Open Mike 21/05/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 21st, 2017 - 38 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 …

38 comments on “Open Mike 21/05/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Jilly Bee 1.1
      21 May 2017 at 4:59 pm

      When I read that piece – the quip of Lord Darlington from Oscar Wilde’s play – Lady Windemere’s Fan; “the price of everything and the value of nothing” readily came to mind. Shame on the DHB.

  2. The Chairman 2
    21 May 2017 at 12:03 pm

    While Ruth Richardson had the “Mother of all Budgets”, the Greens have the “Budget for all Mothers”
    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/clips/extras/greens-budget-all-mothers

    • The Chairman 2.1
      21 May 2017 at 12:24 pm

      On a side note:

      Apparently Labour have been informed about this policy, yet despite the MoU, Metiria wasn’t sure what their (Labour’s) response was.

      Is this a sign communication between Labour and the Greens is lacking?

      • weka 2.1.1
        21 May 2017 at 12:46 pm

        No. Turei gives a pretty good explanation of what that is about. She wants NZers to know about the policy so that they will know they can choose to vote Green. Subtext, what Labour thinks isn’t the priority when the Greens are releasing a policy of this type. I would expect that to work the other way too.

        The MOU doesn’t join them at the hip, it gives them a great deal of flexibility. They don’t have to agree with each other, nor consult with each about policy. They’re developing policy and campaigning separately. They are also intentionally not doing coalition type policy deals pre-election. All for very good reasons.

        • The Chairman 2.1.1.1
          21 May 2017 at 1:21 pm

          With the MoU in place, the two should very well know whenever new policy is released one of the first questions from the media will be what does the other think of it? And this is largely because of the MoU, voters expect more of an insight on how the two will work together, thus how does this policy sit with the other?

          Metiria’s response came across as if the two aren’t in close discussion at all. I’m not suggesting what the other thinks should be the priority, but it certainly requires to be known, If only to help sell the perception that they are working closely in the background.

          Overall she did rather well, apart for failing to sufficiently answer what Labour thought of it.

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1
            21 May 2017 at 1:47 pm

            I think you fundamentally misunderstand what the MOU is. And again, you think they should operate as you see fit, but they have their own strategy.

            In other words, they’re not working *that closely and it wasn never the intention to do so. A clear and core part of the MOU was that they remained independent parties in terms of the party vote, and that is exactly what we have seen demonstrated today. How to be separate parties without being enemies or working against the common cause.

            “And this is largely because of the MoU, voters expect more of an insight on how the two will work together, thus how does this policy sit with the other?”

            The way it works is that either Labour make an announcement of their own, or the media asks Labour for a response and Labour responds. The point of the MOU isn’t for the Greens to explain the Labour response, but to ensure that Labour have had time to prepare and answer on their own. And vice versa.

            • The Chairman 2.1.1.1.1.1
              21 May 2017 at 2:37 pm

              I understand the MOU doesn’t join them at the hip, that it gives them a great deal of flexibility. And that they don’t have to agree with each other, nor consult with each about forming policy.

              But one would expect they would know where each other stand on policy. Therefore, I don’t expect the Greens to have to go into detail explaining Labour’s response, but they should at least know where they stand.

              And as the show highlighted by asking the question, others also expect so.

              • weka …
                21 May 2017 at 4:22 pm

                “knowing where they stand” What if Labour disagrees with the policy? How would it serves the Greens for Turei to say that? The next question in the interview then becomes about how can the parties work together if they don’t agree. Etc.

                Or what if Labour agrees with this bit and not that bit. Now you have Turei having to explain that and instead of talking about Green policy as a way of letting voters know why to vote Green, she’s spending interview time talking about the potential coalition partner’s disagreement.

                It’s just not viable to expect one party to explain where the other party stands. You might not think they have to go into detail, but I bet the interviewer is going to want that. If the parties were working together on policy it would make sense they would have a prepared approach, but in this case they’re not. And the MoU doesn’t suggest they should do what you are suggesting.

                • The Chairman …
                  22 May 2017 at 9:25 am

                  “What if Labour disagrees with the policy? How would it serves the Greens for Turei to say that?”

                  It would highlight their honesty, thus help build voter trust in the party.

                  Unfortunately, her response made it look as if that was the case (Labour disagrees) and she was attempting to dodge that discussion. Leading to people questioning their honesty or competence for not knowing. Which, either way it wasn’t a good look.

                  “The next question in the interview then becomes about how can the parties work together if they don’t agree”

                  Which is a legitimate question that many voters are already asking, thus of course she should have addressed it. Dodging it won’t put voters at easy and leaves the question hanging in peoples minds. Which is not something the Greens would want voters taking into the polling booths.

                  “Or what if Labour agrees with this bit and not that bit.”

                  If the Greens were genuinely confident in the policy they would have stood tall and defended it And defending it would have allowed her to talk more about the policy while putting to rest any further questions, concern or criticism.

              • Wainwright …
                21 May 2017 at 6:19 pm

                Agreed Chairman. MOU seems to mean Labour and the Greens are acting in perfect unison when they want to (Budget Resopnsibility Rules etc) and completely separately when they want to. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me and certainly doesn’t give the appearance of a governmetn in waiting.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  21 May 2017 at 6:29 pm

                  Why doesn’t it make sense to you? An MoU means you’ve agreed to work together on some things but not necessarily on others – that fits what we’re seeing exactly.

                  • The Chairman …
                    22 May 2017 at 9:37 am

                    “An MoU means you’ve agreed to work together on some things but not necessarily on others”

                    And shouldn’t voters have a right to know what those things are? Moreover, shouldn’t they (Labour & the Greens) be obligated to tell us? Or do you recommend keeping voters in the dark as the way forward?

          • Doogs 2.1.1.1.2
            21 May 2017 at 9:51 pm

            Metiria answered exactly the way anyone would expect her to answer. Weka has nailed the issue in one – the MoU.

            Do you know the detail of the MoU?
            Do you know what it says about each other’s policy announcements?
            Do I hear you asking if Little has checked with the Greens about what he announces?

            I think Chairman that you are seeing road bumps where there most likely are none.
            Both parties look very comfortable about each other’s pronouncements, and I, for one, do not see a shred of conflict between them. Serious discussions, even arguments (which I hope they hold behind closed doors) but not any real conflict.

    • Bill 2.2
      21 May 2017 at 12:45 pm

      Greg Boyed’s an idiot – where will the $44 million come from (can’t afford the poor!) – $220 a week won’t make any difference (in whose world!) – increasing stat sick leave will hurt business (sod the sick) – Greens are trying to spin two plates (should stick to “environment”)…

      edit. Labour’s reaction, if any, is for them to air, not for the Greens to be quizzed about.

      • weka 2.2.1
        21 May 2017 at 12:48 pm

        The environment vs social one is particularly tiresome. It’s been several elections at least since the Greens went overtly with environment and social side by side, and those things have always inherently been in GP kaupapa right from when it was the Values Party.

      • The Chairman 2.2.2
        21 May 2017 at 1:27 pm

        Those sort of questions are to be expected.

        “Labour’s reaction, if any, is for them to air, not for the Greens to be quizzed about.”

        Without an MoU in place, I’d agree. However, with an MoU they should at least both know where each other stand.

        • Bill 2.2.2.1
          21 May 2017 at 1:38 pm

          Well they do. Labour knows (knew) that the Greens have proposed a “budget for mothers”. And I dare say Labour will inform the Greens about their budget focus.

          The MoU isn’t about necessarily critiquing one another’s policies or forming joint policies. it’s about making one another aware of what those policies will be – a kind of ‘no surprises’ pact.

          • The Chairman 2.2.2.1.1
            21 May 2017 at 1:47 pm

            “Well they do. Labour knows (knew) that the Greens have proposed a “budget for mothers”.”

            Yes, yet the Greens aren’t aware of whether or not Labour support it, which helps give voters a better indication on how the two will work together.

            Is this something Labour can work with or is it something they will attempt to kick to the side, thus what chance does it really have of becoming policy?

            IMO, this is the insight voters want to know. The fact the Greens couldn’t tell us wasn’t a good look.

            • weka 2.2.2.1.1.1
              21 May 2017 at 1:50 pm

              Unless they are working on policy together, it’s inappropriate for the Greens to talk about Labour’s position or vice versa.

              “Is this something Labour can work with or is it something they will attempt to kick to the side, thus what chance does it really have of becoming policy?”

              You’d have to ask Labour that. Expecting the Greens to answer that is asking for a whole bunch of trouble.

              “The fact the Greens couldn’t tell us wasn’t a good look.”

              To you maybe, but you seem fundamentally incapable of not being an expert on what L and G are doing wrong. You have to knock them pretty much every time and even where their strategy is pointed out to you, you still know best. This is why these conversations always end up idiotic.

              • The Chairman …
                21 May 2017 at 2:23 pm

                “Unless they are working on policy together, it’s inappropriate for the Greens to talk about Labour’s position or vice versa.”

                After discussions, it wouldn’t be inappropriate for one to confirm whether or not the other was generally in support of a policy.

                “You’d have to ask Labour that. “

                If they have been in discussion one would expect the Greens would know.

                “To you maybe, but you seem fundamentally incapable of not being an expert on what L and G are doing wrong”.

                While it’s clearly my opinion your mistake is that it’s only my opinion. I’m currently with 3 green supporters that also share this opinion. And I’m confident they are not the only ones.

                I don’t knock them pretty much every time. However, if there is something that requires improving I’ll highlight. It’s called feedback.

            • Bill 2.2.2.1.1.2
              21 May 2017 at 1:52 pm

              It does not matter whether Labour supports it or not. What you’re looking for is effectively what would result from a party merger. There is no merger. There isn’t even a coalition. There’s a MoU.

              • weka …
                21 May 2017 at 1:54 pm

                Here’s a wall if you want to ban your head against it.

              • The Chairman …
                21 May 2017 at 2:45 pm

                “It does not matter whether Labour supports it or not.”

                I disagree, for the reasons stated above.

                “What you’re looking for is effectively what would result from a party merger. ”

                Knowing where each other stand doesn’t require them to be in a merger.

    • Bill 3.1
      21 May 2017 at 12:30 pm

      Not so sure that “thrilled” is the most appropriate reaction 🙂 Big waves and big ships = ending badly.

      According to wiki (and there are various ways to take these measurements) The maximum ever measured wave height from a satellite is 20.1m during a North Atlantic storm in 2011.

  4. adam 4
    21 May 2017 at 2:33 pm

    I’ve been meaning to put this up for a while. Frankie Boyle at his cutting best.

    Very good, might be a bit much for some – as it contains humor.

  6. joe90 6
    21 May 2017 at 4:43 pm

    No, but I know now.

    Have you ever wondered where the terms lower and uppercase text came from? pic.twitter.com/5Pmfw5RsnE— murmurs (@mrmrs_) May 20, 2017

    https://twitter.com/mrmrs_/status/866067646357352448

  7. greywarshark 7
    21 May 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Utopia. As Australian cartoonist and others have imagined it.

  8. greywarshark 8
    21 May 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Utopia. As Australian cartoonist Bruce Petty and others have imagined it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMm9S-lRJGE

    By the way. There were some really good interviews on Radionz today and I managed to put them on yesterday’s Open Mike 20/5. So after all that and putting the links up please will someone look at them. I reckon you will think they were good, one on Tax,. one on P in Northland, and one on an initiative that is making a breakthrough in education in rural NZ. Doing something like charter schools were imagined for, and at half the cost, with better outcomes too I’ll be bound.

  9. joe90 9
    21 May 2017 at 7:04 pm

    Johnny Cash covered Chris Cornell’s (Soundgarden) Rusty Cage.

  10. esoteric pinapples 10
    21 May 2017 at 7:18 pm

    Kim Dotcom is saying he knows that murdered Democrat Party worker Seth Rich was a Wikileaks source.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGiyGEN31AE

  11. JC 11
    21 May 2017 at 7:32 pm

    “The fishing industry is killing this animal and we need some urgent action to stop this.”

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/331230/rare-sea-lions-killed-by-squid-trawlers

    S.L.E.D.S… (Sealion exclusion device), or …. Extermination Device!

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/327600/sea-lion-dies-in-trawling-net