Open mike 17/02/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, February 17th, 2013 - 106 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

106 comments on “Open mike 17/02/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    17 February 2013 at 7:30 am

    I note the Herald’s website adds the following text under its opinion piece when rcommentunderWe aim to have healthy debate. But we won’t publish comments that abuse others.

  2. Paul 2
    17 February 2013 at 7:42 am

    I note the Herald’s website adds the following text under its opinion pieces ”we aim to have healthy debate. But we won’t publish comments that abuse others.”
    If that’s the case, why do they let neo-con ideologues like Rodney Hide get away with abusive language in hate-filled and fear-mongering pieces on teacher unions today? Does an inflammatory article like this encourage ‘healthy debate’?

    • blue leopard 2.1
      17 February 2013 at 10:24 am

      @Paul,
      Does an inflammatory article like this encourage ‘healthy debate’?
      No it doesn’t.

    • Murray Olsen 2.2
      17 February 2013 at 6:26 pm

      Rodney’s article suggests to me that NAct’s program to shovel education money into the pockets of their mates isn’t going as smoothly as they had hoped. Good on the teachers’ unions. Given the hatred they generate on the WhaleSpew blog as well, they must be having some successes.
      Perhaps parents can even appreciate that teachers who continue working even though they can’t even be sure they’ll get paid are not the problem, but that Hide, the silent member for Epsom, and the rest of the government are.

  3. Jenny 3
    17 February 2013 at 7:56 am

    ‘

    Scientists confirm Arctic ice collapse imminent.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/15-6

    The Arctic Sea is experiencing rapid ice loss at a pace so fast that the area will soon be ice-free in warmer months, scientists confirmed in a report this week—showing a collapse in total sea ice volume to one fifth of its level in 1980.

    Jacob Chamberlain Staff writer, Common Dreams

    Take particular notice of the comment thread.

    Climate Change denial is a vanishing small opinion.

    As Vernon Small also notes it, Climate Change is the widely held majority opinion.

    Just a few years ago you could spark a political row by asking whether humans were partly to blame for climate change.

    While there is still a strand of scepticism running through some sections of the National Party – and a mile-wide streak in the ACT party – there is by and large broad consensus across the divide.

    Now the political debate is not about whether we should act, but how and what cost we should bear.

    Vernon Small (government) “Backtrack on climate change causes little heat”

    Most people are convinced of the reality of Climate Change and they want something done about it.

    So why are the Green Party still holding to the view that they held in 2011, that campaigning around climate change is a vote killer?

    And that efforts should be made to play this issue down?

    And that Climate Change not be one of their “Principles”, or even one of their “Issues”.

    (Climate Change is allowed to be one of the Greens’ 59 “Other”–“Issues”)

    Is the the Green Party leadership corrupted?

    Are they stupid?

    Are they caught in a time warp?

    What is the story?

    Maybe Colonial weka might like to explain?

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      17 February 2013 at 10:18 am

      The explanation is simple. Political parties will not lead on this issue, or the issue of energy depletion, until they feel that middle class electorate opinion will support them.

      I’ve said this to you before.

      • blue leopard 3.1.1
        17 February 2013 at 10:25 am

        Yes, perhaps more of a reflection of our society than “The Greens” leadership or level of stupidity.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          17 February 2013 at 10:34 am

          I expect Jenny to start moaning that I am scapegoating the upper middle class Green voter with the new Prius (which happens to contain hundreds of kilograms of steel which used tonnes of coal to manufacture), airline tickets booked for the overseas holiday plans with the family, and new iPhone 5’s all round, for not being real about the lifestyle and consumption downgrades they need to undergo ASAP.

          • Jenny 3.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2013 at 11:31 am

            By the “middle class”, I presume you mean those not ground down by the daily existence of of low pay and extreme hours, and so able to lift their heads to give the environment and politics much more of their concentration.

            The sort of people able to afford the leisure to go tramping fiordland.

            The sort of people who marched against apartheid and nuclear ships.

            Those who protested in their tens of thousands against the mining of schedule 4 land.

            Or is it, some other “middle class” you are talking about? One of your own bigotted imaginings.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2013 at 12:38 pm

              Hey Jenny, since you’re being a smartass

              Tell me which of the examples you used above (tramping, apartheid, nuclear warships, preventing mining on schedule 4 land, etc) required those protestors to accept a rapid and substantially reduced level of lifestyle, consumption and income for themselves and their families.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 February 2013 at 3:21 pm

                  Yep, that would be the only one, and the most recent example 70 years ago now. Ironically, the NZ public accepted it at that time as being necessary to preserve the existing way of life for King and Country.

                  • Jenny …
                    17 February 2013 at 3:35 pm

                    Indeed and it was the middle classes that volunteered in percentage numbers way over their representation in the general population. Conscription had to brought in to get working class people involved in similar proportions.

                    From the Waitakere news:

                    The latest Roy Morgan poll provided a welcome bounce in support for Labour. Its support improved 3% to 34.5% while National’s support dropped to 44% and the Greens held steady on 13.5%. But Labour may find it hard to move its level of support past this level. It appears to have lost a fair chunk of the intellectual urban vote to the Greens and getting this vote back will be difficult.

                    I disagree, it would be easy to get this support back

                    What I take from this report is that the Labour Party is bleeding middle class support to the Greens.

                    It Labour wanted to get that “chunk of the intellectual urban” (middle class) support back, it would be easy.
                    All Labour have to do is outflank the Green Pary on the environment.
                    This would be so easy. It is indisputable that the that Greens are down playing the issue of Climate Change. Climate Change is not one of the Green Party’s three “Priorities”. Climate Change is not even one of the Green Party’s seven, “Other priorities that we are focusing on”. Climate Change is one of fiftynine, “Other” – “Issues”

                    The Green’s increase in support is significant and is having a fundamental effect on Labour. Many of those changing their allegiance are activists and/or well resourced, the sorts of people who you want not only as voters but also as supporters and members.

                    These “activists and/or well resourced” people are exactly the democraphic that Colonial Viper thoughtlessly disparages as “middle class”.

                    To having any chance of winning back this intellectual urban vote Labour needs to immediately promote David Cunliffe to the front bench wth full freedom of action. Of all the parliamentarians David Cunliffe is way ahead of the rest, even the Greens in addressing climate change the single most pressing issue facing humanity. Not as the Green Party insist, just one of 59, not even secondary, “Other Issues”.

                    • Coronial Typer …
                      17 February 2013 at 4:05 pm

                      A more fun way to get the middle class back is more glamorous events to go to.

                      In the last year of Helen Clark’s government the Auckland Labour staged a massive art auction; you should have seen the number of Senior Associates, Partners, Professors and bejewelled wives.

                      OMG it was fun, they hoovered the cash (and we got to trade bets across the room against Labour MPs), and absolutely no-one talked about anything so dreary as policy.

                      Anyone want the middle class? Stop talking policy bullshit, start having fun, help them spend do trucks of money for serious media buyouts 1 year from an election. Key understands this so so well. Which is one reason he kicks political ass every election he’s contested.

                    • QoT …
                      17 February 2013 at 4:44 pm

                      It is indisputable that the that Greens are down playing the issue of Climate Change.

                      As ever, Jenny, [citation needed]. And please note that you have phrased this as a deliberate action on the part of the Green party – “Greens are down playing” – not “but they’re talking about other things too” or “not every single media release is about climate change”, which I recall are your usual back-pedal points.

                    • Jenny …
                      17 February 2013 at 5:20 pm

                      It is indisputable that the that Greens are down playing the issue of Climate Change.

                      How can you look at their official website, or at their record in the last election and claim they are not?

                    • handle …
                      17 February 2013 at 5:57 pm

                      I agree the Greens are downplaying the issue after some strategic planning about what will engage voters the most. However banging on about it here is not helping you or anyone else, Jenny.

                    • QoT …
                      17 February 2013 at 6:01 pm

                      How can you look at their official website, or at their record in the last election and claim they are not?

                      Because that’s not what “downplaying” means, Jenny.

                      Downplaying would be Russel Norman saying “We don’t really think climate change is a significant issue.”

                      Downplaying would be Metiria Turei saying “The Green Party isn’t going to talk about climate change because it’s not going to have any major effect any time soon.”

                      What you continue to do is equivalent to me saying “Jenny is downplaying poverty because she talks about things other than poverty.” or “Jenny is actively avoiding talking about Christchurch school closures! See, her last 100 comments are all about climate change!” Whatever kind of logic that is, it ain’t our Earth logic.

          • Jackal 3.1.1.1.2
            17 February 2013 at 12:36 pm

            Not to mention the computer you’re using right now CV.

            The problem with your argument is that the data used to make that outdated finding hasn’t been made public and therefore cannot be verified. It’s also not relevant to New Zealand, because the US company involved is a for profit organisation that works for the car manufacturing industry.

            If you just want to compare the steel used, then hybrid vehicles on average use less steel than conventional cars. They are usually lighter CV, to make them more efficient. Your argument might work if all our power generation came from coal, but in New Zealand it doesn’t with around 70% from hydro.

            Although it has apparently improved recently, the US derived 49% of its power from coal generation in 2006, which was about the same time the defunct study was conducted. We could have 100% renewable energy production here if we wanted… The electric and hybrid vehicles we use today are already better than conventional gas powered vehicles for the environment, even with consideration to the materials used and manufacturing energy required.

            Other studies have shown that using electric vehicles is comparably bad for the environment when the electricity used to power them is entirely generated by coal. If you use clean energy sources to power hybrid and electric vehicles, they are better for the environment than conventional petrol powered vehicles.

            What I’m getting at is that we don’t need to reduce our living standards to ensure the environment is protected.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.2.1
              17 February 2013 at 12:40 pm

              What I’m getting at is that we don’t need to reduce our living standards to ensure the environment is protected.

              lol

              of course WE don’t, it’s just the people in developing and third world countries who have to make the sacrifices now.

              • Jackal …
                17 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

                Not necessarily… Many countries can learn from our mistakes and initially incorporate more clean tech into their developments instead of relying on outdated and dirty technologies CV. In fact many are already.

                For the same amount of investment, renewable energy production creates more than twice as many jobs as polluting industries, it usually has a better return on investment and doesn’t cost as much to maintain.

                The problem is that the capitalists don’t want to lose their existing investment into dirty industries, and that’s why we’ve had little changeover yet. Developing countries don’t usually have that problem, because there hasn’t been much investment to be lost.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  17 February 2013 at 12:59 pm

                  Nice reassuring talk, you should look up the direction of global coal and oil consumption trends for the last 10 years for the reality.

                  • Jackal …
                    17 February 2013 at 1:20 pm

                    Renewables are growing faster than coal and oil… Wind energy for instance up 26% compared to coal, up 5.4%. So what’s your point CV?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 1:27 pm

                      Wind energy for instance up 26% compared to coal, up 5.4%. So what’s your point CV?

                      Firstly get your numbers right. The EIA says that coal production increased by 66% between 2000 and 2010, from 5B short tons per year to over 8B short tons per year.

                      http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3350

                      So, how does your 26% increase in wind energy, from a far far smaller starting base, look now?

                      Notice also that coal use, and hence environmental degradation, is increasing not decreasing. You might take solace from any slight slowing in that increase I suppose. Like drowning, just not as quickly.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 1:32 pm

                      The figures I’ve used are just for 2011, not ten years CV… Clearly things are improving.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 2:08 pm

                      Things are improving?

                      More coal is being produced and burnt year on year, every year, and that is an improvement for the environment uh, because the number of wind turbines is growing as well?

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 2:24 pm

                      The growth in coal consumption is reducing Coronial Wiper, which is a good thing… The growth in renewables is increasing, which is also good. Why do you insist on twisting everything I write to mean something else?

                      But back to your first assertion… Do you agree that hybrid and electric vehicles are more energy efficient than your average petrol powered vehicle or not?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 2:36 pm

                      Do you agree that hybrid and electric vehicles are more energy efficient than your average petrol powered vehicle or not?

                      They definitely are not.

                      A 5 year old petrol driven Toyota Corolla already on our roads today is far more energy and CO2 efficient than a new hybrid Prius, Insight or Camry.

                      The growth in coal consumption is reducing Coronial Wiper, which is a good thing…

                      Sure that’s good news, it’ll cross 8 billion metric tonnes produced per annum, probably this year or next.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 3:24 pm

                      Where’s your evidence of that CV?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 3:30 pm

                      Oh, I know stuff.

                      Basically it comes down to a question of embodied energy. It takes the better part of a decade or so before something like a Prius comes close to breaking even on the embodied energy and CO2 front, assuming someone driving 10,000-20,000 km/year.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 3:41 pm

                      You mean you believe stuff, but cannot link to any evidence to support your claims?

                      Per K’s driven, a Prius is more efficient than a Corolla. The only area where it wins out is useful life. Your estimate exceeds the useful drive life of a Prius, which clearly indicates you’re making shit up Coronial Wiper. Yawn!

                      To make such a comparison, you must at least know what the useful drive life of a Toyota Corolla is… So what is it?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 4:27 pm

                      Embodied energy Jackal, look it up.

                      Per K’s driven, a Prius is more efficient than a Corolla.

                      So? It’ll take many many years for a brand new imported Prius to break even in terms of energy savings and CO2 emissions, compared to an existing standard Corolla.

                      To make such a comparison, you must at least know what the useful drive life of a Toyota Corolla is… So what is it?

                      No, its irrelevant at this time.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 6:57 pm

                      A bit beneath you to resort to straw man arguments re embodied energy isn’ it CV? That’s what I’ve been talking about. Where’s your data that shows the embodied energy for a Prius vs a Carolla then smartass?

                      If you make a calculation believing that all the energy to power the Prius will come from coal it will be wrong! If you calculate the total units manufactured and the plants set up and energy costs it will be wrong! Capish?

                      You cannot compare embodied energy including total units of a car that’s been in manufacture for ages with one that has a shorter manufacturing history and therefore less units. That’s the only way your assertion will be correct. In the real world it isn’t.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 7:07 pm

                      lol – you don’t have the concept of embodied energy at all.

                      I’ll communicate the concept of ’embodied energy’ another way: if the aim is to reduce the amount of CO2 released and energy used in the world this year, then the answer is simple.

                      Don’t build a new Prius requiring a new factory, new machine tools, new body steel + aluminium and then the use of more diesel for shipping to NZ along with many other associated industrial and economic activities; use a second hand Corolla which has long been built and already been transported to NZ.

                      You cannot compare embodied energy including total units of a car that’s been in manufacture for ages with one that has a shorter manufacturing history and therefore less units.

                      Of course you can compare them. They are totally comparable.

                      Using an existing already built second hand car doesn’t require the massive additional investment of energy and fresh emissions that fabricating a new car from scratch and transporting it to NZ does.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 7:22 pm

                      So you have no data, just waffling! God you really have become a total bore CV.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      17 February 2013 at 7:27 pm

                      Hey you know best keep on going mate.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2013 at 7:47 pm

                      Keep on going? You’ve lost the debate CV… You’re the only one who doesn’t seem to comprehend it.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      17 February 2013 at 8:31 pm

                      How ironic

          • David H 3.1.1.1.3
            17 February 2013 at 10:13 pm

            To say nothing of the chemicals and shit in the batteries. The best use I ever saw for a Prius is this.

    • Colonial Weka 3.2
      17 February 2013 at 10:41 am

      Jenny, get fucked.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14122012/#comment-562666

      and I will be happy to provide more links that answer Jenny’s spam questions if necessary.

      “Most people are convinced of the reality of Climate Change and they want something done about it.”

      Until the people stop wanting something to be ‘done’ about it (ie for someone else to solve the problem for them), and start doing something themselves, nothing will change.

      • Jenny 3.2.1
        17 February 2013 at 12:33 pm

        Until the people stop wanting something to be ‘done’ about it (ie for someone else to solve the problem for them), and start doing something themselves, nothing will change.

        Colonial Weka

        People do want something to be done. But anything major that is done by human beings requires teamwork and teamwork requires leadership. (Whether that is building a house or a road or a bridge or crossing an ocean)

        Those who promote themselves as leaders and then give excuses for not leading are not leaders, they are followers.

        When the Rena ran aground it wasn’t the crew who were held responsible it was the captain.

        For your intemperate abuse and continual apology and misdirection over the Green Party sell out over climate change you and others like you are bringing the Green Party into disrepute. Especially among other environmentalist groups.

        • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1
          17 February 2013 at 12:41 pm

          Politicians are for the most part not leaders Jenny, they are followers. Listen and learn please.

          • Jenny 3.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

            Politicians are for the most part not leaders Jenny, they are followers….

            Colonial Viper

            To which I might add, all frightened to voice an independent opinion….

            However, wouldn’t it better if at least one or two of them were leaders?

            herwise we might wind up with some sort of bland muttering headless bureaucracy, none with an independent thought or clue, hell bent on BAU, stumbling from one shambling disaster to the next.

            On the other hand CV you may have a point. On seeing how the bureaucrats treat real leaders, someone with smarts, aware of the issues and able to voice them. I’m not surprised that the rest of them all keep their heads down and deliver up unanimous votes for the “leader” that would embarrass North Koreans.

            • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2013 at 2:26 pm

              otherwise we might wind up with some sort of bland muttering headless bureaucracy, none with an independent thought or clue, hell bent on BAU, stumbling from one shambling disaster to the next.

              You may have noted: this is basically the current situation.

        • blue leopard 3.2.1.2
          17 February 2013 at 2:23 pm

          @ Jenny,

          If your quote of Colonial Weka is anything to go by, then Colonial Weka and yourself are coming at the problem from different angles and are not ultimately in disagreement.

          To single someone out or slam them and imply that they are not “for” your particular issue of the day because they have a different approach from you is not a good look, and I suggest therefore won’t have a great effect on what you appear to want to achieve.

          You say that The Greens are playing down the issue of climate change and state that:

          And that Climate Change not be one of their “Principles”, or even one of their “Issues”.

          This appears to a case of a very narrow focus leading to a cherry picking effect of the data available on The Greens website.

          One of the three main issues listed is that of creating 1000 Green jobs.

          Q: Do you think that such an approach might improve the over-consumption of carbon usage issue?

          Hint: Under Green Jobs details, second paragraph:

          “…our economy is our environment and that our 100% Pure brand is invaluable in a world worried about carbon emissions, water shortages, and contaminated food.”
           [my emphasis]

          One of the three main issues is cleaning our rivers up.

          Q: Do you think that clean water isn’t of import for sustainable lives with climate change?
          Q: Do you think that the methods of addressing this issue might not have some effect on the carbon issue too?

          And what do we find listed at the top of the list under the “Policy” heading “Environment” section?

          Climate Change

          And go to the page this heading links to and what do we find?
          A page full of approaches that the Greens have devised in order to address the matter.

          …listed…under the statement written in bold

          “We can avoid the worst of dangerous climate change if we act now.”

          There is more than one way to skin a cat, and perhaps, Jenny, you might learn to appreciate the value of this, and also of not attacking those with similar concerns to that of yourself, yet who are approaching the problem in a different manner to that of yours.

          • Jenny 3.2.1.2.1
            17 February 2013 at 5:06 pm

            An apologist, for an apologist.

            What next?

            MY PARTICULAR ISSUE OF THE DAY!

            An existential and environmental species extinction event comparable to that marked by the KT boundary saw the ended the age of the dinosaurs.

            Not only completely wrong headed about the scale and magnitude of the the disaster facing us. But personally insulting as well. Suggestng that my concern about the climate is just my “particular issue of the day”.

            If you wonder why I am angry, at Weka and Greens for deliberately down playing climate change, and just think it is matter of crossed wires,.

            Then you obviously don’t get it.
            If you think is all a simple misunderstanding…..
            If you think concern about the changing climate it is all a matter of personal choice….
            Then you or your grandchildren are in for a very rude awakening.

            And as to what I am trying to achieve. All three major political parties Labour National and the Greens have a gentleman’s agreement to hold an Obama/Romney type election campaign in 2014 where it is agreed by all sides that Climate Change will not be an election issue.

            I may not be able to change that corrupt stitch up. But I can expose it. And as it all unfolds as they plan, and the Green Party caucus then sign up to a government that allows deep sea oil drilling and the stripping of the Denniston Plateau for coal, it won’t come as a complete shock to cute cuddly toys like yourself.

            • blue leopard 3.2.1.2.1.1
              17 February 2013 at 5:45 pm

              @ Jenny

              I’m unclear why you didn’t just come out and say that you thought that this election rigging was going on.
              Of course you will be asked to substantiate your claim, although I am open to this type of thing occurring; there are real big bikkies involved.

              I am, however, in two minds about whether this would be an ‘arranged’ set up for big money interest, or simply information you have read/heard coming from people who have a good understanding what effect saturating an audience has.

              I was trying to point out that The Greens, may not be calling out “Climate Change” from the rooftops, yet if even some of their policies were employed, there would be huge steps made toward addressing this issue.

              lolz re apologist for an apologist!

              Regarding name calling
              From Wikipedia

              “Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.[1]”

              Whilst I understand what you are trying to achieve by doing so, perhaps gauge your audience; fear-mongering propaganda might not work amongst people with an openness toward being informed. Rational, fact-based arguments can be effective too.

              Re “My particular issue of the day”
              Well, that worked a treat! heh

              I personally do not think that sounding “Climate Change” from public speakers everywhere all day is the best approach on this one. I think it will only come across as fear-mongering and a high chance of getting people “freezing” or locked into denial (if this hasn’t already happened). Far better to come at it from different angles; promote tree-planting, walking, cycling, green jobs, green industries, buying local…. Get people empowered.

              In my opinion what needs attacking most is, in fact, greed. Because until this is seen for the destructive condition that it is, policies such as financial gambling ets style schemes created by people with huge resources to address people with huge resources in a way that will simply allow huge resources to amass in the same hands, will not address the issues and just keep things going nowhere fast.

              • Jenny …
                18 February 2013 at 10:48 pm

                Goodness me, Blue leopard this certainly is a specious load. I didn’t even realise a stuffed toy could do such a mess.

                I will have to pull on my forensic gloves to sift through the product of your output.

                First of all, I will have to guess that you are trying to make the case that Climate Change is considered an equal issue with all other issues within the Green Party.

                This is clearly not the case.

                It is not one of their 3 “Priorities”. It appears nowhere on the front page of their official party website. It is not one of their secondary, 7 “Other priorities”.

                Climate Change is considered be 3rd equal with 59 “Other Issues”.

                And how about this howler from you, to show how important climate change is to the Green Party.

                And what do we find listed at the top of the list under the “Policy” heading “Environment” section?

                Climate Change

                blue leopard

                You are either terribly stupid, or you think we are. Climate Change is at the top of the list because because the topics are listed alpahbetically.

                Let’s look at the whole list under the heading “Environment”:

                Climate Change
                Conservation
                Contaminated Sites
                Energy
                Environment
                Forestry
                Marine and Oceans
                Peak Oil
                Rail
                Rainforests
                RMA
                Waste
                Water
                Whaling

                And you have the cheek to accuse me of cherry picking data from the Green Party website.

                I suppose you are going to tell us now, that this is all just a crazy coincidence. And that climate change had been purposely put at the top of the list of the second “Policy Heading”.

                In this list of topics it is very clear that Climate Change has no more emphasis than 59 other sub topics also listed alphabetically. Under the five “Policy Headings” also listed alphabetically.

                Economy
                Environment and resources
                Fairness and society
                Health and food
                International relations
                Politics and law

                Other than starting with C, climate change is obviously considered to by the Green Party to be of no more significance than any of the 59 “Other Issues” listed alphabetically. And certainly much less important than the three Green Party “Priorities” or even the Green Party seven “Other Priorities we are concentrating on”.

                And never forget we are talking about the biggest environmental disaster threatening to afflict the planet this side of the KT boundary.

                Clearly the Green Party are selling out big time on climate change.

                And blue leopard, please don’t force me to have to go through the rest of this appalling apologist rationalisation.

                Particularly nauseating is your let’s “promote tree-planting, walking, cycling, green jobs, green industries, buying local…. Get people empowered.”

                When most of the major solutions to climate change can only come through government legislation nothing could be more dis-empowering and disspiriting.

                And that bit about looking after rivers will address climate change. That really is just to much, even for me.

                Please don’t make me explain why this is a complete load of apologist nonsense.

                But don’t let me stop you. Carry on your fight against greed till the climate crisis overwhelms us all.

                • blue leopard …
                  19 February 2013 at 11:40 pm

                  You make a case for The Greens not emphasizing the issue of climate change over and above some of the other pressing problems we face, yet I do not believe you have made a good case for the Greens “checking out” on the matter.

                  Their recent press releases on the matter speak volumes against the point you are attempting to make.

                  I have already mentioned the full page of information under “climate change” on their website.

                  Which you simply didn’t acknowledge

                  And have also found their full policy statement on climate change.

                  Rather than acknowledging these indications that they have not dropped the ball, you, instead, chose to spend rather a lot of time explaining how “climate” was merely at the top of the page due to the list being in alphabetical order. This is a pretty easy concept to grasp and a fact that I omitted to notice, while I was glancing at their website in order to find out what my appraisal on the matter of “the Greens checking out” was. This was an honest mistake and hardly cherry picking; that you have ignored the other relevant non-mistaken points I have made, and merely focussed on this one is more a case of cherry-picking than anything I have done. If that is the best argument you can put up on the matter, then you really don’t have much evidence of what you are accusing the Greens of.

                  You ignored a question I posed to you, which was pivotal to one of the main points I was making.


                  Q: Do you think that aiming at 1000 Green jobs is an approach might improve the over-consumption of carbon usage issue?

                  Having ignored this question, you come across as closed to the possibility that The Greens may not have “sold out big time” on the climate change issue, rather may be approaching the issue in a different manner than the “loudhailer” style approach, which appears to be your preference.

                  I view the Greens approach as savvy and pragmatic because it addresses the issue of reducing carbon usage, and deals with the consequences of dwindling fuel supplies, without saturating the NZ population with a message that would be extremely easy to come across as a fear-based ‘we are all doomed’ one. It is an approach that fosters hope, and empowers by giving us something to work toward, rather than run from.

                  Regarding my comment on getting rivers clean.
                  I didn’t make this point clearly; so fair enough that you didn’t “get” it, I won’t go into a detailed explanation of this in order to keep my comment shorter. I was hinting at the positive knock-on effects that planting has on fixing carbon into the soil, and also the raising of awareness in those involved of the interdependent nature that our environmental system consists of.

                  I completely fail to see your point that when the Greens get into power they will:

                  “then sign up to a government that allows deep sea oil drilling and the stripping of the Denniston Plateau for coal,”

                  I have noticed Gareth Hughes, in particular, on Parliament channel time and again making very reasoned, researched and credible arguments as to why activities such as fracking, deep-sea drilling and mining are no longer pragmatic ways of addressing modern-day issues nor leading us toward a positive future.

                  Combining the consistent messages that Mr Hughes (along with others) make with a quick appraisal of Labours press releases on the subject, there seems a good chance that Labour will have to support some shift in the approaches we are taking toward our financial and energy practises and address climate change, that is, unless they wish to be absolutely proven as liars.

                  I accept that there is always a fear regarding what parties will do once in power; how much compromise and reneging will occur, however I simply do not see you supplying anything other than your own assumptions to convince anyone reading that this is a real likelihood with regard to the Greens, while there is a good amount of information out there to indicate this is not going to be the case.

                  Regarding your comment:
                  “Particularly nauseating is your let’s “promote tree-planting, walking, cycling, green jobs, green industries, buying local…. Get people empowered.”

                  You really show yourself as clueless here.
                  Getting people actively involved in an issue is the single best way to engage people; this gets people emotionally invested in the subject, and they in turn raise awareness in their circles.

                  I agree with the need for collective effort. I very much agreed with your comments on the “If” thread, Getting legislation, or strong leadership on an issue, however, requires public pressure, this requires the ability to “switch people on” to an issue, I am suggesting to you, Jenny, that attacking and making false accusations of those you relate with over the matter and whom share your concerns yet express differing ways of achieving the same goal is not going to get you achieving your wishes.

                  • Jenny …
                    20 February 2013 at 6:38 pm

                    No amount of quibbling and excuses can cover for what is the biggest political sell out since Rogernomics.

                    I asked you not to have to make me explain the plain illogic of your cravenly apologist nonsense.

                    <blockQ: Do you think that aiming at 1000 Green jobs is an approach might improve the over-consumption of carbon usage issue?

                    blue leopard

                    No.

                    What on earth is the logical connection between the two?

                    The promise of funds for a thousand Green Jobs is purely a sop that the Green Party hope Labour will throw them for accepting Denniston, Deep Seal Oil Exploitation and Fracking.

                    With no bottom line restrictions on the polluters. Your thousand (unspecified) Green Jobs will ensure that the rest of the carbon economy carries on with business as usual unhindered.

                    What do you think?

                    Your thousand Green Jobs are going to shame the polluters into changing their behavior?

                    If you were being honest not even you would deny that this is another crock full.

                    What is needed is dramatic cuts in CO2 production. Cutting back will see many jobs created to fill the niches.

                    What we currently are seeing in this country, is a dramatic increase in CO2 fueled by more mining drilling and fracking.

                    No amount of Green Jobs will stop the opening of the massive open cast coal mine at Denniston to feed the needless and immoral coal export industry.

                    Nor will Green Jobs stop fracking, or deep sea oil drilling.

                    Yet the Green Party is planning to join a government that will permit all these three things.

                    The Green Party approach is not only back to front, it is a pathetic tinkering around the edges. It represents a cowardly backdown and accommodation to the polluters and their political agents.

                    Unfortunately, in the crazy off-chance that you really naively believe what you are saying.

                    For your sake I will use an analogy so simple that even a child could understand it.

                    Mammals existed alongside dinosaurs for millions of years. So what? They never made any significant progress. The dinosaurs had to swept away first., then the mammals were free to fill all the vacant ecological niches once filled by the dinosaurs.

                    The same with your Green Jobs. Get the unemployed planting trees or digging holes by hand. See how much progress you make against the unrestrained fossil fueled monster.

                    Instead of ignoring climate change in the next elections, the Green Party need to make climate change an election issue.

                    Instead of allowing Fracking, Deep Sea Oil Explorationa and the leveling of the Denniston Plateau for the Chinese export market.

                    Instead of down playing climate change in the hope of a political accommodation with Labour.The Green Party should be stating pubicly that the New Zealand Green Party will not be part of any government that allows these things.

                    Of course the Green Party will do no such thing. The siren call of those comfy front row seats is just too strong.

        • Colonial Weka 3.2.1.3
          17 February 2013 at 11:07 pm

          “For your intemperate abuse and continual apology and misdirection over the Green Party sell out over climate change you and others like you are bringing the Green Party into disrepute. Especially among other environmentalist groups.”

          [citation needed]

          • Jenny 3.2.1.3.1
            18 February 2013 at 6:39 pm

            You don’t need a citation Weka. Just go and talk to the leaders of these groups. You only have to say two words, “Green Party” to witness, eye rolling and theatrical groans of dismay and disgust.

      • Tim 3.2.2
        17 February 2013 at 3:22 pm

        “Jenny Get fucked”
        Indeed!
        But do I see an ideology in the making? I thinks so. One that an Ad might at some time in the future be able to define as a “sub-culcha”

        I’m at a loss to see why disparate ideas in the project of common cause get such negative acknowledgement. But actually… I’m not! It’s simply that ego has gotten in the way. (Not to mention growing up, the influence that having children has on life – politically, socially and economically)
        Bullshit and Jellybeans. Quick to chastise means quick to discard.
        Here we go again …….. ABC club, Labour Party Old guard – perfect examples

        • Tim 3.2.2.1
          17 February 2013 at 3:36 pm

          How else do you explain that LP person in the (WLG) Eastern Subs other than ascribing “matron” – just as we would have JUST post-WW2 to a load of injured people. In the 21stC – we’ve simply got another load of casualties in need of such matronly interest.
          You have to admire her sacrifice though yea? Signing up to maternal instinct at the expense of political career, let alone the instinct for survival that lets her sell-out most of the core values she once had.
          Oh.. yea …. Marion

          • Coronial Typer 3.2.2.1.1
            17 February 2013 at 4:10 pm

            Other than at an Aro Valley Green Party urban cycling track meet, anyone tried Climate Change as a conversation opener with real people? Other than the last storm being called “climate change”, few care. Wish it weren’t true.

            • bad12 3.2.2.1.1.1
              17 February 2013 at 4:38 pm

              With the failure of Kyoto to convince the major producers of CO2 to our atmosphere to become part of that accord there doesn’t seem a hell of a lot we can ‘do’ that will make a real difference in terms of the amount of CO2 produced that will alter the theory of what will occur in the next 30-100 years,

              Even if we could stop tomorrow the production of any CO2 to the atmosphere from our activities,(which it’s obvious we can’t), the major polluters have shown no great desire, except for paying lip service, to engage in any serious lowering of their CO2 out-put,

              my view has always been that Kyoto would not work for those very reasons, i prefer a dedicated NZ carbon tax that could be put to use planting trees, exploring the means of lowering industrially emitted CO2, and, exploring a means by which CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere on an industrial scale…

            • Jenny 3.2.2.1.1.2
              17 February 2013 at 5:33 pm

              You obviously don’t work in a South Auckland factory. After the North Auckland tornadoes and Hurricane Sandy, climate change was everyone’s lips. The general feeling is that climate change is a real threat, and that they would support measures to counter it. .

              Leadership is obviously called for, and that is what is missing.

              • bad12 …
                17 February 2013 at 5:47 pm

                That is simply an ‘assertion’ you make in an attempt to justify the stance you take,

                Have you got any actual proof of the ‘views’ of those who work in the factories of South Auckland or anywhere else for that matter or is this simply another of your ‘i thunk it therefore it is’ rants,

                There is in fact no action we can ‘take’ as a nation that will alter in any meaningful way the equation of CO2 being released into the atmosphere and just to be clear i mean alter in any meaningful way the equation that brings CO2 levels back to pre-1970’s levels on a global scale,

                Anything we do as a country can only be symbolic in terms of the actual amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere on a global scale and your previous ‘plan’ to shame the major polluters into taking action would fall on as deaf a set of ears as did the actual Kyoto Accord which none of the major polluters had the slightest inclination to sign up to,

                Should New Zealand find a relatively cost efficient means of extracting and storing CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale then other countries may take heed, other than that your continual attack on the Green Party is a simple denial of reality on your part…

              • Colonial Viper …
                17 February 2013 at 5:50 pm

                Did you hear anybody in South Auckland suggesting that they shut down the factory that they rely on for a weekly income, stopping the trucks which transport materials to and from the factory, or choosing to give up the daily convenience and use of their car, in order to reduce CO2 emissions?

                Yeah, thought so.

                • Colonial Weka …
                  17 February 2013 at 10:59 pm

                  Didn’t hear Jenny say she was willing to give up anything either.

                  Never mind, the new Winston Churchill is just around the corner (we can manufacture him out of thin air!), so everything will be alright.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    17 February 2013 at 11:44 pm

                    Yep. And who really believes that a single inspirational leader can do anything much without the backing of a strong, able and loyal Cabinet.

                    The other thing to watch out for in the future as times get tougher – calls to curtail democracy, favouring of emergency powers, appointed unaccountable decision making bodies etc.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      18 February 2013 at 12:32 pm

                      Another good reason for the Greens to be going for as much govt power as they can get. Ditto Mana.

  4. VivaciousViper 4
    17 February 2013 at 9:04 am

    Stuff has an opinion poll on it’s site ‘Who would you vote for if an election were held today’
    The numbers are currently

    Act 1.2%
    Conserv: 4 .0%
    Greens 27.4%
    Labour 25.9%
    Mana 2.9%
    Maori 0.6%
    NZ First 4.7%
    United Future 0.5%
    National 32.8%

    So far there are 6683 votes.

    • RedBaronCV 4.2
      17 February 2013 at 10:01 am

      Interesting.
      Does this mean:
      the left get up earlier in the morning (shopping at local market?) so they vote first.
      There is a link somewhere that encourages people to go over and vote.
      or, and I hope this is the answer, people really are getting sick of the Nacts.
      I thought I had noticed a trend on a lot of the comments pages for the left of centre response to be to the forefront. particularly the “bene bashing” type stories.

      • alwyn 4.2.1
        17 February 2013 at 10:45 am

        I suspect that the “right” are not so stupid as to believe the c**p that is in the Sunday papers published by Fairfax and never visit the site on a Sunday.

        • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.1
          17 February 2013 at 12:41 pm

          At least that’s what you hope.

        • bad12 4.2.1.2
          17 February 2013 at 3:56 pm

          Only when the right see one that shows the National Failure Government governing alone right,

          Then you all fall about the place displaying signs of sexual orgasm and screeching like chimpanzees about National having the numbers to Govern alone,

          November 2014, my prediction, another 9 in the sin-bin for the Slippery Shyster lead National Party…

          • bad12 4.2.1.2.1
            17 February 2013 at 6:16 pm

            Lolz. mention one of those governing alone poll and hey presto TV1 spits one out with National polling 49%,

            With a 3% margin of error i would suggest that they have done the usual and read the results with National from the high side of the margin and Labour from the low side,

            It will be interesting to see how this latest ‘poll’ effects the poll of polls…

    • Colonial Weka 4.3
      17 February 2013 at 10:44 am

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/ if anyone wants to vote.

    • Rosie 4.4
      17 February 2013 at 1:31 pm

      Hi VV. This poll has been running for a few days now. Unfortunately with stuff opinion polls you can click on the same voting option more than once, so its hard to know if the poll is accurate.

      Twice over the last wee while they’ve asked something along the lines of “Do you support David Shearer as the Leader of the Labour Party?”

      Yes
      No
      Not sure

      On both occasions the YES option has had significantly more votes than the NO option. Curious at this result I clicked on NO option again and sure enough it accepted another vote from me. There was no message to say “Your vote has already been counted etc”. So I figured there was a bunch of Team Shearers’ sitting there hitting the YES YES YES button. Maybe stuff staff fixed this. I haven’t tried doing that for a few weeks. I tried to get on to the stuff site just now to have another go at the poll you linked, to check whether it would accept the same vote again Site doesn’t seem to be working at the mo.

      • VivaciousViper 4.4.1
        17 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

        Hi, I’ll take anything, the left are being recognised at least, my fingers are always
        crossed.

      • bad12 4.4.2
        17 February 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Lolz it is still working, i just went round twice and bumped the Green Party vote up by 2, pretty meaningless considering that,

        But, an interesting means of perhaps ‘leading’ the uncommitted who don’t have a lot of political knowledge,

        You know the one’s, i voted for that nice man Key coz he looks so honest, or i voted for Slippery coz He isn’t a woman…

    • Coronial Typer 4.5
      17 February 2013 at 4:16 pm

      So Labour people are less web-literate? Hmmm.

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    17 February 2013 at 10:15 am

    World Press Photo award: 2 Palestinan pre-schoolers killed by IDF missile strike

    Swedish photographer Paul Hansen took the photo in Gaza, Nov 2012.

    http://rt.com/news/gaza-photo-award-target-353/

  7. joe90 7
    17 February 2013 at 10:55 am

    Oh dear, small enough to make tracking difficult and big enough to cause a catastrophe.

    http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/16/16985690-estimates-raised-for-nuclear-sized-asteroid-blast-that-hit-russia?

    • muzza 7.1
      17 February 2013 at 11:06 am

      Joe all this has been predicted for some period of time, that asteroids would be the *next big threat*..

      Too small to track, how convenient, and what a load of absolute shit!

      Will certainly provide cover stories for yet more weaponizing of space!

      Not for profit B612 Foundation….

      NASA -ATLAS

      Planetary Recources – Yeah mine those roids!

      NBC news, who owns them again!

      • marty mars 7.1.1
        17 February 2013 at 12:19 pm

        Kia ora muzza – wot – are you saying they aren’t asteroids – that’s a bit out there mate

        • muzza 7.1.1.1
          17 February 2013 at 12:34 pm

          Hey Marty how you doing…

          No, I’m not contesting anything other than, taking the earthly focus, outwards into space. The stories around asteroids have been changing on a regular basis, in terms of when, how frequent etc, now J90 link states that some are too small to track, which I simply do not buy into, given the technology, money, and time spent on such discoveries for many many decades.

          The threats are very much on earth, what next, the predicted alien invasion, which was scheduled to follow a period of time after the human race has been terrorised by asteroids..

          Lets not forget this recent announcement

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7845215/Search-for-alien-life-steps-up

          • marty mars 7.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2013 at 1:15 pm

            yeah I’m good muzza hope you and your loved ones are too.

            I can see that outwards could be a distraction and to make it really distract an announcement of non-earthy life will be the big one – but pretty big risks in bullshitting that one though.

            I agree that the threats are on earth.

      • marty mars 7.1.2
        17 February 2013 at 12:30 pm

        That B612 foundation – “The Sentinel mission will in effect create the first comprehensive dynamic map of the inner solar system showing the positions and orbital tracks of the hundreds of thousands of Near Earth Asteroids as they orbit the Sun.”

        I can’t see a problem with this one because tracking near earth objects is a hell of a lot different than reading over your shoulder from space. They say they are tracking to give early warning which seems fine – personally it is a bit hollywoodish – most times the asteroid is past us before we even know it was coming and as they say to deflect any of them requires very early intervention and that is just not real-world compliant.

    • joe90 7.2
      17 February 2013 at 11:17 am

      Bolide impacts are actually weapons test gone awry?. Too funny.

      Atmospherium

      • muzza 7.2.1
        17 February 2013 at 11:44 am

        Another commercial space-mining venture, Deep Space Industries, is proposing its own set of asteroid-hunting space telescopes. “Placing 10 of our small FireFly spacecraft into position to intercept close encounters would take four years and less than $100 million,” David Gump, the company’s CEO, said in a statement. “This will help the world develop the understanding needed to block later threats.”

        The above being my favourite from the link Joe.

        Focus space cowboy, the threat is still very much on earth, but appreciate that its most likely all too much for you to keep up with, completely understandable!

        Still not seen any links made to the Al Qaeda’s/Irans space terror training base yet though, suspect the story line would be hard sell, stay tuned!

        • McFlock 7.2.1.1
          17 February 2013 at 12:50 pm

          Your fixation seems to be that there’s only one threat.

        • bad12 7.2.1.2
          17 February 2013 at 3:51 pm

          Yes catch that piece of space rock hurtling along at 27,000 K an hour, drill it mine it frack it sell it and then find the ‘enemy’ and hurl it at them,

          Capitalization of space rocks have just gotta be the way of the future…

          • muzza 7.2.1.2.1
            18 February 2013 at 4:58 pm

            B12 – drill it, mine it, frak it, sell it, then find the enemy and hurl it at them..

            Classic, Just read this, thanks for the laugh

  8. blue leopard 8
    17 February 2013 at 11:10 am

    Whats with the bias on the subject of contractors being protected from bankruptcies?

    Labour pushes for the subbie protection it axed

    It stands to reason that these contractors, who are doing the work, and have invested time and money into the job, get protected.
    What Labour are promoting here should have positive effects on many people’s lives and businesses, so why would Neil Wilson frame it in the way he does?

    Who is Neil Wilson? And why don’t “Stuff” have links to the writers name with a bit of information about them?

    Our media sources are more befitting for …actually I can’t think of anything or anyone who deserves the level of misinformation, narrow bias and bull that our media sources consist of.

    • McFlock 8.1
      17 February 2013 at 1:14 pm

      sounds like a prime opportunity for lab to issue another “seen the light” speech.

    • bad12 8.2
      17 February 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Top marks David Shearer, yes a trust fund set up so that each major project has it’s own account against which sub-contractors have a set period to lodge their payment claims against with a copy of the contractual arrangement and a sign off from the main contractor on work that has been completed,

      Obviously the main contractor then has an imperative to ensure that after the ‘subbies’ have completed their work the paperwork and sign off are completed as soon as possible,

      The interest held from such ‘trust’ accounts on each project should first pay the cost of administering the system and then any remainder after all the claims lodged against the ‘trust fund’ should pass back to the main contractor,

      I do not expect Labour to fall all over themselves apologizing for 30 years of neo-liberal bullshit deregulation but i do expect them when a fault has been detected to react with speed in a proactive manner,

      I would suggest an examination of such a process to see if such a ‘trust’ system could not be extended further where sub-contractors monies are also held until sign off for the work done has occurred and those who are employed by the subcontractors have been shown to have been payed any wages owed specific to that actual job on that actual contract…

  9. Rose 9
    17 February 2013 at 12:20 pm

    If National is planning to make some boundary changes in its favour before the next election, can anything be done to stop them? Can we be ready for this possibility?

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      17 February 2013 at 12:44 pm

      It’s MMP, the party vote remains the most significant, and on that count it’s all in Labour’s court.

      Besides, our electoral commission is pretty darn fair and impartial.

      • bad12 9.1.1
        17 February 2013 at 4:23 pm

        In theory a major party could win enough of the electorate seats to overpower it’s % of the party vote and create an overhang of seats in the Parliament,

        Hasn’t happened yet and i doubt it will…

    • Te Reo Putake 9.2
      17 February 2013 at 1:22 pm

      It’s some sort of cross party commission, from memory. Lots of horse trading and jockeying for advantage, to use a couple of equine analogies. CV is only partially right. While the party vote determines the number of seats overall, its important that the left wins electorate seats so local voters have an MP that will put their interests forward. Ask Whanganui voters what its like have an MP who phones it in from the ‘naki. It stinks.

      Specifically for the Labour Party, they need to lift their presence in provincial New Zealand. At the moment its only Palmy and the West Coast. Must do better.

    • alwyn 9.3
      18 February 2013 at 8:34 pm

      Actually the electorate boundaries are decided by a body called the Representation Commission.
      It is comprised of
      A chairperson appointed by the Governor-General. I believe he is usually a judge or retired judge.
      Four ex-officio members
      The Surveyor-General
      The Government Statistician
      The Chief Electoral Officer
      The Chairperson of the Local Government Commission

      There were also two members representing the Government and the Opposition.
      These were removed from the Electoral Commission. I am not sure whether they are still on the Representation Commission.

      There are a few others added when determining the Maori electorate boundaries.

      I would say it is obvious that the Government cannot specify Electorate boundaries.

  10. gobsmacked 10
    17 February 2013 at 6:24 pm

    Bad Colmar Brunton poll for Labour/Greens/Shearer, good for National/Key, possibly a correction from the pre-Xmas poll, but …

    the revealing story was the next one. Same poll, same people, and a large majority of respondents dissatisfied with Parata, and therefore with Key for keeping Parata.

    When will the penny drop for Labour? Voters dissatisfied with A doesn’t automatically mean votes switch to B. People have to be persuaded, and not by passivity or platitiudes.

    • Anne 10.1
      17 February 2013 at 6:36 pm

      Sun. = hot.
      hot = beaches and swimming.
      beaches and swimming = feel good.
      feel good = BBQs and all’s well with the world.
      all’s well with the world = John Key & his govt. good.

      BUT in a few weeks/months:
      the summer sun is waning… the rain sets in… it’s getting cold… the arthritis is painful… the bills are coming in thick and fast… Johnny’s ChCh school has closed and bingo… John Key & his govt. bad.

      • gobsmacked 10.1.1
        17 February 2013 at 6:44 pm

        Broadly I agree Anne, a poll in Feb is pretty silly. Waste of TVNZ money.

        But then that logic should apply to all the polls, Roy Morgan as much as Colmar Brunton. We can’t pick and choose. As I pointed out, the same people in that poll gave a clear thumbs down to Parata, at the start of the school year. They are thinking about what matters to them.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    17 February 2013 at 7:02 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8315702/Support-grows-for-National-Key-poll

    “The poll was not all positive for the Government though, with almost 60 per cent of the 1000 eligible voters who took part saying Key had made the wrong decision to keep Hekia Parata as Education Minister.”

  12. Anne 12
    17 February 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Yes my comment was broad brush but it has some relevance. Lets face it, the majority in voter land are deaf and blind to all things politic at this time of the year. That will always favour the govt. of the day.

    I am presuming all polling companies have their own individual method of polling. How that works out in practice is a moot point, but it is patently obvious that the polling companies used by the major media outlets always lean towards the National Party. I think Roy Morgan has a different polling method, and over time is likely to be more accurate.

    I have never understood why the political parties of the left don’t use their publicity machines to inform the public that those media-backed polls can never be representative because they are only focused on land-line owners. Many voters like to go along with ‘the majority’, and it would help negate some of that spin-off to the right wing parties.

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      17 February 2013 at 7:15 pm

      I have never understood why the political parties of the left don’t use their publicity machines to inform the public that those media-backed polls can never be representative

      That would annoy the polling corporates, and Key would be responding front and centre with a ‘sour grapes’ line.

      Further, does Labour really want to be associated with people who can’t afford a landline.

      • chris73 12.1.1
        17 February 2013 at 8:49 pm

        Do people who can’t afford a landline really want to be associated with Labour anymore? Greens or Mana might be more to their liking…

  13. geoff 13
    17 February 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Just reading Debt: the first 5000 years by David Graeber. Really interesting so far, recommend it.