Open Mike 30/01/2018

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 30th, 2018 - 138 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 …

138 comments on “Open Mike 30/01/2018 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    30 January 2018 at 7:33 am

    MPs to vote on medicinal cannabis bills.

    Some advocates are worried lawmakers will view Labour’s bill as a “compromise position” rather than voting for the Green’s bill, which comes up for the vote tomorrow.

    National are meeting this morning to decide whether to let their MPs use conscience votes.

    Have the Greens done enough groundwork behind the scenes to muster support and ensure their bill will get over the line? Or will Labour’s bill end up becoming the compromise advocates are worried about?

    • JanM 1.1
      30 January 2018 at 7:55 am

      It’s a great pity it can’t be just decriminalised and have done with it! It may make a severe dent in the awful meth issue as well

    • Puckish Rogue 1.2
      30 January 2018 at 8:49 am

      Interestingly from Kiwiblog: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/01/grey_power_backs_swarbrick_bill.html

      The net support for not having medical use of cannabis being a criminal offence by party vote is:

      National voters +60% (78% to 18%)
      Labour voters +61% (78% to 17%)
      NZ First +54% (77% to 23%)
      Greens +77% (88% to 11%)

      Not much difference between National and Labour but you’d have to say that’s overwhelming support

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1
        30 January 2018 at 1:30 pm

        And yet National will probably mostly vote against it if its a conscience vote and will vote against it if they whip all National MPs to vote the same way.

        Thing is, with that sort of support, no MP should vote against Chloe’s bill. If they do then they’re actually being antidemocratic because they’re not representing what the people want.

    • Me 1.3
      30 January 2018 at 1:17 pm

      Sometimes we get some heroes in the Nat party. Everyone remembers Marilyn Waring for crossing the floor and I remember Ian McLean, George Gair and Katherine OReagan crossing for Homosexual Law Reform.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.3.1
        30 January 2018 at 10:09 pm

        “Everyone remembers Marilyn Waring…”

        Not everyone, but I do.

        Hero? Most definitely.

        Unlikely to be seen again.

  2. The Chairman 2
    30 January 2018 at 7:57 am

    Ardern’s child poverty law to be unveiled

    The Bill is reportedly “very, very complex”. Government departments will have to meet certain targets to reduce child poverty, and whether they succeed or not will be reported by the Treasury. 

    The Prime Minister says this will ensure that child poverty remains a priority across all departments.

    “The fact that we’re going to have to report on how we’re doing at the Budget will shape the way that we look at child-wellbeing issues every time we write a Budget,” she said on Monday.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/01/ardern-s-child-poverty-law-to-be-unveiled-tomorrow.html

    Shouldn’t this measure be extended to cover poverty overall?

    Why aren’t Labour extending this measure to ensure that overall poverty remains a priority across all departments?

    • Ad 2.1
      30 January 2018 at 8:04 am

      Since it’s going to cover the Public Finance Act it will cover all Departments where it matters the most.

      To me the big disappointment is the government has chosen not to engage closely with National on the child poverty legislation.

      National are extremely experienced at getting the bureaucracy to conform to to specific targets (the discipline being more useful in a government than the levels that change from year to year).

      Including National in the discussion early on rather than a quick briefing the day of bill introduction means that it cannot be a “National Park”, “NZSuper” or “Treaty of Waitangi Settlement” issue that is a cross-House commitment to finalise the issue and not make politics out of it.

      This is the big mistake that the Clark government made with the Bill Of Rights Act, among others, which has meant that while BORA is a rider on every bill, it is now routinely disregarded.

      Very hard to see this legislation now surviving a change of government.

      • The Chairman 2.1.1
        30 January 2018 at 8:27 am

        While taking steps to improve child poverty numbers is worthy, shouldn’t the Government be ensuring that poverty overall is improving? After all, a less equal society is a less prosperous society.

        Moreover, as parents of children are better compensated, the Government needs to ensure those struggling (without dependent children) aren’t becoming worse off going forward. Therefore, why not put measures in place to cover both?

        Didn’t Ardern reach out to National not long after she was voted in? Therefore, wasn’t it National that failed to closely engage?

        • Ad 2.1.1.1
          30 January 2018 at 8:33 am

          I am not sure what you mean by “overall”.

          If by “overall” you mean all Departments should take account of it, trust me it quickly becomes one measure among a welter of competing bottom lines. Cynicism about multiple and conflicting bottom lines kicks in real quick and at every level.

          The most useful thing this Act will do is seek to solidify the definition of poverty.

          After that the state – no matter who is running it – can determine what instruments they use to eradicate it, and what funding to allocate.

          Unless they include National enough to persuade them to vote for this bill, there will be no enduring common accountability framework that eradicates poverty.

          • The Chairman 2.1.1.1.1
            30 January 2018 at 9:00 am

            Overall in this case simply refers to all those struggling in poverty that don’t have dependent children meeting Labour’s criteria.

            “The most useful thing this Act will do is seek to solidify the definition of poverty “

            It’s an unhelpful definition of poverty if those struggling in poverty that don’t have dependent children meeting Labour’s criteria are overlooked.

            Whether it becomes merely another measure among a welter of competing bottom lines is up to the Government and whether it lays out its directives clearly (prioritising and straightening out any potential conflicting bottom lines).

            Offering to include National is no guarantee National will accept the invitation or are in fact even interested in securing an enduring accountability framework.

            • Ad 2.1.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 9:16 am

              National are interested because English repeatedly said so including this morning.

              Also they have a 9 year track record on keeping major social initiatives that Labour formed.

              There’s always going to be criteria. There’s no helicopter throwing sacks of cash out the window. Nature of bureacracy is to have order in redistribution. A system.

              Bill comes out this afternoon. Definitions are in front.

              Big questions when this many people are couning on it. Guarantee not all will be satisfied.

              • The Chairman …
                30 January 2018 at 10:49 am

                English implied it is largely already being done and questioned its effectiveness, especially as Labour’s fiscal restraints largely prevents them from further family income increases.

                No one is suggesting throwing out sacks of cash. This is about Labours failure to account for all those in poverty and not merely people with dependent kids. The cutoff (having dependent children or not) leaves far too many (those without dependent children) to fall further through the cracks.

                English implied (when pointing to the removal of other targets) lack of education as one of the reasons why people are in poverty. However, if there were more employment opportunities and the minimum wage was a living wage, those with low education levels would be far less likely to be in poverty, Which, of course, Bill completely overlooks.

                • Sacha …
                  30 January 2018 at 12:14 pm

                  Announced minimum wage increases partly address ‘overall’ poverty as you say. Labour’s election strategy was not to go too far left with their first term promises. More voters respond to children than adults suffering, sadly.

                • Rosemary McDonald …
                  30 January 2018 at 12:28 pm

                  “English implied (when pointing to the removal of other targets) lack of education as one of the reasons why people are in poverty. However, if there were more employment opportunities and the minimum wage was a living wage, those with low education levels would be far less likely to be in poverty, Which, of course, Bill completely overlooks.”

                  It was around about that stage in his chat on Natrad this morning that I stomped out doing a fairly good impression of….

        • Louis 2.1.1.2
          30 January 2018 at 8:39 am

          “Jacinda Ardern wants Bill English’s backing for the Government’s new child poverty legislation.”

          http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/12/govt-asks-national-for-child-poverty-law-support.html

          “English was reluctant to say whether National will back the Government’s legislation but says Labour’s unlikely to have the cash it needs to deal with the problem long term.”

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99745492/National-says-raising-incomes-is-what-addresses-child-poverty-in-the-long-term

          I guess we have his answer, which is very hypocritical to say the least.

          Govt poverty target ‘makes no sense
          – Bill English

          http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/01/govt-poverty-target-makes-no-sense-bill-english.html

          • The Chairman 2.1.1.2.1
            30 January 2018 at 9:06 am

            Thanks, Louis. That was the reaching out I was referring to Ad above.

          • Ad 2.1.1.2.2
            30 January 2018 at 9:18 am

            What you’d expect when National haven’t been consulted on the bills’ drafting and haven’t seen it.

            They haven’t said no, but Labour have chosen to do the usual.

            Sad😁

            • red-blooded 2.1.1.2.2.1
              30 January 2018 at 4:55 pm

              Presumably you’ve now seen that English was invited to be briefed well before Christmas. He didn’t take up the offer. Hard to have an input when you don’t engage.

              • NZJester …
                30 January 2018 at 7:20 pm

                Apparently, Labour even sent him a draft of their plans to look over in early December to comment on. So him saying he had not seen the draft to be able to comment on it was his own fault. He has had it in his possession for at least a month and a half.

        • Cinny 2.1.1.3
          30 January 2018 at 9:10 am

          Am totally hearing where you are coming from and agree with you Chairman. But sadly kids can’t change their poverty easily, especially babies, toddlers and primary school age children.

          So looking forward to todays announcement, our new government brings hope for many.

          • The Chairman 2.1.1.3.1
            30 January 2018 at 10:55 am

            I can only assume if you hear and agree with me you’ll also share in my disappointment that this isn’t being extended to cover all in poverty.

            It’s another policy shortfall from Labour.

            They’ve yet to be in power for a hundred days, yet these policy shortfalls of Labour are quickly adding up. TPP, minimum wage, cannabis reform, ban on foreign property investment etc, and now this.

            If Labour continue on like this they risk voter disappointment outshining the small gains made.

            In a time when much is required to be done, Labour are becoming known as the party of baby steps. Too little too late.

            • Cinny 2.1.1.3.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 11:08 am

              Winter energy payment will help the oldies and beneficiaries so much, thanks to the new government.

              A year free tertiary education will help youth re poverty.

              I wouldn’t be calling them out on cannabis law reform, that’s coming today and tomorrow, go for it Chloe.

              I doubt anyone is bumming out that changes are being made on foreign ownership, apart from foreigners.

              TPP has changed so so much, the things many were worried about seem to have been taken care of, prior government said it couldn’t change it, turns out they didn’t even try.

              We’ve had a new government after nine long hard years for only 100 days, during which we’ve had a summer break.

              nat’s are looking for holes instead of solutions, it’s almost like they see poverty as a competition, that’s what really fucks me off. Can’t even work with others to help solve the problem, unless it’s on their terms, selfish competitive thinking which solves nada.

              Kids come first, it’s not like a toddler can get out there and find a part time job. Looking forward to todays announcements, loving the new government.

              • The Chairman …
                30 January 2018 at 11:57 am

                With the deficits many in poverty face, winter energy payments are a nice gesture but will provide little help. Too little.

                A year free tertiary education is being blamed for an influx of students adding to rental pressure, thus higher rents in student towns.

                Moreover, it’s far from free education. So again, too little

                The cannabis reform being voted upon today can certainly be called out for falling far too short. And is.

                The changes to foreign ownership exempts far too many foreign investors and is limited to existing houses, hence it’s not only foreign investors impacted that are bummed. This is one of those policies that Labour have managed to disappoint both sides.

                While the TPP has had some changes, for a number, those changes don’t go far enough. Hence, the widespread disappointment with Labour when they announced they would support it.

                We have a health crisis, a housing crisis etc and yet this lot were happy to take a Christmas break? I would have expected them to put their break on hold and deal to the crisis first.

                As for the Nats, we know they are useless, but that doesn’t excuse Labours shortcomings.

                As for you loving the new government despite it’s shortcomings, well some are easy to please. I expect them to do a lot better, hence don’t accept this lowering of the bar that you’re demonstrating. It’s counterproductive in getting them to lift their game, which I assume you would also love them to do.

                • Cinny …
                  30 January 2018 at 2:05 pm

                  Jacinda is backing the Greens cannabis bill.

                  I’m not expecting everything at once, certainly not in the first 100 days after nine years of the nats. But I’m seeing progress, of course with any changes there will also be stumbling blocks.

                  I think they are doing OK at present, there’s always room for improvement, but I’m happy to wait a bit longer before asking them to lift their game. I think bills a gone burger, he hasn’t lifted his game in decades.

                  At a guess I’d say most of those in the new government spent a good portion of their holidays working/reading/engaging with the public/researching etc.

                  Cup half full and all that 🙂

                  • JanM …
                    30 January 2018 at 8:24 pm

                    Cup half full and all that 🙂 – yes – so agree Cinny. Hopefully we have at least another 9 years to fill the cup to the brim!! 🙂

        • alwyn 2.1.1.4
          30 January 2018 at 11:38 am

          “After all, a less equal society is a less prosperous society”.

          Would you care to explain exactly what you mean by this statement?
          The usual measure of equality is the Gini Coefficient. Albania has a GDP/capita (PPP) of $12,500. It has a Gini coefficient of 0.29.
          The USA has equivalent figures of $59,500 and 0.45.
          Thus Albania is more “equal” than the USA.
          Are you seriously trying to tell us that Albania is more “prosperous” than the USA?

          The poverty level is a purely relative thing. It is generally determined by calculating whether someone has an income that is less than some percentage of the average income for the country.
          If you had a country where the entire population had an income below about $700/year, which the World Bank considers to be the absolute poverty level, but which had a Gini coefficient of 0 then by the “poverty measures” we use in New Zealand there would be no-one in poverty as we use a relative figure. If everyone has the same income then there is no-one in poverty as we calculate the term.

      • Louis 2.1.2
        30 January 2018 at 8:29 am

        I’m not surprised at the lack of engagement, given National’s attitude, particularly on child poverty, which they denied until the election campaign.

        • Ad 2.1.2.1
          30 January 2018 at 8:35 am

          The trick in government is to actually achieve something enduring.

          I sure didn’t vote for National this election, but poverty can only be eradicated over multiple parliamentary terms.

          • McFlock 2.1.2.1.1
            30 January 2018 at 1:13 pm

            But national don’t care about poverty.

            So the only solution is to have lab/grn in govt for multiple terms.

            • AB 2.1.2.1.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 7:40 pm

              Yep – and make poverty as unthinkable as, say, burning witches. These are deliberate ethical choices after all.

        • Cinny 2.1.2.2
          30 January 2018 at 8:44 am

          +1 Louis

          If I remember correctly while the nats were in power they refused to take part in cross party groups to tackle child poverty, such was their selfishness and egomania.

          • Anne 2.1.2.2.1
            30 January 2018 at 9:10 am

            That is correct Cinny. So, its no wonder the government has been reluctant (if, indeed they have) to be too accommodating with National. Trust is a key element in any negotiation and on this issue National didn’t exactly endear themselves to the cause.

          • Chuck 2.1.2.2.2
            30 January 2018 at 3:28 pm

            Not quite the same…and there is every chance that Labour would have done the same thing if they were in Government at the time.

            A/ Opposition parties ask the Government to participate in cross-party group…

            B/ Government asks for the opposition to participate in cross-party group…

            See the difference?

            One can be seen as weak (A) while the other being inclusive and strong (B).

            You may not agree, but its politics that all sides play.

        • Grantoc 2.1.2.3
          30 January 2018 at 9:10 am

          “which they denied until the election campaign”

          This is patently incorrect. English and other senior National cabinet ministers had put considerable effort into understanding and developing programmes to combat child poverty.

          Importantly they thought carefully about how to measure the effectiveness of these programmes in terms of reducing child poverty. Measurement of success is an essential component of such programmes.

          Labour would have benefited from taking the initiative to discuss National’s approach to eliminating child poverty; and would have increased the prospect of a cross party agreement on the matter.

          • Ad 2.1.2.3.1
            30 January 2018 at 9:18 am

            +100

          • Louis 2.1.2.3.2
            30 January 2018 at 9:32 am

            Paula Bennett disputes UNICEF poverty report

            http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/06/paula-bennett-disputes-unicef-poverty-report.html

            “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has been accused of being flippant about child poverty by saying measuring poverty was difficult because children moved in and out of poverty on a daily or weekly basis.”

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827507

            11 April 2013

            ” Mr Speaker, there is not a government measure for poverty.. [laughs]… gosh… [laughs]”

            • greywarshark 2.1.2.3.2.1
              30 January 2018 at 9:50 am

              Gosh, this large person bounces up and down trumpeting ‘There is not a government measure for poverty’ laughs derisively at Jacinda Ardern.

              Says it all about Gnashional and their dismissive attitude to everything that matters to the ordinary citizen of NZ.

              • james …
                30 January 2018 at 10:00 am

                “Gosh, this large person bounces ”

                Why do people like you think its OK to attack a woman’s weight / size.

                • Cinny …
                  30 January 2018 at 11:12 am

                  bouncing has nothing to do with weight, bouncing is about being excited or hypo. JS… and paula knows she is large and is doing something about it, so i can’t see the offense in Greys comment.

                  “bounce up and down
                  To hop up and down. The kids started bouncing up and down when they heard school was closed for the day.”

                  But hey good try at changing the narrative James

                  • adam …
                    30 January 2018 at 11:21 am

                    james got nothing but a bunch of amoral tory scum he supports, so faux moral crisis are his speciality.

                • greywarshark …
                  30 January 2018 at 11:24 am

                  I did it just to draw you out from under your stone James, you hypocrite.

                  And why can’t people accept that being fat is something okay. Why if someone chooses to toss off a remark the response is just ‘So’? There is no reason to feel sorry and protective of fat people, except that we dislike it and that is not our right to pass judgment on being fat. Accept it, and accept the occasional rude remark and self-accept and just ride above it is the healthy way to deal with attitudes. What is unhealthy is when you are prevented from walking far as I am because I am both fat and so unfit.

                  The terrific detective in Reginald Hill’s detective novels, Andy played by Warren somebody on TV in the Dalziel and Pascoe series was nicknamed the Fat Bastard. He was great as a character, a great person and annoying and unreasonable at times, but still liked because of his personal attributes.

                  • james …
                    30 January 2018 at 6:08 pm

                    “I did it just to draw you out from under your stone James, you hypocrite”

                    No – you body shame on your own – you own it.

            • Cinny 2.1.2.3.2.2
              30 January 2018 at 11:28 am

              nat’s aren’t into cross party task forces and groups to tackle any of NZ’s major problems, it’s either their way or no way, another reason am so pleased about a change of government

              the nats didn’t wan’t to take part in a cross party group tackling domestic violence and child abuse either

              did paula bring down the rates of domestic violence and child abuse since this defensive rant from 2014?

          • Drowsy M. Kram 2.1.2.3.3
            30 January 2018 at 11:06 am

            At what stage of their 9-year period of ‘governance’ did National roll out these “programmes to combat child poverty”?

            Doubt we will have to wait that long to see that child poverty is more of a priority for the current Labour-led government than it ever was for National.

          • KJT 2.1.2.3.4
            30 January 2018 at 6:04 pm

            National’s approach, as usual was to pretend to do something, while their overall policies made the problem worse.

        • cleangreen 2.1.2.4
          30 January 2018 at 6:31 pm

          100% correct Louis.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3
        30 January 2018 at 1:33 pm

        To me the big disappointment is the government has chosen not to engage closely with National on the child poverty legislation.

        Labour wrote National a letter and asked for feedback and consultation.

        Which National then ignored.

        Really, you should know better than to believe anything that National says.

        • You_Fool 2.1.3.1
          30 January 2018 at 3:54 pm

          Better yet, ignored and then tried to claim cheap political points off the idea they hadn’t been briefed. I bet there is some surprise in the NAct camp that the media actually did some fact checking on this one…

          • Chuck 2.1.3.1.1
            30 January 2018 at 4:06 pm

            “Better yet, ignored and then tried to claim cheap political points off the idea they hadn’t been briefed.”

            No English did not ignore it…he (and his COS) simply fucked up and forgot.

            Arderns office would have emailed the letter to the media minutes after English said he had no contact with Arderns office.

            It was sloppy from English, the letter was a half-hearted attempt by Ardern to be inclusive. But well played by Labour on this one.

            • Louis 2.1.3.1.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 5:29 pm

              I dont believe that the letter was a “half-hearted attempt by Ardern to be inclusive” at all. Quite the opposite.

            • cleangreen 2.1.3.1.1.2
              30 January 2018 at 6:32 pm

              Yes it shows dishonesty is well alive in the national camp.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3.1.1.3
              30 January 2018 at 6:38 pm

              the letter was a half-hearted attempt by Ardern to be inclusive.

              [Citation Needed]

              But don’t bother. We know you can’t provide any proof of Labour being half-hearted about it which means that you’re lying.

              It also means that you’re being defamatory.

              • Chuck …
                30 January 2018 at 7:08 pm

                “Ardern denied Labour had not made a genuine effort to engage National, saying she had provided details of the bill more than a month before it was due to be released.”

                “English’s response was to accept a briefing for the new year and urge Ardern to retain the public service targets, saying they had created a “step change” in the way the public service worked.”

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11984753

                Providing “details” is not engaging in genuine dialog on the matter English raised before putting the public service targets in the bin.

                I am not saying National would not have done something similar if the shoe was on the other foot.

                So get over it DTB! and enjoy the moment…

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  30 January 2018 at 7:34 pm

                  Sure, get over the fact that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is represented by lying cowardly scum who shit on people as a perfect representation of everything they believe in.

                  Can you explain how you manage to get over it?

                  • Chuck …
                    30 January 2018 at 8:40 pm

                    “Can you explain how you manage to get over it?”

                    We are poles apart in our ideology OAB, Bill English could cure cancer and you would still see him as scum.

                    I am prepared to see how this Government delivers on all its hype and promises…but they too play the game of politics and talk is cheap.

                    Ideally, we would have true cross-party engagement on issues like this. Both sides are to blame.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      30 January 2018 at 10:45 pm

                      We are poles apart in our ideology OAB, Bill English could cure cancer and you would still see him as scum.

                      But what he’d actually do would be to prevent a cure from being developed, especially if it prevented profits for big business, by saying that it cost too much while giving tax cuts to rich people.

                      …but they too play the game of politics and talk is cheap.

                      No they don’t. They especially don’t continuously lie the way that National does.

                      Dirty Politics was about the corrupt actions of National.

                      Ideally, we would have true cross-party engagement on issues like this.

                      Ideally our representatives would be representing the majority of people and what the people think should happen but instead most of them are more concerned with what the rich and powerful want.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 January 2018 at 6:01 am

                      All English has to do is to stop telling lies. But so long as people like you keep making excuses for him, and enabling him with your support, he won’t.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  30 January 2018 at 10:41 pm

                  She provided details of the bill including when it would be put before parliament for a vote and asked for National to contribute and the lazy schmucks in National decided not to do anything and are now lying to cover their arse.

    • patricia bremner 2.2
      30 January 2018 at 5:14 pm

      “Softly Softly catchee monkey.” Get this over the line and the framework is in place for sustainable anti poverty targets. It will then be simple to add sectors.

      Bill lied!!

      • Louis 2.2.1
        30 January 2018 at 5:31 pm

        +1 Patricia

        • cleangreen 2.2.1.1
          30 January 2018 at 6:36 pm

          Spot on Patricia,

          Have to agree 100% Labour are doing the slow walk whiel ensuring the issues are fully considered correctly.

          “Softly softly catchee monkey” tactfully done by labour.

          National can’t see this can they?

  3. Doogs 3
    30 January 2018 at 9:13 am

    Blinglish at it again on Morning Report. The interviewer gave him enough rope and he came close to hanging himself. Oh, the absolute fucking irony of an ex Natzi PM banging on about things his government ignored or denied until they were up for re-election – not.

    He has the temerity to criticise the coalition for doing some work in the areas of child poverty, poor or unavailable housing, wage equity, poverty in general, when his crew spend all their PR energies telling us they were doing something when they weren’t.

    Can you see the huge gap in credibility between denying problems then saying what you’re doing about it? Un-bloody-believable! And then . . popping up now to criticise people who ARE doing something about the issues.

    They live in an alternative world, not a place i’d like to inhabit.

    • james 3.1
      30 January 2018 at 10:01 am

      Stop reading your rantings once you start using terms like “Natzi PM”.

      Just shows you are incapable of reasoned thought or objectivity.

      • Doogs 3.1.1
        30 January 2018 at 10:14 am

        OK James, have been objectively watching this nasty nats party slowly devalue just about everything in this country for 9 years . . . oh, sorry, not everything. What’s still good, great even? Big business, banks, rip-off local councils, anything where money flows upwards and individuals barely tread water in their fight to just stay afloat.

        Noticed anything like that happening? Well, you wouldn’t. It took the labia party, NZ lost and the groan party to do something for everyman. Feel better now?

        • cleangreen 3.1.1.1
          30 January 2018 at 6:39 pm

          Doogs

          These National supporters cant take those national rose coloured sunglasses off yet.

          They may wake when winter comes, and they don’t need these sunglasses so they might see the truth then; maybe or not.

    • Stuart Munro 3.2
      30 January 2018 at 10:13 am

      Bill is late to the party. His child poverty target only happened when Gower handed it to him in the debates — he has no credibility on the issue whatsoever.

  4. greywarshark 4
    30 January 2018 at 9:46 am

    Manuka honey. Government not supporting our family businesses. Quite perverse I consider.

    09:05 Beekeepers welcome MPI U-turn on Manuka honey
    NZ Beekeeping was set to take MPI to the High Court, starting today, over its proposed export standard on the premium honey. The industry group maintained that the standard would have meant more than 100 million dollars a year in export products could no longer be called manuka honey, and would have caused major damage to the rural economy. Yesterday, MPI agreed not to change the definition and NZ Beekeeping withdrew the legal action. Kathryn talks with NZ Beekeeping president Russell Berry and spokesperson for the UMF Honey Associaton John Rawcliffe.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018629923/beekeepers-welcome-mpi-u-turn-on-manuka-honey

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100945501/beekeepers-take-mpi-to-high-court-over-mnuka-honey-standard

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/100976518/mpis-definition-of-mnuka-honey-changed-on-eve-of-legal-challenge-from-beekeepers

    https://www.mpi.govt.nz/growing-and-harvesting/honey-and-bees/manuka-honey/

    http://www.airborne.co.nz/links.shtml

    Comvita very interested in this business.
    https://www.comvita.co.nz/about-us
    https://www.comvita.co.nz/store/investor-centre
    https://www.comvita.co.nz/store/comvitanz/board-of-directors
    https://www.comvita.co.nz/store/comvitanz/leadership-team

  5. Bill 5
    30 January 2018 at 10:12 am

    I was at a meeting last night where government ministers spoke.

    One stated and repeated that they had “a pollyannish” view of the future: that AGW presented NZ with opportunities. And they had no awareness that government policies around AGW are predicated on information that, at a very fundamental level, lacks scientific credibility.

    So I’m a bit bummed out today.

    On the bright side, although the meeting was attended by a large set of people who at first glance might be said to be aging and middle class, the only spontaneous applause of the night was for audience members who threw down the gauntlet and challenged the idea that current economic arrangements should be protected or preserved.

  6. indiana 6
    30 January 2018 at 11:02 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11981063

    “The valuation of the Hapua St house – home to the same tenant for 37 years”

    Wow! 37 years in a state house, and here I though the purpose of the welfare system was to help people when they needed it, not for a lifetime. No wonder we don’t have enough state housing, people never seem to leave.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1
      30 January 2018 at 11:15 am

      Wow, the envy is palpable!

      The 81-year old said if he had a choice he wouldn’t live there.

      • indiana 6.1.1
        30 January 2018 at 11:22 am

        37 years ago he was 44 when he may have hit hard times, it was also 1981 before the famous NZ stock market crash, before we had child poverty, before we had a housing crisis, before we even knew what climate change was – I’m not sure what I’m meant to be envious about.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 6.1.1.1
          30 January 2018 at 11:23 am

          I can admit to being slightly envious of someone who has benefited from state-subsidised housing for 37 years. You’re either in denial, or considerably richer than me…

        • greywarshark 6.1.1.2
          30 January 2018 at 11:39 am

          Indiana
          You are always light on deep thought. You said state housing was to ‘help people when they need it’. Obviously he did need it. The ‘social welfare’ system has for decades been pushing people out of state housing so if they couldn’t push him out, there was something preventing that.

          • indiana 6.1.1.2.1
            30 January 2018 at 11:46 am

            Fair call. Is it also fair for State Hosing to relocate this person to a another state house (apparently there are 1411 empty state homes) , so they could sell the property to release its value to increase the state housing stock?

            • McFlock 6.1.1.2.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 1:42 pm

              No. Because that’s just a distraction from the fact that policy decisions at the government level have cut 5000 houses off the HNZ stock over the last ten years or so.

              One house sale does fuck all compared to a government that actually wants to house people.

            • greywarshark 6.1.1.2.1.2
              30 January 2018 at 3:52 pm

              Indiana
              Not a fair call. First you have a go at tenant for needing a state house for more than a set period of time. Then you turn around and criticise gummint for the way they have managed housing stock?

              I wonder – do you care about anything? You seem to just want something to be negative about to prod TS to say something. Does that make you feel important, very wise and objective about the hoi polloi? Ultimately it would be good at the end of a discussion to feel that we had seen a better way of doing something rather than look for someone or thing to fault. Do you agree?

        • dv 6.1.1.3
          30 January 2018 at 11:41 am

          I remember the Cub of Rome report in the early 70s, which talked about climate change.

        • veutoviper 6.1.1.4
          30 January 2018 at 12:10 pm

          Here I am again suggesting that you actually read something before hitting your keyboard/phone. I really don’t know whether you have actual reading problems or are naturally obtuse – or deliberately so.

          The Herald article states:

          The artist had moved into the home 37 years ago with his wife, who was unwell. She died not long after they moved in.

          The man has watched as houses around him were built and the tiny road become increasingly clogged with parked cars.

          He said if he had a choice he wouldn’t live there – the area had become too busy for his liking.

          But he’s made it home, carpeting the floors, fixing the walls, tending to the garden and filling the humble lounge with his array of paintings and carvings.

          If you look at the photo of the house itself, there is a long ramp up to a small deck with access into the house via french doors – suggesting wheelchair access. Whether that was for his wife or himself (or both) is unclear.

          If he has longterm/permanent mobility and/or other disabilities requiring this type of access and other modifications inside the house, then it makes sense that he has been allowed to remained in the house since his wife’s death. Otherwise, as greywarshark has pointed out, he would probably have been moved out years ago.

    • adam 6.2
      30 January 2018 at 11:18 am

      No mention of the 667 empty properties, nor the 1411 state homes were sitting empty. You instead attack one individual to score points.

      What a amoral individual you are indiana, maybe you want to have a we look at yourself as an individual, and ask why you want to pick on people rather than offer solutions or look at the bigger picture.

    • Gabby 6.3
      30 January 2018 at 2:11 pm

      He’s added a lot of value to that house hasn’t he undie.

    • Louis 6.4
      30 January 2018 at 5:24 pm

      Wasn’t the philosophy behind state housing that it was a roof over people’s head for life?

    • cleangreen 6.5
      30 January 2018 at 6:44 pm

      Indiana;

      Bloody obvious you didn’t grow up in our time here in a NZ who guaranteed everyone a home under “state housing” in the 1950’s that was how things were here then.

      Many never owned there own home so this was quite common back then.

  7. Kevin 7
    30 January 2018 at 11:06 am

    Restricting debate because you do not agree with a particular aspect of that debate is bullshit.

    How can you have a debate about a topic unless all aspects of that topic are there to be argued for or against?

    Easiest way is just don’t reply to people who’s views you disagree with.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • weka 7.1
      30 January 2018 at 11:26 am

      “Easiest way is just don’t reply to people who’s views you disagree with.”

      It’s still a derail if I don’t reply but the thread fills up with stupidity.

      We’ve had debates with denialists ad nauseum (and some of the other authors still let that happen under their posts). The topic for debate under *this thread isn’t whether climate change is real or not (nor whether it’s too late to do anything or not). TS isn’t a free for all, and it’s quite normal for off-topic comments to be moved off thread. I just like to save myself the bother by making the boundaries clear up front.

      You can hash it out in Open Mike if you want.

  8. Andre 8
    30 January 2018 at 11:07 am

    News on the nuclear energy front – the US Nuclear Regulatory Commision has approved a small modular reactor design as being “walk-away safe”, ie it won’t release radiation or melt down even with total loss of control in any kind of natural disaster.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-make-a-nuclear-reactor-that-wont-melt-down/#488f7c2b5b7e

    https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/10128-nrc-approves-key-safety-aspect-nuscales-small-modular-reactor-design/

    New Zealand has such abundant natural renewable energy resources that I can’t see something like this ever getting installed on land here. But a 50MW power output is ideal for a large ship. So I think we need to get used to the idea that a zero-carbon future will include ships powered by reactors like this in our harbours. If a worldwide carbon price gets imposed, that future might come at us very quickly.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      30 January 2018 at 1:45 pm

      But a 50MW power output is ideal for a large ship. So I think we need to get used to the idea that a zero-carbon future will include ships powered by reactors like this in our harbours.

      That’s pretty much what I’ve been thinking for the last few years.

      • KJT 8.1.1
        30 January 2018 at 8:45 pm

        As part of the original “Nuclear weapons free” movement we were never opposed to the safe future use of nuclear technology if/when it became available.
        It was always about weapons.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.2
      31 January 2018 at 12:03 am

      Sounds interesting, I think nuclear power could be great if the current problems can be overcome. That reactor looks like a great step for safety. The waste problem still remains I suspect.

  9. AsleepWhileWalking 9
    30 January 2018 at 11:47 am

    uThis might get me banned although not denial.

    We have scientific proof if weather modification. It would be nice to think that the TPPA would permit us to legislate a against more aluminum being dumped into our sky.

    NZ needs to move on this in what would be a world first.

    We also must implement grey water as part of all new builds and retrofit as soon as possible.

    I feel like I’m the only one taking about this but hope just one of you will catch on. I don’t even read replies because I’m certain they will just attack me/my post whatever.

    GeoEngineering is a reality. Only part of the issue but it has to stop. http://geoengineeringwatch.org

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • weka 9.1
      30 January 2018 at 12:16 pm

      won’t get you banned, but it obviously likely to cause a derail if people react to it, so moving it to OM.

    • One Two 9.2
      30 January 2018 at 10:25 pm

      Weapons development and advancement…has a long and ongoing record…that is known about…

      It would be a hardy soul who could believe weather modification was not occurring in present time…

      Highly probable to have been going on for many decades … minimum…

  11. Rosemary McDonald 11
    30 January 2018 at 12:55 pm

    No need for panic!!!

    No need for concern.

    The god botherers are on the case!!!

    All will be well (in their world) when that fella Jesus is returned to his rightful position in the House.

    ”
    henry cooke
    ✔
    @henrycooke
    About 250 folks on Parliament lawn looking to keep mentions of Jesus in the Parliamentary Prayer
    12:01 PM – Jan 30, 2018
    7 7 Replies Retweets 1 1 like
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    Hi everyone, I’m out on the forecourt of Parliament where about 300 or so Christians are tallying in an attempt to keep mentions of Jesus in the Parliamentary prayer. Speaker Trevor Mallard has yet to make a decision on this but will obviously have to make one by 2pm when the House opens for the first time this year.
    Spokesman Ross Smith told me he and a delegation met with the Speaker just before Christmas and he hasn’t heard from them since then. He’s here praying for all MPs and the new Government, and is still hopeful Jesus will stay in the prayer. Even if he doesn’t however Smith says this rally – which is quite impressively staged – will have been worth it.”

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/100991126/live-political-year-starts-with-vote-on-medicinal-cannabis-bill

    hallelujah!!!

  12. Sam 12
    30 January 2018 at 2:15 pm

    Bullshit A is for________. If the smelter dosnt get the volume to justify 14,000kwh at about 5 cents per kWh. The smelter will go the way of John Keys political career.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    [Antoine said >>You can’t just ‘shut down the smelter until the crisis is over’, it doesn’t work like that.<<

    afaik Antoine is correct – you can't shut down Tiwai for a period of time and then start it up again. Once you shut it down, that's it (too expensive to restart I think).

    But that could have sorted out amongst adults in the original thread. You appear intent on behaving like a child. You've been warned about being abusive in the past (only a few days ago) and now you've been stupid enough to do that shit under one of my posts and have my too hot an afternoon, irritated at having to go look things up, moderator attention. I hope I have yours. You are now warned that if you continue to post pointless personal abuse you will be banned (in part for shitstirring, but also for wasting moderator time). Any questions, feel free to ask – weka]

  13. mary_a 13
    30 January 2018 at 2:43 pm

    Anyone with a gram of compassion in their being would be voting in favour of the medicinal cannabis bill.

    Personally I’d prefer decriminalisation of cannabis altogether. However if the present bill becomes law, then that’s progress in the right direction.

    #I’m with Chloe.

    • james 13.1
      30 January 2018 at 6:11 pm

      The last green member with a #I’m with…. hashtag didnt end too well.

      • mary_a 13.1.1
        30 January 2018 at 8:05 pm

        @ James 13.1) … I know you are referring to Meteria Turei, which has nothing to do with the topic. Or have I missed something along the way? So please explain the connection between Meteria and Chloe Swarbrick’s medicinal cannabis bill for me please?

    • One Two 13.2
      30 January 2018 at 6:36 pm

      Chloe, would not have been author of the bill…

      • mary_a 13.2.1
        30 January 2018 at 7:58 pm

        Really @ One Two (13.2)? Funny that, because I received an email from Chloe Swarbrick thanking me for my support for “her” bill, as no doubt did many other supporters! Sent 6.26pm this evening, Tuesday 30 January 2018!

        • One Two 13.2.1.1
          30 January 2018 at 10:13 pm

          Mary_a

          Receiving an email of thanks does not prove being author the bill…I doubt she authored the email…

          Nothing in Chloes background indicates she could have authored the medical weed bill…

          • McFlock 13.2.1.1.1
            30 January 2018 at 10:24 pm

            Nothing in your comments indicates you know a damned thing about her background, so there’s that, too.

            But if the bill was written by someone other than her, the authors or whomever thought she was best placed out of all the coalition MPs to sponsor it.

            Maybe they knew more about her background than you do?

            • One Two 13.2.1.1.1.1
              30 January 2018 at 10:38 pm

              Her background is matter of public record…seemingly you’ve not thought through your response, McFlock

              Of course Chloe is the sponsor….and of the available options…an understandable one…

              But she didn’t author the bill without considerable assistance…if she was involved at all…

              The levels of misplaced ‘belief’ on this site, are substantial…

              Would give you more credit…although you’ve essentially agreed with my position….

              • McFlock …
                30 January 2018 at 10:52 pm

                You don’t have a fucking position. What, you think that her public record is the same as her academic record or lists of interests? Now you’ve gone from “wouldn’t have authored” (which means no involvement in its construction) to “without considerable assistance”.

                But my point is that it doesn’t fucking matter. She’s the one putting her name and reputation behind it. She’s the one making the effort. She’s the one saying the government bill doesn’t go far enough. And you still want to take a dump on that because it might not have been crafted by a single MP with no contribution from others.

                Whatever. It’s still probably more than you’ve ever done.

                • One Two …
                  30 January 2018 at 11:24 pm

                  Put a curfew on yourself because your responses are a garbled mess…

                  My position has been stated. Swarbrick did not author the bill…

                  You’re authoring credits are more credible…

                  As for the final sentence…

                  Come on man…that’s awful…

      • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.2
        30 January 2018 at 8:23 pm

        Oh I don’t know about that…

        She has a clue, after all…

        As opposed to people who have zero clue, that is…

        …and put ellipses at the end of all their comments as though they have something substantive to say…

        …

        …

        Eh…

    • veutoviper 13.3
      31 January 2018 at 11:31 am

      mary_a, I am going to ignore the others playing ‘I am more ignorant than you’ with each other in this thread, but here is some background on the Bill now under Chloe’s name.

      The proposed Bill authored by Julie Anne Genter was originally put into the Member’s Bill ballot and drawn out of the ballot in June 2017 but not put before the House for 1st Reading before the House rose for the General Election.

      Here is a link to the Parliamentary website on the proposed Bill and its history.
      https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-digests/document/51PLLaw25061/misuse-of-drugs-medicinal-cannabis-and-other-matters

      Once the new Government was formed, Julie Anne Genter could no longer lead the Bill as she is now Minister of Women (and Associate Minister of Health and of Transport) and Ministers cannot put forward Member’s Bills. So on becoming a Minister, JA Genter had to hand this Bill over to another Green Party MP who was not a Minister – hence Chloe Swarbrick now leading it.

      There were a lot of media articles on this before Christmas but here is a link to an excellent article on the Bill on a website I visited for the first time this morning.

      I was pleasantly surprised to find it this site one by young people (Kiwis) for young people. I will be keeping an eye on this site as this is the sort of thing we need to get youth more involved ( but being an old skeptic I want to find out a little more about its background etc).

      http://tearaway.co.nz/28217-2/

  14. eco maori 14
    30 January 2018 at 3:21 pm

    Nice song Thane from the Rock radio Ka pai

  16. eco maori 16
    30 January 2018 at 7:45 pm

    The Art of War states that you should know your adversaries better than you know yourself. This is why the USA spies on everyone on Papatuanukue yes everyone
    The USA is using us to spy on the rest of the World and everyone in NZ
    Here is a link to back my consenrns
    NZ ‘spying’ for Trump

    11 min ago
    Protesters outside a government spy base have called for New Zealand to stop “working for Trump”.

    PS keep the tinfoil for your barbecue boys K. Ana to kai

  17. eco maori 17
    30 January 2018 at 7:52 pm

    I have decided not to write about the sandflys as it a waste of my precious time. I will write about them when I need to check there dumb moves.
    Ana to kai here is the link I tryed to post

    NZ ‘spying’ for Trump

    11 min ago
    Protesters outside a government spy base have called for New Zealand to stop “working for Trump”.

    • eco maori 17.1
      30 January 2018 at 8:17 pm

      Some things wrong with this device I will try a new one or trumps tentacles have reached to block that story