Open mike 18/10/2010

38 comments on “Open mike 18/10/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Zorr 1

   18 October 2010 at 8:23 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4242625/Worker-deficit-a-health-threat

   Apparently the NACToids have finally woken up to the fact that if you run public services in to the ground you get…. well…. this! But of course their answer is the same. Deregulate the services by allowing untrained unprofessional workers in to the sector.

   I am very curious as to whether the estimates include expected losses due to burnout/breakdowns as the stress of the work gets to the health professionals left.
   • millsy 1.1

     18 October 2010 at 10:38 am

     I suppose we could get some nurses from Britain when Osborne cuts up their NHS like a kiwi dad cuts up a hot sunday roast:

     http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/17/nhs-cuts-spending

     There is going to be major carnage up there this week, everything cuttable will be cut, a massacre that makes Margaret Thatcher look like Micheal Foot.

     I hope the baubles were worth it for Messers Clegg, Alexander and Cable.
   • KJT 1.2

     18 October 2010 at 1:04 pm

     No different from most professions in NZ that required skilled workers.
     They have left for countries that have not transferred their wages to paper shufflers and money jugglers.

     When NACT has removed the social wage, such as cheap schooling and freedom from crime, which is now the only reason we get immigrants, that source will dry up too.
   • BLiP 1.3

     18 October 2010 at 1:44 pm

     The degradation of the public service is Stage One in the privatisation process. Watch as bits and pieces are sliced off vote health and distributed to private suppliers – including whanau ora.
   • Fisiani 1.4

     18 October 2010 at 10:26 pm

     Great news on the recovery
     http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/lowest+inflation+six+years+good+families
     Go on read it then leave the dark side of the force and come to the light
     • Colonial Viper 1.4.1

       18 October 2010 at 10:36 pm

       Apparently low inflation calculated before the GST increase is going to help heavily indebted low and middle income families who completely missed out on the benefits of National’s wealthy targeted tax cuts. Not.

       Interesting how far down the barrel the Righties are having to scrape for ‘good news’ these days.

       Even more impressive was English was trying to say that NZ’ers spending less was good for the economy. Yes I am sure that all the main street retailers and small businesses would agree. Not.
     • lprent 1.4.2

       19 October 2010 at 12:25 am

       F: Isn’t it absolutely amazing what a recession will do to the inflation rates.

       Just think on how much inflation would go down to if Bill English can figure out a way to get us into a full-scale depression… Many economies are currently effectively in a deflationary state and not enjoying it. In much the same way that we didn’t enjoy the depression in the 1930’s

       Either learn some basic economics. If you think you understand the basics (and your statement above puts you more in the idiots of PR than being intelligent), then please don’t bother to jerk off in public. I find it a bit disgusting…
       • Draco T Bastard 1.4.2.1

         19 October 2010 at 1:19 am

         ust think on how much inflation would go down to if Bill English can figure out a way to get us into a full-scale depression…

         I’m pretty sure he’s working on it and that Fisiani will crow about how great it is when it’s achieved.

         Either learn some basic economics.

         Fisiani, like most people on the right, have NFI how the economy works.
2. Bored 2

   18 October 2010 at 9:51 am

   Walking to work I listened for the first time in many years to Morning Report…what a dogs breakfast. Its the only serious “news” on air and it is quite frankly absolute bollocks, featuring time serving opinionated hacks.

   The interview feature was Goff and Geoff (Robinson?) That too turned out to feature two very lightweights, Geoff attacking Goff for a U turn on farm ownership, and the same Geoff presenting questions based upon the assumption that foreign ownership was fine and dandy. One had to question whether Geoff was an ideologue of the right OR had no overall perspective (both I suggest are concurrently plausible).

   Goff’s reply was characteristically wimpish, it seemed to me he does not know how to get his point across (or perhaps did not want to represent a U turn on policy that he may not believe in). Geoff’s biased question was met with an attempted and weak justification of the new position. He might rather have delivered a pointed rebuff of the “biased” position focusing on its comparative deficiencies.

   I turned off at that point. For Labour the anti foreign ownership policy is a winner, watch the polls. Pity that the message is so weakly delivered.
3. randal 3

   18 October 2010 at 12:05 pm

   listened to MattMccarten on the radio saturday morning.
   he said the left should buy some media.
   doh.
   yes indeedy.
   a line of sight micropulse fm station can be acquired for less than $4 grand.
   there should be one in every city or is that too much for the dinosaurs in the party ot contemplate?
   • Bored 3.1

     18 October 2010 at 3:21 pm

     Here in Wellington we have Radio 107.5 FM (Not Easy Listening) and 106.9FM (Radio Brooklyn) where you can hear a lot of alternative political and ecological programs. They prove your point, wat they lack is local content, it is mainly international.
   • Cnr Joe 3.2

     18 October 2010 at 9:10 pm

     sorry, and then what?
     $4000 buys content?
     i listened to the interview, in context- the american he was talking about (a scion of some privileged wealth but socialist ) made so much sense….
4. the pink postman 4

   18 October 2010 at 3:40 pm

   The Greens are playing a dangerous game when they publicly criticize
   the Labour Party . Russell Norman seems to use TV interviews to slam Labour. This is an idiotic move.If the Greens want a cabinet seat then its only under Labour that it can happen. Of course Labour and the Greens have differences but these need to be kept out of the public arena. Just recently the Greens and Labour travelled the country investigating retirement homes .This is positive and shows co-operation the basis for
   both Parties ideology . The enemy is the political Right (ACTNAT) ) lets attack them not each other ..
   • jimmy 4.1

     18 October 2010 at 4:06 pm

     So much for robust debate when your not even allowed to criticize another party’s policies? Labour are cut and pasteing Green policy at the moment so its not supprising that the Greens want to differentiate themselves and use the opportunity to publicise that they have been going on about stuff like foreign ownership for years (even before the Chinese came to party at NZ Inc.) and have fully worked out policies ready to go.
   • Pascal's bookie 4.2

     18 October 2010 at 4:09 pm

     If Labour have a tanty and refuse to do a deal with the greens because the greens campaigned against them from the left, with the result being a more centrist govt than need be, then it’s not the greens causing problems for the left posty.

     Labour need to suck it up and get votes from National. Votes from Labour’s left that go to the greens mean a more left wing government is in Labour’s grasp, if they want one.
   • BLiP 4.3

     18 October 2010 at 4:12 pm

     EDIT: silly comment deleted.
   • Colonial Viper 4.4

     18 October 2010 at 4:19 pm

     The Greens have done relatively well in the polls for a while now. Lets see how they get on with a Labour which is also starting to step forwards again. Circle the wagons and fire *Rightwards* please, not inwards.
5. BLiP 5

   18 October 2010 at 4:10 pm

   Officer Bubbles of viral YouTube video fame is continuing to court “The Streisland Effect” taking a court case to compel the Google-owned Youtube to reveal the identity of the person who posted subsequent videos and one particular commentator who allegedly made defamatory comments.

   Constable Adam Josephs hasn’t made things any easier for himself. On his Facebook page he describes his occupation as “collecting human trash”. Wattaguy!!

   CDC News Toronto

   Toronto Globe and Mail

   Winnipeg Free Press

   The Digital Journal

   Yahoo News

   Nine News Australia

   . . . nothing from our tragic MSM as yet.
6. ZeeBop 6

   18 October 2010 at 4:16 pm

   Looking for a answer, its right in front of you!!!!

   Government tailors policy to suit their backers.

   If you want good seafood and affordable prices then you need to listen up!

   If you set the balancing point of the legislative mix to put great seafood onto
   London, Paris, Peking plates then you shouldn’t be all surprised that the same
   policies harm local seafood price and quality!

   Because its simple, if you elect speculators to write legislation they will write
   the laws to shift the balance to the foreign buyers and away from the local buyers
   because that’s how they make their money. Then the speculators will shut down
   the public debate so the status quo remains.

   The Labour party also has backers, they are called unionists, they want workers
   to have a few more trinkets, the trick is to make them sort time limited trinkets so
   that unionists can come back to the table and fight again to get them off the
   evil bosses.

   So which party in parliament wants to maximize the harvest of sea food and
   also help keep the sea food here in NZ. Who? The Greens. And how do the
   Green political middle men make their cut, well they want a greener world for
   their kids, they want sustainablity and healthy living practices for their people,
   and they never seem to get any power so we don’t really know if they really
   are just there to help keep Labour and National agendas around (i.e. look
   the greens have that covered), or they just haven’t yet sold us on why they
   want what their base also wants, better outcomes for the planet.

   Personally I’m sold, sometimes the politician does have a vested interest
   that cannot be seperated out because it doesn’t have a monetry value.
   And maybe that’s the problem of green politics it need to have a monetry
   value for the middle men politicians and jounralists to make a living
   distorting the political arena to support.

   To save the planet you need to agree to destroy it. 😉 OR better just vote Green
   in the first place.
   • nzfp 6.1

     18 October 2010 at 5:12 pm

     OR better just vote Green

     Oh, is the Green party the only party interested in environmental sustainability?

     How does the Green party plan to implement environmental reforms without fundamental changes to the economic paradigm?

     The economic system drives the behaviour. If you don’t change the system, you won’t change the behaviour.

     Captcha:again – because this point needs to be made again and again… attacking the Greens from the Left.

     edit: Don’t get me wrong – I like the Greens – but they really need an economic platform before they can implement their environmental reforms.
     • ZeeBop 6.1.1

       18 October 2010 at 6:45 pm

       I disagree, if we don’t have the answer we will never elect the Greens to find it.

       The actuality of any parties policies into legislation is via a number of drafts via
       input from stakeholders and interested parties. So if we don’t have the debate then
       how can we even get to a first draft.

       So I say give Greens the go and then start wailing.

       The debate has started, a unemployed benefitiary wins an art grant and declares
       that the wealth held by government is collective wealth, not as the right and left
       declare it, as tax payers (although technically we all pay tax).

       The ideas and solutions are out there, its the voters who need to vote Green.
       • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

         18 October 2010 at 7:16 pm

         I see a Green activist who is choosing to make Labour the enemy and who doesn’t have the chops to go after the Government in power which is taking the country to ruin – economic, social and environmental.
         • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1.1

           18 October 2010 at 8:22 pm

           Viper.

           Straight up, I don’t see any point in Labour’s complaints about the Greens attacking them from the left.

           i) If voters switch from labour to Greens, they are still voting left.

           ii) If Labour steals votes from the Greens however we end up with a less left wing parliament.

           iii) Labour has a track record of sidelining the Greens in favour of centrist parties.

           iv) Parties are vehicles for policy.

           v) The Greens tend to be more leftwing than Labour.

           vi) Labour seeks centre left voters, and needs to win voters from National.

           vii) The best way to get a left wing government is, therefore, to have the greens in coalition with labour.

           viii) The Greens are not a centrist party and need to win voters from Labour.

           ix) To get a the most left wing possible government, the Greens need enough votes to force Labour into coalition with them. To do this they need to win votes off Labour by attacking them from the left.

           x) If Labour opposes this and throws a tantrum every time the greens criticise them, then left wing voters can assume that Labour really doesn’t want to go into coalition with the greens, and would rather get back in bed with Dunne and Peters.

           This may be true. But if it is true, then why should left wing voters, who I assume want a left wing government, vote for Labour?

           Also, having the Greens attack labour from the left, makes labour look centrist, (cf ACT/National) and can help Labour win swing voters. But that’s up to Labour playing the cards right.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             18 October 2010 at 8:34 pm

             Solid points but I have the following reservations: as long as the strategy doesn’t give NATs room to drive in wedges and tactics which will benefit itself, we don’t get mutually distracted from laying fire down on NACT, and our people on the ground remember that for operational purposes we should be on the same side when canvassing and campaigning in all National held seats
             • Pascal's bookie …

               18 October 2010 at 9:21 pm

               Fair enough, when that MOU came out I was ragging on the greens for trying to be too centrist…
         • ZeeBop 6.1.1.1.2

           18 October 2010 at 10:57 pm

           I vote Green yes. I also vote in the constiuency seat, at the moment that’s Labour but you might be able to convince me otherwise. Let’s consider it since you brought it up. If I vote Green, the same number of
           MPs are given to the Green party because its proportional, but wait! I also get to choose either a Labour
           or National local member, or maybe the looney party, it doesn’t matter. Or does it? Well unless National
           get some advantage by a lot of Labour voters who vote Green. It would depend on how many of the list MPs National and Labour get each. So what did you just do? Oh, yeah, got me thinking that voting Labour doesn’t matter as much to me. cheers. Hey lucky I think the local National candidate is an idiot.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.2.1

             18 October 2010 at 11:05 pm

             Ok so you are the kind of individual who thinks that its really funny and smart to talk trash to piss off your mates.
7. Anne 7

   18 October 2010 at 8:48 pm

   Hey Pascal’s bookie… one individual making a complaint about the Greens does not constitute a ‘Labour complaint about the Greens’. Actually, I have yet to meet a Labour member who doesn’t want to see a Labour/Green Coalition govt. But it will depend on what cards the voters deal whether there has to be any further political party inclusion in such a coalition.
   • Pascal's bookie 7.1

     18 October 2010 at 9:26 pm

     Yep, all I’m saying is that Labour activists shouldn’t be too concerned about losing votes to the Greens, those votes aren’t realistically going to end up in coalition with the Nats.
   • lprent 7.2

     18 October 2010 at 10:14 pm

     Yep, the greens have to get the MP’s in parliament to make a coalition possible. I am pretty sure that if the numbers were possible for a straight labour-green coalition, then it is unlikely that there’d be too much opposition from labour people. However, if a centrist party’s votes are also needed to get support as well, then I’m sure that that coalition don’t form. The greens have to translate their polling support into actual votes on the day. Not something that they have been very effective at.
   • the pink postman 7.3

     19 October 2010 at 2:34 pm

     Exactly ,and that was my point. I was not faulting the Green policy ,or suggesting that the Greens are our enemies . Just the opposite I yearn for a Labour/Green government ,it would be ideal. However as I have pointed out above this cannot be achieved f we fault each other. Lets leave the differences to private discussion. Lets both attack the real enemy the bloody Tories.
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       19 October 2010 at 2:50 pm

       Hear hear. Circle the wagons and fire *Rightwards*.
8. Armchair Critic 8

   18 October 2010 at 10:04 pm

   Nice post over at Imperator Fish. National have strangled the economy to a standstill and are claiming it as a success.
   How much weirder can National possibly get?
   anti-spam – inability. National are awash with it.
9. ianmac 9

   18 October 2010 at 11:23 pm

   Yes AC, and I thought that it was a bit odd that Mr Key was a bit odd claiming with deep sincerity that the Nacts had lowered inflation to about zero. Well done that man! And if inflation rockets upwards as predicted, will he then say that Nact has done very well to get inflation rising again? I am.
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     18 October 2010 at 11:32 pm

     Hate to say it but I think that keeping on the high side of our inflation target might be a bloody good precautionary thing to do at the moment. Nothing frags a country swimming in debt faster than a deflationary depression.
     • KJT 9.1.1

       19 October 2010 at 9:38 am

       Inflation is good. Transfers money from capital owners to wage earners. Provided wages are not kept artificially below inflation.
       Natural response to over valued currency, lots of loan money available and artificially high prices. Part of the problem is things have not been allowed to correct due to the stupid Reserve bank act being kept long past its use by date.
       • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1

         19 October 2010 at 2:52 pm

         And that devaluing of capital – and debt owned as assets – is exactly why every Right Winger neocon wealth owner goes on about the need to control inflation as close to 0% as possible.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 17 October 2010 at 4:57 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS