Open mike 18/04/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:48 am, April 18th, 2014 - 174 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 …

174 comments on “Open mike 18/04/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. swordfish 1
    18 April 2014 at 7:05 am

    Dang ! Missed Mike’s tribute to the Anfield Lads (April 14). And me a Liverpool fan since a babe in arms.

  2. David H 2
    18 April 2014 at 7:20 am

    I see that the Granny cant even put in working links. Anything new just defaults to the main page. And as they don’t seem to read e\mail over the weekend.

  3. bad12 3
    18 April 2014 at 8:08 am

    The latest Roy Morgan out yesterday will please both the Mana and Internet Parties, both now registering 1% on the Morgan,

    That will probably stimulate further talks between the two, the jump in Mana’s % of support has probably been measured too lightly as much of that support will be centric to the Maori electorates,

    2% measured support befor the real business of the election campaign cranks up into top gear will please supporters of both Parties, i won’t predict it but there is the possibility of the Mana/Interent alliance, if it happens, grabbing 5% of the vote in September…

    • big bruv 3.1
      18 April 2014 at 9:05 am

      Speaking of Roy Morgan. Labour at 28.5% and the Greens at 11.5%.

      All in all a great result for New Zealand.

    • Clemgeopin 3.2
      18 April 2014 at 11:33 am

      Yes, a promising start for Mana and Internet party, but I was hoping for 3% at least at this stage.

      It is also a disappointing result for Labour and I suspect Labour’s downfall is mainly the Green party.

      The Greens have their dedicated core support of around 10% of voters, but the Green party scares a lot of potential Labour voters including from other parties because of the fact or perception that the Greens will want to bring in too many of their extreme looking policies too suddenly and also that they may want to increase taxes such as for road transport, petrol, ETS etc and perhaps also due to their extreme positions on mining and deep sea oil exploration.

      In my opinion, while the Green policies are laudable, the party should become more pragmatic and go slower in their lofty aims. People accept changes if they are brought about slowly over time and not forced too fast. People need a paradigm shift in their ways and thinking, but that takes time.

      The Green party leaders should recognise these dangers and make their very SHORT list of main realistic policy positions for the NEXT term very very clear for the voting public and the other political parties. If they do not understand this political and common sense reality, and just continue as now, they will end up with around their usual 10% result, but will hugely damage the votes of Labour and the chance of a left wing government.

      Time is short. They need to get pragmatic and act fast.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1
        18 April 2014 at 12:30 pm

        It’s not the Greens with the extreme policies – that would be National, Act and the CCCP.

        • marty mars 3.2.1.1
          18 April 2014 at 12:38 pm

          I agree draco – The Greens have got to get into power – we need them there and in terms of their policies going slower isn’t an option – going faster and making real change is necessary and essential.

      • weka 3.2.2
        18 April 2014 at 1:08 pm

        Clemgeopin, can you please go and read GP policy, and the pay attention to what they actually do? It’s the perpeption that is the problem – there is nothing particularly extreme about GP policy, and they have in fact adapted to the pragmatic realities of NZ politics. Your comment contributes to misperception rather than promoting solutions.

        • Clemgeopin 3.2.2.1
          18 April 2014 at 1:18 pm

          Perhaps you have misunderstood the points I was making in my post.

          • weka 3.2.2.1.1
            18 April 2014 at 1:25 pm

            perhaps I have and perhaps you could clarify if that’s the case.

            • weka 3.2.2.1.1.1
              18 April 2014 at 1:32 pm

              btw, “The Green party leaders should recognise these dangers and make their very SHORT list of main realistic policy positions for the NEXT term very very clear for the voting public and the other political parties.”

              Before the election the GP will release its 10 point list of what they want to work on if part of the govt. AFAIK they do this each election. Is that what you mean?

              • Clemgeopin …
                18 April 2014 at 2:04 pm

                Yes, but they need to give out such a list now or asap so that voters have time to digest, warm up and feel comfortable to vote to help form a Labour led Government.
                That short list should have moderate doable policies that do not scare too many voters away from helping to form a Labour led government.

                A statement somewhat like this will be very helpful:

                The Green party is keen to help form a Labour led coalition government.
                To that end, during the next term of government, the following will be the policies that we will like to implement. These are all very good for the country and its people. Change takes time. We understand that too many changes can not be made too soon. We will proceed slowly , pragmatically and wisely. We think that Labour and the voters will be comfortable with our following core ten moderate policies for the next term.

                [1] Raising the minimum wage to $16.00 immediately and work towards a living wage.
                [2] Build more state houses. Stop non residents/non citizens buying residential houses in the cities.
                [3] Introduce a moderate capital gains tax of 15% (excluding the family home).
                [4] Support, educate and encourage businesses and public services to have targets to adopt sustainability as a core value over time.
                [5]——

                Etc..Etc.

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    18 April 2014 at 2:30 pm

                    Yes, but should be clearly set out, short, succinct, easily understood with specific details of time line and costs. The MOST important point is not to frighten the voters away with too many sudden changes, nor being too expensive for individuals, businesses or the country. Slow, but steady wins the race in democratic politics unlike in a bloody revolution.

                    • weka …
                      18 April 2014 at 3:12 pm

                      Given taht the GP increased their MPs from 9 to 14 using the strategy that karol linked to, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they know what they are doing.

                      I don’t know when this year’s list is coming out, but this isn’t new stuff for the GP. They’ve been developing skills and strategies for a long time. I trust them.

                      Can you give an example of something you think has frightened people? (a recent example).

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:08 pm

                      @weka.
                      I am not frightened. The voters seem to be, going by the polls, media talk and from speaking to people.
                      People are concerned about a 11% party wielding too much power disproportional to their popular support. I think the policies that scare people would be their possible taxes on roading, farmers, petrol, ETS, pollution etc. Personally I have no problem with these if they are moderate and progressive slowly over time.
                      The primary focus at THIS election is to help form a Labour led left block government and implement a small portion of Green’s moderate policies in term 1.
                      If the Greens stand on their lofty heights persisting on fast paced and many drastic changes too suddenly, they will still get their usual hard core about 10% support, but will make it very hard for a Labour led government to form for a long time, because of the political reality at present as I explained earlier.
                      For this particular election, it should not be Labour that is endorsing the Green policies, but it should be the Green party that endorses the Labour core policies so that more voters can feel comfortable with Labour and Greens.
                      The Greens don’t have to feel like they they are lap dogs, but should recognise that the Labour party is the top dog here. Otherwise, NZF will be the primary beneficiary, probably forming the National led coalition, with Greens and Labour having to wait for many more years to have the power to make the necessary great changes.

                    • weka …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:28 pm

                      “The Greens don’t have to feel like they they are lap dogs, but should recognise that the Labour party is the top dog here.”

                      Lolz. What you don’t seem to realise is that the GP don’t work in that paradigm. They’re more a care and share kind of party ;-p

                      And patently Labour aren’t the top dog. The GP have a better line up of talented people, better policies, better PR, better online and social media access to their voters etc. I’m sure there are things that Labour do better than the GP, but you seem to be mistaking historical voting patterns as a sign of competency.

                      “People are concerned about a 11% party wielding too much power disproportional to their popular support. I think the policies that scare people would be their possible taxes on roading, farmers, petrol, ETS, pollution etc. Personally I have no problem with these if they are moderate and progressive slowly over time.”

                      That’s all about perception, the Crosby/Textor effect, and the fact that the MSM can’t do their job properly. Can you tie some specifics in your list to actual policy and then say what is wrong with what the GP are proposing?

                      Also consider that any increases in environmental costs will be offset by things like more accessible healthcare and education. I still see no proof that the GP’s policies would mean that individuals would have less spare income.

                    • karol …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:35 pm

                      From where I’m sitting, it’s looking to me that the Labour Party would be better spending their time getting their own house in order, rather than telling other parties how to help get them over the line.

                    • weka …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:36 pm

                      To illustrate, if you are worried about petrol tax you should be looking at the Nats.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/petrol-tax-should-be-invested-public-transport

                      GP transport policy – https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/transport-policy

                      This is why it’s all about misperception. When you actually look at GP policy, pretty much every time they are suggesting things that are well thought out and equitable.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:52 pm

                      @Karol:

                      Unfair comment!
                      Don’t blame the Labour party for my posts. I personally have nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour party! I am an independent thinker/poster interested in politics and left wing socialist principles.

        • Clemgeopin 3.2.2.2
          18 April 2014 at 1:22 pm

          I completely disagree. With 11% support, that is not being pragmatic or wise, but suicidal for the Left cause of forming a well supported government.

          • karol 3.2.2.2.1
            18 April 2014 at 1:26 pm

            So you want the GP to be more like Labour currently is? And joining in the already crowded fight for “middle NZ”?

            • Clemgeopin 3.2.2.2.1.1
              18 April 2014 at 2:21 pm

              NO. The 4 examples of policies I gave are pretty much the Green party policies I took from their website. You could add 6 more that seem moderate without frightening the people away and yet help implement many of the easily doable Green’s economic, social and environmental policies. If not, the writing is already on the wall as per the present polls.

              Step1: Have doable moderate policies.
              Setp2: Don’t scare the voters away from helping to form a Left block government.
              Step3: Win the election and form a Labour led government.
              Step4: Implement the agreed core policies in term 1.
              Step5: Perform well, without being too much of a wagging dog, please the people and get re-elected with a fresh list of ten new policies for term2

              ETC

              • karol …
                18 April 2014 at 2:34 pm

                You seem fixated on the perception that the GP frightens people. In fact they have moved towards being more middle NZ friendly in the last few years. And you seem to want the GP to be subservient to Labour. They are not an extension of Labour. It’s up to Labour to campaign for representation themselves, and not aim to gain power by pressuring the GP to be Labour’s tame lapdog.

                The GP will have their agenda for this year’s election before long, I imagine. And they will more than likely have more funding.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  18 April 2014 at 3:06 pm

                  Oh, dear! If such an arrogant, headstrong, heroic, smug attitude prevails widely in the Green camps, you guys will be shooting yourself in the foot as well as do tremendous collateral damage to the chances of a Labour led coalition government on Sept 20.
                  About 10% of people vote for Greens directly and a lot more are sympathetic to many of the Green principles but are scared to vote for Labour or a Labour led government because they are worried about too much of Green’s influence in such a government which might hit them on their back pocket. This fear drives them away from Labour towards National or NZF. You don’t agree I know! False, non fruitful, non pragmatic pride before a sorry fall!

                  • weka …
                    18 April 2014 at 3:22 pm

                    I don’t think karol is a member of the GP.

                    “About 10% of people vote for Greens directly and a lot more are sympathetic to many of the Green principles but are scared to vote for Labour or a Labour led government because they are worried about too much of Green’s influence in such a government which might hit them on their back pocket.”

                    And here is the dilemma. The two big things that the GP are doing is working on poverty, and working on AGW. All the other things are important, but not as urgent. Solutions to poverty won’t make most NZers worse off financially, so when you say that you perpetuate the myth of the scarey Greens (and in fact do what you just accused karol of). The GP are currently the main party that is upholding traditional NZ values around fairness for all. They deserve to be supported for that.

                    Solutions to AGW will most definitely mean radical changes for all humans on the planet including the people in NZ currently fixated on their back pocket. But the alternative to that is to abandon the planet and the next generations to catastrophic environmental change that will be far far worse than anything the GP has ever proposed in terms of living within our means.

                    Because of that, I think they need to hurry up and make change more radically, but I also think that they have figured out how fast they can move to make effective change without scaring the horses.

                  • Stephanie Rodgers …
                    18 April 2014 at 3:30 pm

                    Here’s the problem I see with your theory: the Greens are not traditionally a party of ‘safe’ or ‘moderate’ voters. Many of the votes they picked up in 2011 were likely disillusioned Labour supporters who wanted a stronger left/liberal voice.

                    If the Greens decided to sacrifice their own voter base for the sake of appearing ‘moderate’ (and I don’t think it would work anyway given how hard National hammer the idea that anything the Greens, or even Labour, do is automatically radical) they’d just lose votes, either to a going concern like Mana or more marginal voices like the Alliance. In which case you might start complaining that Mana needs to be more moderate so as not to frighten the horses, or lament at the wasted votes going to leftwing parties which won’t pass 5%.

                    I don’t see this as a successful strategy for the wider left.

                  • karol …
                    18 April 2014 at 3:33 pm

                    Arrogant? And non-Green voters/members telling the Greens how to run their campaigns, and which policies to foreground? That isn’t arrogant.

                    I’m not a Green Party member, but in recent years I have voted for them because they have the policies and approaches nearest to my left wing values. I stopped voting Labour a few years back, because they have ceased to uphold the left wing values and policies that I favour.

                    And I do get irritated by those who want a Labour led government (are you a Labour voter?) or Labour Party members telling the Greens, and/or Green voters what we should be doing. To me, in recent years, there are More problems with Labour than the Greens.

                    And, like weka, I continue trust the Green Party strategies and principles.

                    EDIT: And I agree with weka & Stepahnie.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      18 April 2014 at 4:39 pm

                      My points are altruistic to help form a Labour led left coalition government. You can continue to have all the trust for the Green Party strategies and principles, sure, no problem, but you are one vote. To form the coalition government, you need lots of total votes, not just around 10%. I have a feeling that the Green supporters here have completely missed the points I have made in my posts and why I have made them. Please read them all again with an unbiased open mind. I am not against the Green party. I am for getting rid of this bad right wing government led by the popular Key and I am for helping to form the next Labour led government. If the Green supporters and leaders do not understand or consider the strategy I have stated due to any sense of false pride, cocky arrogance or due to not reading the voters political perceptions of Greens, they along with Labour may have to remain glued to the opposition benches once again for which of course they have great experience so far of warming them from their far backsides.

                      P.S : I have no axe to grind. Yes, I vote Labour MOSTLY. Read my posts slowly again to see the points I was making. May be some pragmatic electoral wisdom will dawn second time round.

                    • weka …
                      18 April 2014 at 6:29 pm

                      What evidence do you have that the GP leaders are cocky, arrogant or ignorant of voters’ perceptions?

                    • karol …
                      18 April 2014 at 6:42 pm

                      Clemgeopin – I don’t agree with you, so I haven’t read your posts properly? Really? And you are the one that threw the “arrogant” word into the mix.

                      I also want a left government. So let Labour and the Greens get their acts together.

                      But that doesn’t mean Greens need to become subservient to Labour. They are two separate parties. The Greens offered to work with Labour. They declined. Ball’s in Labour’s court.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      18 April 2014 at 7:27 pm

                      @Karol.
                      That too was an arrogant and cunning move that would have helped Greens get more votes and damage the Labour vote, as it would have scared even more people away. (not the core 11% green voters). Think about it.

                      The smarter strategic move would be for the Greens to publicly endorse the Labour’s policies and a Labour-led coalition government with a few core Green policies that the people can feel non-threatened with. Such a move will make more of the doubtful voters vote for Labour or Greens, helping both parties.

                      I am convinced I am correct. I understand you have a different view.

                      P.S : You might have carefully read what I wrote earlier, especially my first post, but you have interpreted my idea and intentions quite wrongly.

          • weka 3.2.2.2.2
            18 April 2014 at 1:30 pm

            “that is not being pragmatic or wise”

            What is ‘that’ in your sentence?

            • Clemgeopin 3.2.2.2.2.1
              18 April 2014 at 2:39 pm

              Sorry weka. That was supposed to be my reply for Marty mars, who wrote,
              “I agree draco – The Greens have got to get into power – we need them there and in terms of their policies going slower isn’t an option – going faster and making real change is necessary and essential”

        • phillip ure 3.2.2.3
          18 April 2014 at 2:38 pm

          @weka..

          “..there is nothing particularly extreme about GP policy, and they have in fact adapted to the pragmatic realities of NZ politics…”

          plus 1..

          ..and therein lies their problem..as there is little to differentiate them from labour..

          ..and perhaps the most stark example of that leeching/bleaching out of green values in the green party..

          ..is the twin-facts of a campbell live poll (16,000 voters..paying 50 cents each..) showing 84% support for ending the insanities of cannabis prohibition..

          ..and the second fact of the green party having that policy nowhere near their to-do list..

          ..what are they waiting for..?..100% support..

          ..does their fear-of-offending cause them to cower before the wishes of that prohibitionist 16%..?

          ..if not that..what..?

          ..and this is why the internet party..if boxing clever..will come out with a sensible/sane decriminalise/regulate/tax policy..

          ..and they will not only take away that pillar of previous green party support..

          ..they will also hoover up a sizeable number of those impatient at the blind-intransigence on this topic/subject..

          ..and a clearer marker of the epic-neglect of/by the green party of the constituency who first got them into parliament..

          ..is that at a time of decriminalisation breaking out like measles all over america..

          ..and nations like uraguay ending prohibition..

          ..what have we heard from the green party on this issue..?

          ..seizing/riding this wave of change..?

          ..that’s right..zip/zero/nada..

          ..and here’s a trainspotters’ question for you..

          ..who is the green party spokesperson on this issue..?

          ..i’ll betcha you don’t know..

          ..(hint:..he has the same hairdo as all those premature-balding men who do the total head-shave have..)

          ..see..!..you didn’t know..!..didya..?

          ..and nope..!..not even a press-release to be seen/within cooee..

          ..the silence is zen-like in its’ totalities….

          ..like i said..if the internet party boxes clever..

          ..that traditional pillar of the green party vote is there for them to just reach out and grab..

          ..(this is a cartoon we did on this..)

          http://whoar.co.nz/2014/original-whoar-cartoon-russel-norman-passes-the-dutchie-on-the-right-hand-side/

          • Clemgeopin 3.2.2.3.1
            18 April 2014 at 2:47 pm

            LOL! That is a great cartoon!

          • Seti 3.2.2.3.2
            18 April 2014 at 4:09 pm

            Harvard Medical School researchers think otherwise in new study –

            Even casual use of cannabis alters brain, warn scientists

            For too long cannabis has been seen as a safe drug, but as this study suggests, it can have a really serious impact on your mental health.

              • phillip ure …
                18 April 2014 at 4:37 pm

                @ seti:..

                did you even read yr link..?

                ..or was it just a headline-grab..?

                ..here is the stinger-paragraph:

                “.. Prof David Nutt, from Imperial College, London – said a sample of 40 was not big enough to draw conclusions.

                Prof Nutt added:

                “Whatever cannabis does to the brain its not in the same league as alcohol –

                which is a proven neurotoxin.”

                (time for ‘a cold one’..?..there..?..seti..?..

                ..to wash down yr pot-harrumph..?..)

                • Seti …
                  18 April 2014 at 4:53 pm

                  Hey, you left out –

                  Prof Nutt, who was sacked as a government drugs adviser for his views

                  You know when Harvard Medical School attaches its name to a report that it carries some weight.

                  It is currently ranked the #1 research medical school in the United States.

                  • phillip ure …
                    18 April 2014 at 5:04 pm

                    a tory govt fired nutt for his urgings to end prohibition..(yr point..?..)

                    ..and the point he made..the sample deficiency of only 40..stands..

                    ..how was that ‘cold one’..?

                    • Seti …
                      18 April 2014 at 5:44 pm

                      Yet the number one research institute has no problem with a small sample group.

                      And you assume any opposition to dope means I’m on the sauce? Well, as it turns out even a broken clock…

                      However, abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one’s risk of dying

                    • phillip ure …
                      18 April 2014 at 6:37 pm

                      the reference to ‘sauce’ is to highlight the obvious hypocrises in our attitudes to different drugs..

                      ..the current scramble to find something/anything bad to say about pot..

                      ..(jim mora almost sobbed with relief at finding/in heralding this story yesterday..)

                      ..but all around us the use of the major head/health-fucker/causer of violence..

                      ..is normalised to the extent..it has long been that you are considered weird..

                      ..if you don’t ‘sauce’..

                      ..but if you want to out yrslf as a current user/walking example of those hypocrisies..?

                      ..be my guest..

            • Murray Olsen 3.2.2.3.2.2
              19 April 2014 at 12:19 am

              Harvard Medical School might be better off investigating the effect of police persecution, random stops, being threatened with weapons, and imprisonment on mental health. I’m just guessing, but I think those things could be far more damaging than a few casual puffs on a joint.

    • Ant 3.3
      18 April 2014 at 12:59 pm

      The attack by the Greens probably didn’t help much.

  4. karol 4
    18 April 2014 at 8:12 am

    “No Sebastian, put them down dear. You know what type of people eat crisps!” #overheardinwaitrose

    “The array of anchovies in here makes going anywhere else irrelevant…wouldn’t you agree Felix?” #overheardinwaitrose

    “Honestly children these days…I blame the au pairs!” #overheardinwaitrose

  5. marty mars 5
    18 April 2014 at 9:17 am

    This one can go in the WTF file I think

    Whether the affair had damaged her politically was for others to judge, she said.

    “But I think most people see that this is a situation where having my family attacked like this and brought into it in some way humanises me because I’ve never been seen as someone was particularly human.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11240077

    Do humans really talk about being humanised?

  6. blue leopard 6
    18 April 2014 at 9:44 am

    Just thought I would repost this comment by ExKiwiforces summarizing an article in the Telegraph (Britain) . The comment appeared on Open Mike 16 April – it was posted late and I believe it might have been missed by a few people – I have added the links at the end:

    “The US is an oligarchy, study concludes”

    The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

    The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

    After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

    The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

    Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying oragnisations: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”

    The positions of powerful interest groups are “not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens”, but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.

    The theory of “biased pluralism” that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes “tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.”

    The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial piece of legislation passed in The Supreme Court that abolished campaign contribution limits, and record low approval ratings for the US congress.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

    And the actual study:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf

    • Jenny 6.1
      18 April 2014 at 10:33 am

      The positions of powerful interest groups are “not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens”, but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.

      Quote; Courtesy of blue leopard

      Fortuitously for humanity the civilisation destroying threat of climate change may be one of those “overlap” issues.

      Al Gore for instance is most definitely a member of the 1% but has done more to bring the attention of the wider world to an awareness of this threat than any other single politician I could name.

      What does this mean in practical terms?

      It means that the accepted wisdom that climate change should not be made into an election battle ground is completely false and even self defeating for those wishing to unseat the current incumbent National Party, whose record on dealing with climate change is woeful. (but unfortunately little removed from where the opposition parties are centred)

      So to unseat National and even unite conservative voters against them, there needs to be a clear demarkation between current government policy on coal mining, deep sea oil drilling and fracking and opposition policy.

      Unfortunately, currently this is not the case:

      “Labour says views on mining close to Govt’s”

      David Parker was Energy Minister during the last Labour Government and said about $20 million was spent on seismic surveys to supply to big oil companies and entice them to New Zealand.

      Labour’s finance spokesman, David Parker, says his party’s policies on oil, gas and mineral extraction are close to those of the Government.

      “I don’t think we are much different from National,” Parker said. “They’ve continued on with the programme that we started in respect to oil and gas,” he said yesterday after a breakfast for the Mood of the Boardroom survey in which chief executives expressed strong support for mining.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10822510

      In Auckland in the white bread suburb of Kohimarama at the far east end of Kepa Road on the left hand side in this predominantly well off area, on the corner of Godden Crescent and Kepa, and dominating the block, there is a large gated mansion with extensive grounds surrounded by a high bricked wall. Prominently pinned on the large wooden gates of this estate and facing the traffic is an an anti-deep sea oil drilling bill board.

      A sign of the times?

      The first swallow of spring?

      Maybe, maybe not.

      But while the blockheads in Labour still persist in supporting deep sea oil drilling, fracking and new coal expansion we will never know.

      • greywarbler 6.1.1
        18 April 2014 at 10:47 am

        Thanks blue leopard. Some reliable facts and critique. Very welcome and needed to back with concrete research our perceptions and feelings.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1.1.1
          18 April 2014 at 1:01 pm

          Yes, that is exactly why I thought I would repost ExKiwiforce’s comment – it would be a shame to miss such information.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        18 April 2014 at 1:06 pm

        But while the blockheads in Labour still persist in supporting deep sea oil drilling, fracking and new coal expansion we will never know.

        It’s not just support of drilling/mining/fracking but support of capitalism that requires ever increasing amounts of extraction of our scarce resources and for them to then be sold that is the real problem. Any idiot should be able to see that such policies will leave us without those resources and thus poor but our political parties still follow these outdated and unsustainable practices.

    • Rogue Trooper 6.2
      18 April 2014 at 12:15 pm

      Reading Hobsbawm this morning, he suggested a 1000, 10,000 at the most, people decide what determines the global market and market-related human behaviour at the time his How to Change The World was published- 2011.

    • ExKiwiforces 6.3
      18 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

      Thanks again Blue Leopard also I actually live overseas and have been since 1998 hence the reason it was posted very late NZ time.

      On my last visit to NZ last mth I notice that NZ is slowly heading down this path and very disappointed that alot of the NZ Farmers are going back to a mono farming aka Dairying have they forgot problems of the 70’s and 80’s when it was wool and lamb?

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.3.1
        18 April 2014 at 1:05 pm

        I figured that was why you posted so late. I thought your comment and lead was too good to be missed 🙂

  7. Pete George 7
    18 April 2014 at 10:10 am

    Worthwhile reading for anyone interested in Labour’s progress (or lack thereof). Kiwi in America is an ex Labour activist with an in depth knowledge of the party.

    Guest Post – Why is Labour Struggling in 2014? An Essay on the History of Labour’s Predicament

    David asked me to guest post this while he was away so here’s some reading over this stormy Easter weekend (I’m in soggy Christchurch as I write this). With Labour consistently polling between 28 and 34% (current poll of polls has Labour at just under 31%) since its defeat in 2008, it has a number of problems convincing voters that they are an alternative government in waiting for the 2014 election. Labour’s problems are three fold and the purpose of this essay is to posit the origins of their problems by drawing on my time inside Labour to provide some explanations:

    1 – Why its policies are less appealing to the vote rich centre ground of NZ politics
    2 – Why Labour has such a shallow pool of caucus talent from which to choose an attractive leader
    3 – How, under MMP, Labour have boxed themselves into a relatively narrow ideological centre left electoral corridor crowded out to the left by the Greens and Mana and to the right by National

    KIA goes into detail on Labour’s recent history. He concludes:

    Labour was once a great party. It attracted people of energy, passion and ability from many walks of life. It had reforming zeal usually tempered by the realism of its once broader membership base and if it went too far, the voters returned the Treasury benches to the safer hands of National.

    Labour’s 1984 to 87 Cabinet, despite their leftist roots, embarked on a series of dramatic reforms that have transformed NZ into the more vibrant and dynamic economy it is today.

    The left of the party waged a war so total and absolute to purge the party of that instinct that it has destroyed modern Labour and left it a shrunken left leaning shell of its former self that struggles to attract electable talent, will not rejuvenate its caucus, offers policies that excite only 25% of the country and fights with the Greens (who are seen as more pure and virginal) for the centre left vote.

    The harder left base are tone deaf to the electoral realities of New Zealand politics believing that they will win the day if the great unwashed knew what was good for them and if the policies of the left were articulated better.

    Without a major change of direction, Labour’s prescription is a recipe for long term electoral oblivion!

    Posted at: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/04/guest_post_-why_is_labour_struggling_in_2014_an_essay_on_the_history_of_labours_predicament.html

    • felix 7.1
      18 April 2014 at 10:20 am

      “Labour’s 1984 to 87 Cabinet, despite their leftist roots, embarked on a series of dramatic reforms that have transformed NZ into the more vibrant and dynamic economy it is today.

      The left of the party waged a war so total and absolute to purge the party of that instinct …”

      False premises lead to false conclusions Pete. That second sentence ought to have pricked up your little rat ears, even if the first didn’t.

      • greywarbler 7.1.1
        18 April 2014 at 11:02 am

        Anything that comes from Pete George needs to be handled with long tongs, and studied from a safe distance to avoid his ailments.. Otherwise called a flew of wisdom.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          18 April 2014 at 1:11 pm

          I just noted that the post came from kiwiblog and ignored it as it was obviously rubbish.

    • anker 7.2
      18 April 2014 at 10:30 am

      Who is this person? “Who is the former Labour Party Activist”? Name?

      To me it reads like more spin, more narrative about how Labour won’t win, won’t attract Talent (Does he mean like the likes of Simon Bridges? Hekia Parata?)

      He lost me when he said changes in 1984 ++ brought about a more vibrant and dynamic economy”

      More vibrant and dynamic economy for who?

      • felix 7.2.1
        18 April 2014 at 11:11 am

        That’s exactly the bit that should set the alarms off.

      • Ad 7.2.2
        18 April 2014 at 11:58 am

        Inequality and child poverty is at record highs, but we’re heading for 5.5% unemployed. That’s getting to Labour at it’s height under Clark and Cullen. National could fight this election on their economic handling alone, and win.

        • freedom 7.2.2.1
          18 April 2014 at 12:44 pm

          “5.5%”, There sure are a lot of Brooklyn Bridges for sale these days.

          Ad, have you considered what the % would be if unregistered unemployed were included?
          Not to mention you could likely double that % instantly if jobs of under one hour a week were also included.

          Partisanship aside, a national employment statistic built on the premise that mowing a neighbour’s lawn twice a month, equates to ‘having a job’, is a fundamentally flawed statistic and only exposes the inherently corrupt reporting of economic realities facing New Zealand.

          • Ad 7.2.2.1.1
            18 April 2014 at 1:26 pm

            Not sure why so many commenters confuse banal fact from the stronger truth and power of media narrative. It’s a “rock star”, it’s China as our mouth-to-fire-hydrant epochal change, it’s increased job adverts, it’s sharemarket floats, it’s business confidence, it’s their string of political-commercial deals.

            The MSM almost uniformly trumpet Key’s economic leadership, and reified the apparent results. Labour and the remainder of the progressives are generally fighting against this but are comprehensively losing the economic story.

      • joe90 7.2.3
        18 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

        Who is this person?

        I do believe it’s this bloke.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.2.4
        18 April 2014 at 1:15 pm

        Our economy is far less vibrant than it was and the conformity has ratcheted way up.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 7.2.5
        18 April 2014 at 3:08 pm

        Who is this person?

        Only the author of the greatest Kiwiblog comment ever:

        http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/senator_mccain.html#comment-505701

        Remember when McCain won the 2008 election?

    • Sanctuary 7.3
      18 April 2014 at 11:05 am

      Concerned trolls gonna troll, I guess.

    • Anne 7.4
      18 April 2014 at 11:42 am

      The left of the party waged a war so total and absolute to purge the party of that instinct …”

      That is bollocks. It was the right who started the war back in the late 70s and early 80s. Once in power they rode rough-shod over their ministerial colleagues including PM, David Lange. They used bullying and underhand tactics and openly demeaned colleagues who stood up to them. Finally those colleagues and many in the rank and file rose up against them. They were the authors of their own demise.

      Has it ever occurred to you PG that your frequent partisan selections of supposedly informed data actually expose how arrogant and politically naive you really are?

      • felix 7.4.1
        18 April 2014 at 12:35 pm

        In much the same way as being stupid precludes one from knowing how stupid one is, Pete has no idea he is arrogant and naive.

    • phillip ure 7.5
      18 April 2014 at 11:50 am

      is that the same kiwi in america who posted those bi-daily interminable screeds to persuade kiwiblog readers that obama had no chance of winning the democratic nomination..?

      ..and then went on to post bi-daily interminable screeds on how mccain was going to kick obamas’ arse..?

      ..is this the same sage that you now turn to for yr ‘fact-checking’/re-postable opinions….?

      ..really..?

    • Ad 7.6
      18 April 2014 at 11:56 am

      It’s a thoughtful piece.

      I agree with the general point in it that the caucus talent is thin, and that this is the primary cause of succession difficulties. I cannot think of any around me in my forties who would consider it.

      I also agree that the rump of the Lange-Moore administration forms the ABC club that has actively fought renewal from day one.

      I don’t buy the Clark conspiracy. I simply view comprehensive and systemic HR internal promotion and selection as being part of successful leadership.

      The difficulties that David Cunliffe is facing are not caused by Helen Clark’s legacy. They are different.

      Firstly to get where he is, those seeking to reform the party from within have had to engage in nearly a decade of careful momentum-building. This included the Labour Party constitutional reforms mentioned in the piece in 2012. Given the intransigence and hard internal attacks of the rump, there was no alternative but to spend considerable energy focussing inwards paving the way for change. This no doubt appeared unattractive and blunted grassroots political evangelical confidence, but strengthened party membership and mechanisms considerably.

      Secondly, Cunliffe’s principle of meritocratic promotion of talent, rather than promotion for factional control, is going to take time to weed out the poor performers and invite talent to compete and win selection. National’s internal reforms of caucus have certainly been easier precisely because the churn enables more strivers to see a future pathway to power. Meritocratic promotion is in my view the only way to break down factions, but it’s root and branch, and it takes years.

      Third, the policy platform is having to be rebuilt from scratch. It’s a different path from both Clark and Lange/Douglas. David Cunliffe has had only since the abrupt leadership change barely six months ago to get this going.

      Finally, changing leader one year out from election has a massive drop in momentum internally. We can see that through the uneven changes in his leaders’ office. I am not yet convinced that the media team there are coherent, for example. That is only an illustration of the internal shifts that the entire supporter, membership and caucus groups have to go through.

      On David’s side are a few things.
      First, how close Labour got last time. In MMP it really is down to the wire. The essay writer appears to have left political activism under FPP and does not understand that it really is down to a 2-3% shift in National’s fortunes and all is in play.

      Secondly, Labour understand their base far better, and are mobilising far better than previously.

      Finally, it’s him. As Colin James said in March this year, when he’s at his best, David Cunliffe is better than John Key. The vital question is whether those around him allow him to enable his confidence, surefooted preparation, and his kind of future Prime Minister, to be made apparent.

      • JK 7.6.1
        18 April 2014 at 12:16 pm

        I can go along with what Ad is saying. It IS going to be close, right down to the wire – but there are a number of things going for Labour which are “behind the scenes” so to speak, and time will tell if what is happening there will achieve the result we want.

      • Rogue Trooper 7.6.2
        18 April 2014 at 12:20 pm

        😎

      • Anne 7.6.3
        18 April 2014 at 12:22 pm

        A very good summing of Labour’s position Ad. Thanks.

        But I don’t agree with the assumption that the caucus talent is thin. I think there is quite a bit of latent talent that, for various reasons, didn’t get a chance to see the light of day under the Clark/Goff/ Shearer regimes. Add to them the fact it seems likely a number of people will join the caucus later this year who will significantly boost the talent pool.

      • Clemgeopin 7.6.4
        18 April 2014 at 12:44 pm

        Good post!
        Your last paragraph is so true.
        “Finally, it’s him. As Colin James said in March this year, when he’s at his best, David Cunliffe is better than John Key. The vital question is whether those around him allow him to enable his confidence, surefooted preparation, and his kind of future Prime Minister, to be made apparent”

        The key to success is a combination of …

        Cunliffe, who can be very good,
        The polices which should excite and benefit voters and the country,
        and
        The media managers who need to work much harder and smarter from now on..

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.6.5
        18 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

        Yes great post Ad, nice to read something constructive and thoughtful.

        I agree with Anne’s comment re talent in Labour

      • Pete George 7.6.6
        18 April 2014 at 1:45 pm

        Ad makes some good (and also thoughtful) points. I insert things like this into the mix to provoke thought (not not the numpties).

        I agree the KIA is a but old school, but there’s a lot that can be learned from history.

        I also think that meritocratic promotion is important. It’s a pity Labour didn’t start their rebuild five years ago, time is short for Cunliffe and as Ad says this approach takes time. But it’s important Labour sets themselves up for medium term rebuilding.

        In the meantime they still stand a chance this election, albeit relying on at least one sizable coalition partner. And they will be hoping Dotcom doesn’t mess things up for the left, that’s out of Labour’s hands and there’s a sizable risk of it.

        Cunliffe’s confidence is crucial for Labour’s chances this year. He can tend towards overconfident, he can’t let that get away on him but he also seems to swing to lacking in confidence. He needs to resolutely target September and stick to a solid plan – at the moment theirs no clear sign of that.

        With a number of wild cards anything could happen this election – but for it to happen in Labour’s favour Cunliffe has to sharpen up and minimise the mistakes they have been making too often, which now means any policy release is looked at with suspicions of cock-ups, and every small mistake is magnified.

        It’s not over yet for Labour but it won’t be easy either.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.7
      18 April 2014 at 12:03 pm

      🙄

    • SPC 7.8
      18 April 2014 at 3:57 pm

      My reply to the post by kiwi in America post at kiwiblog is

      FACT 1 – The Rogernomics era had no mandate from the party. It nearly destroyed Labour.

      FACT 2 – It took till 1999-2002 and a Labour government that delivered on its manifesto to restore trust between caucus and party member – this lead to the end of any need for “New Labour”.

      FACT 3 – However this alone was and is insufficient for restoration. The Labour Party is not yet over what Rogernomics did to it (but then nor is New Zealand).

      To have a party based on democratic, and meritocratic, selection involves trust that candidates will remain loyal to the party and its manifesto. This was something completely breached in the 1980′s. So between 1987 and 2011, selection was based on a party faction patronage – this of course meant it was somewhat insulated from inclusive participation by the general public.

      The Labour Party was so abused by its caucus in the 1980′s that only the recent party reforms, the retirement of the last of the 1980′s era personnel and the decline of the party factions of recent decades will enable renewal.

      Too much focus on the people involved just obscures the circumstance in which they operated.

      However

      FACT 4 – Being expert in managing factions gave Clark an advantage in MMP.

      The irony however is in that with a majority in caucus being of the ABC persuasion, when he was the choice of the wider party, we have continuance of the caucus and party divide that began their problems 30 years ago. And for the same reason, those dominant in caucus “knew better” (about policy or who should be leader).

      FACT 5 – Cunliffe will only get confidence from his caucus if the membership of it changes or he wins an election.

      FACT 6 – Labour Leaders are now required to retain the trust of their party, and thus the idea that a caucus leader can lead the party in new directions without first getting a mandate is now buried. The party can no longer be hijacked by turning its leader or finance spokesperson – a message to Treasury, whether in domestic and international aspect, as much as to the caucus.

      Whether this makes for a more left wing party is harder to say. The party activist is less likely to want caucus to compromise for centrist votes, yet a more open party means more internal diversity and a broader base membership.

    • Paul 7.9
      18 April 2014 at 5:42 pm

      Well done Pete.
      Your intention to derail this thread has worked.
      32 comments and a lot of valuable energy burned dealing with your nonsensical comment.

    • ExKiwiforces 7.10
      18 April 2014 at 11:09 pm

      Having just read that post over at Kiwiblog I think I know this person and the other person that he mention.

      I was at that Christchurch LRC meeting, I almost remember what happen as I attending meeting and voted in keeping the monies in Christchurch for future elections. Like a few other people in that meeting we thinking long term as this would benefit the LRC in the coming battles.

      We were hounded by Marian Hobbs and her supporters during for not supporting Head Office and we were distrusted from there on. I said to one union delegate on the way out at the end of the meeting us work class members are going to get f***ed over by this mob.

      Having seen/ been to a lot of the Labour meetings between 93-98 including the first MMP list meeting, thinking that at the time there we are making some weird decisions party wise and sometimes selecting the wrong candidate when it was a shoe in for labour and now I know why.

      Please don’t get me wrong I’m all for social justice, humans right and gay rights etc. But mustn’t come at the expense of the work class/ working poor and just because I didn’t go to university doesn’t mean I’m dumb I just didn’t to have any debit after studies. But I know a hell of a lot about peacekeeping / modern warfare that no university will ever teach me in a life time. I remember one Labour MP telling me I saying porkies about real peacekeeping, because this person university studies about peacekeeping/ peacemaking etc. was the real deal because the universities are always right. After that I have never renewed Labour membership since 2006 and that was the last time I voted.

      If Labour wants to win it must be a Broad Church again and listen to those members who have real life/job experience and not just from people who went to university, or party room hacks or from the public service.

    • Murray Olsen 7.11
      19 April 2014 at 12:31 am

      You put yourself forward as a fact checker, but can only have posted that rubbish in bad faith. The only type of ex-Labour activist who could have written that would now be in ACT, and probably has been since that vile grouping coalesced from medical waste. The only people here stupid enough to believe it would have already read it on Kiwibog anyway. Please hurry up and get banned again.

      • Pete George 7.11.1
        19 April 2014 at 5:38 am

        I didn’t put this forward as fact checking. I do a lot of things besides fact checking. I put this forward to promote thought and discussion.

        I didn’t endorse what Kiwi in America posted. I thought that anyone seriously interested in why Labour are currently struggling would at least consider what was said. Some people have seen it as this and there’s been some interesting counter points made.

        That others (mostly the same old) chose to ignore the message and attack the messengers is a symptom of some of Labour’s and the Left’s biggest problems – naturally negative politics and knee-jerk denial. How much of that is ingrained old school habits and how much is diverting from the current reality?

        Regardless of the outcome of this year’s election New Zealand needs stronger and better parties across the political spectrum. That many of those who have an interest in politics are willfully blind and deliberately destructive, within parties and across political forums, is not a good sign for our future.

        Pettiness and pissing on any perceived opponent are a pox on our politics.

        Most people don’t vote for the nastiest and most negative numpties. The way things are heading it won’t be long before most people don’t vote.

        • felix 7.11.1.1
          19 April 2014 at 6:02 am

          Of course, Pete. It’s all for the discussion so it doesn’t matter if it’s factual.

          And of course if you came across a few paragraphs of un-fact-checked opinion from, say, a unionist writing at TheStandard about what’s wrong with the ACT Party you’d be straight over to Kiwiblog to copypasta it.

          For the discussion.

          “I do a lot of things besides fact checking.”

          Ain’t that the fucking truth.

          • Pete George 7.11.1.1.1
            19 April 2014 at 6:38 am

            I often put forward opinions (and facts, they are quite different things to opinions felix) to Kiwiblog to encourage discussion and provoke thought. And sometimes to Whale Oil. And sometimes the reactions are as pissy as they can be here.

            For the discussion.

            You sometimes do things besides petty bitching.

  8. polish 8
    18 April 2014 at 10:20 am

    Ubuntu party South Africa. Finally a political party that gets it.

  9. Pete George 9
    18 April 2014 at 10:30 am

    More views on the Karam versus Parker and Purkiss defamation case:

    The Paepae: Defamation via Facebook and ‘a private website’

    This defamation case should be a shot across the bows of various internet wide-boys who think ‘defence of truth’ or ‘opinion honestly held’ is some kind of magic elixir or Get Out of Jail Free card. It’s worth noting the oh-so-easy-to-reach-for-until-you’re-tested ‘truth defence’ in this case was abandoned during the trial.

    Occasional Erudite: The Joe Karam defamation case – what does it mean for blogs and social media?

    To my mind though, the way in which Courtney J has applied the threshold test under which honest opinion can be relied upon doesn’t necessarily take into account the way that blogs and social media sites function.

    …

    That’s why I’m slightly uncomfortable with the judgment. A comment on a blog post, when viewed in isolation or as part of the individual blog post and the thread of comments that follow, may not appear to have a factual basis. However, when viewed as part of a blogger or commentator’s history of blogging or commenting, may have a factual basis that is well known to others who frequent the blog.

    That’s not to say that the defendants in Mr Karam’s defamation suit don’t richly deserve to have been found to have defamed Mr Karam. My concern is whether the case sets a precedent that doesn’t necessarily fit with the way that blogs and social media actually operate.

  10. greywarbler 10
    18 April 2014 at 11:06 am

    Do I detect some triumphalism from PG who is proving a pest resistant to approved control methods, and feels now protected by new measures. We have to watch out he can spread kauri die-back disease, so far uncontrollable.

  11. Jenny Kirk 11
    18 April 2014 at 12:26 pm

    I’ve just been made aware that forest parks such as Victoria and Pureroa – where Minister “unaware” Bridges is allowing mining exploration – have a special protective status conferred on them courtesy of the Conservation Act 1987.

    This protection overrides the “sustainable management” principles under the Resource Management Act.

    The Conservation Act and the management strategies (CMS) and plans (CMPs) that are created under it have the overriding principle of “protection”. This is contrasted with the overriding principle of New Zealand’s most important planning statute, the Resource Management Act 1991, which is “sustainable management” (s5, Resource Management Act 1991). Whilst there is often overlap between the RMA and the Conservation Act, the principle of protection has primacy over that of sustainable management.

    The Conservation Act also sets up a hierarchy of consideration of activities occurring on public conservation land under s6(e):

    ” to the extent that the use of any natural or historic resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism”.

    This hierarchy places the greatest weight on intrinsic value, followed by non-commercial recreation, and then by tourism. An important role in conservation advocacy in New Zealand is ensuring that these three separate considerations are maintained, rather than blurred..

    It appears that Minister “Unaware” Bridges and his advisors have ignored the status of these forest parks where the overriding principle is of protection. This is extremely ignorant of them !

  12. Fisyani 12
    18 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Hold your nose and nip over to Kiwiblog to read an essay by Kiwi in America who was a Labour Party member. It cogently points out the process to explain why Labour is polling so badly. I do not know if Labour can ever be in government again. That is a quite extraordinary sentence. A part of me hopes it is not true. Politics does not always have to be the same as it was in the past. You may not like the analysis but would be silly to avoid reading it.

  13. Jenny 13
    18 April 2014 at 12:29 pm

    Tivial and ill advised can be the only descriptions of Labour’s policy announcements over trailer registrations and truck traffic rules.

    In trying to differentiate themselves from National, with such trivial matters, Labour are only reinforcing the public perception that there is little substantial difference between our two main political parties.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11239969

    Labour’s truck ban could cover 0.7 per cent or 7 per cent of New Zealand’s motorways – depending on who you listen to.

    There was some confusion about the impact of the policy, which was unveiled by leader David Cunliffe on Tuesday.

    It would block trucks from using the outside lane on three or four-lane highways in an attempt to reduce congestion, especially logjams during public holidays.

    What arrant nonsense. How many trucks operate on public holidays?

    It may interest people to know that the Ministry of Transport deliberately confine traffic on the highway from Auckland’s holiday playground in Coromandel and slow it down on holiday weekends by erecting road cones that narrow the traffic to one very narrow lane. This is done deliberately to prevent even further congestion further up the motorway system in Auckland.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.1
      18 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Yes, can’t say I was impressed either. I was waiting and hoping that perhaps this announcement appealed to some other section of New Zealanders that they were targeting. It makes very little sense to me why such an announcement was made and I agree with your summary on it.

    • Ad 13.2
      18 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

      Agree. They have smudged a future comprehensive transport policy launch.

      They need to do this with clear differentiation to both National and Greens. Not sure if people agree, but housing and transport are the largest voter issues in Auckland, and that’s a third of Parliament and a third of the party vote. Transport issues are also very strong in provincial New Zealand, and ripe for harvest with clever policy not piecemeal picking.

      Labour need to be as strong in transport as they were in housing. Greens have the sentiment so far in part because Julie Ann Genter is charming talented and works hard, and in part because Labour’s transport spokesperson is Darien Fenton, ’nuff said.

  14. Chooky 14
    18 April 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Food for thought on Easter Friday

    (maybe when the fossil fuels crisis hits we wont have to resort to riding our ponies to town after all)

    Structural engineer Dr Judy Wood on evidence for FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY….based on Tesla’s discoveries a 100 years ago and the misuse of this technology as a weapon ( directed free energy) in the ‘dustification’ of the Twin Towers . She has written a book called ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’

    http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/product-reviews/0615412564

    She talks about ‘magnetic electrogravidic nuclear reactions’ ( cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions)

    She talks about how the public perception can be manipulated re the destruction of the Twin Towers and how it is important to always go back to the evidence in science and not try and make ‘evidence ‘ support a preconceived theory

    This is mind blowing stuff with revolutionary implications if true

    • joe90 14.1
      18 April 2014 at 12:54 pm

      Oh look, chemtrails with a side of HAARP.
      //

      • Chooky 14.1.1
        18 April 2014 at 12:58 pm

        lol…well she is a pretty convincing hoaxer to us chooks…better get back to my Easter Eggs

      • Chooky 14.1.2
        18 April 2014 at 1:51 pm

        Biography for Dr Judy Wood…

        http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Wood_Bio.html

        • Chooky 14.1.2.1
          18 April 2014 at 7:27 pm

          More Easter Friday serious entertainment:

          ‘How to Disappear Completely – A Short Film on Dustification’

          This Dr Judy Wood is good! ( imo not a hoaxer )…no theories on chemtrails or HAARP…just observations from a structural engineer

          ….for Woods the empirical evidence comes before any theory as to ‘who’ did it… or ‘why’ …or ‘how’…just phenomenological observations …and all the more gripping for this

    • Murray Olsen 14.2
      19 April 2014 at 12:47 am

      It is not true. The only implications are concerned with how easily people will believe anything they see on the internet.

  15. captain hook 15
    18 April 2014 at 1:10 pm

    zone out in area “52” this easter.
    its the twilight zone for them.

  16. Rogue Trooper 16
    18 April 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Well, the West are all up in arms over Putin’s annexations and troop deployments, “shades of a resuming cold war”; words like ‘combustible’ with ‘world-wide’ implications being slung about, with six cities in the heavily industrial east of Ukraine experiencing disorder, while 35-40,000 Russian troops rest across the border, with military jet support. The narrative from Kiev describing ‘terrorism’; Kosovo anybody? and calls for further squeezing of Putin’s wealthy friends.

    The genie is out of the lamp with the US deploying its Laser Weapon System, 40M to develop from earlier technology and a cost of $1 US dollar per ’round'(the platform and power technology remain expensive). Although the beam can be lowered in intensity to ‘non-lethal’, the scope for unintended consequences, war in space, hijacking through hacking… China wants to improve their space defense capabilities…’the history of foreign imposition is well-established in that nation’s psyche’.

    Returns from international dairy market auctions are at a 14 month low, down 20% in the last 10 weeks while WPC and infant formulas sourced from Fontera are still banned from China despite what Key did, or did not do, while visiting there. Maybe he should have sent Collins, oh, wait…

    16000 votes by text poll on Campbell Live return 84% support ‘Yes’ regarding the decriminalisation of cannabis in NZ

    The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists claim chronic staff shortages and under-funding ails our health sector.

    At least the Police brass concede the benefits of greater female representation in their senior ranks.

    Globally, urban drift continues at a rapid pace; 2-4B more people will fill cities that have not been built yet! YET Nick Smith suggested on Te Newz that “affordable” housing for NZ is likely to be 20 years away!

    According to the released IPCC 5th Assessment Mitigation of Climate Change Report, compiled by over 1000 scientists, greenhouse emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate. “Energy revolution requires major political change”.

    Hope is stronger than fear…(The Hunger Games). Take a little walk to the edge of town…

    -Woof

  17. Penny Bright 17
    18 April 2014 at 3:02 pm

    Hi folks – FYI

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/five-things-youve-missed-behind-scenes-john-banks-pre-trial-hearings-sf

    “Five things you’ve missed behind the scenes of the John Banks’ pre-trial hearings”

    My comment – (yet to be published):

    🙂 Well, I was one of the three people who made a complaint alleging electoral fraud against John Banks.

    Had the Police not failed to prosecute John Banks, this case would not have been taken to Court through Graham McCready’s private prosecution, with which I assisted.

    (I was the ‘process server’ who served the witness summonses which got Kim Dotcom, his lawyer, (former) bodyguard, and the CEO of Sky City into Court).

    PS: I’m usually VERY well-behaved if my LAWFUL rights to freedom of expression are respected, and Auckland Council ‘Standing Orders’ (based upon the underpinning Local Government Official Information and MEETINGS Act 1987) are followed in a proper way.

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    (PPS: I, like Graham McCready have receive no public monies for the public interest work I choose do, as a self-funded ‘anti-corruption/anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’.

    Have a GREAT Easter! 🙂

    • greywarbler 17.1
      18 April 2014 at 3:53 pm

      Penny
      Your slogan ‘ I Try Harder.’ You are living up to it. Have a great Easter and I hope a bit of fun away from stressful politicing.

  19. Rogue Trooper 19
    18 April 2014 at 4:54 pm

    from The Good Doctor’s notes- 22 : 24, A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was to be considered the greatest. Jesus said to them,” The Kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that.
    Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest and the one who rules, like the one who serves.

  20. joe90 20
    18 April 2014 at 6:20 pm

    Meanwhile….

    The world’s 200 richest people added $24.9b billion yesterday. Prince Alwaleed gained $873m. http://ow.ly/vSq7F

    https://twitter.com/BBGBillionaires/statuses/456689799017938944

  21. amirite 21
    18 April 2014 at 6:23 pm

    And here’s ladies and gentlemen, the expose of NZ’s so called rock-star economy – it’s a total fake.
    Here are the 12 reasons why New Zealand’s economic bubble will end up in disaster:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/04/17/12-reasons-why-new-zealands-economic-bubble-will-end-in-disaster/

    More detailed analysis soon, from the same author.

    • Paul 21.1
      18 April 2014 at 6:45 pm

      In that article there is a link to this NBR article.

      http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-third-most-over-valued-housing-market-world-deutsche-bank-149973

      The following paragraphs are particularly interesting.

      ” New research by Deutsche Bank finds NZ is the third-most over-valued country for housing in the world – at least in terms of of the home price-to-rent ratio’s percentage above its historic average.

      Wall Street Journal analysis of the Deutsche Bank study notes Canada – the most overvalued market – is “very open to foreign investors” at a time of unprecedented global liquidity.

      By contrast, Japan – the most undervalued market – is the most closed to foreign investment.”

      Simple housing policy for left wing parties.
      Copy Japan….close housing to foreign investment.

    • Draco T Bastard 21.2
      18 April 2014 at 8:45 pm

      SNAP!!!

  22. Chooky 22
    18 April 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Happy Easter Philip Ure and Xstasy!

  23. Philj 23
    18 April 2014 at 7:47 pm

    xox
    Hey Chook,
    Dr Judy Wood is an amazing person. Her view is provocative and threatening to world order.

    • Chooky 23.1
      19 April 2014 at 8:32 am

      …thanx Philj….glad someone found it interesting!….i was riveted….she makes structural engineering interesting!

  24. Draco T Bastard 24
    18 April 2014 at 8:37 pm

    Why free market will not fix problems with teachers and teaching

    The context in which these measures have been proposed includes Australia’s declining performance on international measures of student achievement and the seemingly intractable achievement gap. In addition to this focus on teacher quality there are powerful new developments emerging in Australia. These have largely been copied from Britain and the USA, despite a lack of supporting evidence, something that epitomises the Australian approach to educational innovation where we have a tendency to copy the worst of both worlds.

    Sounds remarkably like what this government is doing to our education system – ruining it in the name of ideology.

  25. joe90 25
    18 April 2014 at 8:46 pm

    All the world’s happy.

    http://www.wearehappyfrom.com/

Links to post