im-not-convinced/

    • save nz 6.1
      16 October 2016 at 9:41 am

      More beat up of Andrew Little, by Bill Ralston for Council supporters, the Spinoff.

      What is their agenda?

      How many anti National articles are in the Spinoff? The way the media tells it, Labour is more at fault than National for the nations ills…

      • Morrissey 6.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 9:46 am

        Being sceptical about Andrew Little does not imply one is a supporter of the National Party, just as detesting that war-monger Hillary Clinton does not make one a Trump supporter.

        • save nz 6.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 9:57 am

          Although the writer makes a point, why beat up Andrew Little instead of National, The Maori Party and UNF for poverty?

          My point is that there seems to be an agenda there by Spinoff writers. They are the youth Herald luring them in just like Slater lures in the punters with pro smoking and bike type stories and plants his ideas…

          They are getting them in with younger graphics but it’s pretty similar shit to Granny under the covers. RHOA, anti Green while pretending to be Green, and solving poverty by more development, more blame and immigration.

          The worst thing that could happen to Labour is that they destabilise the leader… so articles that doing that are helping National the most.

          • Morrissey 6.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 10:08 am

            All very good points, my friend.

            • save nz 6.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 10:29 am

              If MSM had not destabilised and smeared David Cunliffe last election Labour might have won. Apparently there was only about 10,000 votes in it. And 1 million people were put off voting.

              • james …
                16 October 2016 at 12:06 pm

                I call bullshit on your comments again.

                There are a ton of reasons people didnt vote – nothing at all to point that a million were put off because of the media.

                I know you like to make stuff up to fit what you are trying to say – but it just aint so.

              • Garibaldi …
                16 October 2016 at 1:14 pm

                Hear, Hear, Save nz. David was the only one Labour has with the nous and acumen to beat Key. He was destroyed by Dirty Politics and Labours ABC club of neolibs and, as you say , our pathetic media.

              • Cricklewood …
                16 October 2016 at 1:25 pm

                Don’t blame the media it only happened/worked because his ‘colleagues’ undermined him…

          • Bearded Git 6.1.1.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 10:29 am

            Exactly savenz-the Spinoff has an agenda here.

            Its a moot point anyway-the mob in power have proved don’t give a toss about child poverty so there really is no alternative to voting Lab/Gr bloc.

      • Stephanie Rodgers 6.1.2
        16 October 2016 at 11:20 am

        There’s no mystery. The article is a reply to a column published at the Spinoff by Andrew Little about child poverty.

        A lot is being made about the Spinoff endorsing Bill Ralston over Mike Lee, but they explained themselves very clearly: they were endorsing candidates based on their support for the Unitary Plan.

        They also endorsed Phil Goff and semi-endorsed Chloe Swarbrick, City Vision’s Cathy Casey, the Greens’ Julie Zhu and Richard Leckinger, Labour’s Efeso Collins, Alf Filipaina and Ross Clow, Penny Hulse, and semi-endorsed our own Greg Presland.

        I get that other “leftwing” bloggers have been making a huge deal out of The Spinoff being some massive rightwing conspiracy, but right now the headline story in their Politics section interviews people like Tame Iti, Coco Solid, Marianne Elliott and David Farrier about Five Eyes and government surveillance.
        http://thespinoff.co.nz/society/15-10-2016/acutely-aware-of-the-reality-of-state-surveillance-tame-iti-and-other-nz-artists-on-the-chilling-effect/

        So … yeah. Not the Terrible Media Beat-Up you’re looking for.

        • save nz 6.1.2.1
          16 October 2016 at 11:54 am

          One of the reason’s that Labour are losing so many votes is that they excuse and work with the enablers…

          And there was an interesting analysis done on how the balance of council power would have been right if Ralston had got in. Development focus and endorsements and supporting a National loving right wing politically connected MSM candidate than supporting a left wing, public servant shows the political and focus of the Spinoff.

          BTW – the unitary plan has not helped poverty and the homeless. Affordable housing was removed from the unitary plan.

          Maybe you love the Spinoff – but left wing politically it is not. And there are better things to read like http://werewolf.co.nz

          • Sacha 6.1.2.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 12:07 pm

            Mike Lee has done some good things during his long council career. However, the way he behaved over the Unitary Plan has really blotted his copybook with focused groups like Generation Zero. That is all The Spinoff’s associated coverage reflected: on urban planning and transport, Lee’s recent stances resulted in low scores. He wasn’t being assessed as a ‘left-wing public servant’.

            The Unitary Plan (held up in court by coastal nimbys) can’t fix poverty – for that, we need to change the government. And for that, we need smarter analysis than has been offered up by too many on the left for the last 9 years.

            • save nz 6.1.2.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 1:42 pm

              Yep and we have Ralston to the rescue – sorry not buying that today.

              No ones saying Lee is perfect, but Ralston to the rescue… Spinoff and their supporters showed where they stand. As long as Auckland gets developed and their mates make money, they will back any political figure. It’s not about poverty, it’s not about affordability, it is about development and less regulation for that development.

              That’s the success of Nat Lite policy. You have Act, you have the Natz, on the right wing MSM and to make sure they surround the marketing messages you have Spinoff trying to get Labour and the Greens all singing from the same song sheet on issues with very small differences so there is not much alternative.

            • save nz 6.1.2.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 1:53 pm

              As for generation zero, anyone can put up a website and claim to want to reduce carbon admissions… maybe half of them are there of the right reasons, but what is the end result they are advocating? Are they just mimicking right policy with greenwashing?

              The National government claim to be green and supporting the poor all the time. Gen Zero claim to support youth, and its so handy that they are a group supporting the developers and working with PPP’s too! That way MSM can do their interviews with lobby groups that ‘appear’ to support a broad range of ages and views.

              Go cycling. Go PPP’s. Go unitary plan!

              After all that where are we on climate change? Any closer, sorry need a more radical plan than that and there needs to be real support for the environment not a bunch of marketing saavy young lobbyists talking to other lobbyists and pretending to support younger people through development.

              • save nz …
                16 October 2016 at 2:11 pm

                Also did not see anything about increased solar panels in the unitary plan… one of the apparent missions of generation zero is independence from fossil fuels. Bit of glaring oversight.. and could easily have been put in. Just like affordable housing.

                So the rampant lobbyists for climate change seem to politically pushing through legalisation but does not really seem to helping climate change…

              • weka …
                16 October 2016 at 2:13 pm

                Even a cursory glance shows a huge gap between what Gen Zero are doing and RW CC policy in NZ. I think you are conflating RW with neoliberal. Gen Zero generation are the children of Rogernomics. They’ve adapted. I have some problems with what they do, but they are the progressive people of privilege who are actually doing something about CC other than demanding that something be done. Yes, they will use neoliberal tools, not least because the left doesn’t offer them anything to work with.

                • save nz …
                  16 October 2016 at 2:43 pm

                  Weka they are a lobby group. But I agree they are a few of the children of Rogernomics who are adapting. Maybe they are well meaning.

                  But the planet is lost if Gen zero is considered the standard for how youth to see Green issues only as something like putting in SkyPath that it is a PPP and charges cyclists and walkers.

                  In that way, I think they are dangerous to the Green movement as they want so little and what little they want is compromised. And because they are so Green Lite they are celebrated by the MSM and council as looking like they are addressing issues, that they are not.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:04 pm

                    I wouldn’t say GZ are the standard, so much as they are the more visible ones because of their privilege.

                    Can you link to the pay for cycle path thing?

                    I would probably agree with you their danger to the Green movement, except NZ had a long time to get behind the Greens in parliament and it’s only since the Greens have become more mainstream that they’ve made more headway. In other words, I think GZ are a reflection of where we are as a society, and the consequences of neoliberalism.

                    I also think that place like ts are not going to appeal to GZ (or many Greens) because the culture here is pretty toxic, so in that sense we can’t collaborate and cross-pollinate. If we want to make change we have to work together and I think that means not writing off groups because they have a different culture.

                  • save nz …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:11 pm

                    Gen Zero is actually taking youth votes away from the Green party, because they are really supporting National party policy but through a Green washed Lens. One way to reduce Green messages is to flood the market so that everything is Green, climate change becomes something that a paid cycleway can fix.

                    The real messages do not get through.

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:19 pm

                      How are they taking Green youth votes? Do you mean they tell people to vote National?

                    • save nz …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:46 pm

                      The reply button to you is not working but here is the link to Gen Zero who are lobbying for the PPP Skypath.

                      I think a pathway is a great idea. I just don’t agree with the funding of it as why should cyclists and walkers pay? How is that helping fossil fuel reduction and is that fair?

                      http://www.generationzero.org/seapath

                • save nz …
                  16 October 2016 at 2:46 pm

                  +1 I agree with your assessment people of privilege … likewise their campaigns for cycle tracks end at Pt Chev and their focus on transport is the North Shore.

                  They want congestion charging because they don’t live past zone 2 and not sure what happens out on the far reaches of the super city.. not hipster people like them.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 2:58 pm

                    I don’t know Auckland very well, so always good to have things like that pointed out. Yes, middle class and liberal is how I would describe it, and I do think they are well meaning. I come out of a solid upper middle class, liberal family and one of the core characteristics is the disconnect from what life is like for people that don’t have that privilege. Even though I was quite political, I didn’t start to understand until my early 20s when I was working with working class women. Big learning curve, but even now decades later, and an adulthood of stepping in and out of the underclass myself, I can see there is still so much I don’t get simply due to lack of experience and exposure. For the people I know that have never had to step out of their privilege I think for the most part they just don’t get it.

                    I don’t know what to do about that, other than push the politics of identity, because that is where people tend to wake up.

                  • save nz …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:37 pm

                    No it’s more subtle than that. They are just using the Green issues for their own purposes but not in a community way in a lobbyist way to promote themselves and get sponsorship deals and give media interviews and MSM are picking them up as ‘the green voice of youth’. It’s just social facilitation and fabrication. We saw that in the unitary plan, where all media was about implementing the unitary plan and there was zero space given to putting in real green issues and alternatives. I mean National’s big thing when they got elected was the National cycleway but that does not make them a carbon friend of the environment.

                    • xanthe …
                      17 October 2016 at 10:29 am

                      ” No it’s more subtle than that. They are just using the Green issues for their own purposes but not in a community way in a lobbyist way to promote themselves ”

                      That would be a fair descrption of the green party

            • adam 6.1.2.1.1.3
              16 October 2016 at 10:39 pm

              The unitary plan is more of the same anti-democratic rubbish we are getting from all form of government these days. Show me in the plan where people are actually listened too? Oh you can’t, because once again its more of the top down we know better – lies and shrill we get feed all the time.

              I for one, am sick and tired of technocratic know it all’s. Society run this way is an abject failure. No wait – some wingnut will come and say it’s all good, and I’m just complaining. Or worse, someone who is supposedly on the left will…

    • Paul 6.2
      16 October 2016 at 10:33 am

      “Janet McAllister is happily semi-retired without the assets. She writes theatre reviews for NZ Herald and Cultural Baggage columns for Metro magazine.”

  7. Morrissey 7
    16 October 2016 at 9:29 am

    Meet the reality behind that cuddly audience member Ken Bone

    Jono and Ben called this idiot “cute” on Friday night. In fact, he’s anything but…

    http://gizmodo.com/ken-bone-forgot-to-delete-his-porn-comments-1787780939

  8. Gangnam Style 8
    16 October 2016 at 10:11 am

    “Harvard University just got a $10 million grant to study Black poverty in Boston area. The dining hall staff are on strike for living wages.” tweet from Bill Humphrey.

    • save nz 8.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:22 am

      +1 Gangnam Style – our brave new world, the elite are fighting poverty so hard… just keep writing those 8 figure checks, eventually they will find a way to ‘afford’ to pay living wages…

  9. TheExtremist 9
    16 October 2016 at 10:27 am

    What confuses me is that I come to The Standard for left wing analysis and comment and am confronted with a right wing rape apologist as a contributor.
    I mean, if CV had just shown up yesterday would his rhetoric be tolerated in this fashion?

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    [putting my moderator hat on, that comment did step over the bounds in terms of attacking an author on their own post. As I say below, if you want to talk about left wing debate on ts in general, better to do it in OM, and please bear in mind that there are very good reasons for not attacking authors – weka]

    • weka 9.1
      16 October 2016 at 10:32 am

      IMO no. But authors are highly valued on principle (the site wouldn’t exist without them) and so there is a general rule against attacking them. Better to just have a go at the arguments, including where they are disingenuous and misleading as in this case.

      The other option is to put our energy into supporting the posts that we like. Tell the authors that you enjoy that you like their posts, and why, and encourage them to write more. Comment on their posts more than you do on these ones.

      I share your frustration though.

      edit, if you want to talk about the general state of left wing debate on ts, please take it to Open Mike.

      • TheExtremist 9.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 10:35 am

        I certainly do not mean to attack an author or The Standard policy. Just expressing a frustration and confusion

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 10:44 am

          It can be a fine line sometimes, but I think calling an author a rape apologist under a post where there is nothing about rape apology (haven’t read the post, am guessing) steps over the line (despite him running rape apology lines elsewhere). If there was rape apology in the post, then point that out and make comment on it first. Likewise any other politics going on e.g. right wing. That’s how I see it, other moderators/authors might see it differently.

          I think what CV is doing is damaging the community, but there are limits to what can be done about that I’m afraid. The commentariat does have some power in this though too.

          I also think that the value of the site is being undermined by the amount of rape apology and subsequent arguing going on, but ts doesn’t have a very good reputation on that score anyway, and it’s part of a much bigger problem here.

          Micky is solidly left wing and has a post up today. Just saying 😉

          • TheExtremist 9.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 10:58 am

            I understand and apologies if I overstepped the mark.
            If I were so inclined could I at some time in the future submit a piece? If I found the time of course

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 11:37 am

              Definitely! Make the time*, we need some new blood 🙂 Once you have something ready, drop a comment in front of me or one of the other authors and we will work from there (emailing the main contribution email doesn’t always work). Feel free to do a draft and ask for feedback on that too, there are some editorial type boundaries to consider. cheers.

              *what I find is that if I stop commenting for a while time magically appears 😉 Often what I am writing in comments can be made into a post anyway.

            • Karen 9.1.1.1.1.2
              16 October 2016 at 2:25 pm

              I would like to read something from you if you do find the time.

              I share your frustration with the way CV has started to dominate so much dialogue on the Standard. There have always been right wingers commenting here but there used to be a lot more left wing voices to counter their views. Quite a few of the people I enjoyed reading seem to have given up. Their reasons for doing so will be varied, I suspect.

              I gave up engaging with CV a long time ago – I treat him the same as the more rabid right wingers (don’t feed the troll). Occasionally I will respond to one of his acolytes but it isn’t really worth the bother. I never read his posts, and I don’t bother even scrolling through the comments if I see by the side bar that he is dominating the conversation on anybody else’s posts.

              Nearly everybody else who writes a post here puts up something worth reading so I do still look at the Standard a couple of times a day. There is no doubt , however, that CV devalued this site for me.

              • Colonial Viper …
                16 October 2016 at 2:32 pm

                Learn to live outside your echo chamber and broaden your horizons, is my recommendation.

                • Chooky …
                  16 October 2016 at 3:03 pm

                  +100 CV…if you are pushed off this site i will happily go with you ( I waste too much of my valuable time here)

                  …you are one of the reasons I come here ( and imo you are more Left and more genuinely for women’s rights to speak out , than many here ie you are more of a Feminist imo)

                  …I also suspect the bullying attacks on you from some quarters are one reason people are staying away…some who don’t generally contribute have come out and defended you

                  …and why these personal attacks …???….imo because you are very effective, well read, articulate and intelligent

                  …as yu know i dont always agree with you on certain issues, but we can disagree vigorously and generally I can learn from your point of view

                  …and you are certainly never bullying or abusive when in disagreement…so I am never intimidated as I am with some here

              • TheExtremist …
                16 October 2016 at 2:40 pm

                Well I might just do it

                • halfcrown …
                  16 October 2016 at 7:07 pm

                  Please do. What I have seen of your blogs, you would make a very good contributor. I possibly will disagree with you, but I am sure any post by you will be of a high standard. As Weka said “we need new blood”

              • marty mars …
                16 October 2016 at 2:44 pm

                Good points Karen – it’s the blatant dishonesty that irks me the most. I just can’t take anything cv says seriously – too far gone imo and puffed up with pride in the infallibility of his views. Still it takes all sorts so we just get on with it.

                • save nz …
                  16 October 2016 at 2:59 pm

                  I think CV’s got some valid points on many issues.

                  If the site gets too clicky and everyone says the same stuff, what is the point of reading it?

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:10 pm

                    That’s not really a very fair characterisation though. If for the sake of argument CV wasn’t here, there would still be a wide variety of opinion from the regulars. Just because many of us are fucked off with CV’s behaviour doesn’t mean we all think alike or say the same stuff.

                    CV used to have some valid points on many issues. Now he’s a sloganeer on some pretty fucked up politics and the good stuff he says in amongst that gets drowned out by the bullshit. The degree to which he now mirrors the values and behaviours of Trump is pretty disturbing. I don’t mean he is like Trump as a person (he’s not), but that the misleading and disingenuous stuff alongside the slogans just looks creepy when it’s in the context of promoting Trump.

                  • marty mars …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:11 pm

                    At a point people chose whether to listen or not. We each have our own point. If I want rwnj arguments I can go to those sites. I don’t, that is why I’m here

                    • save nz …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:16 pm

                      You can call CV many things but RWNJ – I don’t think so.

                    • save nz …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:20 pm

                      I’m not sure what the extremist is even on about. Is he describing Julian Assange?

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:21 pm

                      Myself I’d call him alt-right rather than RW. And he’s definitely running lines against the left and it’s range of politics, which is what I think marty meant.

                    • Chris …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:25 pm

                      That’s often the logic here. If you’re not a mainstream lovin’ centrist leftie you must be a rwnj.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:40 pm

                      I think nut job was too harsh cos there is a method in the madness so sorry cv for that.

                      Yes weka has it correct – and chris just my view, and I’m hard left fyi, no need to taint others

                    • Garibaldi …
                      16 October 2016 at 9:47 pm

                      I’m going to call bullshit on this talk of CV being right wing.
                      I think he, like many of us, are fed up with the Labour caucus. Since 1984 we’ve been waiting for the Labour Party to apologise for Rogernomics and to amend it’s ways. To hell with trying to please the middle ground – that just leaves us with the wafflers we’ve got now.
                      I think CV’s stand against the current Labour crowd is totally justified and he is probably the most competent writer on this site.
                      This world is changing faster than ever before and needs new enlightened approaches, not a bunch of National lite drivel to placate the ‘middle’.

                  • Robertina …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:30 pm

                    But there are so many other tension points and divisions in politics than only with the alt-right (CV), and the dumb-right (BM), and that’s the problem. The debate has become pretty narrow here at the Standard and for that reason I can understand people’s frustration.

              • weka …
                16 October 2016 at 2:48 pm

                I appreciate it when you make comments like this Karen, because I too think people are leaving for at least in part those reasons. If you have posts/topics you’d like to see, please say. Can’t guarantee they will happen, but it’s good to know what people want to read. Otherwise we’re just judging off where the commenters go and that’s not necessarily a useful thing to do.

                • save nz …
                  16 October 2016 at 3:26 pm

                  I’d call CV hard left. And I’d call AD centre right. And in my view if Labour placed itself between CV and AD in it’s policies (and I think both used or currently volunteer for Labour, but may be wrong) they would be a lot more appealing to the missing voters.

                  It’s people like james who are more a waste for me as they would never vote left in a million years, so why post here.

                  • weka …
                    16 October 2016 at 3:32 pm

                    I think CV is proposing to vote NZF. If he was in the US it’d be Trump. Those aren’t the votes of someone on the hard left. CV himself says he’s not left wing.

                    Pretty sure Ad votes on the left, so calling him centre right only makes sense if you shift the Overton window and don’t take into consideration the last 30 years 😉 Which might be a valid thing to do but it’s not conducive to good communication.

                    • save nz …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:41 pm

                      Nope CV has said he is considering voting Green too or Mana.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 October 2016 at 3:55 pm

                      CV does not identify as left. He has reiterated that recently so he is a long long way from hard left. This is just the way it is. I accept his own description of himself – good on him for being honest about that I say.

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 4:30 pm

                      When did CV say he might vote Green? I know he has voted Mana in the past but he’s said to me repeatedly he wouldn’t vote Green because it’s not s good cultural fit. Voting Green seemed the best political fit for him until this year.

                  • Karen …
                    16 October 2016 at 4:00 pm

                    CV hard left? You must be joking.
                    I can see how someone could have thought CV was left wing a year ago but for quite some time now I would have to say Weka’s assessment as alt-right is spot on.

                    • save nz …
                      16 October 2016 at 4:28 pm

                      I’m just going on policies he’s advocating as being hard left. What policies does he talk about that see him as right? Supporting Jill Stein? sarc.

                    • weka …
                      16 October 2016 at 4:34 pm

                      Funny you should mention Stein, because one of the things that makes him more alt right is his views on gender and other identity politics. I’d agree with you that historically many of the policies he supports are left, but in recent times that seems outweighed by the fact that Trump is a better cultural fit.

                  • Chris …
                    16 October 2016 at 4:04 pm

                    Good to see this cul-de-sac getting a lot of mileage again.

                  • james …
                    17 October 2016 at 8:02 am

                    why post here – sorry if you like an echo chamber of only people who go “key bad” “left good”. But I come on here to engage with a few post and to laugh at stupid comments some make.

  10. james 10
    16 October 2016 at 12:01 pm

    I thought I posted this before – but perhaps there was a post error.

    I see Kim Dotcom is back with plans to change the government again:

    https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/786436817092382720

    “I’m getting ready for 2017 NZ election. This time I’ll spend far less, corrupt media won’t stop me, will change Govt with brilliant plan!”

    I wonder if this brilliant plan will involve Mana again.

    This can only be good news for John Key and a National 4th term….

    [it’s still where you put it, in yesterday’s OM – weka]

    • james 10.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:19 pm

      Ahh – sorry weka – I posted in the wrong thread and hadnt refreshed.

      Doh!

      • Paul 10.1.1
        16 October 2016 at 12:30 pm

        It was a dull troll post the first time it was first put up.
        James a man happy to defend a government responsibility a surge in homelessness, declining workers rights and poverty.
        What do you stand for?

        • james 10.1.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 12:42 pm

          If you try to reply to the post as opposed to deflecting and asking me questions, it will probably get you better replies.

          Whats trolling about it – Kim Dotcom is saying that hes back with another election plan.

          Im just saying it worked so well last time – and now he’s even less popular. It can only be good for National. Personally I hope he joins up with Mana again.

          Even better if he gets Bradbury back on board.

          • Paul 10.1.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 12:47 pm

            Your extreme right wing politics suggest you are a fool, but if you can’t see that commenting on Kim Dotcom is trolling, there is little hope.
            I have no intention of discussing distraction topic points of a rwnj, when there are clearly more important issues to discuss.
            And you know that.

            • xanthe 10.1.1.1.1.1
              16 October 2016 at 2:18 pm

              Hmm i am not so sure….. if lab/grn continue to believe that dotcom is a bigger threat to them then nats then James is probably correct, however it they come to their senses maby not

          • stigie 10.1.1.1.2
            16 October 2016 at 2:00 pm

            Look James, if you argue with their way of thinking or don’t agree with what they are saying…..You are a troll !

            btw, this is Open Mike !!

            • Gangnam Style 10.1.1.1.2.1
              16 October 2016 at 3:09 pm

              ” trolling
              Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it’s the internet and, hey, you can. ”

              Urban dictionary.

              • stigie …
                16 October 2016 at 4:25 pm

                “Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it’s the internet and, hey, you can. ”

                You mean like OAB the other day telling Dr Wayne Mapp that he can “Fuck off”..?

  11. xanthe 11
    16 October 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Hillary Clinton: “I want to defend fracking.” Climate change environmentalists should “Get a life,” #PodestaEmails8

    https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787355043821416448

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      16 October 2016 at 12:56 pm

      I am sure that Hillary’s “public position” on the issue is nicer than this.

    • joe90 11.2
      16 October 2016 at 4:12 pm

      Could you link to the original email. Ta in advance.

      • joe90 11.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 4:22 pm

        Don’t bother, I’ve found the original file and as usual, a selectively quoted lie.

        It’s symbolic and it’s not going to go away. They’re all hanging on to it. So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he’s out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I’m not into it for that. I’ve been– my view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipe lines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I’m already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that’s what I’m [inaudible] about– getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody’s not going to get everything they want, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other.

        https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails//fileid/9617/2478

        Oh, and because balance –

        The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

        • marty mars 11.2.1.1
          16 October 2016 at 4:43 pm

          Thanks joe i knew it had been twisted because 99% of the trumpties proclamations are.

          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1.1
            16 October 2016 at 6:43 pm

            I love the massive US fracking and shale oil bubble which has almost made the US “energy independent” (for now).

            Remind me who was in charge of the White House. Paris agreement signing Obama wasn’t it?

  12. Chris 12
    16 October 2016 at 3:14 pm

    This is sickening. Key thanking charity workers for trying to make a “kinder New Zealand”. Lying, greedy, hypocritical piece of fucking trash.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/85386421/final-scenes-captured-for-poi-e-dance-video-project

    • James 12.1
      16 October 2016 at 4:01 pm

      Good on key. Cannot imaging them inviting Andrew little to be part of it.

    • save nz 12.2
      16 October 2016 at 4:23 pm

      “Since May 2015, the Step Up Taranaki Trust has been touring the region, capturing scenes of people dancing to the Patea Maori Club’s hit song Poi E.”

      Nothing like a bit of cultural colonisation to sell NZ to the world. Mr Key features in it, can’t get to Waitangi this year, but happy for the video cameo.

      • Gangnam Style 12.2.1
        16 October 2016 at 6:37 pm

        Must be the kind of charities Key is thanking, since they have their funding cut some of these services will have to go back to volunteering their services.

        A third of all budget advisory services to get their funding cut.

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11730011

        “Christian Assist manager Ken Ogden said his trust would probably give up its current office in Avondale and revert to the way it started in 1991 as a volunteer-based agency operating from a local church.”

  13. joe90 13
    16 October 2016 at 6:08 pm

    When you list the alleged incidents Trump does appear to be worse than a pig.

    Allegation of rape in 1989, made public in 1993

    […]

    Allegation of sexual assault in 1992 and 1993, made in a court filing in 1997

    […]

    Allegation of rape in 1994, made public in a court filing in April 2016

    […]

    Allegation of unwanted kissing in 1997, made public in May 2016

    [..]

    Allegations of groping in 2013, made public in June 2016

    […]

    Allegation of a hostile work environment between 2004 and 2015, published October 3, 2016

    […]

    Allegations of walking in on young pageant contestants changing in 1997 and 2001, made public October 11 and 12, 2016

    […]

    Two allegations of sexual assault in early 1980s and 2005, reported October 12, 2016

    […]

    Allegation of groping in 2003, reported October 12, 2016

    […]

    Allegation of sexual assault in December 2005, reported October 12, 2016

    […]

    Allegation of sexual assault in early 1990s, reported October 14, 2016

    […]

    Allegation of sexual assault in 2007, reported October 14, 2016

    […]

    Allegation of of grabbing and unwanted kissing attempt in late 90s, reported October 15, 2016

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/allegations-women-have-made-against-donald-trump-n665731?cid=sm_tw

  14. Andre 14
    16 October 2016 at 6:11 pm

    The SNL second debate. Not one of their best, but still good for a few snorts.

  16. fisiani 16
    16 October 2016 at 8:50 pm

    4,723,900 people in New Zealand. Quite a change from 2014. Thousands who voted in 2014 have died. Thousands have come on the voting roll and thousands of immigrants have become permanent residents or citizens and thus able to vote. They are aspirational for a brighter future and given the booming economy I wonder how likely it is that they will vote for more tax and less freedom.

  17. adam 17
    17 October 2016 at 1:46 am

    If you don’t think somthing is wrong with our media.

    Check out this piece.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/85075657/paul-moon-david-cumin-and-juliet-moses-flotilla-became-ship-of-fools

    I know its from a few days ago, but it’s worth reflecting on.

    Because you add this…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/85381134/perfect-mike-hosking-on-luxury-items-and-sexuallycharged-shopping-trips-with-john-key

    And we really are in lala land…

    • Siobhan 17.1
      17 October 2016 at 3:02 pm

      I would love to see a debate between Paul Moon and Norman Finkelstein on the blockade issue. No place for Mike Hoskings in that, but maybe he could provide some luxury snacks from Nosh.

      We could invite our very own Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Though given Sir Geoffs connection to Álvaro Uribe I guess you would have to be very careful not to cause offence. Uribes and his brother are not exactly the type to turn the other cheek.

  18. William 18
    17 October 2016 at 2:33 pm

    A hard rain’s gonna fall, friend.