Open Mike 19/01/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 19th, 2017 - 200 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

200 comments on “Open Mike 19/01/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Penny Bright 1
    18 January 2017 at 4:09 pm

    I wonder what policies Labour and the Greens will unveil to help counter corruption and promote genuine transparency in New Zealand?

    Will either Labour, or the Greens ( preferably both) pick up the ball and demand the proper implementation and enforcement of the Public Records Act 2005 (particularly s.17) regarding transparency and accountability in the spending of public monies on private consultants and contractors?

    Will either Labour, or the Greens, call for an end to the Neo-liberal / Rogernomic$ model of private procurement for public services at central and local government level?

    Penny Bright

    Proven ‘anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner’.

    2017 Independent candidate Mt Albert by-election.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • Sacha 1.1
      18 January 2017 at 6:24 pm

      For the benefit of other readers, the Public Records Act does not control the ‘transparency’ of public information, merely the collection and storage of it.

      • Penny Bright 1.1.1
        18 January 2017 at 9:33 pm

        How is a ‘public’ record ‘public’ Sacha – if it’s not readily accessible for public scrutiny?

        Studied the 226 page ‘Reasons For The Verdict of Fitzgerald J’?

        $1.1 million paid in bribes for ‘consultancy’ work that could not be substantiated with a single scrap of evidence.

        How many other ‘public officials’ simultaneously are ‘private consultants’?

        How widespread is THAT practice?

        Any view on that one Sacha?

        Penny Bright

        Proven ‘anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner’.

        2017 Independent candidate Mt Albert by-election.

        • Penny Bright 1.1.1.1
          18 January 2017 at 9:41 pm

          This is what I’m relying upon Sacha – for my considered opinion regarding the Public Records Act 2005 – what it says?

          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0040/latest/DLM345536.html

          3 Purposes of Act

          The purposes of this Act are—

          (a) to provide for the continuation of the repository of public archives called the National Archives with the name Archives New Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga); and

          (b) to provide for the role of the Chief Archivist in developing and supporting government recordkeeping, including making independent determinations on the disposal of public records and certain local authority archives; and

          (c) to enable the Government to be held accountable by—

          (i)ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central and local government are created and maintained; and

          (ii)providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records of long-term value; and

          (d)to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public records and local authority records; and

          (e) to provide an appropriate framework within which public offices and local authorities create and maintain public records and local authority records, as the case may be; and

          (f) through the systematic creation and preservation of public archives and local authority archives, to enhance the accessibility of records that are relevant to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand and to New Zealanders’ sense of their national identity; and

          (g) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as provided for by section 7; and

          (h) to support the safekeeping of private records.

          • Sacha 1.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 7:46 am

            The Public Records Act does not control the ‘accessibility’ of public information, merely the collection and storage of it. It contains only narrow exceptions for long-term archives, as referenced above, but not for shorter-term records such as the ones successfully used in the recent court case to convict corrupt people.

            • andrew murray 1.1.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2017 at 12:23 pm

              @Sacha 1.1 and 1.1.1.1

              I notice you have offered this described benefit a number of times following Penny’s comments on this matter.
              I can’t help thinking that such curt blunt comments aren’t so much intended to benefit other readers as they are intended to be snide..

              • Sacha …
                19 January 2017 at 12:35 pm

                Me and others have patiently explained these matters to Ms Bright many times. I do not have the energy to do more than make sure the record is straight in case any readers are mislead by the constant repetition of falsehoods.

                I am clear by now that she will not learn anything and I do not expect a personal reaction – hence my prefix. If I was being snide, it would not be subtle. 🙂

                • GregJ …
                  19 January 2017 at 10:52 pm

                  Perhaps it would be helpful if people actually read the Purpose of the Act.

                  The PRA mandates the Creation, Maintenance, Disposal (either destruction or transfer to Archives), and Preservation of Public Records..

                  One of the most important parts of the 2005 Act was that it required that the Government be held accountable by ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central and local government be created and maintained as well as providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records of long-term value.

                  Access to Public Records is contained in Part 3 of the Act but it should be noted this applies specifically to public records that have been in existence for 25 years or are about to be transferred to the control of the Chief Archivist. There is a crossover here between the PRA and the Official Information Act (as well as the Privacy Act). However Good Recordkeeping Practice is that agencies should determine Access on Records at the point of creation.

                  • GregJ …
                    19 January 2017 at 11:03 pm

                    I should add that Access to Public Records is decided by the Agency responsible for them. Access can and is changed. For example quite a few open Police Records had to be restricted once the Clean Slate legislation was passed (it was a bloody nightmare and a good example of unintended consequences and lack of consultation at the time).

                    The principle behind Access in the Act is that records should be Open unless there is a good reason to restrict access – this can encompass personal privacy, national security, commercial sensitivity or preservation status and a number of other reasons. The reason for restriction must be documented and subject to review. There are very few public records permanently restricted (adoption records used to be but I’m not sure if they still are) although some of the restrictions can last up to 100 years (usually to do with personal privacy – eg, health records).

  2. Andre 2
    19 January 2017 at 6:20 am

    The similarities between Trump and Stalin – lies, disregard of expertise and facts, mutual regard for authoritarian thugs.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/a_lesson_for_trump_from_stalin_lies_work_up_to_a_point.html

  3. HDCAFriendlyTroll 3
    19 January 2017 at 7:24 am

    Trump: Writing my inaugural address at the Winter White House, Mar-a-Lago, three weeks ago. Looking forward to Friday

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/821772494864580614

    Looking forward to it too Mr Trump! #MAGA.

  4. Paul 4
    19 January 2017 at 7:41 am

    How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor

    The city of Deir Ezzor (Deir ez-Zur) in east-Syria is on the verge of falling into the hands of the Takfiris of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). More than 100,000 civilian inhabitants of Deir Ezzor and thousands of soldiers defending them are in immediate danger of being murdered by the savage ISIS forces. The current situation is a direct consequence of U.S. military action against the SAA and non-action against ISIS.

    Deir Ezzor is besieged by ISIS since September 2015. But the city was well defended by its garrison of Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and all further attacks by ISIS were repelled. Supply to the city was hauled in by air through the Deir Ezzor airport and through air drops by the Syrian and Russian airforces. Relief by ground forces and ground supplies are not possible as Deir Ezzor is more than 100 km away from the nearest SAA positions west of Palmyra and as the desert in between is under the control of ISIS.

    Four days ago a new attack by ISIS on Deir Ezzor was launched and has since continued. ISIS reinforcements and resupplies had come over months despite air interdiction from the Russian and Syrian airforces. Yesterday ISIS managed to cut off the airport, where the local SAA command and its main supplies are hosted, from the city proper. It is now attacking in full force from all sides. Bad weather makes air support from the outside sporadic and difficult. Unless some unforeseen happens it is only a question of time until the airport and the city fall to ISIS.

    The U.S. has condoned and/or even actively supported the imminent ISIS taking of Deir Ezzor by (at least) three measures:

    a massive U.S. air attack on SAA forces in September 2016 enabled ISIS to take a controlling position and to cut off SAA resupplies
    a U.S. attack against a power station in January disabled the last electricity supplies to the city
    U.S. non-intervention enabled ISIS reinforcements from Mosul and west Iraq to Deir Ezzor in east-Syria

    • Andre 4.1
      19 January 2017 at 9:34 am

      Paul, thank you for this. I went looking for corroboration, and didn’t find anything apart from the likes of RT, Sputnik etc. So I went looking for information about Moon of Alabama, and that was certainly entertaining. This one’s a good sampler: http://www.maryscullyreports.com/moon-of-alabama-the-dregs-of-assadist-propaganda/

      Gotta say though that the rest of what’s on Mary Scully Reports is an interesting collection of views. So thanks for provoking the search that led me to finding it.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        19 January 2017 at 11:04 am

        Much the same could be said of Coventry based Osama Suleiman who runs under the name “Syrian Observatory of Human Rights”.

        Except, for “some reason” he’s treated as an authority by western media reporting on Syria and to such an extent that his Coventry based operation forms the basis for much of their story telling.

        And in a similar but reversed situation, outside of the western media’s echo chamber, corroboration for Suleiman’s stuff is hard to come by.

        Meanwhile, independent journalists on the ground reporting from Syria have arrived at broadly similar conclusions to one another – which kind of indicates that what they are each independently saying is kind of close to the mark, if not completely on point.

        And do the BBC or other western outlets rush to get their hands on these first hand reports from within Syria? Well no. Of course not.

        Has a journalist from any major western news outlet gone to eastern Aleppo yet to bring back first hand accounts from all those people that they (the BBC and others) claimed were going to be raped and murdered by the Syrian Army?

        No. I wonder why not?

        But don’t you worry you’re pretty wee head there Andre. Keep up the good work of just mindlessly ‘piling on’ and attacking any and all who don’t reflect or amplify the western narrative. There’s a word or term for that type of fairly mindless (and somewhat dangerous) behaviour…

      • Bill 4.1.2
        19 January 2017 at 1:03 pm

        Here’s corroboration (slanted). The Guardian. The Nation.

        You want corroboration of some-ones analysis? Fuck sake, use your brain, think things through and then either agree or disagree with the analysis in part or in whole.

        But whatever, how’s about you drop this dog-shit crusade of just mindlessly denouncing people who are perhaps proposing ways of understanding things that don’t accord with your own received perceptions and understandings?

        • Andre 4.1.2.1
          19 January 2017 at 1:09 pm

          I don’t see how either of those articles supports the assertion that the “US enabled ISIS to take Deir Ezzor”.

          • Morrissey 4.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 1:13 pm

            Sarcasm is all you have to offer, but it’s not getting the job done, I’m afraid.

            I think I’ve counselled you to do this before, but I’ll have one more go:

            STOP POSTING NONSENSE AND START READING. SERIOUSLY.

            Is there a library near your house?

            Go there now.

          • Bill 4.1.2.1.2
            19 January 2017 at 1:36 pm

            The assertion the writer makes is their analysis.

            Seriously. You want to delve into their analysis to see if it stacks up/is reasonable/ is bunk…then you’re going to have to a fair bit of google searching on a number of related fronts.

            eg – find news reports about the power station near Deir Ezzor. Find info on the US appraisal of ISIL (I’ll help you with that one – Kerry’s recorded address to members of the Syrian diaspora – a strong ISIL = bargaining chip to oust Assad).
            Read various reports on the US bombing of Syrian army units.

            Think it all through. Join dots. Accept/reject given pieces of info according to how verifiable or believable they are – how credible or verifiable the principle sources are – or how the info fits/doesn’t fit with what is already known with a high degree of certainty.

            Filter it all through your ideological framework and see if it works or whether you have to shift your thinking.

            Or just decide that *this* is what you want to believe and mindlessly rage against anything that doesn’t accord with that belief.

    • Bill 4.2
      19 January 2017 at 11:12 am

      Hey Joe90. I noticed you removed that link to PropOrNot fairly quickly.

      This enthusiasm for ‘cleansing the airwaves’ as it were by just roundly condemning people and sources if what they are saying/reporting doesn’t fit with the official narrative – you have no problem with that?

  5. saveNZ 5
    19 January 2017 at 8:04 am

    ‘The swamp is Goldman Sachs’: how the bank is rewarded for putting profits over people

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/18/goldman-sachs-protests-new-york-trump-cabinet

  6. saveNZ 6
    19 January 2017 at 8:12 am

    Nigeria air strike: dozens dead as camp for internally displaced people hit by mistake

    MSF staff report at least 50 dead in airstrike on camp in Borno state where families made homeless by Boko Haram were sheltering

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/nigeria-military-jet-mistakenly-bombs-displaced-families-camp-boko-haram

  7. Paul 7
    19 January 2017 at 8:25 am

    Some news of more import than the daily clickbait provided by our McCarthyist comrades on this site.

    2016 hottest year ever recorded – and scientists say human activity to blame

    2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new high for the third year in a row, with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change.

    The final data for 2016 was released on Wednesday by the three key agencies – the UK Met Office and Nasa and Noaa in the US – and showed 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have been this century.

    Direct temperature measurements stretch back to 1880, but scientific research indicates the world was last this warm about 115,000 years ago and that the planet has not experienced such high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 4m years.

    In 2016, global warming delivered scorching temperatures around the world. The resulting extreme weather means the impacts of climate change on people are coming sooner and with more ferocity than expected, according to scientists.

    • James 7.1
      19 January 2017 at 8:53 am

      More important in your opinion you mean.

    • Psycho Milt 7.2
      19 January 2017 at 8:58 am

      …the daily clickbait provided by our McCarthyist comrades on this site.

      Says the guy who’s already posted four links by 9am….

      • Paul 7.2.1
        19 January 2017 at 9:15 am

        I have posted about the following:
        a. dangerous climate change statistics released from last year
        b. developments in the Syrian War
        c. a query about a new homelessness film
        d. a report about the failure of government to invest in R and D.

        I’ll leave that to readers to decide if it is clickbait.

    • Ad 7.3
      19 January 2017 at 9:14 am

      With Trump in power the world will not give a damn about climate change.
      FFS the Secretary of State ran Enron for over a decade.

      Paris 21 was the peak of globally unified concern, and will now quickly unwind other than in specific national efforts.

      With the US Secretary of Energy run by that nut job from Texas, expect to see their local fracking wells go full bore, and OPEC get the Iranian and Saudi wells going full speed ahead as prices pull out of the doldrums. And of course, Big Coal comes straight back right across the US power grid.

      This is President Trump’s era now.

      • Paul 7.3.1
        19 January 2017 at 9:22 am

        So that is not news?

        • Ad 7.3.1.1
          19 January 2017 at 9:36 am

          News to many Trump supporters here.

          • Andre 7.3.1.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 9:50 am

            It seems to be a surprise to the hard-lefties that this is what happens when they can’t swallow their disappointment that the candidate closest to their views isn’t good enough, so they enable the far-opposite to their views into power.

            • mauī 7.3.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2017 at 10:32 am

              I think you’re describing the centre lefty phenomenon.

            • Ad 7.3.1.1.1.2
              19 January 2017 at 10:36 am

              Indeed.

              With more real consequences to come.

            • Bill 7.3.1.1.1.3
              19 January 2017 at 11:18 am

              1. What is a “hard leftie”?
              2. How could anyone in NZ who isn’t a US citizen possibly or in any way whatsoever “enable the far-opposite to their views into power” in the US?

              • Andre …
                19 January 2017 at 11:37 am

                1: in the context of The Standard, a “hard-leftie” is anyone who thinks Labour and the Greens are both so far right they’re not worth voting for.
                2: I would hope that local hard-lefties would take the lesson from how Trump became prez-elect and instead of devoting their energies to tearing down Labour and Greens, would try to build something closer to their views. Particular since the barrier to representation under MMP is very low compared to other electoral systems.

                • Bill …
                  19 January 2017 at 12:27 pm

                  See, here’s the thing. The term ‘hard left’ (meaningless as it is) is piece of terminology used by the likes of Wayne Mapp and others to dismiss people and what they have to say.

                  Now I know you’re all up for denouncing people and what not. (But still.)

                  So anyone who reckons the Green Party and the Labour Party are too far to the right are ‘hard left’ are they? And what about anyone who reckons they’re centrist and throws a tick at a party advocating non-centrist policies? Those people ‘hard left’ too?

                  Actually. Isn’t it more accurate to say that anyone not ascribing to your fairly conventional/orthodox world view is (variously) a shill, ‘hard left’, an apologist, a bot…

                  And if that’s the case (and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable proposition given the content of a fair number of your comments), then isn’t it you yourself who are displaying the tendencies of a political puritan (assuming ‘hard’ refers to ideologically immutability)?

                  Seems to me that’s about where we’re at. Wha’d’ye reckon there Andre? Close enough?

                  • Andre …
                    19 January 2017 at 1:04 pm

                    My objection is to people that put their efforts into tearing down Labour or Greens because they’re not left enough. If they choose to instead put their efforts into building up Mana or something else that better suits their beliefs, then I’ll cheer them on.

                    Personally, I’m pragmatic politically. I’ll go with whoever is closest to my views that actually has a reasonable chance of gaining power. Which in New Zealand right now means the Greens, even though I’m seriously disappointed in their positions on a lot of issues.

                    In the US, it meant I voted for Hillary, even though Stein was much closer to my views, and there’s a whole bunch of others I would have preferred to be the Dem nominee. Because on average, Hillary would move things in the direction I want, even while some of her actions would absolutely infuriate me. Because I know Trump will go hard in the wrong direction on almost every issue that matters to me. And that’s too high a price to pay for the momentary gratification of casting a protest vote.

                    • Bill …
                      19 January 2017 at 1:21 pm

                      So you’re a US citizen in NZ who voted for Clinton…which (referring to your original comment) puts you in the camp of a very small number of people in NZ who could have had any impact on the US election.

                    • adam …
                      19 January 2017 at 7:45 pm

                      I’ll take your criticism Andre and up the game. It’s not about the labour party being left enough. It’s about the labour party actually being nothing more than a liberal party.

                      It’s about you and people like you who say one thing and do another. Seriously, get over yourself, your person lost. She went into the campaign know she had to win the electoral collages and she lost. Unlikable, unpopular and a really awful campaign, but blame the ‘hard left’ or the Russians, blame anyone but the fact when you serve a turd, you lose.

                      May I add under Obama people have woken up to how bad the democratic party has actually got. For that we should thank him. So as a american you can tell me how many seats they have lost at the federal and state level, over 800 is it not? If that is not a wake up call, I don’t know what is needed.

                      But to blame the people who warned you, and actually offer an alternative – is just tiresome and boorish.

                      The labour party is a liberal party just like the democrates. It is no longer a social democratic party, it no longer servers the interests of working people. Hence why working people don’t vote for it, and here is a prediction, working people just won’t vote in the up coming election.

                      So yeah I’ve knocked labour for years to try and get it to move. It will never, it is too vested in self interest. I’m going to laugh at being called hard left – if that means I get to think for myself – then call me anything you want. Because I’d rather be freethinker than be brain dead liberal who can’t even see the rubbish they keep serving up – no one wants.

                    • Andre …
                      19 January 2017 at 7:57 pm

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

                      The wikipedia definition of liberalism starts with “generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.”

                      Which of those principles do you object to? Because I value all of them, with defining the boundaries between one person’s freedom and another’s as one of the key roles of government.

                      What’s stopping you going hard to help build Mana, or the IP (like xanthe appears to be starting to do) or something new? Surely if there’s so much support for your beliefs and Labour is alienating those supporters, then it should be easy to get enough support to get into parliament.

                      But you can be sure that the likeliest result from just carping at Labour and Greens from the sidelines is that National get returned for a fourth term. Is that what you want?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      19 January 2017 at 9:07 pm

                      Which of those principles do you object to?

                      Well, socialists want to see representative democracy overthrown and replaced with a one-party state in which the one party has absolute power, so my money would be on “all of them.”

                    • McFlock …
                      19 January 2017 at 9:21 pm

                      Not democratic socialists.

                    • adam …
                      19 January 2017 at 10:08 pm

                      I oppose free markets. And I oppose international co-operation. Both are just an excuse for neo-colonialism – let me explain that – what both of those mean inside a liberal world view, is a white way or wrong way.

                      What does gender equality even mean? We can’t even agree on what gender even is. So in the mean time, men still control the world. So would I rather have equality, any second, of any day, of any week. But with men firmly in control, and a economic system to help them keep that control, it is just not going to happen. If anything, liberalism will mean women are on track to go backwards. It was a liberal system which elected trump, no.

                      Civil rights within an economic system built on exploitation. OK now if that is not great press, I don’t know what is. It’s one thing to say somthing, another all together do do somthing about it. Have you read Dr Martin Luther King? His later works and speeches are truly liberation theology. Great man.

                      But to your point, I help the poor. I don’t help people to get power to abuse the poor with. We have enough people playing that silly game, and you think after 200 odd years or more, people would have released it only works to a point. You have to either embrace more democracy, or totalitarianism. So am I a totalitarian, never, Liberation theology is my starting point, with a heavy dose of Christian anarchism. So I’m not looking for state solutions, never have been. .

                      All I am doing is pointing out labour are a liberal party, and that they have not shown any signs in changing economics. I find that liberal economics hurts the poor and wrecks culture. It hurts women, and worships violence, particularly war, which helps generates profits so it can propagandise back to you how great liberalism is. But, in the twenty first century if we are serious about civil rights, equality and freedom then we need to look how we do economics.

                    • adam …
                      19 January 2017 at 10:18 pm

                      I see Psycho Milt is at his usual trolling best. Most of the time it’s so dull to read his narrow world view, with so little attachment to real human beings. What lies next Milt, what new ways will you come up with to attack working people and their culture?

                    • Bill …
                      19 January 2017 at 11:02 pm

                      generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of …x, y and z within the confines of a liberal paradigm that has a severely curtailed or limited concept of freedom.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      20 January 2017 at 6:39 am

                      Not democratic socialists.

                      Sure. I’m a socialist myself and certainly don’t want to overthrow representative democracy or replace it with a one-party state. But if commenters are reducing liberalism down to something only an ACT Party member would recognise, why not join in the fun?

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      20 January 2017 at 6:45 am

                      What does gender equality even mean? We can’t even agree on what gender even is.

                      Hardly surprising, given that gender is a social construct so is very much open to interpretation. It’s less open to interpretation than class is though, and I expect you don’t have much of a problem with recognising class-based inequality. Also, if you struggle with the idea of gender equality, think of it in terms of equality of the sexes – there are only two and the inequality is fairly easily identified.

                    • adam …
                      20 January 2017 at 12:37 pm

                      Oh dear, Pyscho Milt could not read the next sentence or indeed finish the paragraph. Poor poppet.

                • HDCAFriendlyTroll …
                  19 January 2017 at 5:51 pm

                  “1: in the context of The Standard, a “hard-leftie” is anyone who thinks Labour and the Greens are both so far right they’re not worth voting for.”

                  In other words a TDB commentator.

                  I kill me.

      • alwyn 7.3.2
        19 January 2017 at 12:04 pm

        “the Secretary of State ran Enron”.
        It is Exxon, or more precisely Exxon Mobil, not Enron for Christ’s sake.
        The people who were running Enron were a pack of crooks.
        Would you accept me saying something like “Andrew Little was formerly the head of Enron” rather than “Former head of the EPMU”?

        • GregJ 7.3.2.1
          19 January 2017 at 11:12 pm

          Perhaps a better analogy would be that Andrew Little was “…the former head of the Taxpayers Union” rather than “…the former head of the EPMU”! 👿

  8. Paul 8
    19 January 2017 at 8:29 am

    Does anyone know when/where this film can be viewed?

    On our doorstep: The story of Auckland’s homeless youth

    Auckland’s thousands of homeless youth are the subject of a new documentary.

    Studies from Otago University found half of New Zealand’s 40,000 homeless live in Auckland, and that the majority of them were under 25.

    On our Doorstep – a documentary made by students from AUT’s master of human rights class – aims to shine a light on lives within a largely hidden demographic.

    During the production process, student Monique van Veen said she had heard a “massive spectrum of reasons” why youth ended up homeless; from fleeing violent families to feeling marginalised in smaller towns and drifting to Auckland “to find their people”.

    • fisiani 8.1
      19 January 2017 at 8:47 am

      Amazing how the number of homeless was last month reported to be 20,000 and now the figure magically doubles to 40,000. Homelessness is a real problem that is being addressed and the current housing boom is part of the solution. Ridiculous and unbelievable figures are not helpful to a constructive debate.

      • Paul 8.1.1
        19 January 2017 at 8:51 am

        Do you care about the levels of inequality and poverty in this country?
        It would appear not.

        • fisiani 8.1.1.1
          19 January 2017 at 1:53 pm

          Inequality has not changed much in the last eight years as you probably well know. In fact it is slightly reduced. What is the big deal about inequality anyway? It will always be there, Always has been there. People are not equal in their abilities. Poverty is also greatly reduced with record employment levels and a massive rise in welfare payments. This is New Zealand. We are an egalitarian country where the top few high earners pay most of the tax revenue. This is a great place to live.

      • Cinny 8.1.2
        19 January 2017 at 9:25 am

        Fizzy having a constructive debate with you is near on impossible, as soon as you are asked to produce facts or evidence to some of your claims, you run away.

        And when people produce evidence, such as studies from Otago University, you claim that their figures are ridiculous and unbelievable. Sort it out Fizzy because it makes you look very foolish very often.

        • fisiani 8.1.2.1
          19 January 2017 at 1:56 pm

          The Otago study was debunked within hours of its release. Do you seriously believe it? Their definition of homelessness was quite ridiculous. Keep up with the play. Exaggerating is what caused people to ignore Chicken Little. “The sky is falling”

          • Cinny 8.1.2.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 2:09 pm

            once again no proof, just your words… who debunked it where is the evidence for this claim of yours?

            • Tricledrown 8.1.2.1.1.1
              19 January 2017 at 2:34 pm

              Fisanil is relying on Paula Bennett’s
              Myth their is no poverty in NZ.
              But he has mucked up and admitted that their are 20,0000 more than National would admit.
              Fisani your fired to close to the truth!

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.3
        19 January 2017 at 10:41 am

        Amazing how the number of homeless was last month reported to be 20,000 and now the figure magically doubles to 40,000.

        Oh, look at that, fisiani’s lying again:

        Once a pioneer of the social welfare state, New Zealand now has over 40,000 people who are homeless, forced to live in their cars and in garages as a result of rapid house price and rent rises and a shortage of social housing.

        And that was August last year.

        And, no, this government is not addressing homelessness. All they do is put in place policies that help rich people steal from everyone else.

    • James 8.2
      19 January 2017 at 8:56 am

      Yes I can tell where it will be shown by reading the link you posted.

    • Puckish Rogue 8.3
      19 January 2017 at 9:06 am

      There was this on the link you posted:

      “The documentary will be screened at AUT on Wednesday evening, and there will be a petition for attendees to sign.”

      So I’d say, at a guess, it’ll be screened at AUT on Wednesday evening.

      You’re welcome 🙂

  9. Paul 9
    19 January 2017 at 8:36 am

    What a useless government.

    Govt has dropped the ball on R&D

    When the Key Government came to power in 2008 it promised to place research, science and technology at the forefront of its drive to fuel the economy through innovation……

    …..After a small boost in 2009 we have actually gone backwards. Official data shows our research, science and technology investment has dropped steadily from 1.32 per cent in 2010 to 1.27 per cent in 2012 to 1.17 per cent of GDP in 2014.

    We are still awaiting the data for 2016. Crucially, private sector investment sits near the bottom of the OECD family of nations. New Zealand is seriously research averse.

    Neither the vision, nor the Office of the Science Advisor nor the Science Prizes nor the perennial restructuring of the science sector has done a thing to get this ship steering towards the kind of investment targets we should have in front of us.

    As a consequence we will continue to fall short in our aspirations for education, health, transport and welfare – because we can’t afford those aspirations and we don’t invest enough in research, science and technology to turn our productivity around.

    The data is actually worse than typically presented, ratioed to GDP. Because we have a low GDP per capita it means research investment per capita is not a third that of Denmark but more like a seventh.

    Sadly, though the data is well-known, research leaders and agencies tend to avoid protesting because the received wisdom is that rocking the funding boat is counter-productive…….

    …..Science is now buried somewhere in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) along with it the vision and the focus.

    With Industrial Research Ltd morphing into Callaghan Innovation we no longer have a crown research institute focusing on research for the manufacturing sector – the sector most likely to be able to deliver significant productivity gains…….

    ……Possibly the biggest failing was to scrap the research and development (R&D) tax credit. With the global financial crisis biting hard in 2009, tax credits were seen as unnecessary budgetary expenditure…….

    …..We need to get away from immigration-fuelled growth (with all its problems) to innovation-fuelled growth. Research, science and technology needs to come back out of MBIE if the original vision and focus is to be regained.

    • Ad 9.1
      19 January 2017 at 9:08 am

      It would take a whole bunch more than a bit more public money to alter the entire economy from a low-productivity-per-worker, low-salary economy to a high end one with dozens of firms having massive R&D budgets spent locally, justifying hundreds of young bright people to stay here and commit for the long term.

      Don’t even mention the Growth and Innovation Framework.

      No party here has anything resembling an innovation plan for New Zealand.

    • Psycho Milt 9.2
      19 January 2017 at 9:27 am

      The incoming Key government made it pretty clear they thought the government didn’t need to be doing much in the way of research and development because the private sector’s well capable of doing that for itself. It was a deeply cynical thing to say (from the Key government? Who’d have thought it? I’m shocked!), because, as anyone working in the field is aware, the private sector mostly lacks interest in research and development and the shareholders tend to look on it as money wasted that could have gone to them as dividends. Hence the decline in research and development during Key’s tenure.

    • tc 9.3
      19 January 2017 at 10:33 am

      As designed and just to be sure they had bovver boy joyce brutally restructure and move the govt r&d centres about to send a clear message.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      19 January 2017 at 10:47 am

      After a small boost in 2009 we have actually gone backwards. Official data shows our research, science and technology investment has dropped steadily from 1.32 per cent in 2010 to 1.27 per cent in 2012 to 1.17 per cent of GDP in 2014.

      We’re a small nation which means that we need to be doing proportionally more R&D. At least 5% of GDP into R&D by the government with plans to extend that to 25% or more over the next decade or so.

      We are still awaiting the data for 2016. Crucially, private sector investment sits near the bottom of the OECD family of nations. New Zealand is seriously research averse.

      We’re cheap and think that we can get by just by using commodities that any nation can produce just as well and then import everything else that we need.

      This means that our economy doesn’t develop and we get poorer as we export all of our resources.

    • stigie 9.5
      19 January 2017 at 4:19 pm

      “What a useless government.”

      The doom and gloom on here is absolutely remarkable..?

  10. Xanthe 10
    19 January 2017 at 9:18 am

    ” No party here has anything resembling an innovation plan for New Zealand.”

    Apart from the Internet Party of course

    https://internet.org.nz/policies.html

  11. Brutus Iscariot 11
    19 January 2017 at 9:20 am

    Little has jumped the shark today with his disgraceful suggestion that Solid Energy be exempted from H&S laws so that Pike River can be re-entered again.

    He’s basically admitting that the mine is unsafe to enter and that it’s a massive punt? Can we expect more deaths in the re-entry process?

    • Sabine 11.1
      19 January 2017 at 9:50 am

      link?

        • Ad 11.1.1.1
          19 January 2017 at 10:30 am

          And the reason Directors now have personal liability for health and safety is ……
          the Pike River disaster ……
          and resultant legislation…..
          which Little now wants suspended……
          to help the Pike River disaster ….

          Little has made a moronic statement.

          • Puckish Rogue 11.1.1.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 10:36 am

            I don’t know its moronic so much as being backed into a corner by Peters and going for the less worst option

            Or not…

          • Graeme 11.1.1.1.2
            19 January 2017 at 12:14 pm

            Director’s personal liability was a very necessary change and is having a noticeable effect on H&S, to the extent that some outfits have become so strict it’s going to hurt them. (Written warning for climbing out a truck with hard hat in hand rather than on head, because it was very windy)

            However.

            It could be worthwhile to consider an exemption process to allow extraordinary, controlled, activities like a possible Pike re-entry. Can Mines Rescue continue at all under the current legislation?

            • Ad 11.1.1.1.2.1
              19 January 2017 at 12:18 pm

              Definitely can, when there’s an emergency on. Not claiming to be an expert in their regulations though.

              This year I’ve been part of the drills that have to be done in a deep shaft.
              Loathed it.

    • Gabby 11.2
      19 January 2017 at 10:06 am

      He’s basically saying let’s whip away the figleaf you’re hiding behind, nuttyanal.

      • Brutus Iscariot 11.2.1
        19 January 2017 at 10:22 am

        Maybe the exemption law should transfer personal responsibility/liability to Peters and Little then. If it’s just a “figleaf” then they should be happy to agree to those terms.

      • Leftie 11.2.2
        19 January 2017 at 11:49 am

        +1 Gabby.

    • dv 11.3
      19 January 2017 at 10:13 am

      Send volunteer farmers who are exempt from the H@S laws in.

    • james 11.4
      19 January 2017 at 10:25 am

      So – lets assume the directors get a “free pass” (thanks to littles new bill) for the re-entry and people go in there.

      But oops – something goes wrong and people die – who takes accountability for letting them go in there knowing that there have been reports saying it was dangerous?

    • weka 11.5
      19 January 2017 at 10:51 am

      Looks to me like he is suggesting a work around the issue of liability, not safety. Which are two different things I think some here are failing to appreciate.

      Hands up who thinks the people that would be willing to re-enter the mine would do so unsafely if they had an exemption from the legislation?

      Hands up who thinks the directors would oppose any re-entering if they could be personally held responsible for any problems with that?

      btw, people take risks in rescuing or recovering bodies all the time. They’re highly skilled and competent including not just in risk assessment but in deciding the degree to which they are willing to put themselves at risk in order to do something good.

      • james 11.5.1
        19 January 2017 at 11:11 am

        Indeed he is concentrating on Liability – but the directors have received a report which said it was unsafe – so despite other reports commissioned by others there is at least some professional view that it is unsafe.

        Whilst I agree with a third independent report (as suggested by Little) – it does not deminish the fact that there IS advise that it is dangerous.

        Is it acceptable that people be allowed to risk their lives (because they would be) to recover bodies? Should we change our laws to remove liability to let somebody do work that *could* result in their death?

        I do not think thats acceptable.

        • Psycho Milt 11.5.1.1
          19 January 2017 at 11:29 am

          Personally I take note of the fact that dead people have stopped caring about things like where they’re buried, what with being dead an’ all, so people who go on about “bringing our [name of dead relative here] home” are beyond my comprehension. You can’t bring him home – he’s dead! He doesn’t get any less dead for his corpse being moved somewhere else!

          That said, some people do make a fuss about dead bodies and these particular people aren’t going to give up. Also, the owners’ and government’s determination to prevent recovery of the bodies suggests they’re concerned about how what will be found in there will reflect on them. Both of those reasons suggest volunteers should be allowed to mount a recovery operation if they’re willing to sign a waiver. If that requires the government to explicitly allow it, they should.

          • james 11.5.1.1.1
            19 January 2017 at 11:45 am

            “if they’re willing to sign a waiver”

            then perhaps we could have workers in other mines sign Health and safety waivers as well.

            And port workers, and everybody else in a dangerous job.

            • Psycho Milt 11.5.1.1.1.1
              19 January 2017 at 12:01 pm

              I can understand why right-wingers would want that, but why would anyone else?

              There’s a fairly obvious difference between people carrying out search/rescue/recovery operations volunteering to expose themselves to risk to help other people, and employers wanting the ability to profit from having employees contract out of H&S protections in their workplace. Or at least, it’s obvious to people who aren’t right-wingers.

              • Brutus Iscariot …
                19 January 2017 at 12:08 pm

                No, it’s entirely the same. Either you support rights and responsibilities for workers or you don’t.

                If Little proceeds with this line of attack he shouldn’t turn around and complain if another government suspends H&S laws for work on some important infrastructure project for example.

                I love how you twist “search and rescue” to include retrieval of inanimate biological matter. Saving lives is another matter entirely from what is proposed.

                • Gabby …
                  19 January 2017 at 12:40 pm

                  What are your views on black box recorder retrieval?

                • McFlock …
                  19 January 2017 at 12:48 pm

                  “Director’s liability” != all “H&S laws”,
                  “search/rescue/recovery” != “search and rescue”

                  Your premises are broken.

                • weka …
                  19 January 2017 at 12:57 pm

                  “Either you support rights and responsibilities for workers or you don’t.”

                  There is a pretty simple solution to that. Allow a volunteer crew to enter the mine.

                  Pike River is not now primarily a workplace, so this isn’t about setting a precedent for workers. This is why people are comparing the situation to SAR rather than mining operations. If the volunteers want to assess the risk and take it, let them.

                  • Brutus Iscariot …
                    19 January 2017 at 1:11 pm

                    I think a better solution would be to sack the entire board of Solid Energy and replace them with Peters and Little. See if they’ll actually put their reputation where their mouth is when there’s noone else to point the finger at.

                    (apologies for the mixed metaphors)

                  • weka …
                    19 January 2017 at 2:08 pm

                    I’m sure you do, because you seem to think this is an issue of what you value rather than one of what the families and rescuers value. It’s nothing to do with Little or Peters. And I notice you sidestep my rebuttal of your argument, so I guess you are now reduced to “I don’t like it”.

                    • Brutus Iscariot …
                      19 January 2017 at 2:37 pm

                      I’m actually not against recovery of the bodies in principle, i’m just mindful that fingers get pointed in the right places if something goes wrong.

                      If the government had caved earlier and more people had died, they’d have been crucified. Now it’s increasingly a Peters/Little issue, and if they want it, they should be ultimately responsible (along with the families).

                    • One Two []
                      19 January 2017 at 9:45 pm

                      It’s clear from the language used in the comment, that you do not care about the feelings of the families, or gaining understanding about events causing the tragedy

                      Weasel words are a tool of the callow!

                • Psycho Milt …
                  19 January 2017 at 2:28 pm

                  I love how you twist “search and rescue” to include retrieval of inanimate biological matter.

                  What “twist?” I wrote search/rescue/recovery because recovery of corpses is part of search and rescue, albeit not the preferred outcome.

                  I totally get that putting people at risk to retrieve corpses is stupid, and that people have no right to demand that someone else take that risk just because they feel some pointless attachment to the biological material in question, and that there’s a “Where does this stop?” question re how far the state should be expected to go to recover something that’s hardly even useful as compost. However, in this case, we have a location that isn’t that hard to get to, volunteers willing to go in and at least some reports that say it should be safe to do so. It should be a no-brainer.

          • saveNZ 11.5.1.1.2
            19 January 2017 at 2:34 pm

            @Psycho Milt – it’s also about answers – the families have a right to know how their loved ones died and get their question’s answered. I’m more thinking that the mine or government don’t want that information answered hence their move to seal up the mine to prevent the truth coming out that might damage their calls of non existent efforts of rescue made to the men.

            As the families lawyers have said. The mine should be treated as a crime scene as 29 people died in there.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.5.1.1.3
            19 January 2017 at 3:59 pm

            Personally I take note of the fact that dead people have stopped caring about things like where they’re buried, what with being dead an’ all, so people who go on about “bringing our [name of dead relative here] home” are beyond my comprehension. You can’t bring him home – he’s dead! He doesn’t get any less dead for his corpse being moved somewhere else!

            Yep, agree with that.

            That said, I happen to think that we need to go into the mine to find out what happened so we can take steps to correct. That would be difficult to do now but there’d still be some evidence.

          • Wainwright 11.5.1.1.4
            19 January 2017 at 8:27 pm

            It’s not “a fuss about dead bodies”. The Pike royal commission never concluded the direct cause of the explosion, largely because there was no re-entry of the mine to gather evidence.

        • bwaghorn 11.5.1.2
          19 January 2017 at 11:48 am

          Of course it is going to be dangerous , many things in life are dangerous , that’s why we train people to do dangerous jobs.
          Also why they don’t use robots with cameras to have a good look around for a start makes you think they are hiding something.

        • Andre 11.5.1.3
          19 January 2017 at 11:54 am

          “Is it acceptable that people be allowed to risk their lives (because they would be) to recover bodies?”

          People risk their lives on a regular basis doing mountain search and rescue, surf lifesaving, among a bunch of other activities. They do it on a volunteer, non-work basis. They are experts at assessing the risks they are taking on, and are experts in managing those risks.

          Having been in the situation being an expert preparing to go into a hazardous situation for a search and rescue operation, and having non-experts try to stop me because they think it’s too dangerous, I can certainly feel the frustration of those experts that want to go in and are currently being prevented from doing so.

          So if a piece of legislation removes the liability concerns that seem to be the biggest obstacle and allows a team of willing experts to go in, then I wouldn’t oppose it. Regardless of whether those experts’ motivation is respect to colleagues and their families or trying to learn more about what went wrong.

          • Sabine 11.5.1.3.1
            19 January 2017 at 12:11 pm

            +1

          • Brutus Iscariot 11.5.1.3.2
            19 January 2017 at 12:12 pm

            Massive difference between going out to save a human life, and going out to pick up a bag of bones.

            • Graeme 11.5.1.3.2.1
              19 January 2017 at 12:17 pm

              How about if they are your bone mate. Or your son’s bones.

              The reality is that they are someone’s loved ones bones.

              If you show that little compassion for your employees and fellow humans it’s going to be a very lonely existence having to do everything yourself.

            • Andre 11.5.1.3.2.2
              19 January 2017 at 12:28 pm

              For some people, retrieving the remains of a loved one is incredibly important. When you experience that from someone, even a complete stranger, and you’re in a position to help, it’s inspirational. While I’ve never been in the position of the remains being a friend or colleague, I imagine the need to do something (safely) would be vastly stronger.

              If all that’s needed is a change in mindset from it being a workplace (with all the health and safety requirements based around non-experts being able to learn there safely) to it being the scene of a search and rescue operation (where all involved are volunteer experts actively managing themselves), then I’m for it.

              Even though personally, my remains will be just a meat container that’s stopped twitching and it can be left where it dropped or chucked in a landfill for all I’ll care, and I certainly hope and expect no-one ever puts themselves at risk for my remains. And that my loved ones have enough sense to go along with that.

              • Gabby …
                19 January 2017 at 12:38 pm

                Is it still a work place if Sullied Energy have closed it?

                • Andre …
                  19 January 2017 at 12:42 pm

                  All the comments around director’s liabilities and Health & Safety regs indicate it’s still considered a workplace.

                • McFlock …
                  19 January 2017 at 1:05 pm

                  yup.

                  If anyone carries out an activity for a “person conducting a business or undertaking” (whether or not the undertaking is for profit or gain), then they are counted as a “worker” (whether paid or not), and anywhere the worker goes is a “workplace”.

                  There are some qualifications and exceptions for those three terms (and I’m no lawyer so don’t be structuring your own H&S policies around what I wrote 🙂 ), but the short answer to your question is “yep”.

            • Wainwright 11.5.1.3.2.3
              19 January 2017 at 8:33 pm

              This is the kind of disgusting comment I talked about higher up the thread. Imagine if someone talked that way about YOUR dead family members.

        • One Two 11.5.1.4
          19 January 2017 at 5:30 pm

          Experts acting of their own volition, is 100% acceptable

        • Tricledrown 11.5.1.5
          19 January 2017 at 8:26 pm

          We will have to bring all our Soldiers back from the middle East.

      • Leftie 11.5.2
        19 January 2017 at 11:52 am

        +100 Weka.

      • saveNZ 11.5.3
        19 January 2017 at 2:30 pm

        Pity they did not worry about ‘liability’ before they killed the miners in an unsafe mine. What liability – they got off without prosecution! Now it’s different?? What a double standard.

    • Leftie 11.6
      19 January 2017 at 11:48 am

      No, what Andrew Little is saying is

      “the government claimed the mine could not be re-entered because of the liability risk, so on the first day of the new parliamentary year he would seek leave to table his bill.

      That would exonerate Solid Energy’s directors from being held liable for any harm to people taking part in the mine re-entry, he said.

      Mr Little said the victims’ families were promised everything that could be done to recover their loved ones’ bodies would be done, and the government needed to follow through on that.”

      <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/322634/labour-would-remove-liability-for-pike-river-re-entry

      • Sabine 11.6.1
        19 January 2017 at 12:56 pm

        +1

        you again with your obvious liberal bias.

        I said it a few days ago, there are some who literally believe (and not even then) that if Andrew Little should get a shovel and start digging himeself to be considered an honest man.

        in the meantime People prefer to be waiting for Godot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyKnLGT74TQ

    • Jim 11.7
      19 January 2017 at 12:34 pm

      Little has not jumped the shark!!! He is just seperating ussues here. At the same time as saying the there should be a third enquiry independent of goverment and the families of those that have died, and thus acknowledging that there are still outstanding issues to be resolved about saftey, he is addressing the issue of director liability as this is being used as a reason to not enter the mine quite seperate from addressing risk of re entry.

  12. Carolyn_nth 12
    19 January 2017 at 10:25 am

    Pondering on this article on RNZ’s website:

    All-male boards revealed

    It shows something of where financial power and influence lies in NZ, but doesn’t show the way to truly change it. It needs a far deeper structural change to the whole system, rather than some quota-focused window dressing.

    A list of the 45 listed companies without any female directors in 2016 contains some of the biggest names in New Zealand business.

    Last week, information filed by companies on the stock exchange’s main board showed 17 percent of directors last year were women.

    The figure is the same as 2015.

    This is the blunt face of our current form of patriarchal capitalism. But the people most negatively impacted by it are the mean, women and children (also very often includes brown people) at the lower end of the power hierarchy.

    People don’t easily give up power, wealth and influence. Women will be let into the top tier as long as those guys at the very top don’t lose their hold o power and status.

    Then there are those who are the most visible casualties of this system. On Stuff today, an article that reports on some beggars explaining why they beg.

    Martin, 53 years old in Auckland:

    Technically, I’m not homeless. I have a roof over my head but it’s the roof of my brother’s van. Besides that and a bag I don’t have much else.

    If you’re like me you don’t have kitchen facilities or a freezer so you can’t do a week’s groceries, it’s almost impossible. You want to eat good food but you can’t so you face eating day-to-day, takeaways mostly.

    If you use your head and you want to stay healthy you can still buy fruit, you can still buy some good things. But it’s not cheap living day-to-day, in fact, it’s more expensive.

    I wasn’t abused or anything like that. I don’t use hard drugs, I’ve never used P in my life and I don’t smoke marijuana. But even without that, all those things I need to live by can’t be met on $140 in a week, it just can’t be done.
    …
    I don’t have qualifications and this has kept me from securing a job I really like. But I have hope to join a course through the help of Work and Income this year and I want to be a barista. People love drinking flat whites and I think I’d be good at making them.

    What people may not realise is that most beggars have grown up in poor, unstable households and they can’t read or write. They end up using drugs and they know they’re not going to get a job, they’re never going to travel and they’ll never enjoy restaurants.

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    19 January 2017 at 10:30 am

    $25 trillion investment needed to meet future oil demand

    The world needs to invest $25 trillion in new oil-producing capacity over the next 25 years to meet growing demand, Saudi Aramco’s chief executive Amin Nasser said at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday.

    According to the CEO of Saudi Arabia’s giant state-held oil company, global demand for oil and gas will still grow in the coming decades, so if capital investment drops, it could create “spikes” in prices and hurt the global economy, CNBC reports. Demand is still healthy and oil “will be with us for decades”, CNBC quoted Nasser as telling a Wall Street Journal panel at the Davos forum.

    The global oil and gas industry needs to expand and requires more investment, Nasser said.

    That’s how disconnected from reality that these ‘business’ leaders are.

    Destroying the environment for profit isn’t how you build a good and sustainable economy.

    • Cinny 13.1
      19 January 2017 at 12:15 pm

      FFS. This kind of thing really does my head in. It’s more like, $25 Trillion is needed to ensure people continue to rely on oil. Pure Greed

  14. Ethica 14
    19 January 2017 at 10:40 am

    Any else wondering whether our former PM will pop up soon as another Trump special advisor?

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1
      19 January 2017 at 10:53 am

      Well, I wouldn’t be surprised. He’s definitely got the destroy everything for our profit mentality that Trump needs.

    • Rosemary McDonald 14.2
      19 January 2017 at 10:59 am

      “Any else wondering whether our former PM will pop up soon as another Trump special advisor?”

      Hmmm….interesting. They would certainly bond over their inability to judge the appropriateness of their behaviour.

      I am assuming Our Former Leader is lying low and laying down extra layers of teflon for when the real reason for his abrupt departure is revealed.

      I’m guessing that the shit, when it comes, will be acid and fan forced.

    • Nic the NZer 14.3
      19 January 2017 at 12:20 pm

      I believe Key resigned as he saw a major source of funding dry up, funding associated with the TPPA being implemented while he was in office. On that basis I think its unlikely he would start advising Trump suddenly. But I have no evidence for this.

  15. james 15
    19 January 2017 at 11:13 am

    Was trying to find anything in the papers but could not – Does anyone know when the Hagamans / Little case is scheduled for court?

    • Gabby 15.1
      19 January 2017 at 12:47 pm

      Magic 8ball predicts Early Beatlewig’s legal team will push for a date close to election time.

      • Puckish Rogue 15.1.1
        19 January 2017 at 1:19 pm

        I suggest your magic balls are probably on the money

      • bwaghorn 15.1.2
        19 January 2017 at 4:59 pm

        Little goes up against big money sweatheart deals , sounds like a vote winner for labour to me if it’s played well.

        • james 15.1.2.1
          19 January 2017 at 10:32 pm

          Little is found guilty of defamation and loses his house – sounds like a huge vote loser to me.

  16. joe90 16
    19 January 2017 at 12:10 pm

    Humans, huh.
    /

    We believe blue shark Machaca was caught by longliners & his tag is now in #Vigo, #Spain. If you have info, please email info@ocearch.org pic.twitter.com/1JzSCipW0o— OCEARCH (@OCEARCH) January 18, 2017

    Machaca’s track

    http://www.ocearch.org/

  17. Cinny 17
    19 January 2017 at 12:23 pm

    More Freedom Camping issues at our tourism hot spots.

    “Some nights up to 400 illegal campers are occupying the area in the carpark, the bushes and all the way down the riverbank. The council’s local enforcement officer has been told to not patrol the area because of safety concerns”

    “Golden Bay residents frustrated at council inaction and concerned for the environment at Reilly St are distributing flyers and have installed large information signs at the entrance, recycling bins, a compost toilet and a money collection box.

    With the biennial Luminate festival looming near, many fear freedom camping numbers will increase.”
    True that.. Luminate brings thousands here.

    Wonder why they don’t just use the DOC campsites, after all they are very very cheap. and they usually have a toilet and water.

  19. joe90 19
    19 January 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Emboldened.

    if you're wondering what things look like here in D.C., this just crossed my desk. pic.twitter.com/dUwwpFFjZm— Clinton Yates (@clintonyates) January 18, 2017

    https://twitter.com/clintonyates/status/821835922408882176

    • Sabine 19.1
      19 January 2017 at 2:17 pm

      must be one of these economically disparaged and abandoned white male working class voters. You know the ones for JOBS!

  20. Morrissey 20
    19 January 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Despite the preponderance of government apparatchiks like Fred Kaplan,
    there ARE many decent and hardworking journalists in the United States today.

    In a particularly dark time in American history, the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Laura Poitras, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Peter Maass, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez and Allan Nairn are living testimony to the fact that journalists are perhaps our last best hope.

    But then there are specimens like Fred Kaplan, who in another time and place would have been composing diatribes against Lin Piao for the People’s Daily or denouncing Jewish doctors in Pravda….

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/01/why_president_obama_was_right_to_grant_chelsea_manning_clemency.html

    • Graeme 21.1
      19 January 2017 at 10:51 pm

      Dunno, more see it as mainstreaming ecologically sustainable ideas, and forcing national to either agree to chase the centre, and really turn off their core support, or come out and attack Morgan and start alienating their urban liberal centre.

      Pretty much everything the Toppers have come up with is going to go down like a cup of cold sick in the milking shed, UBI, capital taxes, resource levies and whatever to come, but it’s another voice getting alternative, sustainable ideas out there and reaching a different audience to the Greens. I see it as complementing the Greens rather than competing with them.

      • weka 21.1.1
        19 January 2017 at 11:55 pm

        Me too. Why would an existing Green voter shift their vote from an established party with highly competent MPs already in parliament to a new party of most unknowns and who’s policies are already being done by the Greens?

        I’ll be interested to see what their policy in other areas looks like.

        • bwaghorn 21.1.1.1
          20 January 2017 at 7:07 am

          he’s coming up with ideas i’ve heard nowhere else , tradable pollution rights with a lowering bar , charges on all commercial water use. these are real world solutions to operating in a capitalist country. It fits with my thinking that capitalism is fine as long as it is heavily regulated.

          the bit about the green votes was just my clunky click grabbing

  22. Pat 22
    19 January 2017 at 8:15 pm

    Not posted in “power down” cause its just too depressing….

    “In short, not a single one of the scientists polled thought the 2C target likely to be met. Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, is most emphatic. “My personal view,” he says, “is that there is not a cat in hell’s chance.””

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/cat-in-hells-chance-why-losing-battle-keep-global-warming-2c-climate-change

    “I think we actively chose to forgo the carbon budgets for a likely chance of 2C many years ago,” says Kevin Anderson, currently professor of climate change at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Judging that rate at which our emissions would need to be reduced was too politically challenging to contemplate.”

  23. Ad 23
    19 January 2017 at 9:03 pm

    A detailed account of how Democrat supporters in a number of rustbelt heavy steel counties turned to Trump and to the Republicans; buckle in for a hard read:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/17/donald-trump-america-great-again-northampton-county-pennsylvania

  24. ropata 24
    19 January 2017 at 11:15 pm

    US Establishment is moving to shut down independent media, by disseminating scare stories about Russian hackers.

    • Gosman 24.1
      20 January 2017 at 7:30 am

      You are relying on an RT report to make claims the US is attempting to shut down independent media. Oh the irony…

  25. ropata 25
    19 January 2017 at 11:30 pm

    Here’s a disturbing piece with some philosophical insight… the below is just my selected highlights, but the whole thing is worth reading

    America, Donald Trump, and the Triumph of the Lie
    That public men publish falsehoods
    Is nothing new . . .
    Be angry at the sun for setting
    If these things anger you.

    –Robinson Jeffers

    Ω

    And Trump’s victory is the triumph of capitalism. For Donald Trump is the perfect capitalist: selfish, vulgar, bigoted, privileged. The worshipper of Mammon and no other gods.

    Lies are the weapons of demagogues and tyrants, the self-serving delusions of narcissists, and the enemies of free civil society.

    Ω

    The United States of America, 2017, is utterly different from Germany of 1933. German power was concentrated in the army. American power is concentrated in corporations: especially banks and financial corporations, oil corporations, and military contractors.

    I have resisted the comparisons of Trump to Hitler… Still, it is eerie how closely Trump has followed Hitler’s play book. And we should not forget that Hitler’s first campaign, once he got a little power, was to muzzle and tame the press.

    “They’re all liars,” sayeth the Liar.

    Lies and nonsensical pronouncements will serve primarily as distractions, that we not see their fingers in the public till.

    Watch the money. Follow the money. Money is what matters to Trump and his family. Money will be at the center of much of what Trump does. (And money, perhaps, will be his downfall.)

    Lies will distract us from the further erosion of civil liberties, and from the free passes being given to polluters.

    Ω

    The Trump Administration, if it can’t be somehow stopped, will be worse than any of us wish to imagine. Corruption will be rampant. Great numbers of people will be brutalized through economics. Civic duty will be replaced by predation and the clear-cutting of the commons.

    By allowing money to be the rule of all things, the demonic forces of greed, lies, and coercion inevitably tend to give the most predatory persons and cartels free access to the public trust. The rise of authoritarian regimes leads to the seizure of the commons by the powerful and the monetization of public lands, public airspace, every public marketplace, and to the sort of vast corruption we are more used to in “third-world” countries.

    It is the nature of a corporation, under current charter, to maximize monetary profit. That is its sole morality. A corporation is the spirit of greed given a body. Buddhists call the entities of limitless craving pretas—“hungry ghosts.” Zen students give the hungry ghosts small offerings out of compassion, even knowing they can never be satisfied. But to conjure forth the spirits of greed and craving, and then by magical writs to give them corporeal body and immortality, and then to release them out of the magic circle to prey and feed on the world of sentient beings–that is daylight madness.

    Money is also a phantasm. We have given it so much power that now we are its slaves. We created “economy,” which should be housekeeping, but instead is a poisonous lash on our backs, wielded by the “invisible” slavemaster’s hand. All the nations of planet Earth are now ensnared within its web. Fundamentally, none of it is “necessary.” We could invent a different system.