Open mike 17/02/2020

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, February 17th, 2020 - 41 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

41 comments on “Open mike 17/02/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • mpledger 1.1
      17 February 2020 at 8:55 am

      Scott Morrison seems to be acting a lot like Trump – using their power to get back at people who they perceive to have harmed them. When both of them no longer have power they are going to be very frightened people.

      • RedLogix 1.1.1
        17 February 2020 at 9:11 am

        To be fair it's not clear where the decision to sack Parker came from, I'd be very surprised if it came directly from the PM's office (no-one could be that stupid), but certainly there is something sick within the RFS management culture if they think this makes any kind of sense.

        If I were ScoMo I'd be on the blower right now putting some pressure on to get this decision rescinded.

        • David Mac 1.1.1.1
          18 February 2020 at 11:59 pm

          Yep, press photos fast of Sco Mo handing over a new appliance to Mr Foulmouth's unit asap. Footage of those 2 cracking a beer together and 20 seconds of vox pop soundbites "That beep Scott beep is not such a bad beep."

          Suck it up Scomo or I think Aussies will chant profanities in unison. Sack em all?

    • Andre 1.2
      17 February 2020 at 9:30 am

      That news.com piece really whitewashes ScumMo by omitting what he said and did to provoke Paul Parker's rant.

      He says his anger was sparked "because when Morrison had been asked whether [NSW Rural Fire Service] volunteers should be paid, he'd said no, because they enjoyed what they did".

      Parker, who insists he is not politically partisan, said he also remained angry that Morrison had left for a holiday in Hawaii as fires spread across large areas of Australia.

      https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/he-said-what-the-rest-of-us-were-thinking-firefighter-who-sprayed-pm-sees-free-beers-flow-in-20200214-p540rt.html

      It seems ScumMo's exact wording might have been:

      “[The] fact is these crews, yes, they’re tired, but they also want to be out there defending their communities "

      https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/12/firies-and-fury-exhausted-volunteers-decry-pms-claim-they-want-to-be-there

  2. Janet 2
    17 February 2020 at 11:02 am

    REF OPEN MIKE 15/02/20

    .I feel stalked. Making “headlines” of comments made in previous years puts them out of context and I have not seen the likes of it before on TS. It seems veutoviper wants to intimidate me for holding a view that is not the same as hers.

    The immigration issue has been around now for many years and is not being addressed front on by the politicians. If they can’t / won’t address it properly, then probably it is more important to put the issue to New Zealanders to indicate their wishes than the legalising of marijuana and euthanasia.

  3. pat 3
    17 February 2020 at 12:21 pm

    "In fact, far from falling by five percent, emissions skyrocketed since 1990, from 65 million gross tonnes and 34.51 million net tonnes to an annual average of 80.7 million gross tonnes and 67.2 million net tonnes over the eight years.

    "The New Zealand Government has not acted in good faith, because it's using hot air to meet its 2020 targets," Norman said.

    "We've profoundly failed. There's been a huge surge in both net and gross emissions between 1990 and 2017. Plainly, we have deliberately pledged not to cut either gross or net emissions."

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/02/17/1030441/one-neat-trick-to-make-it-look-like-youve-reduced-emissions

  4. mosa 4
    17 February 2020 at 12:56 pm

    Sanders

    Trumps America is already a socialist nation.



    • Gosman 4.1
      17 February 2020 at 2:11 pm

      If that is his definition of Socialism I am not sure whether to be glad or sad that he is such a numpty.

      • mosa 4.1.1
        17 February 2020 at 4:07 pm

        The definition is spot on.

        Corporate welfare in the form of huge payouts like the Wall st bail out and tax breaks and subsidies paid too billionaires like Trump who happily admits he put his hand out and took the money.

        American taxpayers money.

      • AB 4.1.2
        17 February 2020 at 5:09 pm

        US senator with a distinguished record of being on the right side of history on just about every important issue for 40 years has a different definition of 'socialism' from anonymous far-right/libertarian Kiwi blog poster. This story has wings!

      • David Mac 4.1.3
        19 February 2020 at 12:21 am

        Naive suits me, at the centre of a starburst of tangents is the core truth.

        I think modern Socialism is about placing people and Earth above making money.

  5. Gosman 5
    17 February 2020 at 2:07 pm

    This morning should have disabused anyone who was thinking Jacinda Ardern was different to any other political leader. Her handling of the questions around Winston Peters was political cynicism at it's finest. Her comment about not being asked before about whether she has discussed the matter with Winston what pure chutzpuh. She acted like she hadn't even thought about the possibility of doing that until the moment she was asked about it. Why does she employ a media team again?

    • Enough is Enough 5.1
      17 February 2020 at 2:35 pm

      I have been consistently calling for Labour to distance themselves from Winston for basically the term of this government. His legacy of bringing down governments that he is a part of is looking like it could well repeat for a third time.

      Rather than go down with Winnie I would have preferred Jacinda just stood up and condemned him, and his actions and take whatever fallout came from that. If it meant he threw his toys and forced a snap election then so what. That would be a good result as I think Labour and Green could get the numbers if an election was called today.

      It would be a principled approach, and could result in a government without a conservative hand brake.

      • McFlock 5.1.1
        17 February 2020 at 2:55 pm

        A snap election after the date is announced would be spun as further evidence of her "weakness", which several commenters have been plugging here on TS.

        And it would screw with the budget announcements and policy release schedule. This can only help the tories.

        • Incognito 5.1.1.1
          17 February 2020 at 2:57 pm

          yes

        • Enough is Enough 5.1.1.2
          17 February 2020 at 5:19 pm

          You are correct that it will screw with some announcements that have been made, but my fear is that Winston's issues will continue to eat away at the government, and the government is lead by Labour.

          Those issues, and the media's scrutiny of them are not going to go away simply because Jacinda says "that's Winnie's issue – nothing to do with me". Today's analysis of the cabinet manual by Hooton and co clearly shows what she is going to encounter, and the questions which will follow her until the SFO investigation is over.

          I would like to see her rip off the band-aid, go to the polls and rid herself of him. The election would be before the budget sot he government's timetable wouldn't be too thrown out of kilter.

          Most people despise Winston, so rightfully blaming him for the election is not going to hurt Labour.

          I can't see how on earth Bridges could gain from it. He is targeting Septmeber and their lack of policies now show they are clearly not ready.

          • Incognito 5.1.1.2.1
            17 February 2020 at 5:29 pm

            Matthew Hooton analysed the Cabinet Manual!?

            He must be a changed man now.

            The SFO and Cabinet Manual are completely different things for different things. A green light by SFO, for example, will not suffice for those who want to get rid of this Government – they would use tide tables if it would help their crusade against the evil empire led by the wicked queen.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.2.2
            17 February 2020 at 7:48 pm

            Tactically, the election needs to be after the budget. Otherwise you're just putting yourself on the block with only two budgets of policy implementation, not three. Why would you do only two thirds of the assessment, when it looks like you were forced to do so under a cloud of corruption? That's not ripping off a bandaid, it's rubbing dirt into the wound.

            And this is just a NZ1 issue. Their party functionaries set it up, we don't know whether this stupid departure was led by Winston or whether he was pulled along for the ride by a panicking board. If it affected the ability of ministers to do their job, there might be a point to this.

            Let the tories bleat. Sure, it will go on for a while. Then maybe some board members get rolled under a bus if it gets too much for NZ1 (and they'd be the ones responsible, anyway), but so far the nats would be better working on NZ1 support. As usual, they're greedy and all it takes is a few senior tories to have worked with BFD as well, and no-bridges is on the back foot again.

      • Paddington 5.1.2
        17 February 2020 at 6:14 pm

        I listened to Jacinta stumble and stutter her way through her interview with Mike Hosking this morning and it was just horrible. She’s better than this. At least I hoped she was.

    • xanthe 5.2
      17 February 2020 at 4:47 pm

      Jacinda is under no obligation whatsoever to involve herself in the ALLEGED misconduct of another party.

      That what we call a "news" service sings in harmony that she "must" is sad.

      That Gosman takes up the call is ignorant!

      The only meaningful discussion we can have here on this issue is what to do about a disfunctional race to the bottom media

      • Paddington 5.2.1
        17 February 2020 at 6:20 pm

        The misconduct is not ‘alleged’. It has been referred to the SFO by the Police, after the Electoral Commission said “the donations were not properly transmitted to the Party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993".

        This is not just ’another party’. It is the junior government coalition party, led by the deputy PM.

        The seeming complacency being displayed around the impact of this on the current government is mind boggling.

        • McFlock 5.2.1.1
          17 February 2020 at 8:11 pm

          Until courts determine the truth (if it gets that far) whatever has been alleged is still only alleged. And I'm not sure any individuals have been referred at this stage – then that would be specific allegations of wrongdoing by human or legal entities. For NZ1 at this stage – not even that far.

          • Paddington 5.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2020 at 10:58 pm

            The Electoral Commission didn’t use the word ‘alleged’.

            It said:

            “Based on the information available, we have formed the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party,”

            and
            “In the commission’s view, the donations were not properly transmitted to the party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993.”

            https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/02/electoral-commission-finds-donations-to-nz-first-foundation-should-have-been-treated-as-party-donations.html
            (Sorry for the edits).

            • McFlock 5.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2020 at 11:19 pm

              The electoral commission didn't have to use the word “alleged”, because the electoral commission does not determine the truth of the issue. That is why the electoral commission uses expressions like "we have formed the view" and referred it to investigative agencies, who will then prosecute in a court if the allegations have an evidentiary basis.

              Now, I expect some people and entities to be charged in this matter. But neither you nor I know who or what those charges will involve. That depends on the evidence presented to the courts. It is perfectly possible that any prosecution will fail to demonstrate illegal misconduct beyond all reasonable doubt (ethically I think it's dodgy as fuck). We have courts because there is that possibility. If there has been no misconduct, the electoral commission's view is incorrect, and the matters they referred to the relevant investigative body were not merely "allegations", legally they were incorrect allegations.

              • Paddington …
                18 February 2020 at 10:37 am

                Well said, except Xanthe didn't refer to 'illegal misconduct', only 'misconduct'. I think we can agree on your eloquently put view that "ethically I think it's dodgy as f%^&."

                • McFlock …
                  18 February 2020 at 3:14 pm

                  Well, the electoral commission wasn't talking about "properly transmitted ethically", were they?

                  • Paddington …
                    18 February 2020 at 11:43 pm

                    The way I read the EC comment is that it is their view there has been misconduct. Whether that rises to the level of breaches of the law is a matter for a law enforcement agency, in this case the police/SFO. Either way, the conduct is not ‘alleged’. The only question is whether it was legal. But that wasn’t the point I was replying to.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 February 2020 at 11:53 pm

                      The allegation by the EC was that the conduct did not meet legal requirements. Or as you phrase it "breaches the law".

                      As for the "complacency", each to their own. I'm sure you're welcome to submit a guest post on how awful NZ1 is while ignoring a very similar problem the nats are facing right now. If they don't want it here, the Herald might pick it up and slip you some coin.

                    • Paddington …
                      19 February 2020 at 3:47 pm

                      There was no allegation by the EC. They made a very specific finding:

                      “Based on the information available, we have formed the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party,”

                      As to the Nat's it seems to me they have a very similar problem. But as most of what I'm reading here is complacency about the current governments coalition partner, that isn't relevant to the point I was making.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 February 2020 at 3:54 pm

                      What point were you making, then?

                    • Paddington …
                      19 February 2020 at 7:22 pm

                      The point I was making is that the default response to NZF's issues seems to be 1. deflect to National's, or 2. play down the impact.

                      Winston Peters has poisoned every government he has been a part of. He is poisoning this one.

    • AB 5.3
      17 February 2020 at 4:53 pm

      "should have disabused anyone who was thinking Jacinda Ardern was different to any other political leader."

      Nobody has suggested she is qualitatively different – just better, which in the current environment is indisputable. This morning she was using the different hats explanation – anything Winston Peters may have done as leader of NZ First is not related to his role as a Minister in her government. So Winston has two hats – maybe borrowed from Dover. John Key used the 'different hats' theory all the time – but he was such a dodgy little fellow that I recall he needed at least three hats to cover his tracks:

      • the John Key hat
      • the National Party leader hat
      • the Prime Ministerial hat

      I expect there was a Merrill Lynch hat and a Blind Trust Beneficiary hat too – and God knows what else. The difficulty with Key was always picking the hat under which the cash was hiding.

      • Chris T 5.3.1
        17 February 2020 at 11:35 pm

        "Nobody has suggested she is qualitatively different – just better, which in the current environment is indisputable."

        Far out that sounds desperate

    • Peter 5.4
      17 February 2020 at 5:33 pm

      She probably employs a media team for the same reason John Key did.

      When he obfuscated, simply didn't recall or simply lied did you go on about political cynicism at it's finest or pure chutzpuh?

      Or do you think things are different for Ardern because the words 'open' and 'transparent' crossed her lips but not those of Key? If the techniques were fine back then they are perfectly fine now.

      I see further down the discussion the different hats scenario. Different hats again than those that Bill English donned or didn't when he wanted to be participate in affairs to do with Todd Barclay of course. As was his right and which was okay at the time according to the protectors?

  6. Billy 6
    17 February 2020 at 10:06 pm

    Winston Peters: the plastic bag Jacinda Ardern can't do without?

  7. sumsuch 7
    17 February 2020 at 10:12 pm

    The representative of the Left — ha ha ha — on Nat Rad's Nine to Noon politics segment just described people suggesting Mike Moore betrayed the working class as being from the looney Left. Orwellian '1984' story complete. Congrats to the Left and Right rich.

    Except Yertle gets tired.