Open mike 19/02/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:59 am, February 19th, 2014 - 243 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

243 comments on “Open mike 19/02/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    19 February 2014 at 7:09 am

    That’s right… Nat MPs moaning about left wing bias.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/236462/nats-claim-'taurima-bias‘

    With Hosking and Henry on the airwaves and the corporate media spewing out Pravdaesque propaganda that would make Stalin proud.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9736600/Key-most-liked-trusted…

    What a joke!

    2 quotes from Malcolm X come to mind.

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

    “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

    • amirite 1.1
      19 February 2014 at 7:24 am

      Warning to posters: don’t read the Stuff’s Ode to Our Glorious Leader if you don’t want to lose your breakfast.

      Seriously, what’s wrong with NZers?

      • chris73 1.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 7:32 am

        Thats the problem with the left in general, they only want to hear the good news and ignore the bad.

        Dr Brian Edwards has some interesting thoughts on the matter but Mike Williams might have been drinking when he was interviewed

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9736600/Key-most-liked-trusted

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 7:36 am

          Williams actually did something useful. He provided a simple reality check. No wonder Chris73 plays the man rather than the ball.

          • chris73 1.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 7:42 am

            So Rogernomics was good then?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 7:48 am

              No, Chris, stop throwing up red herrings: this is a dead rat you have to eat. The evidence shows that Labour are better economic managers than National.

              One example: budget surpluses. Bill English: 1/6. Michael Cullen: 9/9. Another: per capita gdp. Another: employment levels. Another: our GINI.

              • srylands …
                19 February 2014 at 10:14 am

                Given the economic circumstancs between 1998 and 2007, a drover’s dog could have acheived surpluses.

                Economic management is not simply about delivering surpluses. Economic imbalances deterioriated in the first decade of the 2000s. Those imbalances are progressively being addressed but there is much work to do.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 February 2014 at 1:31 pm

                  Imbalances? You mean like assholes from Treasury being allowed to pretend their models are more accurate than reality?

                  Oh, and the rule (Labour are better economic managers than the bought party) holds true throughout NZ history, not just 1999-2008. Choke on it.

                  PS: Surpluses aren’t the only measure? Gosh, perhaps that’s why I only used them as one example. Duh.

                • David H …
                  19 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

                  @Srylands you said:- Spelling corrections mine

                  “Given the economic circumstances between 1998 and 2007, a drover’s dog could have achieved surpluses.”

                  So how come the Nats cannot string 2 surpluses together ? And yet labour can string NINE of them in a row. Sorry English’s Commerce ‘degree’ is showing him up for the incompetent that he is.

                • Murray Olsen …
                  19 February 2014 at 10:29 pm

                  I agree with SSLands. A drover’s dog, possibly a Blue Heeler like they have in Oz, could do better than any NAct minister of finance.

              • tricledrown …
                19 February 2014 at 10:52 am

                Ausrylands another fraudulant slip drovers dog god haven’t you learn’t anything from propaganda school yet.
                1998 1999 borrowing blinglish was finance min
                ister he has failed in 6 out of 7 seven years to geta surplus and no growth yet either double to triple the unemployment.
                A Robbers dog could do better serial liar and fraudster.

            • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1.2
              19 February 2014 at 7:54 am

              “Having condemned his predecessor for many years for paying off debt too quickly, English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”

              “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for,” he told reporters at the Treasury briefing on the state of the economy and forecasts.” B English Dec 2008

          • Disraeli Gladstone 1.1.1.1.2
            19 February 2014 at 9:32 am

            He did however confuse the Marie Celeste (a fictional ship written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) with the Mary Celeste.

            He’s losing the pedantic literary snob vote!

        • Saarbo 1.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 8:12 am

          On average GDP growth is nearly 1% higher per annum under Labour government versus National Governments. Mike Williams is on the button.

          • srylands 1.1.1.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 10:17 am

            Yeah there is a reason for that, and it aint good.

            • tricledrown 1.1.1.2.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 11:03 am

              Under 9 years of labour we had 3 x the economic growth than the previous National govt 1990 to 1999.
              5x the growth than Key lead govt.
              5x more growth than blinglish has ever achieved.
              Why Ausrylands.
              Because Labour spread wealth around taxing the likes of me and my familya little more so more people can enjoy the fruits of wealth instead of less like your selfish Narcissists .

      • North 1.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 7:38 am

        Because this is really counter-intuitive stuff I’d like to see detail, information and other relevant rationally based assessments of the Fairfax-Ipsos poll. To read Brian Edwards all is hunky dory with that poll. What of the poll (by whom I forget) some time ago which expressly recorded public concern about Key as not being particularly trustworthy ?

        • North 1.1.2.1
          19 February 2014 at 7:57 am

          I mean, is there the prospect that at some point in this election year Fairfax-Ipsos will come out with a poll result declaring that it borders on the anti-social not to vote for Key ? With Brian Edwards effectively in sage confirmation notwithstanding all of the cold realities Mike Williams adverts to ?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2
      19 February 2014 at 7:45 am

      “Pravdaesque”. Well put.

    • Tracey 1.3
      19 February 2014 at 7:51 am

      Great quotes.

      Of course he was a terrorist so what would he know (sarc)

    • Chooky 1.4
      19 February 2014 at 8:16 am

      +100

    • Bill 1.5
      19 February 2014 at 11:07 am

      So, according to that poll 7.8% of Labour voters, 13.6% of Green voters and 22.7% of NZ First voters, would prefer John Key as PM post next election.

      Sayin’ nuffin beyond either people are incredibly inconsistent or the poll is a heap of steaming shit. You decide.

      • Roflcopter 1.5.1
        19 February 2014 at 11:42 am

        Or maybe it’s a reality of MMP where people vote for their most effective electorate MP, but put their party vote elsewhere.

    • TE 1.6
      19 February 2014 at 4:08 pm

      +10000 agreement with you Paul

    • David H 1.7
      19 February 2014 at 5:42 pm

      Ohh FFS forget the fluff piece. Read the important bit’s. The readers (Voters) comments they tell the real story.

  2. phillip ure 2
    19 February 2014 at 7:20 am

    an early front-runner for hack-of-the-year award..and a few thoughts on media-bias..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/commentwhoar-three-rightwing-economists-slag-the-very-idea-of-the-poor-getting-any-more-and-an-early-front-runner-for-the-hack-of-the-year-award-richard-meadows-is-his-name/

    (excerpt:..)

    “….this hack..one richard meadows….(and presumably with the whimpered encouragement of his ‘stuff’ editor?)..

    ..has rounded up three far-right economists..

    ..to do a total hatchet-job on any idea of monetary-reform to help the poorest/families..”

    phillip ure..

  3. Swim Between the Flags 3
    19 February 2014 at 7:29 am

    Is this what we’ll be reading at the end of this year?

    “Looking back over the past 12 months, one could argue that [Labour] has done nothing particularly wrong. It chose the candidate who was, at the time, one of their most popular and effective politicians (even if the coronation was anything but smart). It put a lot of emphasis on citizen engagement and digital campaigning, trying to take on as many successful Obama-style techniques as possible. Most importantly, [Labour] sought to press all the obvious left-of-centre policy buttons: a minimum wage that so many Kiwis apparently support; a bank levy and tough regulation of the financial industry; tax rises for the rich plus a wealth tax to mitigate feelings of social injustice and to pay for the expansion of full-day schooling and childcare; or legislating for equal pay between men and women. The mandatory commitment to fiscal prudence and the ‘debt brake’ could not miss out either. For the party faithful, this was meant to be a winning formula.

    So why, then, did [Labour] fail?”

    http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4492&title=The-German-election-Why-did-the-SPD-fail

    David Cunliffe & Labour need to heed this warning out of Germany asap or they’re done for.

    Right now they’re in disarray: the party leadership is completely dysfunctional but has too much power to be dealt with; the leader’s office is without leadership or direction; the caucus is starting to drift from the leader and the media smell blood.

    Please David Cunliffe, start showing some damn leadership and sort this situation out. Stop trying to please everyone and show us who you really are.

    • Tracey 3.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:02 am

      Interesting read indeed. Certainly looking at National’s apparent strategy they have also analysed the four possibilities outlined.

      Usually, WBTF, if the media were smelling blood over leadership they would be trumpeting it. Heck, they tend to trumpet it, even when there isn’t, just to see what happens to the water when they throw that pebble.

      My understanding is that Helen Clark understood the way to get Labour’s message to “grassroots” (non beltway NZers) was to go and actually meet with them, in their places of work and communities. I get some impression Cunliffe is doing that. Reliance on the media to get your message through is not enough, because of a number of factors. One of which, in my opinion, is that the 50% of kiwis earning under $21.50 an hour (pre tax) and working just under 36 hours per week are not spending their down time watching news bulletins or reading the minutiae of party policy.

      Can anyone confirm if Cunliffe has been doing this since he became leader? My understanding was Clark did this well before the ’99 election year and campaign?

      • Ron 3.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 8:25 am

        Does DC publish his public diary so that we can see just what he has been doing. If he doesn’t he certainly should

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 8:34 am

          Maybe, but it’s more important that he is getting out and about than I know about it per se. The places he is out and about in will know. You can also look at the Labour party website.

          I’m not a Labour Party supporter so I don’t visit that site regularly.

    • Ad 3.2
      19 February 2014 at 9:30 am

      An imperfect but challenging analogy there.

      Cunliffe is doing a shit-load better than either Goff or Shearer. Labour’s caucus ranks are so depleted after last times’ performance that he is the best we’ll get out of this current lot.

      Secondly, he’s aiming at the right target, namely activating the enrolled non-vote with policies that proclaim that it’s worth voting in 2014. That’s still the most important margin between winning and losing the election, both last time and this time.

      Thirdly, what he’s aiming to do against New Zealand’s most popular leader since Richard Seddon isn’t easy. The breakdown of staff in his office shows it. He ain’t a populist with the common touch – everyone can see that. He needs people like Shane Jones and Phil Twyford (and the rest if they’d only step up) to compensate. DC does need to actively give them the space to lead, or else he will burn out trying to do it all like Kevin Rudd.

      I guess finally in terms of the media, the rise of blogs against newspapers as primary political conduits (indeed for the PM!) shows that commentators here can have a greater role to play in a possible victory than they realised. You can be a part of that.

      Perhaps the one thing I would want to see is more public meeting opportunities called by DC to bring together those thousands of new Party members who surged to actually get him where he is. He is really good at the old stump speeches – his office needs to play to his strengths. He certainly has an emotional tin ear at times, but that is a massive opportunity going begging.

    • Bill 3.3
      19 February 2014 at 11:17 am

      All that stuff, important as it is, is fiddling. And given that a fair few people are comfortable enough with the status quo…

      It’s time to up the ante. Lots. Scare the fcking horses big time by bringing reality into the political sphere.

      Anyone want to hold that it’s outrageous to put Global Warming and Climate Change front and center stage? Have the argument or debate or whatever you want to call ‘presenting reality’, and run policies off the back of an explicit and forceful acknowledgement of AGW.

      I’m not holding my breath given the deep seated fear/denial that courses through the minds of people who actually do know better…the, ‘if I close my eyes, hide under the covers/behind the settee or just carry on as normal with all those old intergenerational expectations, it will all go away or just not happen’ mentality.

  4. phillip ure 4
    19 February 2014 at 7:33 am

    if..(as matt heath claims)..duncan garner is ‘a couch in a suit’…

    ..is ‘chem-trails’-col .. ‘a broom in a suit’..?

    ..phillip ure…

  5. floyd 5
    19 February 2014 at 7:47 am

    Just been listening to tau henare having a love in with that chap on Nat Rad. Absolute rubbish! henare was allowed to put it out there that Taurima had set up the office at tvnz as HEADQUARTERS for Labour meetings. I thought it was just one meeting. And why are national trotting out these compliant little underlings to spread the misinformation.

    And they should shut up. The most vicious attack by an interviewer on a politician was guyon espiner questioning Phil Goff. It was absolute out and out aimed at making Phil Goff look as if he was being evasive by g e shouting questions at him, counting to two and screaming at him to ANSWER THE QUESTION!! It was a full on assault that even Paul Holmes was shocked enough to comment on it.

    And we all know espiners political leaning.

    Also remember paul henry doing the same thing to Goff on breakfast and then sneering at him on the way he walked. All very unprofessional and very much at keys level.

    • North 5.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:00 am

      Don’t talk about Tau Henare Koretake Trougher Supreme…….oops…….there goes my budget breakfast.

    • Tracey 5.2
      19 February 2014 at 8:03 am

      If Taurima had used his home and his own paper and envelopes this would not be something henare could jump on. What would a head of maori news and current affairs be on?

    • framu 5.3
      19 February 2014 at 8:50 am

      the thing is – they are politicians

      regardless of party, every interview should appear biased from their position. If the interviewer isnt putting hard questions to them, highlighting the flaws and pointing out what their opponents are saying, its a soft interview

      all this “wah they were mean to me” is bullshit as any interviewer should be grilling them, a lot

      I would be worried if our pollies thought they had been treated kindly by the media

      • Tracey 5.3.1
        19 February 2014 at 9:07 am

        and they are. I understand they get the questions in advance rather than the list of topics to be traversed. Clark famously ran out because of this, and Key has run away from his press conference before too…

        MOST interviews, imo, are soft.

    • mac1 5.4
      19 February 2014 at 11:23 am

      Heard a news item repeated at 11 a.m. on National Radio that Tau Henare “felt that Taurima was biased but couldn’t point to any specifics.” Then another Nat politician,(Bennett?), was reported that she ‘felt’ that Taurima was biased.

      This is the new ‘feeling’ national government. Not fact based, but feelings based.

      The thing is, feelings cannot be denied, or argued with……………

      Frustrating, but clever politics. The inherent deceit needs to be pursued by interviewer and political opponents alike.

  6. big bruv 6
    19 February 2014 at 8:05 am

    John Key our most liked and trusted.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9736600/Key-most-liked-trusted

    Cunliffe at a pathetic 17.3%

    Not good news for Labour is it. 🙂

    • mickysavage 6.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:13 am

      Come on Bruv the result is 18.2% for Cunliffe and although it is dangerous to compare between different polls it is the best result for him so far and he is on the up.

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 8:16 am

        I always wondered what happened to Comical Ali…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 8:28 am

          When Cunliffe gets to 2% he’ll be as popular as Helen Clark before she became PM.

          Popularity contests might impress the simple-minded for a while, so while they’re distracted, can we have some better wingnuts, please?

          • Puckish Rogue 6.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 9:08 am

            As Dr Brian Edwards says

            “John Key is widely liked and I think this is a problem for anyone that wants to oppose him because that liking is the sort of liking people have for a mate or friend or someone they know.”

            “Key has got this easygoing pleasant demeanour, he doesn’t seem to take things all that seriously and kids around a bit, which gives him a very accessible personality. He enjoys this tremendous liking among the public, which is very difficult for his opponents to deal with.”

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 9:21 am

              Easy to be likeable when you’ve got a compliant media, but we’ve all seen how Key responds to searching enquiries: he walks out or demands the questions up-front, or simply refuses to appear.

              But none of that matters. National no-mates are trending down in every single poll. Key won’t be forming the next government.

              • Puckish Rogue …
                19 February 2014 at 9:32 am

                Also from Edwards:

                “It’s going to be extremely difficult for Labour to win this election.”

                • Ad …
                  19 February 2014 at 9:54 am

                  Edwards is only right if the same number of people stay home from voting as they did last time. Edwards, unsurprisingly, sees the world through the lens of the media alone.

                  National will lose in 2014 – not because of their leader – but because they don’t have anything to offer enough people. Simple as that.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    19 February 2014 at 11:16 am

                    It’s going to be a very close fight. I doubt that any govt formed is going to have a working majority of more than say 2-3 seats.

                    A Labour “victory” of this small scale would be a disaster and risks being a one term government.

                    National will lose in 2014 – not because of their leader – but because they don’t have anything to offer enough people. Simple as that.

                    I don’t really agree with you here.

                    National has read the mood of the nation and offers something very clear which Labour has not yet convinced the electorate that it also does: a safe pair of economic hands in difficult times, and better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      19 February 2014 at 12:56 pm

                      “A Labour “victory” of this small scale would be a disaster and risks being a one term government.”

                      But with Key going bye-bye, there’s no guarantee National will replace him with anyone electable. Remember they mis-fired with Blinglish and Brash last time.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      19 February 2014 at 1:10 pm

                      @ CV

                      I don’ understand why you are repeating the meme that National ‘is a safe pair of economic hands’ and that Labour can offer that ‘also’ while there are comments on this thread alone that indicate this ”Nat are fab at finance management’ line is clearly a myth that doesn’t stand up to reason.

                      Facts

                      National mismanage our finances and are good at covering that up through a number of techniques.

                      Labour have proven themselves to manage our finances way better and in ways that directly advantage our interests and improve our lot – while still balancing the books better than National.

                      More Facts

                      Bill English is the minister that has managed to have this country downgraded not once but twice (I acknowledge that Standard & Poors said in court that their ratings were mere opinion and shouldn’t have been listened to – despite this these ratings still adversely effect our country’s finances when downgraded because the idiots with vast supplies of money still do take them seriously).

                      -Labour invest in approaches that bear fruit – all National have done is take money away from things that bear fruit – please note that this means that these cuts are not yet showing the very real tangible costs that will result – i.e. the costs of their cuts and policies are hidden and will only bear rotten fruit once Labour is in government – (National will then, no doubt, blame Labour for the degeneration just like they have done since they are in Government – ‘everything is Labour’s fault’ according to National -How puerile National are – they just don’t take responsibility for anything they do )

                      -Conversely, National borrow to give people who are already wealthy tax cuts that, at least some of these recipients, know they don’t need.

                      -National have consistently bailed out wealthy interests, degenerated working conditions, pay and job numbers, consistently chosen foreign companies for government contracts over local ones, removed support for myriad forms of education thereby removing opportunities for those in difficult situations attempting to scrabble out of such (this is most definitely is the type of thing that we won’t see the consequences of until a few years time – as is their approach to our higher education system), they have ensured that information is thin on the ground: removing informative TV channels – one effect of which is that this myth about their supposedly ‘fab economic management’ can continue to go by unchallenged

                      So, yes perhaps there are some out their under the delusion that National ‘manage our finances soundly’ – yet I just do not know why you are perpetuating this myth here, CV, because it is wrong and that it keeps going by unchallenged in our get-rid-of-the-one-remaining-‘red-under-the-bed’-and-call-it-a-severe-left-influence-problem media is creating a vicious cycle of misinformation leading to a very misguided level of support for the wrong-minded party that National is.

                      Here, I’ll fix it for you:

                      “National-no-mates has read the mood of the nation and in response has offered propaganda about their ‘sound economic management’ a message which does not stand up to reason, which Labour has not yet managed to counteract within the electorate by pressing home that Labour is the one that offers a safe pair of economic hands in difficult times, and National are simply full of shit – and that Labour hasn’t managed to get this message out is perhaps leading to a lacksidaisical and baseless ‘better the devil you know than the devil you don’t’ attitude from the public as perhaps evidenced in these polls.

                      However Ad, you are quite correct the Left block offer more people more than National ever has or ever will do. Just hopefully Labour, the Greens & Mana can get that message across despite the profound right-wing propaganda that we are all being fed through our right-wing-captured mainstream media.”

                      🙂

                    • Ad …
                      19 February 2014 at 3:12 pm

                      Are you thinking its best for Labour to sit this one out?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

                      I don’ understand why you are repeating the meme that National ‘is a safe pair of economic hands’

                      I’m not “repeating” this meme, I am hearing this meme from a lot of different, fairly ordinary, people at the moment.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 February 2014 at 3:31 pm

                      Are you thinking its best for Labour to sit this one out?

                      My implication is that Labour is a long way away from being positioned for a certain result.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      19 February 2014 at 3:57 pm

                      @ CV

                      You actually have repeated the meme by the way you worded it.

                      You could have said “I don’t really agree with you here because I am getting the feedback from many people I speak to that they are falling for National’s message that they are ‘sound economic managers’ and I am not hearing many viewing Labour as such”

                      Can you see the difference in this and what you wrote?

                      This is an issue re the clarity of Labour’s message and you make that clear, yet your comment makes it sound like you think National are sound economic managers – “and Labour need to convince people they are also” – whereas there are actually serious factual problems with the view that National are managing our country well financially.

                      It is necessary that this assumption isn’t continually repeated verbatim – why do you think that people are of that opinion in the first place? Do we have any major sources of information that questions that meme? Or do we simply have our main information sources endlessly repeating National’s views of themselves verbatim?

                      You sound like you are starting to believe National’s [false] propaganda yourself.

            • TE 6.1.1.1.1.2
              19 February 2014 at 4:20 pm

              Is that Brian Edwards best friend of WO.
              John Key who is in touch with WO to check up on whats going on in NZ,
              WO the man who loves to persecute the Maori people
              Join the dots Maori people
              John Key is not widely liked by all the people,
              and we will vote accordingly

        • greywarbler 6.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 10:14 am

          Big Bruv does crop up irregularly Puckish R, unlike you.

      • big bruv 6.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 8:21 am

        micky

        Can you let me know where you purchase your rose tinted glasses from?

        The facts are that very few people trust Cunliffe. So far he has done nothing to alter the view that the vast majority of the public hold of the man. The public see him as smarmy, a liar, smug and hugely arrogant. This is only going to get worse once the real election campaign kicks off and the media start playing the clip of Cunliffe speaking in “bro talk”

        While I do detest left wing politics I really will take extra joy watching Cunliffe lose the next, I will also enjoy watching so many here tear themselves apart as Kiwis reject the vision of returning to a 1970’s New Zealand.

        Of course the biggest thrill of all for me will be seeing the death of the union movement, once Cunliffe loses (and he will) the union movement will almost cease to exist in NZ. That will be a great day for NZ.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2.1
          19 February 2014 at 8:31 am

          The polll you’re drooling over has Cunliffe at 50/50 in the trust stakes, which Pravda Fairfax describes as “more polarising” than Key’s 60/40.

          That’s a nice nose-ring and chain you’ve got there Bruv. Does the editor yank it often?

        • Ron 6.1.2.2
          19 February 2014 at 8:37 am

          I wonder why you have such a dislike of unions. Does it apply to all organisations involved with business.
          How about the New Zealand Initiative who have an aim of market-oriented reforms and wholesale sell-off of Public Assets, or the IPU, or is it just organisations that have the aims of safeguarding people in industries that pay scant regard to workers. Of course the unions oppose anything that reduces workers being treated fairly and being able to earn a fair wage for their work. Maybe you should spend a little time into why unions exist.

          Of course the biggest thrill of all for me will be seeing the death of the union movement

          • Tracey 6.1.2.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 8:44 am

            Or the Police Association, or the Taxpayer’s Union… or any group which stands up for the less powerful in a relationship with a huge power differential

            Example
            A small supplier in power differential with large supermarket. So they have the Food Council to speak for them which is like a union for suppliers… that Council must be killed, right?

            I don’t hate right wing politics but I do wonder at some of its supporters.

          • Tracey 6.1.2.2.2
            19 February 2014 at 8:51 am

            ” Former Labour Party president Mike Williams said he found the result inexplicable.

            “There are two things in my life which I absolutely cannot understand. One is what happened to the crew of the Marie Celeste and the other is why people think National manages the economy better than Labour. The evidence is entirely the reverse. Have people forgotten Rob Muldoon?” ”

            Why doesn’t this Mike Williams turn up on RNZ when pitted against Hooten?

        • Tracey 6.1.2.3
          19 February 2014 at 8:40 am

          so the poll last year which said majority didn’t trust Key was wrong?

          You wrote

          “The facts are that very few people trust Cunliffe. ”

          The poll you rely upon for this says 50% of people trust him. That’s 1 in 2 of NZers. Half if you prefer?

          “The public see him as smarmy, a liar, smug and hugely arrogant.” As someone who “detests left wing politics” is this an impartial representation of all NZers? You don’t have a source by any chance to prove your “fact” that this is “the public” view of Cunliffe?

          Fact

          a thing that is known or proved to be true.

          Public

          of or concerning the people as a whole

          Whole

          all of; entire.

          Here’s a sample of the politics of the right

          “extreme as Afghanistan’s Taleban ” P Dunne describing some Green Party Mps

    • Tracey 6.2
      19 February 2014 at 8:17 am

      I like ice cream, but it isn’t good for me.

    • Tracey 6.3
      19 February 2014 at 8:49 am

      big bruv

      I see what you did there…. mentioned like and trust and then stated the result for preferred prime minister, rather than Cunliffe’s trust and like percentage.

      Brian Edwards on John Key

      “Even when people considered him to be dodgy on issues such as the SkyCity deal, or electorate accommodations in seats like Epsom, that was outweighed by the fact they liked him. ”

      You see big bruv, even when someone is robbing you blind, you don’t care cos he’s such a nice guy.

      Sadly the 50% of kiwis earning under 22 bucks an hour on a 36 hour week have to wait for you to look at your bank account and realise the “nice” guy emptied it, before they can hope for a better life.

    • tricledrown 6.4
      19 February 2014 at 11:15 am

      BB Helen Clark was just as popular when she was PM
      How ever you put it Cunliffe is gaining Key is slipping..

      • big bruv 6.4.1
        19 February 2014 at 1:15 pm

        tricledrown

        Sorry, but you are wrong. Helen Clark was never as popular as John Key. She could only dream of being as loved by the people as Key is.

        Anyway, she did not care in her last term, she could see the writing on the wall and started spending millions of my tax dollars to buy herself a job at the corrupt UN.

        Still, in some ways it was cheap, it signalled the end of the most corrupt government in our nations history, a government led by Helen Clark.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.4.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 1:53 pm

          Yeah, that’s drawing a long bow, Bruv, considering the existence of low-life scum like Graham Capill and David Garrett.

        • Tracey 6.4.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 2:28 pm

          Wow, everyone is corrupt except for the man who made his millions out of currency trading and assisting the collapse of Ireland’s economy.

          Con-men have to be likeable Big Bruv. That’s how the con works. Same with pedophiles. If they were nasty, they couldn’t lure kids.

      • Tracey 6.4.2
        19 February 2014 at 2:26 pm

        did they do “like” polls? I know they did respect polls.

    • Enough is Enough 6.5
      19 February 2014 at 11:17 am

      John Key is the most liked and trusted by the corrupt corporate media organisations.

      This is now war against an incredibly strong propoganda campaign now being run against the minds of the working class in New Zealand.

      We must shut the bastards down somehow.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.6
      19 February 2014 at 3:04 pm

      And Helen Clark turned out to be the most liked PM in NZ history despite having poll ratings below what Cunliffe now has.

    • David H 6.7
      19 February 2014 at 9:26 pm

      Read the comments to the fluff piece Knuckledragger. Then you will find out what the voters of NZ really think of that sneering, lying, self entitled, VISITOR to NZ.

    • Paul 6.8
      19 February 2014 at 9:41 pm

      Didn’t you read my comments about the corporate media at the top of this site?
      And did you read the comments at the bottom of that Pradaesque passage?
      Josef Stalin would be proud of Fairfax Media.

  7. phil 7
    19 February 2014 at 8:12 am

    Xox
    The stats may be dodgy. The MSM and polls are biased. If they aren’t, then the majority of people are duped and and we get what we deserve. You can fool most of the people, most of the time, But not all of the people ALL of the time. The disaffected and powerless need to have policies they can be bothered voting for.

    • Tracey 7.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:58 am

      ” The poll also asks voters which of the two parties, National or Labour, is best for young families, best for growing the economy and best for closing the gap between the haves and have-nots. Labour trumped National as best for families, at 54.4 per cent to 34.4 per cent with 11.3 per cent undecided.

      It was also streets ahead of National at closing the gaps, at 56.1 per cent to 29 per cent, and 14.9 per cent undecided. But National was seen as the safest pair of hands with the economy, at 63 per cent to Labour’s 27.7 per cent. ”

      This is counter-intuitive but shows the power of the message. Labour has to start repeating some messages…

      Families are important
      Fair pay for a full day’s work

      Remind people that this “rockstar” economy has been here before and it never closed the gap, it never made life better for families, and then it collapsed. The families paid the bailout money, and the cycle started again. We are just at the beginning of the same old cycle.

      • David H 7.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 10:15 pm

        Then the doco on TV3 tonight should go a long way to convincing the undecided’s and wavering voters that the status quo is just not working..

  8. phillip ure 8
    19 February 2014 at 8:12 am

    heh..!

    ..my 16 yr old (vegan)-dog..(whose name is lucy..)

    ..is lying on her bed next to my desk..

    ..under her ‘blankey’..

    ..with her head resting on her favourite pillow..

    ..as i lean over and drop pieces of wholemeal toast with a smearing of jam/peanut butter..

    ..into her mouth..

    ..(she seems grateful..if a wagging/thumping tail is anything to go by…)

    ..phillip ure..

  9. phillip ure 9
    19 February 2014 at 8:44 am

    “..James Lovelock: ‘enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan’..”

    “..The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable –

    carbon offsetting is a joke –
    and ethical living a scam.

    So what would he do?..”

    http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

    phillip ure..

    • Puckish Rogue 9.1
      19 February 2014 at 9:16 am

      Its been a while since I read any of James Lovelock but doesn’t he think nuclear power is the way to go?

      • MaxFletcher 9.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 9:38 am

        Yes, he has been a proponent of nuclear

        • phillip ure 9.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 10:40 am

          he has advocated nuke..which has put him offside with all greens..

          ..but as far as his history of accurate predictions is concerned..

          ..lovelock has good form there..

          ..so i wouldn’t/didn’t dismiss his words/predictions..

          ..for just those accurate record reasons..

          ..and righties out there should look at family members..

          ..and place them in the scenario lovelock posits…

          ..in 20 yrs from now..

          ..and then maybe ask themselves..

          ..if that is what they want for those family members..

          ..and for themselves..

          ..and hopefully come to the conclusion that this is not a left/right issue..

          ..it is a survival issue..

          ..and we are all going to need to work together..and soon..

          ..to have any hope of avoiding that nightmare/dystopia predicted by lovelock..

          ..’cos a few solar-panels on a roof..and a prius..

          ..just ain’t gonna cut it..

          ..eh..?

          ..we all..deep in our hearts..know that..

          ..don’t we..?

          phillip ure..

      • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 3:19 pm

        Yep, he does. I suspect that he hasn’t looked at the figures in depth or he wouldn’t be. The making of the reactor, the needed enrichment, the problems of nuclear waste and the final decommissioning of the plant all add up to make nuclear even less efficient than burning fossil fuels.

        • MaxFletcher 9.1.2.1
          19 February 2014 at 3:26 pm

          I think the point he was making (from memory) is that nuclear is a quick solution to utilise inbetween finding better technologies

          • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

            He doesn’t think there are any other technologies:

            “You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”

            He’s right in a way – we have to change society to be sustainable.

            • MaxFletcher 9.1.2.1.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 4:17 pm

              We do need to be to be less power intensive, agreed.

              • David H …
                19 February 2014 at 10:25 pm

                @Draco and Max

                Or energy smarter
                or self sustaining
                or a mixture of the two

                What fucking ever.
                The wording is just semantics.

                It’s the doing thats the HARD part. And when the government is happy to sit on it’s hands with both thumbs up it’s arse, then fuck all will be done.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 February 2014 at 11:24 pm

                  Part of the way that society needs to change is to stop calling parliament government and start calling it what it is – our fucken servants. We, the people, are the government.

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.1.2
            19 February 2014 at 4:45 pm

            I think the point he was making (from memory) is that nuclear is a quick solution to utilise inbetween finding better technologies

            LOL!!!

            Sorry mate, no “better technologies” are going to make it to the masses in time. What we have on the table now is all that there will be.

            As for the idea of a “quick solution” – its a 10 year plus mission to get a nuclear power station built and commissioned. Not very “quick.”

          • weka 9.1.2.1.3
            19 February 2014 at 7:36 pm

            “I think the point he was making (from memory) is that nuclear is a quick solution to utilise inbetween finding better technologies”

            I was under the impression that he thinks nuclear is a short term solution to get the developed nations off fossil fuel power generation asap, and the main rationale was to save large populations in low lying areas like Bangladesh from bearing the brunt of our mess. Beyond that, this is the guy who is telling us to put all our information into hard copy because the technology to run electronics won’t survive the coming shit.

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1.3.1
              19 February 2014 at 11:29 pm

              Electronics will survive as they’re actually really cheap to make. Just have to setup the infrastructure and we can do that without fossil oil.

              Farming in its present incarnation won’t though but it will still be able to supply enough food to provide for the surplus of people necessary to produce everything else that exists today.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.2
      19 February 2014 at 3:31 pm

      On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on – all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won’t make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

      The bolded part is the part that most people don’t want to admit – especially the libertarians and conservatives who actively deny the need to act collectively.

      • phillip ure 9.2.1
        19 February 2014 at 6:31 pm

        @ draco..

        oh well..!…2015 should be a wake-up call for those libs/cons..

        ..el nino returns..

        ..and we will have serious weather events up the jacksie..

        ..we must reach that tipping-point soon..

        ..we had better..!

        ..phillip ure..

      • weka 9.2.2
        19 February 2014 at 7:40 pm

        The original point of recycling wasn’t to mitigate AGW, it’s to stop polluting land and waterways. It’s a definite improvement on digging a hole and throwing all the toxic crap in it. Recycling is a community action that individuals can take part in. It works (not using in the first place, and reusing, would be way better of course). I agree about carbon offsetting, it’s something that economists think is a good idea. Ethical consumption works to an extent but the more mainstream it gets, the more it just renders invisible the actual problems.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2.1
          19 February 2014 at 7:57 pm

          Recycling does two important things:
          1.) It reduces pollution caused by solid waste and
          2.) It ensures that use of finite resources is sustainable

          But it requires that the entire community engage in it and not just an individual here and there. Basically, without enforced recycling the waste bill will remain high and our use of resources will remain unsustainable.

          We need to operate as a community and not just as individuals to solve most problems in society.

  10. Disraeli Gladstone 10
    19 February 2014 at 9:24 am

    http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gut-feeling-update/

    Danyl really hits everything I feel about Labour’s sheer incompetence at the moment.

    • mickysavage 10.1
      19 February 2014 at 11:42 am

      I left a comment on his site and for some reason it has disappeared but I will repeat it here:

      The reality is that David was visiting Fitzroy Yachts in New Plymouth after their closure was announced. This would lead to the loss of 120 jobs and is a symptom of multiple problems including a too high exchange and a lack of regional development. TV3 caught up with him.

      The framing is naughty in the extreme. Call it whatever you want but it sure looks like media bias to me. They are not reporting on an issue, they are framing a story in an extremely negative way.

      It is also one big diversion, Key favours support being given to the rich, Cunliffe prefers that the poorer amongst us are looked after and that there is equal opportunity for all. Individual wealth is when you think about it rather irrelevant.

      • Roflcopter 10.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 11:49 am

        “The reality is that David was visiting Fitzroy Yachts in New Plymouth after their closure was announced.”

        Perception is everything, and if you can’t get your shit organised and avoid this kind of thing happening, then you deserve everything you get. It’s always the same with the media, they’re out to get you, yet time and time again idiots fail to remember this and get caught…. it’s not bias, it happens to both sides, remember Brash walking the plank?

        “Individual wealth is when you think about it rather irrelevant.”

        And yet Cunliffe continues to use it as an attack line… the fail goes on and on.

        • Hayden 10.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 12:08 pm

          Perception is everything, and if you can’t get your shit organised and avoid this kind of thing happening, then you deserve everything you get.

          While I agree in general, it’s hard to see what Cunliffe could have done differently here – perhaps not visit a yacht manufacturer that’s closing down just in case the media use that image to denigrate him for being “too rich”?

          • mickysavage 10.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 1:40 pm

            Or stay at home in case he gets photographed with an unflattering background.

            • Hayden 10.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 1:45 pm

              With the curtains drawn, in case he gets photographed with an unflattering foreground.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.2
              20 February 2014 at 8:50 am

              +1 Micky.

              He can spend all morning choosing the perfect background, and then the editor will choose the equivalent of your favourite photo of Key.

        • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 10.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 12:08 pm

          If you went out to a fancy restaurant and ordered a $50 steak and it was served to you in a stainless steel dog bowl you’d notice, right? Doesn’t change the taste of the food but you can tell at a glance that it’s NOT A GOOD LOOK and that the NOTAGOODLOOKNESS makes the taste of the food almost irrelevant. You’re not going to remember how the food tasted; what will stick in your mind is the image of the dog bowl. It’s so obviously NOT A GOOD LOOK that no restaurateur in his right mind would do such a thing.

          Labour does it week after week. The food changes and the bowl changes but time after time their Thing They Want You To Remember is totally obscured by the NOT A GOOD LOOK thing.

          Hey, let’s have the Leader’s big State of the Nation speech “in the darkened auditorium of a school in an obscure corner of west Auckland and make serious remarks concerning early childhood education while everyone is completely distracted by the joys of a public holiday and the excitement of the Grammy Awards”.

          Hey, let’s have the Leader make a big policy announcement on antenatal health care but have the written and spoken text say different things and send out an infographic that clearly misrepresents the policy and lets announce it via a badly-spelled Twitter post and then when the Leader is questioned about a detail of the policy that’s supposed to be so important let’s have him not know the answer.

          Hey, let’s have the Leader criticise John Key’s wealth while living in a multimilliondollar home in Auckland’s most expensive suburb and let’s put him on TV to defend this hypocrisy while standing in front of a sign advertising custom-built luxury superyachts.

          All these things are just as obviously NOT A GOOD LOOK as the dog bowl, but there doesn’t appear to be anyone in the Labour comms team willing or able to point that out. Week after week, fuckup after fuckup, no-one’s ever to blame and it’s all the fault of the evil right-wing media conspiracy and Crosby Textor and the molemen. Never Labour’s fault, no, that’s crazy talk.

          • Hayden 10.1.1.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 12:12 pm

            Hey, let’s have the Leader criticise John Key’s wealth while living in a multimilliondollar home in Auckland’s most expensive suburb and let’s put him on TV to defend this hypocrisy while standing in front of a sign advertising custom-built luxury superyachts.

            Do you think Labour sent Cunliffe to New Plymouth for that TV interview about his wealth?

            • SHG (not Colonial Viper) 10.1.1.2.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 12:20 pm

              Someone in the Labour comms team allowed Cunliffe to stand in that spot – not any other spot, that one right there – and continue his attacks on the PM’s personal wealth with a TV camera pointed at him.

              A real serious political party would have a media manager or a comms manager stand where the camera is and look at the shot and think “how does this look? how will this look in context? is there anything bad in this picture?” and then when the dog bowl was plainly evident that person would say to Cunliffe “cancel this interview right now”.

              Then again, a real serious political party with a comms manager would have told Cunliffe that to attack the PM’s personal wealth and place of residence would be fucking retarded and it never would have happened in the first place, but hey, baby steps.

              • Hayden …
                19 February 2014 at 12:30 pm

                And then someone would be all over their “Hey, Clint” moment.

                If he’s there about the yacht factory, then it makes sense to be standing in front of its sign. He can’t exactly move around as the subject changes, can he?

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  19 February 2014 at 12:33 pm

                  Of course he can! He’s the fucking Leader of the Labour Party, not an extra on Shortland Street getting bossed around by the set director.

                  A “Hey Clint” moment happens when the subject is caught out after the camera starts rolling. A real serious political party with a media manager would make sure that the camera doesn’t even start rolling if there’s a fucking dog bowl in the background. A media manager would quietly say “we’re cancelling this interview” to Cunliffe and politely and loudly say “OH DEAR THE LEADER IS RUNNING BEHIND SCHEDULE AND WE HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT THING TO DO THAT’S NOT ON THE PUBLISHED SCHEDULE, SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE, VOTE QUIMBY”

                  Everyone would know that was a white lie and everyone would know that a media manager had decided to pull the plug for a media manager type reason and no-one would think anything of it because that’s what real serious political parties with media managers do.

                  • Hayden …
                    19 February 2014 at 12:46 pm

                    Really?

                    “Mr Cunliffe, you’re here talking to the employees of Fitzroy Yachts…”

                    “Yes, that’s right, they’re losing their jobs due to the high exchange rate…”

                    “And what about John Key’s wealth?” (or something)

                    (shuffles in front of sign, obscuring it) “Well, he’s well out of touch, innit?”

                    I don’t think Cunliffe could have “won” that really. And why, exactly, is it wrong for him to be standing in front of a yacht factory anyway? I could understand if he was clutching a receipt and a key-ring with “Massive Yacht” written on it, but is there a list of things it’s not acceptable to stand in front of because they’re “too rich”?

                    PS This was made before your edit, and I don’t see a media manager sidling up to Cunliffe and whispering in his ear playing any better on the news.

                    PPS Is anyone really bothered by the Fitzroy Yachts sign, other than you?

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      19 February 2014 at 12:53 pm

                      Then the Leader says “I’m here to talk about the employees of this NZ company, not John Key”.

                      Sheesh, why is that so hard?

                    • Ant …
                      19 February 2014 at 1:28 pm

                      Lose lose for Labour, the media are going to report what they want to report. We know from Gower that if he doesn’t have any dirt he will just make something up or edit something to fit the story he wants to tell.

                      Labour just need to face facts that a large contingent of the media are completely hostile and nothing they do is going to change that. Changing the message or a tighter message won’t work because they’ll edit the message out and play a soundbite that suits them.

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      19 February 2014 at 1:57 pm

                      Is anyone really bothered by the Fitzroy Yachts sign, other than you?

                      http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/gut-feeling-update/

                    • Hayden …
                      19 February 2014 at 2:06 pm

                      Okay, two of you then. It’s not really doing much outside of political blogs, though.

                  • wtl …
                    19 February 2014 at 12:55 pm

                    A media manager would quietly say “we’re cancelling this interview” to Cunliffe…

                    And then Patrick Gower would report that Cunliffe just walked away from an interview and is refusing to answer questions.

                    • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                      19 February 2014 at 1:05 pm

                      Yes but all this is happening in a world, this one, where no-one said to Cunliffe “attacking Key’s wealth and home is retarded, don’t do it”. None of this would have happened if Labour wasn’t so useless at communicating.

                    • wtl …
                      19 February 2014 at 1:16 pm

                      I agree that Labour attacking’s Key’s wealth is a poor strategy. Cunliffe would be much better off front-footing the issue to say that he is proud of what he has achieved and wants to build a NZ were all of us have a chance to do so (“a nation of opportunity”), not just the already wealthy, and where all of us are willing to help those less fortunate than us, rather than simply kicking them down.

                      However, my point is that if the certain individuals in the media have already decided the ‘angle’ they are going to show, it is not that hard to edit an interview or report only facts that suit that angle. Labour has to do better, yes, but it is not an easy as you are making it out to be.

                    • xtasy …
                      19 February 2014 at 7:57 pm

                      SHG –

                      It is too late, they lost the plot, long ago, there is only one alternative now, vote Greens or Mana (I rather suggest the first). I did try to make the problem aware to others a year ago, but they all wanted to ‘rescue” Labour, thinking change comes from within. It is not working, that is clear, the party is “fucked”, for good. It is better to found a new party and start from scratch, there is NO other solution, really.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      19 February 2014 at 8:34 pm

                      Xtasy. At a certain poorly defined point, continuing to pour time, money and hope into a centrist political party is probably no longer going to make sense.

                  • McFlock …
                    19 February 2014 at 1:12 pm

                    so you have an interview where he or “clint” steps in as the subject changes to inequality or wealth, moves him away from the sign, he is asked the question again…

                    yeah, that wouldn’t be a media cockup at all.

                    Or maybe all politicians should just wander around aimlessly as interviews progress, just in case the background has something in it that might be inappropriate for that portion of the interview? Viewers would get seasick.

              • BM …
                19 February 2014 at 12:36 pm

                I agree, this attacking Key because he’s wealthy is probably one of the most retarded political strategies I’ve ever seen.
                There is absolutely no upside to this strategy.

                All it’s doing is demonstrating how dishonest ,pig headed and out of touch the labour party is.

                • logie97 …
                  20 February 2014 at 12:39 am

                  “Mind the Gap” BM watch and learn.

                • felix …
                  20 February 2014 at 12:44 am

                  “I agree, this attacking Key because he’s wealthy is probably one of the most retarded political strategies I’ve ever seen.”

                  And yet here you all are, attacking Cunliffe for being wealthy.

                  Why do you hate the wealthy?

              • idlegus …
                19 February 2014 at 1:16 pm

                & then the media runs a story about how cunliffe didnt want to stand near that spot & will run a story about how he has a team who want to manipulate the story etc…remember it happened with gareth hughes, when he talked to one of his minders, the media ran with that? as if key et al dont have their minders on hand offering advice 24/7, yet we dont get to see those machinations. i certainly hope labour get better at this, & the message being ‘the media hate you!’.

              • idlegus …
                19 February 2014 at 1:18 pm

                & then the media runs a story about how cunliffe didnt want to stand near that spot & will run a story about how he has a team who want to manipulate the story etc…remember it happened with gareth hughes, when he talked to one of his minders, the media ran with that? as if key et al dont have their minders on hand offering advice 24/7, yet we dont get to see those machinations. i certainly hope labour get better at this, & the message being ‘the media hate you labour!’.

                • SHG (not Colonial Viper) …
                  19 February 2014 at 1:23 pm

                  That happened when Hughes was so unprepared he didn’t know what his official answer was, and so naive that he thought it was OK to just turn and ask what his official answer was while the camera was rolling.

      • Jimmie 10.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 10:09 pm

        You could say the same about Brash and planks or Shearer and dead fish…

        The reality was that for both of them it was a final straw pointing to the end of their leadership.

        For Cunliffe – not that fatal but definitely a bit of a body blow

    • rhinocrates 10.2
      19 February 2014 at 1:45 pm

      Too bad Malcolm Tucker was last seen in a blue box, Saul Tigh’s bones are somewhere in Africa and Frank Underwood is very happy with his new job, because they are what Labour needs.

      Admittedly they’re all fictitious characters, but so is John Key and that hasn’t held him back.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 10.2.1
        19 February 2014 at 3:46 pm

        Kevin Spacey is insignificant against Ian Richardson’s original performance of the character.

        All these remakes making me feel old.

        • rhinocrates 10.2.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 3:49 pm

          You might very well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

        • idlegus 10.2.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 3:57 pm

          +100. i tried to watch the remake, & i didn’t think it was too bad, but ian richardson just made that role his own.

          • rhinocrates 10.2.1.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 6:17 pm

            Apologies for starting a derail, but I hope you’ve seen in the BBC Tinker Tailor, Soldier Spy. Pretty good as Death too.

  11. Adrian 11
    19 February 2014 at 10:17 am

    What i would like to see is ( I would do it myself but I’m hopeless at maths) is the last election outcome but minus the Maori Party ,(even Flavell has already hinted that it’s dog tucker, something that the MSM has studiously ignored), ACT and Dunne. Who would have formed the Government then?
    Factor in that Labour is at least 5 points ahead of where it was in the last election and when it gets any comparable airtime, like after the leadership contest that jumps to 8-9 points up.
    Remember 45,000 voters was the difference.

  12. greywarbler 12
    19 February 2014 at 10:38 am

    20,000 car sellers given tickets for naughties of the car’s new owners. Police cannot understand, it was very busy with Christmas etc.

    The actual reason is that the government has limited back office staff numbers, only front ones matter. So we have a surge of busy people without proper checks and back-up making mistakes, delivering bad or wrong results. Very efficient – Not!

    And the idea is crazy that government employees can be reduced to a bunch of distant voices from another country (another example of not working within the country to provide our own needs and be mostly self-sufficient) plus a slab, like the one from 2001 Space Odyssey, but with enigmatic wiring and metallic resonating stuff inside, plus a few techy accolytes.

    I give that the finger. It is not going to deliver, fair, modern standards of service, it is inhuman to force an inhuman system on humans, and it is not cheaper. The technology has to be constantly monitored, which can be by other machines, but everything has to be nursed, checked, updated, upgraded, anomalies sorted,, mistakes corrected, new machines integrated, new bugs found and corrected, old ones traced, security systems and firewalls installed and then checked to see whether they are compatible and the whole lot replaced every five years approx. That costs, and it needs dedicated people in all senses of the word who need to be well paid.

    It seems an observable fact that humans cannot run anything perfectly for any lengthy period, and machines and systems will develop problems and fail. The bloody government and their tech advisors, are incapable of providing us with efficient and effective machines to replace humans. They should bloody well be given a kick with winklepickers, which are as stupid and ineffective as useful shoes, as their ideas for long-term cheap technologial services are.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      19 February 2014 at 4:21 pm

      The bloody government and their tech advisors

      The government, as far as I can make out, don’t have tech advisors. What they seem to do is contract the private sector to tell them what they need and the private sector, which is trying to sell their own tech, tells them that they need what they’re selling and not what the government actually needs. They probably don’t even understand what the government needs.

      The government truly does need its own tech department that supplies it with everything that it needs.

  13. Kevin McCready 13
    19 February 2014 at 10:49 am

    It would be a huge win if we can get people to understand that the phrase “the economy” is a Lakoff frame.
    http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/
    http://kmccready.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/open-letter-to-colin-james-cc-rod-oram/

    [lprent: This comment appears to have nothing to do with the post (ie nothing in it says why it is here) and at least one of the links is to your own site.

    Moved to OpenMike.

    If I see diversionary link-whoring again, you won’t be able to comment here again. Read our policy and be thankful karol gave you a warning (I’d have just started with banning). ]

    • karol 13.1
      19 February 2014 at 11:04 am

      Kevin, can you explain how this framing relates to the content in the post? It is Bryan Bruce that talks of “the economy”, while most of the post focuses on poverty, inequality, related government policies and how it impacts on people’s lives – especially those of children.

      For myself, I have long been opposed to the way “the economy” dominates politics, and think that the central focus should be people’s lives, communities and social policies – financial and economic considerations should support the primary focus, not lead it.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 11:10 am

        For myself, I have long been opposed to the way “the economy” dominates politics

        The other way of phrasing this is that politics has been made subordinate to the requirements of neoliberal economics, corporate dominance and private bank financing.

        Of course, this was deliberately done and not a coincidence, leading to the phenomena that regardless who was in power, the neoliberal agenda simply rolled on while politics tried to look busy with trivial distractions and inanities.

        I also suspect that this is a major reason for lower income peoples disengagement with politics and voting.

        • karol 13.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 11:21 am

          Well, I certainly think such a focus is a turn off for most people. Like for instance, the whole financial/markets reporting on the nightly TV news. Who pays attention to that?

          It doesn’t have meaning to most people’s daily lives and struggles.

          In contrast there is the whole accentuation of “human interest” stories and the (individualistic) entertainment and infotainment within the media makes more connections with individuals and their lives – but that also supports the “neoliberal” agenda.

          Somehow the left needs to cut through and around that.

          I read something recently – a peer reviewed study showing that in times of crisis, voters pay more attention to policies than the poll-driven framing of politics as a horse race. People go with the horse race framing in times of relative stability. And I think the whole poll-driven “horse race” approach to politics is another focus that supports the “neoliebral” agenda.

          Left parties have been developing a raft of policies that address the daily realities of a lot of people’s lives.

          • tricledrown 13.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 11:37 am

            Left parties have to get around MSM blogs such as the standard are really good.
            Numbers of party volunteers are another way getting nonvoters to vote.
            These non voters are the poorest generally and have become apathetic most likely due to longterm depression caused by poverty.
            When I talk to non voters they have given up on democracy because they see politicians as all tarred with the same brush.

          • greywarbler 13.1.1.1.2
            19 February 2014 at 10:01 pm

            CV I like this. Can I have it?

            Of course, this was deliberately done and not a coincidence, leading to the phenomena that regardless who was in power, the neoliberal agenda simply rolled on while politics tried to look busy with trivial distractions and inanities.

        • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 4:25 pm

          +1

      • Kevin McCready 13.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 12:28 pm

        Hi Karol
        Was there anything in the two links I posted which wasn’t clear? Can you be more specific?

        • karol 13.1.2.1
          19 February 2014 at 12:45 pm

          Kevin, the comments are for a discussion here on the above post and not just to provide a platform for you to link to your own blog. It’s you who needs to be more specific.

          How do your links relate to my post?

          Edit: The Standard Policy Page.

          You can link to your own site provided it isn’t excessive, explains why you think it should be read (so people can decide not to go there without clicking into it), is short, and you either do it in OpenMike or within the context of the post or surrounding comments

          [lprent: You’re so polite – karol. I’d have just educated him a bit more abruptly. In fact looking at it, I think he needs some education. ]

        • McFlock 13.1.2.2
          19 February 2014 at 4:29 pm

          Kevin, did you literally want us to read the entire book you linked to, just to try and figure out what you’re too lazy to explain in your own words?

          • Kevin McCready 13.1.2.2.1
            20 February 2014 at 11:33 am

            Flocky, Yes, and apologies as a newbie for not understanding the culture of this forum. But here’s how I imagine it would work.
            Download the book.
            Scan to see if it’s useful (1-2 mins)
            Scan to see if it supports my idea that “the economy” is a Lakoff frame (5-7 mins)
            If it doesn’t support my idea say so.
            Read further if it interests you.

            But here’s my proposition in reponse to you and Karol:
            The use of the word “economy” in the article is EXACTLY the problem we are facing. The article is about poverty and the economy.

            Central to the article is the quote from Bryan Bruce:
            “I’m not an economist” Bruce explains, “but by the time I’d finished my documentary on Child Poverty I wanted to know what the hell had gone so wrong with our economy.”

            My point is that Bruce fails to understand that “the economy” is a Lakoff frame.If we fail to understand how language is used by the right to frame the debate and to frame the very way we think, we are in trouble.

            In the Lakoff framing sense “the economy” is a frame for a belief in trickle down theory, neoclassical theory or any other theory which accepts there is such a measurable entity as “the economy”. The “frame” contains the idea that growing a bigger pie will benefit all. The trick with “frames” is that because they are so easy to fall into, we unconsciously accept them as reality. Though with this frame there are large vested interests in academia, politics and business in pushing the frame into economics textbooks.

            In reality “the economy” is just one more contested site in the human sphere. It’s the site where various groups of people try to maximise their positions. Various interest groups, sectors, industries will always seek to argue that their position is good for “the economy”. It is this which Bruce seems to accept even while he says he doesn’t understand it.

            Hope this clears things up and I will remember in future the culture of this forum.

            • McFlock 13.1.2.2.1.1
              20 February 2014 at 2:20 pm

              Thanks for that – even if I’d bothered to read the book, it seemed to follow your habit of using 50 words where one would do (wtf is “contested site in the human sphere”? No, I don’t need an answer – I was being rhetorical).

              Basically, I disagree entirely, especially with your claim The “frame” contains the idea that growing a bigger pie will benefit all.
              This assumption is not necessary to contemplate economic activity, indeed is the antithesis of such things as GINI coefficients. And even if we decided that the economy was a completely imaginary concept rather than a label for specific social behaviours that can actually be observed and measured, how does that put food on everyone’s table?

  14. veutoviper 14
    19 February 2014 at 10:50 am

    In breaking news on the Herald site, APN is buying out The Radio Network.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11205386

    APN News & Media, the Australian publisher of the New Zealand Herald newspaper, says it will take over all of The Radio Network in a $NZ267m deal.

    APN owns half of the Radio Network on both sides of the Tasman, whose stable includes the NewstalkZB network. It will buy the remaining half from US Clear Channel Media.

    Other stations in the network include Classic Hits, ZM, Radio Hauraki, Radio Sport, Coast, Flava, Hokonui and the Farming Show.

    And so the stranglehold on the media tightens even further …..

  15. veutoviper 15
    19 February 2014 at 11:39 am

    While this has nothing to do with politics, I felt the need to share as this article made my day!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9736691/Mila-the-elephant-gets-to-meet-her-kind

    Mila is the elephant who crushed her keeper to death at Franklin Zoo a couple of years ago. She is now in California and in the process of being reintegrated with other elephants for the first time in 37 years.

    • Roflcopter 15.1
      19 February 2014 at 11:51 am

      We need to ditch all zoos, and provide better protection in an animal’s natural environment.

      • Draco T Bastard 15.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 4:35 pm

        Which means that we would have to protect the animal’s natural environment. Something that we’ve been very bad at so far and that National doesn’t want to do because it would interfere with the farmers.

    • phillip ure 15.2
      19 February 2014 at 12:08 pm

      @ veuto..

      yeah..if that doesn’t make you choke up..

      ..you must be made of stone..

      ..phillip ure..

  16. freedom 16
    19 February 2014 at 12:07 pm

    completely as expected and almost as incisive as a marshmallow scalpel
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2586259/election-year-interviews

    Forget about an interviewer raising pesky facts like the skyrocketing level of our current debt and how any stated surplus is an obvious smoke and mirrors game. Even after the PM declared Labour’s 10 billion was dangerously high (or some such garbage), we hear only crickets in the wilderness.

    Questions on broad policy issues? I recall two or three but they generally get lost in the smarm.

    Pass over the absurd justifications for why the PM thinks the sales of our assets was a success and how yet again no mention is made of the TPPA when the PM is in the chair.

    Ignore the laughable statements by the PM on the MMP review and the rote lines stumbled over when discussing Banks and Dunne.

    Considering that this was an interview with our PM about an upcoming election and seeing as political influence in the media is such a topic of the day, what irks the most has to be that at no time during this morning’s interview could RNZ bring itself to question the PM about his self-admitted cosy-cosy relationship with Cameron Slater, even when the PM opens both patio doors and had cold beers on the table ready.

  17. karol 17
    19 February 2014 at 12:23 pm

    Breaking: appeal high court judgment on Dotcm arrest and sending of documents to US: search warrants valid but defective. Decision upheld that Dotcom’s material should never have been sent to US.

    • Draco T Bastard 17.1
      19 February 2014 at 4:41 pm

      high court judgment on Dotcm arrest and sending of documents to US: search warrants valid but defective

      /facepalm

      If the warrants were defective then they were also invalid.

  18. veutoviper 18
    19 February 2014 at 12:28 pm

    The Court of Appeal decision on the validity of the search warrants used in the KDC raid is now out.

    In brief, the CA found in favour of the Crown in respect of the warrants – ie that while there were defects, these were not enough to nullify the search warrants per se.

    However, the CA upheld the High Court ruling that the removal of the clones to the United States was in breach of the Solicitor-General’s direction that the items seized in the searches were to remain in the “custody and control” of the Commissioner until further direction. (Notwithstanding this direction, the Police permitted the FBI to remove to the United States clones (copies) of some of the electronic items seized by the Police.)

    So a mixed result, but one which keeps the Police in the hot seat re the clones.

    Decision is here

    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/her-majestys-attorney-general-v-kim-dotcom/at_download/fileDecision

    Press release
    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/her-majestys-attorney-general-v-kim-dotcom/at_download/fileMediaNotes

    .EDIt – Karol, snap!

  19. phillip ure 19
    19 February 2014 at 1:22 pm

    (one of todays’ must-reads..)

    “..One-Percent Jokes – and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society.

    Looking up at him from an elegant dinner of rack of lamb and foie gras – were many of the most famous investors in the world, –

    including executives from nearly every too-big-to-fail bank – private equity megafirm – and major hedge fund.

    AIG CEO Bob Benmosche was there – as were Wall Street superlawyer Marty Lipton and Alan “Ace” Greenberg – the former chairman of Bear Stearns.

    And those were just the returning members.

    Among the neophytes were hedge fund billionaire and major Obama donor Marc Lasry –

    and Joe Reece – a high-ranking dealmaker at Credit Suisse. [To see the full Kappa Beta Phi member list, click in link.]

    All told – enough wealth and power was concentrated in the St. Regis that night –

    that if you had dropped a bomb on the roof, –
    global finance as we know it – might have ceased to exist…”

    (cont..)

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html

    phillip ure..

  20. Kevin McCready 20
    19 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Karol wrote:
    “Kevin, the comments are for a discussion here on the above post and not just to provide a platform for you to link to your own blog. It’s you who needs to be more specific.

    How do your links relate to my post?”

    My response: Karol, if you think my trying to have a discussion with you is to boost hits on my blog, that is insulting. I linked to the blog AND to the Lakoff stuff in order to further the discussion. Would you mind awfully reading them both so that I don’t have to repeat myself? Thanks for your consideration.

    [karol: well Lynn reckons I was being to polite, and that he’d have been more abrupt about you linking without providing an explanation in the comment here. He’s moved your comments, and the responses to it, to today’s open mike and issued you a warning there]

    [lprent: I have a standing response to link only or links with unintelligible explanation comments, especially top level ones. I read them as they are without looking at links. The reason for that is because if a link doesn’t make sense to me within the context of the comment, then it won’t for anyone else either.

    About 90% of the time that indicates a link-whore attempt to drag people to click throughs. 99% of the time it is to a site that doesn’t interest people because otherwise they would have been happy to write a context. Most of the time we get complaints about the comment and further diversion off the topic. All of which detracts from the purpose for which the author slaved over a post

    If we allow it to continue then we get more of such link-whore spammers. So I just deal with it with extreme prejudice. It reduces how often we have to deal with such mindless little vandals wanking on our site.

    Write intelligible comments with links to explain why people should click the link. Otherwise I ban you for wasting my valuable time explaining something you can read in the policy.

    Incidentally, if you think that karol is “insulting” then I suggest that you really don’t want to see what I’m like to pompous dickheads who are too stupid to find out what the required standards are on someone elses site. I guess you never learnt manners about respecting other peoples rules in their space when you were growing up? ]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      19 February 2014 at 3:30 pm

      Which is bigger? The rudeness, the over-weening sense of entitlement, or the ignorance of basic Standard policy?

      Hard to tell at this point.

  21. Hayden 21
    19 February 2014 at 2:27 pm

    Am I right in thinking that the whole “Cunliffe attacks Key’s wealth” meme comes from this lie by John Key?

    That member lives in Herne Bay. He just does not want his supporters to know he does.

    source

    (couldn’t find a more suitable place to attach this)

  22. Penny Bright 22
    19 February 2014 at 2:30 pm

    FYI

    Please be advised that I will be a speaker at the upcoming ‘LEN BROWN – STAND DOWN’ march:

    WHEN: Saturday 22 February 2014
    TIME: Assemble 11.30am Britomart
    March starts 12 noon
    March will proceed to Airedale Street

    As an anti-corruption campaigner, who polled fourth in the 2013 Auckland Mayoral campaign, I am fully in support of this march, which was initiated by Stephen Berry (third polling Mayoral candidate) and Will Ryan of Affordable Auckland.

    Although on most issues, I would arguably be on a different galaxy to Stephen Berry and Affordable Auckland, on this issue, calling for Auckland Mayor Len Brown to stand down, we are on the same page.

    In my considered opinion, the Ernst and Young Report did not follow the proper process for investigating alleged lack of compliance with the Auckland Council ‘Code of Conduct’ – which is why I have made a formal complaint to Auckland Police against (former) Auckland Council CEO Doug Mckay for alleged ‘contravention of statute’.

    In my considered opinion, it is Mayor Len Brown’s acceptance of undisclosed gifts from Sky City, at a time the Sky City convention deal was an ‘item of business’ before Auckland Council, that ‘crossed the line’.

    What really concerns me is that there has been no ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering arising from the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013, by Auckland Council, on Mayor Len Brown’s ‘watch’.

    When neither the Prime Minister John Key, Minister for Economic Development Stephen Joyce, OFCANZ (Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand), or Auckland Central Police, have carried out any ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering arising from the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013, then, in my considered opinion, the people of New Zealand, particularly Auckland, are arguably at greater risk from organised crime and organised criminals.

    When the Auditor-General Lyn Provost admits to having shares in Sky City, and fails to disclose this at a time I ask her to conduct an inquiry into the lack of ‘due diligence’ by OFCANZ, into the increased risk of money-laundering arising from the New Zealand International Convention Centre (Bill) – then – I believe that New Zealand’s perceived status as the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ is nothing more than a sick joke.

    Penny Bright

    (For more background information on these and related matters – http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

  23. Tracey 23
    19 February 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose,
    And nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’ but it’s free,

    kris kristopherson

  24. phillip ure 24
    19 February 2014 at 3:21 pm

    q-time commentary..

    “…paula rebstock was paid over $200,000 for running the inquiry in her name..”

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/new-zealand-parliament-list-of-questions-for-oral-answer-wednesday-19-february-2014/

    ..labour were hammered by english..over the record of neglect of the poorest..of the clark (neo-lib) labour govt..

    phillip ure..

  25. Puckish Rogue 25
    19 February 2014 at 4:03 pm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9739447/Dotcom-raid-legal-FBI-taking-evidence-not

    Dotcom must be getting nervous, soon the only thing stopping him facing the music will be if Labour/Greens get into power (which will happen in 2017)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1
      19 February 2014 at 4:49 pm

      Two things emerge from this comment:

      Puckish Rogue can tell how the Supreme Court will rule, and/or
      Puckish Rogue is comfortable with the idea that a man’s liberty rests on politics, and perhaps more revealingly, makes assumptions of guilt based upon political allegiance.

      I think Puckish Rogue’s hateful authoritarian opinions are leaking out and staining the National Party by association.

    • fender 25.2
      19 February 2014 at 5:08 pm

      ” (which will happen in 2017) ”

      You and chris73 say this often. You obviously don’t have much confidence in Key/National and their policies. If he was as competent as you usually make out there’s no reason he couldn’t get a fourth term. People won’t just ditch the brighter future, should it miraculously materialise will they?

      • chris73 25.2.1
        19 February 2014 at 5:16 pm

        NZ has something about giving the other side a go otherwise Helen Clark (by the lefts reckoning) should have got a fourth term

        • McFlock 25.2.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 5:33 pm

          to a point- but labour were also pretty tired by then, and I think a lot of folk picked up on that.

        • fender 25.2.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 5:40 pm

          If the great messiah Key makes us all so much better off he’ll get a 4th or even a 5th term. Nobody will risk losing it all by changing the govt.

          I just think you believe NZers to be slow, and it will take them until 2017 for them to wake-up to the corruption.

          By the way, hope you didn’t miss Annette King informing the house that Keys most trusted advisor is your hero the wailing one. Hope you weren’t embarrassed with an involuntary erection outside of your bunker.

          • Hayden 25.2.1.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 5:45 pm

            By the way, hope you didn’t miss Annette King informing the house that Keys most trusted advisor is your hero the wailing one. Hope you weren’t embarrassed with an involuntary erection outside of your bunker.

            It’d be great to see her reading out some of his headlines over the years…

            • chris73 25.2.1.2.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 5:48 pm

              Watching it now but what you watched is different to what I’m watching

            • fender 25.2.1.2.1.2
              19 February 2014 at 5:56 pm

              She mentioned a couple of his antics, alluded to another but had to confess the contents were not up to a standard acceptable to be repeated in the house.

              If people in the MSM weren’t scared of becoming a target of the over-blown bully they might even report how unacceptable it is for the PM to have any contact whatsoever with such a disgraceful animal.

  26. chris73 26
    19 February 2014 at 5:12 pm

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Cunliffe-hiding-25M-mansion-from-voters–Key/tabid/1607/articleID/332573/Default.aspx

    Sorry if I missed it already but just how dense does David Cunliffe think NZ is?

    “Mr Key spent time in the money markets and has a personal fortune, which is many times our reasonably middle-range existence.”

    Conservatively the Cunliffes would be over 500 grand a year and he thinks thats middle range?
    I do feel feel sympathy for him though as its obvious he wants to live in a poorer suburb but because his wife was breastfeeding he was forced to live in an expensive suburb
    Are they still breastfeeding?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11125165

    • Hayden 26.1
      19 February 2014 at 5:35 pm

      Why don’t you address Key’s lie about Cunliffe trying to hide his house?

      • chris73 26.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 5:46 pm

        Yes because that’ll change everyones mind that watched that report

        • well I never 26.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 5:53 pm

          Media has turned political reporting into a sport, there has been nothing relevant printed for weeks now, but Gower and Garner Goons are having a ball, it’s disgusting.

        • Hayden 26.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 5:53 pm

          That’s not what I asked. Why isn’t Key thinking we’re all dense because everyone knows (or can find out in 5 seconds) that Cunliffe lives in Herne Bay?

          • chris73 26.1.1.2.1
            19 February 2014 at 5:58 pm

            We don’t all know that he lives in the most expensive street, in one of the most expensive suburbs in NZ (but he’d rather live in New Lynn) but we do know John Keys rich

            Thats sort of thepoint…pot, kettle, black

            • Hayden 26.1.1.2.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 6:03 pm

              That’s not what the lie is about. I’ll type it slower: David Cunliffe is not trying to hide where he lives.

              • chris73 …
                19 February 2014 at 6:07 pm

                Hes being duplicitous, he was hoping the general public wouldn’t work out where he lived so yes he wasn’t trying to hide where he lived but he also didn’t mention it either

                Quite similar to his CV in that he didn’t correct the on going mistakes around his CV until it came out and then he “refreshed” it

                • Hayden …
                  19 February 2014 at 6:10 pm

                  He’s mentioned it in interviews, for fuck’s sake. Come back when you have some evidence of him trying to hide it, besides not ending every sentence with “…and I live in Herne Bay”.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 February 2014 at 6:11 pm

                  Stop the press! Delusional wingnut shill looks askance at Labour politician, constructs elaborate fantasy! Paddy needs to make it the headline story, quick!

                • idlegus …
                  19 February 2014 at 6:55 pm

                  “so yes he wasn’t trying to hide where he lived” c73.

                  • North …
                    19 February 2014 at 7:37 pm

                    You really are the pettiest fuck in the world Piss73. Would you like to have a spray about the possibility that Cunliffe pays someone to mow the berm outside his house ? This shit is no less ridiculous than Tolley’s crap about Metiria’s coat and castle. Grow up for Christs’ sake !

                    • chris73 …
                      19 February 2014 at 8:17 pm

                      I know that rabid lefties like yourself don’t like it when their leaders are shown up but it doesn’t change the fact that Cuinliffes doing no better then Shearer, his his media advisor should be fired and Shane Jones would could a raise in the polls for Labour

                      But hey keep telling yourself that no one cares that Tricky David Cunliffes been shown up as a hypocrite (again)

                    • fender …
                      19 February 2014 at 8:36 pm

                      chris73, you used to make a little sense occasionally but that was ridiculously Brett Dale-ish.

                      Can’t see you making it to the election unless you start breathing again.

                    • felix …
                      20 February 2014 at 12:14 am

                      Hi chris. Do you have a quote from Cunliffe for this breastfeeding thing?

                      As I recall it wasn’t what you’re implying.

                      ps jolly good of you to admit you lied about him hiding where he lives, good man.

                • Tracey …
                  20 February 2014 at 8:12 am

                  “Hes being duplicitous,”

                  This is a watershed moment for you chris. You have learned to understand duplicitous now you just need to apply it equally and to your “team”.

              • srylands …
                19 February 2014 at 10:11 pm

                “That’s not what the lie is about. I’ll type it slower: David Cunliffe is not trying to hide where he lives.”

                That isn’t the point, and you are appearing sillier than I think you are. You really should stop digging and concede the obvious mismanagement. You look like you have been pwned by the delusion of others who are smarter.

                Just say “Yeah well that was an own goal. Need to do better”. Go on.

                • felix …
                  20 February 2014 at 7:29 am

                  “That isn’t the point,”

                  Then perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain what the point is, preferably without saying anything about Cunliffe’s house and how he hides it.

                • Hayden …
                  20 February 2014 at 8:23 am

                  That isn’t the point,

                  Yes it is: I’m asking Chris73 why he’s content with Key’s lie.

            • RedBaronCV 26.1.1.2.1.2
              19 February 2014 at 7:43 pm

              Well so far we have had Meretai’s dress and house, Winston & Russell’s visiting and now Cunliffe’s house.

              The difference C73 is that JK doesn’t want anyone else to have expensive house, Cunliffe wouldn’t mind if everyone did.
              But what can we expect from people that are silly enough to believe that single parents and the unemployed caused the GFC without any of your clever RWNJ’s noticing.

              BTW are you on overtime in election years? Hope they are giving you time and a half now.

              • chris73 …
                19 February 2014 at 8:20 pm

                The difference is JK doesn’t care that everyone knows he has an expensive house, Cunliffe would rather live in a poorer suburb (seriously whos advising him, does he think people ackshully believe him?).

                • felix …
                  19 February 2014 at 11:52 pm

                  So it’s not ok for Cunliffe to care about the poor because he’s relatively rich?

                  Is that it?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    20 February 2014 at 6:31 am

                    If Cunliffe says Key is out of touch and the evidence for this is that he has a big house, and Cunliffe has a big house, what does this say about Cunliffe?

                    Nothing, other than he can do better than that. Perhaps by concentrating on the laws Key passes rather than the size of his mansion.

                    • felix …
                      20 February 2014 at 7:39 am

                      “If Cunliffe says Key is out of touch and the evidence for this is that he has a big house,”

                      Yeah, except that didn’t really happen.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      20 February 2014 at 8:01 am

                      Reading the full Hansard transcript, I see what you mean.

                    • Tracey …
                      20 February 2014 at 8:17 am

                      For those who can only read links that direct to or from WO or kiwiblog

                      Hon David Cunliffe: I am here to help. With rents up 17 percent nationwide, 18 percent in Auckland, and 37 percent in Christchurch since he took office, how does the Prime Minister expect struggling families to afford a roof over their heads?

                      Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Two things. The first is that the Government has put $1.8 billion in the last 12 months alone into subsidising housing through income-related rents and the accommodation supplement. The second thing is, yes, I live in Parnell and I am proud of it. That member lives in Herne Bay. He just does not want his supporters to know he does. [Interruption]

                      Mr SPEAKER: Would the member just proceed with his supplementary question.

                      Hon David Cunliffe: I think it’s the commute to Helensville that’s getting him down, Mr Speaker.

                      Mr SPEAKER: And that is not helpful. Would the member just ask his supplementary question.

                      Hon David Cunliffe: Perhaps he just takes the helicopter view.

                      Mr SPEAKER: Order!

                      Hon David Cunliffe: In all seriousness, how does the Prime Minister, with all his worldly experience, expect young families to buy their own home when his Government is requiring a minimum 20 percent deposit, which Quotable Value data shows reduced the number of first-home buyers to its lowest level in 3 years—its lowest level in 3 years?

                      Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the biggest determining factor for people when buying a house is paying the interest rates on their mortgage. They are at a 50-year low and are half the rate they were under a Labour Government. Labour, I might add, forced those interest rates up. Let us be honest: its programme of mismanaging the economy drove interest rates up and drove people out of their homes. That is the first thing. The second thing is that to actually get into a home, people have to be able to pay the mortgage by having a job. Under this Government, 1,500 people a week are going off welfare and into work. The Greens and Labour are opposed to jobs and growth. That is the truth.

                • logie97 …
                  20 February 2014 at 1:00 am

                  Short memory there Chris.
                  Remember how Key tried desperately to hide just how many Tanzrail shares he had – he lied and lied and lied til he eventually got trapped.
                  Why was he so devious in his answers Chris?
                  What was he trying to hide?
                  I reckon there will be a question asked of him fairly soon that is going to trip him up and break that veneer and it then all the devious answers he has given previously are going to be rerun and they will bring him down. (Blip has them catalogued)
                  Just watch his hooded eyes when he is uncomfortable in replies.
                  He didn’t look overly comfortable this evening regarding the Countdown business.
                  All in good time …

  27. greywarbler 27
    19 February 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Police state on the agenda. Police road blocks being set up stopping homegoing week traffic, stops anytime of the day or night. After those over the limit. Yet repeat drink drivers may not receive any retraining any serious remedial help.

    Now wofs are to go to annually for some. Individual responsibility – so easy to forget dates. No worries the government is going to get police to check on those too. So efficient while they are stopping thousands so they can catch hundreds.

    Yet how hard is it to impose alcohol controls, time limits, outlet limits. Supply side or demand side. Economics here is about fines-side – money making from the people caught, who haven’t done anything. People chased who die because of a police chase exciting and scaring them. So deaths are caused by police.

    Why don’t people complain about this stop and search policy. The whole idea of police being for public safety is skewed. Knowing that police are round make holiday drivers more careful and it seems proved deaths are down. But hospital treatments preventing deaths have improved, so what’s the true statistic of prevention. If we want to judge trends we should be looking at serious crashes and hospitalisations, but that is too factual, not as emotive as death counts. But being badly hurt is a near death and more unpleasant, as you stay around to feel the pain and may never be 100% again.

    I would like traffic police to be merged with ambulance. and to be part-funded from government. That is the sensible way to go, instead of trying to get volunteer firemen to take on more ambulance duties.

    And the police can do their people-saving working with the unbalanced out there who kill from two legs, they don’t need a car. And their poor women victims have murder or violence as a real possibility in their minds all the time. Preventing domestics would be good to turn the police into a force for good, not just cash-slot-machines for the government.

    • Draco T Bastard 27.1
      19 February 2014 at 7:01 pm

      People chased who die because of a police chase exciting and scaring them. So deaths are caused by police.

      You know, when I was young I was taught to pull over and stop if the police indicated that they wanted you pull over. I certainly wasn’t taught to try and run away as fast as possible.

      I would like traffic police to be merged with ambulance. and to be part-funded from government.

      I just want the police and traffic split up again. The two duties are different enough to make it worthwhile.

      I have NFI why you’d want traffic mixed in with ambulances though – again, the duties are completely different.

      • lprent 27.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 7:11 pm

        Traffic and police are government organisations. So is the fire service

        Ambulances aren’t government organisations. My local one is called St Johns for a reason and it had very little to do with past political leaders wanting to spray a mark on history…

        /sarc

        😈

    • RedBaronCV 27.2
      19 February 2014 at 7:35 pm

      I’m with you all the way GW. I don’t see any justification for these measures either monetary or social. Deaths- we have more in the workplace?

      One – these are revenue raising measures particularly with the instant fines – easy to issue, difficult & expensive to challenge, harsh on low earners.

      Two – they are to accustom the population to random search and stop to facilitate a police state and drive a wedge between population and enforcer.

      Hope someone puts in an OIA asking where and when they set up the roadblocks. Don’t want those richer ‘burbs missing out now do we?

      Instant penalties are now exceeding the sorts of sentences handed down by the Courts for Finance coy scam artists(directors) and other serious crime.

      And why deal with real crime when you can do this? Better off having women attacked and children killed. Did someone think this was a good idea?

  28. xtasy 28
    19 February 2014 at 7:43 pm

    After what I learned and digested the last two or so days, I am FURIOUS at Labour, and I demand they do finally get together into a soul searching meeting, to finally get their shit together and fight the election on what fronts there are, that MATTER!

    We had enough of damned scandals, failures, challenges and other SHIT!

    I am not going to party vote you guys anyway, going by what I have witnessed for too bloody long.

    But, hey, apart from Shane Jones raising some interesting and worthy stuff, what are you guys doing for the REST of us, that is the low paid (poor) workers, and those that do NOT even have a damned JOB?

    I challenge you once again, Jacinda Ardern, Sue Moroney, Louisa Wall, David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson, and others (incl. Annette KING), ANSWER to this please:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/less-inequality-is-more/#comment-763019

    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15188-medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-bps-model-aimed-at-disentiteling-affected-from-welfare-benefits-and-acc-compo/

    http://nzsocialjusticeblog2013.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/medical-and-work-capability-assessments-based-on-the-controversial-bio-psycho-social-model/

    http://thestandard.org.nz/welfare-profiteers/#comment-761243

    http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15463-designated-doctors-%e2%80%93-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc/

    WHAT are you afraid of, to not make any clear statements on your welfare policies? Why is Labour dead silent on Bennett’s “reforms”? Do you want us to trust you and get our votes, or are you NOT???

    • Ron 28.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:08 pm

      Policies will be coming soon. There is a lot to be managed in an election year and once all the electorates have finalised their labour candidates things will start to happen. Congress should also be interested this year. It’s happening, not fast enough for some but it will happen.

      • xtasy 28.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 8:11 pm

        Ron, We have heard this for the last 5 damned years, it means fuck all to ME and most others AFFECTED, it should have happened in November 2013!!! I have NO trust in LABOUR!

      • Colonial Viper 28.1.2
        19 February 2014 at 8:17 pm

        Policies will not win this election. Thats a given.

  29. chris73 29
    19 February 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Well two things, Annette Kings doing what Cunliffe should be doing and isn’t Whaleoil getting more fame (infamy?)

    General Debate – 19th February, 2014 – Part 5

    She did well

    • xtasy 29.1
      19 February 2014 at 8:14 pm

      Wow, Chris is giving positive comment onto Annette, that is impressive, maybe trying to be a “good sport”, aye?

      • chris73 29.1.1
        19 February 2014 at 8:28 pm

        Credit where credits due is all, she showed passion and heart and spoke well. I didn’t agree with most (if at all) of what she said but she projected it well.

        • fender 29.1.1.1
          19 February 2014 at 8:52 pm

          After seeing Cam Calder speak today I can understand why you vote National; they’re fucking useless… perfect representation for a wingnut.

          And Bridges! What a fool…what’s he hiding inside his mouth? Is he chewing gum to try hide the oil fumes?

          • chris73 29.1.1.1.1
            19 February 2014 at 8:59 pm

            Whereas arguing that 500 grand is middling and you only happen to live in a 2.5 million home because of breastfeeding is perfectly reasonable

            • fender 29.1.1.1.1.1
              19 February 2014 at 9:07 pm

              See here

              • chris73 …
                19 February 2014 at 9:16 pm

                Very good, hopefully you’ll take a screenshot of that so you can post it after the results of the next election

                • fender …
                  19 February 2014 at 10:57 pm

                  What? You still think there should be an election after it was revealed Cunliffe doesn’t live in a shelter for the homeless? Key should just cancel the election for a few years don’t you think?

        • xtasy 29.1.1.2
          19 February 2014 at 9:45 pm

          Tony Rile will have a differing view, I think.

  30. Whatever next 30
    19 February 2014 at 9:48 pm

    Did you watch ” mind the gap” tonight Chris 73? No doubt you have smart answer to bleat back from your shepherd

  31. xtasy 31
    19 February 2014 at 10:13 pm

    I cannot for heaven’s or devil’s sake understand that some here think they have shit “privacy”, you have to be bloody idiots. There is NO privacy left on the damned “web”, it is a joke.

    So get a damned life, you are ALL observed one way or another, sadly so.

    X

  32. Kevin McCready 32
    19 February 2014 at 11:28 pm

    I have to say I am stunned by the way I have been treated by this website and on this thread. I provided links which were relevant to the discussion. My posts were removed to another page and finally (hours later) I am told to read Open Mike. Now I understand. The acusation that I am link-whoring is unfounded and offensive.

    I apologise for not spelling it out.

    The use of the word “economy” in the article is EXACTLY the problem we are facing. The article is about poverty and the economy. The links I provided were precisely about the language we use in discussing these things. Once again I apologise if my point was unclear.

    Central to the article is the quote from Bryan Bruce:
    “I’m not an economist” Bruce explains, “but by the time I’d finished my documentary on Child Poverty I wanted to know what the hell had gone so wrong with our economy.”

    My point is that Bruce fails to understand that “the economy” is a Lakoff frame, as I’ve been saying. I then provided a link to Lakoff. I’ve said above what a Lakoff frame is. If anyone seriously thinks I’m wrong, than please point out the error of my thinking, but please don’t make accusations of link-whoring and threaten instant banning.

    My point also is that if we fail to understand how language is used by the right to frame the debate and to frame the very way we think, we are up shit creek. In the Lakoff framing sense “the economy” is a frame for a belief in trickle down theory, neoclassical theory or any other theory which accepts there is such a measurable entity as “the economy”. The “frame” contains the idea that growing a bigger pie will benefit all. The trick with “frames” is that because they are so easy to fall into, we unconsciously accept them as reality. Though with this frame there are large vested interests in academia, politics and business in pushing the frame into economics textbooks. In reality “the economy” is just one more contested site in the human sphere. It’s the site where various groups of people try to maximise their positions. Various interest groups, sectors, industries will always seek to argue that their position is good for “the economy”. It is this which Bruce seems to accept even while he says he doesn’t understand it.

    How many of you who accused me of link-whoring actually read my blogpost or actually read the Lakoff stuff? If you had, I apologise that it didn’t appear relevant.

    Yes I’ve read the link-whoring policy. I read it weeks ago very carefully when I was first made aware of this website. I maintain that the links I posted were relevant. And next time, if I dare link, I’ll be sure to spell it out.

    I’d be grateful now if people could interact with my comments rather than make accusations.

    And I’d be grateful not to be called a pompous dickhead on slim assumptions.

    [lprent: see my comments on the duplicate comment in the original post. http://thestandard.org.nz/poverty-on-the-agenda/#comment-775543 ]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 32.1
      20 February 2014 at 6:45 am

      I think you’re right about the false frame, but it’s hardly a startling revelation: you’ll see variations on the theme here frequently. As for the way you’ve been treated, Lynn is abrasive. It’s deliberate.

      How many of you who accused me of link-whoring actually read my blogpost?

      Thanks for that. I loled.

      link whore (plural link whores)
      (idiomatic, Internet) Someone who goes to great lengths to get other people to link to his/her website or blog

      • lprent 32.1.1
        20 February 2014 at 12:14 pm

        As for the way you’ve been treated, Lynn is abrasive. It’s deliberate.

        Indeed. Deliberate abrasive and draconian over-reaction ensures that people learn faster. That gives less pain for others having to read the bleeding obvious sequences being repeated for the umpteenth time.

        It also reduces the overall time for the moderators who don’t have to get into tedious debates about the site policies with people who think it should be done differently. The bottom line is that the only people who get a direct say in that are the authors and moderators because they’re doing the work. Commenters can offer suggestions and always have the freedom of the net if they don’t like how the site is run – they can find somewhere else to engage.

        Conversely as a moderator I also do “ignore” quite well (even if I do say say myself) which is the other essential trait for a free flowing and robust debate.

        This gives a behavioural boundary that is both vague and very sharp. So the tens of thousands of comments placed here every month tend to self-moderate well within the policy. That keeps the workload down to the point that it is possible to do with our limited resources. It is an obvious operations research / community trade off that works pretty well.