Open mike 22/06/2014

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 am, June 22nd, 2014 - 323 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmike 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 …

323 comments on “Open mike 22/06/2014 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    22 June 2014 at 7:19 am

    So it’s now looking like Murray Mc Cully will stand aside for Colin Craig in East Coast Bays.

    …. if it looks like Nats aren’t doing so well in the polls in coming weeks. Wonder how the locals will take that?

    • phillip ure 1.1
      22 June 2014 at 7:26 am

      and folks in bennetts’ old/abandoned seat are asking..

      ..since her departure:..

      ..’where have all the ladders gone..?’

      • Clemgeopin 1.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 12:54 pm

        There are now two types of ladders:
        The gold plated ones used exclusively for the welfare of the rich and the powerful.
        The rickety ramshackle ones grudgingly used for the rest.

    • David H 1.2
      22 June 2014 at 9:19 am

      Well this clusterfuck should fix their polling problems.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089

      FFS can’t Labour get it’s shit sorted out? This STINKS to high heaven.

      • Fred 1.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 9:35 am

        Yep – right up there with $850,000 for Pledge Cards, and then changing the law to stop any prosecution.

      • Tom Jackson 1.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 9:42 am

        Can you explain why?

        As far as I know, nobody in the Labour party did anything like phone the police to warn them off prosecuting Liu for domestic violence, and no Labour member has a spouse involved with Liu’s company or anything like that. Where’s the pay for play?

        Unless there is some evidence of favouritism shown towards this man by Labour, what’s the actual story?

        • phillip ure 1.2.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 10:46 am

          “..Where’s the pay for play?..”

          short answer;..liu got citizenship etc..with ministers from both parties over-riding ministerial advice to not proceed with/grant liu citizenship..

          ..how is that for starters..?

          ..and i certainly am not arguing a minimising of what williamson got the boot for..

          ..the ‘actual story’ is the purchase of influence..by donors..from both parties..

          ..and the seemingly loose-as rule of mike williams as labour party president/bagman..

          ..that enough to be getting on with..?

          ..all this is doing is compounding the case for ending our politicians being able to be ‘bought’..

          ..and to have state-funding of political-campaigns..

          ..having after each election..this bunch of sweaty-individuals/corporates who have donated..waiting for their pay-offs..

          ..is a perversion/bastardisation of democracy..

          • Clemgeopin 1.2.2.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:04 pm

            Well said, Phil.
            State funded +Any donation of $1,000 plus (or may be even $100 plus) to be transparent and openly declared with no anonymity provision available.

        • Clemgeopin 1.2.2.2
          22 June 2014 at 11:58 am

          Maurice Williamson helped this character buy a house/batch next to his own and even said he does some house handyman repair work for him when this fellow goes off to china for a holiday. The immigration minister, Woodhouse said that he ‘personally went and visited this guy in his hotel/residence’ to get his suggestions for changes to the immigration laws! Can’t you see how unbecoming and dodgy for a government cabinet minister to do that! By the way, Key even went and opened his hotel. National has, as far as I have have read, declared only $22,000 from this man when National seems to be much closer to him.

          Both Labour and National should come clean about ALL the donations from this fellow and there aught to be a thorough investigations by the police or IRD or parliament or election commission about ALL the activities, dealings and behaviour of this individual.

          In my opinion, any donation of $1,000 or more from anyone or any group should be declared by all political parties. Better transparency is what is needed to keep NZ corruption free.

          • Clemgeopin 1.2.2.2.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:33 pm

            Some important questions need to be asked. Why has this Liu fellow made his statement now? What is his motive or agenda? Is his statement true or a lie? Where is his receipt? Has he been pressurised to issue this statement? By who? Why through a lawyer? Why no affidavit? Why is he not fronting up for a face to face interview by media? Why is he trying to damage the Labour party just before the coming elections? How much has he given to the National party? What favours has he received by the cabinet ministers and by this government? What dirty tricks is National playing behind the scenes? Lots of important questions need answers here.

      • xtasy 1.2.3
        22 June 2014 at 1:07 pm

        Well, having observed the recent developments, which are of course a well planned, well paced smear campaign coming from John Key and his underlings, the sad thing is, mud sticks. And the reality is this, John Key’s top drawer is not brimming full with harmful documents and info on Labour and that party’s MPs for no reason.

        The decades of adopting a “third way” form of neo-liberalism, thus with the capitalism we have now, the long time of flirting with big business, with rich donors, with wining and dining at high level functions, and with socialising with the top elite persons in society, this has not happened without Labour Members of Parliament, especially former Ministers, having compromised themselves. That is why Labour has lots credit, reputation, support in the traditional and otherwise usual voter base.

        All talk of returning to the roots, over recent years, has not been believed by many, and NOT so by me either!

        The rot sits deep, and there is much hidden, and sadly Key and his loyal muck-rakers got more than a handful of info at their hands, having worked in a calculated, strategic manner, they seem to have ample of it. Much of the complicit MSM serve his and the Nats’ requests, willingly, but they can do so, they have info that has some value to it.

        And such rich, wealthy Chinese business migrants, like Mr Liu, they will not take kindly to being accused, suspected, blamed and put into public disrepute by certain politicians, leaders or not, who come from parties that he once may have donated big to (by way of discrete trusts or in other forms), so they come back with a vengeance.

        That is what we are having now, Labour is screwed, this election is screwed, that is for Labour, the party is discredited now, make no damned doubt about it, it is HISTORY, unless a long, painful rejuvenation and reformation happens over a long time.

        I told you all months ago, repeatedly, and was lambasted by a fair few, Labour are “gonners”, there is an urgent and absolute need for a new, left or progressive party, that represents what Labour once stood for. The present lot do not deserve to continue sitting in Parliament, and ignoring the needs of the weakest and poorest out here. All their slogans ring hollow. What the f*** have you offered those on benefits in this election? Not much, to be honest, so go and tidy up your mess, and leave the main opposition to the Greens and others now, thank you!

        The result of Labour’s and I fear also David Cunliffe’s stuff ups, and hypocrisy, that is that John Key can now make political changes daily, serving the US interests, even defending drone strikes that inevitably will kill innocent, and many other disgusting things that will come.

        So we can thank Labour for all this crap that we will soon get under a third term of an equally shallow, hollow, hypocritical, lying and self serving National Party led government. I feel sorry for those on benefits, the full swing of more hate driven “reforms” will be on their way. Shame on you, Labour, shame on you!

      • Steve Withers 1.2.4
        22 June 2014 at 1:20 pm

        Labour’s OK. It’s foreign-owned, Nat-loving corporate media who have the problem.

        Too few media owners…and none of them Kiwis.

    • David H 1.3
      22 June 2014 at 3:03 pm

      So will East Coast Bays end up another Sheeple place just like Epsom.

    • srylands 1.4
      30 June 2014 at 2:49 pm

      “Wonder how the locals will take that?”

      With regret I would think. Sadly it is a consequence of the electoral system.

  2. phillip ure 2
    22 June 2014 at 7:24 am

    liu has signed a detailing-statement saying he gave $150,000 to the labour party..

    ..and maybe now the question needs to be asked..

    ..to who..?

    ..or will it be group-denial on the menu again today..?

    ..and where is the man who can answer all of these pressing-questions..?

    ..questions that wont just go away..

    ..where’s waldo/mike williams..?

    ..labours’ bag-man at that time..

    • karol 2.1
      22 June 2014 at 7:31 am

      phil, today we have something substantial to ask questions about.

      Like Edwards you seem keen to get the boot into Labour as often as possible, whether there’s any evidence or not.

      These are issues about Labour in the past in government. Nothing to do with Cunliffe, everything to do with the MO of soft neoliberal Labour.

      It’s really good to look at such things in the light of substantial evidence, and for Labour to clear out any remnants of neoliberal collusion.

      Rick Barker is history. Some of the likes of Mallard, King etc, seen taking Sky City hospitality at sports events…. time this kind of thing was relegated to history.

      And generally, we need more transparency around funding for poltiical parties, and measures to lower limits on the amounts of funding that come frome private donations.

      • phillip ure 2.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 7:45 am

        “..Like Edwards you seem keen to get the boot into Labour as often as possible, whether there’s any evidence or not..”

        seeing as you have made this claim against me..

        ..where is yr evidence/examples..?

        • karol 2.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 7:54 am

          Edwards in the article – Edwards, though, has a history of it. I don’t have time to look it up, because I’m about to get ready for work.

          You, yesterday and today, so keen to turn questions on Labour without any significant evidence, rather than look closely at what the NZ Herald articles are doing within the context of an up-coming election.

          • phillip ure 2.1.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 8:18 am

            “..You, yesterday and today, so keen to turn questions on Labour without any significant evidence, rather than look closely at what the NZ Herald articles are doing within the context of an up-coming election…”

            sigh..!..so..(i repeat)..that was why i was one of the first to call bullshit! on that liu-letter..?

            ..and to opine that cunnliffe should also call bullshit! on it…and front-foot it..?

            ..eh..?

            ..how does that all fit in with yr phils’-secret-plan/agenda narrative..?

            ..i’m calling bullshit! on you..

            ..and the longer you/labour twist and turn on this one..the longer it will drag on..

            ..can you seriously not see that basic/screamingly-obvious political-fact/imperative at play here..?

            ..and again..when will the man with all the answers from labours; p.o.v…

            ..former bag-man mike williams..when will he surface..?

            ..(we all know he isn’t media-shy..eh..?..so..?..)

            ..if there were no donations..why has he not popped up in the media to call liu out..?

            ..have you asked yrslf that question..?

            ..(instead of whipping up messanger-conspiracy-theories..eh…?)

            …where’s waldo/mike williams..?

            ..the man with all the answers..

            ..to all of our questions..

            • BM 2.1.1.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 8:25 am

              I agree, the HMS Labour is severely listing and if this isn’t sorted and put to bed within the next week or two then Labour is heading to the bottom taking the lefts hope of electoral victory with it.

              This is not the time to play the ostrich.

        • ianmac 2.1.1.2
          22 June 2014 at 10:22 am

          phillip you had no evidence at the time you were saying. And the money still does not add up.

          • phillip ure 2.1.1.2.1
            22 June 2014 at 10:39 am

            f.f.s..!..i was just repeating the news the herald had..

            ..w.t.f. is wrong with you..?

            ..demanding i/everyone(?) must have ‘all the evidence’ before saying anything..?

            ..you are being beyond fucken stupid..

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 11:10 am

              Yes, you are. Swallowing the Herald’s hackery. Read Geddis at Pundit then pull your head in. If you consider yourself more ethical than a Tory you’ll withdraw your remarks too.

              • phillip ure …
                22 June 2014 at 11:26 am

                didn’t geddis confirm an amount of that size..?

                ..how the fuck is that disproving lius’-donation-claim..?

                ..have you all lost yr powers of basic-thinking over this..?

                i-mac seems to equate reporting what the herald says..as then being the one who ‘has to prove’ the claims..?..(!)

                ..fucken barking..all of you…

                ..and what ‘remarks’ do i need to ‘withdraw’..?

                ..maybe a sample or two..?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  22 June 2014 at 11:36 am

                  It demonstrates that Mike Williams (just like everyone else) would be a fucking idiot to dance to the National Party’s tune, or do you think they’ll stop playing if you start dancing?

                  Go on, dance around until you’re exhausted: they’ve got more tunes lined up just as soon as you realise you’ve been had.

                • infused …
                  22 June 2014 at 12:14 pm

                  How quickly they turn on you phil. Hope that wakes you up.

                • bad12 …
                  22 June 2014 at 1:55 pm

                  Phillip, ”after the fact” is what you should be considering, remember we are talking here of events in 2007,

                  i said yesterday that i would ”unhappily” concede that Liu had donated a large sum, or large sums of money to the Labour Party when a shred of evidence was produced to that effect,

                  Lets examine this evidence shall we, ”a firm of lawyers, said to act for Liu gave an anonymous donation to Labour in 2007”,

                  Now in 2007 can you point to the Herald printing a story which says just that???,

                  That is the gist of this little sordid tale, not what is now known today in the year 2014, but, what was known in the year 2007 when the firm of lawyers made this donation on behalf of ”anonymous”…

            • ianmac 2.1.1.2.1.2
              22 June 2014 at 11:20 am

              phillip. You were stating it as fact and it is not fact even yet. The column in the Herald says $150,000 but does not back that up other than “Mr Liu said.” There is nothing in the returns to back it up. You might have just said “it was rumoured that Mr Liu…. ”
              Anyway the damage has been done because people will say either ho hum, or those tricky Labour people, or best maybe the whole system of clarity of donation be refined. Who knows?

              • weka …
                22 June 2014 at 11:46 am

                The Herald article is a fucking travesty.

                Oh, we talked to Liu, he signed a document that we’re not going to show you (never mind that he wouldn’t sign an avadavit) and he says x, y, z. We’re not going to give you any detail of that (like where and when the auction was), you’ll just have to take our word for it. Even better, we’ve got our tame ‘political commentator’ who says LABOUR ARE CORRUPT, and we’re going to print lots of his words without telling you where they came from, or why he should be trusted. Oh, and we’ll throw in some editorialising from our chief reporter, like how embarassing this is for Labour, because why have independent neutral reporting when you can do what the fuck you like and influence the election of a nation state?

    • karol 2.2
      22 June 2014 at 7:43 am

      Also, phil, we are in election mode. The NZ Herald is leading a strong smear campaign aimed to destabilise Labour and the Left, in order to undermine the chances of a left government forming. We shouldn’t let the Herald lead us around by the nose. We need to ask wider questions, not just related to the ones they have raised about Labour.

      The author, Bevan Hurley, says the NZ Herald has a signed statement by Liu from May 3. This must be the afidavit that lawyers were reported to be poring over a couple of days ago. Clearly it didn’t pass the legal tests, and was reported to lack documentation.

      So, we still need to see some documented evidence off the claims. How trustworthy are Liu’s signed statements?

      • Saarbo 2.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 7:54 am

        I agree that this is a concerted attack against Labour by NZH, but I also think Mike Williams should be fronting this, this is a governance issue and its important that Labour’s record keeping is maintained at the highest standard. Unfortunately I suspect that William’s and co have just replicated the National Party’s practices, and unfortunately this is the outcome…The NZ Herald attacks Labour. As a matter of Principle Labour should always, always operate at 100% transparency.
        This could turn out to be a load of bull shit, but obviously Labour’s record keeping isn’t at a level that we can say with 100% certainty that it is. The executive need to get things in order after September, I suspect that as National anticipated, this is the issue that will cost the Left the government in the next election. Its on Mike Williams head.

        • karol 2.2.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 8:01 am

          Cunliffe has responded well – distanced himself from past practices by Labour, and committed towards tighter systems and more transparencies.

          And still National has to be held to account for its funding practices. It is way more supported by big money than Labour.

          • phillip ure 2.2.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 8:25 am

            seriously karol..?

            ..you aren’t playing the ‘at-least-we’re-not-as-bad-as-them!’-card..?

            ..are you..?

            ..and i call things as i see them..

            ..be they on the right/left..or anywhere inbetween..

            ..i try really hard to be as ideological-blinkers free as i can..

            ..ideas i like..i go woo-hoo..!..

            ..ones i don’t..i go boo-hoo..!..

          • cricklewood 2.2.1.1.2
            22 June 2014 at 8:54 am

            The problem Cunliffe has is that distancing himself will be very difficult. There are a number of current mps from the previous govt still there and the letter which while completely above board is enough to tie him to liu in the public’s eyes.
            As for transparency im not sure he has a lot of credibility there either he did after all set up his own trust system.

            Its starting to look like Labour are no better than National when it comes to suspect funding practices. Disappointing.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.2.1
              22 June 2014 at 11:39 am

              Yes! Because accepting donations is exactly the same as cash-for-access Cabinet Clubs and eighteen holes of golf with the PM.

              Sorry to interrupt while you’re having such fun doing the National Party two-step; it looks like Labour declared the donation too.

          • Scott1 2.2.1.1.3
            22 June 2014 at 8:55 am

            Why not show the commitment to fixing this via proposing a particularly strong sort of campaign finance reform and heavy consequences for breaching the rules? Something too strong for National to support and including something new.

            Then every time they say “you did this dodgy thing” You can say – “the policy to fix it is on the table – and you oppose it”

            • Grumpy 2.2.1.1.3.1
              22 June 2014 at 9:48 am

              Labour have already done that, unfortunately it appears they thought it applied to everyone but them.

              • Scott1 …
                22 June 2014 at 10:43 am

                Then there are three possibilities
                1) the policies suggested were weak policies designed to look strong but designed to catch no one.
                2) National blocked the policies and they should get a bloody nose for being the real problem.
                3) Labour/National and other parties should be prosecuted under these rules.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                22 June 2014 at 3:20 pm

                [citation needed]

          • Pasupial 2.2.1.1.4
            22 June 2014 at 9:15 am

            Karol

            The Lui “scandal” is very much National demonstrating the principle that; the best defense is a strong offense. We Greens may be trying to run a campaign on a pittance, but now that Labour are all but neutralised on calling-out dodgy funding, hopefully our MPs will be on the Tories case about their donors from now on.

            I am so looking forward to a Turei vs Woodhouse debate down here in Dunedin North.

          • phillip ure 2.2.1.1.5
            22 June 2014 at 10:12 am

            well karol..that notorious double-agent for the right..the unionist robert reid..

            .on q& a..said it is down to the party organisation to investigate this..

            ..he didn’t seem to question lius’ claims..

            ..any revision of yr stated opinions yet..?

            • karol 2.2.1.1.5.1
              22 June 2014 at 6:09 pm

              Nope – see further comments, posts (by others) and developments today.

              It’s the Nats’ smear machine and Liu that should be fronting up with some evidence of their allegations.

              We shouldn’t be letting NZ Herald lead us around by the nose.

      • Rosie 2.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 10:12 am

        “The NZ Herald is leading a strong smear campaign aimed to destabilise Labour and the Left, in order to undermine the chances of a left government forming.”

        With strong support from Fairfax and TV3. Both have been on constant attack all week. The blatant propaganda has been gobsmacking. I’ve made a complaint to Fairfax but am yet to do so with 3. Will do as soon as I get a chance.

        Respect to David Cunliffe for being centred, calm, strong and articulate throughout

        • Chooky 2.2.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 4:50 pm

          +100 Rosie …”Respect to David Cunliffe for being centred, calm, strong and articulate throughout”….He will make a great Prime Minister!

    • David H 2.3
      22 June 2014 at 9:33 am

      The Oddest thing is that Stuff has nothing about this yet. But give them time.

      • Grumpy 2.3.1
        22 June 2014 at 9:49 am

        Nope, this is a Herald exclusive.

      • Once was Tim 2.3.2
        22 June 2014 at 9:54 am

        They’re probably busy running it by their lawyers first @David.
        I wonder who’s going to front on Kathryn Ryans “From the Right ….. & From the Right” tomorrow. Will it be Mr Williams? or will Ms Pagani be drafted in?

    • veutoviper 2.4
      22 June 2014 at 9:42 am

      I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and count to 10.

      And then read this blog by Andrew Geddis on Pundit.

      http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/maybe-it-was-a-bottle-of-armand-de-brignac-nebuchadnezzar-champagne

      Geddis has checked Labour’s donation records for 2007 and reports that there are several donations of significant amounts paid through lawyers from undisclosed clients – including one of $150,000.

      BUT Geddis also points out that such donations were totally legal under the electoral donations law in place in 2007. AND that any wrongdoing under the law in place in 2007 is well past the 6 month deadline for prosecution under that law.

      Further, Graeme Edgeler has tweeted this morning that neither the Privileges Committee nor the House can investigate something that happened under a previous government – https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/480440174438932480

      If Geddis and Edgeler are correct, then neither the Police nor the current Parliament can investigate.

      I would also point out that Liu has claimed that he gave equal amounts to Labour and National or something similar. Therefore IMO, if there are ongoing pushes to investigate the donations to Labour, then there should also be the same investigations into Liu’s donations to National.

      IMO, if these donations to National were later than those to Labour and were under the much tighter electoral donations law which have come in over more recent years, and if the donations did not meet the more recent requirements, National could find themselves in deeper water than Labour …..

      • Grumpy 2.4.1
        22 June 2014 at 9:51 am

        Lots of “ifs” there.

      • Bill 2.4.2
        22 June 2014 at 10:01 am

        I don’t quite get all of this. There was an auction/raffle used to raise funds. (And sure, that’s potentially dodgy or ‘less than up front’ on a number of levels) But unless the details of all winning bids are routinely recorded for parliamentary rules’ sake, the fundraising is fundraising and not donations per se.

        Or am I missing something?

        • veutoviper 2.4.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 10:12 am

          Good point/question , Bill. I am not not familiar enough with party fundraising etc or election donations law (and the changes over the years) to comment, but would really like the views of the likes of Geddis or Edgeler on this. Perhaps Mickey Savage could throw some light on this.

          • weka 2.4.2.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 11:14 am

            NZ Femme said yesterday that money raised in such auctions gets collated, and that total amount is declared not the individual amounts. Presumaby then Labour wouldn’t have a record of the individuals. If this is true, then Labour needs to explain that (given the MSM don’t seem capable of doing their job properly).

            http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21062014/#comment-835622

      • Bearded Git 2.4.3
        22 June 2014 at 10:03 am

        Nice info veuto. At last someone dealing with facts.

        From what you say it is now simple: under the law as then in place there would be no record of Liu’s Labour party donation in Liu’s name. Presumably there is similarly no record of Liu’s National party donations for the same reason.

        The only story here is that Williamson, in intervening for Liu, ignored the separation of powers, a fundamental tenet of democracy, and so was justifiably sacked.

        Why can’t Labour simply say the above and nothing else?

        • freedom 2.4.3.1
          22 June 2014 at 12:17 pm

          Agreed. May I add Woodhouse meeting Liu in a hotel room to discuss immigration issues is still a much bigger story than the MSM have led the public to believe.
          Q: When did a Minister last visit your home to hear your policy views?

      • phillip ure 2.4.4
        22 June 2014 at 10:06 am

        the one coming out of this looking the worst is mike williams..

        ..boag said today that williams said last fri that he had no knowledge of liu..or the (alleged)large donation..

        ..yet the evidence from geddis shows there was..

        ..what sort of party president has such a large donation come in..

        ..and doesn’t instantly insist on knowing who it is..and to become buddies..in the hope of getting more..?

        ..isn’t that party-president 101 stuff..?

        • ianmac 2.4.4.1
          22 June 2014 at 10:45 am

          Mike Williams has said that money raised in auctions is collated and the gross sum is recorded rather than individual items. And he said that in handling the raising of millions of dollars over the years from hundreds of different donors no one would stand out.
          The evidence does not show that Liu donated a large sum of money. Liu’s name does not occur on any of the official Parliamentary records.
          Check the record. All the parties had donations from Trusts and lawyers and the names of the donors remain anonymous. As with National at the time.
          http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties-0/party-donations/party-donations-year/1996-2007

          • phillip ure 2.4.4.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 11:03 am

            “..And he said that in handling the raising of millions of dollars over the years from hundreds of different donors no one would stand out..”

            that’s right..’cos labour has $150,000 doors coming out their ears..eh..?

            “..and the names of the donors remain anonymous..”

            ..on the official records..maybe..

            ..but of course those donors want the pollies to know they have given..

            ..they are buying influence/access..

            ..and that is worth nothing..if those who need to know..don’t know..

            ..but anyway..you should ask mike williams how all of that nudge-nudge/wink-wink stuff worked..

            ..he was who all of that went/was done thru..

            ..’tis the role of the bagman…

            • Jackal 2.4.4.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 7:53 pm

              Actually a bagman collects dirty money. As with your other claims lately there’s no proof that money donated to Labour has been obtained through forgery, bribery or thievery.

              In fact there’s no proof that Mike Williams has ever accepted a donation of money that’s been illegally transferred or utilized for unscrupulous endeavours.

              You really do need to get a grip on reality there phillip ure and stop defaming somebody without a shred of evidence for doing so. Otherwise you’ll simply end up looking like a fool!

              • phillip ure …
                22 June 2014 at 8:12 pm

                williams has described himself as labours’ bagman during that time..

                ..it does not infer illegality..

                ..it is just the person who does all the fundraising/carries the money around..in bags..

                ..hence..bagman..mm-kay..?

                “..a person who solicits money or subscriptions for a political party..”

                ..you really are just lowest-orifice-plucking..aren’t you…?

                ..you silly canine..

                • Jackal …
                  22 June 2014 at 8:48 pm

                  Care to provide a link showing that Mike William’s describes himself as a bagman phillip ure? I can only find a references to Owen Glen saying:

                  Mr Williams was really a “bag man for the Labour Party” who wouldn’t take “a second breath unless the prime minister tells him too”.

                  But that’s pretty much it. Do you think Owen Glen was referring to Williams as carrying bags of money? I don’t think so. Don’t try to weasel out of your defamatory statements by claiming words have different meanings. That’s about as pathetic as it gets.

                  • phillip ure …
                    22 June 2014 at 8:55 pm

                    no..i think glenn was referring to williams being..’a person who solicits money or subscriptions for a political party’..

                    ..you feckin’ idjit..!

                    ..take yr bullshit..

                    ..and stick it where the sun don’t shine..

                    ..eh..?

                    “.. by claiming words have different meanings..”

                    ..that’s funny..!

                    ..’cos’.newsflash for ya..

                    ..they do..eh..?

                    ..lot’s of them.. ‘have different meanings’..eh..?

                    ..hadn’t ya heard..?

                    ..are you drunk..?

                    ..yr thinking is slurred..

                    • Jackal …
                      22 June 2014 at 9:23 pm

                      It’s funny how you respond when challenged phillip ure with baseless ad hominems…spitting and cursing that I must be drunk or stoned because I dared to question your “wisdom” lol. Is that because your low self-esteem cannot accept the fact that you’re wrong?

                      Do you actually have a link for William’s referring to himself as a bagman phillip ure, or was that just another brain fart?

                      I think you might be getting bagman confused with moneybags. Bagman has a very specific meaning that you shouldn’t misconstrue. It means somebody who accepts dirty money. There is no other meaning to that word. Unless you’re trying to say that Mike Williams accepts dirty money it might be best to use a different word.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  22 June 2014 at 10:54 pm

                  Phil, your memory is faulty; it was Owen Glenn who referred to Williams as a bagman (and a liar) during the Winston Peters donation row. Mind you, Mike Williams does have an excellent sense of humour, so perhaps you might be able to find some instance of him joking along those lines, but I’d be very surprised.

                  Bagman is a derogatory term with a long history, and these days it actually is often used in a political context. Pretty sure it comes from the racing industry, where illegal bookies never carried cash themselves, but had a stooge nearby. I’ve heard it used in Aussie politics many times, but it’s not something someone would normally refer to themselves as, as its clearly an insult.

        • Scott1 2.4.4.2
          22 June 2014 at 10:46 am

          Indeed, its implausible.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 2.4.5
        22 June 2014 at 10:26 am

        However, Geddis does say:

        “Labour has an “optics problem”. It has to explain how as a party it managed to completely forget that this guy was splashing around tens-of-thousands of dollars at its fundraisers a mere 7 years ago.”

        I have no trust left in the Labour Party as a competent organisation. It seems like it just wanders blindly from one trainwreck to another in the last year. I don’t know if that’s Cunliffe’s fault, but it hasn’t really improved much since he’s taken over.

        • weka 2.4.5.1
          22 June 2014 at 11:21 am

          Seven years is a long time now. I frequently deal with govt departments and large private companies who have no institutional memory lasting that long. As far as I can tell this is due to high turnover of staff and the demise of public service careers or people not longer working for one business for a long time. Probably also something to do with restructuring and the attempt to undermine existing structures within organisations. I have no idea what’s happened with Labour, but if it’s true that donations at auctions are recorded in total not individually, then I can easily believe that there is no-one around who can explain these donations. And if the rules of the day allowed such recording of auction donations, then I don’t see what the issue is now.

          Myself, I have no trust left in the MSM. Bryce Edwards should be ashamed of himself. I know this isn’t new, but this election is being manipulated by the MSM as much as NACT and Crosby Textor and there’s something different about it. Maybe just the blatancy. If something doesn’t change bloody soon this is the end of our democracy.

          • Foreign Waka 2.4.5.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 7:25 pm

            Its already gone. No one from the 20 yrs upwards is really interested unless its an App on their phone and the older genereation just want to be left alone and able to survive. Two large demographics that are on the margins and hence have no democratic voice. Maori are getting more and more tribal and the immigrants wish they had choosen Australia. Here is another section of society that will either vote for their elder or not at all. So roughly 60% of the population are not engaged because no one is really inteersted in them and their ideas and thoughts. National is a party of the minority wealthy and they will be voting, mark my words. So status quo remains, everyybody has an aha experience and things will just slowly deteriete further. No guts no glory. Many comments I read here are more concerned with party internal issues then the wider picture that affects the generation that should be the one leading in the future. It all looks more and more like Mad Max to me.

  3. ffloyd 3
    22 June 2014 at 8:26 am

    Ha ha ha. Today Colin Craig is going to CHOOSE the electorate he wants to stand in. How sick is this. Key is going to have his work cut out for him with this little charade. He’s going to end up a laughing stock.

    • phillip ure 3.1
      22 June 2014 at 8:43 am

      craig is keys’ last desperate card to play..

      ..if the polls continue to show maori party/dunne gone..act on direct life-support..

      ..’muzza’ mccully will have a sudden change of heart..

      ..and will shuffle off to a well-paid sinecure of his choosing..

      ..and it’ll be:..’colin craig..!..come on down..!’..

      ..and that is when the moon-landing/chem-trails/earth only 10,000 yrs old questions will start to flow..

      ..and there cd well be many chuckles to be had from that..

      ..it will be interesting-times..

    • millsy 3.2
      22 June 2014 at 9:27 am

      Be careful.

      This might be the last year evolution will be in the curriculum, Associate Education Minister Craig will wipe it out at the election.

      • phillip ure 3.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 10:25 am

        i still think the best us of his skills..

        ..wd be giving him his own royal commission..(call it the craig-commission..?..)

        ..so he can once and for all find out the truth about those alleged moon-landings..

        ..and:..chem-trails..!..what is that all about..?..

        ..and he can seek out the evidence/proof that the earth is indeed..only 10,000 yrs old..

        .giving him anything else wd be a bit of a worry..

        ..is there a minister of street-signs..?

        ..that cd be a safe perch for him..

      • Rodel 3.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 10:52 am

        Millsy
        OMG I never thought of that.
        The (unconvicted) crim. Banks as associate Minister of Education with his attempts to privatise our tax payer funded schools was bad enough.but Craig!?

  4. fisiani 4
    22 June 2014 at 8:38 am

    Who took Mr Liu’s $150,000? How many laws were broken? Will the defense be
    a It wasn’t Cunliffe
    b It was years ago
    c Just a National smear
    d Just a NZH smear
    e Yeah , but what about X,Y and Z that National did
    f All of the above!

    • scotty 4.1
      22 June 2014 at 8:53 am

      ‘Who took Mr Liu’s $150,000? How many laws were broken? Will the defense be’

      The National Party
      Probably none
      Labour did it too.

    • Stephanie Rodgers 4.2
      22 June 2014 at 11:07 am

      Nope, the “defence” is that you can’t even get Liu’s statement correct. He claims to have given $100,000 at an auction fundraiser – most likely this was bundled with the rest of the auction bids and counted as one donation – and spent $50,000 wining and dining an MP who isn’t in Parliament any more.

      There was no $150k to “take”.

      And as Andrew Geddis has covered (veutoviper linked to his post above) on the face of it, no laws were broken at all.

  5. McGrath 5
    22 June 2014 at 8:51 am

    This Liu donation saga is a horrendous look for Labour. Shit needs to be sorted quickly, otherwise Labour is flushed.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      22 June 2014 at 9:20 am

      If the prominence given to the ‘story’ by the Herald and Fairfax is anything to go by the public has already moved on.

      Political parties accept donations, Maurice Williamson interfered in a police investigation and Judith Collins tried to cover up a massive conflict of interest. As for the $150k, let’s see Liu’s accounts for the relevant time period. They’ll be listed as charitable donations for tax purposes I expect.

      If not, I suppose it’s in the same category as the undeclared $1m I gave to National.

      • alwyn 5.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 12:05 pm

        A donation to a political party is not, as I understand it, a charitable donation and could not therefore be claimed as a tax deduction.
        Good try though.
        I wonder if Mr Liu still has the fabled bottle of wine?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 12:15 pm

          Then why did John Key lie about a charity golf game?

          Perhaps it was listed in his accounts as petty cash withdrawals. Either way it’s up to him to provide evidence. If and when he does, and it turns out the declared $150k donation is his, I expect you’ll demonstrate personal responsibility, withdraw, and apologise.

          😆 and then I woke up.

      • Clemgeopin 5.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 5:12 pm

        What is relevant than going back to historical donations etc given/received during the past rules, would be to investigate and open all the donations given to political parties and their accounting AFTER the new electoral finance law was passed.

        Certainly this donation issue needs to be revisited and all loopholes plugged.

        Personally I would like all donations or fund raising of say $1,000 or more from any individual or entity to be declared, transparent and non-anonymous.

        I would like clean non corrupt politics and way of life in New Zealand. If someone wants to donate to a party, they should have the integrity and courage to do it openly.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 5:20 pm

          Cue law firms accepting one thousand paper transactions for one thousand dollars each then declaring the $800,000 donation as coming from one source: the law firm, and collecting a tidy fee for administering a trust fund.

          When suggesting solutions, please try and avoid proposing existing loop-holes as panacea.

  6. Visubversaviper 6
    22 June 2014 at 9:19 am

    Most political parties have fundraising auctions. People donate things and other people bid on them. When Labour was in government the Chinese arrived at the fundraising events of prominant MPs, particularly Helen and Cabinet Ministers. They seemed to be competing with each other to show off their wealth and gain prestige from outbidding each other. Fortunately, as soon as the Government changed, they buggered off to suck up to the Nats. They will now be paying silly money to play golf with John Key.

    • Grumpy 6.1
      22 June 2014 at 9:30 am

      The difference is that National declare everything, including golf with Key (that is how we know about it). That is the law.

      • phillip ure 6.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 9:40 am

        and keys’ donation to charity..?

        ..that ‘charity’ turning out to be the national party..?

        ..’national declare everything’..?..yeah right..!..

        ..heard of the waitemata trust..?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 9:44 am

        The other difference is that National openly sells face time with ministers, who are in no doubt that they are meeting with wealthy campaign donors.

        Regulatory changes and Ministerial involvement in private affairs are offered for sale, cf: Sky City, Maurice, Judith.

      • felix 6.1.3
        22 June 2014 at 10:08 am

        “National declare everything, including golf with Key”

        Are you accusing Key of lying? He said the golf game was “for charity”.

        Get your tory straight, Grumpy, or leave it to the pros (they’re working Sundays now)

  7. Ant 7
    22 June 2014 at 9:19 am

    Mike Williams or other high-ups would have had to have know a $100,000 donor right?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1
      22 June 2014 at 9:22 am

      A donor who doesn’t speak English? Not as well as you might think.

      • Ant 7.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 9:27 am

        Wouldn’t they want to know who it is so they can get more money later on? How many organisations anywhere wouldn’t bother to note an individual that gave them that much money?

        Labour has plenty of supporters in the Chinese community who could overcome language barriers.

        (I’m sceptical of the details as they stand)

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 9:41 am

          The relationship between party staff and a donor is a curious one. If the donation comes with expectations, for example, the best thing staff can do is show the donor the door. They certainly don’t want them anywhere near an MP.

          We know what National sells its owner/donors: face time with the PM and ministers, legal and regulatory changes, openly offered for sale. It’s brazen, and apparently the Police and SIS aren’t interested even when the Auditor General expresses concern.

          Time to put a stop to it, whether or not ‘he did it too’.

          • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 10:24 am

            Every donor in an election year giving over $1000 to a political party has to be published. Simple. Time to get anonymous money out of the system.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 5:25 pm

              Sure. The Waitemata Trust donated everything. Fail. Go to the back of the class.

    • ianmac 7.2
      22 June 2014 at 10:53 am

      No Ant. The Nearly $100,000 was for a bottle of wine at a fund raiser. As with the current National fundraiser at Antoinette’s (sp?) the money raised is collated and presented as a lump sum. And back in the 2000s the rules were even slacker.
      Therefore could it be argued that each person who donated money for the dinner must be named?

      • Ant 7.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 11:31 am

        I don’t care so much about electoral donation laws and how they are gamed, even informally recorded, competent party administrators should notice someone dropping heaps of money so they can approach them for future donations, it’s unbelievable that an organisation wouldn’t note someone down who is currently donating large sums and who could potentially provide more large sums in the future.

  8. Grumpy 8
    22 June 2014 at 9:28 am

    All the public will see is that they have been bored shitless with Labour and their mates in the MSM raving on about Collins, Williamson et al, and now they are shown to be much, much worse. The one thing the public hate about politicians is hypocrisy.

    • phillip ure 8.1
      22 June 2014 at 9:37 am

      don’t talk rubbish..grumps..

      ..even yr flag-bearer o’sullivan has made it clear that collins should be long-gone for what she did..

      ..this is historical..from clarks’ time..

      ..and to date..nothing to do with cunnliffe..

  9. freedom 9
    22 June 2014 at 9:30 am

    So even if Liu won’t sign an affidavit (thus protecting himself) he has stated an event and a date, 2007.

    There must be records of this transaction somewhere. $100,000 is a chunk of change in any party’s bucket. Which means IRD will probably have a record of it from Liu’s accounts, which means Liu will have a record of it. – Who does not make note of a $100,000 political donation?

    Important reality moment though, if it was a cash payment, there will be a bank record of the cash withdrawl transaction. The transaction has a date, the bank search will not be difficult…. or does Liu just have hundreds of thousands of dollars in ready cash just lying around.

    If Liu’s records can show the transaction then Labour’s records should as well but if it turns out a $100,000 donation ‘got lost’ by Labour then every person involved must be promptly put on the bus. A bus that seems to be picking up passengers from both sides of town the longer it stays on the road.

    • Bearded Git 9.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:07 am

      Freedom, there are records-read veutoviper above.

    • freedom 9.2
      22 June 2014 at 10:08 am

      When I wrote the above comment I was unaware of the Andrew Geddis post linked to by veutoviper http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22062014/#comment-836068

      In light of this information it now appears that Labour has information to go forward on and seeing as nothing was done against the rules, National’s donations must be given the same forensic eye.

      Imho, what has transpired on the Big Liu Bus highlights how our entire political funding protocols need to be made more publicly transparent. Sounding a bit like a stuck record I know but I beleive the EDRNZ is an idea worth investigating and every single person I have had personal discussion with on the concept has agreed . . once they get past the unadulturated simplicity of the concept.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/heres-an-idea-electoral-funding/

      • ianmac 9.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 10:56 am

        freedom. My comment above might help @7.2.

        • freedom 9.2.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 11:06 am

          “As with the current National fundraiser at Antoinette’s (sp?) the money raised is collated and presented as a lump sum. And back in the 2000s the rules were even slacker.
          Therefore could it be argued that each person who donated money for the dinner must be named?”

          — in that circumstance ianmac the EDRNZ receives the sum total and the event keeps a legally required log of the individual donor details for any sum over [$1000] or whatever figure is deemed the threshold for anonymous donations.

          I beleive $1000 is a fair limit as the only time anonymous donations should be accepted is through bucket collections/raffles and similar low volume collections. Charging 5k a plate and having twenty people at a very private dinner suddenly be anonymous is a slap in the face for anyone being told by the abusers of the system that transparency matters. If a donor is not happy being identified supporting a party, I woud ask that party why their money should be acceptable.

          • ianmac 9.2.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 11:11 am

            Interesting freedom though are you saying that that is the system or that it should be the system? What is the EDRNZ?
            Meanwhile back in 2007…
            PS gone back and reread your post @9.2

          • freedom 9.2.1.1.2
            22 June 2014 at 11:20 am

            “i do not have permission to edit this comment” error

            I have one thing to add, the longer this teacup is allowed to overflow the more I am convinced major reform is essential. The one reform I think is imperative is that commercial entities of any sort should be banned from donating to political parties.

            if Antoine’s wants to donate, then their owner can donate.
            If a board reckons their company should donate then see what the workers think and see who actually wants to chip in. Otherwise the owner can use their own cash.

            Having a corporate structure does not mean it is a commercial enterprise. Charities, unions and similar community groups are not commercial entities and should be allowed to donate. Lobby groups will certainly find ways to work around this but if they have a corporate structure that passes the commercial entity rule then the identity of the corporate structure is still on record.

            or they all just donate lots and lots and lots of $999 donations, which come corporate reporting time, would be interesting entries to explain 🙂

  10. phillip ure 10
    22 June 2014 at 9:33 am

    “..Major Federal Health Official Admits to Congress That Prohibition Has Harmed Research Into Marijuana’s Benefits..”

    “..There would be far more literature about cannabis’ therapeutic efficacy –

    • if federal regulations and agencies didn’t impede studies..”

    (cont..)

    http://www.alternet.org/drugs/nida-directors-tells-congress-its-easier-study-heroin-or-cocaine-marijuana

  11. Pasupial 11
    22 June 2014 at 9:49 am

    I missed this yesterday (not Key’s remarks, but as I/S’s succinct response – as they rarely post on the weekends):

    Asked to confirm whether his Government had ever made a decision to actively rejoin Five Eyes, Key responded: “I don’t think that’s right, but I remember there were some vague things…” He then said he would check.

    This is a major change to our intelligence and foreign policy; how can the Prime Minister (and Minister in charge of the GCSB) not know about it? Did he just not notice? Or did the spies not tell him (effectively running their own foreign policy without any democratic mandate whatsoever)?

    http://www.norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/how-can-pm-not-know-about-this.html

    But are we talking about this on Open Mike? No, the topic of discussion is still predominantly the carefully orchestrated Lui story. The US secretary of state states:

    “we don’t have to ask, this is one where we know that New Zealand stands with us.”

    And we just keep chewing over the gristle of Lui’s alleged donations.

    The US governments commits us to a war in a Iraq supposedly without even asking our PM who was in Washington at the time (and attending briefings at the Pentagon)! As a Green Party member, this seems much more important to the country than blowing more oxygen onto the embers of a nonscandal.

    • veutoviper 11.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:22 am

      “But are we talking about this on Open Mike? No …”

      Well I did attempt to encourage discussion on this yesterday at comment 2 on Open Mike, but there were few takers.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21062014/#comment-835466

      Perhaps today?

      • Pasupial 11.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 10:39 am

        VV

        Thanks for that, it was late by the time I had a look at the site yesterday and got caught up at comment 12 (trying to educate fisiani about why rushing legislation to allow logging protected forests was not in the nation’s interest – a futile task; but perhaps educational to onlookers), and didn’t make it back to comment 2.

        CV had a good point that; “Probaby we were still feeding the network full info but they were cutting back our access privileges”. Karol, Rosie & DTB were certainly onto the; “There were some vague things” line of Key’s.

    • Colonial Viper 11.2
      22 June 2014 at 10:27 am

      Yeah the Liu story has all the appearances of a distraction away from the manoeuvring of TPTB.

    • freedom 11.3
      22 June 2014 at 11:34 am

      Folk are discussing it in the wider world though.
      The released notes are being distributed.
      In NZ and in America and in Europe there are now hundreds of co-operative kiwis who want some answers. Some of these kiwis are, shall we say, a bit upset and these are not people who generally comment on blogs, but their anonymous activities are often discussed there.

      • Pasupial 11.3.1
        22 June 2014 at 11:52 am

        freedom

        I hope those anonymous types do keep on ensuring further releases of notes. Trusting that our elected representatives will exercise there duties with respect to the will of the nation seems more of a mugs game than ever these days.

        This over at TDB is pretty good by Bomber’s standards (there’s been some thought gone into finding links and quotes, rather than his just posting a nice turn of phrase without further reflection). The Youtube video won’t play for me though, so I don’t know if this is entirely accurate; “Key’s concern was that if we didn’t rush into this immoral [2003 Iraq] war with America we may miss out on a free trade deal”.

        http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/22/john-key-commits-nz-to-a-new-us-war-in-iraq/#sthash.nmEMMCKb.dpuf

        • freedom 11.3.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

          here is a re upload of the Key video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOUJnk9ztro
          (sometimes youtube does wierd stuff and vids just won’t play,
          so an easy fix is to play the url in our buddy VLC -playlist- advanced open -add url –
          download from http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html )

          What is most disturbing about Key’s expolitative vitriol is the timbre he delivers it in.
          It is not that of a senior statesman discussing the true costs of the horrors of war.
          It is kin to a pissed munter stumbling along with his mates egging each other into a strip club.

          “it doesn’t mater that they are offerring up bodies and all the rest of it”
          is one particular line that exposes the vacuous cavity that is that man’s soul.

          • Pasupial 11.3.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:17 pm

            “In the end it’s over to you” was a nice appropriation of a Key line at the end of the clip (I guess 2003 was before Parliament video online, so quite a good edit).

            With us set to be aiding the drone-bombing of Iraq, this is timely information:

            Since the outbreak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military drones have malfunctioned in myriad ways, plummeting from the sky because of mechanical breakdowns, human error, bad weather and other reasons, according to more than 50,000 pages of accident investigation reports and other records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act…
            Military drones have slammed into homes, farms, runways, highways, waterways and, in one case, an Air Force C-130 Hercules transport plane in midair…
            Several military drones have simply disappeared while at cruising altitudes, never to be seen again…
            Frank W. Pace, president of aircraft systems for General Atomics, the leading producer of large military drones… [said] “We’ve never reported a loss of life,”

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/

            I particularly like that; “We’ve never reported a loss of life”, because of course the first thing the survivors of a family who’d been killed by falling death-machine debris would do is to complain to the manufacturer and occupying army.

          • Draco T Bastard 11.3.1.1.2
            22 June 2014 at 4:39 pm

            so an easy fix is to play the url in our buddy VLC -playlist- advanced open -add url –

            Haven’t tried that. My usual response to a youtube video not playing is to download it via a video capture tool in Firefox (This can’t be done in Chrome as Chrome prevents video capture tools from doing that).

            • freedom 11.3.1.1.2.1
              22 June 2014 at 5:04 pm

              It is how I normally stream Parliament TV, as PTV is windows/mac only and I use ubuntu.

              ‘video downloadhelper’ is the best I have seen for keeping up with youtube.
              Might be the odd time where downloading is not possible as downloadhelper catches up with youtube changes but never more than a day or so.

            • David H 11.3.1.1.2.2
              22 June 2014 at 9:17 pm

              Use Opera Runs on the Chrome engine but is way nicer to use.

  12. Foreign Waka 12
    22 June 2014 at 9:50 am

    Today’ Q&A – Michelle Boag, leaves one breathless. There are a few numbers of possibilities if she denies the reason of the Iraq invasion under Bush: Nativity, Propaganda, Alzheimer’s, Loyalty blind and uncritical. Have I missed something?
    Right after that an interview with Rosa Delauro, Democratic Representative USA Connecticut. How refreshing, an educated women not afraid to call a spade a spade with eloquence and tact.
    She points out that the Bush administration has lied to the people of the US taking them into war with Iraq. In regards to Trade, under the Nafta agreement they have lost 800000 jobs. She points out that agriculture agreement will impact on wages in NZ with Vietnam being part of that paying 28c per hour. That means job losses.One does not have to agree with everything she said but one needs some good research and facts to counter act.
    Of cause the Republicans want to push ahead as quickly as possible. John Boozman makes diplomatic good noises saying that the US people like NZ but cant figure out how to get here as it is so far away(???). He wants fair trade not free trade, sounds good but fair has had a bit of a partisan connotation if you look at past records and one wonders fair for whom?
    Dairying – increased competitions will be a factor (impacting on NZ) but he hopes that will be sorted out. My thoughts: Maybe Nzlanders will get also 28c per hour?
    War in Iraq: Of cause this impacts on Oil prices….
    Back to Michelle Boag, little NZ – representing the ineptitude of the politician here and the difference could not be more obvious.
    The tragedy is that it is these voices who will “represent” the ordinary people who have even less of a clue. Good defend NZ.

    • fisiani 12.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:51 am

      Robert Reid on Qand A was an absolute buffoon yet again. What on earth is this class warfare he keeps banging on about? His 1970’s Communist learnings are so last century. No wonder Michelle Boag was exasperated. He is not of this planet.

      • blue leopard 12.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 12:14 pm

        Robert Reid was spot on, I enjoy and appreciate the way he cuts through the crap. He makes the program worth watching. He raises the standard of debate when he is on the commenting panel. Really great to see someone of his calibre being aired on TV. Well done to Q&A for having him on the show.

      • phillip ure 12.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 12:16 pm

        reid was good today/again..eh..?

      • millsy 12.1.3
        22 June 2014 at 1:05 pm

        The only class warfare is that waged by Boag and co. They want to ban unions and Americanize our health care system and bring back slavery.

        Do you want me to give you all my wages fisi:? Do you think they are too high. Do you think I should lose my sick leave.

        It will be a cold day in hell before I give my wages and conditions up so rich pricks like you can have more.

      • Foreign Waka 12.1.4
        22 June 2014 at 5:33 pm

        I think Robert Reid was a bit flustered as he was trying to respond to Michelle Boag – she is an old lady whose world is only save if she believes her own propaganda. Let he go into retirement she is what you might call – past it.

    • Skinny 12.2
      22 June 2014 at 10:54 am

      Old Botox Boag showed just how mad she is by trying to justify Americas’ so called ‘war on terrorism.’ Invading Iraq then pulling out and leaving the place in disarray is so typical of how the Yanks operate. Prior to the invasion Iraq had a lot better systems like health & education than America & probably New Zealand. Where was the democracy in Husain’s hanging? Yip about the same as Bin Laden’s illegal assassination.

      Cunliffe was quite right in pointing out that the focus should be on political policy, something that National are piss weak in. Susan Wood is a has been jurno quite a terrible interviewer compared to The Nations front lady. I’ve always considered her to be a bit of an air head.

      Great to see Bob Reid back on Q&A countering Boags horse shit dribble.

      • phillip ure 12.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 12:24 pm

        i thought one of the more interesting comments on this comes from the two cambridge academics he consulted pre-invasion..

        ..they say that blairs’ mind was clearly already made up..

        ..and they countered the academics warning of what would happen..

        (and what has come to pass..as they predicted..)

        ..with blairs’ simplistic-rejoinders’ to their considered-warnings being:..

        “..but saddam is an evil man’…

        ..that’s a bit of a head-fuck..eh..?

        ..that relying upon such shallow/facile/simplistic thinking..iraq has been pretty much destroyed..

        ..and turned into a war-torn fundamentalist hell-hole..

        • Skinny 12.2.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 2:00 pm

          Yes rightly pointed out Phil, and as in any war there is a fortune to be made by the captains of greed. GW Bush father and son lined the pockets of their political backers to the tune of billions through contracts like Black Ops, and reconstruction.

      • Once was Tim 12.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 2:26 pm

        :).
        I’m going to get shit for the following I am damn sure!!!

        Juggling Sunday (with Wallace), Q+A with Suzie (Dear), and The Nation (with “for Christ’s Sake Liza shut the fuck up and let them finish answering the question”) can be a problem.
        But in our MSM representations, I’ve noticed how those that are ANGRY but who profess ‘assertiveness’, male and female alike seem to end up with bloody great verticle wrinkles above their top lip. I now understand what my somewhat racist/mysogynist father once banged on about.
        The top lip verticle wrinklers characterise themsleves by utterings like:
        “The fact is ……”
        “Oh rubbish….”
        “There is no Alternative..”
        “End of Story!!!! …”
        ….. and no other difference of opinion matters OR should be tolerated.

        In today’s MSM offerings, check out Michelle Boag, and indeed Suzie herself, plus Pagani’s developing verticles.
        It’s sad that the above are all female, because it affects male and female alike.
        …. and of course I do have a neighbour that’s a Vein (aka Vain) Doctor and into all that Caci Clinic shit who (with his wife) drives around in a black Penis extension the both of them have no spatial awareness of size (whether crossing lanes, or pathetically trying to park).

        I’ll delve into it further. Boag’s are especially revealing though.

        • greywarbler 12.2.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 2:49 pm

          Hi Tim
          Pass on your findings. I have been air travelling lately and looking at my ‘fellow
          travellers’ I noticed some that looked as if everything had been grim since they read fairy stories.

          I am getting anxious that reading the news and political columns will result in a similar unpleasant expression on my face that will set forever. At the end of this year I don’t want to find I look like a Shar Pei dog!

          • Once was Tim 12.2.2.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 3:07 pm

            I tried to edit but didn’t have permission to do so but it was as follows

            EDIT: Oh and just in case you’re thinking this is an affront to the female form …. I’ll give you a generalisation about males that comes from living with a few .
            Bear potted males are bloody useless aims when pissing. I’m not sure whether it’s ‘cos they can’t see their own dicks, or whether they’re just slovenly, but the yellow liquid around the base of the toilet says it all!

            Of course though I expect shit thrown at me, I’d rather see intelligent discussion on non-superficial stuff, with a diversity of opinion given free reign.
            (even if it is PU versus Bad12) :p

            • greywarbler 12.2.2.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 4:57 pm

              Tim
              We are a wide-ranging discussion forum here. Toilets have their place, they are not to be taken lightly, and toilet humour by nature, tends to be robust. But eeeyuuh get cleaning the one you mention soon. And then have a look at Mrs Brown’s Boys on tv – there is plenty of robust humour to match. Just found it recently.

  13. Bill 13
    22 June 2014 at 9:53 am

    On a more positive note.

    Happy New Year!

    • felix 13.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:09 am

      And to you.

      Time to plant the garlic.

    • Pasupial 13.2
      22 June 2014 at 10:23 am

      Merry Matariki!

      The Octagon lantern parade last night was fabulous, it’s just a shame it was too windy for the fireworks.

      • Colonial Viper 13.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 1:31 pm

        It was very cool, had a great vantage point to see the whole thing from.

      • Draco T Bastard 13.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 4:47 pm

        Apparently, not until next week.

        In 2014, Matariki will start on the 28th June.

        • Pasupial 13.2.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 5:34 pm

          DTB

          Different tribes celebrated Matariki at different times. For some it was when Matariki rose in May/June. For others it was celebrated at the first new moon, or full moon, following the rising of Matariki.

          My whanau have always treated it as pretty much synonymous with solstice, which may not be that traditional but is convenient. Anyway, in Waipounamu it’s pretty rare that you can either; see past the clouds, or endure the frosts at 5am in winter to see the stars. Especially in Otepoti/ Dunedin where I’d have to drive to Aramoana or to a Peninsula beach to have a chance of seeing the eastern horizon then.

    • weka 13.3
      22 June 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Happy New Year everyone. I’m off for the afternoon to see if I can find a beach somewhere where I can light a fire without getting told off 🙂

  14. Ant 14
    22 June 2014 at 10:13 am

    The Herald’s stance on Labour’s historical donations are priceless considering how they acted when Labour reformed the laws around electoral donations making it more transparent.

    ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY!

  15. Rosie 15
    22 June 2014 at 10:18 am

    Folks, confirmation that the Brass Razoo Solidarity band will be busking in Cuba Mall today between 1 – 2pm as a little fundraiser for People’s Power Ohariu. Come down and have a chat and if you have any loose change, we will gladly help lighten you of it’s load 🙂

    We’ll either be near the Manners St end or on the stage south of the bucket fountain. Follow the sound!

    • veutoviper 15.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:27 am

      Good luck, Rosie. I had hoped to get there, but now have friend coming with trailer to take garden rubbish to the tip – bad timing on tip trip, but beggars can’t be choosers etc etc

      • Rosie 15.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 11:15 am

        Hi veutoviper, nice that you had considered coming along 🙂

        A friend with a trailer is a friend indeed! What a good feeling to be getting rid of all the garden rubbish – a chore at the best of times. A well deserved cuppa should be in order at the end of it.

        • greywarbler 15.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 2:30 pm

          What an understanding exchange on practicalities between Rosie and veutoviper.
          I hope you have a good showing with good takings at Cuba mall Rosie, and that the wind doesn’t blow spray on you from the water sculpture – thinking of fresh Wellington winds. A trailer in the hand is worth two dozen in others’ backyards!

  16. tinfoilhat 16
    22 June 2014 at 10:26 am

    The hypocrisy by some of the posters at this site is astonishing.

    As i have said for a very long time Labour is every bit as bad as National and David Cunliffe is at best cringeworthy.

    If the left truly want change to take place in the NZ political landscape we need to strongly support real parties of the left and consign Labour to the scrap heap or a merger with their spiritual home in the National party.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      22 June 2014 at 10:38 am

      Yeah, you have drunk the kool-aid, haven’t you?

      Letting yourself be led by the nose by John Armstrong is a bad look, especially in light of Geddis’ contribution over at Pundit.

      A singular feature of any anti-Labour story the National Party cooks up is the number of alleged lefties jumping on the bandwagon, hand-wringing, defeatist, and in the next breath they’ll tell you the Left needs unity.

      Pfft.

    • fender 16.2
      22 June 2014 at 11:59 am

      “………..cringeworthy”

      Don’t keep your head in foil, it dries out too much, as you’ve discovered..

    • fender 16.3
      22 June 2014 at 12:52 pm

      This is cringe : “They strolled the White House South Lawn, checked out the president’s putting green, had a squiz at Obama’s back orifice and First Lady Michelle Obama’s famous veggie garden, and part of the White House the family use.” “It was cool”

    • greywarbler 16.4
      22 June 2014 at 2:37 pm

      tinfoilhat
      ‘As I have said for a very long time’ – you can say that again, and you will I am sure. Yoicks! Don’t you ever stop. Take up lawn bowls or riparian planting or something useful you can manage why don’t you.

      David Cunliffe is doing a good job. Death by a thousand cuts and poisoned arrows from people such as yourself is hard to withstand and I think he is doing well. Go for it our David and don’t think of simply being against Goliath, the opposition you have from NACT is more like a male Gorgon.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.5
      22 June 2014 at 4:51 pm

      Yep, stop supporting Labour, who really are there just as much for the rich and the corporations as National, and start supporting real Left parties:

      Mana
      Democrats
      Alliance

      Internet
      Greens

    • Clemgeopin 16.6
      22 June 2014 at 5:41 pm

      Your first priority should be kicking out this present National government and its coalescing partners.
      Your second priority should be not to undermine the Labour party and thus damage your chance of getting rid of National.

      • Draco T Bastard 16.6.1
        23 June 2014 at 2:05 am

        Labour’s doing quite well undermining itself. And there’s other, actual left parties, that exist that can be voted for.

  17. One Anonymous Bloke 17
    22 June 2014 at 10:33 am

    Geddis nails it. Again.

    …if you go back to the financial returns from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from “Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client”…

    • ianmac 17.1
      22 June 2014 at 11:03 am

      Yes saw that. Tell me. Who donated that much money? Anonymous. Might have been Mr Wang. Might have been Mr Liu. “Undisclosed Client.”

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 11:42 am

        It could have been the National Party, secure in the knowledge that all they have to do is play their tune and you’ll start dancing to it.

    • Grumpy 17.2
      22 June 2014 at 1:19 pm

      Except that it was not all in one go. Total $150,000 but of that $100k was for a bottle of wine.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 17.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 1:35 pm

        Pretty easy to clear up. Let Liu open all his books for the last ten years to an impartial third party: I suggest the Inland Revenue Department.

        The 100k for a bottle of wine, if true, did not have to be declared any more than John Key’s 50k tie. Even wretched authoritarian followers like you don’t obey the laws that haven’t been passed yet.

        • Grumpy 17.2.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 5:48 pm

          Capital gains tax would have had to be paid by Labour under their new policy. Pity it wasn’t in then……..

      • Clemgeopin 17.2.2
        22 June 2014 at 5:44 pm

        Perhaps the bottle was simply filled with urine for all you know.

    • xtasy 17.3
      22 June 2014 at 3:46 pm

      Yes, it was legal, but what about the “image” of Labour, spending much time accusing National of “crony capitalism”, of “access for cash”, of the use of “cabinet clubs” to raise cash, and exploiting such electioneering slogans and topics?

      It smells of hypocrisy, and that is how the public will perceive it.

      Cunliffe did not help with his trust to raise funds for his leadership campaign. He (justifiably) can still withhold names of two donors to his campaign, but it does not look good!

      There has been a lot coming together, and while it is of course a smear campaign, it is opening a pandora’s box, and reveals again the past actions of Labour in fund-raising and more.

      So the Nats have come with a return fire attack, and nobody talks about policy, while the media just loves such stuff, digging up “dirt”, or supposed “dirt” and “scandals”, to get more readership, viewers and listeners, justifying more advertising sales and charges.

      Labour did not do their homework, and they still carry the past load of baggage, from when they were in government, and courting rich and powerful, to donate to them, same as National and ACT.

      I am afraid the damage is done.

  18. Te Reo Putake 18
    22 June 2014 at 10:38 am

    I have a confession. I secretly donated one trillion dollars to the Labour Party. Ok, I’m not going to sign an affidavit to that effect, but I will allow the Herald to claim I’ve said that in a statement, though I’d prefer it they didn’t actually show anyone the statement or say how they got it.

    • Anne 18.1
      22 June 2014 at 11:00 am

      I’m not convinced Liu made such a donation. Interesting that it has now gone from $15,000 to $150,000. Just alter the comma and add a naught- easy-peasy. I guess that’s the point of TRP @ 18. 🙂

      Why would someone like Liu, who is on record as having a tendency to suck up to those in power, make an anonymous donation of $150,000 through a legal firm? Surely, he would want those in power to know he had made the donation. He certainly made sure the Nats knew about his donations. Very strange.

      • ianmac 18.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 11:06 am

        And since Mr Liu said that he had donated equal amounts to National and to Labour where does he or his lawyers show that this was true?

      • infused 18.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 12:40 pm

        It was always 150k. It’s just at the time, only 15k was confirmed.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.2.1
          22 June 2014 at 12:47 pm

          …if you go back to the financial returns from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from “Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client”…

          I know you won’t take personal responsibility for your lies, so I’ll take advantage of this opportunity to draw attention to your hypocrisy as well as your dishonesty.

          • Grumpy 18.1.2.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:22 pm

            Only it is not the same donation, but thanks for bringing to our attention there was another $150k donation, even though it was properly declared.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.2.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 1:29 pm

              Oh sure. That explains why Liu won’t sign an affidavit.

              • Grumpy …
                22 June 2014 at 5:51 pm

                I think the $150k you so touchingly pin your hopes on was some other punter’s $150k.

        • Draco T Bastard 18.1.2.2
          22 June 2014 at 5:15 pm

          The 15k isn’t confirmed at all.

    • Clemgeopin 18.2
      22 June 2014 at 5:47 pm

      It can’t be you because you were anonymous.

  19. dimebag russell 19
    22 June 2014 at 10:54 am

    so just why is new zealand politics being whipsawed by first a german and now a chinese.
    wait till a martian gets here!

    • greywarbler 19.1
      22 June 2014 at 12:18 pm

      dimebag russell
      Try to keep the comments straightforward and cut the creeping xenophobia, it doesn’t aid intelligent political discussion. I thought that is what you were aiming at – showing us your intelligence and incisive, crisp comment.

  20. Kiwiri 20
    22 June 2014 at 11:05 am

    I am back and catching up with the news.

    David Cunliffe was excellent, coming across very much as a strong and articulate leader with integrity:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Interview-Labour-leader-David-Cunliffe/tabid/1356/articleID/349586/Default.aspx

    Yes, David has galvinised my support. I am making a donation to his campaign 🙂

  21. Linz 21
    22 June 2014 at 11:32 am

    I thought David Cunliffe was great on Q&A his morning. Feel very encouraged, especially as Key has gifted the Labour Party a major point of difference with his toadying up to Uncle Sam.

  22. wyndham 22
    22 June 2014 at 11:35 am

    The great political lesson of 2014:

    “Beware of Chinamen bearing gifts”!

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      22 June 2014 at 11:45 am

      Why? What has Labour done that you think is so wrong?

      Oh that’s right, Maurice Williamson interfered in a police investigation, Liu looks dirty by association with Williamson, and Labour look dirty because The New Zealand Herald says they do.

    • greywarbler 22.2
      22 June 2014 at 12:14 pm

      wyndham
      Don’t be so bloody offensive with the implication that that sort of comment is one that we should accept.

      • wyndham 22.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 2:03 pm

        greywarbler.
        If you choose to see anything offensive in my (possibly poor) attempt at humour, then that is exactly what you will see. Nothing offensive was intended.
        I’ll lay odds that all the political parties will in future be extremely careful about any financial dealings with Chinese businessmen.
        Don’t be such a sensitive wee sausage!

        • greywarbler 22.2.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 2:24 pm

          wyndham
          Don’t be such a fool. Of course we have to be careful in our dealings with wealthy powerful nations, USA, Germany, UK, indonesia, Brazil, India, China etc and none of those is entirely trustworthy. France sent bombers employed by their government and blew up a ship in our docks, they dropped nuclear bombs in our part of the world, the USA is planning to conscript our forces for their alternative army to the UN.

          We have to be alert about financial and other problems from all nations, and not get caught up in prejudicial language and stereotypes. There is great trouble for us ahead as we try and keep our heads above a tide of global hegemony of wealth swamping us from wherever.

          Don’t be an insensitive saveloy, aim for a higher cuisine and judicious gourmet language. Following the behaviour and language of tunnel-visioned politicians, was it Collins talking about sausages, would confirm you as a fool.

  23. ianmac 23
    22 June 2014 at 11:46 am

    From No Right Turn:
    …..Naturally, there’s no mention of a $100,000 donation in Labour’s 2007 party donation return. But there’s a reason for this: our electoral law at the time did not count over-valued purchases as “donations”. So, you could pay $100,000 for a $20 bottle of wine as a backhanded way of slipping a party or a candidate some cash in exchange for a favour, and they would not have to report it in any way to the public. Things have changed since then: In December 2007 Labour passed the Electoral Finance Act……”
    Another piece of sanity? I like the bit about: (I guess there’s an alternative explanation that those pundits and insiders are total goldfish with no memory, or ignoring inconvenient facts because they have axes to grind, which is believable. The political scientists OTOH have no excuse because they actively debated the law at the time).
    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/

  24. greywarbler 24
    22 June 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Another morning, another lot of opinions on our dire straits with poverty in NZ. (They have been playing Mark Knoppfler? – isn’t that cute, or trite?)
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

    I am listening to Wallace Chapman Professor Dr Jonathan Boston and of course the only person who knows anything about beneficiaries, Lindsay Mitchell. Dr Boston is so dry he must be cracked. Add water and he would leak all over. He is in agreement with a rise for super entrance to 67. That is how we will balance the needs of older and younger. Boston has co-written Child Poverty in NZ.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10181859/Lift-super-age-to-beat-child-poverty

    Also he finds ways to advocate against raising the minimum wage.
    Then Wallace reads an email pointing out the money wasted on gambling etc and Mitchell has spoken about budget advice.

    Why not Susan St John as academic and objective commentator on child poverty instead of neo-lib obssessed right winger Mitchell?

    For the benefit of Radio NZ and Wallace Chapman’s team including Jeremy Rose, here is a link to Wikipedia about the Child Poverty Action Group who I consider are well informed about the problems.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Poverty_Action_Group_(Aotearoa_New_Zealand)

    • srylands 24.1
      22 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

      “Why not Susan St John as academic and objective commentator on child poverty instead of neo-lib obsessed right winger Mitchell?”

      Perhaps because she has extreme views, and we know what she will say before she even opens her mouth. “Tax rich pricks more and increase the size of welfare checks.” Or words to that effect.

      • millsy 24.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 1:02 pm

        And what’s wrong with that?

        Do you really want people to be living on the streets.

        When we had a top tax rate of 66% we had the highest living standards in the world. I people wanted a house, they got one. If people want health care, they got it.

        It is greedy people like you who charge high rents from houses, high dividends from power companies, and leave people in poverty.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 1:07 pm

          S Rylands doesn’t want too many people living on the streets, because they’d smell and he’d have to step on them physically as well as by proxy. On the other hand they are a great weapon in the Tory arsenal: “you’re lucky to have a job”.

          It’s all about striking the right balance.

        • greywarbler 24.1.1.2
          22 June 2014 at 1:16 pm

          I was complaining about the poor advice and opinion that I was hearing on Radionz about child poverty. Drylands from Oz, the land of dry, reinforces my point so well.

          What the RWs want is to keep repeating their mantras which they know won’t work to solve whatever problem is being discussed, but they fill the time and space, and their talk appears as honest attempts to consider and search for better outcomes.

          But no, the discourse just maintains the status quo system which is moulded to suit them, or vice versa for profitable, pragmatic reasons. That is why Drylands can say that Susan St John ‘has extreme views’ – she is outside the accepted discourse.

          And nothing is said or done that would make a real difference – no opinion of note is encouraged or acted on which would differ from the mantra, unless it is in a half-hearted way as a pilot. That then will have a period of implementation and then be dropped even if it has good results, or it will go forward but have the guts cut out from it with further but inadequate funding and short time frames. This enables, finally, the RW to say ‘We tried, but it didn’t work’ with hand-wringing Uriah Heep-like.

          The talk needs to get to the heart of the matter, and allow for the perceived faults of those having difficulties, which requires a heart, empathy and understanding, not found commonly in the common sense opinions and actions of RWs.

          • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.2.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:26 pm

            There is no money to fix child poverty – so they say
            There is no money to fix youth unemployment – so they say
            There is no money to keep Super at 65 – so they say

            Yes NZ households have $120B in bank deposits
            There is another $200B in managed funds

            In May one Auckland real estate company alone sold 1109 Auckland houses for a combined value of $779.6M – that’s in ONE MONTH

            Well it looks to me like there’s plenty of money sloshing around the system, its just that we don’t care enough about child poverty, youth unemployment or Super to find the few billion dollars needed a year to sort it all out.

            • Kiwiri 24.1.1.2.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

              ^
              This deserves a post on its own.
              More discussion and debate on the points being raised would be great.

            • greywarbler 24.1.1.2.1.2
              22 June 2014 at 2:02 pm

              CV Those figures are I am sure coming from you, correct. Where do the unbelievers find them? What link in the stats or tables to get them?

              I have just been visiting in the north of the NI and there is money available for lots of things up there. But I was in Northland and some young guys skating along the main route stepped out into the path of my relative’s car and spat at her. Not a good feeling, especially as coping with that in traffic could have resulted in an injury, which would have added injury to insult and I mean for all parties involved.

              The bad feelings build as the unemployment, the underemployment, the poverty goes on. And I hear there is the constant experience of employers of useless, rude, careless, and virtually unemployable young people.

              Yet after talking to an older very experienced previously builder, and thoughtful man about his dealings with youngsters getting PEP jobs, work experience and training and how useful it was to prepare and motivate the happier youngsters, I can only shake my head in sorrow that nothing is now done like that in a nation-wide program.

              This would ensure that there is a basic employment available with working for the dole, doing useful stuff that is not make-work, and with payment incentives for each successful monthly program completed so that would give opportunities to buy clothes, pay off a bike etc and make a life, while still being on the dole, but be a vital, semi-skilled person ready for a job when it became available. I was shown apparently constant newspaper advertisements from companies unable to find employees. The reasons for this difficulty was implied to be that people are too lazy, or their education is inadequate.

              But there is no will to run work schemes, to integrate young people into the working community with useful skills and receiving respect from all, by despicable RWs. There is money for all sorts of things, but not for the displaced people. By this I mean those displaced by the bloody neo liberal, free market policies adopted by our government and dominant economists and financiers. It is a disgrace and the smugness and excuses of the wealthy that blame poverty and social disintegration on the victims of the shitty systems that Labour subversives introduced and NACTs happily followed is callous and determined ignorance, and has led to destruction of our society.

              And so many people I meet fall into victim blaming, and denigration of the unemployed and beneficiaries. The next step is walling themselves off as in gated communities and arguments about whether charity works and whether people should be allowed to beg, or busk because the hands are out too much and it is unpleasant and a nuisance.

              • Colonial Viper …
                22 June 2014 at 4:20 pm

                It would cost $280M per year to provide minimum wage jobs to 10,000 young people. Resolving many of the issues that you saw. That would be money flowing into local communities which the government would then tax back into its own coffers over time.

                CV Those figures are I am sure coming from you, correct. Where do the unbelievers find them? What link in the stats or tables to get them?

                May Auckland house sales for Barfoot and Thompson, 1109 properties for a total of $779.6M

                http://www.barfoot.co.nz/Market-reports/2014/May/Market-update.aspx

                RBNZ household deposits April 2014
                $128.0B
                http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/tables/c17/

                RBNZ managed funds Mar 2014
                $93.4B (sorry it was from memory and I got this figure wrong before)
                http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/tables/c17/

                And overall money supply as tracked by the RBNZ is up $32B since April 2012 to over $240B, so the amount of money in the economy is still expanding rapidly BUT very little of it is going to where it is required for our poor and our young.

                http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/tables/c1/

                • greywarbler …
                  22 June 2014 at 4:46 pm

                  Thanks CV
                  Big money going into Whangarei. Near Marsden Point refinery – big open area deemed Marsden City. ready for development. And nearby large numbers of 1970’s Oz style houses in a marina type development with special lock installed to ensure proper depth near houses for regular yachts. Auckland people are trying to sell their places high, and buy north for lower with a tidy sum left over for other purposes.

                  Big developments in South Auckland with water views and many two storey houses in modern style with colonnades at front door or boxy modern look all with large windows and often no front fences allowed. Lots of plantings and green areas and walkways around and they are set up for wifi or broadband or both, not quite up with it. Pretentious and expensive.

                  So there is much money expected with return on investment by developers and their financiers, although there is much complaining at the ‘unreasonable’ way that Council loads costs on each section.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 June 2014 at 7:11 pm

                    And in comparison, funding full time minimum wage jobs for 10,000 youths costs not much money at all, especially for the societal benefit reaped.

            • Draco T Bastard 24.1.1.2.1.3
              22 June 2014 at 5:34 pm

              We have never needed foreign capital. All we’ve needed is the people to do the job which includes making our natural resources available. This is why we need higher productivity and better education. It makes those people available.

              Amazingly enough, it doesn’t take money to make these things available but the political will to change the system.

      • Draco T Bastard 24.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 5:23 pm

        But SSLands, you always label views that don’t agree with yours as being extreme.

      • Foreign Waka 24.1.3
        22 June 2014 at 7:38 pm

        Any functioning society needs to have a cross generation agreement that the very young are nurtered until ready to go out on their own and in turn the older generation will be looked after. Even animals can do this, but perhaps there are species below that.

  25. fisiani 25
    22 June 2014 at 12:19 pm

    The plan to disrupt and distract for the next 16 weeks is well under way. Labour announce a policy and then a few hours later some Labour scandal emerges. Everyone talks about the scandal and forgets the policy. 15 more scandals to go. Thanks for the tip offs by the ABC’s.

    • Pasupial 25.1
      22 June 2014 at 12:35 pm

      fisiani

      If you mean the traitor; Shane Jones, by “ABC’s” [sic] then perhaps, but Lui seems to be a much more likely source.

      Your plan is always to disrupt and distract, I assume you’ll continue until your next ban – not just the next 16 weeks. However, I doubt you have any more knowledge of actual National Party tactical intentions than I do.

      Your words have that distinctive tone of flatulance from a fizzy anus.

      • srylands 25.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 12:39 pm

        So this is your example of intelligent debate? Toilet humour. Are you an adult?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 12:50 pm

          “…fuckwit…xenphobic (sic) turd.” S Rylands 21.6.14.

          I know you won’t take personal responsibility for your hypocrisy, so I look forward to many more opportunities to rub your face it in. Cheers cobber.

        • Pasupial 25.1.1.2
          22 June 2014 at 12:56 pm

          Srylands

          I don’t consider either you or fisiani capable of intelligent debate; but please prove me wrong. I consider my comment at 11 to be an attempt at considered discourse, the one at 25.1 was simply me taunting an idiot. Nor did I say that a toilet was necessarily involved – in his case I regard those words are a merely farting through a RWNJ Santorum of bigotry.

          Your neoliberal anti-socialist bullshit on the other hand requires a shovel more than a toilet.

          • Grumpy 25.1.1.2.1
            22 June 2014 at 1:26 pm

            Wow! “Traitor” to go with “Scab”, labour are really using up the arsenal -eh?

            • Kiwiri 25.1.1.2.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 2:00 pm

              labour? you should rectify your comment before the moderators read that.

            • millsy 25.1.1.2.1.2
              22 June 2014 at 2:12 pm

              Well SJ is a traitor, given that he supports the lowering of environment and labour market standards to enrich industrialists.

              You are a traitor and a scab as well, given that you had solid working class union credentials, and then you support and vote for a party that wishes to destroy the trade union movement, and throw the workers and the most vulerable to the wolves. Do you really want people living in caravans grumpy? Do you really want NZ to go down that road?

              Plus you support the continal degradation of air and water quality that will ensure that people will have crippling health effects over an ongoing period.

              • Grumpy …
                22 June 2014 at 3:24 pm

                Some of what you say is true Millsy. I am, what you might call a reformed character. In defense, I would have to point out that my role as union branch secretary and advocate was when we had “solid working class unions”.
                Labour certainly is no longer the representative of the workers, and for that matter, nor are the unions.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  22 June 2014 at 4:00 pm

                  Translated Grumpy: Tired old hack can’t make it in the world of voluntary unionism so defects to the darkside.

                  • Grumpy …
                    22 June 2014 at 6:00 pm

                    Nope, after surviving dozens of restructuring a in the Douglas years finished up starting my own business, employ 15 people with offices in Christchurch and Auckland.
                    My dissatisfaction with the unions began and ended when they worked hand in glove with management to destroy the public sector. The Labour Party under Lange and Clark were the biggest hypocrites imaginable. I see no change.

                    • millsy …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:09 pm

                      So you go an support for and vote for policies that turn NZ into a large sweatshop economy.

                      You really are a scab. It is because of people like you we have families in garages.

                      Do you really thing banning trade unions is going to make things “better”?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:25 pm

                      “… after surviving dozens of restructuring a in the Douglas years …”

                      So you were bullshitting when you claimed to be a branch secretary and advocate? Good to know.

                    • Grumpy …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:36 pm

                      Nope, we also had jobs in the organization we worked for, union work and advocacy was voluntary and in addition to our normal job.
                      I just believe that left wing politics has nothing to offer NZ as they are now, in fact none of the major left parties offer much for the workers, the future has to be a high wage economy with a strong currency. I just happen to believe the best way to achieve that is with National (at present).

                    • millsy …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:44 pm

                      So how do you reconcile that with National’s labour laws? They will only slash wages, not to mention take breaks away from workers?

                      And do you think our health care system should be Americanised?
                      Assets sold off?
                      State housing tenants kicked out?

                      Surely wages will be higher if unions are allowed to flourish and not kept in their box like National wants to do?

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:46 pm

                      Did your union go bust, Grumpy?

                    • Grumpy …
                      22 June 2014 at 6:56 pm

                      To deal with TRP first, it was one of the many Railways unions and just got absorbed by whatever took over after the workshops were closed down.
                      As for Millsy, I think the biggest step towards turning NZ into a sweatshop economy was done during the Douglas/Lange years. The current policy of Left to lower the currency will also have the consequence of lowering real wages.

                      All the other issues you list might surprise you, the answer is no to all those. You might be surprised that I am actually a bit leftie on those causes. In particular, I think it was the biggest con every to break up the publicly owned electricity system and would support re nationalizing.
                      The unions as they are do not do their job, prime example the education sector unions, more interested in protecting their patch than the interests of their members to maximize their income based on their ability.

                    • millsy …
                      22 June 2014 at 7:02 pm

                      No, the teaching unions want to protect the PUBLIC provision of education. Where as if National had their way, education would be privatised and run by churches and businesses. Like they were prior to 1877. They are already halfway there with charter schools. Science and technology is vital to this country if we want it to prosper, but if our children are being taught that the earth was created by waving a magic wand, then we have no hope.

                      And then teachers would find themselves as casual employees.

                    • millsy …
                      22 June 2014 at 7:04 pm

                      Plus we need to lower the currency to help our exporters.

                      I personally favour a “just right” currency myself.

                    • BM …
                      22 June 2014 at 7:07 pm

                      Which is?

                    • Grumpy …
                      22 June 2014 at 7:08 pm

                      I think you are half right……wrong about currency though. If a business can only survive because it is cheap, it shouldn’t be there. To lower the exchange rate, depress wages and increase import costs just to give an inefficient business the ILLUSION of wealth is stupid.
                      I understand your concerns about education and if that were the result, I would agree but I just don’t buy into your fears.

                    • millsy …
                      22 June 2014 at 7:30 pm

                      I still dont see how a high currency can lead to higher wages.

                      It has been the case for over 100 years that collective bargaining high union membershiop with strong respect for workers to form and join unions (Peter Jackson doesnt have that respect) (doesnt have to be 100% ) and strong labour protections lead to higher wages. Which is why wages in the US, China and India are low.

                    • Grumpy …
                      22 June 2014 at 8:05 pm

                      Under a high currency, the wages you earn have higher purchasing power. If currency is lowered and wages stay the same, this is a decrease because purchasing power is diminished.
                      The goal is increased wages with a strong currency, if we are held back by businesses that can only exist because they are cheap, and low wages and currency are the means to that, then we don’t need that business.

              • millsy …
                22 June 2014 at 7:11 pm

                Not too high and not too low.

                It seems obviously that if the dollar is too high, then our exporters suffer and if it is too low, then we end up paying more for imported goods (though smartphones and tablets are something we can do without if needs be).

                We might have to end up fixing like we used to.

                • Kiwiri …
                  22 June 2014 at 7:38 pm

                  or this ..

                  ‘Float’ or peg the NZD within an undisclosed bandwidth of a central parity … but ensure close monitoring by the Reserve Bank against an undisclosed basket of currencies of major trading partners and competitors. This, in theory, allows the government to have more control over imported inflation and to ensure our exports remain competitive.

                  That was largely borrowed from an economy that has successfully managed their currency.

            • Paupial 25.1.1.2.1.3
              22 June 2014 at 3:12 pm

              Grumpy

              I’m a Green Party member, not Labour.

              Have you a better term for one who; takes National MP donations for his Labour leadership campaign, and then promptly flees to a job specially created by National when this revealed in the media?

  26. NZ Femme 26
    22 June 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Bryce Edwards seems to be having his own brand of brain fade. Compare and contrast his opinion on the alleged Liu donation to the Labour Party in today’s Herald, with the Key $50,000 G Tie/ Wong affair. (Reposting this link from yesterday’s open mike in case people missed it)

    http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2010/12/pansy-wongs-dubious-solicitation-of-political-funding.html

    • Bill 26.1
      22 June 2014 at 12:54 pm

      heh –

      Similarly, with the purported sale of John Key’s tie for $50,000, a explanation could quite conceivable be made for why this was a business transaction and not a political donation. Although it sounds like a donation to me, the political finance laws are very vague on this. They suggest that a donation might make up that portion of the money exchanged that is above the market price of the good that is sold. But how do you determine the market value of what is arguably a piece of iconic political memorabilia from a leader who is now prime minister?

      Just want to remark that if I had such large amounts of disposable cash, then $100 000 for a bottle of wine signed by Helen Clark is more than twice as desirable than a $50 000 tie. I mean, at least I could drink the wine.

  27. chris73 27
    22 June 2014 at 2:31 pm

    So now I’m wondering if Labour will do worse in the coming election then National did in 2002 but more interestingly will Labour bleed off enough votes that the Greens party becomes the single largest left wing party in government

    Interesting times indeed

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      22 June 2014 at 2:42 pm

      Labour 30% to 34% range; strong gutsy left wing policy, unapologetic and unashamed = top end of the range, weak centrist watered down policy on minor matters = bottom of the range

      Get rid of raising the retirement age = 1%-2% boost all round

    • greywarbler 27.2
      22 June 2014 at 2:59 pm

      You would stand around watching the last huia’s death throes would you chris73? Trying to salvage NZs valuable political infrastructure knowing it may disintegrate is not interesting, that is not the right word. Greens cannot replace Labour, it can’t be done.

      • chris73 27.2.1
        22 June 2014 at 3:10 pm

        I wouldn’t compare the Labour party to a bird for one thing besides I never said Labour would become extinct rather its heading for a major hiding at the election and suggesting the damage will be so bad that the Greens may become the the biggest party on the left

        Labour approx 27% – 30% Greens approx 10% – 12% were Labour to shed 8% – 10% and the Greens to pick up 7% – 9% of that in the upcoming months then the election will be less about National winning and more about the Greens taking over Labour as the party of opposition

        Although were this come to pass I think it would be only temporary as Labours true believers would come back to the fold after a period of time

    • Lanthanide 27.3
      22 June 2014 at 3:08 pm

      Given the Greens are aiming at 15%, and seem unlikely to get that high given polling, your suggested outcome is delusional.

      • chris73 27.3.1
        22 June 2014 at 3:14 pm

        True but then a couple of weeks ago if I’d have suggested that Labour had taken over 100 grand from a chinese businessman and not declared it I’d have been called (among other things) delusional as well

        I’m thinking that in light of the recent events the Greens may well be upgrading their target

        • One Anonymous Bloke 27.3.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 3:19 pm

          Are you even aware of the false frame?

          If he bought a bottle of wine it didn’t have to be declared. Just like your operator’s $50k tie.

          Are you the Central Scrutinizer, here to enforce all the laws that haven’t been passed yet? Or are you simply a pedestrian, partisan ex-squaddy doing your best to imitate a parrot?

          • chris73 27.3.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 3:28 pm

            Naah its just nice to watch someone being hoist by their own petard

            • One Anonymous Bloke 27.3.1.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 3:35 pm

              Which is?

              That Judith Collins tried to cover up her massive conflict of interest, Maurice did his best to pervert the course of justice, Banksie is going to prison, and since you don’t want to talk about any of that let’s discuss policy? No? Because donations?

              You’re as transparent as Dr. Mapp.

              • chris73 …
                22 June 2014 at 3:41 pm

                Its amusing watching Cunliffe be found out as incompetent over Liu when it was Labour that brought him up but it was even funnier watching Robertson talk about Gotcha politics beside Collins

                Of course I’m transparent, I want National to win the election because National are good for the country, I’m less keen on Labour winning because they’d have to bring in a whole bunch of nutters with them and that’d be bad for the country

                I don’t think what Collins, Williamson, Banks and Cunliffe did or didn’t do was so bad but so be it smears are done because smears work and both sides use them

                Do you think theres any more to come out over this because I think theres more

      • Clean_power 27.3.2
        22 June 2014 at 3:20 pm

        Greens cannot replace Labour, but can take a good chunk of voters from it. Add to it the 1+% of Internet Mana and Labour risks becoming a minor component of the opposition to Key’s next term government.

  28. greywarbler 28
    22 June 2014 at 3:01 pm

    McCully standing aside for Col Craig. This is hot off the press. I mean radio.

    • risildowgtn 28.1
      22 June 2014 at 3:10 pm

      off twitter yup

      hey maybe he can get a job as Pullahs Bennett new PA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      BREAKING: Colin Craig confirms he’ll contest Murray McCully’s East Coast Bays electorate. More soon on http://newstalkzb.co.nz

      • chris73 28.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 3:17 pm

        Latest Roy Morgan poll puts the conservatives at 1.5% and if McCully steps aside then the Conservatives could see 3% so he’d bring in 3-4 MPs with him I guess

        • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 3:50 pm

          So Key will sign up to a coalition deal with Colin Craig?

          • chris73 28.1.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 3:53 pm

            Gives him more options and will reinforce the notion that voting for the left is a waste of time so he may still only need the Maori Party and Peter Dunne

            • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 4:07 pm

              So Key and National view Colin Craig as a serious option?

              • chris73 …
                22 June 2014 at 4:11 pm

                I’d imagine he’d be the last cab of the rank and probably won’t be needed

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 June 2014 at 4:29 pm

                  I understand. But if Key needed Colin Craig to form a Government, do you think that Key would actually stoop that low and do it?

                  • chris73 …
                    22 June 2014 at 4:36 pm

                    He’d be the last cab of the rank but hes still in the rank so my feeling is yes as its better for NZ otherwise it’d be Labour/Greens/IMP/WinstonFirst (maybe) and that’d be really bad for NZ

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 June 2014 at 4:40 pm

                      No, it wouldn’t. Your ethically challenged judgement is unreliable in this matter as in others.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    22 June 2014 at 4:37 pm

                    He was happy to not only suck up to the criminal John Banks, but use him as the excuse for charter schools.

                    In any case Chris73 has already accepted that Paul Piff et al’s findings are true.

                    • chris73 …
                      22 June 2014 at 4:41 pm

                      Well I don’t know who Paul Piff is and I don’t really care but if it means National wins the next election then I’m relaxed about it

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 June 2014 at 4:47 pm

                      Google is your friend if you’d like to read their work, but in a nutshell, they (him and et al) show that right wingers are not only stupid (cf. Hodson & Busseri) and terrified of the bogeyman (Kanai et al), their ethics are in the gutter too.

                    • chris73 …
                      22 June 2014 at 4:52 pm

                      I’ll look it up after Nationals returned to power so in about three months or so

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      22 June 2014 at 5:08 pm

                      No you won’t. In fact you probably have trouble recognising how your relentless demonstration of gullibility and bad faith makes your pronouncements as reliable as tea-leaves.

                    • chris73 …
                      22 June 2014 at 5:11 pm

                      I thought you were going to say as reliable as Cunliffe 🙂

        • Skinny 28.1.1.2
          22 June 2014 at 4:26 pm

          Your dreaming 73, even the smile and hugging of babies from John Key won’t get the people of East Coast Bays to vote enough in numbers for the God Botherers Party. It an’t Epsom… dida dang dang dang!

          How off putting to National if Key try’s this one on. One thing it says is National are worried the Left will get the vote out. And of course we will in record numbers. I am one of probably a thousand that is taking a week off work to campaign in the final week of the election. We have the numbers out on the streets this time. And don’t you wingnuts hate that aye Hooton, Shrillands and co!

          • chris73 28.1.1.2.1
            22 June 2014 at 4:28 pm

            🙂

          • felix 28.1.1.2.2
            22 June 2014 at 7:47 pm

            Exactly Skinny. Key can count, and he can see the internal polling, and he’s shitting himself.

            Same goes for all his little fuck-monkeys, chris73 et al.

            Every smiley smells like fear.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 29.1
      22 June 2014 at 3:21 pm

      🙄

    • joe90 29.2
      22 June 2014 at 3:38 pm

      Too funny – a Heartland affiliated moran who in the past has asserted white asbestos poses no measurable risk to health and there’s no scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people’s smoke causes cancer.

    • Paupial 29.3
      22 June 2014 at 3:48 pm

      Grumpy

      Christopher Booker quoting the “Real Science” blog is your proof?

      Do you also follow his lead in denying the risks of; passive smoking, BSE, and asbestos? Do you favour the conjecture of Intelligent Design, over the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

      Anyway, even if true; I can see how this might this might be a blow to the Greens (though there are many reasons to safeguard our ecosphere beyond climate change – it’s just the most pressing). But the left predates this by many decades, if not centuries (depending how one defines the term).

    • NickS 29.4
      22 June 2014 at 4:09 pm

      :yawn:

      Oh joy, so much hyperbole and lack of actual discussion on what was actually done to the data.

      Anyhow, it’ll be the same old bullshit parade that occurred over the land-surface temperature data and corrections and weightings made to the data to avoid biases from local environmental effects (land island heat effects, elevation, etc etc), and thus not cause issues with statistical analysis tools*. Which will be confirmed as the rebuttals start rolling in to Brooker’s evidence free bullshit.

      Also, generally if there’s issues with how data is manipulated, it comes up in ye olde journals, not the fucking telegraph of all places, a place more renowned for failing at science 101, particularly with any science that gets in the way of tory politics.

      =======================================================
      *short version; there’s assumptions that data need to meet in order to use a particular analysis on them, and if not meet or violated it leads to the results being biased or utterly useless, r.e. parametric vs non-parametric and fun with binomial’s, or multiple variable data sets being used for a student T-test instead of being run through an ANOVA or more suitable GLM variant.

    • millsy 29.5
      22 June 2014 at 6:13 pm

      So you think we should go on pumping filth into the air?

      Do you want your grandchildren to breath clean air. Seeing as you dont want them to have sick leave, you dont want them to have clean air either.

      • Grumpy 29.5.1
        22 June 2014 at 6:59 pm

        Two issues, stick to pollution and I will support you, try to whip up hysteria on Global Warming which is being shown every day to be more of a con, and I just laugh.

        • Colonial Viper 29.5.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 7:58 pm

          not much hope for your grandkids then mate. Hope you live to a ripe old age so you can answer to them why you didn’t take climate change seriously when you had the chance.

          • Grumpy 29.5.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 8:15 pm

            I’m still waiting for the price of holiday homes in the Marlborough Sounds to come down, meanwhile Sumner is full of Greenies paying over the odds for waterfront properties.

  30. fisiani 30
    22 June 2014 at 3:29 pm

    McCully standing list only. No National candidate standing in East Coast Bays

    • chris73 30.1
      22 June 2014 at 3:34 pm

      WinstonFirst not getting any traction with anti-immigration talk so its really looking bad for the left

      • Chooky 30.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 5:30 pm

        @ chris 73…you crow too soon

        this will be a real boost for Winston NZF i would have thought…no one likes new immigrants bringing corruption in tow , trying to manipulate and buy our political system and politicians to their own personal material advantage

        …. and then when found out ….pointing the finger at other innocent opposition political leaders and parties …aided and abetted by NACT newspaper innuendo and media bias…but no facts as yet …only slander

        NZers will take a very poor view of this…. just as they did with Mayor Brown’s goings on and subsequent voting over the casino/convention centre

        • chris73 30.1.1.1
          22 June 2014 at 5:38 pm

          Sure it will, wishing something comes true doesn’t ackshully make it happen so lets just wait until the next round of polls

          • Chooky 30.1.1.1.1
            22 June 2014 at 6:12 pm

            that is if you believe Herald polls …i don’t !

            • chris73 30.1.1.1.1.1
              22 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

              Let me guess, if every poll (including the Roy Morgan poll) shows a drop in Labour you still wouldn’t believe it

              • Chooky …
                22 June 2014 at 6:22 pm

                no as Bolger said “Bugger the Polls!”

                ….many people do not declare their hand until Election Day!

                …and Winnie, as you should know, often defies the Poll predictions!

      • millsy 30.1.2
        22 June 2014 at 6:14 pm

        Becuase people dont seem to realise that immigrants are pushing NZers out of our jobs, schools and universities, because they are putting immigrants first.

    • KMB 30.3
      22 June 2014 at 4:57 pm

      Maybe Winston Peters should stand in East Coast Bays too?

      • Clemgeopin 30.3.1
        23 June 2014 at 9:26 am

        Not sure how good that is considering he may not support a Labour government.
        How about Laila Harre?

  31. ianmac 31
    22 June 2014 at 4:29 pm

    The Labour Party President has published a statement re Mr Liu. Cannot find it yet but it does cast doubt on Mr Liu’s credibility. eg There was no fund raiser on the book auction date given by Liu.

  32. ianmac 32
    22 June 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Here it is:”Statement from Moira Coatsworth, Labour Party President, Donghua Liu reported allegations – summary of facts
    22 Jun 2014

    Several media organisations have reported that Donghua Liu claims he purchased a book for $15,000 at a Labour Party fundraiser in 2007. We have found no records of any such purchase. No-one has provided any documentary evidence to us that contradicts our records.

    The Herald on Sunday has reported that Donghua Liu has signed a statement claiming he paid “close to $100,000” for wine at a 2007 Labour Party fundraiser. The Herald on Sunday have refused to provide us with a copy of the statement or even let us read the statement. We consider this to be a denial of natural justice.

    The Herald on Sunday reports that Donghua Liu’s statement was signed on 3 May 2014, but the paper only contacted us about the statement yesterday. This delay raises serious questions.

    The Herald on Sunday have, however, disclosed to us that Donghua Liu’s statement claims the fundraiser was held on 3 June 2007. We have found no record of any fundraiser held on that date.

    We have had no approaches from the Electoral Commission or any regulatory agency. We have always cooperated with regulators, and will always do so when required.

    We continue to call on Donghua Liu and any third parties who might have information about these allegations, including the Prime Minister, to place what they know into the public domain or to refer to the regulators."

    Glad it is the Party fronting this and not David.

    • Colonial Viper 32.1
      22 June 2014 at 4:38 pm

      Yes its the smart way of doing it

      • Grumpy 32.1.1
        22 June 2014 at 6:42 pm

        It’s the only way to do it. To be fair to Cunliffe, little of the donation saga can yet be attributed to him so the Party should always have made the running on this.
        Any fallout will affect the whole party of which Cunliffe is just the current leader.

  33. chris73 33
    22 June 2014 at 4:45 pm

    Lisa Owen: After the week you’ve had, could it get any worse?

    David Cunliffe: Look I actually think this hasn’t been too bad a week at all. What’s happened is that support for me within my team is absolutely rock solid and I think public support has galvanised in the face of what people can see is pretty petty politics by the current government.

    • Optimism is one thing but this…if he considers that this hasn’t been too bad a week at all then I can’t wait to see how he describes losing the election and leadership
    • fisiani 33.1
      22 June 2014 at 5:05 pm

      The Cunliffe thinks that Labour are unsinkable but so too did many on the Titanic. I wonder if he will stop the bluster a few minutes before his concession speech or will he still be defiant and know that the specials will be a landslide.

  34. ianmac 34
    22 June 2014 at 5:13 pm

    http://www.thepoliticalscientist.org/the-real-story-in-the-fairfax-polls/
    Maybe everyone else has already read this but off the sidebar at the Standard there is an intriguing explanation of the Fairfax polling.
    This bit was interesting:
    “So, the reported support for National between November 2012 and June 2014 appears to show a 10% increase in the proportion of New Zealanders supporting the party. Yet, there are (marginally) fewer people declaring their support for National in June 2014.

    • Pasupial 34.1
      22 June 2014 at 6:17 pm

      ianmac

      Thanks for that link – it’s much what swordfish has been saying (increasing undecided voters as election approaches) but good to see it presented graphically.

      I’ve not been commenting on the polls recently as they’re not really worth the time. The thing that struck me recently is that; even though the Ipsos and Roy Morgan polls came out on the same day, with overlapping sample periods, everyone has been quoting the; Labour on 23% (I) rather than 28% (RM).

      The problem I have with these polls is the very thing that Puddleglum neglects to discuss (not that I blame him – specifics of polling selection & methodology of commercial polling companies are very elusive):

      For now, I’ll ignore all the debates over polling methodology (e.g., landlines versus cellphones, who is more likely to answer phones or agree to participate, etc.).

      Also, I think the RM results bear out my contention that their previous poll was a rogue. Sure; the Greens only gained 33% rather than the 50% I predicted, but they are back within the compass of previous results (since May 2012).

      http://www.roymorgan.com/~/media/Files/Findings%20PDF/2014/June/5639-NZ-National-Voting-Intention.pdf

  35. Draco T Bastard 35
    22 June 2014 at 6:13 pm

    What’s Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse

    As a kid, I used to ask my parents why they couldn’t just build more lanes on the freeway. Maybe transform them all into double-decker highways with cars zooming on the upper and lower levels. Except, as it turns out, that wouldn’t work. Because if there’s anything that traffic engineers have discovered in the last few decades it’s that you can’t build your way out of congestion. It’s the roads themselves that cause traffic.

    And our present government wants to build more and bigger roads. Of course, there’s probably some profit to be made by having so many cars on the roads causing all these problems. Lets see:

    1. The oil companies will be making a killing
    2. The roading companies will be doing quite well
    3. The trucking companies will be doing Ok as well

    The only people who’ll be worse off will be the majority of people who have to pay those profits and the deadly price of all that pollution.

    • Chooky 35.1
      22 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

      dont forget there may be NACT hidden agendas here for a hugely increased population…and with this comes monster cities , multi-story buildings/accommodation, infrastructure, traffic , private toll roads/rail etc…..and much more opportunity for NACTS and cronies to make money

      ….but very little benefit to ordinary NZers who will have to compete for scarce resources against wealthy immigrants….housing, education , hospitals ….and a ruination of the nature/human balance …ie at a huge cost to our natural environment

  36. millsy 36
    22 June 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Grumpy, why do you support the lowering of environmental standards so the air and water can be poisoned and how are you are going to explain to your grandchildren that it was people like to who voted for these standards to be lowered so people can make more money and that is why they cannot swim in the river or have to wear a gas mask then they go out.

  37. dave brown 37
    23 June 2014 at 4:31 am

    While the world is fascinated with Picketty here’s the real gen on inequality.
    Capitalists are hoarding because they havn’t screwed us enough to guarantee making profits from our labour.
    So stagnation is the story…pending more cuts to wages and conditions and more M&As.

    “And in a great new paper to be delivered to the upcoming Rethink Economics conference in London next weekend (http://www.rethinkingeconomicslondon.org/),
    Michael Burke shows that this failure to invest is endemic to the major capitalist economies (The Great Stagnation as the Crisis of Investment). Burke shows that gross investment (both business and government and before depreciation) experienced the sharpest decline of all main components of GDP during the Great Recession. Such gross investment is down 5.2% in the OECD since 2008 and as a proportion of GDP it is down from 22% to 20%, reaching a new low since 1960.”

    Michael Roberts Blog
    http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/investing-in-finance-but-not-in-people/

  38. Jenny 38
    23 June 2014 at 5:18 am

    ‘

    The time has come to out, all the parties standing in this election in league with the polluters and plutocrats

    http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/?cvs=greenpeace

    • Pasupial 38.1
      23 June 2014 at 9:26 am

      Jenny

      Couldn’t be bothered signing on to access the details of your claim. Please specify to what degree each party is regarded as being “in league with the polluters and plutocrats”. It seems unlikely that the Greens would be equal on such a scale to ACT. But we do have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.

      Your statement sounds like a justification for nonvoting to me, which I doubt is what those who created the “climatevoter” site intended.