Open mike 18/09/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 18th, 2015 - 71 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

71 comments on “Open mike 18/09/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    18 September 2015 at 6:31 am

    Just think, with Lochinver Station not sold to foreigners it may now become affordable for New Zealanders to purchase. We will no longer have to compete with the millions and billions of millionaires and billionaires in Europe, Asia, North America and, well the whole world….. all of whom have made zero contribution to our society. They just steam in and whip it out from under us. Wankers.

    but yep, how many millions have just been wiped off Lochinver’s “value”. A “value” we should remember that is artificially and vastly inappropriately marked up due to the presence of foreign buyers.

    Remove all foreign buyers from NZ and our land values will drop back significantly, meaning none of us will have to take on as much to debt to get into farming, and we will have more money in our back pockets at the end of each working day. Wouldn’t that be something……. seems so simple .. I should let John Key know – he seems oblivious

    • Paul 1.1
      18 September 2015 at 6:57 am

      John Key is part of the international bankster cartel.

      • vto 1.1.1
        18 September 2015 at 7:32 am

        Yep, and banksters make money out of selling “money products” like debt.

        The more debt for NZ the better it is for banks

        Quite why the media listens to bank economists I have no idea – they are the most heavily conflicted economists in the economy with completely and utterly vested interests. As such bank economists views must discounted to zip.

        • aerobubble 1.1.1.1
          18 September 2015 at 10:05 am

          Oh its much worse than that. When we do business with indebted people, companies, countries, we have to pay more since they need to cover their interest on their debt. When we become indebted, we all have to pay each other more and charge more. Now get this, the Green party are the real free traders, not the neolibs, the neolibs are big government types who won’t put a value on pollution, note they use the power of the state to support big industry, big militra, big pharm, big agro, from paying a real cost , so the free market never is price correctly. Greens are even pro-migration, why would yo holdup a population in any region to destroy it ecology,when there as much less impact on ecology by pricing it the real cost and then letting people move, I.e a free market in peoole. Our whole world economy is rigged by government parties who load us all up with debt,force costs up, and then don’t value the most precious thing on the planet, global ecology that sustains us all.

          But wait its worse. In the sevenities neolibs took over claiming the wealth and growth inevitable from cheap high density liquid non-renewables was down to their policies that pillage the planet and create huge growth, not of infrastructure and better society, but of war, of debt growth, of capital stagnation. the neolibs then sat on their hands locking gifts to the will of private corporates because they don’t have to do anything, the free market will. Yet these supposed friends of the free market weren’t actual free marketeers, power can never lie in any one segment of society, it just becomes corrpt and distortionary. Aka honey bee colony collapse, plastic ocean islands, climate carbon extreme, wars, etc.

          The middle ages were a time when power lay with priests, this age, these last thirty years, power has been handed away into a void where any destruction, any acculuation of negatives is rewarded, and all good is regarded as ineffient waste.

    • Lanthanide 1.2
      18 September 2015 at 7:58 am

      No, it just won’t be sold to this particular group of Chinese, under this particular business plan. Another foreign company could still buy it.

      • vto 1.2.1
        18 September 2015 at 8:09 am

        Yes, I understand that, however I think you will notice a big ‘risk’ element being imposed on Lochinver (and other similar rural properties) by any new purchaser, thereby discounting its value.

        There is no doubt that this decision will raise red flags in the minds of foreigners looking at becoming absentee landlords.

        The price just went down

  2. The lost sheep 2
    18 September 2015 at 7:55 am

    First poll since Corbyn elected leader.
    Doesn’t show any evidence enthusiasm has spread beyond the hard Left yet.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/8-charts-that-reveal-what-people-think-about-jeremy-corbyn-on-the-issues-that-really-matter-10505992.html

    • Northsider 2.1
      18 September 2015 at 8:43 am

      Kevin McKenna: Jeremy Corbyn’s victory gives us a glimpse behind the mask of his opponents
      SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2015 – 12:13 AM KEVIN MCKENNA 15 COMMENTS
      THE favoured tactic of the right in this country has always been to label any left-wing views that cause them discomfort as “extremist”. The prefix “hard” is applied to ideas of the left which they fear could cause any ripples in their world of pre-arranged privilege and social management. Their entire political strategy rests on ensuring that the rest of us look the other way as they ensure that real power will always be deployed from within their tiny, privileged elite.

      Once, they were bred like battery hens and taken early from their families to spend what was left of their childhoods at places such as Eton and Harrow, learning how to wield power. Sentimental attachments to mummy and daddy could never be allowed to come before serving the state and their appointed place in it: at the top. They were scattered to the far ends of the British Empire to administer British control and to ensure that the fuzzy-wuzzies didn’t get too truculent about being ruthlessly robbed and exploited by the British East India Company.

      When the sun began to set on that empire they retreated to their fortresses at home to ensure that they could hold on to control of the UK at least. They deploy The British Armed Forces like their own personal private army by deluding them into thinking they are serving the Queen and their country. And they rely on the right-wing press to be their nightwatchmen, ever-ready to defame and besmirch any who might rise up from the masses and attempt to tell the truth.

      Occasionally, useful idiots like Tony Blair arrive to peddle some state-sponsored radicalism and soften up us, the idiot punters, for another stretch of reactionary Conservatism.

      So, it was pleasing to observe the shock of the Right at the election of Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday as leader of the UK Labour Party. How to explain the fact that more than 250,000 people, across every category of Labour supporter, voted for Corbyn – more than the other three candidates combined? They can’t all be raving Marxists and revolutionary Communists?

      The narrative of unpleasantness and vindictiveness has already been cranked up. Blairites like Peter Mandelson, who grew almost as rich as his master on the takings of the New Labour delusion, and David Blunkett are already talking about the death of the party. Tony Blair, pausing for a moment from his lucrative occupation of conning gullible eastern potentates into believing that they, too, can be global statesmen, said that Corbyn supporters had mental health issues.

      Even just the prospect of a Corbyn victory gave us a glimpse of what lay behind the mask of Blair and his wretched gang: careerism, acquiescence lies and corruption.

      Jeremy Corbyn had better get used to this, for it will become worse, far worse. When the miners looked like they were going to defeat Margaret Thatcher and the mine-owners, every division of the British state was mobilised to destroy them: the Metropolitan Police attacked and assaulted striking miners in the knowledge that the judiciary would all be taking holidays. Stella Rimington, head of MI5 deployed a double agent at the top of the NUM to gather intelligence on how best to destroy Scargill. In the end they settled for a lie, eagerly advanced by the press, that he had been filching funds from his own union.

      In last year’s referendum on Scottish independence the same divisions of the British state were deployed once more and useful idiots in the so-called left- wing press were also somehow persuaded to chip in. For of course this was never about preserving the Union, it was about maintaining

      Britain’s seat at the UN and not being seen to have lost a quarter of the kingdom on your watch.

      How can a party call itself “patriotic” when it cheerfully sends thousands of its young people to their deaths in illegal wars, ill-equipped and under-paid? And how many of us now believe we were far safer as a country before we started slaughtering Muslims in their own homes on the lie that they were harbouring weapons of mass destruction?

      IT’S not difficult to see why the UK right hates Corbyn. His avowed aim of withdrawing from the nuclear club will not make the UK more vulnerable, it will simply detach the UK’s face from America’s arse and free us from the delusion that we are a super-power.

      A Corbyn-led government will make the unions stronger in defending the lost rights of British workers, something that Blair and his useless crony Gordon Brown failed to do despite the safety net of a three-term stretch. It will also seek alternatives to making the most vulnerable in our society pay for the profligacy of the rich which led to the credit crisis. People don’t mind being asked to make sacrifices if they believe that all other sections of society are being asked to as well.

      The lickspittles of the right, like Blair, Brown and Mandelson, will wail and gnash their teeth and insist that a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn can never regain power. They conveniently forget that whatever party they all thought they were representing in office between 1997 and 2010 it certainly wasn’t recognisably Labour. Yet these people today are reeling at the sheer volume of numbers of those who voted for Corbyn. He now has a bigger mandate than Blair ever had.

      If Corbyn can expose the lies that sit at the heart of Conservative ideology then he may indeed be set fair for government: we are not all in it together, we’re all in it for a few; we are not one of the most prosperous countries in the world, we are one of the most unequal; we are not spending billions to defend ourselves, we are a militaristic basket-case who would rather spend billions keeping weapons of mass destruction operational than some vital community services.

      And if Kezia Dugdale reads the signs of the times and resists the advice of those advisers who lost Scotland, she will suggest to Corbyn that the party drops its ridiculously hostile attitude to the idea of an independent Scotland. If so, then the Labour Party in Scotland can begin to entertain the notion of defeating the SNP.

      Copied from The National

      Btw. Mckenna has an irrational view of the SNP. He does not get it that the SNP is the authentic Labour Party in Scotland. McKenna has a very Labour centric view of things and is often myopic.

      • The lost sheep 2.1.1
        18 September 2015 at 9:15 am

        ” it was pleasing to observe the shock of the Right at the election of Jeremy Corbyn”
        The only shock being displayed on the Right is disbelief that Labour has abandoned the electoral middle ground. ‘Glee’ would be a more appropriate term for the current mood among the Tories?

        “How to explain the fact that more than 250,000 people, across every category of Labour supporter, voted for Corbyn – more than the other three candidates combined? They can’t all be raving Marxists and revolutionary Communists?”
        Well that’s the question that really matters.
        I think is fair to assume that the people who voted in Corbyn are current Leftist voters who were highly dissatisfied with the status quo in the U.K Labour Party?

        But is that the extent of it? Merely a schism emerging between the various shades of Left?
        Or the first signs of a widespread groundswell of support for societal change in a Leftist direction?
        If the latter turns out to be the case, the Right will be truly shocked, but the poll above won’t be causing them to lose any sleep at this point.

        There is a lot on the line here for both Left and Right. Fascinating stuff.

        • millsy 2.1.1.1
          18 September 2015 at 9:55 am

          “The only shock being displayed on the Right is disbelief that Labour has abandoned the electoral middle ground. ‘Glee’ would be a more appropriate term for the current mood among the Tories?”

          Paring the public sector back to Walpole era levels is not ‘centre ground’.

          The 18th and 19th century saw misery to a lot of people — it was more ‘Gangs of New York’ rather than ‘Wuthering Heights’

          • Puckish Rogue 2.1.1.1.1
            18 September 2015 at 10:48 am

            Got any proof of what you say?

            [Opinions are opinions are opinions. They only require agreement or disagreement. Get a grip!] – Bill

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              18 September 2015 at 11:37 am

              Dickens & Marx.

              Or were you meaning the Walpole comparison? Such things that you tories get your knickers in a twist about while clutching at straws…

              It might be an interesting phd thesis, actually – obviously social service expenditure was minimal, but military expenditure was quite high, and administration was all by hand. I’ve no idea which way it would come out in terms of different measures such as %GDP, per capita population in government service, etc.

              • lprent …
                18 September 2015 at 3:22 pm

                Military expenditure wasn’t particularly high relative to what passed for GDP during the period. It was just high relative to government revenue.

                Pretty damn hard to find out. The accounting standards of the period seemed to be designed to sequester revenues rather than to disclose it transparently.

          • northshoredoc 2.1.1.1.2
            18 September 2015 at 11:24 am

            “Paring the public sector back to Walpole era levels is not ‘centre ground’.

            The 18th and 19th century saw misery to a lot of people — it was more ‘Gangs of New York’ rather than ‘Wuthering Heights’”

            Millsy either support your assertions with a link or fuck off with your drivel.

            [The only person who’ll be ‘fucking off with their drivel’ is yourself. Millsy has quoted from a previous comment and offered a qualifying or additional opinion on top. You either agree or disagree. What you don’t get to do is harangue. As to PR, so to you. Get a grip.] – Bill

            • northshoredoc 2.1.1.1.2.1
              18 September 2015 at 1:34 pm

              Bill, Millsy’s comment is patently absurd as is your protection of it.

              To suggest the public sector/welfarism in 2015 is in any way comparable with that of Walpole’s area is twilight zone stuff.

              [lprent: You expressed YOUR complaint about it in a way that forced moderators to waste time looking at it, and then finding that you were being a stupid timewasting shithead. Why shouldn’t we feel irritated? It is your behaviour that is causing us extra and unwarranted work – not millsy. ]

              • Bill …
                18 September 2015 at 1:42 pm

                Aw fuck – asking someone to provide a link to back their opinion isn’t absurd!? Give me a break.

                • northshoredoc …
                  18 September 2015 at 2:07 pm

                  Not sure what your point is Bill ?

                  Millsy has made this comment twice at least now..

                  http://thestandard.org.nz/uk-cameron-loses-his-shit-new-members-flood-to-labour/#comment-1070250

                  Surely if one is making such claims there would be some kind of evidence to back it up or is everything here now just opinion ?

                  It’s like the moron Hooten saying that the poor now live a better life that Henry VIII – just an absolutely absurd and meaningless comparison.

                  [lprent: I’d agree. But both were more rhetorical than statements of fact.

                  As far as I can tell that was rhetorical and clearly was such. Surely anyone who knows british history is aware that Robert Walpole was in charge of the british treasury for a couple of decades from the 1721 (and widely credited with being the first PM). It was a period when there was effectively no government support for much. Also that he was rather notorious for not having accurate accounts by even 19th century standards.

                  But I can see how if you you were too lazy to look up Walpole, then you’d have a problem. But if you want to raise problems with his comment, then I would have been slamming him for not providing a link to Walpole. Many people won’t know who in the hell he was.

                  But coming to think of it being lazy and moaning about it in a way that I have to check is a problem. It means I waste time looking up whatever crap you want to be a pissant pain about expressing it in terms that I have to do as moderator, and then write a note about it.

                  Perhaps you should read the policy again about wasting moderator time. I am sure I reciprocate and find some time for ban in response if I get to do this again. In fact I will be extremely generous. ]

                  • Bill …
                    18 September 2015 at 3:08 pm

                    You’re trying my patience. Opinions are proffered. that’s the nature of this site. Those who disagree can debate. Attempting to shut people down through carping for evidence to substantiate an opinion is irksome bullshit and nonsense. If you don’t have the presence of mind to lay out a counter position, or if you can’t demonstrate or argue why an opinion is lacking, then don’t comment.

                    Since you’re kind of lacking in the upstairs department, let me offer a throw-away example.

                    John Key is a nice man.

                    Posit examples that would suggest otherwise if you wish. Or agree. But don’t attempt to shut people down by calling for proof on stuff that’s obviously just an opinion. – end –

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    18 September 2015 at 3:34 pm

                    It was a period when there was effectively no government support for much. Also that he was rather notorious for not having accurate accounts…

                    So the comparison with the National Party is apt, despite being somewhat of an exaggeration. Divisive, check. Defended charges of corruption by asserting that “they do it too”, check.

                    At least he wasn’t a warmonger.

                  • northshoredoc …
                    18 September 2015 at 3:57 pm

                    Thanks for that I’ve had a read of the policy.

                    🙄

        • Ed 2.1.1.2
          18 September 2015 at 9:58 am

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11514519

          Simplistic arguments sometimes miss the point. National is of course center-right – they are “centre” over important issues like the flag and gay marriage, they are “hard-right” over small thinks like economic policy – so “center-right” (american spelling deliberate) must be a reasonable description – right, TLS?

          • The lost sheep 2.1.1.2.1
            18 September 2015 at 11:26 am

            As i think you are implying, the degree of Right or Leftness of our major political Parties tends to vary policy by policy.
            NZ Labour and National are both Centrist Parties by any world standard I would have thought?

            By the way, the article by ex UK Labour MP Bryan Gould contains a fine example of that assumption Corbyn represents that groundswell of general change that the Left so wants to see….
            “His appeal to the voters is the best evidence so far that the “free-market” hegemony that has held us all – and not least Labour politicians – in thrall for so long is now on the wane.

            As discussed, if Corbyn is the ‘best evidence’ of a ‘wane’, then the other evidence coming through is not showing much support for that contention at this point.

    • millsy 2.2
      18 September 2015 at 9:41 am

      It’s still early days yet.

      However, Corbyn needs to just occupy the crease and build a decent innings. Its going to be hard on a green pitch and humid condition, with half your batting partners wanting to run you out, and Osborne/Cameron lobbing down unplayable deliveries, but Corbyn cannot afford any while swinging or crazy shots right now.

      He did a few wild swings in the first over, but he has settled down for the moment.

      Its going to be a fascinating match though.

    • swordfish 2.3
      18 September 2015 at 10:12 am

      Corbyn has certainly had a rocky first few days. The organisation of his leadership campaign is almost universally acknowledged to have been brilliant, the same can’t be said for his first week as leader.

      But given the shitstorm of smears and ridicule that he’s had to put up with on a daily basis from the British political and media establishment over the last 10 weeks, the real surprise in this YouGov Poll is that defence is the only issue where an absolute majority perceive him negatively. The numbers aint good, but they could have been a damn sight worse.

      The worry is that first impressions (created by this unprecedented shitstorm of media / elite abuse) will last. The Tories (and New Labour Grandees) have sought to shape and define his image early on and it could be hard to shift.

    • The Chairman 2.4
      18 September 2015 at 9:09 pm

      Lost sheep

      The poll relates to trust.

      Yet, his policies are very popular amongst the wider public. Therefore, the enthusiasm is there.

  3. Gangnam Style 3
    18 September 2015 at 8:30 am

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_Hon_Amy_Adams_Minister_of_Justice_Save_the_Dunedin_Courthouse/?ayQSgcb

    I know Amy Adams is hardly going to care about this but would be good to get the 3000 signatures none the less. Thank you. It’s a beautiful building if you don’t know it, Dunedin is lucky to have it still.

    • Bearded Git 3.1
      18 September 2015 at 10:01 am

      Signed. Couldn’t believe Amy Adams attitude to this-refusing to release details of the costings so the local council could check them.

      Not a vote winner for the philistine Nats. Labour and the Greens should commit to saving the courthouse.

  4. Gael 4
    18 September 2015 at 8:33 am

    So we received the national party “view seeking” full colour glossy mustve cost a fortune survey in the post this week…. asking what issues I care about and what my political affiliation is….yueech. In parliamentary service envelopes with freepost return post also on the taxpayer …. not fair they should at minimum pay for their own postage to do their greasy pre election poll research. Very icky getting personally addressed mail from nats asking you who you vote (“support”) for.. yuck.

  5. rhinocrates 5
    18 September 2015 at 8:44 am

    For all the right wingers in or associated with Labour (yes you Goff, Robertson, Mumblefuck, Pagani) disingenuously claiming that they have to pursue the mirage of “the centre”, research in the UK hows that Labour becomes more popular the further left it moves.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34278338?SThisFB

    Similar feedback here has shown support for Labour NZs left policies and in both cases it has been the toxic brand of the party or its leadership for incompetence and instability that has been the vote-loser.

    Why then are these people and their vanity allowed to undermine Labour’s chances when they have nothing positive and much that is negative to contribute?

    • swordfish 5.1
      18 September 2015 at 9:32 am

      Yep, I’ve been reading quite a lot of British Election Study research over recent weeks (as well as a whole lot of other UK poll data).

      Despite the never-ending flow of unmitigated bullshit emanating from the Blairites (including dear old Tony himself), the Brownites, the Tories and all of their little enablers in the media and academic establishment, the poll data does not suggest that UK voters are pro-Austerity or deeply enamoured of the Cameron Government’s economic performance.

      Rather, they have very little trust in the economic competence of the major figures associated with the last Blair and Brown Governments. Large majorities think the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition’s economic performance was poor or very poor, but overwhelming majorities think the pre-Corbyn Labour leadership was even worse, even less competent.

      Most of Corbyn’s policy proposals (as tentative and potentially flexible as many of them are), are entirely in tune with public opinion. Renationalising railways and utilities, rent controls, higher taxes for the super-wealthy, a mandatory living wage, cuts to tuition fees and so on. Immigration is the most obvious exception (and it’s an issue that has unusually high salience at the moment), but then precisely the same goes for the other 3 who stood as Labour Leadership candidates and for the respective PLP factions they represent. And indeed for the Tories. British public opinion is to the Left of the major parties on most issues but well to the Right of all the parties (except Ukip) on immigration and has been for quite some time.

      Jane Green generally de-emphasises the importance of precise ideological direction for voters’ decision-making and instead emphasises valence issues like general competence and, in particular, perceived economic competence. (Valence issues tend to become more important when major parties ideologically converge as they did during the Blair/Brown years).

      The evidence coming through at the moment in terms of the May 2015 Election loss downplays English voter wariness of a Labour government relying on the SNP as a factor. Instead, it points to 2 key problems – a very low regard for Ed Miliband’s potential competence as PM and an equally low regard for Labour’s economic competence.

      • The lost sheep 5.1.1
        18 September 2015 at 9:57 am

        2 key problems – a very low regard for Ed Miliband’s potential competence as PM and an equally low regard for Labour’s economic competence.

        Latest Poll YouGov (see link above) indicates these are problems Corbyn has inherited to a large extent.

        From what you have seen or heard about Jeremy Corbyn, do you think he will do well or badly….

        As leader of the Labour party?
        Very well 10
        Fairly well 20
        TOTAL WELL 30
        Fairly badly 20
        Very badly 28
        TOTAL BADLY 48
        Don’t know 23

        Managing the economy?
        Would trust a lot 7
        Would trust a fair amount 16
        TOTAL TRUST 23
        Would not trust very much 14
        Would not trust at all 36
        TOTAL NOT TRUST 50
        Don’t know enough about him to say 27

        • swordfish 5.1.1.1
          18 September 2015 at 10:22 am

          See my comment at 2.3

          Incidentally, the first Party Support Poll to come out suggests Labour has cut the Tory lead from 9 points to 6 (half the poll was conducted before the leadership win announced / half after, but all of it conducted at a time when Corbyn’s victory was universally assumed).

          • The lost sheep 5.1.1.1.1
            18 September 2015 at 11:04 am

            When you say ‘Labour had cut the lead from 9 to 6’, it should be pointed out that Labour support had only increased by 1%. Obviously the other 2 points the Tories had lost were not to Labour.

            But as you say, all of the polling was conducted during a time when Corbyn’s leadership was assumed.
            So it would be very hard to read a 1% increase as an indication that Corbyn’s politics were indicative of any kind of widespread support for his politics outside the current Left?

            • John Shears 5.1.1.1.1.1
              18 September 2015 at 11:21 am

              Yaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnn
              So over this UK/Corbyn/Labour rant.
              Thank goodness my forebears had the wit and courage to emigrate to New Zealand in the 19thC and leave behind Dickensian England.
              Good luck to Jeremy but what has he got to do with NZ politics? The Key to a better NZ is Key & his mates. IMHO

            • swordfish 5.1.1.1.1.2
              18 September 2015 at 11:55 am

              Yeah, but what you’re ignoring are the widespread claims from the British
              MSM / Blair-Brownites / Tories = that Corbyn’s leadership is going to be
              absolutely disastrous, that the Party’s support will plunge to the sub-20% zone.

              Early days, who knows how dire the relentless media shitstorm will become over the next few months and how effective it’ll be in shaping voter perceptions. But, at the moment, the negative connotations being ascribed to this latest ‘Attitudes to Corbyn’ YouGov poll are not being reflected in the latest Party Support ICM/Guardian Poll.

        • swordfish 5.1.1.2
          18 September 2015 at 11:34 am

          Here’s some interesting stats from the YouGov Poll, indicating potential inroads a Corbyn-led Labour Party could make into Lib Dem / Ukip support:

          Despite 10 weeks worth of intense attacks and smears on Corbyn (becoming noticeably worse over the last week), there are still supporters of other parties who hold positive views about him.
          Bearing in mind that there are plenty of people in the ‘Don’t know enough about him to answer the question’ category …… Here’s the Proportion of Lib Dem and Ukip supporters who:

          Are explicitly positive about Corbyn’s win as leader
          Lib Dem 32%, Ukip 19%

          Think he will do well as leader
          Lib Dem 37%, Ukip 19%

          Trust him to make the right decisions on govt spending / cuts
          Lib Dem 32%, Ukip 12%

          Trust him on NHS
          Lib Dem 51%, Ukip 29%

          Trust him on managing the economy
          Lib Dem 27%, Ukip 12%

          EU
          Lib Dem 32%, Ukip 13%

          Taxes
          Lib Dem 31%, Ukip 13%

          On most issues, only a minority of Lib Dem supporters say they Don’t trust Corbyn, while usually at least a third of Ukip voters either trust him or say they don’t know enough about him yet.

          Suggests a quarter to a third of Lib Dems are at least potentially up for grabs, certainly sympathetic, along with maybe 10-20% of Ukip voters (putting aside all those in the ‘Don’t Know enough about him yet’ category). This dovetails with polls conducted during the leadership campaign when you generally had around 20% or more of Ukip voters feeling genuinely positive about Corbyn.

          Along with the fairly consistent 4-7% of Tory voters who trust him on these various issues (rising to 19% on the NHS), that represents potentially 7 or 8 percentage points up for grabs, with the aim of holding on to Labour doubters.

          • swordfish 5.1.1.2.1
            18 September 2015 at 12:07 pm

            That’s putting aside, of course, the overwhelmingly positive attitudes that Green supporters (currently around 3-6% in the polls) have of a Corbyn-led Labour Party. There’s the potential for at least a third, maybe half, of the Green vote to move to Labour. Particularly, if an electoral accommodation is made.

            And, as always, under FPP, attitudes/public opinion in the key marginals are all that count, from a purely electoral viewpoint. That’s where they need to shift votes.

          • The lost sheep 5.1.1.2.2
            18 September 2015 at 12:16 pm

            Summing up then, Corbyn’s election to Labour Leadership does not appear to have had a significant immediate effect on the Parties overall electoral position, either for better or worse.

            • swordfish 5.1.1.2.2.1
              18 September 2015 at 12:27 pm

              Yep, that’s about the size of it. Although, very early days. Let’s see where the polls go over the next couple of months.

              I’d say, though, that the very fact that Labour’s support is holding up (and that their main opponents are down) is remarkable, given the 10 week onslaught of elite hysteria.

            • swordfish 5.1.1.2.2.2
              18 September 2015 at 12:56 pm

              Incidentally, a Survation Poll, conducted immediately after Corbyn’s win was announced, found that 6% of Tories, 20% of Ukip supporters, 23% of Lib Dems and 17% of 2015 Non-Voters say they are more likely to vote Labour at the next Election as a result of Corbyn’s leadership.

              • Grant …
                18 September 2015 at 1:01 pm

                Just a bit confused by that. I know next to nothing of UK politics, but aren’t UKIP supporters heavily anti-immigration? Isn’t Corbyn known to be heavily pro-immigration, especially for refugees? Why would 20% of UKIP’s seriously contemplate changing horses, or do you reckon they were just taking the piss?

                • Olwyn …
                  18 September 2015 at 1:20 pm

                  I would guess that a lot of UKIP voters are fed up to the gills with the professional political class, and also suspect that this class uses immigration to impose austerity on the locals, by cutting them out of jobs and houses. So someone who is not the darling of the political class and opposes austerity is attractive to them. They key feature, I think, is austerity and those who cheerfully impose it.

                • swordfish …
                  18 September 2015 at 2:13 pm

                  Pretty much what Olwyn says.

                  Objectively (though not necessarily subjectively), Ukip voters are very much like NZF voters here – essentially the socially-conservative Left (and disproportionately older, working class and male).

                  Polls over the last couple of years suggest they are:
                  – strongly anti-austerity
                  – highly-alienated from / dissatisfied with the political class
                  – almost as strongly supportive of public ownership/renationalisation as Labour and Green voters are
                  – believe the Torys do not govern with their best interests in mind
                  – believe (the pre-Corbyn) Labour Party no longer had the interests of ordinary people like them at heart

                  Polls also suggest that you can divide Ukip supporters into 3 groups in terms of their ideological self-placement / self-perceptions. The largest are the core supporters. Second largest are the Right-leaners, who vote Ukip while greatly preferring a Tory (to Labour) govt, with the smallest faction (roughly 20-25%) being those who subjectively see themselves as Left-leaners,
                  ie Ukippers naturally disposed to the Labour Party, more often than not being former supporters.

                  There’s no doubt though that Immigration is going to be a difficult hurdle for Corbyn (particularly given its increasing salience to voters. At the moment, you have close to 50% of British voters (an unprecedented number) ranking it as the most serious issue facing Britain today). As I suggested above, the UK electorate is to the Left of the major parties (pre-Corbyn) on most issues but well to the Right of all parties (except Ukip) on Immigration.

                  What Corbyn shouldn’t do (and I don’t think it’s in his character anyway) is the typical upper-middle class urban liberal, morally-superior finger-wagging (ie “racists, racists, racists !!!”, much in the same way that fundamentalist Christians chastise everybody else with “sinners, sinners, sinners !!!”). Needs to listen to their fears about job security and so on sympathetically.

                  Ukippers are also anti-EU. So, a Labour Party led by a Euro-sceptic like Corbyn could potentially be attractive.

  6. Lanthanide 6
    18 September 2015 at 8:45 am

    @ Lyn: Editing comments is *very* slow, and has been for a week or so now. It takes at least 45 seconds to 1 minute to load the edit window, it used to only take 1-3.

  7. ianmac 7
    18 September 2015 at 9:06 am

    Wow! Read Toby Manhire’s advice to the Australian PM.
    “What then can you learn from your cross-ditch human template?

    …..My first instinct is to say, ignore the performance of recent weeks. The craven and laggardly action to take extra refugees showed a distinct lack of moral leadership. Then there was the mealy-mouthed refusal to support Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill. The adolescent politicking around the flag shortlist.

    I’d say all this, coming after defeat in Northland, the fallout from Dirty Politics and scandals such as the Saudi sheep farrago, suggests that John Key’s honeymoon has come to an end.” …….

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11514702

  8. DH 8
    18 September 2015 at 9:57 am

    Bureaucracy out of control…..

    City defends $63m staff blowout
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11514748

    Wages bill $792 million
    FTE staff 9678
    Average wage $81,835

    Last year the average wage was $76,979, that’s a 6.3% increase

    Porkers…..

  9. Morrissey 9
    18 September 2015 at 9:59 am

    “These prisoners and their personal privacy—to HELL with it!”
    How long will it be till Hillary Barry and Jim Kayes walk?
    PAUL HENRY, TV3, Friday 18 September 2015

    depraved adj. 1. morally bad or debased; corrupt

    Straight after the 7 o’clock news, Henry embarks on a savage rant: “Rihannon-basher Chris Brown—why would we let him into this country?” This is especially ironic in light of the guest he has lined up for later that hour: the gruesome S.S. Obergruppenführer Garth “The Knife” McVicar, who is the most shameless exponent of extreme violence in this country. [1]

    7:29 a.m. I tune in just in time to catch the last five seconds of Phil “Goofy” Goff, who is also denouncing Chris Brown. Fellow guest commentator Judith “Crusher” Collins nods her head approvingly and smiles in that supercilious way of hers.

    After the 7:30 news, there is a particularly lame segment, where a number of children are asked their views about the “Hakarena” parody. My niece (13 years old) says: “They’re trying to be like Jono and Ben!” My nephew (10) says: “This is not funny.”

    At 7:45 a.m. it’s time to ramp up the outrage even more. As well as the calamitous prospect of Chris Brown coming to New Zealand, there have been revelations that a number of prisoners have breached their parole conditions and are on the loose. No better person to interview, then, than the S.S. Obergruppenführer. Or to be more precise, to let him wax philosophical….

    GARTH MCVICAR: ….Absolute débâcle. … Parole is a con, a sham… We have a criminial-centred system in this country, the victim is always a secondary consideration. … The system is always concerned about the offender, to ensure that THEIR rights aren’t breached. …Publlc safety has got too be of paramount consideration. ….[he continues talking like this for another minute or so]….

    PAUL HENRY: [clucks tongue to indicate how impressed he is] There’s no reason to talk about this any longer. You’re absolutely right, Garth. Have a good weekend.

    Then he turns and shouts at his hapless slaves, Hillary Barry and Jim Kayes, who sit glumly silent across from Henry, looking half bewildered and half disgusted…

    HENRY: He’s RIGHT isn’t he! These prisoners and their personal privacy—to HELL with it!

    Hillary and Jim maintain an awkward silence. Henry gives up on them….

    HENRY: Perlina, what are people saying about this?

    PERLINA LAU: Eighty-five per cent of people in our survey say that Chris Brown should NOT be allowed in.

    HENRY: Eighty-five per cent? That means fifteen per cent think he SHOULD be allowed in! We don’t need him! He’s just a BASTARD, a nasty BASTARD! The British in 2010 said “Nuh!” and the Canadians said “Nuh!” We don’t need him!

    Hillary and Jim sit there, glum and silent.

    ….ad nauseam….

    [1] http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13072014/#comment-848129

  10. maui 10
    18 September 2015 at 11:28 am

    Harvard Law Professor picks apart the US case against Kim Dotcom.
    https://torrentfreak.com/presidential-candidate-lawrence-lessig-steps-up-to-assist-kim-dotcom-150916/

    In summary, Lessig says that the DoJ has failed to prove a case of direct civil copyright infringement or of criminal copyright infringement. Neither has it proven a case of criminal conspiracy or wire fraud. Overall, Lessig believes that the DoJ case is so weak that extradition for Dotcom et al will not be possible.

    “It is my opinion that the Superseding Indictment and Record of the Case filed by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) do not meet the requirements necessary to support a prima facie case that would be recognized by United States federal law and subject to the US – NZ Extradition Treaty,” Lessig writes.

    “Insofar as they are alleged in the Superceding Indictment and the [Record of the Case], respondents’ actions were not prohibited by criminal statutes of the United States. Filings of the DOJ attempt to create a false impression of criminal guilt and are not reliable.”

    • Bill 10.1
      18 September 2015 at 11:47 am

      Google Richard O’Dwyer and TVShack. Pretty sure there are parallels worth exploring. I believe the UK, unlike their craven NZ counterparts, told the US to ‘go take a leap’.

      There were other very similar cases too, but I can’t remember names or such-like.

      Somewhere there is a free streaming documentary looking at how the porn industry was trying to shut down ‘free’ sites and what not. The basic thrust of part of the docu was that it was exploring possible legal arguments/strategies that could then be used by major studios against the likes of (the then unknown) O’Dwyer and Dotcom.

  12. xanthe 12
    18 September 2015 at 1:33 pm

    When kim sues us for 15 gazillion dollars for the misconduct of our Attourney General and police is there a simmilar “undertaking of liability” under which we can recover these funds from the u s of a. Its looking quite likely now

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    18 September 2015 at 1:56 pm

    NRT: Incompetence or fraud?

    Ten days ago the serious Fraud Office announced that it was investigating Taratahi Agricultural Training Centre over a potential $8.6 million fraud. The training centre falsely enrolled tutors as students and delivered fewer courses than it was funded for in order to get more funding. Yesterday, it emerged in the House that National MP Barbara Kuriger was on the board while that fraud was committed:

    Electorate as well so if she ends up going to jail there’ll be a by-election.

    IMO, if the fraud is proven then the board should be going to jail.

  14. infused 14
    18 September 2015 at 4:01 pm

    lpent you need to upgrade your potato.

    • McFlock 15.1
      18 September 2015 at 4:45 pm

      It’s a theory.

      But then who knows what stupidity lurks in the hearts of morons. I know of an incident where someone walked around using R/T and cellphone while carrying and showing people the (intentionally) suspicious device they’d found.

      And then another time when the hazmat team had to fully deploy because someone thought a bulk-bin bag of flour was a “suspicious white powder” sitting in the gutter. Someone went without pancakes that day.

      • dv 15.1.1
        18 September 2015 at 5:18 pm

        BUT was the bag of flour arrested Mac?

        • Naturesong 15.1.1.1
          18 September 2015 at 5:32 pm

          Depends on whether the flour was white or brown ….

          just sayin’ 😉

        • McFlock 15.1.1.2
          18 September 2015 at 7:30 pm

          everyone who approached it had a nice shower.

          Although to be fair I reckon the emergency services figured it for what it was pretty quickly after responding to the call from the paranoid member of the public, but used it more as a decent training opportunity rather than a germ warfare attack.

      • weka 15.1.2
        18 September 2015 at 6:14 pm

        “It’s a theory.”

        Here’s another one. The science teacher could tell that there were no explosive bits, but still thought the clock could be part of a bomb. The stupid is in the culture of paranoia.

        • McFlock 15.1.2.1
          18 September 2015 at 7:47 pm

          Another possility, yes.

          The engineering teacher intrigues me – I suspect that the warning not to show the clock to other teachers was made in the full knowledge that some of those teachers were paranoid bigots who would cause exactly this situation.

          Such a fucking stupid situation.

      • Bill 15.1.3
        18 September 2015 at 6:44 pm

        Dunno if that’s so much a theory as a logical demolition job of the ‘official line’.

        If the various actions and inactions are accurate, then yeah – they didn’t think he had a bomb.

        • McFlock 15.1.3.1
          18 September 2015 at 8:04 pm

          If everyone was acting rationally and intelligently.

          I suspect the English teacher is a confirmed bigot and moron who should lose her job.

          The cops could be morons with things that might go bang, they could have suspected it was part of a device he was constructing, they could have been humouring a noisy paranoid teacher simply because it was easier for the cops, or they could have had the goal of ‘humilitating a little Muslim, African boy’.

          Any of those could be the case, and now everyone’s in “bullshit to cover their arse” mode.

    • Bill 16.1
      18 September 2015 at 6:51 pm

      Only kinda sorta found guilty of contempt.

      Justice Asher did not find the instances of contempt to be deliberate and in all but one case described them as “minor but not so trivial as to warrant a finding of no contempt”.

      It was the publication of information from the settlement conference which he described as “more serious”, labelling it an “accidental contempt of court by Slater but one that was the result of significant carelessness”.

      Justice Asher said Slater had testified he had told his wife about details from the confidential conference and that she had published the article on the Whaleoil blog while he was on a plane to Europe.

      Just me reckoning ‘bollocks’? Not deliberate and/or a wee bit careless! Beggers belief…

      • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1
        18 September 2015 at 7:13 pm

        Yeah, I’d say that was bollocks. Slater’s has been saying for years that he’s going to publish information that had been closed down by court order.