Open mike 21/01/2013

72 comments on “Open mike 21/01/2013 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tim 1

   21 January 2013 at 6:22 am

   What a CRUEL, ideologically-driven pack of insipid, bullshit artists a NAct coalesced regime is!

   As far as I can see the only “shine” for their existence (apart from greed, the “I’m alright Jack attitude, unfounded aspiration, and complacency) is a lack-lustre 2nd party opposition that still seems welded to the political pendulum that swung right (with TINA) about a quarter century ago.
   Along with it, a lazy ‘mainstream media” with no respect for a 4th Estate, let alone any understanding of the concept.
   The advantage they (the junta) have of course is that there is an entire generation that has grown over a quarter century that has experienced nothing else – NO-Tina alternative.
   (Hence I ‘spose, insipid little people like Hipkisses and Currans whose approaching the mid-life and a wish to make a mark drive a particular attitude: AND who think they have a right to throw bombs and walk away deserve this treatment too
   Like others in an “ABC” camp of “I paid me dues – I’m therefore entitled”, it’s an attitude that’s now entrenched in the parly-are-meant wing.
   [PATHETIC really when one thinks about it – the potential destruction of a political party due to the want of a few exercising their egos over and above a commitment to basic principles.
   NZ’s not alone of course – look what’s happening to Labor across the ditch – which in many ways makes the arrogance of the likes of ABCers even more serious and pathetic! Worse still is that a Curran or two are not exactly unfamiliar with an Australian experience……We’re expected to now take them seriously are we? I think not!

   There is now a sizeable proportion of an electorate that’s been hijacked by a hope that somehow they too can be like a Slippery Dick used-car salesman – and if and when they ever manage it, they can lay claim to ‘self made MAN status”.

   eww!.

   I guess the trip south (swapping a Mt Vic house for a Lyttleton one for one week) had ominous beginnings.

   Boarding the flight with me was a Gerry Brownlee. Family and I had always joked about those huge bags that are filled with concrete and used to prop up walls and crumbling embankments – calling them either Greylees or Brownlees. They actually do nothing except prop shit up, and come another big one, they’ll probably shuffle about a bit and just prolong an inevitable unless something realistic is done as soon as possible.

   That Prince of Power and supposed reason – the one given Tzar status (by a Parliamentary majority – including Labour Party compliance ffs!
   Tzared and installed in order to get things done along with a CERA chief and a number of other initiatives that challenged the whole idea of what democracy, representation and accountability were all about.

   I hope those Labour Party people that were part of the enabling process realise what they did. It’s now more than two years since EQC ChCh – and actually sweet fuck all of benefit to the citizens of a fallen city has actually happened.
   It might be useful to note that across the ditch, an entire flooded town in QLD has almost been entirely relocated WITHOUT all the insurance bullshit and needless heartbreak that has, and continues to plague Christchurch.

   The cynic could reasonably assume that one reason for the delay in actually initiating any sort of RECONSTRUCTION (as opposed to demolition) could have something to do with a desire to balance a budget based on an ideologically-driven belief (a religion).

   I initially thought that CERA Chief (I think Rog by name – yep that’s it – that good bloke Rog Sutton) was an OK sort of guy – that is until I saw his one-dimensional thinking in “When A City Falls”. There was Rog talking to a slippery Dick about the benefits of overhead wiring versus underground cables.

   On that basis alone – old Rog (actually probably 10 or 20 years younger than me) is quite obviously NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer – although I have NO doubt his salary alone will convince a lot of people that he’s actually quite sharp.
   (The cabling thing though – a comment about elasticity, or lack of it with underground electrical reticulation demonstrated the one-dimensional (probably ideologically-driven) thought processes. What a fucking DICKHEAD! It was an eye opener for me anyway – here was someone I thought was a reasonable sort of joker demonstrating the art of cock sucking and arse licking, and at the same time a certain belief that he could justify by logic (trouble is it was Ideologically-driven “logic and TINA-like).
   Anyway ……… un-fucking believable…..”offline” I could give him some very basic tips on how to make underground cabling and electrical reticulation “elastic” without any sort of problems with induction or other problems.
   Open your frikken mind Rog – its what you’re paid the big bucks for (or so we told). It seems to be that “he’s paid a mint, therefore he must actually be clever” – like the used-car salesman though – it often has more to do with the gift of the bullshit gab.

   After a week returning to, and living in the city I was born, I can’t see many signs of reconstruction. I remember Gerry’s comment way back when where he wanted to level the place and start again without any respect for history or respect for the organic nature that produces citites fit for humans to live in.
   Still, current Nact are a bunch of philistines – some of their predecessors would be rolling in their graves, and those that have a ‘class breeding’ they’d like to lay claim to don’t have the balls to challenge a Joyce-English-Key style collective ego with its inflated sense of self-worth.
   Instead though , we have to see total demolotion – those flat sort of fields we often see with suburban developments whereby all is demolished including foliage, lovely little boxes are built, THEN foliage may (or may not be) replaced. Scorched Earth after which sterility and a supposed antiseptic, compliant society will evolve.
   Antiseptic, inorganic, lack-lustre, insipid!.
   Not somewhere I’ll ever return to.

   Let’s be clear… The government and City COuncil have amounts of land in near environs that is stable enough to let people live on.
   How is it that they have not simply done (for example) land swaps with people whose land is fucked? and simply placed the burden for buildings alone on the insurance/EQC industry? Oh

   We are talking about 2 plus years now since shit happened! There are people in places like Bexley still shitting in little green cublicles ffs.

   It’s reminiscent of dear leader’s promise at Pike – “we’ll do whatever it takes”. Unfortunately he forgot to qualify it by saying – “that is, as long as we can belince the bujit, and I don’t jeopardise my knoithood and making a name for mesef with a bottle of 100 yo whisky, and es long es oi don’t blow me cover with Bronagh.

   On top of all this, there are things like the Hekia education experiment centred around Munt City.
   I wonder what their “final solution” to it all is.

   Apologies to Karol – I vowed I wasn’t going to make further comment on this site – I didn’t lie as such – just like Key, Joyce and English – I bullshitted. There’s FA other forums tho’ in which to express an opinion.
   • vto 1.1

     21 January 2013 at 9:27 am

     It is always interesting to hear the views of people from outside Chch when they come to visit Tim. There has been much going on since the main earthquakes and I don’t think all of it is going to stand up to the test of time. One example is the amount that has been demolished. Or rather, the lack of buildings that could have been kept to provide some of the fabric to which the new city can be reattached. The underlying fabric has so comprehensively ripped off that we are left with bare rock to reattach to. Silly and short-sighted and unnecessary.

     Your point about the organic growth of cities and communities is spot on. That organic nature has been left lying on the floor of Cera and this government and been swept away by the cleaners. No room for anything organic in Brownlees mind.
   • Yoza 1.2

     21 January 2013 at 12:56 pm

     I am sure the ruling clique of the Labour party are as terrified of democracy as are the National party, Chris Trotter’s ‘permanent government’ and most major corporations. The idea that ‘ordinary’ people through informed decisions will make rational choices is a threat to everything for which these people stand. As Noam Chomsky pointed out recently , throughout the West 100s of billions (if not trillions) has , necessarily, been spent over the last few decades by PR and advertising companies, the corporate media, ‘public’ broadcasting institutions, universities, ministeries, government departments, what-have-you to ensure people make irrational choices based on uniformed decisions.

     Considering the function of the mainstream media in the modern western ‘democracy’, I would take issue with Tim’s observation that, “Along with it, a lazy ‘mainstream media” with no respect for a 4th Estate, let alone any understanding of the concept.” As an extension of corporate domination of the socio-economic system, I would argue the mainstream media, in collusion with their PR and Ad. Company cohorts, works diligently to maintain an ideological construct which serves the interests of an insidious plutocracy.

     Under totalitarian regimes the media are inherently regarded by most of those subject to the ruling junta as propaganda organs instituted to parrot the party line, whereas the ‘free’ press in the Western sphere must promote the necessary illusion of impartiality while obsequiously conforming to a rigid paradigm. An anecdote by John Pilger sums it up brilliantly , “During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said their spokesman, “that we were astonished to find, after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were, by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don’t have that. What’s the secret? How do you do it?” ”

     As long as we have political apparatchiks who are little more than props in a system designed to maintain the status and influence of an unelected ruling elite we will continue to suffer the likes of the Labour Party caucus and it’s increasingly weird contortionist act. The Labour Party cannot both serve the status quo and act in the interests of the general population, at best they can only provide a slightly less odious alternative to the current regime.

     Through necessity, humanity will adopt a more democratic system of participation in economic, social and political processes or face the very real prospect of extinction in a perverse attempt to conform to an abhorrent paradigm designed to sustain the illegitimate authority of a privileged few. [Rant ends]
     • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1

       21 January 2013 at 2:14 pm

       +1

       All the institutions that we’ve surrounded ourselves with over the last few years/centuries have been designed to maintain capitalism and to prevent democracy.
2. The Al1en 2

   21 January 2013 at 7:09 am

   McVicar stands by claim over gay bill
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860409

   “If you look at the court stats, most of the crime that has been committed has been committed by fatherless kids.”
   It wouldn’t matter that some children, if adopted by a gay couple, had two fathers, because they would still need a mother, he said.

   I guess as 1 of 5 to a solo mum, his view would see one or more or all of us with police records.
   Sorry to shit all over that one for you, Garth.
   No police ever came knocking at my mum’s doorstep over any of us.
   Five boys + one mum = Five men.
   Come tell me to my face she did it wrong.
   I dare you. Bring a TV crew if you’re brave enough.

   Today I don’t know what I find more disturbing about this bloke, his attitude to homosexuals or his vision of solo parenting and solo family children.
   • karol 2.1

     21 January 2013 at 8:04 am

     Single mothers face a lot of pressures in a society geared to marginalising and demonising them. They are likely to have lower incomes than 2 parent families or the majority of single fathers, and they often get treated as second class by those in authority. This creates an environment where some children of sole parents could enter into criminal activities.

     It is more likely to be the context and environment than lack of fathers, because research shows children of lesbian parents tend to be better adjusted and more successful in school, etc, than the average.

     This study of 78 teenagers with lesbian parents (as reported in November last year) shows:

     According to the report from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, the teens surveyed have GPAs in the A- to B+ range, have numerous close friends who are predominantly heterosexual and consider their parents as shining role models.

     ‘Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives’ is part of a larger study conducted by professors at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law that has tracked same sex families for 26 years as it examines the progress of children raised by two mothers.

     The 17-year-olds questioned at this stage consisted of 38 boys and 38 girls.

     Nearly all of them are planning to go to college after high school and all boasted strong family bonds with an open-minded attitude to life thanks to their non-traditional family situations.

     Though in previous studies on the same sample group a few teens had experienced some form of homophobia within their peergroup, a supportive family environment had helped counteract the negative effects.

     And despite these obstacles, findings showed that the children demonstrated fewer behavioural problems than a normative sample of same-aged American youth.

     And the report on another longitudinal study, as reported in 2010, shows similar results:

     A new study published in the prestigious journal Pediatrics followed a group of children born to lesbian mothers for nearly 25 years to chart their psychological health and development. Previous studies have found no significant differences in psychological health between children reared by lesbian or heterosexual parents [1-4]. …

     Compared to established norms, the children of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence. They were rated significantly lower in social problems, rule breaking, and aggressive problems.
     • rosy 2.1.1

       21 January 2013 at 8:27 am

       “This creates an environment where some children of sole parents could enter into criminal activities”

       Witnessing conflict seems to me to be much more likely to be a cause of later violence and criminality than living in a stable single parent home. There is some evidence to support this, for example…

       … the evidence fails to support a conclusion that single-parent families cause crime. Asking whether broken homes are good or bad is misleading; the answer must depend in part on the available alternatives. Family conflict is particularly likely to promote criminal behavior, and the choice to divorce must typically be made by parents who do not get along. Convincingly, David Farrington found that among boys who had not been previously aggressive, marital disharmony of parents when the boys were fourteen predicted subsequent aggressive behavior. Furthermore, effects of living with a single parent vary in relation to the emotional and economic climate in the home. Indeed, in their longitudinal study of family disruption among London boys, Heather Juby and David Farrington (2001) found that those who stayed with their mothers following disruption had delinquency rates that were almost identical to those reared in intact families with low conflict. And in their study of inner-city minority youths living in Chicago, Deborah Gorman-Smith, Patrick Tolan, and David Henry (1999) showed that single-parent status had little impact on delinquency.

       That poorer behaviour appears in children from single parent households, if true, ignores the time lag of behaviours witnessed in dysfunctional dual parent homes. Sorting domestic violence is a good start to reducing this problem. In walking away from domestic violence single parents are doing their kids a favour.

       And well done to your mum, Al1en – and to you and your brothers.
       • karol 2.1.1.1

         21 January 2013 at 8:32 am

         Thanks, rosy. That makes sense. And, yes, it’s important to state that most children of single parents become well adjusted adults, as with Allen and his family.
       • The Al1en 2.1.1.2

         21 January 2013 at 2:29 pm

         “And well done to your mum”

         Five lads under 14, on her own in the 70s and 80s London, I reckon so too.

         “and to you and your brothers”

         We did the easy bits, but that’s cause we had an Alpha 1
   • McFlock 2.2

     21 January 2013 at 11:21 am

     if absent fathers leads to crime, surely two dads reduces it? And if crime reduction was simply a matter of parent-counting, keeping the mother in the mix would mean that mcvictim is supporting polyandry. KP might have a word with him about that…
     • Colonial Viper 2.2.1

       21 January 2013 at 12:28 pm

       It’s not a simple picture, but absent parents/broken families are one major risk factor in social underachievement, truancy and involvement in the criminal justice system.
       • McFlock 2.2.1.1

         21 January 2013 at 12:36 pm

         To a degree (and there is probably a certain amount of confounding from the factors that contribute to family breakdown), but I was trying to look at it through filters as simple as mcvictim’s.
       • Jackal 2.2.1.2

         21 January 2013 at 1:03 pm

         That’s all well and good, but in my opinion we’re playing to Garth McVicars tune by giving his homophobia too much consideration.

         The issue of solo parents is completely separate to gay marriage. However there’s no doubt that solo parents have a harder time to bring up children and their kids are more likely to go off the rails, especially in our current user pays society. That dynamic wouldn’t be influenced much by whether the solo parent was gay or straight. Income is usually the defining factor, and gay people earn a bit more on average than straight people. Therefore the children of gay solo parents would be less likely to end up in jail etc than the children of straight solo parents.

         What McVicar is actually saying is that gay people should stop being gay, like it’s a choice. This will stem from his belief that gay people choose to be gay. McVicars will also believe that gay parents are more likely to have gay children, when there is also no evidence to support such a belief.

         The only conclusion that can really be reached here is that McVicar is a complete bigot, and should be scorned at every opportunity.
       • rosy 2.2.1.3

         21 January 2013 at 11:16 pm

         absent parents/broken families are one major risk factor in social underachievement, truancy and involvement in the criminal justice system.

         More of a risk factor than the dysfunctional parental relationships that might have preceded the absent parents/broken families? Or a risk factor as a result of the dysfunctional parental relationships that preceded the absent parents/broken families?
     • rosy 2.2.2

       21 January 2013 at 11:11 pm

       if absent fathers leads to crime, surely two dads reduces it?

       On that basis mcvictim wouldn’t support two mothers though… oh no… where’s the dad in that!
   • Treetop 2.3

     21 January 2013 at 2:09 pm

     Mc Vicar can piss off as far as I am concerned and stop his gay and single parent bashing.

     Has Mc Vicar ever looked after two young children full – time e.g. a crawler and a older preschooler? If he has, he would find out how you have to have eyes at the back of your head as the crawler can choke on any little thing the preschooler leaves out.

     I would say that single unemployed childless people are more representative than single hard working parents re crime stats.
   • Saarbo 2.4

     21 January 2013 at 9:49 pm

     +1
     Surely this will see the end to McVicar. A deluded man born a couple of centuries too late.
3. KhandallaViper 3

   21 January 2013 at 7:36 am

   Why do we engage in political activism? It might be moral or financial support or leaflet distribution, phone calling through to working on policy groups and committees. Why?
   Because we believe it matters. We believe that we can, and must, change how society and the economy are structured and operated for the benefit of Kiwis and the planet.

   So we come together in political party of like minded people, people with similar values, and organise ourselves in a particular way to effect these changes: the Policy platform and the Constitution and that sort of stuff.

   So what if we find that that organisation is no longer effectively able to drive those changes, that it has lost it’s way? That is what has happened to the NZ Labour Party.

   A party is made up of people and some get to a point that they no longer listen and interact effectively with the rest. That is what has happened with Annette King, Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard. They have “lost it” but are trying to retain ego through influencing David Shearer. A few more have attached themselves to the this group as they think it is where power and influence will ultimately lie if Labour wins.

   The fatal flaw is that the Leader is getting his advice from dis-connected has-beans rather that the connected active membership. We will never win an election in these circumstances.
   That is why each and everyone one of us must directly face our nearest MP and senior office holders and challenge them to make a generational step forward.

   The time has come for Annette, Grant and Trevor to go.
   The we can get back to driving change that will improve the lot of all voters and non-voters alike.
   • ad 3.1

     21 January 2013 at 8:25 am

     That’s some pretty harsh lessons you are dishing out there Khandalla. A commentator last year said that because political parties have a reasonable amount of parliamentary funding, they are less and less reliant on members to get that media profile, get the attention, make the meetings happen, generate the publications. They don’t need us. We need them more.

     A question that you are posing is whether membership based political parties really matter. And that is the core of the lie that the parliamentary caucus has perpeterated upon itself. I really get the impression that they bring members and supproters together merely as stage props for televisual hits; that when it comes to it all policy is formed by them, seat and list selection processes are opaque at best, our conations are helpful but really a few major business donations would be more efficient.

     However that question can only be answered by a vote that includes the members, in February. It is precisely the revised constitution that shifts the fulcral point on the whole axis of power between members and caucus. They may not need us, but for one brief moment every 3 years, we have them.

     I have been impressed with how the party under Moira has changed in a year. Caucus leadership got the shock of its life when the Party got those constitutional changes through at Conference.

     Those MPs who sought to silence democratic voices within the membership will work against it a leadership vote in February, as they did so very hard in the drafting process going into it. But affiliates and members and I believe sufficient numbers of MPs will want their voice.

     As the members said at Conference: “We’re taking our party back.”

     Question for you Khandalla: if Mallard and King left by (say) deselection, who is up and coming that would do a better job for a strong and inclusive Labour party?

     Question for any Affiliates on this site: do you still want a voice in the leadership by February?
     • ad 3.1.1

       21 January 2013 at 8:52 am

       “conations”? Donations.
       • The Al1en 3.1.1.1

         21 January 2013 at 2:31 pm

         “Conation” That’s sounds like what donations are called in Banksies electorate office.
     • Another Viper 3.1.2

       21 January 2013 at 8:57 am

       It is not just that they are disconnected, they have a seperate policy agenda. They genuinely do not believe that the system is wrong, they think it needs tweaking and tinkering around the edges.
       Guys/gals, that three are throw-backs to the old right wing Labour party, Helen sat tightly on them. We now need to bade them farewell.
       And their conservative politics.
       • bad12 3.1.2.1

         21 January 2013 at 9:40 am

         Only 3, being of a ‘right wing bias in the Labour Caucus???, i think you will find that at least 50% of that Caucus is of the ‘don’t rock the boat’ centrist/right wing school of ‘thought’,

         Helen Clark’s 3 terms as Prime Minister were all about the same thing, interest free student loans, working for families, don’t rock the boat, buy the support of the middle class…
         • JK 3.1.2.1.1

           21 January 2013 at 6:20 pm

           To Bad12 – Helen DID rock the boat – the s59 repeal of the Crimes Act, the attempt to get healthier food into schools, the anti-violence campaign ….. she was a cautious PM but she was getting Labour back to its roots. Pity people don’t remember that.
           • bad12 3.1.2.1.1.1

             21 January 2013 at 7:20 pm

             Actually i don’t, Remember the Clark government getting Labour back to it’s roots that is, what you list as great achievements are hardly that,

             What i seen in 9 years of the Clark Government was business as usual and the beginnings of the Labour attack upon beneficiaries along with a flat refusal to address the even then growing un-affordability of housing specially in the Auckland area,

             From here, Helen Clark will be remembered for having lead Labour to 3 election victories and little else…
             • Colonial Viper …

               21 January 2013 at 10:15 pm

               along with a flat refusal to address the even then growing un-affordability of housing specially in the Auckland area,

               Well it was more than that. The property owning middle class wanted to see continuous, fast, property price appreciation.

               And Cullen let it happen (deliberately I would guess), by not restricting bank lending, because asset price appreciation added to the sense of wealth in that all important strata of society.
               • Olwyn …

                 21 January 2013 at 11:26 pm

                 This is the wisdom of hindsight, and you must remember also that in the last three years, Labour was governing with a reduced majority. However, throughout the nine years, it was not unreasonable to believe that the so-called market economy would mature and stabilise. It was also reasonable to believe in its early stages that the property boom, which was accompanied by greatly reduced unemployment, would financially underpin an increase in local industry. This was not to be so, of course. The 2008 crash revealed the “market economy” for what it is – a method of conquest by the economically powerful. And delivered unto us a PM who was all too happy to facilitate their demands. And a Labour Party that now appears to think it imprudent to challenge their demands.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   21 January 2013 at 11:40 pm

                   ?

                   Check out this data between 2002 and 2008 compiled by Treasury.

                   http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/finalreport/19.htm

                   Do you see that line of continuously increasing private debt to GDP?

                   You can’t tell me that no one on Cullen’s staff, or Cullen himself noticed this, even as they were deliberately paring down public sector debt.

                   It was also reasonable to believe in its early stages that the property boom, which was accompanied by greatly reduced unemployment, would financially underpin an increase in local industry.

                   I agree that its only in the last 5 years that economists like Steve Keen have zeroed in on the crucial role of increasing debt in keeping unemployment low.

                   However, going to dinner parties and cocktail parties month after month after month where the main topic of conversation amongst the property investing class was how to leverage up further to buy a few more properties to flip, it was very clear that a speculative bubble was being built and that nothing was going into the productive economy.
                   • Olwyn …

                     21 January 2013 at 11:56 pm

                     With regard to the property investment class: true, and vile it was, but that was quite late in the piece; certainly in final couple of years of their last term.
     • Anne 3.1.3

       21 January 2013 at 9:07 am

       I have been impressed with how the party under Moira has changed in a year. Caucus leadership got the shock of its life when the Party got those constitutional changes through at Conference.

       Yes. Moira Coatsworth has done a magnificent job. It is she who steered the rejuvenation of
       organisational aspects of the constitution through all its processes. I doubt the changes to the leadership vote – and other related matters – would have seen the light of day without the effort she has put into ‘democratising’ the party.

       In some ways I think she might be unpopular with a few senior Labour MPs. 🙂
       • ad 3.1.3.1

         21 January 2013 at 9:53 am

         The harder test for her I think will be how the complaints that the New Lynn LEC made after Conference are handled. If Hipkins gets basic backing for “he was doing his job” rather than “bullying and ridicule must be eliminated from this workplace”, then we know that whatever rules are put in place by the party, the caucus really does rule, and writes the rules.

         Anyone have any idea when the results are due on that complaint?
         • Anne 3.1.3.1.1

           21 January 2013 at 6:51 pm

           Anyone have any idea when the results are due on that complaint?

           Yes ad I’ve been wondering about that too. I suspect the hold up lies with the senior parliamentary team. Moira and co. are still waiting to hear their side of the story. What’s the bet they won’t get an answer until AFTER the Feb. leadership has been resolved.
   • muzza 3.2

     21 January 2013 at 8:58 am

     When people can finally accept, the reasons for the continued *failure* of our political system/services to function for the benefit of NZ, and its people, is due to massive corruption, then the actions of certain policiticans becomes understandable.

     King, Mallard etc have not *lost it*, they are operating under instruction!

     David Shearer is not getting bad advise, he is getting exactly what he will expect, as part of his role brief!

     John Key did not arrive by accident, these people are lined up, and interjected into our political system with pre-assigned roles and responsibilities..

     The question is, how is it they are being controlled to such degrees, that the structures which support the heart beat of NZ, continue to decay!

     Keep looking for conventional answers, and nothing can EVER change!
     • One Tāne Huna 3.2.1

       21 January 2013 at 12:20 pm

       🙄
       • McFlock 3.2.1.1

         21 January 2013 at 1:12 pm

         PROJECT ONAN
         DAILY NOTES 21 JAN 2013

         STIMULUS:
         standard allegation of local political conspiracy theories.
         CONSPIRACIES NAMED: none. Allusion only.
         WORD EMPHASIS: random, “*”, single word capitalization

         RESPONSE:
         rolly eyes.

         NOTES:
         bwahahaha! My experiment is going according to plan!
         Six more months of these results and I will be able to stimulate a revolution with a probability of 87.4% success within three months of my initial blog comment! And when the internet activists crown me the Emperor of New Zealand, I will be in an excellent position to RULE THE WORLD!!! ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
         • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1

           21 January 2013 at 1:45 pm

           lolz

           Is there a way to tell between Muzza’s genuine comments, and stuff he’s putting up for personal shits and giggles as “Muzza the Puppet Master”?
         • lprent 3.2.1.1.2

           21 January 2013 at 1:56 pm

           Actually muzza has nothing on Pete George who has an entire post yesterday about Irish moderating over the weekend. I won’t bother linking to it. But here is my response.

           I’m always amazed at how you always go for the vast conspiracy theory rather than the simplistic explanations.

           Different moderators have different banning behaviours – we don’t exert much effort to make them consistent. The usual reason for changes in banning behaviour depend on who has time to look at the comments. The most variable time is during weekends when we’re all off work and running all over the place with shopping, DIY, family, friends, and everything else.

           This weekend for instance, I was on a laptop dealing with nasty bugs in a set of upgrade routines for work most of the weekend and running around with Lyn shopping the rest of the time. Which is why you see bugger all comments or moderating from me. RedLogix looks like he was mostly offline and probably tramping somewhere. r0b looks like he was offline. Bill was stepping up for a bit of moderation. And it looks to me like Irish was stuck at home…

           Umm. The defining characteristic of Irish’s moderation is that he really doesn’t think that warnings have much effect.

           QED: all of a sudden there are more bans than usual, and Pete George starts frothing at the mouth with his latest conspiracy theory… Quite simple really.

           Given PG’s complete inability to say anything innovative or even intelligent himself, I am confident that he will take my comment and spin another post out of it.
           • marty mars 3.2.1.1.2.1

             21 January 2013 at 2:05 pm

             The old 20 questions gambit is a bit petey isn’t it – you know – just for research purposes – I’m sure he went hard on that one like the muzza
           • bad12 3.2.1.1.2.2

             21 January 2013 at 2:10 pm

             LOLZ, perhaps you could let the whining little cry baby back again for a day,(snigger), and then ban Him again for not spelling a word properly or failing to include a full stop,

             Now that would really give ‘it’ something to squeal about…
           • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1.2.3

             21 January 2013 at 7:32 pm

             “Given PG’s complete inability to say anything innovative or even intelligent himself, I am confident that he will take my comment and spin another post out of it.”

             Crikey, given that his fixation with me has hit epic proportions this week, you may well be right, LP. Pete George: He’s just saying what nobody’s thinking.
         • Te Reo Putake 3.2.1.1.3

           21 January 2013 at 7:09 pm

           http://www.thepaincomics.com/Onan%20the%20Barbarian.jpg
4. Benghazi 4

   21 January 2013 at 8:53 am

   Answering one of the questions for Khandallah: The new blood we need will only emerge when we have a Party in better shape. The problem at present is that newbies are being groomed by King/Mallard/Robertson. This is why we have a caucus with too many groomed staffers now MPs: Hipkins/Robertson/Adern.

   I don’t want to see the likes of Helen Kelly groomed so well by the ABC then slotted nicely into Rongotai. I’d like to see the empty seat attract real competition so that a robust selection process can be applied that attracts new people with new ideas. If Helen Kelly just inherits we never get to see who else may be out there. A robust process that seeks competition for selection makes a healthy organisation.

   It’s the same with Leadership. Let’s take the healthy, robust option. Hear from all potential candidates, see how thye campaign, what their new ideas are that can contribute to forming new policies, and then have the tri partite vote and settle this once and for all.
   • Fortran 4.1

     21 January 2013 at 1:22 pm

     Rongotai selection will of course be widely sought, but Helen Kelly will get the nod anyway.
     She is the most needed and capable.
5. bad12 5

   21 January 2013 at 9:57 am

   Dave on PrimeNews last night, Shearer that is, the message from Dave is that Labour will be as a Government ‘hands on’ with the economy, even poked the stick at Himself about the tongue tied nature of His previous attempts to publicly elucidate Labour policy,

   Slippery on ice via TV1 news on the same night came across using that voice that’s laden with ‘spit’, it’s a hard one to describe, not quite that of child speak more heading toward a lisp,

   Ive noticed this ‘persona’ exhibited by the Slippery little Shyster we have as Prime Minister before when He is under pressure or things aint going His way,

   The TV1 clip ending with the Slippery one saying that the New Zealand efforts in Antarctica need more funding, the silence after that little gem almost roared with the unsaid ‘but don’t think you Greenies are getting any from My Government’,

   Pity TV1 didn’t choose to put up Dave’s news bite alongside of Slippery’s there’s a certain stark contrast there that New Zealand voters deserve to see more of….
   • karol 5.1

     21 January 2013 at 10:10 am

     Shearer keeps using this “hands on” line. What does it mean? It needs to be explained clearly. How does this compare with NAct’s undemocratic manipulation, regulation and control? Otherwise, this line by Shearer is just a bit of meaningless spin.
     • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1

       21 January 2013 at 10:14 am

       The line means Government intervention in the economy, karol. Shearer was a bit more explicit about it in interviews at conference. Key and Co have taken a hands off approach, most other countries have gone for hands on.
       • karol 5.1.1.1

         21 January 2013 at 10:20 am

         The rhetoric is that Key’s government has been hands off, but that’s just neoliberal spin. The reality is they are hands on when it suits them. So Shearer is just responding to spin. If Shearer really wants to counter the NAct agenda, they need to focus on inequality, not the debatable issue of government intervention.

         It’s not so much an issue of hands on or off, but where and how the intervention is done.

         And which countries have gone for hands on? The US? The UK? Germany? DO you really think these countries have stopped supporting the interests of the powerful and wealthy elites?
       • bad12 5.1.1.2

         21 January 2013 at 10:35 am

         I do think tho that Labour along with ‘a hands on approach to the economy’ needs to broaden the message,

         Not necessarily with the major announcements on economic policy but in broad brush terms, simply put, Dave should be saying the Labour as the Government will be hands on with the economy AND as a Government it will be Dave’s responsibility to create employment and where employment cannot be created Labour will provide affordable housing and security of welfare benefit for those it has been unable to find that employment for,

         There has to be somewhere in the political spectrum the ‘honesty’ to admit, even functioning at 3% growth/inflation the New Zealand economy cannot, and never will, deliver employment to all those able and willing to work…
       • ad 5.1.1.3

         21 January 2013 at 10:40 am

         Best indication of that was the housing policy, coupled with a Capital Gains Tax. Bold. They are not enough by themselves, but I can already imagine what a “hands on” Labour government with “hands on” Labour Ministers not beholden to old non-interventionist ways could mean for the people, and the Cities, of New Zealand. It would be tremendously exciting.

         But it would take a real no-more-excuses first term to achieve the housing and rebuild policy goals. If King goes to the Wellington mayoralty, who in caucus would be bold enough to take that task on?
         • bad12 5.1.1.3.1

           21 January 2013 at 2:19 pm

           Don’t know if i would attach the word ‘bold’ to Capital Gains Tax and Kiwibuild, the latter, (without further clarification), would seem to rely upon a household income of at least $60,000 to be able to participate,(so targeted at the children of the middle class who’s parents helped create the affordability issue in the first place by piling en masse into ‘rental investments),

           ‘Bold’ would have been to announce a State rental housing ‘build’ of the same magnitude as the planned Kiwibuild ownership scheme at the same time,

           Doing both at once is far from impossible,(the Kirk Government were building 30,000 a year),and, such construction in both the ownership and rental area’s would negate the need for the Capital Gains Tax,

           I would wait for the numbers from Labour on building State Rentals before attaching ‘bold’ to their policy…
     • Another Viper 5.1.2

       21 January 2013 at 11:13 am

       Karol, This is what the reality us. Quoting from Bowlalley.

       “Ideological mummery is also the key distinguishing feature of Shearer’s principal backers in the Labour Caucus. Phil Goff, Annette King and Trevor Mallard all dipped their paper cups into the neoliberal Kool-Aid in the 80s and none of them have ever publicly recanted (let alone repented) their supporting roles in Roger Douglas’s Economic Salvation Show. They no longer defend (at least not publicly) Rogernomics’ legacy, but behind their hands they dismiss its critics as “paleosocialists” who simply don’t understand how the world works.

       What all of them fail to grasp, however, is that the current climate of stress is being generated by the failure of neoliberal ideology (just as the climate of stress of the late-1970s and early-80s was caused by the failure of Keynesianism). To talk about aneoliberal policy aggressor in 2013 is, therefore, oxymoronic. The next genuine policy aggressor will be a politician possessing both the courage and the imagination to go beyond the maintenance of a discredited orthodoxy – someone willing to forge a new political, economic and social consensus.”
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.1

         21 January 2013 at 12:37 pm

         The next genuine policy aggressor will be a politician possessing both the courage and the imagination to go beyond the maintenance of a discredited orthodoxy…

         Which orthodoxy are you talking about?
         • karol 5.1.2.1.1

           21 January 2013 at 12:46 pm

           DTB, that’s a quote from this post about Shearer & his backers by Trotter. He starts the post with this:

           The most plausible explanation for David Shearer’s incoherence as a political leader is that he is masking his true – neoliberal – beliefs.

           And that is the “discredited orthodoxy” Trotter is referring to.
6. NoseViper (The Nose knows) 6

   21 January 2013 at 11:27 am

   The ‘whacko nutters” who used to stand on a box and address the Waikikamukow are to be found at The Standard says Mike Williams. Also there are people from the extreme left like Alliance.

   Wanting a real Labour leader, realler than David Shearer, is undercutting him and Labour. The nigglers should submit to the choice of the narrow elite for leader.
   • karol 6.1

     21 January 2013 at 11:29 am

     That either came before I switched onto it, or after I switched off. The out-of-touch pontificating was too much for me this morning.
   • Another Viper 6.2

     21 January 2013 at 11:44 am

     I heard Mike Williams too. He is isolated and very very comfortable in the world of “commentator”. He and Hooton make smug sneering radio together.
     Like Annette Grant and Trevor, he should exit stage right.
     • karol 6.2.1

       21 January 2013 at 11:50 am

       I heard the bit about Williams referring to advice from Helen Clark on how to spin: ie. keep repeating your lines, and at about the point when you are really getting sick of repeating it, that’s about the point when people are starting to listen. But that was the old way to do things in pre-GFC, “neoliberal” times.

       Now is the time for a new approach – and that means new policies, and getting back to solid left wing values. It’s no good keeping repeating your lines if the policies and values mean no fundamental change from the times of appeasing the “neoliberal” elites.
     • Tim 6.2.2

       21 January 2013 at 4:50 pm

       +1 ( if you mean Williams and Hooter on N2N this morning with Kethlic Guuurl Rinnie Ryan? – even SHE got pissed off with Hooter, as she often does). How anyone can justify the accusation that RNZ is staunchly “left wing” with Rinnie for 3 hours between 9-12 then that exceptionally ‘noice’ man/everyone’s best friend in the afternoon completely bewilders me.
       Not really as “in touch” with folks as they would desperately try to have us believe.
       There’s a really good book called ‘Bad Science” by Dr. Ben Goldacre. Although its to do with medicalisation and related matters……….it should be compulsory reading for the likes of Joyce, Hooten, Key – in fact most of them. The salient discussion in it is to do with truth telling versus being a liar VERSUS simply being a bullshitter. (At the top of this thread – I was playing the Bulllshitter – I’m not very good at it, AND I really must cease commenting as I promised to do since I might have offended somebody precious – one that’s “paid his dues” and as such holds a sense of entitledment. Far be it for me to express an opinion that may offend.
       Anyway……this Nact abomination, AND a sizeable percentage of the current Labour ‘cohorts’ fit the bullshitter category. The Band’s “I’m the Great Pretender” springs to mind.
       Joyce carries it off very well though – total CRAP expressed with the confidence of the used car salesman offloading a lemon. Joyce though is also borderline liar. I ‘spose that delusional really.
       They’re a fucking trajedy. What I am convinced of though is that in the future, they’ll get a comeuppance of sorts – simply because their arrogance and master of the universe shit eventually overcomes them.
       Old Bernie Madoff’s a good example
   • vto 6.3

     21 January 2013 at 11:47 am

     Ha ha, fancy describing his fellow commentator Matthew Hooton as a whacko nutter. Kind of pulls himself into the realm as well. Idiot.

     Who cares about what these well known commentators think of what goes on here. I would rather read the daily machinations here than listen to Hooton, Williams, and all the others. They have too many vested and conflicted interests to be taken credibly or seriously. That is where honest comment, by way of anonymity, comes into its own. They do all seem to be very upset though. I wonder why. Perhaps they should stop reading it.

     I wonder if Williams has ever posted here? Betcha he has.

     Dumb is as dumb does.
   • mickysavage 6.4

     21 January 2013 at 12:14 pm

     Hooton is an extraordinary spinner. There has been a call for a factcheck website in NZ. His comments deserve a special category on any such website.
     • mike 6.4.1

       21 January 2013 at 12:36 pm

       Once you’re shown to be a manipulating BS artist it’s a little difficult to get any credibility. I think it goes back to that old boy who cried wolf story.
     • tc 6.4.2

       21 January 2013 at 2:03 pm

       His and his NACT overlords Mickey especially some of the answers given in the house. RNZ has become a race to the bottom.

       Shows how inept the Nat’s were under blinglish etc that williamson, mallard and co could get 3 terms as once they went up against some structured messaging and media focus they’ve been shown to be boys against men.
     • fatty 6.4.3

       21 January 2013 at 2:27 pm

       Yeah, he reminds me of Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson…everything that comes out of his mouth is well timed and is said for a number of reasons. These reasons are usually not picked up on by the average punter…therein lies his skill.
   • bad12 6.5

     21 January 2013 at 2:37 pm

     Yes that from ‘Mr i am off to Australia to dig up the dirt on Slippery’, for a tame radio station like RadioNZ what’s-his face,(i tend to think of Him as That Fat Wanker), really layed it on thick with His little anti-Standard rant,

     As usual the ‘weak host’ of the particular RadioNZ show sat in what can only be described as approving silence as (That Fat Wanker) defamed many commenters here on the Standard by claiming that He didn’t think that those who comment here while claiming to be Labour activists were actually active in the Party at all,

     The up-side to that is that (a) the Standard is obviously having ‘some’ effect in the rarified atmosphere of national politics, and (b), the recent whipping of (The Other Fat Wanker) who appears on that particular RadioNZ received here at the Standard hit all the right spots,

     Usually those 2 make absurd statements to the sound of i agree with (That Fat Wanker), which were the first words uttered with gushing approval by the ex Prez of Labour, but, noted with ;laughter was (The Other Fat Wankers) absence of agreement as (That Fat Wanker) attacked the Standard…
   • karol 6.6

     21 January 2013 at 3:25 pm

     Ah, well, I just went back and listened to it. So, it seems that, according to MW, it’s Cunliffe supporters that are stirring up on TS, and being really nasty about Shearer (the anonymous extreme “nutters”. And according to MH, it was one of those DC supporters that posted about Shearer going to put his leadership up to a party vote next month.

     And MH, in an attempt at evidence that it is Cunliffe supporting and/or Cunliffe-organised posters/bloggers who are stirring up against Shearer on TS, mentioned Greg Presland, who he thought was the NL …. erm… LEC secretary/leader or some such role. It seems GP posts here. So they weren’t really differentiating between authors of the posts, and people commenting on the posts.

     MW was also intrigued and a little disturbed that when he went to Shearer’s speech at the conference, there were a lot of new faces, and a lot of faces of radical, Alliance types, too. Ryan said it was a good thing to see genuine diversity of views rather than have the stage managed kind of conference that we have seen in recent times – which MW agreed was the kind of conferences he used to manage.
7. joe90 7

   21 January 2013 at 12:07 pm

   And Whittall will most likely be shown the wet bus ticket.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8195483/US-coal-mine-manager-jailed-over-explosion
8. McFlock 8

   21 January 2013 at 1:01 pm

   TV3 reckons that the antarctic junket has boosted Kay’s environmental credibility. And mentions that a south pole trip was on his bucket list.

   Given his fracking drilling bunker-fuel dairying fuckwittedness, I reckon one is more likely prime motivation for going there than the other.

   And it’s not ticking “environmental activism” at the cost of the taxpayer.
   • marty mars 8.1

     21 January 2013 at 1:15 pm

     he probably just wanted to see where ‘happy feet’ was filmed

     but seriously key’s environmental credibility is beyond a joke – he’ll fry us all to make an extra buck and there’s gold in them thar hills for the exploiters.
9. Janice 9

   21 January 2013 at 5:13 pm

   Not to mention taking that huge entourage with him, the amount of sewage that lot would have created and all the food and drink (no doubt high quality) necessary to keep all those journos happy… the mind boggles at the expense both cash and environmental.
10. Logie97 10

    22 January 2013 at 12:25 am

    In Stuff today, a scientist is looking for a woman to volunteer for motherhood – to bear a neanderthal child … has anyone suggested he could start looking around the Beehive?
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/8203804/Mother-wanted-for-Neanderthal-baby
    • McFlock 10.1

      22 January 2013 at 12:32 am

      that’s an – ethical minefield, at the very least.
      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1

        22 January 2013 at 12:45 am

        The Beehive? I’m sure Logie97 already knows 😀

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS