Open Mike 19/11/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 19th, 2016 - 125 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

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

Step up to the mike …

[In order to keep Open Mike and Daily Review free for other conversations, please put all discussion, comments, link postings etc about the US election under one of the posts about the Election]

125 comments on “Open Mike 19/11/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Sanctuary 2
    19 November 2016 at 7:16 am

    Is it just me, or has Danyl over at the Dimpost become sharply more anti “left” in recent months? it is almost as if being mates with James Shaw is turning him into a blue-Green.

    Which all posits the question, with Shaw at the top busily embracing Green establishment neoliberalism just as that ideology enters its death rattle in the face of the populist right, will the Greens even make the threshold in the face of a rampant NZ First next election?

    • Pete George 2.1
      19 November 2016 at 8:05 am

      I think Danyl has been prepared to look at political realities and is questioning some of the entrenched ideas and ideologies on the left. I think this is a good thing. He has come up with some very interesting ideas and prompted worthwhile discussion.

      There’s a growing understanding that politics is not left versus right any more (if it ever was), reality is far more complex and issue orientated.

      Danyl seems to understand this. I don’t know if that is also being understood by Shaw, he doesn’t appear to be very prominent. And I’m less sure if the Greens in general get it.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 8:21 am

        🙄

        a growing understanding

        A growing nose more like.

      • weka 2.1.2
        19 November 2016 at 9:52 am

        “There’s a growing understanding that politics is not left versus right any more (if it ever was), reality is far more complex and issue orientated. Danyl seems to understand this. I don’t know if that is also being understood by Shaw, he doesn’t appear to be very prominent. And I’m less sure if the Greens in general get it.”

        The NZ Green Party has always transcended the left/right spectrum, knowingly and intentionally.

        This from 2011 is a fair attempt at explaining it,

        http://pundit.co.nz/content/towards-a-new-theory-of-the-greens-neither-left-nor-right

        Another perspective from Lynn in 2014,

        https://thestandard.org.nz/nrt-fundamental-incomprehension/#comment-884480

        I can keep pulling things out of the internet about this but of course Pete George isn’t talking about any of that. He wants the GP to go rightwards because he is a centrist in the left/right spectrum. Nothing to do with getting past left/right at all, but instead trying to hold power within that spectrum. Who said yesterday that the right are good at co-opting merging concepts and language and turning them into something they are not? Classic example.

        • Pete George 2.1.2.1
          19 November 2016 at 10:22 am

          You’re either making things up about me or have no understanding what I think about politics.

          On some environmental issues the Greens have “transcended the left/right spectrum”, and have had widespread support on some of these issues.

          But on social and economic issues not so much.

          • weka 2.1.2.1.1
            19 November 2016 at 10:42 am

            I’ve just expressed two opinions based on long observation. The one about the Greens I supported with links. The one about you is pretty self-evident to people that have been around you for a while.

            If you disagree, by all means debate the points. Assertions or negations of opinion don’t count.

            • Pete George 2.1.2.1.1.1
              19 November 2016 at 10:49 am

              “Isn’t talking about any of that” and “He wants” and “he is a centrist” and “Who said yesterday that the right are good at co-opting merging concepts and language and turning them into something they are not” didn’t come across as an expression of opinion, more like assertions, and I believe unsupported by reality.

              As I suggested you have no idea what i really think. Your observations don’t appear to have been perceptive at all, they look more pre-judged to me. And wrong.

              • weka …
                19 November 2016 at 10:56 am

                If what you think is different than what you write, that’s your problem. I can only go by what I have seen you write online, and everything about your writing and what you report about yourself and your politics suggests centrist. That’s the self-evident bit. Tying that in with the co-option thing, yes, that is my opinion and I am definitely suggesting that you are doing this in this instance. Again, this is based on observing you do that over time (eg trying to redefine Dirty Politics).

                By all means address those points, or keep trying to side step them and I’ll just keeping pointing them out again. Saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t really count for much here, as you well know.

                • Pete George …
                  19 November 2016 at 11:13 am

                  “everything about your writing and what you report about yourself and your politics suggests centrist”

                  You’ve got that quite wrong, unless you have a funny understanding of what centrist means.

                  I often support policies and actions of the Greens, Labour, National and even Act, and I criticise them (and NZ First) all when I see fit too. I’ve voted for all of National, Labour and Greens this century, and I’ve stated that a number of times. You must have missed that.

                  What appears self evident is that you don’t have much idea at all about me.

                  I have never tried to ‘redefine Dirty Politics’, nor to define it. Some people don’t have exclusive rights to define a term like that. I have said that dirty politics is prevalent across the spectrum, as is obvious here at times – OAB frequently plays dirty with impunity here, for example – but that’s quite different. Some of the dirtiest politics I have personally experienced has been from Green supporters.

                  I applaud Danyl’s willingness to critically examine his own politics and what he thought were his own preferences. And his preparedness to engage with and debate these issues.

                  • weka …
                    19 November 2016 at 11:25 am

                    I often support policies and actions of the Greens, Labour, National and even Act, and I criticise them (and NZ First) all when I see fit too. I’ve voted for all of National, Labour and Greens this century, and I’ve stated that a number of times. You must have missed that.

                    yes, and in addition to that, you’ve consistently posted centrist lines. That you have voted across the spectrum isn’t incompatible with being centrist. For instance, if one wanted to support United Future, but didn’t live in Ōhāriu, one wouldn’t give one’s party vote to UF, because that would be a waste (for obvious reasons). So one could easily be centrist and vote for any other party, not to mention one’s electorate vote.

                    I have never tried to ‘redefine Dirty Politics’, nor to define it. Some people don’t have exclusive rights to define a term like that. I have said that dirty politics is prevalent across the spectrum, as is obvious here at times – OAB frequently plays dirty with impunity here, for example – but that’s quite different.

                    yeah, you did, over a long period of time, it’s all on record on ts. Dirty Politics has a specific meaning in NZ, Hager wrote the book on it, and there’s virtually no evidence that the left does those things too. You tried to make out that DP is being mean or rude or vaguely underhanded or even isolated situations of politicians doing stupid shit, and you got called on it.

                    Some of the dirtiest politics I have personally experienced has been from Green supporters.

                    See, there is you doing it again. You are talking about politics that you personally find dirty. That’s not Dirty Politics. The phrase you should have used is “Some of the dirtiest Dirty Politics”, which of course would be a nonsense, because while I am sure there are Green supporters that have done shitty things, the Greens themselves don’t do DP, and you would need them to be involved for it to be DP.

                    • Pete George …
                      19 November 2016 at 11:33 am

                      “yes, and in addition to that, you’ve consistently posted centrist lines. ”

                      Links and explanations please.

                      “Dirty Politics has a specific meaning in NZ, Hager wrote the book on it”

                      Who makes that rule? Writing a book on something isn’t like casting something in stone that can never be disputed or varied or added to.

                      Alan Duff didn’t define warriors and exclude any alternate discussion about them.

                      Tim Shadbolt didn’t define bullshit and stop anyone else from having their own take on it.

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 12:05 pm

                      I’ve already given multiple explanations. Not linking, because it’s been so prolific here that it falls in the bounds of common knowledge.

                      “Dirty Politics has a specific meaning in NZ, Hager wrote the book on it”

                      Who makes that rule? Writing a book on something isn’t like casting something in stone that can never be disputed or varied or added to.

                      You are still talking about politics that you personally find ‘dirty’. Feel free to coin your own term for that and then we won’t have a disagreement. But in the context of Dirty Politics, Hager did in effect lay out a definition of it in NZ. I’m sure people were talking about it before hand, but he wrote the classic text on what it is, what the dynamics are, and how it affects the NZ political scene.

                      What you are talking about is something different. Which would be fine if you were honest about it. But instead you decided to become a DP apologist and engage in the kind of appropriation ti mislead that I named at the start.


                      Alan Duff didn’t define warriors and exclude any alternate discussion about them.

                      Tim Shadbolt didn’t define bullshit and stop anyone else from having their own take on it.

                      Duff didn’t write a book about warriors, and Shadbolt didn’t write about bullshit. But thanks for the very clear demonstration of my point. You think that because someone put the two words ‘dirty’ and ‘politics’ together into a book and explained a concept around that, that those two words used in any context mean what the book meant. They don’t. In essence you are attempting to beige-ify the political scene to a meaningless nonsense. You do appear to be on the wrong blog for that.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 November 2016 at 12:24 pm

                      Fucking hell is there no lie this petty creep won’t stoop to?

                    • Pete George …
                      19 November 2016 at 12:25 pm

                      “But instead you decided to become a DP apologist”

                      I don’t believe that in any way represents reality, but is a common tactic from those who, if you don’t accept their total take on things without question, accuse you of being an extreme opposite.

                      Did you criticise and confront Slater’s dirty politics to the extent that his mates planted evidence and used that to get a (failed) court order to gag you, to try and shut your website down, and try and imprison you?

                      I’m not an apologist for anything like that.

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      Did you criticise and confront Slater’s dirty politics to the extent that his mates planted evidence and used that to get a (failed) court order to gag you, to try and shut your website down, and try and imprison you?

                      Fair enough on that count.

                      The problem is that over the same or preceding long period of time you did run DP apologist lines in the comments section of TS. So again if what you write isn’t what you think or believe, that’s your responsibility.

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 1:34 pm

                      I’ve put 3 comments in the backend to see if they’re a problem for the site.

                    • Xanthe …
                      19 November 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      I assure you weka in my experience the greens do do dirty politics

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 6:12 pm

                      Sigh. Go on then, put up 3 examples of the Green Party doing dirty politics a la Hager’s definitions.

            • Pete George 2.1.2.1.1.2
              19 November 2016 at 10:53 am

              And I thought this thread was about Danyl at Dim-Post, not me.

              • weka …
                19 November 2016 at 11:01 am

                Pity you made it about your politics then, eh? What did you think was going to happen given your history and doing the same old shit of misleading?

                You basically said that you think that the Greens aren’t aware of the need to transcend left/right politics. I responded with an analysis, some links t back up my assertion that the Greens are already well ahead on that, and my opinion that it’s you that doesn’t understand transcending L/R politics because you are centrist.

                Feel free to address any of those things.

                (plus, it’s OM)

                • Pete George …
                  19 November 2016 at 11:25 am

                  “Pity you made it about your politics then, eh?”

                  I didn’t. You did.

                  “What did you think was going to happen given your history and doing the same old shit of misleading?”

                  I thought perhaps someone else might comment on what Sanctuary. I think you’re ‘misleading’ by accusing me of ” doing the same old shit of misleading”. That’s just nonsense prejudgment.

                  “You basically said that you think that the Greens aren’t aware of the need to transcend left/right politics. ”

                  I didn’t say that at all. They seem to be aware of it, and they do it well at times, and not so well at other times.

                  The Greens seem to think they are well ahead on many things. Some things they deserve admiration for. Some things they seem arrogant about, inside a bubble of self righteousness.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    19 November 2016 at 12:04 pm

                    “seem”

                    A lying weasel’s favourite weasel word, or just an insight into the intelldctual desert of a petty mind?

                    Who cares?

                  • weka …
                    19 November 2016 at 12:24 pm

                    It’s alright, I’ve just realised that when you say move beyond L/R what you mean is encompass L/R. So for the Greens, they’re beyond L/R where they get RW and centrist votes. Hence my point about you wanting them to move right.

                    Whereas I’m talking about transcending the whole thing altogether.

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 November 2016 at 1:10 pm

                      “Whereas I’m talking about transcending the whole thing altogether”

                      Transcending to where/what exactly?

                      And how will that impact upon their left-wing support?

                      Can you give an example of a Green Party policy that reflects this transition?

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 1:20 pm

                      It’s not a policy thing, it’s in the kaupapa. Have a read of the Pundit article I linked to above. It’s an interesting take on the Greens and the L/R thing.

                      Transcending to where/what exactly?

                      Can you imagine a political system that wasn’t adversarial?

                      Turei said a year or so ago that it was important to listen to and engage with the people who don’t see themselves as L/R (and increasingly so as that is higher amongst younger people).

                      Those two points are signposts.

                      And how will that impact upon their left-wing support?<

                      Not sure that it does tbh. We're not talking about the issue of the Greens becoming more mainstream (they are), or becoming blue/green (they're not). Those are different things, but they are getting confused with the L/R thing I think.

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 November 2016 at 3:19 pm

                      Kaupapa is a set of values, principles, etc… therefore surely those values/principles will be reflected in their policy?

                      “Can you imagine a political system that wasn’t adversarial”

                      No. The adversarial nature of politics reflects the adversarial nature of society.

                      People may not see themselves as left or right but they will (whether or not they know it) hold left or right positions on certain issues. A person may support a left initiative on one issue and a right on another.

                      According to the Pundit link, it is neither right nor left, but some characteristics of both.

                      Their wish to have every child in Kiwisaver from birth could be seen as a characteristic of the right. And if the Party take on too much characteristics of the right, it will no doubt start to turn off left-wing supporters .

                      Their reliance on individual social responsibility is flawed. By and large, people tend to do what’s in their own best interest. Hence, the need for government intervention. Either directly or by rules and regulations.

                      Where do you see most Green support coming from, left, right or Apolitical?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      19 November 2016 at 4:23 pm

                      I believe democracy should be dismantled but not if private power exists, because private power is much worse when reducing what little good the public does

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 6:42 pm

                      “Can you imagine a political system that wasn’t adversarial”

                      No. The adversarial nature of politics reflects the adversarial nature of society.

                      You won’t be able to understand the GP then.

                      https://home.greens.org.nz/values

                      Where do you see most Green support coming from, left, right or Apolitical?

                      The left obviously. Equally obviously the Greens operate within an adversarial political polarity, and sit to the left of Labour in that. But that’s not the same thing as being a left wing party in the way being discussed here. The main problem with these conversations is that if I say they’re not left wing lots of people assume they’re right wing, and that’s not what I mean at all. I’m not even saying they’re not eft wing. I’m saying that their core values and origins are in culture that would take us out of that hugely problematic polarity (one that is dying anyway).

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 6:43 pm

                      I believe democracy should be dismantled but not if private power exists, because private power is much worse when reducing what little good the public does

                      So if private power didn’t exist, what you you suggest instead of democracy?

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 November 2016 at 9:30 pm

                      It’s not that I don’t understand the Greens, it’s merely the nature of society. There’s often opposing sides to any issue, therefore you can’t have a one size fits all party.

                      Sure, the Greens can attempt to mix policy solutions up with a bit of left and right, but we all know how that has worked out for Labour.

                      And one could say Green supporters are largely more left leaning than Labour, making those right characteristics far harder to swallow.

                    • weka …
                      19 November 2016 at 9:39 pm

                      It’s not that I don’t understand the Greens, it’s merely the nature of society. There’s often opposing sides to any issue, therefore you can’t have a one size fits all party.

                      Having opposition doesn’t have to mean adversarial. This is the point, there are other ways of doing politics even where we disagree. That’s nothing to do with a one size fits all party.

                      Sure, the Greens can attempt to mix policy solutions up with a bit of left and right, but we all know how that has worked out for Labour.

                      And one could say Green supporters are largely more left leaning than Labour, making those right characteristics far harder to swallow.

                      I said at the start that it wasn’t an issue of policy in the way you are meaning. You are the one still arguing within the L/R spectrum, so this conversation is a one big strawman.

                    • The Chairman …
                      19 November 2016 at 10:10 pm

                      “There are other ways of doing politics even where we disagree”

                      So we can be clear, if it has nothing to do with a one size fits all party, can you give an example of these other ways?

                      “Having opposition doesn’t have to mean adversarial”

                      Perhaps not, but this is politics we are discussing, which impacts on peoples livelihood, hence positions tend to be rather entrenched and debates heated.

                      The Pundit link you provided stated it was made up of characteristics of both (left & right).

                      Therefore, if this is not the left and right we all know, can you explain what left and right you are alluding too?

                      We can see the left and right mix I’m alluding to in their Home For Life policy.

      • lprent 2.1.3
        19 November 2016 at 11:17 am

        You do realise the Danyl leans strongly towards green right?

        Personally I tend to find all of the left / centrist / right / green / progressive / conservative / liberal (in both meanings) / feminist / conservationist / etc labelling as being pretty irrelevant and something that is only used by the simpleminded.

        I can quite simply say that all of I am all of left / centrist / right / green / progressive / conservative / liberal (in both meanings) / feminist / conservationist / geek / programmer / engineer / manager / worker / arrogant / whatever. It depends on what is being discussed. Of those, geek, manager and arrogant tend to stand out prominently.

        The truth is that most people into politics who aren’t of the secular religious persuasion (or polsci students) tend to focus on particular areas of interest to themselves at the time and their responses to each can vary a lot across vast spectrums. Sometimes cohesively within one spectrum and mostly not.

        That is why this site defined itself right from the startup as focusing on the principles of broad labour movement.

        What’s your political ‘angle’?
        We come from a variety of backgrounds and our political views don’t always match up but it’d be fair to say that all of us share a commitment to the values and principles that underpin the broad labour movement and we hope that perspective will come through strongly as you read the blog.

        Since as humans, many of us spend a hell of a lot of time involved in work, the effects of work on other aspects of life (think about such topics like pollution and workplace injuries) spreads it out across most of the human experience to one degree or another, it seemed sufficient as an area of interest.

        Frankly I couldn’t give a damn about people trying to define how many angels there on the head of a pin (to quote another idiotic intellectual exercise of the past) or where exactly people are on a political spectrum and what they should believe in. Frankly I’ll leave that kind of intellectual wanking to theologians and polsci departments.

        • Pete George 2.1.3.1
          19 November 2016 at 11:29 am

          “You do realise the Danyl leans strongly towards green right?”

          I wouldn’t try to define his politics. I have seen Danyl examining what left and right might mean in the modern political world, and whether they matter as labels, and whether left wing ideologies are the answer to solving everything or not. It’s good to see this rather than painting oneself into an ideological corner.

          • lprent 2.1.3.1.1
            19 November 2016 at 11:36 am

            You do realise the Danyl leans strongly towards green. Right?

            My punctuation. That should have been like the above.

            Incidentally my view on greens is that they tend to the conservative by default. It does rather come with the territory in trying to maintain the steady state in the environment (ie convervation). But they also prefer less of the things that the many with more individual centric view (eg rapacious capitalists) tends to favour like unsustainable mining extraction and belching crap into the atmosphere.

            • Clump_AKA Sam 2.1.3.1.1.1
              19 November 2016 at 12:13 pm

              My friend is a social worker, very committed, embeds her self in the community, and works on woman’s issues, she’s got a house deep in the Australian outback, when we go around visiting different communities she’s always mobbed by horribly desperate people, but she never acknowledges their requests for cash/smokes/fuel which is a contradiction, I asked her once why she brushes off those she champions so hard for, she replied it wouldn’t make a dent, we’ll end up fending them off, you have to do that to survive out here.

              It’s almost guaranteed the Dakota access pipe line will go through, when complete Canada can finish off there Tar sands programme, this is no joke, if Canada completes its tar sands programme it will be almost certain the environment will tip over and humanity go extinct. But for our survival it is important that go ahead to maintain our standards of living, so we ignore it, we ignore these things far to early.

    • alwyn 2.2
      19 November 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Perhaps Danyl is merely exhibiting the accuracy of Churchill’s old adage.
      “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”.
      Danyl, who certainly seems to exhibit an excellent brain is merely getting older.
      QED.

      • Garibaldi 2.2.1
        19 November 2016 at 4:17 pm

        Churchill always was a right wing twat.

      • McFlock 2.2.2
        19 November 2016 at 6:40 pm

        Heh.
        Not only did Churchill not say that, he was a conservative until he was forty, then a liberal until sixty, then a conservative again.

        • alwyn 2.2.2.1
          19 November 2016 at 8:32 pm

          You can believe that Churchill said it or not.

          I can offer the opinion he did
          http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if-you-re-not-a-liberal-at-twenty-you-have-no/347162.html
          or that he didn’t
          http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-attributed

          However if your opinion of the validity of crediting him with the opinion is as silly as your views on his political party membership I’ll take the view that he did say it.
          You claim he was a Conservative until 40 and then a Liberal until 60.
          Are you really that silly?
          Winston Spencer Churchill was born in 1875. He was elected to Parliament in 1900 as a Conservative (25?), switched to the Liberals in 1904 (29?) and then re-joined the Conservatives in 1925 (50?) and stayed a Conservative for the rest of his life.
          How can you possibly believe your own chronology? Are you talking about the same person?

          • McFlock 2.2.2.1.1
            20 November 2016 at 6:40 pm

            Yep, math was a bit off.
            Conservative at 25, liberal until 50, conservative thereafter.

            The attributed quote was: “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

            So even if he was a liberal at 20 before flipping to conservative within a few years, at forty he was in the midst of his career as a liberal – just about to resign and go into the trenches, actually.

            The basic point, my dodgy math notwithstanding, is that the quote is fundamentally inconsistent with his actual political career. So he almost certainly didn’t say it, pithy though it might be

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.2.1.1.1
              20 November 2016 at 6:44 pm

              Not to mention the fact that Churchill’s conservatism has sweet fuck all to do with the things today’s Rand cultists genuflect to.

            • alwyn 2.2.2.1.1.2
              20 November 2016 at 7:22 pm

              You are quite possibly correct in your doubts about the whether he really said it. Churchill was like Lincoln, Einstein or Yogi Berra. They are credited with saying any number of things, some of which really did come from their mouths.
              Churchill was of course interested primarily in his own political career. One summary, probably accurately, describes him as follows

              ” He left for the Liberal Party in 1904 when the Tories, under the influence of Joseph Chamberlain, who had left the Liberals in protest against the Irish home rule bill, started to move towards protectionism. That was fair enough: but moving back to the Tories after the collapse of the coalition in 1922, when the Liberal Party had divided, imploded and been eclipsed by Labour, was widely regarded as an act of outrageous cynicism, not least by those whom he was rejoining”.

              He had of course lost his seat in 1922 and only got back into Parliament in 1924 thanks to the Conservatives. The Liberal Party by then were just about dead. Note his reason for leaving in 1904 though. He wouldn’t really like his (part) namesake Winston Peters’ policies would he?

              He almost certainly did make the following statement though. I wonder if Mr Peters will have the wit to repeat it when he goes with National after the next election here?

              “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”

              • McFlock …
                20 November 2016 at 7:37 pm

                I don’t think Peters needs any suggestions about how to improve his witticisms.

                After all, look at the reaction he got simply from saying “boo”.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    19 November 2016 at 8:14 am

    “… He has come up with some very interesting ideas and prompted worthwhile discussion…”

    No he hasn’t. That has been his biggest dissappointment. He may be a banging chemist, but his political theories are just pompous straw men.

  4. greywarshark 4
    19 November 2016 at 8:26 am

    There was a really good radio item on Maori business and manuka honey that went into all the factors currently affecting them. Very educational about their keen ideas and determination to make this enterprise for themselves not just be a source for bigger honey companies.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201824422

    But Maori enterprise suffers from the age-old problem of not being able to get finance and I suppose it is for the usual reason that they can’t use land as a surety of a loan. However I cannot understand why they can’t have an inter-iwi fund that makes small loans to get approved businesses going. And to be staffed by tauiwi so that no cuzzy can sweet-talk into advantage. Nepotism can be a problem but having reliable outsiders with a good background in management would handle

    Banks here are two steps away from Maori in the majority, being not even NZ owned and controlled in this country, but Australian. Maori need to advance their own future, and with the multiplier effect, be sending out the ripples of commerce and trading and opportunities for making a better living further.

    Also Maori remaining on tribal lands find that city based family have strong cultural feelings to the home land, and look to getting return from enterprise there as part of the iwi, but remain distant in the city visiting or helping only occasionally. It sounds like the Little Red Hen story of wanting the benefits of fruits from a garden without prior input to help with the preparatory work.

    • save nz 4.1
      19 November 2016 at 9:01 am

      I have heard Convita will finance planting the trees and give the landowner 50% of the profits.

      • greywarshark 4.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 11:57 am

        I think Maori are trying to break through the commodity level and want to set up a business that is vertically integrated, I think that means that they take it from whoa to go.

  5. The Chairman 5
    19 November 2016 at 8:52 am

    Despite concerns about how the tsunami warning system operated this week and indications that a Civil Defence overhaul is “inevitable”, there appears to be little official interest in setting up a Tsunado network.

    DIWA chief executive Rhys Greensill said it was disappointing that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management looked set to pursue a text alert system instead.

    He said text systems often did not work because people did not wake for the texts, they arrived late, the disaster wiped out the cellular networks, or people’s cell phones ran flat without power to charge them.

    It would be an expensive investment that would cost hundreds of millions and would only benefit the telecommunication companies, he said. “Essentially a free gift to the telcos who will then use this equipment to send us all more unsolicited marketing texts.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/business/86633429/Tsunado-system-sitting-unused-despite-Government-cash-injection

  6. Bill 6
    19 November 2016 at 9:59 am

    In line with scientifically informed necessary action for (a very outside) chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C, some of the poorest nations in the world commit to zero by ’50.

    Meanwhile we, (risher Annex 1 countries) who need commit to zero by ~ 35-40 are just fucking about the show.

    Oh. And we’ve promised a whole extra $165 million for the ‘global climate fund when trillions are required.

    Seems that a swarm of bastards and fuckwits is all we, as nations, amount to. We should applaud ourselves, our leaders and our undying commitment to our way of life, don’t you think?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/18/poor-nations-pledge-deep-emissions-cuts-at-marrakech-climate-change-summit

  7. RedBaronCV 7
    19 November 2016 at 10:08 am

    Is it just me or are others finding the response from the Govt and the media to the earthquakes just a little dysfunctional?

    The reporting – lots of helicopters flying around taking photo’s but what’s happening for the folks on the ground – we are not hearing anything near as much. Was there a systematic programme from to check up on all outlying places where people live and send in supplies and make contact by helicopter if needed. Outside human contact I think would be psychologically important? Was there data gathered to try to make sure no one was on the road under one of those slips? The Guardian had a story on this but it’s the only one i’ve seen.

    The navy – while I’m sure all the peeps on board would much rather be off Kaikoura than standing around listening to the naval review speeches – 5 warships ??? If one can shift 400 people in comfort isn’t the 5 just grandstanding by Key?
    The inland road convoys about which we hear little are far more important and a road building effort on it pretty essential.

    Starting with the financial grants for Kaikoura – now there is a need for support but these packages? The farming ones will help farmers replace uninsured gear (how much of that do they have?)but they have to depend on their main insurance policies for everything else including loss of profits from being unable to ship product out -the main issue for them will be trying to get further insurance.

    The grants to business – money is going to be given to retain employees? Well again the businesses may have loss of profits insurance to fall back on first and is there any guarantee that the money will make it through to employees? if they are seasonal employees they are likely to be out of it already. If not they may wish to leave but be trapped there and tied to their employer so that they are getting some money rather than facing welfare stand downs if they go elsewhere

    So why not give an enhanced interrupted (un)employment benefit in the area for those who were employed in the area prior to the quake? That way the funds go directly to those who have no work, employers are not trying to fund wages without income and the individuals involved can decide their own futures without financial stress.

    As for Wellington – the zero government response and leaving it all to the Mayor is no doubt Nact payback for a city that votes Labour & Green

    • Cinny 7.1
      19 November 2016 at 11:31 am

      Really good points there RedBaron. It almost feels as if priority was given for tourists over the farmers over there, made me think that now tourism has overtaken dairy as our biggest export, the outgoing PM appears to just follow and back the biggest earners, sorry farmers, dairy is out and tourism is in. They will really be hurting and upset about having to dump milk, that would suck so much for them, just a waste.

      Re the media, all they seemed to give a shit about at the start was ratings, photos, photos, fly over and take photos cause they generate revenue and ratings. Were any media involved in rescues? There was a time when there was a lack of photos, probably because everyone was so busy helping and ratings and revenue was not their number one concern. Was disappointed in the initial reporting because of that.

      Re the Navy, i was thinking how wonderful for all the navy ships that they come to NZ for an anniversary, and now they are experiencing what they are trained for, how cool is that? Beats the normal naval exercises various fleets engage in. They would have loved it. And a real novelty for the passengers as well.

      Good on China for looking after their citizens so rapidly, if all countries had done the same maybe there wouldn’t have been anything to whine about.

      Really like the idea you have re ‘enhanced employment benefit’ for those suffering from loss of work re quake.
      And those grants to businesses.. employees need to be sorted, directly, if all book work is up to date, shouldn’t be a problem, payment should be going straight from government to employee, forget the middle man business owner, government can make seperate payment to them. Seasonal or non permanent workers should also be compensated some how or offered help to leave etc. Would have be awful for all.

      And it’s pretty shitty that the government even leases buildings to start with in the capital, especially in the capital and it sounds like many buildings are leased. Point the finger at the landlord to pass on to the insurance companies for historic buildings created in a time when technology was unable to provide solutions and crucial geological advice. By crikey lets hope all the policies are up to date.
      But seriously, why not build new buildings, start on it now, engage some of the very clever Japanese engineers, use geological information and make it a proper government hub. Use the old buildings for tourism aspects etc, that end of town needs a bit more life, so much potential especially with the trainstation etc already in place. Would cost a bit however which is a bit of a bugger, insurance? nah decided to lease instead of buy. The stupid it hurts sometimes.

      • alwyn 7.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 12:45 pm

        You propose that
        “why not build new buildings, start on it now”.
        The problems we appear to be having in Wellington are not to do with old, historic, buildings as you seem to imply.
        They are often the new, supposedly earthquake proof, buildings that are only a few years old.
        For example the Stats office was built in 2005. The GCSB building in Pipitea Street was opened in 2011. The Defence building was opened in 2007.
        The older buildings seem to have survived much better than the recent ones.
        Do we really want to go ahead and build new ones?

        • Garibaldi 7.1.1.1
          19 November 2016 at 4:26 pm

          Get the govt out of Wellington ( but a big no to Auckland).
          When Wellington gets the big one it will be good night nurse. With no road access and no port facility operating how will help get there within a reasonable time frame?
          Everyone knows it is a matter of when not if, so it is time to bite the bullet and move govt out. Maybe PN – quite central.

          • Clump_AKA Sam 7.1.1.1.1
            19 November 2016 at 4:35 pm

            The procedure for reopening the port of Wellington is a RNZN ship survey the harbour, remove underwater debris and mark out a new route for the Cantabury and other vessels, rinse and repeat

            • alwyn 7.1.1.1.1.1
              19 November 2016 at 4:46 pm

              I hope it would work.
              The entrance to the harbour has a maximum depth at high water of 11.3 metres I believe. During the 1855 the land over a large part of the harbour rose by 2 or 3 metres. That is why most of the CBD is on the harbour side of Lambton Quay.
              I hope there would be deep enough water to get ships in and moored after a quake.

              • Clump_AKA Sam …
                19 November 2016 at 4:54 pm

                There are benches all up and down the cost that indicate altleast three level 8 seismic events and they new this when selecting Wellington over Porirua. Personally I would have been more picky

          • mauī 7.1.1.1.2
            19 November 2016 at 4:38 pm

            Build a new tower with the best base isolation in a secure location (just behind Parliament). Put each of the vital ministries on each floor. Ministry of Defence, Civil Defence, Health, Education, Police, Finance, etc.

        • Cinny 7.1.1.2
          19 November 2016 at 7:32 pm

          Crikey that’s a concern then, that it’s the new buildings. I wonder why they aren’t as good as they should be? Chinese steel?

    • Muttonbird 7.2
      19 November 2016 at 6:14 pm

      No, no. Ad assures us that the government response has been stellar. According to Ad, even to question it is being churlish, and seeking to find a problem where there isn’t one.

  8. weka 8
    19 November 2016 at 11:06 am

    Convo from Robert, the lost sheep and myself brought over to make it make it easier to post. This is a reply to https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17112016/#comment-1263059

    “What are you proposing to do about cats? Hedgehogs? Rats, stoats, mice etc in urban areas? On private rural land? Be specific.”

    They are issues that certainly need to be resolved, along with many many others, both on a social agreement and technical level. No one is pretending that all the answers and solutions are already in place.
    If you are really interested in knowing where things are at this point I suggest you start here, and herehttp://predatorfreenz.org/

    Sure, but that just reinforces my earlier point. The campaign is aiming for something that is impossible. The issues around cats, and private land are not reliant on un-invented tech, they’re core to the culture. If there is no plan nor even any theory around that yet, then again, the idea is impossible. Those cultural issues aren’t hard to think through, so if the project isn’t thinking about them, that’s a problem. It’s promising the impossible.

    “The idea of ‘predator-free NZ’ is a publicity campaign, it’s not an attempt at literal truth. As such I find it misleading. At a pragmatic level it’s an attempt to work around neoliberalism, and all power to the scientists, politicians and conservationists for getting on board for that. But let’s not forget that this is also a politically motivated campaign. ”

    You find it misleading because you seem not to understand the genesis of the movement and the motivations of the people and organisations that have put in the decades of work that got us to this point.
    This is a grassroots movement that has built from the bottom up over many decades, and has eventually reached the critical mass where all the major Political Parties recognise the social desire for change and have come on board to support the vision.
    Ain’t that wonderful? Just how you’d hope a democracy would work?

    You’ve just conflated 3 things, so let me separate them out.

    I said – “The idea of ‘predator-free NZ’ is a publicity campaign, it’s not an attempt at literal truth. As such I find it misleading.”

    I don’t find that misleading because I don’t understand the genesis, I find it misleading because the message is an impossibility, irrespective of who is saying it.

    I said – “At a pragmatic level it’s an attempt to work around neoliberalism, and all power to the scientists, politicians and conservationists for getting on board for that.”

    Initially some scientists were skeptical. I don’t have too much a problem with them doing the pragmatic thing to keep their funding. But it is a problem if they are not free to speak truthfully on this.

    Likewise politicians. Obviously the Greens can’t criticise the campaign because of political reasons. That’s a very different thing than everyone being on board, and no, it doesn’t serve democracy, it suppresses it. Hence neoliberalism (actually, it’s something beyond neoliberalism).

    I said – “But let’s not forget that this is also a politically motivated campaign.”

    Grassroots is good. Nevertheless, the government was either given this campaign or co-opted it politically.

    • The lost sheep 8.1
      19 November 2016 at 4:21 pm

      The issues around cats, and private land are not reliant on un-invented tech, they’re core to the culture. If there is no plan nor even any theory around that yet,
      There is a plan around that Weka as it is an obviously crucial issue.
      The plan is to work through such issues in a long term, wide spread and 100% inclusive social debate and see what comes out of that.

      The campaign is aiming for something that is impossible.
      There is ‘impossible’, and then one day it becomes ‘Mmm. I reckon I can see how that could be done’.
      The crux for the Predator Free concept is that many very experienced knowledgeable people do believe what used to thought impossible is now possible, and possible enough that they are willing to make a serious attempt to realise it.

      So you are free to go on believing it is impossible, and you may even be right, but excuse us if bowl on ahead and have a crack despite your skepticism!

      I said – “The idea of ‘predator-free NZ’ is a publicity campaign, it’s not an attempt at literal truth. A
      We mean it as a literal truth. You don’t believe it. Think that brings that line of discussion to a tidy end?

      Initially some scientists were skeptical. I don’t have too much a problem with them doing the pragmatic thing to keep their funding. But it is a problem if they are not free to speak truthfully on this
      What? If you have some evidence to back up that implication, please link to it?

      Likewise politicians. Obviously the Greens can’t criticise the campaign because of political reasons.
      What Again?
      Are you seriously suggesting The Green Parties strong indication of support for Predator Free, incl. multiple statements that the current Govt. is not backing it strongly enough, and the introduction of a proposed Taonga Levy to fund and assist the project….is just a front forced on them by political expedience?
      Please provide some evidence to back that assertion?

      https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/cleaner-environment/taonga-levy
      https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/greens-welcome-predator-free-nz-warn-it-will-take-more-lip-service
      http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Predator-free-NZ-Green-Party-doing-the-real-work-as-National-poses-for-photos/tabid/615/articleID/126889/Default.aspx

      That’s a very different thing than everyone being on board, and no, it doesn’t serve democracy, it suppresses it. Hence neoliberalism (actually, it’s something beyond neoliberalism).
      Again. Please provide some evidence that this project is any any way un-democratic?

      Nevertheless, the government was either given this campaign or co-opted it politically.
      After many years of awareness of the growing Predator Free movement, this year the Govt. reached the point where they felt themselves it was an irresistible proposition and they should support it. Labour and The Green Party support it also.
      What is the problem with that Weka?

      • weka 8.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 6:37 pm

        The plan is to work through such issues in a long term, wide spread and 100% inclusive social debate and see what comes out of that.

        And when a sizeable chunk of NZ says no to eradicating cats, you no longer have predator free NZ. Ditto pest eradication on private land. Do you honestly believe that NZ will have a consensus on that?

        The crux for the Predator Free concept is that many very experienced knowledgeable people do believe what used to thought impossible is now possible, and possible enough that they are willing to make a serious attempt to realise it.

        Citation needed. I want to see 5 experienced, knowledgeable people explain what that means in real terms. Not in ‘oh one day we will figure it out and so this is aour goal’, but in real terms of it’s now possible to aim directly for predator free because…x, y, z.

        “So you are free to go on believing it is impossible, and you may even be right, but excuse us if bowl on ahead and have a crack despite your skepticism!”

        Ok, so now you admit that it’s possible that it’s not even possible.

        I said – “The idea of ‘predator-free NZ’ is a publicity campaign, it’s not an attempt at literal truth. A
        We mean it as a literal truth. You don’t believe it. Think that brings that line of discussion to a tidy end?

        Ooops, now you do think it’s absolutely possible. Mate, you are talking about faith. Which is fine. But we shouldn’t be basing govt policy on faith.

        Likewise politicians. Obviously the Greens can’t criticise the campaign because of political reasons.
        What Again?
        Are you seriously suggesting The Green Parties strong indication of support for Predator Free, incl. multiple statements that the current Govt. is not backing it strongly enough, and the introduction of a proposed Taonga Levy to fund and assist the project….is just a front forced on them by political expedience?
        Please provide some evidence to back that assertion?

        No, of course I’m not suggesting that. We’ve already established I know what the GP policy is on this. I’m saying that when the govt announced this policy, it would be very hard to the Greens to offer legitimate, sustained criticism of the stupid aspects of the project. They have to be political about it.

        At least Landcare can be honest about it,

        Predator-Free New Zealand is a grass-roots movement aiming for the large-scale suppression or eradication of rats and mice (rodents), stoats and ferrets (mustelids), and possums across the New Zealand mainland.

        http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/animals/pfnz

        And DOC are equivocating,

        A goal that can be achieved

        Although we don’t have the technology now to achieve a predator-free New Zealand, Predator Free 2050 will provide a focus on developing breakthrough predator control tools and techniques and forging the networks needed to make the vision happen.

        http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/predator-free-new-zealand-2050/

        Now we’re going around in circles. You believe it can be done, I don’t. You won’t put engage in the details of how it might be possible, so there’s not much point us banging on about what each believes.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          19 November 2016 at 6:44 pm

          btw, I’ve half written a reply to the other part of the discussion, about regenerative design. Will post later.

        • The lost sheep 8.1.1.2
          20 November 2016 at 10:56 am

          And when a sizeable chunk of NZ says no to eradicating cats, you no longer have predator free NZ. Ditto pest eradication on private land. Do you honestly believe that NZ will have a consensus on that?
          Yes, and the degree to which NZ goes ‘Predator Free’ will be determined by that. That’s just how you’d want it to be?
          Do you think that if we don’t get agreement on a 100% situation we are going to give up on the Predator Free concept altogether? Is that how you think it should work when people have a huge and difficult dream they want to achieve? Want to eliminate Malaria but realise you will never get all the mosquito vectors, so give up on any effort altogether? Or just stop right at the beginning of the attempt because there were a few doubters around saying it was impossible?
          Gee the World would be missing a lot of progress if people with vision gave up easily on those scores eh?
          Not me. The final shape of ‘Predator Free’ will be decided by a social consensus, and we will achieve a situation as close to the 100% goal as possible within that constraint. For me I hope that means all the way.
          Whats wrong with that as a goal?

          Ok, so now you admit that it’s possible that it’s not even possible.
          Have you actually read anything from Predator Free Weka?
          If you follow the links I gave you, you will see that no one is saying we already have the all answers. What is being said very clearly is that this will require new technology and knowledge that we don’t currently have, but that recent advances achieved in poison and trapping, the indications of further advances in those areas, and the potential of biological mechanisms all give us a strong belief we will solve the challenges.
          Is that such a difficult concept?, and again, do you really believe that progress would ever happen if people only ever put effort into projects they already had all the answers to and were 100% sure of complete success on?

          We’ve already established I know what the GP policy is on this. I’m saying that when the govt announced this policy, it would be very hard to the Greens to offer legitimate, sustained criticism of the stupid aspects of the project. They have to be political about it.
          They did critisise the project Weka, so on what grounds do you say they couldn’t?
          The criticism was that the Govt. wasn’t taking it far enough or putting enough resources into it. The Green Party genuinely supports this project and I completely reject the implication that they don’t. If you are a Green Party supporter and you don’t support this then you are in the minority.

          Now we’re going around in circles. You believe it can be done, I don’t. You won’t put engage in the details of how it might be possible, so there’s not much point us banging on about what each believes.
          If you genuinely are interested Weka, there is oodles of easily accessible information out there about Predator Free and pest control. Start with the links I gave you.

          As a 30 year veteran of the 1080 debate I do understand there is limited value in putting time into a discussion where one or both parties are not going to shift from their position, and I do suspect at this stage that you really aren’t interested in finding out anything positive about this project!

          • weka 8.1.1.2.1
            20 November 2016 at 11:23 am

            “Whats wrong with that as a goal?”

            I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I’m all in favour of mass pest control that is backed up by serious funding. My objection is to the misleading framing (‘predator-free’), and the political appropriation by National (who are just fucking with it all eg underfunding, and who will push hard on making this a neoliberal outcome eg keep underfunding DOC, privatise conservation).

            You seem to have this idea that I’m not interested in serious effort in native conservation, and that I’m not aware of the issues. Both of those impressions are wrong and I think come from you not listening to what I am saying.

            They did critisise the project Weka, so on what grounds do you say they couldn’t?
            The criticism was that the Govt. wasn’t taking it far enough or putting enough resources into it. The Green Party genuinely supports this project and I completely reject the implication that they don’t. If you are a Green Party supporter and you don’t support this then you are in the minority.

            1. you’ve taken my comment out of context, please stop doing that. I didn’t say that the Greens made no criticism. Just stop with that shit.

            2. I’m not against the project. I’m criticising aspects of it. There is nothing wrong with that.

            3. AFAIK the Greens didn’t canvas members on this, so we don’t know who thinks what at the membership level. I’d guess I am in a minority, but not a small one, and if you put these issues to people in a more complex way I think you’d find a wide range of opinions.

            4. my synopsis – everyone knows that it’s not possible to eradicate all predators in NZ with the knowledge we have now. At some point we might have new tech emerge, but that is hugely fraught with environmental issues. and at the moment that’s not on the horizon. There are always going to be social issues that preclude NZ from being truly predator-free, and some people object to the goal on those grounds and think a more realistic approach would serve us better.

            So, sure, put the research into future tech*, and in the meantime develop and fund pest control that we can do now.

            5. neoliberalism is a big issue here. It won’t adequately fund existing tech (and tech that is already on the horizon), because it wants conservation privatised.

            *it’s a dilemma for the Greens if that is GE tech.

            • The lost sheep 8.1.1.2.1.1
              20 November 2016 at 11:55 am

              That clarifies a lot thanks Weka.

              At some point we might have new tech emerge, but that is hugely fraught with environmental issues. and at the moment that’s not on the horizon.
              Some of that new tech is here already. It is early days, but increasingly the potential of the self resetting traps is causing excitement.
              They have proven capable of taking out 100% of predators on Islands…but of more significance is the trials which suggest they can do so even in Mainland situations. (Robert will be aware of the ENV. STHLD trial in the Stirling Block).

              If the trials continue to show this kind of result we might already have in hand the technology required to eliminate all predators.

              I simply don’t get how you can stretch this to be a Trojan horse for imposing neo-liberalism!
              Personally I welcome private investment in conservation with open arms. I don’t think any Govt. is going to be able to adequately fund conservation without the economic support of all stakeholders, including business.
              But appreciate the many problematic views around Conservation funding.

              • weka …
                20 November 2016 at 7:57 pm

                Sure, but resetting traps won’t make NZ predator-free. They, and allied techs, will take us a long way towards controlling pests, something I wholeheartedly support.

                There is a huge difference between making a small island predator free, and making something as big as the SI predator free. Plus the human population issues. I’d like to see Stewart Island proposed, because it’s a large island, and it has a culture that is anti-DOC so it would force conservationists to negotiate.

                but of more significance is the trials which suggest they can do so even in Mainland situations. (Robert will be aware of the ENV. STHLD trial in the Stirling Block). If the trials continue to show this kind of result we might already have in hand the technology required to eliminate all predators.

                See, this is where it starts to sound la la. If you can make the case, please do, but I can’t see how short of biological control of a species you can make it extinct on the SI. Please explain what the thinking is.

                I simply don’t get how you can stretch this to be a Trojan horse for imposing neo-liberalism!
                Personally I welcome private investment in conservation with open arms. I don’t think any Govt. is going to be able to adequately fund conservation without the economic support of all stakeholders, including business.
                But appreciate the many problematic views around Conservation funding.

                Yeah, but you and I aren’t close on the political spectrum. National *are grossly underfunding DOC. They do have an agenda of privatisation. It’s not about not also using private money, it’s about what the push from National is on this and how they will go about it.

  9. The Chairman 9
    19 November 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Will the recent large earthquake (coupled with the very real potential threat of more to come) deter people from buying and renting Wellington CBD apartments going forward?

  10. mauī 10
    19 November 2016 at 2:27 pm

    A tough, emotional day for many for obvious reasons. A song may help:

  11. greywarshark 11
    19 November 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Here’s a little laugh for you. The perfect song for competing politicians.
    ‘Anything you can do I can do better.’ And very well sung in great spirit.
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0

  12. The Chairman 12
    19 November 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Testing.

    weka, my reply to you is not showing up. And it won’t let me re-post it.

  13. dv 13
    19 November 2016 at 3:32 pm

    I see that the Tamakis are proposing tax fraud by claiming donation they didn’t make.

    Hannah Tamaki is urging people to donate to a charity drive set up to protest against her husband – boasting that Bishop Brian will enjoy a slice of the cash.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11751309

  14. Sacha 14
    19 November 2016 at 4:35 pm

    Green party’s new rent-to-buy housing policy: https://www.greens.org.nz/home-for-life

    • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1
      19 November 2016 at 4:40 pm

      When will you learn not to create home buyers who don’t save. So I take the discount and flip it. Low cost housing should never be sold.

      • alwyn 14.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 4:55 pm

        Well there goes the Green Party policies of not selling Government assets and not selling off the State Houses.
        I guess they will now have to applaud National if they propose selling off State Houses in the future. I wonder if you will have to prove you are a member of the Green Party before you are allowed into the deal?

        • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.1.1
          19 November 2016 at 4:59 pm

          We can’t go around stacking out new land for low cost housing every time there’s a housing crises, eventually we’ll run out of land, because privatisation is a one way street, once sold it remains private

          • dv 14.1.1.1.1
            20 November 2016 at 9:55 am

            Heard of the Public Lands act (name) where the govt can take your private land if they want it?

          • Molly 14.1.1.1.2
            20 November 2016 at 6:56 pm

            They could instead create homes that have perpetual affordability clauses built in. eg. if you purchase a house that is 60% of the market value, then you can only sell to another owner who intends to reside for only 60% of market value, (or original price + nominal increase amount).

            • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.1.1.2.1
              20 November 2016 at 7:36 pm

              First of all I think this scheme will drag people into the market who other wise wouldn’t be able to get in there, there by increasing the amount of buyers, I call this help to sell because people trying to sell goods and services of all kinds get new buyers on the market. The money in people’s pocket comes from two sources, not just government discounts handing out 5%-40% resale value, and saying spend it please, they then go to banks and leaver that up more.

              Then banks leaver all this up with 95% loan to valuation ratios which we know they do. It does drive up asset prices so people who sell the houses can get another BMW and so on. It does give a temporary boost to the economy, but at the end of it you end up with more inflation of housing prices, much higher debt, and the only way to sustain a policy like this is to continue borrowing more and more money. As soon as the thing runs out of buyers or goes dormant, It’s effective in making prices affordable with its own subsidies, but that’s the end of the bubble when it starts coming down from a higher level of debt burden.

              Sponsoring asset prices to make it look like good economic management has become a part of political furniture. Each time we’ve done this its pumped up housing prices more. If you take a look at kiwi savers first home buyers lone, it pumped up prices after a period of relative unchange. After this scheme came in average house prices over all doubled. So faster growth in price for no real trend. So it’s a poisoned chalice. And controlling house prices is the last thing politicians ever want to do, then you make buyers worse off not better off.

      • adam 14.1.2
        19 November 2016 at 7:17 pm

        I see ideology scrawled across my computer screen, but as always very little to back up the rantings. Just more ideology.

        Do you sleep with a copy of atlas shrugged Clump_AKA Sam, or are you another one of those who never got around to reading to the end of Wealth of Nations?

        • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.2.1
          19 November 2016 at 10:52 pm

          What I said was fucking spot on.

          An organised country can survive setbacks like this and spring back, Housing New Zealand has the capacity to do so, Housing New Zealand can adapt to new situations and steer itself through economic storms as well as calm seas, a disorganised housing market is at the complete mercy of the weather.

          And of course its a simplification you bloody twit its a one paragraph response on a web board, not a fucking thesis.

          • adam 14.1.2.1.1
            20 November 2016 at 2:37 pm

            So says the ideologue.

            • Clump_AKA Sam 14.1.2.1.1.1
              20 November 2016 at 2:46 pm

              grow up

              • adam …
                20 November 2016 at 5:00 pm

                Just abuse, nothing new from the self obsessed then.

                • Clump_AKA Sam …
                  20 November 2016 at 5:34 pm

                  What are you talking about? Grow up you troll

                  • adam …
                    20 November 2016 at 5:40 pm

                    You gave a pat ideological answer to policy the greens raised. I called you on it, and your response is abuse. And you call me a troll?!?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      20 November 2016 at 5:43 pm

                      Policy/Adam Smith/what ever. If you want a discussion fine. My only objective is to show you can take advantage of the housing crises properly

                    • adam …
                      20 November 2016 at 5:50 pm

                      Proper, right, correct form. Your language is a dead give away. I called you for being a liberal ideologue, that still stands with all your responses to date. What is proper in a crisis like this, you seem to be holding the ‘stick of truth’, which you have not given any evidence for. All you have been giving is opinions, ideologically based.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      20 November 2016 at 5:54 pm

                      Fuck off time waster

                    • weka …
                      20 November 2016 at 5:58 pm

                      Sunday afternoon name calling, really?

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      20 November 2016 at 6:06 pm

                      If any wants to continue this, chuck me a private message. I don’t want to fill the baord with mindless dribble

                    • adam …
                      20 November 2016 at 6:12 pm

                      I’m just pointing out you are talking a whole lot of ideological dibble. Too soon?!?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.2.1.1.2
              20 November 2016 at 6:22 pm

              Well that escalated quickly.

              FWIW, Sam makes some pretty solid points, eg: privatisation is a one way street, once sold it remains private…low cost housing should never be sold.

              The rebuttal doesn’t really cut the mustard: compulsory purchase is a very blunt instrument.

              • adam …
                20 November 2016 at 7:32 pm

                “Eu tu OAB” still caught up in the language of liberalism?

                But if you are committed to replenishing the housing stock, then giving people the chance to own their own house is not a problem, as you say.

                As for compulsory purchase, what wrong with some blunt short sharp messages to speculators? It’s a spine thing, and for me good to see the greens having one.

                My main problem with what Sam wrote was to write off the poor as a bad investment, that is the usual ideological crap I here from the right, and a deep ideological problem of liberalism. I talked about ideology in the vain hope he might reflect on what he wrote, but alas no.

              • Clump_AKA Sam …
                20 November 2016 at 8:08 pm

                Hi OAB. Could you please tell Adam:

                The cause of this problem is private banks lending to private speculators to bet on assets. What we’ve found out after 2008 is there’s no such thing as private debt. Because when this debt becomes unsustainable the private sector simply gives it to the government. Banks have got all the politicians by the intellectual balls, they believe to have a growing economy you have to a healthy banking sector. The opposite is true, you’ve got to get the financial sector to shrink. If you’d take all this leverage and create sustainable jobs in perhaps renewable energy, we’d unburden the tax payer, get people off the grid. We might be able to reclaim our rivers from energy companies, rivers have better flow, and would be able to manage nutrient levels better.

                Thanks for passing on the message.

    • The Chairman 14.2
      19 November 2016 at 6:36 pm

      The Greens say: For much of New Zealand’s history, governments used their low cost of borrowing to finance affordable homes for New Zealanders. It is time for government to pick up its tools again.

      Yet,

      To enable the community housing sector to grow and help solve the housing crisis, the government will issue low-interest loans to community housing providers to build new, energy efficient homes. We’ll fund these by supplying long-term partially-guaranteed housing bonds to investors. 

      Why involve investors? Their partially-guaranteed profit will come at taxpayer’s expense.

      Why not do it all through Housing NZ?

  15. georgecom 15
    19 November 2016 at 4:39 pm

    What an asshole of a spring it has been in the top half.
    Were spring a person you would want to punch them in the nose, they would be that obnoxious.
    Day after day of shiite weather dished up.
    2 sunny days in a row something I cannot remember
    A real asshole spring

    • Clump_AKA Sam 16.1
      19 November 2016 at 6:40 pm

      Chinese Urban middle class earns an extra $2000US-$3000US this year so these fears are muted. The reds are coming

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/here-s-what-china-s-middle-class-really-earn-and-spend

      • The Chairman 16.1.1
        19 November 2016 at 9:02 pm

        Not necessarily. Fear can be a powerful persuader.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1
          20 November 2016 at 7:03 pm

          So can munted infrastructure. I doubt very much whether it will be possible to distinguish the fear signal amongst the munted infrastructure noise.

    • JC 16.2
      19 November 2016 at 7:07 pm

      Sadly we have to rely on Natural disasters to manage tourism in NZ. Rather than any Central government strategic plans….

      “Qyer, which has more than 80 million registered users, announced yesterday it would open a “Q-Home” in the resort, where its free independent travellers (FITs) from China will be able to book personalised services and activities, share stories and have face-to-face contact with Qyer.”

      https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/chinese-travel-agent-plans-shopfront

      • The Chairman 16.2.1
        19 November 2016 at 9:03 pm

        Our ability to accommodate somewhat limits tourism numbers.

      • Graeme 16.2.2
        20 November 2016 at 12:17 pm

        It’s going to be interesting to see where they set up, and how they go. They’ll be after the 20% + commission going for selling activity and tour packages. That’s a very competitive and crowded market, and a delicate cashflow proposition. So the ticket clippers come and go.

        Generally shopfronts targeting Asian markets find it pretty tough in Queenstown because their market is quite restricted, seasonal, and fickle.

    • Clump_AKA Sam 16.3
      19 November 2016 at 7:18 pm

      Even though New Zealand is the last bus stop so to speak. There’s still 4 billion yuan coming our way. If you add up all the 3 star accomodation between Auckland and Beijing, the dollar figure for vacant 3 star accomodation is less than the amount of yuan available so they have to come to NZ.

    • Graeme 16.4
      20 November 2016 at 11:09 am

      There’s also this one
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/86604299/korean-charter-flights-pulled-post-earthquake

      Another take on it isn’t quite so quake related. Tour operators “book” space in hotels and airlines a long time in advance and then sell the tour packages to punters. If things aren’t going well for the tour operator they will be looking to limit their exposure to the advance bookings, which will most likely have a force majeure clause. So earthquake = opportunity.

      At present the operator’s problem could be more poor / no profit from increased costs rather than poor sales. We’re very busy with Americans and other 4*+ visitors, which is pushing prices up a lot, and displacing the middle market down into places that were accomodating Chinese and Indian tours at reduced prices.

      • Clump_AKA Sam 16.4.1
        20 November 2016 at 1:11 pm

        From memory, Candians and Germans have been our bread and butter since Ruapehu erupted in the 90’s. They’ve been paying all the wages, keeping everything afloat. Anything above that has to be profit.

        • Graeme 16.4.1.1
          20 November 2016 at 1:56 pm

          When it gets busier in tourism a business’s cost go up dramatically, there’s increased competition for premises, so rents skyrocket (20+ % increases at rent reviews in Queenstown at present), staff gets really hard and expensive to hold, let alone get. All that and other things squeeze out the lower end of the industry.

          If you are selling something below cost there’s no profit. All you can do is lift you product to a higher level (assuming you have a market there, which New Zealand definitely has) or try and reduce costs by not paying your staff and / or landlord.

          • Clump_AKA Sam 16.4.1.1.1
            20 November 2016 at 6:32 pm

            Of course there’s push back when staff need more just to survive, so costs go up and no one can afford to eat out. Taxi included your looking at a $200 dinner for two in Queensland. I guess that’s one reason why Asians don’t travel more that 15 minutes from buses and hotels. I suspect gift shops will be the winners medium term

  17. The Chairman 17
    19 November 2016 at 10:14 pm

    Christchurch quake survivor warns Wellington against rushing ‘business as usual’
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/christchurch-quake-survivor-warns-wellington-against-rushing-business-usual

  19. weka 19
    19 November 2016 at 11:27 pm

    [In order to keep Open Mike and Daily Review free for other conversations, please put all discussion, comments, link postings etc about the US election under one of the posts about the Election – weka]