Open Mike 20/03/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 20th, 2018 - 154 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 …

154 comments on “Open Mike 20/03/2018”

  1. savenz 1

    CPTPP: Extended submission deadline

    You now have until Wednesday, 18 April 2018 to have your say on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

    The Foreign Affairs,Defence and Trade Committee is now inviting submissions on the treaty.

    The CPTPP is a free trade agreement negotiated by 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including New Zealand, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, and Viet Nam.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1803/S00180/cptpp-extended-submission-deadline.htm

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1

      Thanks SaveNZ!

    • cleangreen 1.2

      Awesome savenz “lets do this”

      I watched David parker blurbing his crap today in parliament and he showed that he is not truly confident that we wont be sued by any other party now.

      he should have thought of this before he signed iot.

      Now we are forced to accept this for 35yrs because of him.

      • savenz 1.2.1

        As soon as these companies start to lose profits because their industry is declining (oil and coal mining comes to mind but there are plenty of industries that are rich but declining) their lawyers will be looking to keep as much profit as possible by using these type agreements to sue for damages.

        The current agreement is not fit for purpose for the 21c and climate change and declining wages and increasingly inequality.

        It should be stopped.

      • McFlock 1.2.2

        successfully sued.

        • savenz 1.2.2.1

          They don’t need to successfully sue. It costs millions to defend a position, aka Phillip Morris and OZ.

          Having lawyers have the ability to disrupt in international courts which the EU has just ruled are illegal is not OK.

          Having lawyer fight it out in the Andrew Little case, he eventually won after two trials, but his life was disrupted, the election was disrupted and I guess he will be much less likely to question corporate donations followed by lucrative government contracts again.

          The threat is as much the problem as the rules which are being used weekly to sue governments in these agreements and are out of step with how the public perceives their governments should operate (aka in the public’s interest of their country NOT in the business/lawyers interests).

          • McFlock 1.2.2.1.1

            Yawn.

            Labour’s bottom line in that regard was “successfully”. And people aren’t governments. Governments can deal with court cases alongside all sorts of other things.

  2. AsleepWhileWalking 2

    In February alone the US national debt grew by $215 billion.

    That’s more than the GDP of NZ.

    US debt is increasing 36% faster than the US economy.

  3. chris73 3

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/03/15/96985/academics-slam-waka-jumping-bill#

    C’mon Greens you’re on a roll, do the right thing and stop this bill

    • KJT 3.1

      If you are elected on a party list, you should stay with that party or leave Parliament.
      Otherwise you are cheating voters who voted for that party and their list.
      Nothing wrong with a bill saying so.

      • Sanctuary 3.1.1

        The Waka jumping bill is a classic example of the political scientists, technocrats and experts being at loggerheads with the commonsense of voters. For the expertocracy, the waka jumping bill is an affront to democracy, because they are paid to believe certain bits of constitutional fantasy – like that list MPs are the same as electorate MPs and that MPs in general are elected, and ignore the reality they mostly owe their jobs to being on a party slate.

        We need to be real about this. List MPs owe their jobs exclusively to the party list and therefore have an obligation to the party that should require their resignation from parliament if they are no longer members of the party that elected them. Electorate MPs should have the guts to face their voters if they change sides. If they are cowards who move parties for expediency but won’t re-consult their elecotors, then sack them.

        Instad of pretending the system operates by a set of rules that are anachronistic, our expert class would be far better employed pointing out that political parties now have major role in our electoral arrangements, yet our constitution is completely silent on their role and this needs to be changed urgently.

        • dv 3.1.1.1

          List MPs owe their jobs exclusively to the party list and therefore have an obligation to the party that should require their resignation from parliament if they are no longer members of the party that elected them. Electorate MPs should have the guts to face their voters if they change sides.

          Agree with this!!

          • patricia bremner 3.1.1.1.1

            1000%

          • Bearded Git 3.1.1.1.2

            agree 100% dv. The bill is entirely democratic and sensible.

            The attempt to derail this bill is opportunistic and wishful thinking by the Nats that this government could fall in a years time when there is a crisis relating to the behaviour of one or two MP’s in the La/Gr/Nzf coalition causing resignations.

            The Greens should support the bill.

      • Baba Yaga 3.1.2

        “If you are elected on a party list, you should stay with that party or leave Parliament.”

        But what if that party abandons the policies and principles on which in was elected?

        • The Fairy Godmother 3.1.2.1

          Then stay in the party and work to put it back on track. Don’t be a coward or a grandstander and leave

          • McFlock 3.1.2.1.1

            Yeah, work to rule. Make the bastards get rid of you for advocating party policy.

            • The Fairy Godmother 3.1.2.1.1.1

              Yep and try and stay in til the next election so you get voted back and they get voted out. Don’t hand the power to them work with the party activists for change.

              • Baba Yaga

                “…so you get voted back and they get voted out.”

                And you know this will happen how? If you are a list MP, and your party abandons it’s principles, the chances are you’ll all get voted out!

                • McFlock

                  So you mitigated their damage and were a thorn in their side until then.

                  A caucus hijacking of a party sooner or later needs to be run by the membership. If you win, the splitters get kicked out. If they win, you were in the wrong damned party anyway.

          • Baba Yaga 3.1.2.1.2

            So someone who upholds party principles in the face of the party machine is a ‘coward’ and ‘grandstander’? Nice.

            “If politics transgresses conscience, politics must cede.”
            Dr Kennedy Graham.
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11905539

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2.1.2.1

              Graham broke protocol and ignored the party’s principles.

              Mr Shaw wants them both out as soon as possible, and says the rest of the caucus MPs are backing Ms Turei.
              “I feel betrayed by the way they have gone about this and so do the rest of the caucus,”

              “Tomorrow morning at the caucus meeting I’ll be moving a motion to suspend both of them from the Green party caucus.
              “The way that they have chosen to go about it is strongly in violation of every Green Party norm, culture and process that we have.”

              The decision was later confirmed by the party. I already know you disagree with them, so there’s no point in repeating that, ad nauseam.

              • McFlock

                And he also eventually resigned from caucus.

                Rather than giving support to the nats, like a party-hopper would.

                • Baba Yaga

                  Party hoppers don’t have to give support to any other party. They can choose to continue to support their party on all but those areas of principle on which that party has betrayed their voters or their principles (eg standing behind the actions of a self confessed fraudster).

              • Baba Yaga

                “Graham broke protocol…”
                So Shaw claims. I’d say Graham and Clendon called out the party for supporting a self confessed fraudster, and they didn’t like it.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Yes, as previously noted, that’s what you’d say, ad nauseam.

                • I’d say Graham and Clendon called out the party for supporting a self confessed fraudster….

                  You would say that, yes. Is there some reason members of the Green Party should give a shit what you, a person who doesn’t share their values and is ignorant of their kaupapa, would say about an internal issue within their party?

                  • Baba Yaga

                    A co-leader of a political party admitting historical benefit fraud is not ‘an internal issue within their party’.

                    As to the party’s values and kaupapa…https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/05-02-2018/my-old-party-is-betraying-its-own-proud-history-on-the-waka-jumping-bill/

                    • A member losing the confidence of fellow members for an egregious breach of protocol is very much an internal matter. Whatever that shit is that you’re on about is another subject entirely.

                    • Tracey

                      What about a Cabinet Minister deliberately breaking our Privacy laws? Or creating a situation where an innocent guy got death threats? Or a Cabinet Minister uses his power to get a friend preferential treatment. Ora PM assaulting a member of the public, multiple times… what do you call tgat? Business as usual?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “A member losing the confidence of fellow members for an egregious breach of protocol is very much an internal matter.”
                      A member disagreeing with a political party effectively condoning benefit fraud is very much a matter for the public.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “What about a Cabinet Minister deliberately breaking our Privacy laws? ”
                      If another member of that CM’s party spoke out against that CM, then all power to them. That’s exactly the point I’m making. Why should a political party stamp on an individual MP’s conscience when they are effectively challenging a party who has compromised it’s own principles?

                • Tracey

                  Like Collins leak lead to a guy getting death threats… to her asking tge police to fudge figures for her newsletter… bennett deliberately break the Privacy Law and only a few days National Party broke tge Privacy laws again.

      • cleangreen 3.1.3

        100% KIT,

        National love the bill as they can jump into a opposition Party and wreck them then switch to national afterwards.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2

      Unfortunately, they probably will. Doing so would be the wrong thing to do especially when ~80% of the populace wants it.

      We know why National wants it not to pass – they remember the 1990s when enough waka jumpers kept them in power.

  4. joe90 4

    After year on year of multi billion dollar losses, Uber’s way to profit depends on ditching humans. Die Uber, die.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-dies-in-arizona-after-being-hit-by-uber-self-driving-car/ar-BBKqSzV

    • Sanctuary 4.1

      Armed pedestrians would have confronted and shot out the tyres of car involved – but even then, that may not have stopped the car.

      This tragedy in Arizona (thoughts and prayers) shows the need to strengthen the 2nd amendment to include small pieces of artillery, like the recoilless 84mm Carl Gustav.

      Competent and skilled citizens with recoilless artillery would have stopped this car in its track.

      • Psych nurse 4.1.1

        You right, what will be required is a citizens militia armed with Bazookas, better an innocent passenger die that an errant driverless car go free.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2

      Reading that it sounds like she would have been killed even if it was a human driver.

      And, yes, we need to do something about the unearned income that is the whole point of capitalism.

      • David Mac 4.2.1

        Yes, I suspect human error. The person that was behind the wheel at the time. Especially with a driver unfamiliar with the vehicle, what a part autonomous vehicle can and can’t do without human interaction is a grey area. When the new Model 3 Tesla wants the driver to take the controls, a bell chimes. No system will protect a cyclist that immediately appears in any vehicle’s path. They have a better chance with a system that can react in a quarter of the time it takes a human to stop the vehicle….especially a human scanning his next Uber job.

        It’s an issue that has been prevalent with minor tech advances. Like folk driving into corners 10% faster because their new vehicle has ABS and traction control. Black ice takes no prisoners.

    • joe90 4.3

      Couple of things to remind people about just how fucking bad the new sharing economy is for workers.

      Uber and Lyft drivers in the US make a median profit of as little as $8.55 per hour before taxes, according to a new report that suggests a majority of ride-share workers make below minimum wage and that some actually lose money.

      Researchers did an analysis of vehicle cost data and a survey of more than 1,100 drivers for the ride-hailing companies for the paper, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. The first draft of the paper, released last month, said the median profit was $3.37 an hour, but the author released a new analysis on Monday following criticism from Uber.

      […]

      Other academics and commentators who expressed skepticism about the initial finding said the new numbers seemed more appropriate.

      Harry Campbell, founder of the Rideshare Guy, a website that conducts surveys of drivers and had partnered with Zoepf on this research, told the Guardian last week that he thought the $3.37 figure seemed too low. On Monday, he said the new numbers “definitely seem in the right ballpark”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/01/uber-lyft-driver-wages-median-report.

      We will never know the full story of Douglas Schifter, a New York cab and limo driver who completed suicide earlier this week in front of City Hall. Those of us who don’t know him personally have no special insight into his mental health, or what else was going on in his life.

      But in his final Facebook note and in trade magazine columns written under his byline, Schifter left a trail of commentary about the stress of surviving as a driver in New York, and with it, a view into how the so-called disruption led by Uber and Lyft, and cities’ mishandling of it, weighs dangerously on workers.

      Schifter’s note (which Facebook has since taken down), posted hours before he died, chronicles the economic struggles of a livery driver in New York. He says he worked at least 100 hours every week, and still ended his career in financial ruin.

      He blamed the powers that be in New York, pointing at the politicians who allowed more cabs on the road, flooding in more competition, and then adding green cabs too. “There was always meant to be numbers of cars below the demand. That was the guarantee of a steady income,” Schifter wrote.

      https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/neqb58/before-he-died-a-new-york-taxi-driver-wrote-about-how-the-gig-economy-ruined-his-life?utm_source=mbtwitter

  5. Carolyn_Nth 5

    C4 in the UK did an undercover investigation and recorded Cambridge Analytica people talking dodgy tactics and boasting about interfering in elections in many countries across the globe.

    They’re talking honey traps, bribes and more.

    Mr Turnbull described how, having obtained damaging material on opponents, Cambridge Analytica can discreetly push it onto social media and the internet.

    He said: “… we just put information into the bloodstream of the internet, and then, and then watch it grow, give it a little push every now and again… like a remote control. It has to happen without anyone thinking, ‘that’s propaganda’, because the moment you think ‘that’s propaganda’, the next question is, ‘who’s put that out?’.”

    • AsleepWhileWalking 5.1

      Eh. Cambridge Analytics was also involved in widespread FB privacy breaches

      https://iapp.org/news/a/what-privacy-pros-can-learn-from-the-facebook-cambridge-analytica-incident/

      “Reportedly, Facebook thought it was allowing a CA partner to pull data for academic purposes only. Data access for academic research tends to be more open than access for commercial uses, so Facebook may have scaled its controls according to the purported use, and thereby let down its guard. According to Wylie, “Facebook could see [massive data collection] was happening. Their security protocols were triggered because [University of Cambridge professor Aleksandr Kogan]’s apps were pulling this enormous amount of data, but apparently Kogan told them it was for academic use. So they were like, ‘Fine’.”

    • joe90 5.2

      They’re talking honey traps, bribes and more.

      Lots of fun if the timeline covers tRump’s long weekend in Moscow and the compromised position he’s alleged to have found himself in.

      Wylie says Cambridge Analytica had tested Trump campaign slogans since 2014: "I was surprised when I saw the Trump campaign and it started, you know, talking about building walls or draining the swamp. And I’m remembering in my head, wait, we tested this." pic.twitter.com/BL8uHeqg8Y— CNN Tonight (@CNNTonight) March 20, 2018

  6. ianmac 6

    “Former Prime Minister John Key is gearing up for an excursion to the golf green with Barack Obama who, he says, is a “stickler for the rules”.”

    There you have an insight. Key did not operate within the rules of fair play. If you operate outside the rules you must be a cheat.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 6.1

      Of course he cheats. Psychological responses in games parallel real life.

  7. Stunned Mullet 7

    I see Penny’s fight with the council is reaching its conclusion.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12016222

  8. cleangreen 8

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/central-leader/102419024/auckland-protesters-home-to-be-sold-following-11-years-of-unpaid-rates

    [delete]

    [I literally cannot tell which are your words and which are from the link. I’ve been asking people to be clear for quite some time now and am sick of asking so from now on I’m just going to delete what I can’t makes sense of. If the commenter is someone I remember warning before I am also likely to moderate. The onus is on the commenter to make it clear what is their own words and what they are quoting. – weka]

    • joe90 8.1

      So much for “transparency” – that Jacinda promised us eh???

      The coalition is responsible for Auckland city, really?.

      “It’s upsetting and stressful,” Bright said

      For eleven years Ms Bright availed herself of infrastructure and services financed by folk who do pay their rates, and now she has the gall to squeal poor little me – DFO
      /

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

      Penny Bright is largely the author of her own misfortune. I’d also like to drive a truck through various sections of the LG(AC) Act. Alienating allies and making potentially defamatory allegations against public servants are two things I’d try and stay away from though.

      • Sacha 8.2.1

        She is unfortunately too daft to know which laws apply. Diminishes the credibility of everybody seeking to improve local government for citizens.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 8.2.1.1

          NZers notionally support ‘underdogs’, but the responses here to Bright’s protest/campaign/crusade/comeuppance are probably more generous than those of most ratepayers, for whom transparency isn’t a concern.

          Was it Bright’s intent to diminish the credibility of everybody seeking to improve local government for citizens? Best of luck with those on-going efforts – good to know someone’s doing it right.

    • weka 8.3

      moderation note for you to respond to.

      • cleangreen 8.3.1

        Weka I read this second press release from Penny about the issue of Council selling her home and the point I wanted to make was that she wanted proof of why her rates were always increasing so she said in the press that she was always intending to pay her rates but never was in receipt of the evidence yet, so I feel she was entitled to see the evidence before she paid her rates.

        I call that a good call to request the evidence for the rate increases firstly and it was up to the council to provide that firstly.

        This was a matter of consumers rights.

        • weka 8.3.1.1

          There was nothing wrong with the content. Please reread my moderation note. I need to know if from now on you will make it clear which are your words and which are quotes from a link.

          • cleangreen 8.3.1.1.1

            Sure weka,

            I will spell out the quote in the article link for you in future.

            But I was two months ago told not to use parts of the text of the link in my blog, as you said TS is not a newspaper media service, so I have since been as brief as i could weka.

            • weka 8.3.1.1.1.1

              I doubt that that is what I said (feel free to link). What isn’t ok is to post huge tracts of text in a comment. Make a comment, cut and paste portions of an article that support your point, include a link, and make it obvious which bits are the cut and paste and which are your own words. This isn’t rocket science and as I said, I’m sick of having to explain it. I’d prefer if you thought through what I am asking and see the reasoning behind it.

              • cleangreen

                LOL

                • weka

                  Mate, we are well into wasting moderator time territory. Are you trying to piss me off even more?

                  What I’m getting here is that you will comply with my moderator requests when I make them, but are largely unwilling to learn what is being requested, which means I will have to keep going over and over this. I am unwilling to do that, so next time I will just moderate in a way that saves myself a whole bunch of time.

        • Sacha 8.3.1.2

          “I feel she was entitled to see the evidence before she paid her rates”

          A learned judge disagreed with you – as does all previous case law. Madame Notsobright can demand whatever she wants but there is no legal basis for not either paying her rates or negotiating the standard deferred payment arrangement. There’s nothing brave about being a stubborn dunce.

    • McFlock 8.4

      That sucks. I really hope she has the cash in an account to pay on the last possible day, but it could just as easily turn out that her house will be sold and she’ll be dragged out of it. Then she’ll start harrassing the new residents because she thinks they’re trespassing.

      As OAB said, the author of her own misfortune. If you have a good point, don’t get so obsessed you shoot yourself in the foot.

      • cleangreen 8.4.1

        Yes McFlock;

        In the article Penny specifically said she “was always intending to pay her rates” but requested evidence for the rate rises before hand.

        • McFlock 8.4.1.1

          “Intending” doesn’t necessarily mean “cash at the ready”, like many lenders to friends and flatmates find out. When reality hits and the due date is looming, will she be able to keep her home at the last minute? Only she knows.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.4.1.2

          Sweet, since she was “:always intending” to pay the rates, she will have paid them into a savings or trust account and will have no troubling clearing the debt without losing her house.

          I reckon she spent the money instead, which wouldn’t be very “transparent” of her.

    • Jim 8.5

      Whether you agree with Penny’s stance or not she must be admired for carrying through with her convictions. No chardonay socalist this one!

      • McFlock 8.5.1

        If she was willing to lose her home, I’d agree.

        If she loses her home because she was in denial about the chances of her success, on the other hand…

      • AsleepWhileWalking 8.5.2

        True. A scrapper through and through

      • cleangreen 8.5.3

        Agreed Jim, 100%

        That was my point that we need to stand against the loss of “transparency” from any governing body no matter who they are and Auckland was wrong to not give all documents to Penny that she needed to satisfy her rates increases, as we need to be able to hold them to account for the increases don’t we.

        weka; the article said that in their article quoting Penny.

      • Carolyn_Nth 8.5.4

        Is Bright even left wing? Adopting some left wing rhetoric to oppose cycleways and claim it’s all been initiated by big corporations seems a little off the map.

        • Sacha 8.5.4.1

          Sticking up for the interests of comfortable property owners in St Heliers (Unitary Plan) and Westmere (cycleway o doom) is hardly a radical socialist act. Always been easy to get some public support by bagging the council.

          More like Winston Peters or Trump than Corbyn or Sanders.

  9. weka 9

    Short twitter thread,


    radiohead revisionist
    ‏ @oriwa_

    Takeaway from this Cambridge Analytica story should be that powerful people from all over the world are constantly working to undermine democracy and install puppet leaders. The stupidest people alive are doing mental gymnastics to try and pin it all on Russia.

    .

    When you spend all day trying to find the Russia connection in our heavily globalised society, you’ll find it. But if you think it’ll all unravel once we’ve dealt with that pesky old Vladimir Putin, you’re set to get badly rolled. The calls are coming from inside the house

    .

    Countdown until I get called “Pro-Putin” or accused of “whataboutism” for making the basic observation that power is shared, in varying degrees, by many different people and pretty much all of them hate you.

    • Carolyn_Nth 9.1

      The Cambridge Analytica story, as far as I can see, indicates a replacement of Crosby Textor, with a new bunch of election and political manipulators and propagandists – ones looking for ways to tap into digital connectivity as well as on the ground political activities.

      Like Crosby Textor, the Cambridge Anlytica people in the C4 vid talk about targeting emotions and not bothering about facts.

      This from The Oz Age today about Crosby, points to Crosby Textor being on the way out.

      And it indicates a new bunch of propagandists, some more successful these day than others.

      On the UK 2017 election campaign, aiming at wiping out Corbyn, which failed to do that. The Tories paid b=for Crosby’s services during the campaign:

      Overall the Conservatives were invoiced £2.1 million ($3.8 million) by Facebook, compared with £577,000 ($1.05 million) to Labour and £412,000 ($744,000) to the Liberal Democrats.

      The Conservatives also paid £544,000 ($983,000) to the Messina Group; Jim Messina, the strategist behind Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, brought expertise on how to target ‘persuadable’ voters on social media.

      May’s chief advisor Nick Timothy, who resigned after the election, blamed “campaign consultants” for the Conservatives’ poor performance.

      The Messina Group (Jim Messina) worked for the Obama campaigns before working for the UK Tories.

      So it seems to be a highly competitive area of commercial activity – paid propagandists, targeting emotions, and trying to disguise their propaganda as something else. And working through subcontractors to hide their activities and where they are operating around the world.

      The C4 video has them saying they often use subcontractors that use ex M15 and ex MI6 operatives. T’is a very murky arena.

  10. Pat 10

    “Countdown until I get called “Pro-Putin” or accused of “whataboutism” for making the basic observation that power is shared, in varying degrees, by many different people and pretty much all of them hate you.”

    Lol…succinct

  11. veutoviper 11

    If anyone is holding their breath to see whether there will be any change to how Question Time operates today – don’t.

    The Green Party has only been allocated one question this week – Question 12 tomorrow, Weds 21 March – so it will be interesting to see whether it is given to National.

    Today’s list of oral questions follow the original allocation of 8 National Questions, 3 Labour and one NZF.

    Tomorrow’s original allocation was 8 National Questions, 3 Labour and one Green. So if the Green’s one goes to National it will be 9 National and 3 Labour.

    Thursday’s original allocation was 7 National Questions, 4 Labour and one NZF. So there will be no change on Thursday.

    Next Green questions originally allocated are one next Tuesday and one next Thursday.

    i am really beginning to wonder why the Greens needed a big announcement on Sunday.

    Perhaps its more about the co-leader campaign divide between the realo (Genter)and fundo (Davidson) candidates as suggested by Chris Trotter. Never one to pass up a conspiracy theory … LOL.

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2018/03/20/questioning-the-greens/

    • weka 11.1

      The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

      (or, the Greens just moved on one of their projects, reforming how politics is done).

      • veutoviper 11.1.1

        “For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

        John Donne 1624

        • weka 11.1.1.1

          That went over my head.

          • Brigid 11.1.1.1.1

            We’re all in this together

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1.1.1.1.1

              That’s the point of the poem, but is it Veutoviper’s meaning, and does it therefore translate to “the Greens are doomed and so are we”?

              • veutoviper

                Not “and so are we”.

                • McFlock

                  So in addition to missing the point of the poem, the Greens are doomed because they made an announcement on a Sunday and got pretty decent traction out of it. Hyperbole much?

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Since you think it will prove an unpopular move, no doubt you can see the sense of doing it in the first year of being in government.

                  • weka

                    I think the Greens aren’t meant to be doing it at all. Anything that improves democracy is inherently bad if the right benefit from it too. We must remember this is a war, and National are the enemy and this is the centre of everything else that happens and should inform all decisions.

                    (not having a go at you VV, this is my impression from the arguments of some others).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      They have a point. The National Party’s owners aren’t going to stop.

                      However, the highest art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

                    • weka

                      true, but that’s not the kind of war they are talking about.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      that’s not the kind of war they are talking about.

                      Sun Tzu applies as much to this type of war as any other.

                      Consider, for example, the “moral law” in this context.

                      “The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.”

                      Green principles are laid out for all to see in the charter. I was thinking of this among other things when I said “One way to get people to change sides is to keep your word, especially when it comes to points of principle.”

                    • weka

                      yes, and that is the long game.

                      I still think that is a different kind of war than the one Trotter and co are intent on keeping going. Tbh, I think they like it that way and will resist attempts to effect change via principle. If I were being kinder I might say they simply don’t understand it, but I think there is also attachment to the power mongering way of doing things.

                      Are you saying that the Sun Tzu approach applies where people still want to fight?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      the long game … the one Trotter and co are intent on keeping going

                      Sun Tzu said that opposing forces can strive against one another for decades, whereas victory is decided in a single day. He also said siege warfare is the worst kind.

                      I’m backing the Greens 🙂

                    • Carolyn_Nth

                      on the long game and opposing forces – what if it’s the wealthy elites, corporations an National Party business types who want to maintain inequalities, power and privilege, and will not really negotiate in good faith?

              • Brigid

                “That’s the point of the poem”
                Yes. I said that.

    • Cinny 11.2

      Thanks for the update VV, was just eyeing up the oral questions for today wondering where everything fits it.

      Really appreciate the information and knowledge you share here, especially on said topic, personally I find it incredibly helpful.

      Thanks again 🙂

      • veutoviper 11.2.1

        You’re welcome, Cinny. I probably come across as a “Know all”, but I just get really frustrated at how much time, effort etc that is wasted here by people not checking the facts, rules etc – and the amount of misinformation. Most of this stuff is just a click or two away if you know where to go.

        I am a strong believer in civics education being a compulsory subject at school. I spent almost seven years in Washington DC from age 14 – 20+ and had to do several years of civics education to graduate from high school, before going on to university there.

        It really sparked an interest that has stayed with me ever since, although I had grown up here in NZ with government/parliament always present in my younger years due to my father’s work. Parliament was always on the radio when the House was sitting, and I was very privileged to know people like Arnold Nordmeyer, Bill Sutch, Jack Marshall and others of that vintage (also Dr Lloyd Geering now 100 and still going strong!) as real people not just names in the newspaper and on the radio. And I followed my father’s footsteps into an interesting career in the NZ public service including some years overseas working for the UK govt as well.

        Back to the here and now. I finally re-found this handy little tool on the Parliament website – the Oral Question Roster for the 52nd Parliament drawn up and approved by the Business Committee last Nov which sets out by sitting day, the number of primary Oral Questions allocated to each party making up the 12 Questions for the day.

        The actual sequence often changes but the numbers don’t. I doubt that this will be rejigged in light of the Greens decision as this is in essence an informal decision by the Greens and their arrangement with National is outside (but not contrary to) the current formal procedures and rules of the House.

        Today is Sitting Day 30. This day number is always at the top of the Order Paper for each sitting day if you get confused. A useful little tool to keep a check on what the Greens do hereon in.

        https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/52SCBUDeterminations201711081/8711510daa40c86a56295e2b6e5cbece93abf7da

        • Brigid 11.2.1.1

          You don’t come across as a ‘know it all’ at all.
          Your comments are always interesting and informative.

        • Cinny 11.2.1.2

          VV ….. Awesome, thanks ever so much for your reply + the link and explanation, fantastico 🙂

          Unfortunately was not taught civics at school, politics however, was never off the agenda around the family dinner table 🙂 Grateful for that

          Civics needs to be included in the core curriculum for all students, it would change so many lives for the better.

          Brigid.. + 100%

        • veutoviper 11.2.1.3

          Hi again Cindy
          Today I pointed out this Roster to alwyn on Open Mike and he has now suggested that yesterday was in fact Day 28 not 30, and this actually brings the sequencing etc into line! Well spotted by alwyn and shows the worth of peer review.

          Today Oral Questions fit exactly with Day 29 – with the Greens Q10 taken up the Nats – Nick Smith. Quite a hot one, actually with Smith coming back later during the General Debate to give a Personal Explanation.

          Open Mike 21/03/2018

          Here is my comment to alwyn today on the above, plus links to another Roster which is the Roster for speeches in the fortnightly General Debates – again with generic numbering not dates. Think today was No 7 sequence. Asked Alwyn to double check!

    • Carolyn_Nth 11.3

      It was my guess that the policy had come from (strategist) Genter and current co-leader, Shaw. However, If Davidson was co-leader, she would still be able to ask primary questions when necessary. And Shaw has said they will still be asking supplementary questions.

      • veutoviper 11.3.1

        Genter as a Minister cannot question other Ministers under the rules; whereas Davidson is much freer to do so because she is not a Minister.

        This applies regardless of which of them ends up as Co-Leader.

        So I found it interesting that Trotter brought the Co-Leader campaign into the question issue in the way he did as I had not considered any connection between the two – but you seem to be not surprised at his contention re the Genter camp.

        Relevant extract for anyone who has not read the Trotter opinion piece:

        “The Greens as a whole are not out in front on this issue. But the Greens realo (realist) faction is, almost certainly, behind it.

        Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that at this point in the race for the Green Party’s female co-leadership, the fundi (fundamentalist) Marama Davidson is out in front.

        One of the more substantial planks in Marama’s election platform has been her argument that as a Green MP without ministerial responsibilities, she will be well-placed to raise the issues, and voice the concerns, that are exercising the Green Party membership.

        How would that be done? Well, she could ask questions of the Labour-NZ First Coalition Government: questions relating to the CPTPP, oil-drilling and climate-change. She could hold Jacinda and Winston (and James?) to account on their commitment to end child poverty and homelessness. It’s a promise with clear appeal to those members of the Green Party already heartily suspicious of the pig they’re being asked to support – and the poke it came in.

        But, just how effective could Marama be if there were no questions to ask?

        The idea of putting a muzzle on the Greens’ fundi faction would have enormous appeal to those realo members of the party determined not to blow this long-awaited opportunity to demonstrate that Green Ministers can make a real difference.

        It would also be received with profound relief by the apprehensive leaders of Labour and NZ First.”

        It will be interesting to see how it pans out vis a vis who becomes Co-Leader.

        • Carolyn_Nth 11.3.1.1

          Nothing surprises me these days, veuto. I have seen Genter as being a major strategist for the GP, given one or 2 comments she’s made.

          I do think there is a bit of a struggle between the left and right wings of the GP, as there is in Labour.

          However, Trotter is probably stretching it by linking it to the co-leader campaign.

          We shall see how QT and the co-leader results pan out.

          • Wayne 11.3.1.1.1

            Carolyn

            Lilia Harre made the same suggestion on Q & A. Given that she will have inside knowledge of the Greens, I don’t think the suggestion can be dismissed out of hand.

            Some parts of the Greens are obviously nervous about Marama Davidson as Co-Leader, especially now that they are in government. Obviously other Greens are widely enthusiastic about the prospect of Marama to provide a more left wing edge to the government.

            Just because she is not a minister does not mean that she does not make up part of the government. Her vote is one of the votes that make up the Greens Confidence and Supply Agreement.

            I can imagine there are quite a few in the government, across all three parties, that think the government is already sufficiently left wing. Pressure to make it more so not only exposes potential rifts within the government, it also will make it harder to get re-elected.

            Just about everything the PM says seems to have this as a key driver; “How will my statements appeal to the electorate.”

            She seems to have a clever blend of reassurance that they are safe, coupled with a degree of kiwi adventurism and aspiration (climate change, being Minister to eradicate Child Poverty). I guess that skill is not so surprising for politician with a Bachelor of Communication degree.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 11.3.1.1.1.1

              Some parts of the Greens are obviously nervous about Marama Davidson as Co-Leader

              Do you have a single quote from anyone in the Green Party to illustrate this “obvious” attack of nerves, or are you just repeating the behaviour that earned you your last ban?

              • veutoviper

                LOL – Welcome back, how was your latest ban?

              • weka

                tbf, if he linked to what he is talking about he risks people seeing him saying that the only governments that kill spies are Russia and North Korea.

                As for what Harre said, she did say the timing with the co-leadership process was interesting, but she didn’t say how or explain what she meant. Only that MD and other newer MPs would lose the ability to ask questions in the House. Which is daft because the Greens have retained the ability to ask Primary Qs when they need to, as well as the Supplementaries.

                So I have no idea what she is on about. Mapp agreed with her but likewise didn’t say what the actual point was. Are they suggesting that the caucus came to a consensus decision to silence the perceived left wing MPs and that this is the real reason for the decision? Tui award right there.

            • veutoviper 11.3.1.1.1.2

              In December 2016, Laila Harré announced she had rejoined the Labour Party 27 years after she left to join New Labour.

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11766724

            • patricia bremner 11.3.1.1.1.3

              Carolyn, the PM doesn’t come across as a liar. She is a sraight shooter. If Government has’t sanctioned something she is asked, she can only give the current position, even if that is frustrating for the questioner.

            • Carolyn_Nth 11.3.1.1.1.4

              Wayne, I am aware that a few National Party MPs/supporters would prefer the GP co-leader to be Genter.

              So, you are obviously on message.

          • veutoviper 11.3.1.1.2

            Yes, I think/hope Trotter is stretching it in terms of seeing the question thing as being a set-up to push the realo faction to the fore.

            Initially at the start of the co-leader campaign, I thought that there might be some advantages of having Davidson as Co-Leader and therefore freer to ask questions; but I then realised the situation stays the same regardless of which of them is Co-Leader.

            But now the whole situation of any Green MPs asking any questions is going to be a tricky one – and will be used by others in the House to get in little digs etc. There was a tiny bit of this in Question Time today

            • red-blooded 11.3.1.1.2.1

              It’s interesting to have Newsroom today reporting that Shaw made the decision re QT without consulting members.

              Mr Shaw then said he made the decision without consulting party membership. When asked if they were happy with that, he replied:

              “Some of them are some of them aren’t, there are people who are really partisan and they’re really tribal.

              • Brigid

                “they’re really tribal”

                Fuksake
                I might just go bush

                • red-blooded

                  Re the “tribal” comment, to be fair he did say other things (paraphrasing, that he was anti-patsy questions while in opposition so the ethical thing to do in govt was opt out of them). Fair point, although it does ignore the fact that they didn’t need to be asking patsies (& have been until now, with all of their allocated questions).

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Right. So now, having “given away all patsy questions”, what happens when the Greens use one or more of their questions – as they can at any time, given that the decisions will be made on a week-to-week basis?

                Will the fact that they’ve ‘suddenly’ “taken one of their questions back from National” be more likely to make the news or not?

                From my perspective, this principled move brings pragmatic advantage. I’m probably wrong.

              • weka

                Why is that interesting? The caucus are empowered by the party to make decisions without consulting the party. That’s how it’s always been.

                I would be very surprised if Shaw made the decision himself though.

                Can’t find the original audio to see what he actually said.

          • cleangreen 11.3.1.1.3

            100% Carolyn well said, I agree.

        • alwyn 11.3.1.2

          Are you sure about the rule that a Minister cannot question another Minister or do mean only with a Primary Question?
          They can and do throw in Supplementary Questions.
          For example in Q6 to Shane Jones Winston came in with
          “Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us exactly how he has been received around the country, and particularly up north, by the people up there with respect to projects for which they have waited sometimes three decades?”
          This did get an answer.
          Would you consider that is only an interjection?

    • weka 11.4


      Ryan
      ‏ @strewnryan

      I wonder how the Greens will feel about their first gifted #nzqt primary being used to put pressure on the Government to keep New Zealand open for Oil Exploration?
      7:50 am – 20 Mar 2018

      .

      weka
      ‏ @wekatweets
      7m7 minutes ago

      Replying to @strewnryan

      How is this a problem unless Labour are prevaricating on ending oil exploration in NZ?

      Maybe someone can explain the problem to me, because I still don’t get it.

      • Planet Earth 11.4.1

        The Government is at a critical point in its decision-making over the future of its oil and gas exploration permits.

        Jacinda Ardern said, when accepting Greenpeace’s petition, “I ask now for a bit more time. We’re working hard on this issue and we know it’s something that we can’t afford to spend much time on but we are actively considering it now.”

        Possibly prevaricating, certainly pusillanimous.

        • weka 11.4.1.1

          So why would National asking them hard questions as a way to get them to decide to allow more exploration be a problem?

        • Sacha 11.4.1.2

          She is saying they are actively making a decison now. How is that indecisive/pusillanimous?

          • Planet Earth 11.4.1.2.1

            Because it’s an important issue that should have been developed as Labour policy, and coalition consensus, well before now, instead of asking “for a bit more time”. Your “now” may be different to my “now”. 🙂

            • Sacha 11.4.1.2.1.1

              Labour policy may even have been decided beforehand but negotiating with coalition partners could add a little time (geologically speaking).

        • patricia bremner 11.4.1.3

          Jacinda Ardern timid? LOL LOL pusillanimous indeed! Ho Ho!!.

      • Sacha 11.4.2

        Seems to be a fear that allowing someone to ask a question must result in losing the argument.

        • weka 11.4.2.1

          Also an underlying implication that because National are evil they should have less say in parliament despite voters having voted for them. That’s not how democracy works.

          • mikes 11.4.2.1.1

            I would have thought the underlying implication was that because National are evil they shouldn’t have more say in Parliament than what their share of the vote entitles them too. That’s how democracy works.

            • weka 11.4.2.1.1.1

              That argument only works if you believe that QT is functioning well for democracy. Many people, including the Greens, think it is not at needs to be changed. The Greens appear to be saying that QT is for the Opposition to hold the govt to account. The Greens are in govt, and kind of not, but they’re not full time Opposition so it does make sense that they might see themselves as not needing those questions or even being entitled to them. Just because the current system allocates questions the way it does, doesn’t make if fair or right.

              It then becomes an issue of what they should do with them. Some are arguing that the Greens should use them to ask meaningful questions of Labour and NZF, essentially being in a ‘hold them to account’ role, but more constructively. I’ve yet to see an explanation of how that would work, but I also wondered why they didn’t. One issue is that the MSM will use the Greens asking hard Qs to shit stir over splits in the govt. See how that works? NZ doesn’t yet know how to think about our current MMP arrangement (that’s a block to better democracy btw).

              Another suggestion was to give the questions to the public. I like this one too, and would be interested to go back and look at when this was tried before.

          • red-blooded 11.4.2.1.2

            Be fair, weka. No-one’s saying the Nats should have “less say” – they have an allocation of questions already. As they’re the biggest single party they get to ask the most questions already. Hard to see that as “less say”.

            • weka 11.4.2.1.2.1

              Hey, I’m all for reforming how QT is run. I addressed the less issue in my comment above. It’s not about that, it’s about the roles of various parties. If this was Labour in Opposition I doubt there would be the same fuss at all. So much of the argument is partisan, which I understand, but the Greens still have a principle here that is valid.

    • mikes 11.5

      Maybe Shaw and Ardern got together and agreed that Labour was having a really bad coupla weeks with heaps of negative press and a distraction was needed. On that basis the Greens announcement regarding their questions benefits them and also benefits Labour.

      Hehe…It’s a stretch I know, but is the only scenario I can come up with that benefits the coalition as opposed to just the National Party..Also, if you didn’t assume it to be a deliberate beneficial distraction, then the Greens timing is really really bad.

      Yes, I know it might be about the Greens just wanting to improve democracy… but then they could have waited a coupla weeks maybe.. (unless it was a distraction of course)

  12. joe90 12

    Must be some shit show they’re covering up.

    Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter.

    Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html?referer=

    • joe90 12.1

      Trying to dispose of the body, snapped!.

      BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office..— Carole Cadwalladr (@carolecadwalla) March 19, 2018

      To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office cracking whip…British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US multibillion $ company.. https://t.co/CNNXwv1M3R— Carole Cadwalladr (@carolecadwalla) March 19, 2018

  13. cleangreen 13

    Gisborne/HB challenge to Shane jones today;; –

    Please note our call for “no more neglect please for lack of our rail services.”

    Our HB/Gisborne rail support communities are somewhat surprised today and heartened when we heard Shane Jones warning another public transport SOE (Air NZ) ” not to neglect our regions” transport services, as he did when warning Air NZ not to “neglect” Gisborne as they did Kapiti.

    Since National took over in 2008 they have systematically run down our regional rail services by lack of funds and caused the blocked drains that washed out the rail line closing it in 2012.

    So we now expect Shane jones along with the minister of SOE (Hon’ Winston Peters to warn kiwirail also not to neglect our regions on the current lack of services we have yet to have retrurned to us after 6 long years of national/Kiwirail neglect.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018636845/minister-to-air-nz-don-t-neglect-regions

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018636845

    Minister to Air NZ: Don’t neglect regions
    From Nine To Noon, 9:09 am today

    The Minister for Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones has criticised Air New Zealand for degrading its services to the regions. Mr Jones’s comments come after Air New Zealand’s abrupt withdrawal from flights into Kapiti – it gave the region just three weeks notice that it would pull out. Kathryn Ryan speaks with Minister Jones and with the mayors of Gisborne and Whangarei districts, Meng Foon and Sheryl Mai.

    • monty 13.1

      It was more of a threat from the way article reads.

      Interesting move by Jones good on him but I don’t think it make any difference to what Air NZ will do they are a listed corporate and if a service is making a loss they can end it.

      Some in the regions will hail him as sticking up for them and increase support for NZF.

      • cleangreen 13.1.1

        I dunno really Monty,

        I know NZF policy as I have been to several public meetings over the last several years and Shane is very much saying NZ first here to AirNZ as it is sending a clear message to the board to come home with services, not be just a global player, and todnights feedback on the media had some positive feedback for his stand to drive a policy for NZ first to be serviced by our soe that was funded by the NZ taxpayer.

        We now see Winston again entering into the argument as “Minister of SOE”.

        So maybe this is NZF pushing for a scrap with those SOE’s weho are turning their backs on the local services market that we all pay for as taxpayers, of all these publicly owned SOE’s.

        Time will tell if our challenge to Shane on (13) to return our rail service as another bad example of yet another “SOE “neglected” public regional service?.

        • monty 13.1.1.1

          Air NZ is not a SOE, the govt is a majority shareholder and has some representatives on the board. It is listed company on the stock exchange so they have a responsibility to all shareholders to be profitable.

          I would say that operating a regional service would be very expensive as you can only use small planes and they would spreading the cost over less punters and if it is poorly used then it would end up costing money.

          Rail in NZ has been poorly run for years and years and we have lost many opportunities to have a regional rail service, but the questions comes down to cost again, servicing a small community with rail or for that matter flights who pays.

          Does it mean increased rates or taxes to cover the infrastructure costs as it would take a lot of passengers to make it break even. Lets say I live in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch should I have to pay for a regional train service that I would never use.

          I dont know the answer but I would prefer to see rail in the regions be for cargo mainly and remove trucks from the roads and then the cost is paid by those using it.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1

            The answer is that significant ongoing state investment in public infrastructure, utilities and services creates an environment in which people and business can flourish, not least because of the certainty it provides.

            • monty 13.1.1.1.1.1

              Hi

              great to see you back, always enjoy your contributions.

              In todays environment that has a cost and the money has to come from somewhere to fund it which would be above and beyond current spending.

              To have a full regional rail network, that opportunity was lost long ago when they closed them, it would require considerable investment and would it be used to justify the spending.

              Looking at Air NZ I am sure they wouldn’t close a regular service if it was making a profit I don’t think they should be forced to keep them going if they are losing money as that has other risks.

              • KJT

                And herein lies the problem, with essential natural monopoly services, being used as profit taking business

                • cleangreen

                  100% KIT.

                  So profit & money is considered before the cost to the environment or our health.

                  We will suffer because of the loss in safe transport be it air or rail passenger services as trucks increase road use at 6% a year (NZTA) figures.

                  Now our windy narrow fraile regional roads are falling apart and we see these PPP beginning to use our former SOE’s as cash cows by squeezing every dollar of profit out while the ratepayer is left to foot the road repairs and propping up air transport.

                  Also we will suffer health effects of climate change increased air pollution, and airborne diseases from warmer hot air mass and circulation under high winds and dust conditions but our public health cost will also increase at the same time so again the taxpayer is left to prop up these so called business ventures.

                  “You can’t get blood out of a stone” a fitting term.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                In todays environment that has a cost

                It’s called “investment”, as per my previous comment.

  14. Ad 14

    Facebook is going to do everything that Cambridge Analytica did.

    It’s time to regulate Facebook, and all the rest of them.

    Break Up Social Media Itself

    • Carolyn_Nth 14.1

      I’m looking for an alternative social media site. Looking at gnu social, but so far it looks to be inhabited by many news bots.

  15. joe90 15

    I guess we’ll find out just how truly vile this man is.

    #BREAKING @WeinsteinFilms announces bankruptcy deal. "The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC today entered into a “stalking horse” agreement with an affiliate of Lantern Capital Partners, a Dallas-based private equity company." — statement pic.twitter.com/hbUAfYl9p2— John Stempin (@johnstempinNPR) March 20, 2018

    "It has been reported that Harvey Weinstein used non-disclosure agreements as a secret weapon to silence his accusers. Effective immediately, those “agreements” end. The Company expressly releases any confidentiality provision to the extent it has prevented individuals….— John Stempin (@johnstempinNPR) March 20, 2018

  16. joe90 16

    Stay the fuck away.

    Great to welcome my friend @FrankLuntz to NZ. Thanks for taking time to come by & share your insights with a broad range of Kiwi friends. pic.twitter.com/CYwg6xbgGs— Ambassador Brown (@USAmbNZ) March 20, 2018

    Okay Twitter, here's your chance to get rid of me…It’s no longer legal for Americans to buy property in New Zealand, but this house started construction before the law. pic.twitter.com/GNesWpX9ke— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) March 18, 2018

    What should I do?— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) March 18, 2018

Recent Comments

Recent Posts