Open mike 18/03/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:34 am, March 18th, 2014 - 310 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike 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 …

310 comments on “Open mike 18/03/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    18 March 2014 at 7:37 am

    marijuana-legalisation debate on tvone breakfast:..summary:

    rawdon christie:..’but..but..what about the flat-earth theory..?”

  2. phillip ure 2
    18 March 2014 at 7:39 am

    how about that regime-change thing the cia/americans have ‘played’ on ukraine..?..eh..?

    ..hasn’t that gone well..?

  3. Not a PS Staffer 3
    18 March 2014 at 7:41 am

    Cunliffe was spot-on on TV One Breakfast this morning. His ability to related schooling issues to economic issue is excellent. The Government is highly vulnerable is this area and David Cunliffe will get serious cut-through by spot-lighting the need for better policies.

  4. Not a PS Staffer 4
    18 March 2014 at 7:51 am

    Cunliffe was spot-on on TV One Breakfast this morning. His ability to relate schooling issues to economic issues is excellent. The Government is highly vulnerable is this area and David Cunliffe will get serious cut-through by spot-lighting the need for better policies. (text editor was not working for me)

  5. big bruv 5
    18 March 2014 at 7:53 am

    How about those polls?

    • David H 5.1
      18 March 2014 at 7:56 am

      Don’t your knuckles hurt??

    • Seti 5.2
      18 March 2014 at 7:59 am

      So two-thirds of voters now prefer Key? The more babies he eats the more popular he becomes.

      • RedLogix 5.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:02 am

        The more babies he eats the more popular he becomes.

        In a nation determined to eat it’s young – that makes sense.

        • phillip ure 5.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 8:12 am

          i think it is more the paucity of good/new policy-ideas to date from labour..

          (‘we’re not quite as bad as them’..doesn’t really cut it..eh..?..)

          ..that..and the prospect of having the likes of goff/mallard/king etc..(those who refuse to go..)

          ..again staring out/lecturing us from television screens..every day/nite..

          ..i mean..how appealing is that..?

          ..and of course..shane jones hasn’t really helped..eh..?..

          • Seti 5.2.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 8:18 am

            IMO Goff was, and still is, the most competent leader Labour has. Sure he may have lost 2011 but he would have won this year.

            • phillip ure 5.2.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 8:19 am

              oh..!..that’s hilarious..!..there..seti..

              ..bring back goff..!..eh..?

            • Chooky 5.2.1.1.1.2
              18 March 2014 at 11:27 am

              @ Seti

              That really is a joke…. anyone who thinks bring back Goff has to be NUTS or a closet NeoLib….Goff really is “yesterdays man”…He should have won the last election!….But people have long memories….He was a mate of Neolib Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas and Michael Bassett ….and they almost destroyed the Labour Party…. remember!!!!!

              ….Helen Clark kept the leaky Labour boat afloat

              Cunliffe will WIN!…he is just getting up steam

              (as Bolger said “Bugger the Polls!”)…..lies lies and damned statistics/polls

            • felix 5.2.1.1.1.3
              20 March 2014 at 5:35 am

              Seti, yep. I don’t think he can be brought back but I did think he should have remained Leader after the 2011 election.

              IMO he was just hitting his strides by the end of the campaign, albeit a little late.

          • RedLogix 5.2.1.1.2
            18 March 2014 at 8:37 am

            Oh that. National will remain in power as long as they want until that is Labour can manage it’s own affairs and present a united, working and trustworthy coalition with the Greens.

            Most people are authoritarian followers and will vote for the Party that affirms that value. They vote for Key because he’s in charge of National, just like they voted for the noxious Muldoon – because he was indisputably the top-dog in town. (Until that is he wasn’t – then they all turned on him.)

            Cunliffe has three challenges, in order of importance:

            The right-wing ABC club must be brought not just to a sullen heel, but into an open fealty, as Clark did with Cullen. Until then the media will get away with poisoning the well endlessly.

            Everyone knows that Labour will not form an effective government again without the Greens. The coalition with them must be seen to be open, transparent and Cunliffe must be seen to be the top dog in an effective, working relationship.

            Cunliffe needs a game-changer policy announcement that will demonstrate commitment and a reason to vote for him. And focus the attention on Labour. The only thing I can think of that will leap over that bar is a full-noise UBI.

            Because until someone (preferably Cunliffe) stamps their authority on the Labour Party and gets rid of it’s feral right-wing – then an uninterrupted string of National victories are ‘all over bar the counting’.

            @seti. Actually I agree with you. In many ways it was a shame Goff resigned. And it’s also a lesson Cunliffe should note from the Clark years, that losing an election is not always a reason to give up.

            • phillip ure 5.2.1.1.2.1
              18 March 2014 at 8:39 am

              @ redlogix..

              ..plus one..

            • greywarbler 5.2.1.1.2.2
              18 March 2014 at 9:23 am

              Red Logix
              +1
              But how can we weed the weeds out. Remembering that a rose is a weed when growing in the wrong place. And rose bushes respond to adept pruning. Can’t we get some good gardeners on the job. Can you get good help these days? Does Matt McCarten run a temp agency for pollies-in-waiting between engagements?
              Questions? Que, Manuel would say? That’s Manuel who learns, from Fawlty Towers.

              I think he is a great mascot for Labour, keen and both naive and fast-thinking so no matter what problems come along he’s always trying and managing to rise above the latest difficulties. We’re not from Barcelona but we can be smart too!

            • MC 5.2.1.1.2.3
              18 March 2014 at 9:38 am

              There is a fourth option – Cunliffe can resign today. He is not resonating. He needs to accept reality and go for the good of the Party.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 March 2014 at 9:46 am

                🙄

              • greywarbler …
                18 March 2014 at 10:37 am

                Poor thinking MC. You haven’t got a clue. You can’t even think up a pseudonym for yourself so just wait until you progress up the educational ladder before you offer any comments.

              • mickysavage …
                18 March 2014 at 10:45 am

                Brent Edwards just tweeted “Labour not surprised by slump in Herald-DigiPoll but says own polling has it in mid-30s ”

                Keep calm and carry on! Some want this to be a self fulfilling prophesy. The Auckland figure is way out and you have to question the accuracy of the figures.

                • Matthew Hooton …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:50 am

                  You really think a party would ever say “actually, our private polling is about the same or worse”???

                  • Chooky …
                    18 March 2014 at 11:19 am

                    possum why are you so concerned and hanging around this site?

                    • rhinocrates …
                      18 March 2014 at 12:26 pm

                      So the fraud can keep advertising to his clients claiming that he has a “high profile across the spectrum”.

                    • David H …
                      18 March 2014 at 12:42 pm

                      Hooten needs more Horseshite to hawk to his hoi poloi behind the paywall. So he comes here for idea’s to twist around.

                    • Disraeli Gladstone …
                      18 March 2014 at 12:49 pm

                      He does bring up a good point, though. Even if it’s brought up with too many question marks.

                  • risildowgtn …
                    18 March 2014 at 1:33 pm

                    haha like the clowns you represent…. hence why u r here , how many days in a row?

                  • Skinny …
                    18 March 2014 at 11:00 pm

                    Meanwhile down in Auckland in Epsom at quiz night at the Zoo Keepers Son I get another non voter to commit to vote Left because he hates Key. He doesn’t follow NZ politics but follows American politics intensely.

                    Btw we come 2nd 🙂 chin chin Hooton the real poll is we know when!

                • Chooky …
                  18 March 2014 at 11:18 am

                  +100 mickey savage

                • Markymark …
                  18 March 2014 at 11:30 am

                  I’m sure the polls for the last 8 years, showing Key and National way ahead of Labour have all been totally inaccurate Micky.

                  You should personally take some responsibility for the abysmal result for Labour, given your role in offering utterly incompetent legal advice to David Cunliffe regarding using a trust structure for election donations.

                  • mickysavage …
                    18 March 2014 at 11:58 am

                    Don’t believe everything you read in the media.

                  • felix …
                    18 March 2014 at 8:26 pm

                    “I’m sure the polls for the last 8 years, showing Key and National way ahead of Labour have all been totally inaccurate Micky.”

                    Well yeah, that’s pretty much true akshully.

                    National has formed the last two governments with teeny tiny razor thin majorities, regardless of how “way ahead” the polls had them.

                    Not saying I like seeing them up in the polls, but facts is facts is all.

                • Enough is Enough …
                  18 March 2014 at 11:32 am

                  Not suprised….I don’t think anyone is surprised but the time is coming for concern to begin setting in.

                  Keep calm and carry on. Carry on with what? If it is carry on with the ham fisted, clumsy, self inflicted, Green attacking incompetence of 2014, I have to disagree with you.

                • mc …
                  18 March 2014 at 12:11 pm

                  This is totally untrue, no polls are putting Labour up that high.

                • Disraeli Gladstone …
                  18 March 2014 at 12:48 pm

                  If National says their own polling is showing +60% I assume we should believe them at their words too…

                  Frankly, I think mid 30s is still “a bit not good”.

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 5.2.1.1.2.4
              18 March 2014 at 9:38 am

              Labour needs:

              To rediscover its working class roots (de-emphasise homosexual, academia, wimmin and other fringe activist concerns)
              Working class in 2014 means “contractor”, it does not mean “cloth cap Unions”
              To decimate the Greens. People may put up with them on soft issues, but are highly unlikely to vote them into a position of real power. They are Labours anchor.

              • phillip ure …
                18 March 2014 at 9:46 am

                absolute horse-shit..there..tigger..

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:06 am

                  Keep on believin’

                  I’m sure all these polls for the last six years have been aberrations.

                  • McFlock …
                    18 March 2014 at 1:25 pm

                    well, yeah, they have to greater or lesser degrees.

                    As shown by the difference between polls and the actual election results.

                    You can knock as much as 5 or 7% off national in any particular poll, if the last few elections are anything to go by.

                    And what about those power bills and house prices, eh?

              • RedLogix …
                18 March 2014 at 10:08 am

                Working class in 2014 means “contractor”, it does not mean “cloth cap Unions”

                That much is true. At the same time the whole point of ‘contracting out’ was to by and large destroy the unions.

                What the contractors need are a modern revival of the old fashioned ‘guilds’. Trade bodies that ensure minimum standards and a voice. Otherwise contractors are the most precarious of all.

                The Greens will eventually make it onto government benches one way or another. Their support base is steadily growing and will break 20% within two or three election cycles.

                • greywarbler …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:19 am

                  RL
                  Guilds for contractors. Yes. The poor buggers need some bodies behind and around them, not just little individuals running around doing their best, doing the hard work but vulnerable to getting shot of fairly easily.

            • Melb 5.2.1.1.2.5
              18 March 2014 at 9:59 am

              “They vote for Key because he’s in charge of National, just like they voted for the noxious Muldoon – because he was indisputably the top-dog in town.”

              This is also why they voted for Clark too – her iron-fisted control of the Labour Party.

            • Jackal 5.2.1.1.2.6
              18 March 2014 at 10:44 am

              +1 @ RedLogix

              I would personally put certain right wing MP’s within Labour at number one. It’s not just because they’re openly kneecapping Labour’s chances to govern again, it’s that they actually agree with National’s socially destructive agenda. That underlying problem is perhaps the main reason why Labour isn’t presently providing a united front.

              As demoralising as that reality might be for the left, it is nothing that cannot be resolved either on or off the treasury benches. However the sooner Cunliffe makes some changes the better.

              Also remember that these polls are generally wrong! This latest poll for instance wants us to believe the public simply doesn’t care about Judith Collins’ corruption. In fact it wants us to believe the public is rewarding a corrupt MP and her party for using tax-payer’s money to promote their private business interests; that it was fine when Collins blatantly lied and the Prime Minister also lying to try and protect her was all OK! Yeah right!

              At this stage I wouldn’t right off the left winning the next election, even with a reasonable majority. This poll in particular consistently favours the right and is simply a tool used to try and sway public opinion. For Labour to switch leaders every time there’s a bad poll, polling that is consistently faulty, would be silly. Those claiming they should are bonafide morons!

              • thechangeling …
                18 March 2014 at 2:52 pm

                The Roy Morgan poll is the most consistent right, and all the other ones seem to be right-wing biased because of the lack of land lines these days in lower socio economic houses and all houses in general.
                For some reason the MSM is really making a big repetitive noise about this particular poll today as if fashioning a change in Labour leadership (and even more destabilisation) is their determined solution which makes me even more suspicious of their (vested interest) motives.

              • karol …
                18 March 2014 at 3:43 pm

                Herald Digitpoll failed to predict the Lrenslide a little while before the first Auckland Supershity election in Aug 2010 – had Broan & Banks pretty equal.

            • karol 5.2.1.1.2.7
              18 March 2014 at 12:24 pm

              Interview of Cunliffe by Gordon Campbell in today’s Werewolf:

              OK. But on the current polling, do you expect that you will need Mr Peters to form a government ?

              That is a matter for voters.

              On the current polling [what’s the answer] ?

              On the current polling, it would be more likely than not that an alternative government would include the Greens and Mr Peters. It would need to be carefully put together to satisfy the core needs of all those three parties. However, today’s polling is not a fair indication of where we will be on election day.

              Key is already saying that Peters is a natural ally for Labour and the Greens. Is there a risk that Labour will reap all of the downsides of being associated with Peters before the election, and National will gain all the upsides, after the election ?

              Well, I’m afraid I’m just going to be very plain speaking about it. I’ve always said that we have a respectful relationship with Mr Peters. He’s a very experienced politician and able Minister in the Clark government. I do not agree with all of his views. I would definitely want to see a different kind of multi-cultural community flourish. But at the end of the day, we will be guided by the decisions of the voters and we will make that coalition work

              .

              • Ad …
                18 March 2014 at 6:06 pm

                That’s one terriffic interview – people who have the patience for a good political read should go through the whole thing.
                Thanks for the link Karol.

            • McFlock 5.2.1.1.2.8
              18 March 2014 at 12:57 pm

              I disagree with a lot of that.

              There is no Excalibur policy that will result in legions of voters jumping behind labour. It’s a hard slog of incrementally releasing policy after policy after policy and taking support back by weight of sheer common sense.

              Similarly, I’m not sure that the best way of imposing caucus unity (if it is genuinely a problem) is to start a witch-hunt for caucus disloyalty. Bring individuals into line when they fuck about, sure: Jones springs to mind in that regard. But seeking out plotters and the discontented because you blame them for your poor performance tends to multiply their numbers.

              It’s also a simple case of not fucking up the campaign – or at least that the nats have a wider margin for fuckups than labgrn.

              But while I’m not ordering in the bubbly just yet, nor am I slitting my wrists because defeat is inevitable.

            • PapaMike 5.2.1.1.2.9
              18 March 2014 at 2:05 pm

              At what point can you say that the Greens are trustworthy – by whose definition

            • lurgee 5.2.1.1.2.10
              19 March 2014 at 3:44 pm

              “And it’s also a lesson Cunliffe should note from the Clark years, that losing an election is not always a reason to give up.”

              My cynical side sometimes thinks he’s been allowed a shot at an election the Powers that Be have already written off, so they can get rid of him afterwards and let their preferred candidate have a shot at 2018.

              Still, funny how the sorts of figures that had some screaming for Shearer’s head aren’t prompting the same reaction from the same sources. Almost like they were more interested in having their man in place all along …

              • Colonial Viper …
                19 March 2014 at 3:59 pm

                If you can’t tell the difference between a seasoned politician and experienced Minister of the Crown, and a newbie still finding his way around basic Parliamentary procedure and beginner media training, then it is quite likely that you are the one with the problem.

      • tinfoilhat 5.2.2
        18 March 2014 at 8:14 am

        I don’t think it’s so much Key becoming more popular it’s more that many in the swinging middle have seen nothing that they like in Labour/cunliffe.

        • phillip ure 5.2.2.1
          18 March 2014 at 8:16 am

          @ tinfoilhat..

          ..snap..!

          • tinfoilhat 5.2.2.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 8:29 am

            Instead of dumb and dumber I think the general public look at it as awful and awfuller.

            Just shows we still haven’t really embraced MMP as a country.

        • JustLikeTigerWoods 5.2.2.2
          18 March 2014 at 9:44 am

          It’s both. Key is personally very popular. A majority of people like the guy, like they do their neighbour. The left may spit and snarl, but if nothing else, it reveals how out of touch they are with Steveo and Sharon New Zealander.

          Labour offers no likeable alternative. The left look far too ideological and not personable.

          That’s how politics is during these times. Wear ideology very lightly.

          • framu 5.2.2.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 12:25 pm

            key constructed public image is popular – but personally hes a smarmy arrogant bastard who will tell you your shoes are untied just to make it easier to stab you in the back

            • thechangeling 5.2.2.2.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 2:59 pm

              I agree totally. Key is just a media construct. Nice and friendly on the outside and a vicious, vindictive, back stabbing bully, carefully hidden underneath. Joyce is the policy and puppet master and Key is the uber P.R puppet.

              That’s much closer to the truth.

              • lurgee …
                19 March 2014 at 3:56 pm

                Disagree. And by painting Key like that, you come perilously close to writing off a large segment of the voting public as stupid. that’s a common fault on the left, I find – for all the pro-people rhetoric, there is too much elitism and the assumption that because the people aren’t going your way, the people must be wrong. I’m not sure I blame them for rejecting Labour. The comments on this thread show even one part of the Labour Party is desperately trying to reject the other. Why should the public vote for a party that would not vote for itself?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.3
        18 March 2014 at 8:25 am

        Yeah. If 55% in the polls before the last election translates to 49% of the vote and a one seat majority, 50% polls now point to a change of government. Keep up the hubris, wingnuts.

        • RedLogix 5.2.3.1
          18 March 2014 at 8:53 am

          Yes. But regardless of how you slice this – Labour is not going to lead an effective government on these numbers. It’s not good enough to scrape together just enough of a coalition to warm your butts on the Treasury benches again.

          What’s missing is political leadership and effective teamwork from Labour as a party. Cunliffe has the talent and capacity to steer it – but the horsepower has to come from within the Party.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.3.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 9:05 am

            Yes, but regardless of all of that, this is one poll result.

            And then there’s this: November 2011, week one, Herald Digipoll. National: 54.2%.

          • greywarbler 5.2.3.1.2
            18 March 2014 at 9:12 am

            Red Logix
            I was looking for some good points about this poll. So thanks. I can’t remember – is Herald poll one that always puts Labour down? The way they phrase questions or access their sample?

            Then is there something that has happened between I think the 6th and 16th March involving Labour that would make them drop? Jones and the Greens? Cunliffes speech being touted as lacking firm paths to the vision he offered and the comments he made on the present scenario?

            Then there is Chris Trotter in The Press today. About getting those apathetic forgotten voters out to vote for Labour. And he gives an anecdote of how they could be stirred in the past by personal passion and commitment but perhaps not now. He is wondering if the long period under the neo lib disparagement and disdain have sapped the spirit of the people and shut down their hope and belief in themselves being able to get a better life. Right?
            http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/9838319/How-will-Labour-get-out-the-vote

            Maybe it just points out the necessity for huge door knocking in areas where Labour can make a difference, if not through the electorate vote, then the Party one.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.3.1.2.1
              18 March 2014 at 9:39 am

              A huge effort. National knows Labour has doubled its membership. There must be some way to demoralise all those fired up activists…

              One of McCarten’s jobs is to make sure that doesn’t happen.

              • RedLogix …
                18 March 2014 at 9:44 am

                I’m sure you are right OAB. And Labour will get my usual donation again this year (as do the Greens as well).

                Because while a doubled membership is a very good thing – it’s not going to be enough.

                The one thing that will really fire up that membership is something BIG to fight for.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  18 March 2014 at 9:49 am

                  Personally I find our children, schools, rivers, ACC, health system, non-profit penal system, etc. etc. are a big enough reason.

                  • RedLogix …
                    18 March 2014 at 9:56 am

                    For you and I yes. More than enough.

                    But for the 800,000 missing voters? It wasn’t enough last time and I can’t see why it would be different this time.

                    What they need is a positive reason to get out and vote. Just hoping Key will stuff up in the next few months and that the media will suddenly decide to call him on him on it is a very, very weak plan.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 10:08 am

                      Then I sincerely hope it isn’t the plan, and after all, that doesn’t sound like the sort of plan Cunliffe has been talking about, nor McCarten for that matter.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:00 am

                    Nah, where’s the concrete game changing policy announcements. The ones which are affect your interest areas re: children, schools, rivers, ACC, health system, corrections, etc.

                    I would personally add housing and mortgage costs/household debt to that list.

                    The election is 6 months away, this week.

                    Where are the concrete game changing policy announcements in each of those areas?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 10:13 am

                      You think “concrete game changing policy announcements” are going to motivate people who didn’t vote last time. I call bullshit on that.

                      What’s going to motivate them to vote is people knocking on their doors.

                      The Left needs to get the vote out.

                    • cricklewood …
                      18 March 2014 at 11:42 am

                      A good start would be announcing that free doctors visits for under 6’s would be extended year on year until it reaches 18.
                      It’s a simple policy that will benefit a lot of people and will be popular.
                      Hard to attack the cost because it would incrementally increase and easy to budget for, cant really attack a policy to enhance healthcare for children.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 March 2014 at 12:25 am

                      You think “concrete game changing policy announcements” are going to motivate people who didn’t vote last time. I call bullshit on that.

                      What’s going to motivate them to vote is people knocking on their doors.

                      So, as a candidate I probably knocked on a few hundred doors in 2011, all up. How many did you door knock?

                      Was turn out was very low in 2011 because Labour didn’t door knock enough? Do you really believe that it would have greatly increased if only Labour had door knocked an extra 100,000 houses?

                    • McFlock …
                      19 March 2014 at 1:04 am

                      well, door knocking is the only way to ensure that the voter is aware of the game-changing, bells-on supercalifragilistic policy (if at all possible).

                      Although it’s an acquired skill to avoid getting – irritated.

            • RedLogix 5.2.3.1.2.2
              18 March 2014 at 9:40 am

              Interesting gw.

              I was struck by this quote from CT:

              Had he been dropped into Mary’s social ecosystem 20 years ago, he said, finding a path to survival, though difficult, would still have been possible. The poor still had enough in common with “Middle New Zealand” for a reasonable measure of mutual comprehension.

              Today, he said, it would be much harder. The range of common experiences between the comfortably off New Zealander and the struggling beneficiary has narrowed dramatically.

              “I don’t think I could do it.”

              That lines up with my experience exactly. I’ve lived cheek-by-jowl with the struggling beneficiaries. And while we could talk it was plain to me I could not have survived in their world. However well intentioned my middle-class mores were, they simply got lost in translation.

              This is why a UBI is the big game-changer. Cunliffe simply says this:

              “This Labour/Green UBI scheme will be attacked by my wealthy, confortable opponents who know nothing about your lives. Who do not understand how the current system makes your lives miserable and difficult.

              Now under this UBI system you will not be given any more money than you are now. But you will no longer be a beneficiary of the state, you will be a citizen, you will be treated exactly the same as everyone else, you will have the same chances, the same opportunities and you get to be responsible for your own lives.

              No longer will you have WINZ micromanaging every aspect of your life – demanding endless information and then pretending that they lost it so that they can demand it all over again. No more of that.

              I’m calling an end to the old idea that Labour stood for giving you money if you were ‘deserving’ enough. No more pinched charity from people who despite all the forms you have to fill in for them, know nothing about your lives.

              A sixth Labour government will bring an end to all of that. But you will have to take the chance with your own hands, you will have to put aside the indifference, the cynicism and the stop listening to people in the media who will whisper poison in your ears.

              Labour is only a political Party, we cannot do this on our own. You will have to get up, get aunties and cousins organised, get into a polling booth – and vote for this. “

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 March 2014 at 9:51 am

                +100

              • greywarbler …
                18 March 2014 at 10:11 am

                Red Logix
                Could you give me the link to that piece from Cunliffe. It probably has been up already but I missed that part and if you could put it again I would be grateful to have it.

                • RedLogix …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:25 am

                  Sorry I wasn’t being clear – it was meant to be a hypothetical speech.

                  But the point is this – I think Cunliffe is capable of delivering it. That’s a more than I could say for Clark, Cullen, Goff or Shearer – all Labour people I do respect.

              • Chooky …
                18 March 2014 at 11:39 am

                “a UBI is the big game-changer”….agreed !

                why doesnt Labour do it?

                the time for cautious pragmatism is gone….Labour needs a BIG GAME -CHANGER to convince the 800,000+ non voters last time…. that voting for Labour this time really will make a substantial change in their lives.

                ( where is xtasy?..i am sure he would agree)

              • cricklewood …
                18 March 2014 at 10:11 pm

                Only snag i can see with that is Labour have spent the last few years telling us loud and proud the closet thing we have to ubi in Super is unaffordable and we need to raise the entitlement age. I think its fair to say he would be flayed, what could he say? We were wrong on super, John key is right, we’ve changed our minds and we will offer a ubi to everyone?

                • RedLogix …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:32 pm

                  You are right.

                  Which is why the UBI would not only be a great and daring policy in it’s own right, but nothing else could so effectively signal that this is no longer the boring old Labour Party that we voted out in 2008.

                  The whole point of the UBI is in fact to completely re-frame the income distribution debate. This sterile old debate about whether we can ‘afford’ super/welfare would simply go away.

                  • cricklewood …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:53 pm

                    Would certainly be an all or nothing strategy, my feeling is that it is to late for a 180 degree policy shift. I suspect the furore around the flip flop etc wouldnt die down fast enough for people to contemplate it and the vote would tank.
                    To my mind as its relativly close between left and right a better strategy would be to release a handful of modest well thought out policies which were very hard to attack like extending free doctors visits, increasing paid parental leave in the hope of picking up 5 or so % and getting across the line. Not to dissimilar to the nats in 2008 then heading for a second term with some much bigger picture stuff.
                    A moon shot at a UBI that fails this time may well doom any constructive discussion bout it for years.
                    I get the feeling labour are flailing about looking for their ‘game changer’ and are actually harming themselves every time they miss ….

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 March 2014 at 11:19 pm

                      Hard to argue with you on that cw. I’ve run those counter-arguments through my head as well.

                      But the problem I also see is that if Cunliffe is effectively rolled this election, I can foresee National turning into a 4-8 term government.

                      If we lose this one the left will be effectively neutered, with no alternative leadership anywhere on the horizon that I can see. And with a media machine uncritically supporting them there is nothing to stop National becoming entrenched indefinitely.

                      If you think I’m exaggerating, look at how the US South swung from Democrat to Repug – and has stayed that way for decades. It’s not so much a question of the damage National will do in power (fortunately this lot are lazy and incompetent and tend to a vacuous carelessness rather than malicious cupidity) – but eventually neoliberal political values will become so entrenched into several generations of New Zealanders and our socialist heritage will be entirely lost to memory.

                      Even now it’s only us fogey’s over 50 who can vaguely recall it.

                    • cricklewood …
                      18 March 2014 at 11:35 pm

                      Either way you look at it a heavy loss would be disastrous, I hope the campaign strategists sort their shit out and go one way or another with purpose rather than spray a whole heap of half baked stuff out there in the hope something will stick. They also need to make it about what labour will do not what they will undo.
                      I think that once Key calls it quits the nats would lose a chunk of support I just dont see either joyce or collins having the popular everyman type support. So I dont think they would get past a fourth term at most. On the plus side a heavy loss should finally cauterize the rogernome wing of the party.

                    • KJT …
                      19 March 2014 at 9:28 am

                      Judging by Labours recent vote, for beneficiary bashing by National, I do not see much support from “National light” for a UBI, or indeed any form of social wage. They are still chasing the unthinking, mean spirited, and unprincipled 20% of eligible voters, who swing vote. The euphemistically, called, “centre”.

                      David Cunliffe may have some progressive ideals, but his caucus is a bunch of Neo-liberal “has beens” putting the brakes on new Zealand’s progress, along with National.
                      No point having Labour in power if they are just going to “use anaesthetic for the amputation”.
                      I think this is the real reason for the drop in polls for Labour. They are perceived as little different from National, just more disorganised and less competent. (Need to shut Shane Jones up, for a start).

                      If Labour did support a UBI, and lost, the idea may well be buried forever..

                      The only way to get a UBI is with grass-roots and cross-party support, otherwise the next RWNJ Government will simply reverse it.

                      We need to get it into public dialogue every chance we get and build support.

                      Democracy would help, also. Where we get to vote on policies, not figureheads!

                    • lurgee …
                      19 March 2014 at 4:04 pm

                      “They are still chasing the unthinking, mean spirited, and unprincipled 20% of eligible voters, who swing vote. The euphemistically, called, “centre”.”

                      You can’t win without them. Get used to it.

                  • Chooky …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:56 pm

                    +100…it would be back to the old egalitarian NZ….and restore high quality free secular State education …and clean up the rivers and restore their flow and we would be back in paradise….who needs to be a slave to money?….we would all have wealth enough

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 5.2.3.1.2.3
              18 March 2014 at 9:52 am

              Trotter is usually right about things, but I think he’s missing the fact most people aren’t heavily politically ideological any more. Politics is more “steady as she goes” and presidential. This is why it’s so important to have a likeable leader.

              The hard ideological left is at the last-gasp saloon, namely The Greens. Labour need to move more centre.

              • greywarbler …
                18 March 2014 at 10:03 am

                JLTW You are right I think, but to what extent I question? Is it irreversible?

                And the Greens are hardly ‘hard ideological left’. Maybe to you who isn’t used to thinking in the round about things. We actually have moved beyond the seesaw of Labour-National now with MMP and have to think more widely. Hard left would take us along a different path to the Greens one, that goes through sustainable systems, environmentally and societal including business.

                Hardly hard left. More, intelligent, pragmatic, and forward looking. You could try adopting those filters on your thinking.

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:22 am

                  Characterise it how you like. My point is the heavily ideological bookish left are likely voting Green. These people aren’t representative, they’re a fringe group and always will be.

                  I don’t think it’s reversible, unless you get very big events i.e. Greek style economic failure. Most people fear radical change and they’ll vote based on “whether they like the guy/gal”.

                  I don’t think the Greens are forward thinking. They are living in a snug, ideological bubble more concept than reality.

                  There are always cries of the world ending, doom just around the corner. That doesn’t make someone forward thinking. For starters, they don’t place sufficient emphasis on human invention and ingenuity. We typically adapt, rather than let forces crush us.

                  • freedom …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:38 am

                    “We typically adapt, rather than let forces crush us.”

                    So why do you still vote for right wing parties?

                  • greywarbler …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:44 am

                    JLTW
                    Some good points but on the Greeens you are blinkered.
                    Now racehorses can be blinkered and win the race. Humans who are track athletes don’t need blinkers but can still win the race.

                    Life as we are living it now, with what is happening demands that we are neither focussed in a tunnel-vision way as an athlete or a racehorse and as you are, nor that we dismiss what we consider is irrelevant to our small minds. The problems are bigger than any individual intellect can handle. So don’t give me your complacent bullshit about adaptability and cleverness.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:10 pm

                      It’s not complacent, it’s based on history. We adapt. We never used to live in cold areas, and most of us still don’t. Birth rates have fallen almost everywhere. They are at 2.1. We adapt.

                      I don’t like the enviro-trojan horse. I see it as a neurotic vision of doom used to bring about more Marxism. If they placed themselves between left and right, I’d have more time for them.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 March 2014 at 1:05 pm

                    Speaking of people living in smug ideological bubbles that are more concept than reality, have you figured out that the set of series where no n is <0.6m, is non-zero yet, or are you still wallowing in innumeracy?

                    How’s your understanding of the trend in the atmospheric carbon isotope ratio coming along? Figured out that proofs are confined to Maths?

                    What a twit, attempting to lecture on reality with these week-old howlers ’round your neck.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:05 pm

                      You can cut n paste calculations from Sceptical “Science” to your hearts content, but the fact remains there is no evidence of dangerous AGW. But believe it, if you want.

                      Even from a political standpoint, it’s a loser:

                      http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:41 pm

                      Rahmstorf & Coumou 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I’ll leave you to discover the title and subject of this paper. Also note Hansen and Sato 2012.

                      I note you are moving the goalposts (you innumerate loser) from no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, to some strawman argument about “dangerous”. I further note evidence presented by Munich re.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

                      OAB, you’re not fooling anyone, besides yourself.

                      Very few people are climate scientists. Even many of these people argue about the obscure calculations. The hope of you or I understanding them, or being able to argue them with any credibility, is near zero.

                      What we can do is demand evidence. We can look at their track record of predictions. They have failed in both respects, often enough to convince me they are smart people dealing with a chaotic system that is inherently difficult to predict.

                      The science is certainly not settled. It’s right to ask questions. It is wrong to jump to conclusions.

                      Pretending you know more than I do by cutting and pasting obscure calculations – which we could both do all day long – doesn’t raise anyone’s credibility. It does suggest different levels of honesty, or lack thereof.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:02 pm

                      I agree entirely with JLTW.

                      Their predictions have repeatedly proved wildly inaccurate, and their mathematical gymnastics serve only to obscure the futility of their attempts.

                      Oh, sorry, you weren’t talking about economists? You were talking about climate scientists? Actually, nah – their predictions have consistently erred on the side of caution, so their only inaccuracy is to underestimate some aspects of AGW.

                      The glaciers are melting faster than predicted. The economic recovery is not even on the horizon.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:02 pm

                      What predictions have peer-reviewed papers made that have been proved inaccurate, apart from those by deniers like Lindzen? Embarrassing failure he is.

                      Be careful to cite the papers, so that I can school you some more.

                      Or you could take a glance at Arrhenius 1896 and note that every single one of its predictions has come true, making you look very very ignorant, or Muller et al’s BEST analysis, or has the cat still got your tongue on Muller?

                      Or you could learn some basic Quantum Mechanics.

                      No, scratch that last suggestion: you lack the cognitive ability.

                      😆

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:15 pm

                      Again, you’re only fooling yourself.

                      It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

                      The AGW theory does not agree. They are already well off the bottom of the range of IPCC predictions. That’s why they’re scrambling around trying to find the supposed “hidden” warming. The temperature appears to have stalled yet no one predicted it would.

                      They may have overestimated the problem.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/05/has-global-warming-stalled-now-includes-january-data/

                      [lprent: Watts is a scientific idiot as he clearly shows in this post. He compares a decade resolution climate model with a decade of data and then cuts the graph off to make the variation look larger. ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:27 pm

                      Once more, just for the English comprehension challenged. The IPCC doesn’t make predictions. It summarises extant work.

                      AR5 more than covers the “hidden” warming, but you wouldn’t know that because you haven’t read it.

                      Oh, and surface temperatures are well within the predicted range.

                      I note that you rely on the so-called “hoaxers” for your information on the surface temperature record, but only when you think it suits your bias.

                      PS: Anthony Watts? Can you cite someone credible? His behaviour over the BEST analysis showed him up for all to see. Did you miss it?

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:32 pm

                      Whatever semantics float your boat. The IPCC made multiple claims about levels of warming that didn’t eventuate.

                      http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missing+5+Predictions+IPCC+Cuts+Global+Warming+Forecast/article33457.htm

                      It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

                      [lprent: So you now have the task of defending using this comment, and ONLY this comment for the next week. All other comments will be spammed and a extra week added for each one including any diversion off the topic. An extra week will be added for every day that you don’t manage to defend your use of this link to support your comment. ]

                    • lprent []
                      18 March 2014 at 4:06 pm

                      Useless link

                      1. Not related to the IPCC. Appears to be links to deniers talking about what they think other people have said – not the IPCC
                      2. IPCC model measurements are averages for decades. That is why they are smooth curves. In this case the heat has been going faster into the ice melt and oceans than the older models expected. If you look back in the record you will find that their model predictions for the past also vary from the year by year records over a decade.
                      3. The author is accusing the IPCC for not observing actual climate events and building it into their mode,s. In this case the disappearance of ice mas in the Arctic decades before it was expected.
                      4. Has nothing to do with the IPCC science at all.
                      5. Gee the author couldn’t count. Said 5 claims that were wrong and only gave 4.

                      Denier porn for scientific wankhards like JLTW who appears to be too busy stroking his brain to actually read his crappy links..

                      So exactly one point in there related to levels of warming. I guess JLTW didn’t read it. That has me pissed off….

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:39 pm

                      It does agree, though. CO2 does have the appropriate absorption frequencies to warm Earth – as do the other GHGs. The Arctic is warming faster than the Antarctic. The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern, etc, etc.

                      Your excitement over this so-called pause is laughable, considering that (cf: Tamino) you need thirty years to establish a trend with data this noisy, and that almost every year since 1998 has been as hot or hotter.

                      But please keep up your denial: it puts everything else you say into context.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:50 pm

                      Note, JLTW: a word to the wise: the dailytech article you cite, presents figures that show alleged IPCC predictions.

                      These predictions are presented as single lines on a graph.

                      I note that IPCC illustrations of existing research come in bands which get wider the further into the future they go.

                      So whoever compiled the graphs in the dailytech article is lying to you.

                      You poor dupe.

                      [lprent: They did have the bands on the right as thin vertical bars. Not exactly visible and carefully only looking at the end of the sequence which makes them extremely misleading. I guess that putting the actual bands would have only have disturbed their argument. They also took a single decade rather than the 3 decades of estimates against actual data. Reads like a Watts “science” lesson: self-serving and corrupt. ]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 5:32 pm

                      By the way, JLTW, and I realise, with Lprent’s task this might take you a while, but have you figured out that “your” arguments that “the hockey stick is false” and “global warming has paused” are mutually exclusive?

                      Which one are you nailing your credibility to, shit-for-brains?

                    • lurgee …
                      19 March 2014 at 4:10 pm

                      “We can look at their track record of predictions. They have failed in both respects, often enough to convince me they are smart people dealing with a chaotic system that is inherently difficult to predict.”

                      Their modelling matches the temperature record well enough, for all the Daily Mail hysteria about the 17 year plateau and failed predictions.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    18 March 2014 at 4:30 pm

                    My point is the heavily ideological bookish left are likely voting Green. These people aren’t representative, they’re a fringe group and always will be.

                    Well, the figures coming through the grapevine is that 80% of people when presented solely with the policies and not the actual parties choose the policies of the Greens. That, if correct, is not what one would call fringe and it seriously calls into question the role of the MSM in shaping polls and voting.

                  • Murray Olsen …
                    19 March 2014 at 2:17 am

                    “We typically adapt, rather than let forces crush us.”

                    I don’t think you have any idea how trite that statement is. If we didn’t adapt, we’d be extinct.
                    The real question is how do we adapt? We do not adapt by doing nothing. We adapt because the more far seeing among us recognise problems and work to find solutions. The adaptations don’t fall from heaven, nor are they made by conservative fools who don’t recognise the problems. When the oceans rise, we won’t survive by growing gills, which is what you would have us depending on. We’ll survive because Green politicians and Green scientists and Green farmers and whatever have worked hard to minimise the problems and ameliorate the effects. Unfortunately from my selfish point of view, we’ll be helping your descendants as well. That’s one area where I’d love to apply user pays, and see you guys stuck 10m under a salty carbon rich sea, full of jellyfish.

            • phillip ure 5.2.3.1.2.4
              18 March 2014 at 9:58 am

              what a non-story/pile of horseshit from trotter..

              ..proving what..?..exactly..?

              phillip ure..

              • greywarbler …
                18 March 2014 at 10:07 am

                phillip U
                I think it proves that Trotter has been thinking, not just spouting from the subconcious. (Not that I always agree with him. I just don’t agree with spraying everyone with spit when you take against them.)

              • RedLogix …
                18 March 2014 at 10:17 am

                ….proving phil that if you don’t want to understand something ….

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:42 am

                  Yes. Trotter is right on with this:

                  “…. if the sort of well-read, politically aware, working-class families that made Mary possible no longer exist, then the mission of “getting out the Labour vote” has become a fool’s errand. Twenty years ago the ecology of poverty still possessed a sufficiently political dimension to preserve Labour’s honour. Twenty years later – it’s gone.”

                  It’s also non-ideological. It’s steady as she goes and more personality driven. Do they like the local MP or PM?

        • Enough is Enough 5.2.3.2
          18 March 2014 at 11:38 am

          OAB

          Forget the numbers – look at the trends.

          The story of 2014 has been National growing support and Labour shredding it. Its that simple.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.3.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 12:17 pm

            The Nats are polling less than the ratings that gave them a one seat majority and that means you’ve given up?

            • Seti 5.2.3.2.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 12:53 pm

              The poll average of Colmar Brunton (50%), Roy Morgan (49.5) and DigiPoll (50.9) immediately prior to the 2011 election was 50.1%, which is exactly the same as the 3 polls this month (CB 51, RM 48.5, DP 50.8 = 50.1).

              Maybe it is time to give up.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 March 2014 at 12:57 pm

                What was the average of those three polls six months out?

                • Seti …
                  18 March 2014 at 1:31 pm

                  I’ll concede it was 53.1%, however a year out from 2011 it was also 53%. A year prior to the next election the average was 43.9, so a 6% increase is clearly showing significant momentum.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 March 2014 at 1:34 pm

                    So, what you’re saying is a that a good campaign from Labour (one in which, for example, they had twice the membership resources to draw on than in 2011) or a bad one from Gusher Collins and Prattler, and it’s anyone’s election to win.

                    Choice.

                    • Seti …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:10 pm

                      Yeah, sure anything’s possible. Just like MH370 might be stuck on my roof.

                      However I don’t think Cunliffe is the sort of personality many voters are attracted to. Only a third of Labour’s own supporters want him as PM, and they still have a fifth column in caucus. Labour need someone they can rally around – a dynamic persona, or someone voters can grow accustomed to. DC doesn’t have the former and needs more time for the latter.

                      And the leader is what the campaign is about. He is the mouthpiece selling the policies. I don’t buy into the activist knocking on the door. The last thing I want is a campaigner, of any hue, lecturing me on my doorstep.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:44 pm

                      Thanks for your concern. It’s so sincere.

                    • lurgee …
                      19 March 2014 at 4:16 pm

                      you’re assuming a Labour-green coalition is a given. I’m not so sure. If I was the leader of the greens, I’d be very sceptical of putting Labour into power if they only poll 33%. I’d even think carefully about whether I’d support National (utu for all those years Labour spurned the Greens) to rein in their excesses. Though I’d probably decide to remain in opposition, constructively working with a minority government.

                    • McFlock …
                      19 March 2014 at 4:27 pm

                      yes, but if that government is national, the greens are fucked.

                      So they either lend support to labour and not be in a formal coalition with minsterial bling, or they go full coalition. Depending on how badly nz1 is needed (me preferred option is where lab need greens but nz1 aren’t enough to be in govt for either lab or nat).

                      I think the greens have generally played the mmp game pretty well over the last 20-odd years, generally staying close enough to a receptive govt to get stuff done, but not so close that they lose their identity. And they’ve avoided compromising their party too much in order to get short term bling.

            • Enough is Enough 5.2.3.2.1.2
              18 March 2014 at 1:47 pm

              Giving up – No.

              Losing faith in this campaign and tactics – yes.

              The trends are quite clear that 2014 to date has been hopeless. Fumbled policy releases, attacking the Greens and blind trusts are are arecipe for disaster.

              Time to sharpen up.

      • kenny 5.2.4
        18 March 2014 at 12:57 pm

        2/3rds of those who responded to a digipoll (how many would that be?) – not 2/3rds of voters.

    • Francis 5.3
      18 March 2014 at 8:49 am

      The 11.4% undecided voters is fairly significant – higher than many of the recent polls I’ve seen. It helps to confirm that it’s not that people love National, but that they’re still uncomfortable with Labour. Of course, there’s still heaps of people out there with the FPP mindset, so they’ll never vote for anyone but the two major parties…

    • Enough is Enough 5.4
      18 March 2014 at 8:53 am

      Does anyone get the feeling that the tide is going out on Key and that there is a sentiment in the electorate to change the government like there was in 1999 and 2008?

      This is going to take a herculean effort to win this year when the media want a National government.

      It can start with Labour pulling their heads in and start acting like they hold a coalition together. I.e. pull back attack Dog Jones. The Greens are not the enemy

      • idlegus 5.4.1
        18 March 2014 at 9:44 am

        i was so pissed off when i listened to radiolive political panel with mau & jackson last thurs, they had hyde on ‘for the right’ & williams in ‘for the left’, & what really got me riled was williams putting down the greens, calling them clowns etc…actually, no one said anything positive about the greens (btw im not a greens supporter), now i’d expect it from hyde whatever, but it would be nice to have some commentator ‘from the left’ not barrage all the other left parties.

        • phillip ure 5.4.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 9:51 am

          chief-‘clown’ williams called the greens clowns’..?

          ..whoar..!

          .that man who presided over labours’ worst election result since forever..?

          ..yeah..!..we’ll listen to him..

          ..he knows what’s what..

          ..eh..?

          ..fucken neo-lib-apologist trout..!

  6. phillip ure 6
    18 March 2014 at 7:58 am

    involuntary humour on tvone breakfast:..

    rawdon christie criticises the ‘journalistic-standards’ of others..

    ..brilliant..!

    (update:..the female co-host topped him..

    arguing against decriminalisation of cannabis:

    (said in disbelieving-voice..)

    ..’i’m against decriminalisation..’cos if you decriminalise everything..you’d have no crime..?’

    ..so..so..dumb…!

    • tinfoilhat 6.1
      18 March 2014 at 8:30 am

      I don’t know how you manage to watch it

      • phillip ure 6.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:46 am

        @ tinfoilhat..

        ..it’s a love/hate thing..

        ..i ‘hate’ how unbelieveably bad it is/they are….

        ..but i ‘love’ how they can also make me crack up laughing…

        ..not with them..but at them…

        ..(with the female co-host getting the crown today..(so far..!….)

        ..with/for her ‘decriminalisation’ brain-spasm/fart…

        ..it really was..brilliant..)

        ..and the other options..?

        ..michael wilson on 3..?..(shudder..!..)

        ..or mercep on rnz..?

    • David H 6.2
      18 March 2014 at 8:40 am

      I’m sorry but after watching TV1’s brekkie offering. And near losing my coffee all over my laptop from the dumb comments from Christie. Leaves me to wonder, how much self indulgence of the good medicine is needed to suffer through 2.5 hours of that Drivel. Maybe one day, I’ll try to find out.

      • phillip ure 6.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:51 am

        funny you should say that david h..

        ..as normally i wd say ‘self-indulgence of the good medicine’ is an essential ingredient to best appreciate the involuntary-humour of/from that show/those hosts..(and as i have long practised..)

        ..but it so happens i am on day two of a break from ‘self-indulgence of the good medicine’

        ..and it’s still funny…!

        • bad12 6.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 9:34 am

          Round of applause Phillip, the last line of your comment is the one you should focus on,”its still funny” without the ingestion of your usual medicine should over a period of time lead to ”it still tastes as good” and various other minor revelations…

  7. swordfish 7
    18 March 2014 at 8:31 am

    After by brief comment (yesterday Open Mike) celebrating the way good has finally managed to vanquish evil (Liverpool 3 Man United 0), some discussion ensued as to which team was the most Left friendly.

    tricledrown was largely correct to suggest that Sir Alex Ferguson “is one of the few top celebrities to come out and support the Labour Party”. Which is why, despite abhoring Man United and eveything it stands for, I’ve always had a lot of time for the Scots self-described Socialist and life-long Labour supporter.

    But let’s remember that Liverpool’s legendary manager, Bill Shankly, (another Scot, indeed another Glaswegian) introduced the all-red kit to symbolise his communitarian Socialist beliefs and to foster this spirit among the Merseyside community.

    Like Merseyside, Greater Manchester is a strong Labour area. Just a pity the city’s stuck with such an enormously irritating club.

  8. JustLikeTigerWoods 8
    18 March 2014 at 9:31 am

    It doesn’t look like Cunliffe is up to Shearer’s popularity….

    • bad12 8.1
      18 March 2014 at 9:40 am

      Meaningless drivel, if 60 or 70% ‘popularity’ can only give to Slippery’s National Government an effective one seat majority,(leaving aside the lapdogs for the moment), then it is a truly meaningless piece of information,

      Something sparkly to inflame the more base ‘Wing-nuts’ in other words…

      • JustLikeTigerWoods 8.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 9:47 am

        Labour should be very worried. Only some bizarre twist of MMP could likely save them now, and were that to be the case, the country may well be ungovernable. A tail wagging the dog scenario against such a popular choice (Key) would have all the legitimacy and effectiveness of, well, that man Brown.

        • bad12 8.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:05 am

          Laughable, a 2-3% gain from either Labour, Green or both on voting day gives them as much chance of forming the next Government as National have,

          Doomed doomed, off of the back of a Herald-DigiPoll,(the usual Govern alone lies),is one hell of a giggle…

        • PapaMike 8.1.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 2:13 pm

          Would it be fair to say that true Labour supporters are afraid of the influence that the Greens will bring to the coalition.

          • phillip ure 8.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 3:27 pm

            well..daddy-michael.the facts would appear to make yr claim a nonsense..

            ..labour members have long shown a preference for coalescing with the greens..

            ..rather than with the likes of dunne…

  9. adam 9
    18 March 2014 at 9:54 am

    The death of the liberal classes. This is what happens when you dance with the corporate lords.

    • greywarbler 9.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:31 am

      Very poetic adam.
      Made me think of Lord of the Dance. These words are appropriate for Labour and union supporters.
      An unusually sprightly hymn, I think from the Quakers.
      They fought against a harsh opposition trying to get a better life with respect for all.

      I danced on a Friday when the world turned black
      It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back
      They buried my body, they thought I was gone
      But I am the dance, and the dance goes on….

      They cut me down and I leapt up high
      I am the life that will never, never die
      I’ll live in you if you’ll live in me
      I am the Lord of the dance, said he.

      Take a minute or two for a lively version from the Oirish (think recent St Patricks Day!)

      • mac1 9.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 11:35 pm

        Good comment, Greywarbler. Lord of the Dance is a song of hope and indomitable belief. It was a song written about the Shakers, based on another song’s tune “Tis a Gift to be Simple”. Written by Sydney Carter, it also much loved by us Quakers. Thanks for the new insight into this hymn.

  10. Wyndham 10
    18 March 2014 at 9:54 am

    Labour supporters fought long and hard to reclaim the party from the rightwingers who wanted us to be light blue. Cunliffe is the right man with the right values and the ability to communicate them very well.
    Heads down, continue to do the hard yards and execute the winning strategy that is driven through the hubs. Cunliffe and team have already recovered from the recent hiccup. They will play their role well. We have to do likewise.

    Labour is going to lead the opposition to the Tories and get the country back for ALL New Zealanders.

    • JustLikeTigerWoods 10.1
      18 March 2014 at 9:59 am

      New Zealanders just called. They said they want light blue.

      You need to stop listening to your self-obsessed, laughably out of touch hardcore and start listening to, you know, real life working class voters.

      • the pigman 10.1.1
        19 March 2014 at 4:42 am

        Yeah, real life working class voters. Just like Tiger Woods. The good-natured concern from our friends on the Right almost brings me to tears sometimes.

    • Olwyn 10.2
      18 March 2014 at 10:16 am

      I agree Wyndham. While I think that RedLogix makes some good points with regard to cohesion, leadership, and game-changing policies that actually speak to the people whose votes are needed, I place no store whatsoever on Herald Digipolls. This is the same poll that always managed to squeeze out a couple more popularity points in favour of David Shearer whenever he looked to be on the ropes. We should not be disheartened by such polls, but instead fired up with urgency to do the hard yards.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 1:21 pm

        +1

        Anyone who thought the MSM (never mind caucus/ABC) were just going to roll over when Labour changed its leadership election rules was dreaming.

    • JK 10.3
      18 March 2014 at 8:28 pm

      Good stuff, Wyndham. + + 100%

  11. bad12 11
    18 March 2014 at 9:56 am

    Policy that might swing the vote Labour’s way 2#, Labour probably along with the Green Party need formulate a coherent policy surrounding the OCR, the Reserve Bank Governor, and bank interest rates,

    My view is that such a policy must remove the Reserve Bank Governor from the responsibility of decisions of raising or lowering the OCR, instead what is needed is a small committee of 3 to 5 of this countries prominent non-bank economists who would be tasked with overseeing the OCR from an ”all of economy view”, including in that view the state of the Governments accounts,

    It is obvious that the current 1-3% inflation band used by the Reserve Bank in its decision making surrounding the OCR is far too restrictive and should be changed to an effective 3-5% along with a guideline from an all of economy view that 4% of GDP growth annually is the desirable level at which the Reserve Bank should begin to start the process of upward movement of the OCR,

    The difference in such a policy would be stark compared to the current status quo, saving billions across the economy in unnecessary interest payments,

    Such a policy would need be announced off of the back of one of the upcoming announcements of a OCR for maximum effect…

    • JustLikeTigerWoods 11.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:03 am

      It is totally the wrong thing to do to start talking about messing with economic settings. For starters, most people don’t understand them, and secondly they won’t be voting for significant change in economic policy unless faced with sheer economic catastrophe. That isn’t the case.

      The last time they voted for significant economic change was Lange/Douglas (term 2). They’ve been wary about making major fiscal changes ever since.

      • bad12 11.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 10:28 am

        By November 2015 sheer economic catastrophe will have arrived in the back pockets of anyone with a mortgage in the form of at least a 2% interest rates hike,

        Business nor the Government accounts will escape from that interest rates rise, what most people will understand is that under the current policy they will be forced to pay an extra 20 dollars a week for every $100,000 of debt they are carrying which under current debt loadings would indicate that at a minimum $6 billion dollars a year ill be sucked out of the economy,

        Changing the focus of the economy to one of 4-5% annual growth is hardly major in terms of the back pockets of those who carry debt of $100,000+ except in positive terms, leaving $1000 a year per $100,000 in the back pockets of all those with debts of this nature,

        It is well past the time to move on from the failed low inflation theory which simply stunts growth at a time growth is necessary in favor of enriching the trading banks profits,

        We need to move on to an economic model which gives ‘real choice’ back to those who wish to avoid inflation which is not of an economy wide nature by removing the Reserve Bank Governor’s ability to act in favor of the trading banks profits when a 1.6% inflation rate says that this is unnecessary…

        • JustLikeTigerWoods 11.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:32 am

          Interest rates SHOULD be moving higher. Artificially holding them low is why the US is in such deep trouble.

          A 2% hike isn’t an economic catastrophe. That’s just silly. They were higher during Clarks reign.

          • freedom 11.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 10:42 am

            “Artificially holding them low is why the US is in such deep trouble.”

            No, a 23 Trillion dollar debt and a corrupt Banking system is why the US is in trouble 🙄

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 11.1.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 12:47 pm

              That, too. But they are holding interest rates artificially low by buying up securities. NZs interest rates should not be held artificially low as there is no need for us to get into the same trap.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 March 2014 at 1:42 pm

                How would you know? If by some miraculous serendipity you’re actually correct, I’m sure you’re just parroting something someone numerate said.

                Citation needed.

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 1:50 pm

                  I’m as numerate as the next lay Economist reader. I think it’s fair to say I do as much primary economic research as you do, although if you’re not aware of how the FR has been buying up securities in order to hold interest rates, I think I can safely say your knowledge of the topic is very light.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 March 2014 at 2:53 pm

                    Care to revisit your opinion that it is impossible for everyone to be paid at least 60% of the average (or median) wage, then?

                    You might also thank Puddleglum for schooling you while you’re at it.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:07 pm

                      No, I do not. That figure is an artificial, academic construction that will not happen. There is not enough productivity to make it so, and more people would choose unemployment, so it would plunge more people into poverty.

                    • McFlock …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

                      So what do you believe is the minimum realistically-possible level of poverty in New Zealand?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:17 pm

                      Are you so fucking stupid you think you can change your argument to another fact-free dribble and no-one will notice? Or check your facts.

                      So I checked your facts. Who knew there were countries that according to you are physically impossible?

                      It’s official: Slovenia, France, Chile et al don’t exist!

                      We need better wingnuts.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:47 pm

                      TigerWoods is pretending that Political Economics is not an artificial construction with parameters designed and enforced by people, but rather some force of the universe beyond human control.

                      Or maybe it is just beyond the control of ordinary bog standard proles, which is exactly how the power elite 0.1% have set it up to be, with the overwhelming complicity of the top 20%.

                  • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                    18 March 2014 at 3:45 pm

                    You are obviously intellectually insecure. You won’t make yourself smarter by trying to define other people down.

                    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8177864.stm

                    “Romanian pensioners can have much less money than UK pensioners but fewer of them be described as poor. That’s because they are closer to the median person in their country, not because they have more money. In fact, they are simply bunched together at what others would consider the bottom…..The richest can become richer and it has no effect at all on poverty.”

                    If you attempt to pull everyone in NZ closer to that line without increasing productivity, then you’ll just make most poorer.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:51 pm

                      If you attempt to pull everyone in NZ closer to that line without increasing productivity, then you’ll just make most poorer.

                      Hmmmm, I see you are repeating the same BS line from the 1980’s Thatcher years.

                      Like you think we will ignore the role of the big corporates eg retail banks thieving from the productivity of NZ workers through onerous interest rates and fees.

                      Why don’t we set a little rule then? Workers wages should increase in line with per capita GDP. And let’s retroactively apply it from say 1990 onwards.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:54 pm

                      It’s time for your reality check.

                      Per capita productivity has consistently increased since the 1970s but the wage:GDP ratio has decreased

                      So you’re full of shit. Productivity increased and wages fell.

                      Are you lying or mistaken? Dupe, or duplicitous? Which is it?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:58 pm

                      TigerWoods is just trying to deflect from the facts: we have a 1% which is sucking up a growing and hugely disproportionate amount of the financial benefit resulting from the work put in by everyone else.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 4:03 pm

                      [deleted]

                      [lprent: You have been given a task. To justify how one of the links you gave earlier supports your comment. You appear to be doing fire and forget on comment links because most of them that I have looked at so far are unrelated to your claims for them. ]

                    • McFlock …
                      18 March 2014 at 4:12 pm

                      If you attempt to pull everyone in NZ closer to that line without increasing productivity, then you’ll just make most poorer.

                      Um, no… if you are pulling everyone closer to the median value, half are getting richer and half are getting poorer. That’s what “median” is. It’s a pretty basic concept from maybe even primary school. You’ve just outed yourself as being dumber than a ten year old. In fact, even a ten year old would think you were a fucking idiot.

                    • RedLogix …
                      18 March 2014 at 7:28 pm

                      Well I think you may be intending arithmetic mean ( aka average) rather than median.

                      The median is obtained by ranking the entire population from top to bottom and then picking the value of the exact 50th percentile member. How it relates to the whole population very much depends on the shape of the distribution.

                      It’s only on nice symmetric binomial distributions that the mean and the median are very close together – and income distribution tends to be very different:

                    • Tracey …
                      19 March 2014 at 11:15 am

                      dont let tighty righty see you relying on median. he thinks people who do that are stupid

          • bad12 11.1.1.1.2
            18 March 2014 at 10:58 am

            Giving 6 billion dollars annually to the trading banks in unearned profits is what i would describe as silly,

            80 billion dollars of gross Government debt says that SOMEONE has to at some time pay for this sugar rush of National Party borrowing,preferably befor the next crisis in Capitalism hits us all firmly in the head, or do you suppose that the GFC was the last collapse of the system,

            Under the current policy of taxation and expenditure there can be no paying down of this debt and in a round of interest rates rises across the whole of economy which will shrink economic activity leaving the Government books further in the red,

            The only means by which such books can be balanced and that debt reduced while retaining the current levels of taxation and spending is for the economy to be set to run at an annual GDP growth rate of 4–5% which would generate a strong Government surplus,

            Interest rates have risen in no other jurisdiction from where our money is sourced therefor there are no added costs to the trading banks which lend money into this country the raising of the OCR at this point is simply a tool of profit gouging on behalf of the banking system which acts as a detriment to the whole of our economy…

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 11.1.1.1.2.1
              18 March 2014 at 12:45 pm

              As I say, higher interest rates than we have now, including the 2% rise, didn’t affect Clarks popularity.

              Secondly, the Federal Reserve is purchasing securities. We don’t do that, so your comparison doesn’t make sense.

              • Colonial Viper …
                18 March 2014 at 3:24 pm

                Of course it makes sense: the retail banks are extracting billions too much in profits out of NZ communities and small businesses.

                As I say, higher interest rates than we have now, including the 2% rise, didn’t affect Clarks popularity

                Huh? Wages were strongly rising and employment very low during Lab 5. Don’t act as if those weren’t offsetting. None of those protective factors apply to National.

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 3:49 pm

                  The same is starting to happen under National. Not that National or Labour were responsible, it’s due to our exports.

              • bad12 …
                18 March 2014 at 4:46 pm

                Lolz, what you post here does exactly that, NOT make sense that is, what the fuck has the Reserve Bank lifting the OCR prematurely got to do with the US means of printing secuities,(money), please do explain if only for the laughs it will generate,

                Your anology of the Clark Government is also spurious, we don’t live in a time 5 years ago we live in the now and in the future…

      • Tracey 11.1.2
        18 March 2014 at 3:24 pm

        ooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo like the mysteries of the ancients, we need to rely on the high priests to interpret the entrails and bestow their wisdom from on high.

    • Melb 11.2
      18 March 2014 at 10:05 am

      Higher inflation aye – that’ll help the poor!

      • bad12 11.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 10:44 am

        What higher inflation, food prices are not inflated, transport costs for the poor,(you probably never use public transport),are largely static,

        House price over-inflation is the driver of the current OCR lift, with an overall inflation rate of 1.6% this is unnecessary,

        If you are suggesting that the poor are helped in any way by a low growth high interest rates economy i would like to hear how you think this helps,

        Raising interest rates across the board as a tool to address inflation in house pricing in two cities has to be the economics of the dunce,

        To suggest it is impossible to have variable interest rates for Auckland and Christchurch housing is also stupidity,

        The poor have some choice, admittedly small, in avoiding consumer price inflation, when the OCR is raised it simply leads to a contracting economy which in turn leads to more unemployment, helping the poor by making more people poor is a new one to me…

    • phillip ure 11.3
      18 March 2014 at 10:07 am

      the disenfranchised one million care not a jot for ‘ OCR, the Reserve Bank Governor, and bank interest rates..’

      all that will move them to vote – is ‘big’/seachange-policies.

      ..that directly promise to improve their lives/lot..

      ..and such improvements as soon as a progressive govt is elected..

      (no incrementalist..’only when we can afford it..paddy’..as cunnliffe stated in that interview..)

      • bad12 11.3.1
        18 March 2014 at 10:31 am

        In other words Phillip, pissing into the wind, you will be waiting until a long time after your expiry date has long past befor Labour will put forward any such policy that you would see as sea-changing,

        Dreams are free and you are free to dream, Labour are still flogging the raising of the age of superannuation as part of their economic policy, that i would suggest is worth a negative 2–5% of the vote…

        • phillip ure 11.3.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:59 am

          i agree..i don’t see it happening..

          ..i’m just saying that is what needs to be done..

          ..but will they do it..?

          ..doubt it…

          ..those neo-lib trouts still have their boots on the throat of the party..

          ..until they are gone..nothing will happen..

          ..and that would be the only consolation from a third-term key..

          ..how/when after that defeat..

          ..the schadenfreude to be had from watching how..

          ..the labour party membership will/would turn on these fuckers..

          ..like rabid dogs..

          ..and tear them limb from limb..

    • RedBaronCV 11.4
      18 March 2014 at 8:39 pm

      I agree a committee would be a good idea but maybe not all economists..

  12. Wyndham, George 12
    18 March 2014 at 10:03 am

    Hi wyndham (small w) . I’ll amend my name to avoid confusion.

    [lprent: Cool. Beat me to requesting it. ]

  13. tricledrown 13
    18 March 2014 at 10:18 am

    Swordfish .
    Competitive to the end who cares I like watching good football no matter which team is playing.
    The United Liverpool history is like NZ Australia history.
    Taking the piss out each other for over 100 years.

    • Allyson 13.1
      18 March 2014 at 12:54 pm

      Man U’s league position can be compared to NZ Labour party recent polling. A tale of two Davids, Cunliffe and Moyes, although I think only one of these will be back on top by 2017 .
      Was a nice comment from swordfish about the great Bill Shankley. I well remember Evertonian repetitively chanting “We all hate Shanks and Shanks and Shanks” (repeated ad nauseum).It reminds me a bit of some peoples obsessive dislike of John Key.

      • Te Reo Putake 13.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 1:46 pm

        And yet Shankley spent his retirement years coaching Everton’s youth teams for free. Funny old world.

  14. Monty 14
    18 March 2014 at 10:41 am

    I am always amused at how the left keep pointing to the last election and the 54% the Nats had a week or so out from the election. Maybe you should also talk about the support labour had a week or two out only for it to plummet to 27% and their worst election result ever on election night.

    This year the Nats can quite legimitaly use the don’t risk it campaign. Already NZers are wary of the greens, and that is without the campaign advertising that will come. At present the labour greens are a long way behind. The left policies seem to be based around undoing the policies implemented by national for example such as charter schools and national standards. These are negative policies. Other policies such as CGT and increased taxes are not going to convert the middle ground. Where are the positive policies ?

    labour are in a worse position than they were under Goff and indeed shearer. People simply don’t trust or like Cunliffe. He talks in cliches, and there is no substance to his eight second sound bites. How can a guy whose popularity is around 11% beat a guy who is so popular inspite of seven years of attacks is still rating as high as 66% in the preferred PM stakes? And the worse news is that labour have no one who could dream of being as popular as John Key. Grant nor Shane are really a leader in waiting and who are capable of challenging John Key.

    And then to top it off, middle NZ, including centre left Labour supporters do not trust or like Russel Norman. So the left support hovers around 40% which is where it has been for seven years! and will remain for the next few years.

    I have said this before and I’ll say it again. Labour need to look at their entire policy platform and accept that many policies are unpopular with the middle ground supporters. labour renewed to think and understand why they are failing to get traction and look at what they need to do to get the middle classes support. That does not include raising taxes, implementing new taxes, more welfare, undoing education reforms, being soft on unions and crime, threatening to stop roads being built, and being negative about every national policy.

    [lprent: I have to say that it is nice seeing you actually arguing your side and on the right post too. I might disagree (and do), but it is worth reading. Nice to see that even those on the right are capable of learning.

    Unlike the recent dumbarse trolls who aren’t making it through the first time commentator check because they keep repeating rote phrases that they read or heard somewhere else. I just spammed the last 4. I’d be ashamed if I’d written such stupid code as these bots. ]

    • bad12 14.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:46 am

      Oh so you want a choice of two National Parties, i am sure Labour head office will take note of your wishes…

      • lurgee 14.1.1
        19 March 2014 at 7:17 pm

        Better a slightly left party in power than a left party forever in opposition.

        Once you have power, you can start to change people’s minds and move public opinion. That’s very difficult from the opposition benches.

        To get there you need the long suffering left and the centre. Wailing about purity-and-compromise-and-feeling-all-dirty-but-not-in-a-good-way is a longwinded means of saying you’d like to lose, again.

    • BM 14.2
      18 March 2014 at 11:14 am

      Problem for David is that he comes across a such a smarmy dislikable prat and the way he seems to talk down to people puts peoples backs up straight away.

      In his defense, he probably isn’t doing it intentionally it’s just the way his personality is and it’s going to take a lot of hard work to modify that impression.

      I’d say like Clark, give it another six years and then I think he might have a shot at the PMs job.

      • framu 14.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 12:30 pm

        “Problem for David is that he comes across a such a smarmy dislikable prat and the way he seems to talk down to people puts peoples backs up straight away.”

        im staggered as to where you lot get this from – can you point to an example or is it just repetition?

        serious question

        • BM 14.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 12:56 pm

          It’s comments I’ve heard from number of people, especially women.

          What would probably help him in the short term is if he gave up on all those nasty little cheap shots he throws out in his interviews.
          He’s playing the man far too often which is why he’s not resonating at all with the voter.

          People want to hear positive stuff not negative insulting BS.

    • Enough is Enough 14.3
      18 March 2014 at 2:47 pm

      “And the worse news is that labour have no one who could dream of being as popular as John Key.”

      Wrong and incorrect.

      Jacinda Adern will be the PM in 2017 in an outright landlside victory for Labour.

  15. Monty 15
    18 March 2014 at 11:00 am

    No I am extremely happy with one true blue national party. I love that Labour wallow in the 30% support range and dropping. I love that Labour are completely red and not looking to change anything.

    My point is that is labour want to increase their support they need a policy platform that will compete with National. Because of the strong hold of the unions is labour I am grateful that this won’t happen, and as a result total left support is circa 40% and no chance of change.

    Maybe after another thumping on 20 September labour will take an honest look at themselves and remodel their entire policy platform. Maybe at that point labour will make the hard decisions about who they have representing their Party, and why they have struggled to get past 30% in eight years of polling? Then they can rebuild in 2017 and hope to win in 2020

    • phillip ure 15.1
      18 March 2014 at 11:07 am

      so..monty..labour need to move even further to the right..eh..?

      ..that’ll get that one million disenfranchised out to the ballot-box..

      ..eh..?

      .(bring back rogernomics..1..eh..?

      ..right ho..!..)

      • JustLikeTigerWoods 15.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 12:55 pm

        Labour need to be a centre party. You can’t win if you don’t hold the center.

        Some people live in a cosy left wing bubble (Greens, some of Labour, Mana) just as some live in a right wing bubble (ACT, during their heyday). Ideologically, it’s sound. No pragmatic rough edges to break the illusion.

        This bubble keeps people insulated from real New Zealanders. Real poor New Zealanders are lining up at the KFC drive-thru, not eating hand-picked lentil stew. Real middle class New Zealanders have jobs and don’t want economic upsets. Real New Zealanders couldn’t give a flying **** about cod-Marxist chattering classes ideological bubbles.

        Key understands this.

        • BM 15.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 1:03 pm

          Most of the labour pollies probably understand this as well, it’s the paid up party members and trade unions who don’t or refuse to accept it.

          Which is why Labour is in so much trouble.

          • JustLikeTigerWoods 15.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 1:13 pm

            I think so.

            I can imagine the loud-mouthed ideologues get the heart pumping at party meetings, but these people are seriously disconnected with the people they claim to represent. In reality, they represent little more than an abstract idea from pages on dusty books.

            Long may Labour be infested with them, really…

          • McFlock 15.1.1.1.2
            18 March 2014 at 1:17 pm

            So the labour caucus should drop the bulk of the party membership in order to increase their support? Be a bit of a booboo if your earnest advice happened to be incorrect, though – labour would lose membership without gaining right-wing members and voters.

            Oh, and in a democracy, it’s the other way around – if the mps really want to be right wing but don’t want to be in nactional, they should fuck off to united future. The members joined a left wing party, and have the power to keep it left wing.

            thanks for your concern, guys.

            • BM 15.1.1.1.2.1
              18 March 2014 at 1:23 pm

              I agree, the politicians are supposed to represent the party.

              The big issue though is that the current crop of Labour politicians realize they’ll never win if they follow the wishes of the party because what the party wants the voters don’t.

              No wonder there’s no enthusiasm, you’re hobbled before you even start the race.

              • McFlock …
                18 March 2014 at 1:31 pm

                IF that were correct and power is more important for some MPs than the principles they were elected to promote, then they should join the other narcissists in the National party.

                But I suspect you are full of shit and playing to the “there’s an ABC faction, that’s why Cunliffe hasn’t polled 40% yet” paranoia. Because nothing distracts from nactoid corruption like a loyalty witch-hunt in one’s own house.

            • JustLikeTigerWoods 15.1.1.1.2.2
              18 March 2014 at 1:27 pm

              The party members need to wake up. It’s 2014, not 1972.

              There was a good reason Labour became Labour all those years ago. However, the ideology hasn’t adapted with the times. You’re left with a lot of people fighting old battles using a dusty instruction manual that doesn’t apply in 2014.

              Just observing. I was once a Labour voter. The longer the party members and Unions ignore reality, the longer they’ll remain in their “Bill English” phase.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                18 March 2014 at 1:31 pm

                What “reality” would that be? The one we’ve already established you have a feeble grasp of? Or the one where being in a union means higher wages as well as a range of other benefits?

                • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                  18 March 2014 at 1:34 pm

                  Go get a labouring job. Eat KFC. Watch the Warriors. Buy the t-shirt. If you bristle at the thought of that, then I don’t think you have much chance of understanding the working class.

                  I grew up working class. How about you? Soft middle-class by the sound of it….

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 March 2014 at 1:38 pm

                    So, not only is it utterly irrelevant, your personal experience hasn’t done you much good, has it? Thus far it’s taken you from a solid background to a manipulated shill with a feeble grasp on reality. Basic Maths eludes you, as does basic Physics, basic Chemistry, and basic Economics.

                    All this makes you a piss-poor source of advice for the Left, but thanks for your concern.

                    • JustLikeTigerWoods …
                      18 March 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      I hope they ignore everything I say. The left are at sea, led astray by soft activist middle class students who never grew out of their idealism.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      18 March 2014 at 2:46 pm

                      I love it when witless wingnuts aim at me and miss by a country mile 😆

                    • phillip ure …
                      18 March 2014 at 3:15 pm

                      @ tigger..

                      ..so..’idealism’ is something you ‘grow out of’..eh..?

                      ..that explains you..

                • phillip ure …
                  18 March 2014 at 3:13 pm

                  interesting-fact..

                  wages in a unionised general motors plant..(the biggest employer at the time..the sixties..)..was in todays’ money over $35 per hr..

                  ..today..the largest employer in america..is walmart..

                  ..with their average wage being just over $12 per hr…

              • McFlock …
                18 March 2014 at 1:32 pm

                Labour is better off without folk like you.

      • lurgee 15.1.2
        19 March 2014 at 7:23 pm

        Neither will a long march to the left. The ‘missing voters’ don’t care. They’re not interested. If they wouldn’t vote against National in 2008 or 2011 they aren’t going to come out in 2014. They don’t care enough to vote against a party that threatens their livelihood and the chances of their children. Peeling off 5% of National’s vote and getting into power, into a position where we can actually help these people, by creating jobs and improving school and healthcare access and so on might be more effective than promising them jam tomorrow if they vote today.

    • bad12 15.2
      18 March 2014 at 11:13 am

      Exactly my point, as a Tory shill we all should take about as much notice of you as a single turd floating down a sewer, pretty much of a muchness with all the other turds, and, expend as much energy as i have in replying to you,very little…

      • srylands 15.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 1:58 pm

        That does not detract from the substance of what he says. I think you should cut back on the toilet insults for a while.

        • bad12 15.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 4:32 pm

          What He is saying s that He wants a Labour Party that behaves in exactly the same manner as the National Party,

          Having outed Himself as a National Party voter as much notice of Him should be taken as i ascribe above, which incidently SSLands is as much notice as should be taken of your lies, none…

        • McFlock 15.2.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 4:41 pm

          The substance of what he said was pure conjecture.
          Therefore his motives for saying it are relevant context.

          I think you should stop shilling for policies that kill children for a while.

  16. freedom 16
    18 March 2014 at 11:30 am

    maybe I am simply missing something or maybe it is an Emporer’s New Clothes moment ?

    but is not our Prime Minister travelling through China strongly endorsing a private company ?

    • nadis 16.1
      18 March 2014 at 11:48 am

      Yes, you are missing something.

      • freedom 16.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 12:12 pm

        Care to elaborate?

        Talking about the New Zealand dairy industry, (the regulations, the oversight, the safety concerns etc) is one thing and part of his job, but the minute he specifically mentions Fonterra, doesn’t that change the situation?

        I thought those where commercially diplomatic skills required of a Prime Minister?

        • freedom 16.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 12:31 pm

          dang, missed the edit, bloody typos (ridiculously unreliable data service) 🙁

        • veutoviper 16.1.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 1:32 pm

          I don’t have time to find links right now, but from what I have heard/read, other dairy exporters as well as Fontera are represented in the large party accompanying the PM. Think I heard this totals about 30, but not sure whether this includes press.

          Patrick Gower is already in China, and I have little doubt that people like Fran O’Sullivan, Audrey Young are also there. Possibly Vernon Small from Stuff (Andrea Vance is in Ireland)?

          • Hayden 16.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 6:08 pm

            And now:

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11221902

            Prime Minister John Key has pulled out of a Beijing meet-and-greet session for New Zealand dairy companies and their local business partners following an unexpected dinner invitation from Chinese President Xi Jinping, leaving exporters who have travelled to China for the event disappointed.

            …

            “Fonterra keeps on happily selling its commodities to China and global companies while legitimate New Zealand infant formula brands are struggling to recapture the position they had [before] August last year,” Marinkovich said. “Now we have some kind of make good with our distributors in China and we get this last minute change to the agenda.”

            Hope it’s a good dinner.

    • Bill 16.2
      18 March 2014 at 12:52 pm

      I think the point that you’re missing is the fact that a goodly number of Nat MPs and ex-MPs (would love a run down on exactly who and in what way) have their greasy fingers, and so financial futures, sunk deep into dairy. I’d suggest that John is merely responding to the the gang’s wishes and trying to shore up their futures.

  17. bad12 17
    18 March 2014 at 11:42 am

    Of small but worth noting interest in the numbers from the latest Herald-Dodgy-Poll is the fact that this supposed decline in the Labour vote occurred in the period that Shane Jones is said to have made such a dramatic ‘hit’ on the Supermarkets,

    It appears, if we are to give the Herald-Dodgy-Poll the slightest iota of credence, and most will find its results as a cause to snigger,that Mr Jones’s ‘hit’ resonated nowhere except within His own ego,and, for what it was worth the ‘hit’ appears to have missed a consonant in the form of an S,

    Perhaps Shane should be better employed taking the vows of silence as what noise He does make tends to be entirely in the negative…

    • Not a PS Staffer 17.1
      18 March 2014 at 2:02 pm

      Shane, up to recently, thought he was the leading intellectual in Labour but that nobody was giving him sufficient attention. Now, with the benefit of a make-over and some slimming regime, he thinks of himself as an Adonis as well as a stunning intellectual.

      Shane Jones, like Winston, spends heaps of time on front of mirrors: any mirror anywhere!

      Shane Jones see a Kiwi Bill Clinton looking back.

      Shane’s antics are only about Shane. As sure as night follows day Shane will be a negative force in the Labour constellation.

    • srylands 17.2
      18 March 2014 at 2:03 pm

      You sound like someone who is in total denial. The Ipredict price for PM National is down to 27 cents. (I bailed out at 29 cents covering all my shorting of Labour for a tidy profit :-)) And guess what ? After I bailed out the price didn’t move. Guess I wasn’t the rich prick “manipulating” the market. Must have been the other 367 traders with active orders.

      Seriously, who would have ever believed that the price could go to 27 cents? Yes I know you think it is a “gambling” site. You don’t need to say it again.

      • vto 17.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 2:30 pm

        I guess for someone who thinks everything can be priced Ipredict is some sort of nirvana.

      • bad12 17.2.2
        18 March 2014 at 6:06 pm

        SSLands, as if any of us care about your pathetic little foray into gambling…

  18. phillip ure 18
    18 March 2014 at 11:45 am

    “..Loving Animals to Death..”

    ..How can we raise them humanely –

    and then butcher them?..”

    http://theamericanscholar.org/loving-animals-to-death/#.UyaBv61dVz8?src=longreads

  19. Steve Walu 19
    18 March 2014 at 11:48 am

    I’m left wing in my politics but regret Cunliffe inspires me not one jot. And it obviously isn’t inspiring the electorate either with a 29% poll rating. What astounds me is the lack of criticism towards his uninspirational lack of leadership on this site which was vitriolic against the last two leaders. Are you censoring negative comment to save poor David’s feelings? We’re being fed BS lines from him on how passionate he is compared to the alternative and we’re not as bad as the other lot. It doesn’t wash. So why should I bother voting. Passion is not going to get me out of bed. But a good economic policy, good social policies, education and none of this current arrogance we see from National and sadly Cunliffe too, will. Between 2008 & 2014, Labour’s polling was never better than under Shearer. So the only leader kiwis might have trusted was dumped in favour of one with an ego bigger than Texas and a foot that’s constantly in his mouths, the ones on both sides of his face. Yes, he needs some major surgery to get that one fixed but time has run out. We’re going to lose again this year. Dump Cunliffe now and save ourselves wasting time on a new leader after the election.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      18 March 2014 at 11:59 am

      Hey Steve, dump Cunliffe now and go with whom?

      That’s sorta an important question you left unanswered in your well thought out “plan.”

      • Chooky 19.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 12:37 pm

        Steve Walu is obviously a Mumblefuck….ite

        there is not much that one could say to Steve Walu’s hint that Labour goes back to Shearer …except…. and go “fall down a well?”

        Cunliffe is just getting up a head of steam…but Labour needs to throw caution to the winds now…. and get some really radical proposals out there to help those at the bottom of the heap…

    • bad12 19.2
      18 March 2014 at 12:20 pm

      Fair comment, tho who you would propose as the next Labour leader would have been a nice addition,

      What you have forgotten tho is the not inconsequential fact that David Cunliffe has the mandate of the members of the Labour Party which incidently doubled so as to take part in His election,

      Like you i do not find Him to be inspirational as a leader, but, i am a jaded cynic and willing to admit such,

      Unfortunately Labour appear to be saddled, from my point of view, with a couple of flagship policies that totally grate against my core beliefs, the 30,000 houses proposed to be built for the children of the middle class,(while not appearing to have a similar State House build proposed), and, the raising of the age of entitlement for superannuation which favors the monied over the poorer sections of society on the basis of both ability to work over a lifetime and earnings over that lifetime,

      So, among the disenfranchised sitting on the sidelines a life of being rack-rented in the private sector appears to be the Labour offer, a good means of 2–5% of voters being uninterested in Labour as a voting proposition,

      Along with that comes all those who can only hope to fail to save a significant amount for their retirement, these people can ”see” this for themselves even if the Labour Party cannot, being told that no matter how much of their labor they give to the economy it will have little value in terms of their retirement which will be moved further and further from them, chalk up another 2–5% of voters remaining supremely unmoved as far as voting Labour goes,

      Making grand speeches about ‘smarter’ economies is meaningless to the core of people who will be negatively effected by these two Labour Party policies, an estimate of 4–10% of the vote, these are the people who only see the daily drudge of their working lives more worried about whether they will continue to have a job than hot air expelled about such grand plans,

      It is the bread and butter issues like these two highlighted above which leaves a large pool of voters believing that there will be for them ‘no difference’ should they turn out on election day and vote Labour so why would they bother…

      • Jim Nald 19.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 6:50 pm

        “raising of the age of entitlement for superannuation”

        Hmm, some questions to pose:

        Who will be voting for Labour in support of this proposed policy?

        Will David T.I.N.A. Parker reveal the profile of such voters?

        Is the policy such a turn-on or turn-off for Labour’s core voters or the so-called missing millions?

        • bad12 19.2.1.1
          19 March 2014 at 12:18 am

          Jim Nald, i would have to assume that Labour has focus grouped the hell out of this policy, you would think so would you not???,

          Then again, having gone through the numbers, both backward and forwards, i would suggest they havn’t simply taking the Treasury and Retirement Commissioners word for it,

          Bounce, bounce, bounce, i will simply kick the ball back at you, would you vote for Labour having considered this policy, and if so why???…

  20. greywarbler 20
    18 March 2014 at 11:50 am

    Tiny homes on radio nz 15 square metres. Surprising what you can do. Clever possible – would be good to have a development underwritten by local Council, which ultimately paid back in full over in the medium term.

    11:20 Bryce Langston on the tiny house movement
    Bryce Langston is an Auckland minimalist and permaculturist, who is building a cheap, eco-friendly and aesthetically pleasing “tiny house” to live in. He’s making a documentary about the process of downsizing his life into 15 square metres, explaining why he’d want to live in a tiny space on a trailer, and exploring the wider social movement of tiny housing. Audio may go up, but they say they have images on gallery.

    Gallery: Tiny Houses
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon

  21. The Al1en 21
    18 March 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Dear NZSIS

    I’m having problems getting hold of my old Vodafone land line and cellphone records for my upcoming employment hearing.
    Could you please send me copies of what you have.

    Many thanks,

    The Al1en.

    😆

    • Blue 21.1
      18 March 2014 at 7:53 pm

      Dear Alien. Sorry we have nothing on you. In fact no one here has ever heard of you. Our focus is on important and influential people.

      Regards
      NZSIS

      • Murray Olsen 21.1.1
        19 March 2014 at 2:59 am

        PS Try the NSA or ASIO. Under our defence of liberty program, they’re the ones who keep personal information on New Zealand citizens. In the future, if you should need information on Australian or US citizens, we are able to help.
        Your disobedient servant and school friend of the Prime Minister,
        Sir Ian Fletcher

        PPS Doesn’t the Sir look good? John asked me not to use it in public until it’s announced by Wills on the tour, but I couldn’t resist just this once.

      • The Al1en 21.1.2
        19 March 2014 at 7:18 am

        Dear NZSIS

        Thanks for the prompt reply. With the new ‘spy on anyone legislation’, please check your records as you’ve now heard of everyone in NZ, even a no one like me.

        If it helps jog your collective memory, I am overweight (not obese) and a foreigner (not German) with residency, though I have never donated anonymously or otherwise to John Banks or petitioned a member of parliament for citizenship.

        Mp3s of phone taps will be acceptable if you’re saving on printing costs – You already have my email addresses.

        Thanks again,

        The Al1en.

  22. greywarbler 22
    18 March 2014 at 12:41 pm

    Damien O’Connor doing sterling work arguing for structural reform to be facilitated by Nathan Guy to carry forward expenditure already made by the NACTs. This is connected with the red meat industry that has been arguing since Adam was a cowboy (very long time). In the meantime our exports in this sector and this important part of our agriculture is declining and we need the balance of this part of the industry instead of complete reliance on dairy, which is becoming a smothering monster that monpolises the land. And if it fails we could end up in a 1900’s type depression. So go Damien. He’s good value.

  23. ianmac 23
    18 March 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Mmmm? John Armstrong’s headline was pretty mean this morning but now it has been changed to ” Labour’s best hope for Key to hit political banana skin pre-election.” and a lot less spiteful. Wonder who changed it?

    • greywarbler 23.1
      18 March 2014 at 1:31 pm

      As you said who wrote it? This is where thesmall pool of subeditors who write the headings now (have I got that right) can have a disproportionately large effect on the news slogans that get into public consciousness.

  24. veutoviper 24
    18 March 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Calling Tracey

    Here is a ‘non’ answer to the question you have been asking for some days. Who paid for the infamous dinner in China?
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/239144/collins-still-quiet-on-who-paid-for-meal

    My pick is that the tab was picked up by Deyi ‘Stone’ Shi, and/or Julie Zu (CEO of Oravida) either personally or on behalf of Oravida. IIRC Collins was invited by Shi and/or Julie Xu to the dinner, and therefore they were the hosts.

    Tracey Watkins on Stuff also thinks it was Shi or Zu, or less possibly the Chinese border official.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9837963/Dinner-bill-under-wraps

    More questions to Collins in this afternoon’s Question Time
    3.GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?

    6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Justice: Does she still stand by her claim that Oravida business was not discussed at her dinner in Beijing at which Oravida personnel were present as well as a senior Chinese Government Customs official?

  25. captain hook 25
    18 March 2014 at 2:15 pm

    God defend New Zealand.
    Has shifty key resigned yet?

  26. gingercrush 26
    18 March 2014 at 2:19 pm

    Labour or its voters should not panic about this poll result or any poll result. The polls tighten and every election post MMP has shown how close Labour can come to government. 2011 certainly proved that. It shouldn’t have been close and yet Labour was 2% away from grabbing the government benches.

    • Enough is Enough 26.1
      18 March 2014 at 2:50 pm

      WTF do you mean it should not have been close.

      We were in the middle of a recession and the government stood on seeling state assets.

      We lost the unlosable election and look odds on to repeat.

  27. phillip ure 27
    18 March 2014 at 3:07 pm

    q-time commentary..

    (excerpt..)

    (a (permanently smirking) lotu-liga tries to defend the shocking pacific-island stats (unemployment 7.8% in 2008..to 13.7% today..income falling $78 per wk for p.i.workers..vs. a $58 increase for pakeha..

    ..and guess what..?..he blames the last labour govt for those stats..)

    ..pacific-women are the lowest-paid workers in nz…

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/new-zealand-parliament-list-of-questions-for-oral-answer-tuesday-18-march-2014/

  28. Notanymore 28
    18 March 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Regarding the latest poll and the trends. I am seeing consistency in 2/3 of voters prefer JK as PM.
    Surely the issue remaining is that 2/3 of Labour voters prefer someone else rather than David Cunliffe to be PM.
    I know this is not a presidential campaign but if only 35% of your party supporters want you as a leader then isn’t that a problem ?

    [deleted]

    [lprent: You have asserted a fact about Cunliffes support amongst Labour voters. As far as I’m aware there is no such survey. Provide a link to support the claim. You are banned until you either do so or explain how you screwed up. Also read the policy. ]

    • Anker 28.1
      18 March 2014 at 4:16 pm

      No leadership blunder.

      I talked to a Labour voter today, who says she wasn’t that keen on DC to start with, but she has started to think he is good and she can’t understand why the polls are low. So I guess we can all find individuals who have one point of view or another.

      DC is able to bring about some real change in NZ. He understands the financial systems that need to be changed and he has good evidence based policy, like best start. His speech last week was excellent to.

      After a week of the media writing articles to discreet him, its not surprizing the polls are down.Its called spin, and unfortunately it can be effective.

      Actually he hasn’t down anything wrong, but far more punished than Key or Collins.

      If you saw him on The Nation, he was brilliant, unlike Key on the same show.

      • nadis 28.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 4:33 pm

        I talked to a Labour voter today, who says she was keen to start with, but she has started to think he is no good and she can understand why the polls are low.

        See, I can make up anecdotes too.

    • Seti 28.2
      18 March 2014 at 8:29 pm

      lprent: You have asserted a fact about Cunliffes support amongst Labour voters. As far as I’m aware there is no such survey. Provide a link to support the claim.

      I believe the poster was deducing Cunliffe’s support amongst Labour voters from the DigiPoll, where even though the party has 29.5% DC enjoys only 11.1%, ergo 11.1 / 29.5 = 37.6% of Labour supporters want him as PM. So a slight miscalculation, not 35%.

      • lprent 28.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:57 pm

        Wrong. You can’t calculate percentages that way unless you know the number of people who answered each question. It would be an inference that has about much validity as reading chicken entrails. That is of course why the not answered isn’t usually attached to each question.

        Only a silly fool like Cameron Slater or this fool would make an estimate like that.

  29. meteorism 29
    18 March 2014 at 4:02 pm

    What is it with European ‘freedom’ campers and crapping all over the place ?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9840768/Campers-poo-in-red-zone-home

    • One Anonymous Bloke 29.1
      18 March 2014 at 4:30 pm

      They see we elected the National Party and figure that shitting in your own nest is a national pastime.

    • vto 29.2
      18 March 2014 at 5:21 pm

      Many places we frequent are now littered with euro turds. Disgusting. Can’t let the kids roam in certain places. Pigs do their shitting in a cleaner fashion than the dirty euro campers.

      In the bushes, behind the rubbish bin, under the picnic tree, in the open, just everywhere, everywhere …….

      Mind you they get some good verbal roastings-plus from the locals ……………

  30. weka 30
    18 March 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Is it just me, or has the new google maps taken out most of the street names in satellite view? Hoping there is a button to push…

    • vto 30.1
      18 March 2014 at 5:06 pm

      dunno weka, there be some strange shit going on….. I just found some salt advertised as organic …. unbelievable that such is believable ….

      • weka 30.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 10:37 pm

        ha ha, not sure what that is about. Processing maybe?

      • mac1 30.1.2
        18 March 2014 at 11:45 pm

        Organic salt- sun-dried sweat straight from the brow of the toiling worker, for that extra bit of class in your cooking..

  31. chris73 31
    18 March 2014 at 5:32 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9839504/Labour-plunges-in-poll

    You don’t need to worry about the polls lefties because:

    the only poll that matters is on election day
    the trend is upwards for the left
    the MSM are evil
    John Keys evil
    no one on the left can afford a telephone/internet connection
    the people will suddenly wake up and realise John Keys evil

    Take whatever reason you like from above to make you feel better and whatever you do don’t change anything that Labour are doing, they’ve got the right people in charge and things are bound to turn 🙂

  32. karol 32
    18 March 2014 at 5:46 pm

    Oooo. Just noticed the “Parties” tab! Cool!

    That and the other 3 tabs provide a good overview of current political topics.

    • lprent 32.1
      18 March 2014 at 5:50 pm

      Yeah. Just have to do some minor adjustment on the layout. It doesn’t quite fit on my browser on the android tablet.

    • JK 32.2
      18 March 2014 at 8:54 pm

      Whatg is this about , Karol ? Parties tab ? ? please explain ….

      • karol 32.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:58 pm

        Scroll up on the right side of the screen: 4 tabs: Feeds: Parties: Daily Blog: Scoop.

      • felix 32.2.2
        18 March 2014 at 8:59 pm

        Parties and tabs, you say?

        • lprent 32.2.2.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:47 pm

          I should put in a tab called “drugs” and load it up with choice recipes from a late 19th century Mrs Beaton’s cookbook. Drugs and food were kind of “interesting” then. You can see at least one reason that the mortality rates were pretty high.

          Or I could just leave that out there as an idea for clickbait sites.

  33. captain hook 33
    18 March 2014 at 5:48 pm

    so tell me one more time just so I will understand.
    where and how did key get $90,000,000?

  34. karol 34
    18 March 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Where’s my boom? Not evident at budgeting services (RNZ)

  35. One Anonymous Bloke 35
    18 March 2014 at 6:04 pm

    Love the current sequence of Stuff headlines:

    “Rena’s logs still cost.

    Farmer cheats death again,

    US to share NZ fingerprint info.

    Man left to die with box on head,

    Can Cunliffe turn things around?”

    Yes he can, with a little help from the Labour Party’s newly replenished army of volunteers and The Greens’ battle-hardened cadres.

    • BM 35.1
      18 March 2014 at 6:23 pm

      No he can’t. the Labour party is fucked

      Born 7 July 1916
      Died sometime early 2015

      Still, not a bad innings.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 35.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:53 pm

        Love your hubris. It renders you impotent, arrogant, and out of touch.

    • Chooky 35.2
      18 March 2014 at 6:58 pm

      “Man left to die with box on head”…this is something to really think deeply about! …could be a bit like a berka if you cut holes out for eyes

  36. drongo 36
    18 March 2014 at 6:44 pm

    The Greens are growing at Labour’s expense. Some distance between D. Cunliffe and communist R. Norman is needed or the trend will continue.

    • Chooky 36.1
      18 March 2014 at 6:54 pm

      reds under drongo’s bed….there was a book called ‘Reds Under the Bed’….maybe drongo has been reading a copy?

    • the pigman 36.2
      18 March 2014 at 6:57 pm

      Great to hear you’ve got the Left’s best interests in mind. I’ll file that in the concern trolling wastebin folder.

  37. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 37
    18 March 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Great to hear Phil Goff in parliament today (amongst others on the left) telling it like it really is re National and ‘transparency’.

    The National Party operates something called the Waitematā Trust. The Waitematā Trust money-launders millions of dollars into the National Party’s coffers in a way that you cannot tell where that money came from. Do you know what percentage of donations to the National Party are identified by the donor? It is 7 percent. Ninety-three percent of the donors to the National Party are hidden. The National Party knows who they are and that they will return the favour, but the public do not know and they cannot scrutinise what the National Party is doing, why, and for whom. That is a disgrace.

    There was one occasion on which the National Party was transparent. It did not mean to be. It was the Don Brash email leaks. The whole of the correspondence of the then leader of the National Party was leaked to the media —I think by Bill English, actually, whom he had deposed—and we saw for the first time what was happening in the National Party. Let me read one tiny extract from a book called The Hollow Men, which is authenticated by the emails that were leaked. Listen to this—talking about the National Party—“The party was not only secretive and deceptive about its election finances; some of its activities appear to have breached both the electoral laws and the parliamentary spending rules and it seems to have been party to others’ breaches in election legislation.”

    What a pity such speeches as occur in the debates over Bills in parliament are not reported by the media; I think the public opinion on National and Key would be quite a different story if they were.

  38. Morrissey 38
    18 March 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Stephen Franks unleashes another anti-Māori rant;
    Even Jim Mora expresses some discomfort at the vehemence of it.
    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Tuesday 18 March 2014
    Jim Mora, Michele A’Court, Stephen Franks

    After a dull discussion about the latest political leaders’ poll, the Panelists turn their lively minds to the subject of the missing Malaysian airliner….

    MICHELE A’COURT: I can tell you one thing about this: it’s an absolutely NO GO AREA for comedy at the moment. [1]
    STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes that’s right. Even the Aussies haven’t made any jokes about it, and they’re usually pretty quick to make jokes about anything.
    JIM MORA: A young American comic was slapped down the other day when he tried to say something about it. But that’s only right and proper isn’t it?
    MICHELE A’COURT: [solemnly] Yes.
    STEPHEN FRANKS: Yes it is.

    So, in the words of Jim Mora, it’s “only right and proper” to “slap down” someone who dares to make a quip about a news story; the dictates of good taste mean that joking about this topic is “an absolutely no go area” That’s a remarkable opinion to be spilling from the facile mouth of Mora, who has in the past been only too ready to laugh along with guests like Chris “Haw Haw” Trotter and Noelle “The Plagiarist” McCarthy as they have whinnied and snickered at the plight of political prisoners [2] and victims of massive campaigns of state vengeance. [3] On more than one occasion, Jim Mora himself has instigated the gang-banging. [4]

    But now, apparently, he’s become what Ms Judith Collins would call a sensitive wee sausage. If Mora’s show of solicitude for the missing passengers were genuine, that would be a quite stunning reversal of attitude and sensibility. Time will tell, I guess.

    Sadly, however, some things on the Panel remain exactly the same. One of those grim constants is the near-certainty that ACT/S.S. crank Stephen Franks will say something utterly bizarre, resulting from his extended viewing of Fox News, his uncritical reading of batshit-insane right wing websites, his own hateful, neurotic and sub-sophomoric views about Māori, all combined with his willful and poorly thought out contrarianism. Franks rarely misses a chance to air his crazed thoughts, even when they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand….

    After the 4:30 news, Jim Mora brought up the subject of a controversy at a Steiner school in Wellington. Teachers there have been accused of teaching a “racist philosophy”, viz. Anthroposophy. I think Mora genuinely intended for his guests to say something intelligent and thoughtful. Unfortunately for him, Stephen Franks was on the Panel today, and civilized, rational discussion was therefore off the menu. Instead of talking about the Steiner school, Franks chose to embark on a wandery, disconnected rant about how the idea of Māori spirituality was utterly bogus, and if Anthroposophy was going to be attacked on grounds of alleged racism, then it was time for someone to attack Māori. No doubt at an ACT party corroboree in the lounge of Catherine Isaacs’ mansion, or at a Sensible Sentencing Trust cross-burning, such mad sermons are hailed with cries of “About time somebody spoke about that!” and/or “Those bloody darkies!” and/or “Send the Maoris back to Africa, I say!”

    After that extraordinary speech had ended, Jim Mora was, quite clearly, flabbergasted. “I didn’t know you were going to extrapolate from the topic to quite that extent!” he said, only half-jokingly. “I guess the difference is that the idea of rangatiratanga is not predicated on the assumption that Māori are inherently superior.”

    Franks was having none of that wishy-washy liberal namby-pamby common sense. “Well I think it is,” he barked, and started off on another round of half-witted talkback radio-level speechifying, this time condemning the way that “you guys up there” (i.e. Aucklanders) have allowed Māori to run roughshod over the Auckland Council….

    Disappointingly, Mora, although clearly concerned about the way this crank had hijacked the discussion, was not prepared to argue with him robustly. He did express, diffidently, the view of most sane and reasonable New Zealanders that Māori culture should be respected, but he lacked the willpower or courage to strongly contradict the vicious nonsense being promulgated by Franks. In fact, in addressing the topic of Māori representation, he resorted to the same mealy-mouthed formula he used yesterday to claim that the United States was “not exactly meddling” in Ukrainian politics. “The rancor expressed by some over Māori representation–or the disagreements—I wouldn’t quite call it rancor…. That is Māori redress, which is another issue isn’t it.” [5]

    Franks had nothing intelligent to contribute by way of rejoinder, but that didn’t stop him from setting off again like a particularly vicious pig-dog going after the family cat.

    Yes, it was a typically substandard, idiotic performance—vintage Stephen Franks. It will lead to only one possible outcome: beleaguered listeners can expect to hear a lot more of Stephen Franks on the Panel this year.

    [1] Michele A’Court’s view differs markedly from that of comedians that are actually funny….
    http://www.jewishjournal.com/israelife/item/joan_rivers_and_the_consequences_of_holocaust_jokes_in_broadcast_television
    [2] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19072013/#comment-664870
    [3] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17082012/#comment-509221
    [4] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-14062013/#comment-648511
    [5] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17032014/#comment-787172

  39. captain hook 39
    18 March 2014 at 7:07 pm

    someone should tell bm that bm is a medical term for having a crap and maybe he should go away and do it in private.

  40. Whateva next? 40
    18 March 2014 at 7:56 pm

    I already did that Captain Hook, and his response proved it.
    Back to politics, what will it take fornthe masses to stop playing ” personality politics”. Tuning into talkback, I hear nothing but ” I don’t like what the government are doing……but I like John Key” go figure!

  41. captain hook 41
    18 March 2014 at 9:19 pm

    I suppose that $90,000,000 bux buys like a lot of ass licking from a fawning proletariat.
    wow, what a GUY.

    • Not a PS Staffer 41.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:30 pm

      Sadly many “proletariat” think that arseholes like Michael Fay, Bob Jones and DotCom have a valuable perspective on matters of state because they have accumulated a stash of money.
      While some of the fawning fans of John Key fans fit in that category it would be churlish of us to ignore Key’s talents as a communicator, charmer and leader.

      Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
      Sun Tzu.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.