Open mike 20/06/2010

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 20th, 2010 - 52 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

Comment on whatever takes your fancy.

The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

52 comments on “Open mike 20/06/2010 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    20 June 2010 at 8:59 am

    Latest Roy Morgan poll just out.

    National down 2 to 50.5%
    Labour up 3 to 33%
    Greens 9.5%

    Two party difference is now 17%.

    It will be interesting to see what effect this week’s shenanigans have on the next poll. For me I would like to have an extended period where real issues and policies and their effects on ordinary kiwis are debated. I accept this is not likely as National would then lose. It is much easier to push the sleaze button.

    Results are at http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4512/

    • I dreamed a dream 1.1
      20 June 2010 at 2:19 pm

      Roy Morgan says, “Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a slight reversal of the Post-Budget bounce for the National-led Government — now 55.5% (down 2%)”

      As we thought, the post-budget bounce for the government was expected to be temporary and we’re back to our usual polling.

      But, I would expect the next Roy Morgan poll will show a drop for Labour from the credit card saga unfairly smeared onto Labour. The question is whether it’s going to be big, and whether it will be temporary.

      Also, the difference between the government and opposition blocs is 11%. If we move the Maori Party from the government bloc to the opposition bloc, the difference is 5%. Even though many people may say that the Maori Party is now firmly with National, I believe that come election time, all bets are off and the Maori Party can still go with Labour, especially that by then Tariana Turia will not be involved.

      So, there’s still hope for the opposition for 2011. It all depends on whether the opposition can engage the government on real issues and policies.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.1
        20 June 2010 at 8:28 pm

        ” especially that by then Tariana Turia will not be involved.”

        Why? Has she announced she is definitely standing down? She had gastric bypass surgery specifically so should could lose weight and improve her health so that she can again lead the party in the next election/government.

        • I dreamed a dream 1.1.1.1
          20 June 2010 at 10:35 pm

          Sorry, I thought she’s retiring after this term. Perhaps I am wrong 🙂

    • Fisiani 1.2
      20 June 2010 at 9:38 pm

      Shame about the TV 3 poll though. Which shows National higher than ever and Phil Goff and Labour falling falling falling.

      • I dreamed a dream 1.2.1
        20 June 2010 at 10:40 pm

        The 3% increase for National and corresponding 3% drop for Labour is in line with the size of the post-Budget variations which proved to be temporary. So it will be interesting to see if the poll perturbations due to the credit card saga are also temporary. And the fact that it was only 3% is rather surprising. I had expected a much dramatic effect on Labour.

  3. Oliver 3
    20 June 2010 at 9:23 am

    From the SST

    “Chris Carter last night broke his silence, saying he was returning to parliament, having taken advice from the party’s former head, Helen Clark.”

    Chris is undermining Phil’s leadership again, not a great look.

    • The Voice of Reason 3.1
      20 June 2010 at 9:28 am

      It’s a great look, Oliver. Why wouldn’t Carter seek the advice of a former mentor? And good on Clark for taking the time to care about what happens here in NZ. I wish the current PM did.

      I’m hoping she has told Carter to pull his head in, concentrate on being a good electorate MP and ignore the rednecks.

      • ianmac 3.1.1
        20 June 2010 at 9:59 am

        VOR: You would wonder about the coordination of the attack on Carter. The Nat MPs have kept quiet but is it likely that the attack dogs are organised to lurk around Blog sites to add sulphur to the mix? It is in Nact interest for Labour to be damaged for the miserly amount of $250 of Carter’s mis-spending.

        • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1
          20 June 2010 at 10:42 am

          Absolutely, ianmac. The Nats can’t come out directly, because they risk being tarred with the same brush, so by using dog whistles (Carter’s ‘flamboyant’ spending) and regular inflammatory comments like Oliver and Brett’s above, they can keep the pot simmering.

          What is it with single names like Oliver and Brett, by the way? It seems the trolls like to make themselves appear human by only using pseudonyms found in ‘name your baby’ books.

          • ianmac 3.1.1.1.1
            20 June 2010 at 10:48 am

            Or Rebecca? Sounds homey and cuddly doesn’t he.

            • ianmac 3.1.1.1.1.1
              20 June 2010 at 10:50 am

              Or Ray below. Bet they all are the same boringly repetitive person.

            • Anne 3.1.1.1.1.2
              20 June 2010 at 11:00 am

              Now ianmac you are not being fair to Red Alert’s most prolific critic. Rebecca is a very clever lady (?). Anyone who can juggle the demands of two pre-schoolers (referred to by her once as “the rugrats”), help run her truckie husband’s business, and spend all day and half the night blogging on Red Alert is truly an amazing person.

              • ianmac …
                20 June 2010 at 11:06 am

                Like Matthew Hooten Rebecca/Oliver/Brett have a style where they agree with the post/comment for a many words, then whip out the “spite of the day.” A more subtle menu of trolls for breakfast.

                • Jim Nald …
                  20 June 2010 at 12:29 pm

                  They think you are stupid. And they think they can disguise in their apparently supportive words their very venom.

                • mickysavage …
                  20 June 2010 at 1:22 pm

                  I was thinking the same thing as I read Fred’s comments in yesterday’s climate change post. I thought he was taking the piss. Looking for an attack line without even bothering to debate the issue. Very wingnuttish.

                  • ianmac …
                    20 June 2010 at 4:51 pm

                    joe90: Liked this bit :”In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt” -B.Russell

                    Now I will lie awake all night wondering where I fit on the continuum. 🙂

                    Like trying to say to a religious person that nothing is absolutely true!

              • swimmer …
                20 June 2010 at 6:00 pm

                Maybe she has been tucking into some of her “husband’s” uppers! 😛

    • swimmer 3.2
      20 June 2010 at 6:05 pm

      WTF? How is that undermining Phil’s leadership? Phil told him to have a rest, he did. Phil told him to think about his future, he did. And now he is coming back, something that Phil told him he could do, no under mining there.

  4. joe90 4
    20 June 2010 at 10:05 am

    What’s wrong with libertarianism.

    First, the worship of the already successful and the disdain for the powerless is essentially the morality of a thug. Money and property should not be privileged above everything else– love, humanity, justice.

    Second, it’s the philosophy of a snotty teen, someone who’s read too much Heinlein, absorbed the sordid notion that an intellectual elite should rule the subhuman masses, and convinced himself that reading a few bad novels qualifies him as a member of the elite.

    Third, and perhaps most common, it’s the worldview of a provincial narcissist,

    Read it and giggle, I did, although knowing a few ‘libs’ I reckon ridicule is better.

    In short, they’re spoiled, and they’ve evolved a philosophy that they should be spoiled

    • freedom 4.1
      20 June 2010 at 12:17 pm

      Yes some of Heinlein’s work is idealogically questionable, with leanings towards the elitist, such as Stranger in a Strange Land, and many of his shorts are just future history. I do ask that you not forget that he also gave us The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which has many secure and reliable methods for organising political and social rebellion. Always handy.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2
      20 June 2010 at 4:46 pm

      or his Why the rich should pay more taxes

      A revenue-neutral plan won’t change total receipts any– it’ll just redistribute it. Here you have to ask, who gets shafted?

      This is pretty shameless, but it’s much of a piece with Republican practice in general. For years some nosy folks (such as Sen. Moynihan) have been investigating what states pay the most to the federal government, and which states get the most benefits back. What a surprise: the biggest winners are the western and southern states that vote Republican; the biggest losers are the northeastern states that vote Democratic. Those who whine the most about taxes are those who suck the most from the public trough.

      That seems to describe our present government accurately.

    • Quoth the Raven 4.3
      20 June 2010 at 5:15 pm

      joe90 – that article is absolutely worthless. What you quote is an absurd caricature of a tiny minority of libertarians and unnecessary psychologising. It’s akin to me arguing against sta1inism as it were equivalent to social democrats. Firstly Ayn Rand was not, I repeat not a libertarian. She was intellectually honest enough to say it herself:

      Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

      and this again from Rand:

      Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.’ By “ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

      or the article “Libertarianism the perversion of liberty” by an Objectivist – critiqued here.

      The article thinks all libertarianism are opposed to unionism which is simply wrong. Unions are simply part of the market. Many libertarians support unionism and are members of unions such as the IWW whether they are free market or libertarian socialists. I see he didn’t see it fit to mention that some anarcho-communists (who are libertarians) oppose labour unions.

      In one table he has under communism the quote from Proudhon “Property is theft” Proudhon was a mutualist an anarchist (he is oftentimes put under the rubric of individualist anarchist) definitely within the libertarian milieu. Proudhon advocated markets and also said “property is impossible” and “property is liberty”.His idea was the synthesis of communism and property.

      Then he goes on to straw man libertarianism with reference to neo-liberals and praises the New Deal – the New Deal being largely a corporatist boondoggle which has been ably critiqued by those of the New Left long ago. I wonder if this guy knows anything about history.

  5. ianmac 5
    20 June 2010 at 10:18 am

    Joe90” First, the worship of the already successful and the disdain for the powerless is essentially the morality of a thug. Money and property should not be privileged above everything else love, humanity, justice.”
    Can’t quite remember the exact words spoken by Mr Key but didn’t he talk about the ordinary folk who shouldn’t be envious of the rich and the successful?

  6. John Dalley 6
    20 June 2010 at 10:40 am

    Yesterdays Herald had a number of MP’s expenses. Looking at most of them including Carter’s and quite frankly they are chicken feed. Carters especially are minimal and undeserving of the b/s last week.

    • Daveosaurus 6.1
      20 June 2010 at 1:05 pm

      I did notice in the newspaper the other day a bit of Parliamentary credit card troughing that hasn’t had much of a follow up in the media. Apparently, one MP went to a conference for his own personal benefit, billed $1137 in registration costs to a Parliamentary credit card, and didn’t bother repaying the money for several months. Personally I think this is a much more flagrant example of troughing than watching a movie.

  7. Ray 7
    20 June 2010 at 10:44 am

    The BIG question is who is running the Labour party
    A past PM with a proud history or the present mongs

  8. joe90 8
    20 June 2010 at 10:55 am

    More laughs for a wet Sunday morning, Jon Stewart skewers the lot, Nixon through to Obama, brilliant.

    • artist not on the dole 8.1
      20 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

      he has such a subtle way of telling people they really are idiots, have been doing this s*’t to themselves for decades and if they don’t start taking action then its game over rover

  9. Tigger 9
    20 June 2010 at 11:35 am

    Q&A today. Two gay Labour MPs quizzed about how being gay affected their job but Finlayson not quizzed about it in his earlier interview on the show.

    Finlayson gets a free pass while all other gay MPs get rocks thrown at them. Another example of the media’s left/right double standard.

    The panel this morning were cheer leaders for the f&s deal. No one bothered to ask, if Funlayson thinks nothing has changed then why is it an achievement for the Maori Party?

    • ianmac 9.1
      20 June 2010 at 11:54 am

      I happened to see the discussion on Maori TV last night. The interviewee seemed to be saying that the F&S was a good win for the Maori Party. But when questioned closer he was unable to say just what the win was, but believed that his Iwi would be able to claim Ninety Mile Beach, and other places. So far none seem able to define the gains.

      The way you describe Q&A Tigger suggests that there is a bias towards Left Gay people. Unless it was to shed light – perhaps.

    • Anne 9.2
      20 June 2010 at 12:04 pm

      @Tigger
      Just as Tim Groser, Murray McCully and Nick Smith have all been given a free pass while a few former Labour ministers were hounded for the odd bunch of flowers and some in-house movies. Not to say there wasn’t some lax behaviour, but look at the disparity between the amounts. Labour’s misdemeanours were little more than a few dollars here and there, the Nats were in the hundreds. But no… there is no accountability required of the Nat ministers.

      Double standards, double standards, double standards. It’s high time Labour charged someone with the task of making a formal list of these double standards as they happen then, at an appropriate moment, publicly reveal them for all to see. I’m getting sick of watching some Labour politicians fawning over journalists as if they are scared of them. It’s time they stuck the knife into the culprits… let them see what it’s like. They’ll get over it and if they don’t who cares.

      • Craig Glen Eden 9.2.1
        20 June 2010 at 4:14 pm

        I agree Anne, Labour either start taking it to National and to the media or face a loss next question. Why not start asking a few questions on live TV like did you save all your questions about Gays for us do you have any for Finlayson? While I know it keeps the issue alive which is a silly one ( sexuality I mean ) at least it becomes obvious that they are treating the sides differently.

        • Anne 9.2.1.1
          20 June 2010 at 7:09 pm

          If Labour keep up their present lack lustre performance they are in for an even bigger hiding than they took at the last election. Their advisers seem to be way off beam at present. The expenses shindig – and especially the furore around Carter – is a case in point. Why are they letting the journos and commentators get away with all the disingenuous shit they are unfairly hurling at Labour? Why aren’t Labour publicly challenging them to give the same amount of due diligence to errant Nat. Ministers and John Key in particular? Why are they not publicly accusing the media responsible of the differing treatments, and backing it up with the many examples that now exist? Sitting around ‘taking it on the chin’ just makes them look weak in the eyes of an undiscerning public.

  10. Santi 10
    20 June 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Wonderful news to learn Helen Clark still running the Labour Party from NYC. Her advice to Carter is first class.

  11. swimmer 11
    20 June 2010 at 6:15 pm

    This has to be the silliest bullshit story that I have heard from the right wing all year!

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    20 June 2010 at 6:30 pm

    We seriously need a NZ version of the book Take the Rich Off Welfare by Mark Zepezauer. Here it is on Googlebooks.

    It outlines how the rich are subsidised by the poor in the US. Considering that our economy closely parallels that of the US we can pretty much guarantee that similar subsidies for the rich exist in New Zealand.

  13. gingercrush 13
    20 June 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Hmm so TV 3 had its latest political poll. Good for National though 55% is way too high. Though for me the more interesting part of TV 3 polling is whether people replying to the poll feel Key and Goff are performing well and Key on the whole seems to be doing so.

    Anyway, more to the point. What the hell is with Goff and his waddling?

    • Quoth the Raven 13.1
      20 June 2010 at 6:57 pm

      I saw that. I believe he’s trying to cultivate a swagger.

      • ianmac 13.1.1
        20 June 2010 at 7:08 pm

        I was always intrigued with the GW Bush um “strut”. For a while he would walk for about 25 paces straight up to the podiuum, but he did look a bit strange. Later he just walked about 5 paces from the side, to the podium. Wonder why.

    • mickysavage 13.2
      20 June 2010 at 7:07 pm

      What I want to know is why did TV3 decide to run the poll this week?

      Why not after the budget or after Key’s “blind trust” issue first hit the fan.

      Am I an aluminium foil hat wearing conspiracy theory nut or is this deliberate?

      • Santi 13.2.1
        20 June 2010 at 7:11 pm

        Yes, micky you are one of those. Now tell me about the moon landing hoax.

        • mickysavage 13.2.1.1
          20 June 2010 at 7:52 pm

          Yeah but can you explain why the Herald tonight reported the TV3 poll with the bad result but did not report the Roy Morgan poll with the good result?

          Article is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10653250

          And I do believe that Man landed on the moon although I also have a suspicion that Area 51 may also exist …

          • gingercrush 13.2.1.1.1
            20 June 2010 at 8:52 pm

            NZPA wrote that not the Herald.

            And is that your defense for Labour doing so badly in the poll, its all TV 3’s fault because they ran it at the same as the spending scandal. Nevermind, that TV 3 isn’t at this stage running their poll monthly.

  14. ianmac 14
    20 June 2010 at 7:11 pm

    That Garner chap looks so smug when telling us how well he did in “downing” Labour single handed. Clever chap that Garner! Eh!

  15. swimmer 15
    20 June 2010 at 7:46 pm

    I liked the new walk, I hope he keeps it! I notice the right commenting on it, what’s the matter? Scared of the new walk?